* The U.S. isn’t the country where Israel enjoys its highest favorable ratings. According to the latest survey, 58 percent of Indians support Israel, as opposed to 56 percent of Americans.
* For many years, India and Israel had little to do with each other. Now the two most successful democracies to emerge from British colonialism in modern Asia are becoming close allies. In the near future, India is predicated to overtake China to become the world’s most populous nation.
* The relationship isn’t just about the alliance of two beleaguered democracies. India has the largest (reported) defense budget of any developing country, and Israel is India’s largest supplier of arms. As two of the leading IT countries in the world, India and Israel also collaborate on a variety of high tech and other projects.
* Even Muslims in India are relatively pro-Israel; a delegation of Indian Muslims led by a group representing the 500,000-member “All India Association of Imams” met in Jerusalem with Israeli President Shimon Peres. India is the country with the third-largest number of Muslims in the world.
1. Choosing dictators over democrats
2. Infuriating the Poles
3. The world’s largest democracy
4. Not the only game in town
5. For many years they had little to do with each other
6. Now all that has changed
7. Hinduism and Judaism have, except for extreme fringes, come to terms with modernity
8. Hushed tones and BBC tears for a murderer
9. India and Israel to enhance scientific, defense cooperation
10. Israel overtakes Russia as India’s largest defense supplier
11. Bin Laden’s nightmare
12. “The ‘Zionist Hindu Crusader’ alliance marches on” (By Walter Russell Mead, The American Interest, April 22, 2010)
13. “A Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims” (By Osama bin Laden, April 23, 2006)
14. “If this isn’t terrorism, what is?” (By Tom Gross, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 1, 2008)
[All notes below by Tom Gross]
CHOOSING DICTATORS OVER DEMOCRATS
This is one of an occasional series of dispatches dealing with Indian-Israeli relations. The leadership of India – perhaps even more so than the leadership of other democracies such as Britain, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Honduras, Israel, Japan, Poland and South Korea – feels let down by the Obama administration which has decided to reach out, or in some cases even coddle up to, dictatorial or semi-dictatorial regimes (such as those in Iran, Syria, Sudan, Russia, Libya, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia) while paying scant respect to the feelings of America’s democratic allies.
(I have explored this in past dispatches. See, for example, Does Obama believe in human rights? (and what that might mean for Israel).)
INFURIATING THE POLES
In one recent example last week, the Polish media expressed outrage at President Obama for allowing himself to be filmed laughing while playing golf at the very moment when Poland’s president was being buried in a highly solemn ceremony which Obama had been invited to. The Polish media noted that other presidents such as the Russian, Ukrainian and German ones attended the funeral, and that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was in the U.S., had managed to attend by flying in from Washington through Rome.
This follows Obama’s decision last year to cancel the treaty with Poland to install a missile shield to protect Poland, on the very day Poland was marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet and Nazi invasions – perhaps the most insensitive day imaginable to announce such a decision to Poles. If President Bush had behaved like this, the mainstream American media would howl with criticism and derision, but they seem to be blind to the number of mishaps Obama is committing against America’s democratic allies.
THE WORLD’S LARGEST DEMOCRACY
India is the world’s largest democracy and if demographic predictions are to be believed, it will in the near future overtake China to become the world’s most populous country.
With both Israel and India feeling let down by the Obama administration it is not surprising that they are forging a closer alliance with one another.
NOT THE ONLY GAME IN TOWN
I attach an article below by Walter Russell Mead from the website of The American Interest, which explores the increasingly warm ties between India and Israel.
“Americans often underestimate Israel,” he writes. “We underestimate Israel’s ability to conduct a foreign policy independent of U.S. support and we underestimate Israel’s long term prospects for success in its region. Indeed, Americans often talk about Israel as if we were the Jewish state’s only real friend – and that Israel is completely dependent on American goodwill.
“That’s not true historically and it’s not true today. The Soviet Union (through its Czechoslovak satellite regime) provided Israel with the arms that gave it the decisive advantage in its War of Independence. The British and French armed and supported Israel in the 1956 Suez War. France provided Israel with the core of its nuclear technology and France supplied Israel with the Mirage jets which destroyed the Arab air forces at the outset of the Six-Day War. During all this time the United States government did not provide Israel with much help; no Israeli prime minister was even invited to Washington until 1964 when Levi Eshkol met with President Lyndon Johnson.
“While the United States today is unquestionably Israel’s most important ally and partner, we are not the only game in town.”
FOR MANY YEARS THEY HAD LITTLE TO DO WITH EACH OTHER
Mead continues: “Although both India and Israel were born at the same time – a collapsing British Empire was hastily liquidating its overseas commitments – for many years they had little to do with each other.
“Britain’s inglorious scuttle from imperial responsibility left festering issues for both countries: Palestine and Kashmir. It was a strategic objective of Indian foreign policy to keep the Kashmir question away from the United Nations, and in particular to avoid a united Islamic bloc on the question. Siding with Israel seemed a good way to trigger exactly the hostility India wanted to avoid.
“Later in the Cold War period, India’s close relationship with the Soviet Union encouraged a distance between India and America’s close Middle Eastern ally. As a result, as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India was one of Israel’s toughest opponents, voting consistently with the Arabs to isolate Israel in international bodies (informally, ties were often closer, especially in business).”
NOW ALL THAT HAS CHANGED
“In one of the least-noted but perhaps more important shifts of the post Cold War world, that has all changed. Currently, Israel isn’t just popular in India. It is India’s largest supplier of high-tech weapons and the growing cooperation between the two countries is spreading into both economic and political fields.
“There is a strategic compatibility in their interests. Economically, the marriage of Indian and Israeli high-tech know how with India’s enormous force of educated, English-speaking labor, its vast internal market, and Israel’s marketing experience and connections with the advanced industrial economies make for a natural complementarity.
“… Long term, the relationship provides Israel with another great power ally to supplement its relationship with the United States.
“… Israel’s strategic relationship with India … may well turn out to be one of the most important international connections in the twenty-first century.”
(Mead’s full piece is further down this dispatch.)
HINDUISM AND JUDAISM HAVE, EXCEPT FOR EXTREME FRINGES, COME TO TERMS WITH MODERNITY
A reader adds:
“Beyond geo-political interests, it’s worth pointing out cultural-religious reasons for Israeli-Indian ties as well. Hinduism and Judaism are both non-proselytizing, rooted in a unity between nationality and spirituality and, except for extreme fringes, have come to terms with the modern world.”
HUSHED TONES AND BBC TEARS FOR A MURDERER
Tom Gross adds: Many Indian journalists have never been starry-eyed about Palestinian terrorism in the way Western ones have.
For example, I noted the following in an article published in November 2004 after Yasser Arafat’s death:
… On the BBC, correspondent Barbara Plett revealed that she had cried when Arafat was whisked away from Ramallah by helicopter for medical treatment in France. She spoke of her “connection to the man.”
… As recently as July, the lead editorial of The New York Times was still sanitizing Arafat’s image, referring to him as “a democratically elected leader” and a “romantic” revolutionary.
… But in other parts of the world, journalists are less enamored of Arafat. In The Times of India, Lalita Panicker wrote last week that Arafat’s record “has been disastrous.”
“It is cause for celebration for the Palestinians,” she wrote, as he lay near death in a Paris hospital, that he “will never again control their destiny.”
“Dressed in ridiculous battle fatigues,” she went on, “he has demonstrated that he neither wants nor can he deliver peace. Arafat’s lasting and most pernicious legacy is that he has contributed to completely changing the Palestinian psyche. The Palestinians were once the most secular, tolerant, and educated people in the Arab world. Today, Palestinian classrooms have become the hotbeds of recruitment for jihad... As a result, an entire younger generation has grown up on a diet of hate and fanaticism.”
(You can read the full article here.)
INDIA AND ISRAEL TO ENHANCE SCIENTIFIC, DEFENSE COOPERATION
As I have outlined previously in various items on this list, India and Israel are continuing to enhance scientific and defense cooperation.
In particular, they are increasing their collaboration in the fields of renewable energy, nanotechnology, biotechnology, water management and computer sciences.
“In the coming years we see tremendous potential for both the countries in these areas,” India’s Minister for Science and Technology, Prithviraj Chavan, said on a three day visit to Israel last month, while announcing the establishment of a new joint industrial R&D fund between the countries.
The minister visited the Technion Institute and the Weizmann Institute of Sciences where more than 40 Indian scientists are working in what is the single largest community of scientists from abroad.
He also said that farmers from dry areas of India like Rajasthan could visit Israel to learn agricultural techniques and water management.
ISRAEL OVERTAKES RUSSIA AS INDIA’S LARGEST DEFENSE SUPPLIER
Israel has also emerged as India’s largest defense supplier, overtaking Russia. It has signed defense deals worth $9 billion with New Delhi in the last decade. Russia had averaged sales of $875 million annually to India for the past 40 years.
But in the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, India purchased from Israel the aerostat radar system to defend the country’s coastline for $600 million. The radars will be deployed at strategic points to provide warning against incoming enemy aircraft and missiles. (I attach my Dec. 2008 Wall Street Journal op-ed on the Mumbai terror attacks at the end of this dispatch.)
Israel is also helping India develop three new Phalcon Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS), part of a $1.1 billion deal signed between the two countries.
BIN LADEN’S NIGHTMARE
Further down this dispatch, I also attach an audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden, broadcast on Al Jazeera TV on April 23, 2006, in which Bin Laden expresses his nightmare of a “Zionist Hindu Crusader alliance”.
This is the first time Bin Laden spoke so forcefully about India and the Kashmir issue and referred to an alleged Crusader-Zionist-Hindu conspiracy against Muslims. (For readers on this website, especially those several thousand that my website-meter says are reading this site from IP addresses in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, may I point out that such a conspiracy is, of course, total nonsense.)
[All notes above by Tom Gross]
THE “ZIONIST HINDU CRUSADER” ALLIANCE MARCHES ON
The “Zionist Hindu Crusader” alliance marches on
By Walter Russell Mead
The American Interest
April 22, 2010
Documents captured from radicals and terrorists in Pakistan warn darkly about a new axis of evil in the world: a ‘Zionist Hindu Crusader’ alliance bringing Israel, India, and the United States together in a war on Islam. They are wrong about the last part; all three countries want peaceful relations with Islamic countries based on mutual recognition and respect. The alliance isn’t a closed club, and Islamic countries are welcome to join. Otherwise, however, the radicals have a point. The deepening relations between the United States, India, and Israel are changing the geopolitical geometry of the modern world in ways that will make the lives of fanatical terrorists even more dismal and depressing (not to mention shorter) than they already are. Israel and the United States are both in a better long term position than many Americans sometimes think; one of the main reasons is an Indian-Israeli connection that most Americans know nothing about.
Americans often underestimate Israel: we underestimate Israel’s ability to conduct a foreign policy independent of US support and we underestimate Israel’s long term prospects for success in its region. Indeed, Americans often talk about Israel as if we were the Jewish state’s only real friend – and that Israel is completely dependent on American goodwill.
That’s not true historically and it’s not true today. The Soviet Union (through its Czechoslovakian satellite regime) provided Israel with the arms that gave it the decisive advantage in its War of Independence. The British and French armed and supported Israel in the 1956 Suez War. France provided Israel with the core of its nuclear technology and France supplied Israel with the Mirage jets which destroyed the Arab air forces at the outset of the Six-Day War. During all this time the United States government did not provide Israel with much help; no Israeli prime minister was even invited to Washington until 1964 when Levi Eshkol met with President Lyndon Johnson.
While the United States today is unquestionably Israel’s most important ally and partner, we are not the only game in town. The United States isn’t the country where Israel enjoys its highest favorable ratings; according to a survey carried out for the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 2009, India is the country where people like Israel the most. According to the survey, 58 percent of Indians supported Israel; 56 percent of Americans in the survey felt that way.
What makes that more surprising is that India is the country with the third-largest number of Muslims in the world. An estimated 160 million Muslims live in India, 13.4 percent of the total population. Even Muslims in India are (relatively) pro-Israel; in 2007 a delegation of Indian Muslims led by a group representing the 500,000 member All India Association of Imams met in Jerusalem with Israeli President Shimon Peres on a visit intended to advance the ‘democratic understanding’ of Israel among Indian Muslims.
The relationship isn’t just about good wishes. India has the largest (reported) defense budget of any developing country; Israel is India’s largest supplier of arms. As two of the leading IT countries in the world, India and Israel also collaborate on a variety of high tech projects, some with military implications.
Although both India and Israel were born at the same time – a collapsing British Empire was hastily liquidating its overseas commitments – for many years they had little to do with each other. Britain’s inglorious scuttle from imperial responsibility left festering issues for both countries: Palestine and Kashmir. It was a strategic objective of Indian foreign policy to keep the Kashmir question away from the United Nations, and in particular to avoid a united Islamic bloc on the question. Siding with Israel seemed a good way to trigger exactly the hostility India wanted to avoid. Later in the Cold War period, India’s close relationship with the Soviet Union encouraged a distance between India and America’s close Middle Eastern ally. As a result, as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, India was one of Israel’s toughest opponents, voting consistently with the Arabs to isolate Israel in international bodies (informally, ties were often closer, especially in business).
In one of the least-noted but perhaps more important shifts of the post Cold War world, that has all changed. Currently, Israel isn’t just popular in India. It is India’s largest supplier of high-tech weapons and the growing cooperation between the two countries is spreading into both economic and political fields. There is a strategic compatibility in their interests. Economically, the marriage of Indian and Israeli high-tech know how with India’s enormous force of educated, English-speaking labor, its vast internal market, and Israel’s marketing experience and connections with the advanced industrial economies make for a natural complementarity. Israel welcomes the rise of Indian economic and political influence in the Middle East and East Africa. Both countries view the activities of radicals in Pakistan and their use of Pakistan and Afghanistan for wider regional ambitions with deep concern.
There’s another connection. The United States increasingly favors the emergence of India as a world and regional power. In the context of the Middle East and Africa, Americans see India as a stabilizing, anti-extremist force. More broadly, while the United States isn’t (and shouldn’t be) operating a policy of containment against China, the growing prosperity and power of India in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is an important positive factor in maintaining the kind of international order the United States wants to see. That means, among other things, that the United States is likely to look with more favor on transfers of technological know how and the sales of advanced weapons systems from Israel to India than from Israel to China. This preference reinforces the ties between the two most successful democracies to emerge from British colonialism in modern Asia.
The growing Israel-India connection is only beginning to make itself felt. Long term, the relationship provides Israel with another great power ally to supplement its relationship with the United States. From both a geopolitical and an economic point of view, the relationship with India helps assure Israel of a long-term future in the region. As India develops and its power grows, the Gulf Arabs, Iran (a natural long-term ally for both India and Israel once it moves beyond the delusional and dead-end geopolitical agenda of its current government), and countries like Sudan and Somalia will increasingly feel its influence. India and Israel, with the quiet blessing of the United States, can also do more to promote economic development and democracy in East Africa – a region that has historically had close links to India and which is of great strategic importance to Israel.
This “Zionist Hindu Crusader” alliance is a nightmare scenario for radicals and terrorists in the Islamic world. The emergence of closer relations between the American global superpower, the regional Israeli military, and technological superpower, and the rising superpower of India is a basic challenge to the worldview of the extremists. The radicals have imagined a world in which the west and especially America is in decline, Israel faces a deep crisis, and a resurgent Islamic world is emerging as a new world-historical power.
Suppose none of that is happening. Suppose instead that both the United States and Israel are going to prosper and grow, based in part on their economic relationship with India. Suppose that Israel’s extraordinary culture of high-tech innovation will be energized by the relationship with India so that Israel’s technological and scientific lead over its neighbors continues to grow over time. Suppose that Indian power will be returning to the Gulf and East Africa, and that not only Pakistan but the Arab world will be increasingly focused on accommodating the rise of a new regional, and ultimately global, superpower. Add to this that immense natural gas discoveries off Israel’s coastline are revolutionizing the country’s long term economic position and security strategy.
In that kind of world the arguments and the ideas of religious radicals won’t make much sense to most people. On the other hand, the economic dynamism created by the explosive growth of the Indian economy (assuming of course that the trend toward double-digit GDP growth continues) will offer the Arab world (and Pakistan) new opportunities for rapid economic development of their own. At the same time, the growing diplomatic and political influence that a rising India will have in the region will add new weight to American efforts to help the region move toward peace and reconciliation. In this kind of world, Islamic radicalism can’t deliver and its basic assumptions look shallow and unconvincing.
India has some unfinished business at home and in the neighborhood before it can fully emerge as the kind of power it hopes to become. The benefits of economic growth need to be felt more widely and long-festering social tensions and issues need to be addressed. More Indians need more access to more education and more personal and intellectual freedom. Relations with Pakistan need to improve; nothing would improve India’s security at home or enhance its ability to play a major regional role as much as reconciliation with Pakistan (And nothing could be worse for India than the continued descent of Pakistan into the horrors of terrorism and civil strife). India must also keep up with China in the race to develop; one area in which it lags considerably behind is infrastructure, and unless India finds a way to accelerate the construction of roads, power plants, port facilities and to provide for the orderly and rapid development of land for industrial sites it will have a hard time matching China’s awesome surge forward.
It will take time for India to overcome these obstacles, but in the last twenty years it has managed to double its economic rate of growth while changing the fundamental orientation of its foreign policy after the Cold War. These are the marks of a country led by serious people who understand their long-term interests, have a clear view of the world, and are prepared to move with great determination to secure their vital interests. They are, in other words, good people to have on your side.
Israel’s strategic relationship with India – warmly embraced by both countries and cheered on by the United States – may well turn out to be one of the most important international connections in the twenty-first century. That it receives so little attention in the US and abroad illustrates the difficulty of understanding the twenty-first century with ideas and assumptions forged in the twentieth. India is no longer a relatively minor power and it is no longer anti-American and anti-Israel. Those are big changes; attention must be paid.
A TERRORIST RANTS
“A Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims”
Audio message attributed to Osama bin Laden
Broadcast on Al Jazeera
April 23, 2006
Praise be to Allah, Lord of the world, prayer and peace be upon our prophet Muhammad, his kin and all his companions.
Peace, Allah’s mercy and blessing be upon you, as I am directing this speech to all the Islamic Umma, to continue talking and urging them to support our prophet Muhammad, and to punish the perpetrators of the horrible crime committed by some Crusader-journalists and apostates against the master of the predecessors and successors, our prophet Muhammad.
The holy verses of the Quran and the holy prophetic teachings have all clarified the need for according love, respect and obedience to our prophet. Allah, the Almighty, has made it a taboo to offend him, saying in the Quran those who harm Allah and his messenger would be damned and severely punished.
It was also confirmed by an authentic source that prophet Muhammad said no one could be faithful until he loves me more than he loves his parents, his sons and all other people. Therefore, the Umma has reached a consensus that he who offends or degrades the messenger would be killed. Such offence is regarded as kufr (infidelity).
We ask Allah to give his blessings to whoever decried the behavior of the infidels who have offended the prophet in every part of the world, and blessings to those who have died in the process, while we vow to Allah to avenge for those whose blood have been spilled.
The West is incapable of recognizing the rights of others. It will not be able to respect others’ beliefs or feelings. The West still believes in ethnic supremacy and looks down on other nations. They categorize human beings into white masters and colored slaves.
This is why they established institutions and enacted laws to maintain their supremacy by creating the United Nations and the veto power... They regard jihad for the sake of God or defending one’s self or his country as an act of terror. US and Europe consider jihad groups in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorist groups, so how could we talk or have understanding with them without using weapons?
On their part, the rulers of our region consider the U.S. and Europe as their friends and allies while looking at the jihad groups that fight against the Crusaders in Iraq and Afghanistan as terrorist groups as well. So how can we reach understanding with those rulers who deny us the right to defend ourselves and our religion without carrying arms?
The net result of their thinking is for us to abandon jihad and acquiesce to remaining as their slaves. This is impossible, God willing.
The Palestine question is a manifestation of such injustices when the allied forces of the Crusaders and the Zionists decided to hand over Palestine to the Zionists to establish a state after committing massacres, displaced the indigenous Palestinians and brought Jews from all over the world to settle in Palestine.
The ongoing injustice and aggression did not stop in the last nine decades, while all attempts to reclaim our rights and exact justice on the Israeli oppressors, were blocked by the leadership of the Crusaders and Zionists’ alliance by using the so-called veto power.
Such attitudes were also reflected by their rejection of the Hamas movement and its victory in the elections... Their rejection to Hamas has reaffirmed that they were waging a crusade against Islam.
The U.S. sought to reach southern Sudan, recruited an army of southerners, supported them with weapons and funding and directed them to seek separation from Sudan. Then it exercised pressure against Khartoum government to sign an unjust agreement which permits south Sudan to gain independence from the north within six years.
[Sudanese President Omar] al-Bashir and [U.S. President George] Bush should have been aware that this agreement is not worth the ink by which it was written, and we do not accord the least concern to it. Nobody, whoever he was, has the right to accede an inch of the land of Islam and the south will remain an inseparable part of the land of Islam, God willing, even if the war continued for decades.
The U.S. was not satisfied by all the sedition and crimes, but went on to incite sedition, the largest of which was the west Sudan sedition by exploiting some disputes between the tribes and sparking a savage war between them that will spare nothing, prior to sending in Crusader troops to occupy the region and steal its oil wealth under the pretext of peacekeeping.
This is a continuous Crusader-Zionist war against Muslims. In this respect I am inviting the mujahidin and their supporters in the Sudan and other countries around, including the Arabian peninsula in particular, to prepare all that is needed for a long-term war against the Crusaders and thieves in western Sudan.
Our objective is obvious, that is defending Islam, the people and the land but not Khartoum government since our differences with them are so enormous, mostly when it backtracked in implementing the Sharia law and abandoned south Sudan.
I urge the mujahidin to get acquainted with Darfur state tribes and land and its surroundings, keeping in mind that the region is about to face the rainy season that hampers means of transport.
This is one of the reasons why the occupation was adjourned for six months. So it is imperative to speed up action and benefit from the time factor by stocking a large amount of landmines and anti-armor grenades such as RPGs [rocket propelled grenades].
What was the aim behind barring arms from the unarmed people in Bosnia and letting the Serb army to massacre Muslims and spill their blood for years under UN cover? It was a Crusader war against Muslims.
What was the aim of the pressure against Indonesia by the Crusaders countries until East Timor, 24 hours after a warning by the UN? A Crusader-Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims.
Meanwhile, a UN resolution passed more than half a century ago gave Muslim Kashmir the liberty of choosing independence from India and Kashmir. George Bush, the leader of the Crusaders’ campaign, announced a few days ago that he will order his converted agent [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf to shut down the Kashmir mujahidin camps, thus affirming that it is a Zionist-Hindu war against Muslims.
With respect to Pakistan, some Muslims have done a good job by assisting their fellow Muslims, God bless them, but the Pashtun tribes must be aided after the Pakistan army devastated their homes in Waziristan in order to satisfy the U.S.
What does the silence over Russian atrocities inside Chechnya mean, along with mutilating their bodies by tying them to tanks while the so-called free world gives its blessings and even secretly supports the aggression ? This is a Zionist crusade.
What does the humiliation of Muslims in Somalia and killing 13,000 Muslims mean, along with torching Muslims’ bodies? This is a Zionist-Crusaders war.
I will remind Muslims to fear God and to save their brothers in the African Horn from the famine that hit them.
What does the destruction of the infrastructure in Iraq mean and the tragedy that befell them mean? And the use of depleted uranium, besieging Iraq for years, causing the death of more than one million children which amazed all who had visited Iraq, including the Westerners themselves? It is a malicious crusade against Muslims.
What does the reoccupation of Iraq mean by using lies and deception along with murder, destruction, detention, torture and creation of huge military bases to dominate the whole region? It is a Zionist crusade against Muslims.
What about the continuous cultural domination through the setting up of radio stations and TV channels along with the Voice of America, London and others to continue the cultural domination of Muslims, combat our beliefs, change our values, encourage vice and even interfere with school curricula?
How can we explain France’s stance on the headscarf and the banning on wearing it at schools, its relentless dealing with the Muslim community and its plan to establish a TV channel in Morocco to combat Islamic awareness there? This is a Zionist-Crusader war.
In conclusion, a war is under way to offend the messenger of Allah, his religion and his Umma (nation). The Muslim preparedness and their jihad should be on a par with these events. The duty of our Muslim nation over this Crusaders’ campaign with its different aspects is to focus on supporting the prophet, his religion and the Umma to the best of our ability in all fields.
Despite the numerous Crusader attacks against our Muslim nation in military, economic, cultural and moral aspects, but the gravest of them all is the attack against our religion, our prophet and the our Sharia tenets. The epicenter of these wars is Baghdad, the seat of the caliphate rule. They keep reiterating that success in Baghdad will be success for the US, failure in Iraq the failure of the US.
Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars and a beginning to the receding of their Zionist-Crusader tide against us. Your mujahidin sons and brothers in Iraq have taught the US a hard lesson while in the fourth year of the Crusaders’ invasion, they are steadfast and patient and keep killing and wounding enemy soldiers every day.
It is a duty for the Umma with all its categories, men, women and youths, to give away themselves, their money, experiences and all types of material support, enough to establish jihad in the fields of jihad particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Sudan, Kashmir and Chechnya. Jihad today is an imperative for every Muslim. The Umma will commit sin if it did not provide adequate material support for jihad.
O fellow Muslims, pay no heed for the number of the enemy and their arsenal of arms because victory is a gift of God while the enemy, praise be to God, is experiencing a critical situation.
NO, THEY WEREN’T “PRACTITIONERS”
If this isn’t terrorism, what is?
By Tom Gross
The Wall Street Journal
December 1, 2008
Last week, in Mumbai, India, we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see.
The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way. The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic websites. They followed news updates and live TV streams, using them to their advantage so as to maximize causalities.
It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant, and a Jewish center.
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff. The terrorists didn’t want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other “infidels” as they could, and in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.
TERRORISTS OR DOCTORS?
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain’s most respected TV journalists, use the word “practitioners” when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors? Why did Reuters describe the motivation of the terrorists, which it preferred to call “gunmen,” as “unknown”? Were we meant to suppose that it might have been just anything – that to paraphrase Mark Steyn, they were perhaps disgruntled former employees of Lehman Bros embarking on an exciting midlife career change?
Again, why did Britain’s highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the “militants” showed a “wanton disregard for race or creed” when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected.
Why did the “experts” invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in living memory?
Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on Communist atrocities. But what are we to think when even such a renowned publication as The Times of London feels the need to refer to terrorists as “militants”, rather than calling them by their right name? “Militant”, after all, can be a neutral term in many contexts, and a favorable one in others. What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language? Do they somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively confront terrorists when we can’t even identify them as such?
BLAME IT ON THE ZIONISTS
But then the terrorists in Mumbai didn’t need to make any public announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame, especially the Zionists.
We have started seeing this already on the BBC - the world’s largest TV and radio network, which broadcasts in dozens of different languages around the world, and is lavishly funded by the British taxpayer.
You would be hard pressed to find any talk of radical Islam on the BBC in recent days, or mention of the fact that Islamists think India should be a Muslim country. Instead the BBC continues to try to persuade its massive global audience that “it is a local Indian problem,” that “the subcontinent has a history of unrest,” and so on.
Even the Pakistani angle has been presented as some kind of local Pakistan-India dispute rather than as a problem with radical Islam – this despite the fact that according to numerous reports the Mumbai terrorists themselves were screaming “Allah Akbar” (Allah is the Greatest) as they murdered “the Jews and the infidels” in line with Bin Ladenist ideology.
For some time, many have argued that an element of anti-Semitism has distorted the way the BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But now, following the Mumbai events, we can perhaps see that anti-Semitism may even be at work in the way BBC covers foreign news in general.
For most of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one point viewers were told that “an office building” had been targeted (referring to the Jewish center as such).
Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world. Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite opened fire as a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center – even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque instead can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?
“AN ACCIDENTAL HOSTAGE SCENE”?
Meanwhile - perhaps even more disgracefully – a New York Times report on the last day of the siege stated: “It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene.”
Has The New York Times learned anything since the Holocaust when, even after the war ended in the spring of 1945, the paper infamously refused to report that the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and so on killed in the camps had been Jews, and killed as Jews?
Dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted “Allah Akbar” from the Jewish center. It is housed in a non-descript block and is not obviously marked from the outside as a Jewish center. It is the one Jewish building in a densely crowded city of millions. And the Times, the self-proclaimed paper of record, wants to let readers think it might have been an accidental target?
Even the Times’s British equivalent, The Guardian, began its news story: “The inclusion of the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish group was obviously intended to send its own message.”
Does The New York Times think that the seeking out and murder by Muslim terrorists of the only New York rabbi in Mumbai and his wife was “an accidental target”?
Indeed, there was nothing accidental about any of the seven sites that the terrorists attacked. And it was no accident that Mumbai was hit. It is the most multi-religious city in India - with Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsees and Jews living in relative harmony.