http://kannada.webdunia.com/newsworld/news/national/1012/03/1101203038_1.htm

http://kannada.webdunia.com/newsworld/news/national/1012/03/1101203038_1.htm

The Truth on Kashmir and Terrorism in India

The Truth on Kashmir and Terrorism in India

                              India has been the most terrorized country in the world

-US State Department Report on Terrorism

   

India Is an Extraordinary Democracy

 

C                     Our current Ambassador to India, the Hon. Mr. Blackwill, while being a Harvard faculty and briefing candidate Bush in 2000 on foreign affairs at his Texas ranch, asked him why he was so interested in India.  Mr. Bush replied, AA billion people in a functioning democracy!  Can you believe it?  Can you believe it?@  (from the Times of India.)

 

C                     On 12-21-01, the British High Commissioner (Ambassador) to India, the Hon. Mr. Rob Young told the press that the British government A... never asked India to exercise restraint@ because AIndia is a highly responsible democracy@, and that ABritain supports India=s right to self-defense.@

 

C                     US Congress passed a resolution congratulating India for successful elections in 1999.  Of 400 votes cast, 4 were opposed.  The tiny opposition included Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Don Burton (R-IN), who have spoken out on behalf of khalistan terrorists.

 

 

What is the Kashmir Issue?

 

C                     UN Security Council resolutions 38-40, and particularly the resolution of August 13, 1948, said that Pakistan had attacked Kashmir, and ordered Pakistan to withdraw its forces and its tribals.  Pakistan has yet to obey UN Security Council and withdraw from lands (now called POK, Pak Occupied Kashmir) controlled illegally.

 

C                     Recently released documents reveal that in 1948, the then US Secretary of State Gen. George C. Marshall told the pro-Pak British that Kashmir=s accession with India was legal and final as far as US was concerned.

 

C                     In 1952, the Kashmir legislature, elected in elections recognized by observers as free and fair, with 100% of the legislators Muslim, voted to ratify Kashmir=s accession with India.

 

C                     Pakistan gave away large part of the POK to China, which now claims those lands as its own.

 

 

Pakistan is a State-Sponsor of Terrorism

 

C                     In April 1993, then CIA director James Woosley at an open Senate hearing said, A... Pakistan, while not yet on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism,@ but is Aon the brink@.

 

C                     In December 1999, the Director of CIA George Tenet and State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism Michael Sheen testified before a Senate subcommittee that US has evidence that Pakistan is a state-sponsor of terrorism against India.

 

C                     In 2000, State Department=s report on terrorism described Pakistan=s official involvement in terrorism against India, but fell short of adding Pakistan to list of countries sponsoring terrorism because that would have automatically triggered severe sanctions against an old cold-war ally.

 

C                     In 2000, a bipartisan Congressional commission on terrorism recommended to the State Department that sanctions be imposed on Pakistan for its role in terrorism, but this report was ignored.

 

C                     The British government in Spring 2001 put several Pakistan-supported organizations openly engaged in terrorism on the official list of terrorist organizations, to be followed later by the US.

 

C                     Major political parties in Pakistan and Pak media have repeatedly asked Pak governments over the years to break bonds with terrorists and get out of the Kashmir issue, because supporting terrorists has resulted only in increasing Talibanization of Pakistan.

 

C                     Benazir Bhutto, ex-Pak Prime Minister, has said that ISI (Pakistani government=s intelligence service) is a force onto itself, and she had no knowledge of what ISI was doing when she was PM.

 

C                     On 11-21-01, the Hon. Mr. Robert D. Blackwill, US Ambassador to India, told the press that Pakistan-supported individuals involved in killings in Kashmir are terrorists and that AThey are not freedom fighters.  No country will be permitted to provide sanctuaries to terrorists.@  He made similar comments again on 2-27-02.

 

C                     On 11-29-01, the British Parliament was told by the Foreign Office Minister that the British government has told the Pakistani government to cease support to terrorists.

 

C                     Pak Government=s direct and obvious involvement in terrorism against India over decades has resulted in 50,000 Hindus being amongst 70,000 innocent civilians killed and 500,000 Hindus fled Kashmir in terror; world has been silent about this ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Kashmir.

 

C                     Pak does not have just Hindu blood on its hands.  Pak press reported that one of the first things General Musharraf did after grabbing power in Nov. 1999 coup was to shut down a Pak commando unit being trained by CIA to go after bin Laden.  If only bin Laden had been caught in 2000 ...

 

C                     Pakistan, which created, nurtured and protected Taliban, has claimed that Taliban is not terrorist.

 

C                     Pakistan press reported in Dec. 2001 that Pak dictator Musharraf was a Director of Rabita Trust, a terrorist organization masquerading as a charity, and US had to warn him to step down before adding this organization to a terrorist list.

 

C                     Pak v. US:  CBS News quoted numerous workers to the effect that Osama bin Laden had received his kidney dialysis at their Pak military hospital on the eve of 9-11.

 

C                     Pak v. US:  NY Times reported that Pak had to send airplanes to rescue its army fighting US coalition in Afghanistan; when asked, the Pentagon issued only non-denial denials.  CNN reported on 1-12-02, that 50 Pak soldiers, arrested at Kandahar, admitted to fighting under Pak officers.

 

C                     Regarding Musharraf=s promises about Pak eliminating terrorism, NY Times said that he had to redefine Pakistan's sense of itself Aafter two decades of drift into lawlessness and violence.@

C                     President Bush, British PM Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac, have all demanded that Musharraf act on his promises to root out Pak terrorism against India.

 

C                     The Daily Telegraph (London) said in its lead story on 2-23-02 that British and American special forces have joined Indian troops to hunt down Osama bin Laden in one of Kashmir=s remote areas Athat are nearly impossible for the Indian Army to police@.  Bin Laden is believed to be hiding there with the help of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, one of Pak terrorist organizations.

 

C                     An editor of the Karachi Herald wrote that Sheikh Ahmed Omar Saeed, the alleged mastermind behind the abduction of Mr. Daniel Pearl, indicted in US in 1994, operated in Pakistan freely since his release from an Indian prison in exchange for hostages aboard a hijacked Indian airliner.

 

C                     One week after Omar Sheikh turned himself in to ISI for protection, the Pak military intelligence, Pak lied that the police had arrested him on the eve of Musharraf=s visit to the US, and ABC publicized Pak lies that India was behind the kidnapping of Mr. Pearl.

 

C                     NY Times reported on 2-26-02 that a Pak Army/ISI Brigadier had a role in nurturing Jaish‑e‑ Mohammed, the terrorist organization behind the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Pearl, and suggested that investigations in killing of Pearl would reveal a great deal about ties between terrorists and ISI.

 

C                     Newsweek reported on 3-5-02 that Pearl=s killers might have been agents of Pak government=s ISI.

 

C                     NY Times and the Boston Globe have reported that 4,000 Pak army officers were involved in Pak ISI conducting terrorism against India.

 

 

The Ram Temple and Communal Riots in India

 

C                     Hindus believe that God himself takes birth on earth in times of dire need, and that Ram and Krishna were such human incarnations of God.  Places of these births of God are especially holy for Hindus.

 

C                     Muslim conquerors destroyed over 5,000 temples in North India, including those at the sites holiest for Hindus. They built mosques there instead, which have no particular significance to Islam.  In order to reconstruct their holiest temple, Hindu organizations have offered compromises to Muslims.

 

 

Bangladesh is also a State-Sponsor of Terrorism

 

C                     The world is also silent about harrowing abuse and ethnic cleansing of Hindus from Bangladesh.  Amnesty International has publicized horrible atrocities against Hindu women in Bangladesh, such as gang-rapes in front of their fathers and husbands, resulting in floods of Hindu refugees from that country.  Bangladeshi government does nothing beyond denying facts.

 
visit :http://www.stephen-knapp.com/truth_on_kashmir_and_terrorism_in_india.htm

               Status of Hindus under Islamic Rule

Ala-ud-din Khilji can justly be called the first muslim ruler of a large part of India. Till his reign, Islamic rule only extended in a corridor starting from Delhi, and entering today's UP and parts of Bihar. Of course, Islamic rulers continually attacked and ravaged lands outside this region as well, but were not able to establish any sort of consistent rule there. Hindu counter-offensives would often sieze back land lost to Islam within months, if not weeks. This see-saw was witnessed in large parts of north-central India. Anyway, back to Ala-ud-din. His history is recorded in some detail by Ziaundin Barani's Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi. I reproduce the piece of the history that deals with Ala-ud-din's treatment of Hindus who had fallen into his subjecthood.

'Aláu-d dín was a king who had no acquaintance with learning, and never associated with the learned. When he became king, he came to the conclusion that polity and government are one thing, and the rules and decrees of law are another. Royal commands belong to the king, legal decrees rest upon the judg­ment of kázís and muftís.

Notice that as a "good muslim ruler", he consults the kazis and muftis (Islamic holy men) for guidance on what the Kuran and Hadith command a muslim ruler to do as regards his kafir subjects.

Kází Mughísu-d dín, of Bayánah, used to go to court and sit down in private audience with the amírs. One day, when the efforts were being made for the increase of the tribute and of the fines and imposts, the Sultán told the Kází that he had several questions to ask him, and desired him to speak the plain truth. The Kází then promised to answer in accordance with what he had read in books.

The learned kazi assures Ala-ud-din that he will instruct him as per Islamic law (namely, the Kuran, Hadith, and Sira). Now let us see what these say about how Hindus are to be treated.

The Sultán then asked, “How are Hindus designated in the law, as payers of tribute (kharáj-guzár) or givers of tribute (kharáj-dih)?” The Kází replied, “They are called payers of tribute, and when the revenue officer demands silver from them, they should, without question and with all humility and respect, tender gold. If the officer throws dirt into their mouths, they must without reluctance open their mouths wide to receive it. By doing so they show their respect for the officer. The due subordination of the zimmí (tribute-payer) is exhibited in this humble payment and by this throwing of dirt into their mouths. The glorification of Islám is a duty, and contempt of the Religion is vain. God holds them in contempt, for he says, ‘Keep them under in subjection.’ To keep the Hindus in abasement is especially a religious duty, because they are the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, and because the Prophet has commanded us to slay them, plunder them, and make them captive, saying, ‘Convert them to Islám or kill them, enslave them and spoil their wealth and property.’ No doctor but the great doctor (Hanífa), to whose school we belong, has assented to the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on Hindus. Doctors of other schools allow no other alternative but ‘Death or Islám.’”

As I have stated in this blog repeatedly, of the 4 schools of Islamic law, only one (Hanafi) even allows Hindus the right to live. The 3 others simply say that Hindus must be killed if they refuse to convert. That is what this Kazi is telling Ala-ud-din. Note also that he says that Hindus are the worst in the eyes of Allah. This is because in the Kuran, the mushriqs (idolators) are considered the worst of the worst, fit to be killed immediately. Kuran 9:5 is very explicit about this "slay the idolators where ever ye find them..." We Hindus must never forget this - that our fate as per orthodox Islam is beheading.

Now you tell me that it is all in accordance with law that the Hindus should be reduced to the most abject obedience.” Then the Sul-tán said, “Oh, doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast had no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have seen a great deal; be assured then that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have, therefore, given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year, of corn, milk, and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate hoards and property.”

So Ala-ud-din says that he has put into place measures (heavy taxation etc.) in order to reduce Hindus to abject poverty and keep them in a state of permanent debasement.

This was the status of Hindus under Islamic rule. Of course, our school textbooks, written by Marxist liars, will portray this period as a "great flowering of a syncretic culture." I leave it to the reader to judge for themselves what kind of "syncretic culture" our textbooks are talking about.

How the Jihadis mercilessly vandalized Hindus of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh ..

How the Jihadis mercilessly vandalized Hindus of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh and wiped out Hinduism from some parts of India viz., Pakistan and Bangladesh

Fierce and persistent Hindu resistance to the Islamic Jihad prevented the complete Islamization of India
Unlike the complete Islamization of Persia, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Turkey, North Africa, the Islamization of India was never complete. After more than one millennium of Muslim Tyranny from 715 up to 1761, more than 70 percent of the population of India remained Hindu. This was NOT due to any Muslim charity or benevolence, since the murderous and savage beastlike Muslims have none of these characteristics.
The Muslim tyranny in India was as blood-thirsty and insidious as it was in all parts of the globe that were unfortunate to be trampled by the Jihadis. The Hindus suffered initial setbacks due to the innocuous but ill-founded belief amongst them, as amongst all other non-Muslims, that the Muslims too were normal human beings, who would after a victory, settle down to govern the defeated population. But the Muslims were, and still are, compulsively paranoid mass murderers who can be outmatched only by someone who are themselves doubly compulsively paranoid mass murderers as compared to the Muslims. And only when such a mentality will prevail over Islam, can all the Muslims who infest our planet be neutralized either through their death or their conversion to any faith other than Islam. Only this way can our beautiful planet be saved from Islam.
The Crusaders were one example of such a mentality; as were the Franks (Feringhees or Firangis) under Charles Martel and the Mongols led by Hulagu Khan, who were the last such example. Hence only the Crusaders, the Franks and the Mongols could prevail over the Muslims and that too only as long as they nurtured and effectively used against the Muslims a mentality of being more compulsively paranoid mass murderers of the Muslims than the Muslim themselves are against all non-Muslims.
Unfortunately the Muslims till today are compulsively paranoid mass murderers, as their ancestors have been for fourteen centuries ever since that lecherous and heinous heathen Mohammed-ibn-abdallah founded the murderous cult of Islam in the year 622 C.E.
So as in all parts of the world which the Muslims destroyed with their tyrannical policies motivated by their murderous creed, in India too the Hindus suffered mass murders, rape, and destruction of their places of worship at the hands of the invaders. And the Hindus too were not, and still are not till today, compulsively paranoid mass murderers of the Muslims as were the Crusaders, the Franks or the Mongols. But in India, the only difference there was that once the nightmare of Muslim tyranny began, the Hindus grew wiser relatively faster than most of the other unfortunate victims of the Islamic Jihad and started paying back the Muslims in their own coin, although belatedly and only intermittently.

visit for more :http://www.historyofjihad.org/india.html

defination of secular and communal

In India if  we talk against Hindu you will called as " Secularist "

In India if we talk wrong things of Muslims you are called as " Communal"

In India if you talks for muslims you will be called as " Secularist"

In India if you talks against conversion you are branded as " Communal"

In India If you talks about terrorisam immediately you will be
recognised as " Communal"

In India If you talks welfare of Majority then you termed as " communal"

In India If you taks welfare of only Minority you will awareded with " secular"

still more.....

This happens in India only..

Hindu Komuvaada Beda Adare Muslim Komuvaadakke bembala idu Sariye?

ಮುಸ್ಲಿಂ ಕೋಮುವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಸ್ವಯಂಘೋಷಿತ ಸಿಕ್ಯುಲರಿಸ್ಟ್ ಗಳು ಬೆಂಬಲ್ ನೀಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಸರಿಯೆಂದು ನೀವು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೀರಾ!?
ನಾನು ಅದನ್ನು ತಪ್ಪೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ ಮತ್ತು ಬಹುಸಂಖ್ಯಾತರು ಹಿಂದು ಕೋಮುವಾದಿಗಳಿಗೆ ಬೆಂಬಲ ಸೂಚಿಸುವುದನ್ನೂ ತಪ್ಪೆಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಹಿಂದುಗಳಾಗಿ ಹುಟ್ಟಿರಲಿ, ಮುಸ್ಲಿಂರಾಗಿ ಹುಟ್ಟಿರಲಿ. ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಗಳು ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಗಳೇ - ಅವರನ್ನು ಬೆಂಬಲಿಸುವವರೂ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಗಳು.
ಅನ್ಯಾಯವನ್ನು ಯಾವತ್ತೂ ಧಿಕ್ಕರಿಸಬೇಕು. ಯಾರೋ ಒಬ್ಬ ತಲೆ ಕೆಟ್ಟವ ಅನ್ಯಾಯವನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಥಿಸುತ್ತಾನೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರತಿ(ಇನ್ ರೆಸ್ಪೋನ್ಸ್) ಅನ್ಯಾಯವನ್ನು ಬೆಂಬಲಿಸುವವ ಸಿಕ್ಯುಲರ್ ಗಳಿಗಿಂತಲೂ danger.