Quote:

Eight dead, six cricketers hurt in Pakistan attack 16:14 AEST Tue Mar 3 2009 Masked gunman have opened fire on the Sri Lankan cricket team's bus in Pakistan's eastern city of Lahore, killing at least eight people and wounding six players, officials said. Lahore police chief Habib-ur Rehman said 12 gunmen attacked the convoy near Lahore's Gaddafi stadium with rockets, hand grenades and automatic weapons and were involved in a 25-minute shoot-out with the security forces. "They appeared to be well-trained terrorists. They came on rickshaws," he told reporters. A police official said two civilians and six police officers who were guarding the players were killed in the attack which happened as the team was heading for the third day's play in the second Test against Pakistan. Television footage of several gunmen creeping through the trees, crouching to aim their kalashnikovs then running onto the next target were aired by Pakistan's private channel Geo. Crystals of broken glass littered the road next to a gun cartridge and an empty rocket-propelled grenade launcher. A police motorbike was shown crashed sideways into the road at the Liberty Chowk (roundabout) in Lahore. Bullet holes ripped through the windscreen of another vehicle and a white car was shown smashed headlong into the roundabout as nervous security officers guarded the site. Sri Lankan authorities said six players were believed to have been wounded. In Sri Lanka, Sports Minister Gamini Lokuge said Tharanga Paranavitana and Thilan Samaraweera had been taken to hospital in Lahore. Sri Lankan skipper Mahela Jayawardena was also slightly wounded in the foot, his father told a Sri Lankan local television station after speaking with his son by telephone. Samaraweera is one of Sri Lanka's leading players. He became only the seventh batsmen in Test cricket to notch a double hundred in consecutive matches on Monday, scoring 214 after a 231 in the drawn first Test. Fears of attacks by Islamic militants linked to Al-Qaeda have caused many teams to postpone or cancel cricket tours to Pakistan in recent years. Australia earlier this month forced Pakistan to change the venue of a one-day series to the neutral venues of Dubai and Abu Dhabi when the two sides meet in April-May this year over security fears. Australia, who also played Pakistan in three Tests at the neutral venues of Colombo and Dubai in 2002, have not toured here since 1998. India also refused to send its team across the border amid heightened tensions in the wake of attacks on the Indian city of Mumbai, which New Delhi blamed on militants based in Pakistan. Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are due to jointly host the cricket World Cup in 2011. Last month, Pakistan's cricket chief vowed to improve security arrangements for the 10th edition of the four-yearly event and denied there was a risk associated with staging some of the games in the troubled country. Last month, security concerns raised by other teams forced the ICC to move the 2009 Champions Trophy out of Pakistan. The elite eight-nation Trophy was to be held in September-October this year but the ICC was to announce a new venue in April. The event was originally scheduled for last year but was put off after South Africa pulled out of the event and Australia, England and New Zealand showed reluctance to tour because of fears about players' safety. The shooting also came as the Sri Lankan army pushed its final offensive against ethnic Tamil Tiger rebels in the north of the country in a civil war that has claimed tens of thousands of lives.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/759738/eight-dead-six-cricketers-hurt-in-pakistan-attack

Source: 9 news

Whyever would anyone do that ?

Whoever would do it ?

Most likely the Tamil Tigers, although who knows for sure.

Calanen wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 4:24pm:

Most likely the Tamil Tigers, although who knows for sure.

The Tamil tigers?

This was in Pakistan, Calanen.

Unless there's a Tamil tiger presence in Pakistan I wasn't aware of?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 4:29pm:

Calanen wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:24pm: Most likely the Tamil Tigers, although who knows for sure. The Tamil tigers? This was in Pakistan, Calanen. Unless there's a Tamil tiger presence in Pakistan I wasn't aware of?

My bad - I thought it was in Sri Lanka.

If its in Pakistan, then its more likely to be Lashka El Toiba or some other Islamic group.

Calanen wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 4:32pm:

Lashka El Toiba or some other Islamic group.

Noooooo.... It's probably some jewish cricket hooligans, yet again. It was them in Bombay, joos. Typical.

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 5:25pm:

Calanen wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:32pm: Lashka El Toiba or some other Islamic group. Noooooo.... It's probably some jewish cricket hooligans, yet again. It was them in Bombay, joos. Typical.

Abu will be on here saying how its just to be expected given that the Sri Lankan team has an infidel coach.

calanen - this must be the first time I disagree with you !!!

I reckon Abu won't comment here, thinking this is just a cheap shot at his fellow brothers.
That muslims will automatically get the blame.
Abu will hope this thread fades away.

Pakistan has lost all control of the militants, rebels and the Taliban whose numbers have dramatically increased there.

I think this is a terrorist attack - payback - and I wouldn't be surprised if it is linked to AQ.  What would they care about cricket?  The Pakistan team won't be able to play on their home ground again for a very long time and no-one now will go near the place.

Judging by the international reaction - whoever did it will believe they scored a victory - and the international cricket teams will not feel safe again.  This could be just the start - it's one way to make their enemies suffer.

yes, pakistan took the soft road and now are overwhelmed by violence.
Their cricket team is defunct.
Noone will go there

The world should put up a big fence around that destroyed country and let them kill each other asap.
it seems their way of insanity

Would abu offer a comment here?

what's the bet is was islamics/muslims that did this ?

too yellow to comment, abu?

I expect it was Islamic extremists. Pakistan seems to be a bad way at the moment. I don't think you could say they are being soft though. They are at war with these people, just as we are. If we seal them off and leave them to their fate, Muslim extremists will take over. We need to support them in their struggle against terrorism. Even Abu would be with us on that one. We must strive at every opportunity to make this a struggle between the civilisation and terrorism, not Muslims vs evberyone else. Whatever we choose to make it, that's what it will be.

Pakistan Stocks Retreat After Attack on Sri Lanka Cricket Team


Quote:

By Farhan Sharif March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan’s benchmark stock index fell after a terrorist attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team in the eastern city of Lahore. The Karachi Stock Exchange 100 index dropped 1.5 percent to 5,596.49 at the 3:30 p.m. local time close, after earlier sliding as much 3.1 percent. 58 of the 100 companies on the gauge sank. National Bank of Pakistan, the nation’s biggest by assets, declined 4.6 percent to 62.95 rupees.

Talking about islamic banking stability:

Quote:

State Bank of Pakistan’s Shariah Board Approves Essentials and Model Agreements for Islamic Modes of Financing

Here goes another myth.

freediver - pakistan recently gave ground to the islamics.
Pakistan "allowed" sharia law over some areas of there to "appease" (ie stop them murdering others) islamics.

Obviously, appeasing islamics is fruitless.
Oppose them to the death, that is all they want.
Anyone who does not oppose them supports them.

Quote:

Pakistani officials received specific warnings that militants were planning to ambush the Sri Lankan cricket squad, but they were unable to prevent today's deadly attack because of the country's spiralling political crisis, opposition MPs claimed tonight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/03/sri-lanka-cricket-team-attack-warning

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 9:50pm:

I expect it was Islamic extremists. Pakistan seems to be a bad way at the moment. I don't think you could say they are being soft though. They are at war with these people, just as we are. If we seal them off and leave them to their fate, Muslim extremists will take over. We need to support them in their struggle against terrorism. Even Abu would be with us on that one. We must strive at every opportunity to make this a struggle between the civilisation and terrorism, not Muslims vs evberyone else. Whatever we choose to make it, that's what it will be.

The problem is chief. that loads of people in Pakistan support Lashkar El Toiba, even the government. They have huge military bases and everyone knows where they are located. The ISI provides money and arms, has even provided fire support to these guys.

People in Pakistan are sympathetic to the aims of islamists, because they are told - the reason the country is in a mess, is because we need to get back on track with our faith and implement proper sharia.

The government did some token operation on them after LET attacked India in the Mumbai attacks. Mumbai looked like a combined op between AQ and LET. This Sri Lanka cricket team attack from the tapes I have seen looks to be LET style. Backpacks, combined arms, with buddy teams.

Pakistan is two sides of the same coin. They half-heartedly attack militants in the north of teh country to get US aid, but at the same time, don't really try that hard to keep the country under control.

Remember - all of Pakistan are muslims. We are not.  

Q+A-Who could have attacked Sri Lanka's cricketers?


Quote:

A senior Pakistani official said the raid bore the hallmarks of the same militants who attacked India's financial capital Mumbai in November. India and the United States blamed the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba for the three-day assault on Mumbai. Following are the major militant groups operating in Pakistan who could be behind the attack. LASHKAR-E-TAIBA Lashkar-e-Taiba or "army of the pure" is one of the largest Islamic militant groups in South Asia, based in Pakistan and fighting Indian rule in Kashmir. Security analysts say it is a well-funded and highly organised group that sympathises with al Qaeda. A charity linked to the group was headquartered at Muridke town, outside Lahore, and most LeT fighters were drawn from surrounding Punjab province. Pakistan raided the group and shut down the charity after it came under pressure from India following the attacks in Mumbai in which nearly 170 people were killed. India charged the group's founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and other senior members Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah for the attack. The group denied it was involved. TEHRIK-E-TALIBAN The Tehrik-e-Taliban is led by Baitullah Mehsud, an al Qaeda ally, and has been accused of being behind a wave of suicide attacks that have rocked Pakistan since mid-2007, including one that killed former prime minister Benazir Bhutto in December 2007. The Tehrik-e-Taliban or Movement of Taliban, Pakistan, is a loose umbrella group of factions based in northwest Pakistan. Mehsud is based in the South Waziristan region. He is fighting to establish a puritanical Islamic society based on Sharia law. JAISH-I-MOHAMMAD This group, led by Maulana Masood Azhar, was banned along with Lashkar in 2002 following an attack on the Indian parliament. Like LeT, it carried out suicide attacks in Kashmir, but it has also been named for attacks in Pakistan. In March 2002, a Jaish fighter killed four people, including two Americans, in an attack on a church in Islamabad. A Jaish connection was made to one of the assassination attempts on then President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003, and there was a Jaish presence at the Red Mosque uprising in Islamabad in 2007. Jaish members have also surfaced in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. Pakistan said Masood was among those detained following the November attacks on Mumbai, but then denied he was being held. BALUCH GROUPS Several guerrilla groups are waging a low-key insurgency in gas-rich Baluchistan province on the border with Afghanistan. Some have taken responsibility for small attacks in Lahore in the past. A group calling itself the Baluchistan Liberation United Front (BLUF) claimed responsibility for the kidnapping of an American working for the United Nations a month ago. The attack on the Sri Lankan team is on a vastly different scale to anything carried out by any Baluch group. OUTSIDE PAKISTAN -- SRI LANKA'S TAMIL TIGERS In Sri Lanka, official suspicion will fall on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a rebel group close to military defeat in northern Sri Lanka and which has a long history of carrying out deadly guerrilla attacks. There has been no clear evidence the Tigers have operations or links to Pakistan. Pakistan has good relations with Sri Lanka and has given training and supplied arms to the Sri Lankan military fighting the Tamil Tiger rebels.

Quote:

This is not about cricket. It is about the war between Islamist madmen and the whole of the civilized world. Every day there is yet another story about an Islamist outrage - bomb in a mosque pr a market place, murdering schoolgirls because they dare to seek education, imposing barbaric punishments. Pakistan is a failed state. General Zia shot its brains out in the 1970s when he gave the mad mullahs a free hand. Pakistan, polluted with the cesspool of Wahhabiism from Saudi Arabia, is the training ground for terrorists who seek to destroy the United Kingdom. And civilized, tolerant Westerners make excuses, lapse into politically correct talk, in the UK even refuse to refer to "Islamic terrorism" and instead call it "anti-Islamic activity. Pure 1984. And "moderate" Muslims squirm, make themselves small, mumble that this behaviour is not Islamic (have they never read the Koran?), and refuse to confront and root out these monsters from within their own community. The only answer to Jihadist raving is a real, hardline, implacable, equally determined Crusade. Posted by: David Truman of Taringa 1:19pm today Comment 43 of 47

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,23836,25135765-952,00.html


this attitude gains credence with every terrorist attack and every "moderate" muslims keeping quiet

Calanen you can't treat them as a monolithic group like that. Muslims kill each other all the time over far less. An elected government in a Muslim country is not going to support a terrorist group that wants to overthrow the government. They are playing the same game we are - trying to get the modertes onside against the extremists, rather than pushing the moderates to side with the extremists.


Quote:

And "moderate" Muslims squirm, make themselves small, mumble that this behaviour is not Islamic (have they never read the Koran?), and refuse to confront and root out these monsters from within their own community.

Sounds just like Abu. He will go to some lengths to explain why Muslims should not bother to lift a finger against these extremists, especially while they have demands against the west that have not been met.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 10:22pm:

Calanen you can't treat them as a monolithic group like that. Muslims kill each other all the time over far less. An elected government in a Muslim country is not going to support a terrorist group that wants to overthrow the government. They are playing the same game we are - trying to get the modertes onside against the extremists, rather than pushing the moderates to side with the extremists.

FD, may be it is time to stop playing games? Do you play games with malaria parasites or cholera or TB?

I feel it was this attack against sportsmen that riled me so much.

In the sporting field, colour, creed, culture, belief, tounge in immaterial.
What counts is how well one can throw a ball, swing a bat, support a teammate.
There is a purity on a sports field that benefits everyone.

The latest attack just goes against that cohesion.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 10:22pm:

Calanen you can't treat them as a monolithic group like that. Muslims kill each other all the time over far less. An elected government in a Muslim country is not going to support a terrorist group that wants to overthrow the government. They are playing the same game we are - trying to get the modertes onside against the extremists, rather than pushing the moderates to side with the extremists.

I think you missed my point. I'm saying that they have much more in common with the attackers and terrorists than they do with the West. Not that every single person in Pakistan supports the people that attacked the bus, but do I REALLY need to say that every time. Because you can find a man in a cafe in Lahore who says he is not supportive of them, doesnt mean that they are not obtaining significant support from the ISI and elements of the Pakistani military.

Constantly saying 'Well NOT EVERY MUSLIM does x or y' is not useful, is obvious, and prevents us from ever talking about real problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


Quote:

“When the Americans started bombing the Taliban, the Frontier Corps started shooting at the Americans,” we were told by one of Suran Dara’s villagers, who, like the others, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being persecuted or killed by the Pakistani government or the Taliban. “They were trying to help the Taliban. And then the American planes bombed the Pakistani post.”

Also the news now is saying that the security detail 'melted away' when they were attacked. Now some did not, and 6 brave men died defending their charges.  Full credit to them.

But have you seen the security details that go with cricket teams in India and Pakistan? Dozens of cops and military, all of whom suddenly took off just before the shooting happened. Now I wonder why that was?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/srilanka/4937976/Sri-Lankan-cricketers-We-were-sitting-ducks-says-Chris-Broad-accusing-Pakistan-security-services.html


Quote:

Yet despite earlier promises that match officials and players would be treated to “presidential-style security”, scores of police and soldiers appeared to melt away from the fray. Speaking in Manchester after flying home from Pakistan, Mr Broad said that members of his party realised they had been abandoned only when a solitary policeman returned, pulled the dead driver from his seat and drove them to the safety of the Gaddafi Stadium. “I am extremely fortunate to be here today,” the match referee said. “When we saw the TV pictures we could quite clearly see our white van and an ambulance in the middle of the roundabout, with the terrorists shooting either past the van or into it. “There were no security forces to be seen. They had clearly left the scene, leaving us to be sitting ducks.

Now why did they 'melt away' - perhaps it was because they were in league with the terrorists, or perhaps they were cowards, or perhaps they thought "Serves the kuffar infidel bastards right, I'm not going to shoot at my muslim brothers.' Any of these options is not good.

Will the attack on sport prove to be the undoing of islamics ?

Will the cricket crazy pakistanis as a people stand against the insanity of islam?

Will those who know islamics and also love sport "take sides".


It is my hope.





Quote:

PAKISTAN'S cricketing legend Imran Khan had long said cricket was safe because even extremists understood how passionately the Pakistani people loved the game. Precisely. The perpetrators of Tuesday's appalling attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team well knew they were crossing the line in targeting such a potent symbol of unity, the one sport which has managed to level the playing fields of a troubled region. For all the horror that has been visited upon Pakistan recently, mostly in the name of militant Islam, nothing would focus the world's attention as keenly as making international cricket bleed. However, whose cause, and to what end the escalating violence, is dangerously unclear. We are already tragically familiar with the depravity of the militants' methods: the decapitations on YouTube, the suicide bombings, the razing of schools, the assassination of the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Most Pakistanis are moderate Muslims; in last year's elections Islamic militants fared miserably at the polls. But shadowy armed Islamic militants have long been quietly coddled and nurtured by Pakistan's powerbrokers for both nationalistic and personal agendas; to fight India's troops in the protracted proxy war over Kashmir, as a buffer against Soviet troops occupying neighbouring Afghanistan during the Cold War, and as leverage in the often dirty contest for national leadership. The US-led "war on terror" which unseated the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001 was supposed to have been quickly wrapped up. Now the worsening violence there, and Pakistan's strategic role as a staging point for US forces, is further fanning radical Islam inside Pakistan. It has become increasingly difficult for Pakistan to play it both ways; allying itself with the US-led counter-terrorism campaign in exchange for massive financial aid, while playing host to some the world's most brutal local and foreign extremists. It is less than a year since Pakistan's formidable military strongman, General Pervez Musharraf, was finally forced out of the presidency and a new, elected, civilian government installed, briefly reviving hope. But the familiar mantra of corruption and incompetence is again tarnishing Pakistani democracy, and recasting the hard men of the military in a softer light. For all the distracting political reshuffles, however, no civilian or military administration has proved able, or willing, to shut the militants down. Nor has any government clawed back the overwhelming poverty and illiteracy upon which extremists prey. Which is where cricket comes in. For decades cricket has delivered what daily life, for most, has not: fostering goodwill across Pakistan's deep social, economic and ethnic divides, smoothing relations across the sub-continent and promoting national pride in the international arena. Cricket matters. For the cricket world, the challenge now is how to help Pakistan stay in the game.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/keep-pakistan-in-the-game/2009/03/04/1235842487801.html

Quote:

nasirkhan8 6:45am today As a Pakistani, I offer my deepest apologies to our Sri Lankan guests for this tragic incident. They are real heroes for the composure they have displayed. May Allah grant patience to the families of the brave policemen who died performing their duty. Moderate Pakistani's(95% plus)have to wake up to the serious threat which the coward brain dead terrorists pose to us, and the entire area (if not the world). This will be possible if we can restore the independent judiciary, which can keep the corrupt politicians in check.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25140814-601,00.html

Amen nasirkhan

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 5:25pm:

Calanen wrote on Mar 3rd, 2009 at 4:32pm: Lashka El Toiba or some other Islamic group. Noooooo.... It's probably some jewish cricket hooligans, yet again. It was them in Bombay, joos. Typical.

Mossad, fer sure!!!         :D

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 9:50pm:

I expect it was Islamic extremists. Pakistan seems to be a bad way at the moment. I don't think you could say they are being soft though. They are at war with these people, just as we are. If we seal them off and leave them to their fate, Muslim extremists will take over. We need to support them in their struggle against terrorism. Even Abu would be with us on that one.

Exactly wrong.







Quote:

We must strive at every opportunity to make this a struggle between the civilisation and terrorism, not Muslims vs evberyone else. Whatever we choose to make it, that's what it will be.

Exactly wrong.







ISLAM is the motivation for this act of terror.

ISLAM is the enemy.

ISLAM is the evil which confronts us.


We must all face up to that TRUTH.

The attack was obviously designed to cause political pressure and no doubt it will.

People shouldn't be surprised by what people will do when their mentality is so focussed on one thing.

Pakistan's Frontier Corps: Friend or Foe?
By James Gordon Meek

The dustup between the U.S. and its Pakistani counterterror allies over a June 10 firefight on the Afghanistan border has stirred up new questions about Islamabad's commitment to the fight and the loyalties of its border guards.

According to Pakistan, at least 11 of its paramilitary Frontier Corps border force were killed by coalition forces firing into Pakistan from inside Afghanistan this week. That's a pretty novel charge but hardly a new complaint. What Pakistani officials typically fail to acknowledge are the countless cross-border incursions by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other militias enjoying safe havens in their country, who often fire rockets at U.S. and Afghan bases from the tribal areas on the other side of the disputed Durand Line.

To bolster U.S. claims that its forces on the Afghan side were attacked during a combat operation in Kunar province coordinated in advance with Pakistani military commanders, the U.S. military command at Bagram Airfield released an edited video of the 90-minute firefight taken by an unmanned drone (see below). A small group of people can be seen on the infrared video firing small arms and RPGs as an unidentified narrator points out that, "It is clear that there are no military structures or outposts in the area."

While the governments involved sort out who fired at whom, it’s worth noting that U.S. troops fighting along the border have long contended that the Frontier Corps - an almost exclusively Pashtun tribal militia overseen by Islamabad - has been viewed as often aiding or abetting Islamic insurgents. Pakistan defends the force by saying they have suffered hundreds of casualties fighting extremists.

One U.S. veteran involved in the border fight recently told me about an ambush in which a Special Forces operator was killed. U.S. troops following a blood trail leading to a wounded attacker found he was a Frontier Guard officer carrying a map that identified multiple U.S. "hide sites" used to maintain covert surveillance of cross-border incursions.

When I visited Camp Tillman near Lwara, Afghanistan three years ago for the New York Daily News, U.S. commanders complained bitterly about a number of incidents in which Frontier Corps troops looked the other way when Al Qaeda-led insurgents ambushed U.S. troops and never warned their American counterparts of interlopers they could plainly see from their rocky outposts.

Last April, a Washington Post reporter visited the same area and was told by one soldier: "The Frontier Corps might as well be Taliban .... They are active facilitators of infiltration."

None of this should be surprising. A 1996 State Department cable declassified last year and obtained by the National Security Archive said Islamabad had used the Frontier Corps to train and fight alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. "These Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat," the cable said.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/06/pakistans_frontier_corps_frien.php

Get edumacated Fd - you are buying the bs multiculti party-line again instead of the truth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07pakistan-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin


Quote:

But as the incident on the Afghan border suggests, little in Pakistan is what it appears. For years, the survival of Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders has depended on a double game: assuring the United States that they were vigorously repressing Islamic militants — and in some cases actually doing so — while simultaneously tolerating and assisting the same militants. From the anti-Soviet fighters of the 1980s and the Taliban of the 1990s to the homegrown militants of today, Pakistan’s leaders have been both public enemies and private friends. When the game works, it reaps great rewards: billions in aid to boost the Pakistani economy and military and Islamist proxies to extend the government’s reach into Afghanistan and India.

This statement is truly clueless Fd - I'm sorry, but it really is:


Quote:

We need to support them in their struggle against terrorism. Even Abu would be with us on that one. We must strive at every opportunity to make this a struggle between the civilisation and terrorism, not Muslims vs evberyone else.

Quote:

Whatever we choose to make it, that's what it will be.

You really think it's up to us to define how we are attacked by these people? I think they have their own plans just quietly, and that our view really doesn't matter.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 10:22pm:

Calanen you can't treat them as a monolithic group like that. Muslims kill each other all the time over far less. An elected government in a Muslim country is not going to support a terrorist group that wants to overthrow the government. They are....trying to get the modertes onside against the extremists, rather than pushing the moderates to side with the extremists.

FD,

You are wrong.

There are no moderate muslims.

There is no moderate ISLAM.

A muslim, is a muslim, is a muslim.

Period.



To a real muslim, a 'moderate' muslim is an apostate [i.e worthy of death].

And that is the same game which the Jihadists play with us,
...."But i am a moderate!"




ISLAM is treachery.

ISLAM is lies, deceit, and violence, .....against unbelief.

Against all non-muslims.



Wake up!

.....or accept Sharia for your children.        :)





Do you really believe the assurances of ppl in Australia [who call themselves muslims], about what they describe as the tolerant beliefs of 'true' muslims?

How gullible are we?

ISLAM demands total intolerance of the Jahiliyya [un-ISLAMIC] lifestyle - among muslims.



A pronouncement against Jahiliyya, from an ISLAMIC site,

"THE RIGHT TO JUDGE"
"It is not the function of Islam to compromise with the concepts of Jahiliyya which are current in the world or to co-exist in the same land together with a jahili system........"
by SAYYID QUTB
http://www.islamworld.net/justice.html



"....Jahiliyya is a result of the lack of Sharia law, without which Islam cannot exist;"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahiliyya#Jahiliyya_in_contemporary_society



Wake up!

The regime in Pakistan is engaging in ISLAMIC treachery against the West, and it is 'playing' the West like a fiddle!

Wake up!

And smell the flowers.

yadda - this is one of the times I get to disagree with you !!!!!!

Sure ther are "moderate" muslims. Same as there are "moderate" christians, "moderate" jews and "moderate" satanists.

I have nothing to fear from "moderates".i
+

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

yadda - this is one of the times I get to disagree with you !!!!!! Sure ther are "moderate" muslims. Same as there are "moderate" christians, "moderate" jews and "moderate" satanists. I have nothing to fear from "moderates".

sprint,

Can you identify one, a moderate muslim?

And feel confident that, that muslim will still be 'moderate',
.....when your back is turned?



Please understand ppl, ISLAM is about treachery, deceit, and violence.

But most of all, ISLAM is about treachery.


Whatever, a muslim tells you, [if you are a non-muslim] you can not take it at face value.


ISLAM is treachery.

Quote:

There are no moderate muslims. There is no moderate ISLAM.

Yadda, what it boils down to is, they are all people. Islam is an ideology, but Muslims are people. No matter what Islam might say, at the end of the day they are going to think for themselves. Their decision will be affected just as much by the actions of extremists as it is by how we respond to those extremists. If there is a fight coming, I would much prefer it to be in the middle east between moderate and extremist Muslims than all over the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. I expect that it will be too, unless we do something really stupid.

yes, it depends on who "controls" islam as to where it goes.

the majority of muslims are ordinary ordinary people.
It's only the radical leaders we are concerned with.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:

Quote: There are no moderate muslims. There is no moderate ISLAM. Yadda, what it boils down to is, they are all people. Islam is an ideology, but Muslims are people. No matter what Islam might say, at the end of the day they are going to think for themselves. Their decision will be affected just as much by the actions of extremists as it is by how we respond to those extremists. If there is a fight coming, I would much prefer it to be in the middle east between moderate and extremist Muslims than all over the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. I expect that it will be too, unless we do something really stupid.

Quote:

.....but Muslims are people.

FD,

OK.

How do you define a muslim?

What is a muslim?







Hint.

A muslim, is a person who believes in promoting the spread of Sharia.

Sharia!





FD,

Ask your 'moderate' muslim friend.....

"As a muslim, do you support the 'Cause of Allah'?"

[i.e. do they want to see the propagation of ISLAM, Sharia law, into all nations?]




If they say 'Yes', or if they will not give a categorical 'No', then they are certainly, without a doubt, a Jihadist.



If he / she clearly say's 'No',

Then ask him / her to define what makes him / her a muslim?




FD,

ISLAM is about Sharia!

Muslims [by definition], want to see the propagation of ISLAM, Sharia law, into all nations.i

Quote:

How do you define a muslim?

I don't. I let Muslims do that themselves. If someone self identifies with a particular religion, that is usually good enough for me.

There are plenty of Muslims who believe in Sharia law but don't believe in terrorism. And remember, just as each Muslim will have a different view on what being a Muslim means, each will have a different view on Sharia. For example, someone posted a poll elsewhere stating that the majority of British Muslims do not believe in the death penalty for apostates.

The history of the middle east clearly shows that Muslims do not naturally form a monolithic group, any more than Christians do. If they did, a new empire would simply spring up to replace the old one. It would be unstopable. There is clearly something other than religious conviction guiding them. It's called being human.

Quote:

Mar 3rd, 2009, 7:07pm       calanen - this must be the first time I disagree with you !!! I reckon Abu won't comment here, thinking this is just a cheap shot at his fellow brothers. That muslims will automatically get the blame. Abu will hope this thread fades away.

for sure abu has not had the balls to comment on this topic.
he has yet again given his tacit approval to terrorism.

abu - you fuching shathead you define your perverted belief well.
you kynts deserve to be floated out onto a iceberg - prix

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 10:36pm:

Quote: Mar 3rd, 2009, 7:07pm       calanen - this must be the first time I disagree with you !!! I reckon Abu won't comment here, thinking this is just a cheap shot at his fellow brothers. That muslims will automatically get the blame. Abu will hope this thread fades away. abu - you fuching shathead you define your perverted belief well. you kynts deserve to be floated out onto a iceberg - prix

Sprint - I think the bottle should read one tablet every six hours.

Here is an interesting article written by Bangladeshi muslim who lives now in Australia about Pakistani muslims attitudes back in 1973.

Rape of Unbelievers in Islam


Quote:

So, to put everything in a simple language, the Pakistani army did not kill any human being in Bangladesh. They only cleared the field from pest; just like a farmer spreads insecticide to free his crops from devastation.  So, is the case of the Pak army. They simply eliminated the non-Muslims and the not so good Muslims to protect the good Muslims those who would follow them. The question of remorse or guilt feeling does not arise at all. You see, the Pak army did not rape any women. They simply enjoyed the flesh of non-Muslims.  Even if there were some excessive force being applied, there is no need to feel guilty about that. The ubiquitous Milad is there; the Hajj is there too to remove even the slightest trace of culpability.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 10:32pm:

Quote: How do you define a muslim? I don't. I let Muslims do that themselves. If someone self identifies with a particular religion, that is usually good enough for me. There are plenty of Muslims who believe in Sharia law but don't believe in terrorism. And remember, just as each Muslim will have a different view on what being a Muslim means, each will have a different view on Sharia. For example, someone posted a poll elsewhere stating that the majority of British Muslims do not believe in the death penalty for apostates. The history of the middle east clearly shows that Muslims do not naturally form a monolithic group, any more than Christians do. If they did, a new empire would simply spring up to replace the old one. It would be unstopable. There is clearly something other than religious conviction guiding them. It's called being human.

Letting a muslim define himself [...to you], is like freediving in the ocean, and letting a White Pointer which you encounter, 'define itself'.
....i.e. ignoring the consequences of the White Pointer's temperament, power and intent.


Good luck.

When the White Pointer sees you swimming in your black wetsuit, you are just a meal, perhaps a seal meal.


ISLAM breeds predators of a different kind, but they are still predators, who will kill you if you become too complacent about their [true] intentions.






TRUE ISLAM?

Moderate muslims?

Take a lesson from the words of Abraham Lincoln,

"If you want to know a man's character, give him power."
Abraham Lincoln




Google,
persecution muslim countries
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=persecution+muslim+countries&btnG=Search&meta=

Pak rules out India hand in Lahore attack


Quote:

LAHORE, March 5: Pakistan today ruled out the involvement of India or the LTTE in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on 3 March, while indicating that the Al Qaida may have been behind the terror strike. Investigators have not found any evidence of India's involvement in the attack, interior ministry chief Mr Rehman Malik told reporters at the National Assembly in Islamabad. He also rejected speculation in the media about possible involvement of rebel Tamil Tigers from the island nation. The possibility of Al Qaida's involvement in Tuesday's attack could not be ruled out, he said, adding the preliminary report of the investigation will be ready by tomorrow.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

yadda - this is one of the times I get to disagree with you !!!!!! Sure ther are "moderate" muslims. Same as there are "moderate" christians, "moderate" jews and "moderate" satanists. I have nothing to fear from "moderates". +

But to have nothing to fear from moderates, you are talking about fringe dwellers who wrongly interpret the Koran and the Hadith and who reject settled Islamic doctrine.

But moderate Jews dont believe in conquering the world and installing jewish laws. Moderate muslims do. that is what Islam is, a supremacist ideology devoted to teh destruction of everything that is non-Islamic through warfare.

That is settled doctrine amongst all the main schools of Islam - you must wage war against the unbelievers in the Dar al Harb.  You must install muslim government and muslim laws, and all your days, waking hours, activities are devoted to this aim. The only time there will ever be peace - is win Islam has won and all of the infidels are dead or dhimmis.

Just because a muslim is not openly fighting, do not think he is not waging jihad. Jihad can be waged in stealth, by subverting the 'miserable house' of the institutions of the West, as the Muslim Brotherhood says.

Regular - ordinary - Islam beleives you need to wage war against unbelievers and install sharia government. People need to understand this. It is not weirdo extremists that believe that, but that is what regular Islam is.

ISLAM'S DOCTRINES OF DECEPTION


ISLAM's way of 'peace' explained - according to Osama Bin Laden.
OR,
Advice to real muslims, on how to be 'rightly guided' in your worldly relationships with infidels.

err,
"Fight and kill them, until they submit."

"As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us -- till you believe in Allah alone’ [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility -- that is, battle -- ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [i.e., taqiyya]. But if the hate [of unbelievers] at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!  Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the infidel -- is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them" (from The Al Qaeda Reader).
.....It bears repeating that this hostile world view is well supported by all of Islam’s schools of jurisprudence."


War against the infidel..... "we consider this a justice and kindness to them."


cited here, from.....

November 10, 2008
Raymond Ibrahim: "Islam's Doctrines of Deception"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023454.php






What does Sharia require,
.....of all 'muslims'?

Obedience to Allah's law!

All schools of ISLAMIC jurisprudence [including those 'moderate' muslims] accept as 'lawful', the murder of apostates.

APOSTASY IN ISLAM
"Apostasy in Islam is commonly defined as the rejection of Islam in word or deed by a person who has been a Muslim.
The FOUR MAJOR SUNNI AND THE ONE MAJOR SHIA MADH'HAB (SCHOOLS OF ISLAMIC JURISPRUDENCE) AGREE that a sane adult male apostate must be executed......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:

Quote: There are no moderate muslims. There is no moderate ISLAM. Yadda, what it boils down to is, they are all people. Islam is an ideology, but Muslims are people. No matter what Islam might say, at the end of the day they are going to think for themselves. Their decision will be affected just as much by the actions of extremists as it is by how we respond to those extremists. If there is a fight coming, I would much prefer it to be in the middle east between moderate and extremist Muslims than all over the world between Muslims and non-Muslims. I expect that it will be too, unless we do something really stupid.

FD,

An interesting item here from the UK,
....about the consequences of cuddling up to 'moderate' muslims, or should i say cuddling up to 'full on' devout muslims, who portray themselves as 'moderate' muslims.


March 9, 2009
UK funds meant to counter Muslim "radicalization" being used to...radicalize Muslims
Oops. "£90m anti-terrorism project is fanning the flames of extremism," by Duncan Gardham in the Telegraph, March 9 (thanks to David):
....Did they say which moderates were being ignored? This is an important question, because obviously the UK government didn't set out to fund "extremists." The people they were giving money to presented themselves as "moderates,"...
.....The Government is "underwriting the very Islamist ideology which spawns an illiberal, intolerant and anti-western world view" the report says.
"Political and theological extremists, acting with the authority conferred by official recognition, are indoctrinating young people with an ideology of hostility to western values."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025156.php




This item above exposes the tactics of lies and deceit, used by the ISLAMISTS.

And this tactic is also being employed in Pakistan, where the West is pandering in the same way, to the regime of the  'moderate' muslims in Pakistan.

And we don't care.

Our political 'leaders' are blind to the deep evil in our midst, which they are even 'accommodating' and funding.





"....Wake up!
The regime in Pakistan is engaging in ISLAMIC treachery against the West, and it is 'playing' the West like a fiddle!
Wake up!
And smell the flowers."

"Terrorist Attack on Sri Lankan cricket team"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1236058544/28#28

Quote:

This item above exposes the tactics of lies and deceit, used by the ISLAMISTS.

Yes, if anyone bothered to read the Muslim Brotherhood strategy plan for North America I posted here, you will see that one of its strategies is to create these peak bodies that will engage with the West and present a deceitful moderate face of islam.

Our arrogance makes us think that these people are not smart enough or devious enough to have such cunning plans. How wrong we are. They have the most intricate and devious plans for our destruction, set out in their own literature for all to see. Only fools would ignore it.

Calanen wrote on Mar 14^th, 2009 at 3:35pm:

Quote: This item above exposes the tactics of lies and deceit, used by the ISLAMISTS. Yes, if anyone bothered to read the Muslim Brotherhood strategy plan for North America I posted here, you will see that one of its strategies is to create these peak bodies that will engage with the West and present a deceitful moderate face of islam. Our arrogance makes us think that these people are not smart enough or devious enough to have such cunning plans. How wrong we are. They have the most intricate and devious plans for our destruction, set out in their own literature for all to see. Only fools would ignore it.

Sadly, "only fools" do!
....[ignore ISLAM's deception, of its 'enemies', us.]