Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

The origin and rise of Taliban in Pakistan

Posted by jagoindia on March 11, 2009

In the spring of 1994, a new military force appeared in Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires. Legend has it that its first public action was in
Kandahar. A local warlord had abducted two girls for serving his troops. One night, a group of young, bearded Pashtuns, wearing black turbans emerged from the darkness, stormed the base, rescued the girls and hanged the warlord from the turret of a tank.

They were called the Taliban
Click here

Posted in Afghanistan, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Taliban, Terrorism | 3 Comments »

Muslim diplomat in New York charged with beating his wife for more than 15 hours, tells told police his “wife was a dog and he was going to treat her like a dog”

Posted by jagoindia on February 20, 2009

“During the attack, Fagirad bit, slapped, choked and beat the 22-year-old woman with a belt, pushed her down a flight of stairs and sat on her chest, prosecutors said. At one point, prosecutors said, Fagirad threw his wife up against a wall, held her there by the neck and then let her drop to the floor, where he beat her with a belt.

Afghan diplomat was charged Friday with beating his wife “like a dog” for more than 15 hours in their Queens home, prosecutors said.

Afghan diplomat Mohammed Fagirad charged in all-day wife beating
BY Nicole Bode

February 14th 2009,
An Afghan diplomat was charged Friday with beating his wife “like a dog” for more than 15 hours in their Queens home, prosecutors said.

Mohammed Fagirad, 30, a vice consul at the Afghanistan Consulate, brutalized his wife inside their Flushing home from about 8:30 a.m. Wednesday until nearly midnight, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said.

During the attack, Fagirad bit, slapped, choked and beat the 22-year-old woman with a belt, pushed her down a flight of stairs and sat on her chest, prosecutors said.

At one point, prosecutors said, Fagirad threw his wife up against a wall, held her there by the neck and then let her drop to the floor, where he beat her with a belt.

Fagirad told police his “wife was a dog and he was going to treat her like a dog,” prosecutors said.

When Fagirad left the home, his wife fled and went to the 109th Precinct stationhouse, where she filed a domestic violence report, prosecutors said. She then returned home.

When Fagirad returned, he demanded his wife’s cell phone and called police to file a counterclaim, prosecutors said.

The woman, who was not named, was hospitalized for bruises and scratches to her neck and back.

Prosecutors said Fagirad’s limited diplomatic immunity only covers work-related infractions.

He was awaiting arraignment last night in Queens Criminal Court. End

Also click this link  Muslim cleric explains wife beating

Posted in Afghanistan, Islam, United States of America, Women | 8 Comments »

India concerned as Tailban strikes Sharia law deal with Pakistan. The Islamic threat is closing in on the civilized world

Posted by jagoindia on February 18, 2009

Taliban strikes Sharia law deal with Pakistan

India concerned over Sharia law in Malakand
17 Feb 2009, 0334 hrs IST, Indrani Bagchi, TNN

NEW DELHI: As senior Indian officials and US special envoy Richard
Holbrooke discussed American policies for the Pakistan-Afghanistan
region, the ceasefire between Islamabad and the Taliban in Swat valley proved to
be a dramatic example of the Islamist extremist threat closing in on
the civilised world. Stepping out of his meetings with foreign
minister Pranab Mukherjee, Holbrooke told reporters, “What is
happening in Swat now is a common threat to the US, India and
Pakistan, who now face a common enemy.”

In a dramatic and more extreme replay of the 2006 peace deal between
the Pakistan government and the Taliban, President Asif Zardari signed
Sharia law for the Malakand division and Swat valley on Monday, a day
after the Pakistan Taliban, led by Baitullah Mehsud, announced a
10-day ceasefire.

India is looking at the deal with growing trepidation, as it brings
the Taliban much closer. Nobody in the Indian government would comment
on record, but privately, there is growing concern here, which was
discussed in detail with Holbrooke. But much more important, it shows
the Pakistan government submitting to the growing powers of the

The Pakistan government’s deal with the Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat
Muhammadi (TNSM) to promulgate Sharia may be replicated in other
divisions in the NWFP.

The distress about the deal in Swat also comes from the fact that
after Swat, it could well be Peshawar, and then it’s a leap to

India believes Taliban needs to be squeezed in terms of funds, weapons
and legitimacy, but many also suspect that the Pakistan army continues
to be the chief patron of the Taliban, as it believes Taliban to be
essential to its policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan and bleeding
India to death.

Pakistan government reportedly gave in on the Sharia laws to stop
further violence in these areas which the army just could not stop.

The ceasefire with the Taliban, Indian sources believe, is not likely
to make the Taliban give up either its ideology, weapons or intent to
undermine the Pakistani state. While Islamabad has released many
arrested Taliban commanders in return for one Chinese engineer, there
is no talk about the Taliban disarming.

The peace deal, therefore has no other strategic objective, apart from
stopping the violence. But by giving in to the Taliban demand and
getting a limited concession for 10 days, Islamabad may only be
prolonging the inevitable.

Posted in Afghanistan, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Sharia, Swat Valley, Taliban, Terrorism | Leave a Comment »

The Truth Behind Kandahar Indian Airlines Hijacking, When India Released Islamic Terrorists — Must read

Posted by jagoindia on January 24, 2009

Mr Jaswant Singh made bold to suggest that the Government had to keep the nation’s interest in mind, that we could not be seen to be giving in to the hijackers, or words to that effect, in chaste Hindi. That fetched him abuse and rebuke. “Bhaand me jaaye desh aur bhaand me jaaye desh ka hit. (To hell with the country and national interest),” many in the crowd shouted back.

“We want our relatives back. What difference does it make to us what you have to give the hijackers?” a man shouted. “We don’t care if you have to give away Kashmir,” a woman screamed and others took up the refrain, chanting:

The Truth Behind Kandahar

Dec 24, 2008 Kanchan Gupta,

Was it really an ‘abject surrender’ by the NDA Government?

There have been innumerable communal riots in India, nearly all of them in States ruled by the Congress at the time of the violence, yet everybody loves to pretend that blood was shed in the name of religion for the first time in Gujarat in 2002 and that the BJP Government headed by Mr Narendra Modi must bear the burden of the cross.

Similarly, nobody remembers the various incidents of Indian Airlines aircraft being hijacked when the Congress was in power at the Centre, the deals that were struck to rescue the hostages, and the compromises that were made at the expense of India’s dignity and honour. But everybody remembers the hijacking of IC 814 and nearly a decade after the incident, many people still hold the BJP-led NDA Government responsible for the ‘shameful’ denouement.

The Indian Airlines flight from Kathmandu to New Delhi, designated IC 814, with 178 passengers and 11 crew members on board, was hijacked on Christmas eve, 1999, a short while after it took-off from Tribhuvan International Airport; by then, the aircraft had entered Indian airspace. Nine years later to the day, with an entire generation coming of age, it would be in order to recall some facts and place others on record.

In 1999 I was serving as an aide to Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the PMO, and I still have vivid memories of the tumultuous week between Christmas eve and New Year’s eve. Mr Vajpayee had gone out of Delhi on an official tour; I had accompanied him along with other officials of the PMO. The hijacking of IC 814 occurred while we were returning to Delhi in one of the two Indian Air Force Boeings which, in those days, were used by the Prime Minister for travel within the country.

Curiously, the initial information about IC 814 being hijacked, of which the IAF was believed to have been aware, was not communicated to the pilot of the Prime Minister’s aircraft. As a result, Mr Vajpayee and his aides remained unaware of the hijacking till reaching Delhi. This caused some amount of controversy later.

It was not possible for anybody else to have contacted us while we were in midair. It’s strange but true that the Prime Minister of India would be incommunicado while on a flight because neither the ageing IAF Boeings nor the Air India Jumbos, used for official travel abroad, had satellite phone facilities.

By the time our aircraft landed in Delhi, it was around 7:00 pm, a full hour and 40 minutes since the hijacking of IC 814. After disembarking from the aircraft in the VIP bay of Palam Technical Area, we were surprised to find National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra waiting at the foot of the ladder. He led Mr Vajpayee aside and gave him the news. They got into the Prime Minister’s car and it sped out of the Technical Area. Some of us followed Mr. Vajpayee to Race Course Road, as was the normal routine.

On our way to the Prime Minister’s residence, colleagues in the PMO provided us with the basic details. The Kathmandu-Delhi flight had been commandeered by five hijackers (later identified as Ibrahim Athar, resident of Bahawalpur, Shahid Akhtar Sayed, Gulshan Iqbal, resident of Karachi, Sunny Ahmed Qazi, resident of Defence Area, Karachi, Mistri Zahoor Ibrahim, resident of Akhtar Colony, Karachi, and Shakir, resident of Sukkur City) at 5:20 pm; there were 189 passengers and crew members on board; and that the aircraft was heading towards Lahore.

At the Prime Minister’s residence, senior Ministers and Secretaries had already been summoned for an emergency meeting. Mr Mishra left for the crisis control room that had been set up at Rajiv Bhavan. In between meetings, Mr Vajpayee instructed his personal staff to cancel all celebrations planned for December 25, his birthday. The Cabinet Committee on Security met late into the night as our long vigil began.

Meanwhile, we were informed that the pilot of IC 814 had been denied permission to land at Lahore airport. With fuel running low, he was heading for Amritsar. Officials at Raja Sansi Airport were immediately alerted and told to prevent the plane from taking off after it had landed there.

The hijacked plane landed at Amritsar and remained parked on the tarmac for nearly 45 minutes. The hijackers demanded that the aircraft be refuelled. The airport officials ran around like so many headless chickens, totally clueless about what was to be done in a crisis situation.

Desperate calls were made to the officials at Raja Sansi Airport to somehow stall the refuelling and prevent the plane from taking off. The officials just failed to respond with alacrity. At one point, an exasperated Jaswant Singh, if memory serves me right, grabbed the phone and pleaded with an official, “Just drive a heavy vehicle, a fuel truck or a road roller or whatever you have, onto the runway and park it there.” But all this was to no avail.

The National Security Guards, whose job it is to deal with hostage situations, were alerted immediately after news first came in of IC 814 being hijacked; they were reportedly asked to stand by for any emergency. The Home Ministry was again alerted when it became obvious that after being denied permission to land at Lahore, the pilot was heading towards Amritsar.

Yet, despite IC 814 remaining parked at Amritsar for three-quarters of an hour, the NSG commandos failed to reach the aircraft. There are two versions as to why the NSG didn’t show up: First, they were waiting for an aircraft to ferry them from Delhi to Amritsar; second, they were caught in a traffic jam between Manesar and Delhi airport. The real story was never known!

The hijackers, anticipating commando action, first stabbed a passenger, Rupin Katyal (he had gone to Kathmandu with his newly wedded wife for their honeymoon; had they not extended their stay by a couple of days, they wouldn’t have been on the ill-fated flight) to show that they meant business, and then forced the pilot to take off from Amritsar. With almost empty fuel tanks, the pilot had no other option but to make another attempt to land at Lahore airport. Once again he was denied permission and all the lights, including those on the runway, were switched off. He nonetheless went ahead and landed at Lahore airport, showing remarkable skill and courage.

Mr Jaswant Singh spoke to the Pakistani Foreign Minister and pleaded with him to prevent the aircraft from taking off again. But the Pakistanis would have nothing of it (they wanted to distance themselves from the hijacking so that they could claim later that there was no Pakistan connection) and wanted IC 814 off their soil and out of their airspace as soon as possible. So, they refuelled the aircraft after which the hijackers forced the pilot to head for Dubai.

At Dubai, too, officials were reluctant to allow the aircraft to land. It required all the persuasive skills of Mr Jaswant Singh and our then Ambassador to UAE, Mr KC Singh, to secure landing permission. There was some negotiation with the hijackers through UAE officials and they allowed 13 women and 11 children to disembark. Rupin Katyal had by then bled to death. His body was offloaded. His widow remained a hostage till the end.

On the morning of December 25, the aircraft left Dubai and headed towards Afghanistan. It landed at Kandahar Airport, which had one serviceable runway, a sort of ATC and a couple of shanties. The rest of the airport was in a shambles, without power and water supply, a trophy commemorating the Taliban’s rule.

On Christmas eve, after news of the hijacking broke, there was stunned all-round silence. But by noon on December 25, orchestrated protests outside the Prime Minister’s residence began, with women beating their chests and tearing their clothes. The crowd swelled by the hour as the day progressed.

Ms Brinda Karat came to commiserate with the relatives of the hostages who were camping outside the main gate of 7, Race Course Road. In fact, she became a regular visitor over the next few days. There was a steady clamour that the Government should pay any price to bring the hostages back home, safe and sound. This continued till December 30.

One evening, the Prime Minister asked his staff to let the families come in so that they could be told about the Government’s efforts to secure the hostages’ release. By then negotiations had begun and Mullah Omar had got into the act through his ‘Foreign Minister’, Muttavakil. The hijackers wanted 36 terrorists, held in various Indian jails, to be freed or else they would blow up the aircraft with the hostages.

No senior Minister in the CCS was willing to meet the families. Mr Jaswant Singh volunteered to do so. He asked me to accompany him to the canopy under which the families had gathered. Once there, we were literally mobbed. He tried to explain the situation but was shouted down.

“We want our relatives back. What difference does it make to us what you have to give the hijackers?” a man shouted. “We don’t care if you have to give away Kashmir,” a woman screamed and others took up the refrain, chanting: “Kashmir de do, kuchh bhi de do, hamare logon ko ghar wapas lao.” Another woman sobbed, “Mera beta… hai mera beta…” and made a great show of fainting of grief.

To his credit, Mr Jaswant Singh made bold to suggest that the Government had to keep the nation’s interest in mind, that we could not be seen to be giving in to the hijackers, or words to that effect, in chaste Hindi. That fetched him abuse and rebuke. “Bhaand me jaaye desh aur bhaand me jaaye desh ka hit. (To hell with the country and national interest),” many in the crowd shouted back. Stumped by the response, Mr Jaswant Singh could merely promise that the Government would do everything possible.

I do not remember the exact date, but sometime during the crisis, Mr Jaswant Singh was asked to hold a Press conference to brief the media. While the briefing was on at the Press Information Bureau hall in Shastri Bhavan, some families of the hostages barged in and started shouting slogans. They were led by one Sanjiv Chibber, who, I was later told, was a ‘noted surgeon’: He claimed six of his relatives were among the hostages.

Dr Chibber wanted all 36 terrorists named by the hijackers to be released immediately. He reminded everybody in the hall that in the past terrorists had been released from prison to secure the freedom of Ms Rubayya Sayeed, daughter of Mufti Mohammed Sayeed, while he was Home Minister in VP Singh’s Government. “Why can’t you release the terrorists now when our relatives are being held hostage?” he demanded. And then we heard the familiar refrain: “Give away Kashmir, give them anything they want, we don’t give a damn.”

On another evening, there was a surprise visitor at the PMO: The widow of Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja, whose plane was shot down during the Kargil war. She insisted that she should be taken to meet the relatives of the hostages. At Race Course Road, she spoke to mediapersons and the hostages’ relatives, explaining why India must not be seen giving in to the hijackers, that it was a question of national honour, and gave her own example of fortitude in the face of adversity.

“She has become a widow, now she wants others to become widows. Who is she to lecture us? Yeh kahan se aayi?” someone shouted from the crowd. Others heckled her. The young widow stood her ground, displaying great dignity and courage. As the mood turned increasingly ugly, she had to be led away. Similar appeals were made by others who had lost their sons, husbands and fathers in the Kargil war that summer. Col Virendra Thapar, whose son Lt Vijayant Thapar was martyred in the war, made a fervent appeal for people to stand united against the hijackers. It fell on deaf ears.

The media made out that the overwhelming majority of Indians were with the relatives of the hostages and shared their view that no price was too big to secure the hostages’ freedom. The Congress kept on slyly insisting, “We are with the Government and will support whatever it does for a resolution of the crisis and to ensure the safety of the hostages. But the Government must explain its failure.” Harkishen Singh Surjeet and other Opposition politicians issued similar ambiguous statements.

By December 28, the Government’s negotiators had struck a deal with the hijackers: They would free the hostages in exchange of three dreaded terrorists — Maulana Masood Azhar, Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Ahmed Omar Sheikh — facing various charges of terrorism.

The CCS met frequently, several times a day, and discussed the entire process threadbare. The Home Minister, the Defence Minister and the Foreign Minister, apart from the National Security Adviser and the Prime Minister, were present at every meeting. The deal was further fine-tuned, the Home Ministry completed the necessary paper work, and two Indian Airlines aircraft were placed on standby to ferry the terrorists to Kandahar and fetch the hostages.

On December 31, the two aircraft left Delhi airport early in the morning. Mr Jaswant Singh was on board one of them. Did his ministerial colleagues know that he would travel to Kandahar? More important, was the Prime Minister aware of it? The answer is both yes and no.

Mr Jaswant Singh had mentioned his decision to go to Kandahar to personally oversee the release of hostages and to ensure there was no last-minute problem. He was honour-bound to do so, he is believed to have said, since he had promised the relatives of the hostages that no harm would come their way. It is possible that nobody thought he was serious about his plan. It is equally possible that others turned on him when the ‘popular mood’ and the Congress turned against the Government for its ‘abject surrender’.

On New Year’s eve, the hostages were flown back to Delhi. By New Year’s day, the Government was under attack for giving in to the hijackers’ demand! Since then, this ‘shameful surrender’ is held against the NDA and Mr Jaswant Singh is painted as the villain of the piece.

Could the Kandahar episode have ended any other way? Were an Indian aircraft to be hijacked again, would we respond any differently? Not really. As a nation we do not have the guts to stand up to terrorism. We cannot take hits and suffer casualties. We start counting our dead even before a battle has been won or lost. We make a great show of honouring those who die on the battlefield and lionise brave hearts of history, but we do not want our children to follow in their footsteps.

We are, if truth be told, a nation of cowards who don’t have the courage to admit their weakness but are happy to blame a well-meaning politician who, perhaps, takes his regimental motto of ‘Izzat aur Iqbal’ rather too seriously. End

Kandahar decision won’t have been easy: Chidambaram
NDTV Correspondent, Thursday, January 22, 2009

(New Delhi) Home Minister P Chidambaram said on Thursday that there is no set formula for dealing with terrorists.

When asked if India should have a policy not to negotiate with terrorists, he said that while this worked in principle, in reality, when the human element came into play, he was unsure of how he would deal with the crisis.

“I do not know how I would have reacted if 150 families came to my door and pleaded that their loved ones in that aircraft must be saved. It is easy to criticise but if one is in that position, it is a very difficult decision,” he said at the NDTV’s Indian of the Year Awards function in New Delhi on Wednesday night.

The NDA government’s decision to release dreaded terrorists in exchange for hostages in the Kandahar hijack 10 years ago had come under attack from several quarters but Home Minister P Chidambaram is “not sure” saying it is a “very difficult” decision.

The decision of the Vajpayee government to release three dreaded terrorists including Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Masood Azhar in December, 1999 received a lot of flak from various political parties including the Congress, more so because the then external affairs minister Jaswant Singh accompanied them (terrorists) to Kandahar.

Azhar’s name has subsequently figured in the December 2001 terror attack on Parliament and the attack outside Jammu and Kashmir Assembly in Srinagar in the same month. (With PTI inputs)

Posted in Afghanistan, Appeasement, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Terrorism | 8 Comments »

Mumbai attacks: The terrorist army of Muhammad is back

Posted by jagoindia on November 28, 2008


The Army of Muhammad is back.

This was the message buzzing in radical Islamist circles yesterday as the world tried to absorb the shock of the terrorist attacks in Bombay, India’s economic capital.

While it is not yet clear which group was behind the attacks, it looks as if the perpetrators were trying to imitate the tactic of ghazwa, used by the Prophet against Meccan caravans in his decade-long campaign to seize control of the city.

The tactic consists of surprise no-holds-barred attacks simultaneously launched against a caravan or settlement with the aim of demoralising the enemy and hastening his capitulation.

The Bombay attacks differed from previous terror operations in India in a number of ways. In the past, one approach had been to place explosive-packed devices in crowded places with the aim of killing large numbers at random. Another was suicide attacks on specific targets by lone “volunteers for martyrdom”.

This time, however, the approach was “symphonic”, in the sense that it involved different types of operations blended together.

Involved in the operations were men who had placed explosives at selected points. But there were also gunmen operating in classic military style by seizing control of territory at symbolically significant locations along with hostages. Then there were militants prepared to kill, and be killed, in grenade attacks against security forces.

Whoever designed the operations had another important Islamic tactic in mind: tabarra or exoneration.

This consists of separating the “outsider”, in this case the British and American “infidel”, from the community with the intent of blaming them for the ills of the world before sacrificing them. It was no accident that one of the places attacked was a Jewish centre, where gunmen seized a rabbi and several members of the congregation as hostages.

The loud message was that a small group of individuals could turn a megalopolis of almost 15 million inhabitants into a battlefield for at least a day.

Terrorism is a beast with an extraordinary ability to mutate. As soon as its victims have learnt to cope with its methods, it develops new ones. Groups of anarchists throwing bombs follow the lone assassin who would target a king or a political leader. The hijacking of passenger jets is replaced by the transformation of aircraft into missiles against fixed targets.

All the time, the intention is to terrorise the largest number of people, eroding the ordinary man’s confidence in the ability of the authorities to protect him, and, in the long run, persuading a majority of the people, who just want to live their lives, to trade their freedom for the security that the terrorist promises in his utopia.

Although new to India, the tactic of “symphonic” attacks has been tried in a number of other countries in the past decade, notably Algeria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, at times with devastating effects.

Most recently, it was tried, on a smaller scale, by the Taliban in the Afghan city of Qala-Mussa. Theoretically, the tactic could be used in any city, from Bombay to New York, passing through London and Paris.

On Wednesday, it was obvious that India’s various anti-terror units were surprised, unable to cope with methods of operations not mentioned in their manuals.

So far the only claim of responsibility has came from a hitherto unknown group using the name the “Deccan Mujahedin”.

This may be a cover for other groups, perhaps the Lashkar Tayyiba (the Army of the Pure) and the Jaish Muhammad (the Army of Muhammad), two terrorist organisations created by the Pakistani military intelligence services.

Earlier this year, in one of his last acts as president, Pervez Musharraf announced the dissolution of both, but it is possible that the two groups and their backers in the Pakistani military and intelligence elite have returned to the market under a new brand, with new tactics.

The attacks came 48 hours after Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, practically threw away 50 years of Pakistani policy by announcing his readiness to end the dispute with India over Kashmir.

Zardari is an ethnic Baluch who, unlike previous Pakistani leaders who had Indian backgrounds, has no direct family history in pre-partition India. As a result, he is not as sensitive on Kashmir as his predecessors.

The Bombay attacks could be a message to Zardari that, though he may be uninterested in Kashmir, the issue is still central to many in Pakistan.

The new label used may also be significant. Deccan, a region in south-central India, was the intellectual and cultural capital of Indian Islam for centuries.

By using the term “Deccan Mujahedin”, the terrorists may be trying to pass two messages. First, that the Islamist movement is no longer interested only in Kashmir but intends to strive for the reconquest of the whole of India for Islam.

This runs in line with the new pan-Islamist thinking that propagates the will to recover all lands once ruled by Muslims – from India to Spain and southern France, passing by Siberia, parts of Russia and the Balkans. “Deccan” designates a movement that has universal aspirations precisely because it claims local roots.

The designation is also intended to show that India now has a home-grown Islamist terror movement.

This started to form more than a decade ago after Hindu nationalists won power in New Delhi through the BJP and its radical anti-Muslim allies. The Islamist terror movement has adopted what is known as the Matryoshka method, after the Russian dolls nested one into another. The outer and bigger doll in this case is the Students’ Islamic Movement of India (Simi), which claims millions of members.

Indian authorities call Simi an antechamber of terrorism. Within it are nested other dolls in the form of cultural associations, charities and political lobby groups. The smallest and deadliest doll represents the kind of groups that may have been behind these attacks.

The need for a home-grown terror movement in India may have been further emphasised by the success of the US-led coalition in destroying virtually all Islamist training bases and safe havens in Afghanistan.

With Pakistan also becoming inhospitable, partly thanks to Zardari’s apparent determination to move his country close to both India and the United States, Indian Islamists are forced to look for training centres and safe havens at home.

While many have mentioned al-Qaeda as the perpetrator of the latest attacks, the connection is not easy to establish.

Many experts believe al-Qaeda has ceased to exist as an organisation, although it survives as a model and inspiration. Al-Qaeda’s number two, the Egyptian-born Ayman al-Zawahiri, has been calling on militants to refocus their efforts on winning power in Muslim countries such as India, which is home to 150 million Muslims, and thus the largest “Muslim” country in the world, ahead of Indonesia.

This is in contrast with Osama bin Laden’s theory that the US and its Western allies must be prime targets because, if they fall, the world system they dominate will disintegrate, opening the way for Islam’s final triumph.

It is possible that al-Zawahiri’s writings influenced the Bombay attackers. But it is unlikely that he and al-Qaeda had any direct role in planning or executing them.

There are other reasons why India is targeted. Over the past five years, it has emerged as the largest aid donor to Afghanistan and the second most important backer of President Hamid Karzai’s regime after the US.

The buzz in jihadist circles is that once the US and its allies have left, India will emerge as the principal foreign power behind the new democracy in Afghanistan. India is already playing a leading role in training and equipping the new Afghan army and police.

India has also moved from its traditional anti-Americanism to a new policy of close friendship with the US. Earlier this year, India signed a landmark nuclear co-operation agreement, paving the way for massive purchases of American military hardware in the future.

In jihadist circles, the new Indian economic boom is often described as the “House of the Spider”, a reference to a sura of the same name in the Koran, Islam’s holy book. On Wednesday, the attackers may have wished to show the flimsy nature of the “House of the Spider” by attacking Bombay, the engine of India’s economic transformation.

However, if that was the intention, the terrorists are likely to be disappointed. Bombay and India in general have been victims of terror before, although not in so spectacular a fashion. And yet they have managed to absorb the shock and move ahead.

As always, the terrorists may end up like the man who, having won a great many tokens at the roulette table, is surprised when the casino tells him his winnings cannot be cashed.

Amir Taheri is author of ‘Holy Terror: Inside the World of Islamic Terrorism’. His new book, ‘The Persian Night’, will be published next month.

Posted in Afghanistan, India, Islam, Islamofascism, Maharashtra, Muhammad, Mumbai, Pakistan, State, Terrorism | 2 Comments »

Acid attack on Afghan girls blinds 1, hundreds of schoolgirls frightened to attend school

Posted by jagoindia on November 17, 2008

Click here for photo
Acid attack blinds Afghan student:
Eight schoolgirls are targeted; teachers and residents rattled
GRAEME SMITH, From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
November 13, 2008 at 4:06 AM EST

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — Before yesterday, Shamsia had dark brown eyes and smooth skin the colour of wheat. Now, blinded in an acid attack because she dared to go to school, Shamsia will never see her spoiled beauty.

Eight girls were splashed with acid near a school yesterday morning in an attack by two men on a motorcycle. But friends of 16-year-old Shamsia say she suffered the worst because she wasn’t protected by the enveloping burka. She was wearing only a head scarf that exposed her face, a bold choice for a teenage girl in Kandahar.

It was a day of many tragedies in Kandahar, with a truck bombing that killed six people, but the loss that may reverberate the most for war-weary residents is those beautiful eyes. Female students and teachers say they’re frightened to go back to school, even though staying away from class will signal another failure for the dream of modernizing Afghanistan. The simple act of attending school is a political statement for girls in a province where many families still frown on female education.

“After we saw her eyes, nobody will go to school any more,” said Safia Ibrahimi.

Atifa Bibi recovers in a Kandahar hospital after two men on a motorcycle threw acid on her as she was walking to school Wednesday. (Allauddin Khan/Associated Press)

Ms. Ibrahimi, a 53-year-old teacher at the Mirwais Minna girls school on the west side of Kandahar city, added: “It’s like the Taliban government is here again.”

The Taliban denied involvement, but they often deny a role in controversial acts. As the insurgents’ power rises, the frightened girls of Mirwais Minna say they have reached a turning point in Afghanistan’s culture war.

“We cannot go back,” said Susan Ibrahimi, 18, who was hit by the acid and suffered minor burns on her face. She had recently graduated and joined her mother, Safia, as an instructor, teaching girls in Grade 4. Her girls will probably stop coming to class, she said, and in any case she’s not willing to risk travelling to school – even though it’s only a five-minute walk.

“We will wait until we have security again in Kandahar,” she said. “Maybe we will need to wait for a long time. Maybe they will close the girls schools.”

Acid attacks are unusual in Kandahar; the last reported incident occurred in 2002 when a suspected Islamic militant threw acid on a female teacher. But throwing acid has become a worryingly common way for traditionalists to enforce gender roles in other South Asian countries such as Pakistan and Bangladesh, and yesterday’s attack was a clear reference to the medieval restrictions the Taliban regime placed on women.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the Canadian military, the U.S. military and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance all condemned the attack, trying to highlight the Taliban’s brutality.

“This is a sophisticated, dangerous and complicated land, with some fascinating people – some of who are not keen that we’re here, but the vast majority are delighted that we’re here, trying to protect their citizens, themselves if you would, from the type of foe who would throw acid on young girls who are trying to get an education,” Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, commander of Canada’s land forces, said during a visit to Kandahar Airfield. “Arguably, that’s why we’re here, and that’s what Canadian soldiers do,” Gen. Leslie continued. “We risk our lives to bring a certain degree of peace and security when possible to those young schoolgirls.”

But such actions by Canadian troops are not always popular. Many people in the conservative south – especially the rural areas – have been unsettled by the rapid cultural shift under the new government, which has brought a dizzying array of women’s initiatives, a new bureaucracy devoted to women’s rights, and a quota for women in parliament that has exceeded the female political representation in countries such as Canada.

The men who sprayed the acid did not appear to be carrying guns, Susan Ibrahimi said, and the nearby shopkeepers or passersby could have intervened if they had felt motivated.

“People in the street just watched, they didn’t do anything,” she said. “We begged them to help.”

Other witnesses have described the attackers as armed, however, and Ms. Ibrahimi acknowledged that it’s possible the onlookers were just scared to interfere. But she added that a strong majority of families in Kandahar disagree with schooling for girls.

Still, she said, enforcement of basic security might allow people with different points of view to live peacefully together. Enrolment at the Mirwais Minna school was showing healthy growth in recent years despite the rising insurgency.

“Until now the number of girls in school was increasing,” Ms. Ibrahimi said. “We didn’t have any threats, nothing. We need security, this is the first thing.”

In a separate incident yesterday, a suicide bomber detonated an oil tanker in a heavily guarded neighbourhood of downtown Kandahar. Six people were killed and 42 injured, including four politicians from the provincial council who were slightly hurt by falling pieces of the ceiling in their offices, officials said. Other nearby government buildings were also damaged, and the blast largely destroyed the house of the former chief of intelligence for Kandahar, whose brother was among those killed.

Haji Mohammed Qassam, a provincial council member, said Taliban threats against the council have been circulating for the past two weeks.

“It’s a very dangerous time in Afghanistan,” Mr. Qassam said, “especially in Kandahar.”

About 1,500 schoolgirls stay home after acid attack
Updated Thu. Nov. 13 2008 7:43 AM ET News Staff

Some 1,500 Afghan girls stayed home from school on Thursday, one day after a vicious acid attack on eight of their fellow students.

The principal of Mirwais Minna Girl’s School in Kandahar said none of the 1,500 girls enrolled at the school showed up Thursday because of fear.

On Wednesday, two men on a motorcycle hurled acid at the eight girls in a shocking attack that made headlines around the world.

Three of the eight girls were hospitalized with serious burns and others have been treated and released. U.S. military spokesmen said at least two of the girls still in hospital were blinded.

Two girls who were wearing full-length burkas were not harmed.

Mahmood Qaderi, the principal at the school, called the attackers the “enemy of Afghanistan” and the “enemy of education.”

“They want our youth to be illiterate and not get an education,” Qaderi said Thursday.

He said both students and teachers are worried about their safety.

“Until security improves… they will not go to the school,” he said.

Video of two of the badly burned girls shows them both in a state of shock, with one barely able to open her eyes.

Bibi Athifa, one of the girls who suffered acid burns to her face, said she and her friends were walking to school when two armed gunmen on a motorbike stopped.

“One guy squirted acid from a bottle on us,” she said. “Nobody warned us. Nobody threatened us. We don’t have any enemies,” she said.

Afghanistan’s government has condemned the attack, calling it un-Islamic and perpetrated by the “country’s enemies,” a usual reference used to describe the Taliban.

“We hope our students will continue their education after this terrorist act and we strongly condemn the attack and hope we find the culprits and bring the criminals who are doing these kinds of activities to justice,” Education Ministry spokesman Hamed Almi said Thursday.

Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi has denied that the insurgents were involved.

During the Taliban’s rule, between 1996 to 2001, girls were banned from schools. They were also not allowed to leave their home without a male family escort.

Posted in Afghanistan, Islam, Islamofascism, Women | 1 Comment »

Afghanistan’s hated Sikhs yearn for India

Posted by jagoindia on November 12, 2008

Also read: Ancient Hindu history of Afghanistan

Afghanistan’s hated Sikhs yearn for India
Wednesday, November 22, 2006  21:12 IST

Forced to wear yellow patches in the days of the Taliban, the homesick Sikhs of Afghanistan still hide in back alleys and yearn for India.

In the Taliban’s birthplace, the southern city of Kandahar, their children cannot go to school and locals stone or spit on the men in the streets, who mostly try to hide in the narrow alleys of the mud-brick older quarter of the city.

“We don’t want to stay in Afghanistan,” says 40-year-old Balwant Singh. “The locals tell us “’you are not from Afghanistan, go back to India.” Sometimes, they throw stones at us, the children. We feel we have to hide. I am even afraid to go to parts of the city.”

Their temple, or gurdwara, in Kandahar is a simple traditional yellow pole capped by the orange Nishan Sahib flag. It sits outside a stark prayer room in an obscure courtyard reachable only after knocking on two sets of unmarked heavy timber doors down a cramped mud-brick tunnel-way.

The pole does not rise above roof level, unlike the splendid gurdwaras across India where they tower above the temples and the countryside, visible for kilometres.

There are about 10 Sikh families in Kandahar — fewer than 50 people. Another 22 lonely men, all their families back in India, live as traders in the neighbouring province of Uruzgan, another Taliban stronghold. Similar numbers are scattered across Afghanistan

Most Sikhs, along with the country’s handful of Hindus, came with the British from the Indian empire in the 19th century. But after the mujahideen civil war and the 1994 rise of the Taliban, most had fled by 1998.    In 2001, the Taliban ordered Sikhs, Hindus and other religious minorities to wear yellow patches, ostensibly so they would not be arrested by the religious police for breaking Taliban laws on the length of beards and other issues.

The Sikhs who have returned since, like those of Kandahar and Uruzgan, are mainly small-time traders who complain of the pittance they make here, but say it is more than India offers. “We don’t want to stay in Afghanistan. But we have no choice,” says Santok Singh. Almost all have no papers or visas and are at the mercy of authorities in a country where corruption is rife.

Most are general traders or pharmacists. Forced to sell their goods cheaper than their Afghan competition to win business, they are too ashamed to tell their families what life is really like.    Hem Singh says, “We don’t tell our families how bad our life here really is.”

Posted in Afghanistan, India, Islamofascism, Sikhs | 1 Comment »

Brzezinski, Obama’s Advisor: The Creator of Al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorism

Posted by jagoindia on November 8, 2008

Brzezinski: Obama’s Advisor: The Creator of Al-Qaeda
Translated By Mohammad Tamizifar
10 Sep 2008

Iran – Fars News – Original Article (Farsi)

Barack Obama, the Democrat nominee in the next U.S. election, is profiting from Zbigniew Brzezinski the old American politician, who is known as the creator of Al-Qaeda, as his foreign policy advisor.

Fars reports that in the approach to the anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the public is blaming the terrorist attacks on Al-Qaeda, while fewer people are paying attention to the close involvement of America in the creation of this terrorist organization.

The presence of Zbigniew Brzezinski amongst the foreign policy advisors of Barack Obama, who is preparing to face the republican John McCain in the November elections, has attracted attention to his team.

Brzezinski is known as the creator of Al-Qaeda. He participated in Jimmy Carter’s plan for the financial, training and equipment support of the Afghan Mojahedins. He has himself confessed that he was trying to get the Russians into a Vietnam like conflict and has said also that ending the Soviet Empire was far more important than creating Islamic Jihadists.

Carter’s government, to which Brzezinski was a foreign policy advisor, also approved the sale of fighter and bomber aircrafts to Suharto’s government in Indonesia which were later used by the Indonesian army to bomb east Timor with napalm. These bombings were later named by the Australian Parliament Commission as the cruellest killing since WWII.

Mark Lippert was Obamas’ only foreign policy advisor prior to the presidential election contest. Lippert is a moderate conservative who was responsible for Obama’s right wing policies towards Iran and the Middle east. He was one of the supporters of the raising of the U.S. military budget to over 500 billion dollars. He pursues a more aggressive policy against Iran than does Obama.

Ivo Daalder is a member of the America’s New Century project and is another of Obama’s foreign policy advisors. He, with the support of Rebert Keegan has stated that intervention in international affairs should be with the collaboration of America’s allies.

Anthony Lake, another advisor who heads the Prington National Security Project, was a behind the curtain supporter of America’s attack on Haiti during Bill Clinton’s presidency, and is the creator of “Harmony between democracies in the world”, very different of course to what McCain has in mind. Keegan and Daalder were the foreign policy theoreticians who thouht up this idea.

Dennis Ross was the observer of Israeli-Palestinian conflict during Bill Clinton’s period. He believed that the rights given to the Palestinians by international law should be in harmony with the Israeli interest. He has a record of criticizing Carter, because Carter went so far to agree with Desmond Tutu the South African cleric to liken the Israeli invasion of Palestine to that of the South African Apartheid.

Brzezinski’s Interview makes clear:The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahideen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahideen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression

Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

“I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.”

Read full interview here

Youtube: Brzezinski to Islamic Terrorists: God is on your side: click here

Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan and starting the whole mess

Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version. ** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Unionand its satellites.

This interview was translated from the French by William Blum, Author of “Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” and “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower”. Portions of the books can be read at: (with a link to Killing Hope)

Posted in Afghanistan, Islamofascism, Russia/Soviet Union, Terrorism, United States of America, Video | Leave a Comment »

Obama’s policy on Kashmir will have negative impact on India and boost Paki terrorism

Posted by jagoindia on November 7, 2008

Barack Obama’s Kashmir thesis!
Mon, Nov 3 11:45 AM

As Obamamania grips much of the world, including India, the man who might become the next President of the United States has ideas on Jammu and Kashmir that should cause some concern to New Delhi.

Given its vastly improved relations with the United States and Pakistan, India has no reason to press the panic button. Yet it should be quickly flagging its concerns with the foreign policy team of Senator Barack Obama, should he be declared the Forty-fourth President of the United States on Tuesday night.

In an interview broadcast on MSNBC, Obama suggested that his administration would encourage India to solve the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan, so that Islamabad can better cooperate with the United States on Afghanistan. Obama’s definitive thesis comes in three parts.

“The most important thing we’re going to have to do with respect to Afghanistan is actually deal with Pakistan. And we’ve got to work with the newly elected government there (Pakistan) in a coherent way that says, terrorism is now a threat to you. Extremism is a threat to you. We should – try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that they (Pakistan) can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants”. India entirely agrees with the first two elements but should strongly object to the third.

Put simply, the Obama thesis says: the sources of Afghan instability are in Pakistan; those in turn are linked to Islamabad’s conflict with New Delhi, at the heart of which is Jammu and Kashmir.

For months now, New Delhi has been assessing Obama’s seeming hard-line towards Pakistan, including a threat to bomb terrorist bases there if Islamabad failed to act against the al-Qaida and the Taliban. India, however, has paid less attention to the carrot

Obama was offering Pakistan-American activism on Kashmir in return for credible cooperation in Afghanistan.

Obama’s remarks on Kashmir are by no means off the cuff. They have been remarkably consistent since he launched his presidential campaign. In the first comprehensive articulation of his world view in the journal Foreign Affairs during the summer of 2007, Obama argued, “If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban.”

If Obama’s Kashmir thesis becomes the policy, many negative consequences might ensue. For one, an American diplomatic intervention in Kashmir will make it impossible for India to pursue the current serious back channel negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir, the first since 1962-63.

India and Pakistan have made progress in recent years, because their negotiations have taken place in a bilateral context. Third party involvement will rapidly shrink the domestic political space for India on Kashmir negotiations.

For another, the prospect that the U S might offer incentives on Kashmir is bound to encourage the Pakistan Army to harden its stance against the current peace process with India.

Finally, the sense that an Obama Administration will put Jammu & Kashmir on the front burner would give a fresh boost to militancy in Kashmir and complicate the current sensitive electoral process there. Kashmiri separatist lobbies in Washington have already embraced Obama’s remarks.

To be sure, Indo-U S relations are much stronger today to suggest a return to the discordant early 1990s, when Kashmir topped the bilateral agenda. Yet, New Delhi cannot ignore that Pakistan is likely to be at the very top of a President Obama’s national security agenda and his perception of a linkage between Kashmir and Afghanistan.

India’s chattering classes may be carried away by Obama’s talk of ‘change’ in Washington. On Kashmir at least, India badly needs ‘continuity’ with President George W Bush’s deliberate hands-off approach.

Although his historic civil nuclear initiative got all the attention, President Bush’s Kashmir policy has contributed even more significantly to the transformation of Indo-U S relations.

Despite relentless pressures from Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Bush refused to inject the U S into the Indo-Pak conflict. By ending the traditional American meddling in Kashmir, Bush created the conditions for purposeful bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad. India would not want Obama to disrupt this positive dynamic in the subcontinent.

India does not disagree with Obama that a Pakistan secure within its own borders is good for the whole region. That indeed is the basis on which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his predecessor Atal Bihari Vajpayee explored solutions to the Kashmir dispute on a bilateral basis.

India’s problem with the Obama thesis is in the simplistic trade-off it sets up between Kashmir and Afghanistan. More than seven years after 9/11, Washington has begun to understand that the source of the problem in both Kashmir and Afghanistan is the Pak Army and its instrumentalisation of extremism to achieve political objectives.

Ending the Army’s right to define Isalamabad’s national security goals would make it a lot easier to resolve Pakistan’s disputes with both India and Afghanistan. That in turn would demand Indo-U S cooperation in accelerating Pakistan’s democratic transition by establishing firm civilian control over the military.

(C. Raja Mohan is a Professor at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University and a Contributing Editor of The Indian Express.)

Posted in Afghanistan, India, Islamofascism, Kashmir, Pakistan, Terrorism, United States of America | Leave a Comment »

Musharraf, key figure in Pak’s Kashmiri Islamic militant project

Posted by jagoindia on August 18, 2008

Musharraf, key figure in Pak’s Kashmiri militant project

New Delhi, Aug 17 (PTI) Close on the heels of growing global criticism over ISI links with Islamic militants, a leading US think-tank has said that Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf is a key figure in Pakistan’s Kashmiri Islamist militant project.
It also said that the US could officially designate the ISI as a terrorism-supporting entity.

Stating that ISI played a key role in the rise of transnational jihadism by cultivating Islamist militants for its own strategic purposes in Afghanistan and Kashmir, the Texas based Intelligence analysis agency, Stratfor has said that “Pakistan lacks any institutional checks that could help maintain oversight over ISI operations.” Giving support to India’s long held view that ISI is patronising militants in Kashmir by giving them all possible help, Stratfor which is a publisher of online geopolitical intelligence in its recent report ‘Pakistan: Anatomy of the ISI’ said the ISI had cultivated Kashmir-specific Islamist militant groups.

The report also said though Pakistan is trying to maintain its status as an ally in the US war against terror, “there is evidence implicating the ISI in large-scale attacks in both Afghanistan and India.” Talking about the Kargil war which it said was against the state intent, the report said, “ISI and Pakistan army had been working to send Islamist militants into Indian Kashmir, a process that led to short Kargil War in the summer of 1999 – the same year in which army chief Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key figure in Pakistan’s Kashmiri Islamist militant project, came to power in an October coup.” PTI

Posted in Afghanistan, India, ISI, Islamofascism, Pakistan, Terrorism, United States of America | Leave a Comment »