Now when dealing with the war on terror with respect to the United States, I always try to bring up the inconvenient issue of America’s dealings in the region, starting with our overthrow of the Iranian government because of a dispute over oil profits and continuing onto such issues as our recruitment and training of such people as Usama bin Laden to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, our training, recruiting and arming Saddam Hussein to fight Soviet – aligned Iran, two wars in Iraq, various machinations with Afghanistan to protect a vital oil pipeline that runs through that nation, our military base in Saudi Arabia, and our abject failures in and subsequent withdrawals from Lebanon and Somalia. With that type of record plus our support for Israel, I really cannot blame any Muslim, Arab, or North African for thinking that we are out to get them, or at the very least will not hesitate to pursue our own agenda at their expense. Seriously, what basis do these people have for feeling otherwise? Do not claim that we had the interests of the Iraqi people in mind when we put Saddam Hussein in power and armed him to the teeth for the purposes of starting a proxy war with an Iranian regime that we put in power (because the prior regime wanted to use its own oil profits for economic development!) to fight a horrible war that dragged on for eight years. And as for freeing the Afghanis from Soviet domination: did any of us know or care about how the Afghanis were living BEFORE the Soviets invaded? Nope. It was all about the Soviets, never the Afghanis, which was why we not only had no problem with the Taliban regime that took over Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven out, but we actually had dealings with the Taliban. I have no problem with pointing out that a great many of our issues in that region are the direct result of first our Cold War actions, and then our attempts to be “the world superpower/leader/police” afterwards. Seriously, how many Americans honestly care whether or how people in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. live or die so long as we retain our own high and comfortable standard of living? We all know the answer to that question. You can call it liberal anti – Americanism, I call it admitting things like the fact that conservative pro – American types honestly did not care how evil Saddam was or how brutally he was treating his own people until he invaded Kuwait over his desire to increase oil prices. (Again, he wanted an increase in oil prices because his regime was broke because of the war with Iran that we put him in power and armed and funded him to fight. After the Soviet Union collapsed, we had no reason to continue funding Saddam, so he had to look after his own affairs. So, who out there is surprised that a guy that we trained and put in power to start a war reacted to his own economic and political crisis by, well, STARTING A WAR?) It is our prerogative to seek our own interests and use violence in doing so? Well fine, but if you take that belief, then you have no standing for refusing the Muslims/Arabs/North Africans that same prerogative.
However, my “contextualization” does not apply to India. India has in fact strongly allied itself with America, Israel, and China … three nations that are involved in violent struggles against Muslims to one extent or another. (China’s problems with Islamic separatists is a spectacularly underreported story.) Of course, imperalistic Islam has taken notice of this and does not like it. However, India has no history of pursuing economic and military aggression against Muslim states. Quite the contrary, India actually treats its Muslim population comparatively well, allowing them not only religious and economic freedom but to politically organize. While London’s socialist Guardian newspaper predictably claims that India’s terror problems are due to India’s discrimination and oppression of Muslims, especially in Kashmir, the truth is that Muslims get far better treatment in India than non – Muslims can expect in any Muslim country, including moderate pro – western regimes like Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.
This is not to say that India is perfect: after all consider the murderous persecution against Christians in the Orissa region. However, the issue is that the discrimination, marginalization and oppression of Muslims in India is not state – sponsored or supported. Quite the contrary, conservatives such as those who opine for the Wall Street Journal have charged the Indian government with being TOO NICE to its Muslim minority!
It is well known that Muslims in India are but one of many groups all over the world that face discrimination, marginalization and oppression. Yet how many of these put – upon groups respond to their maltreatment with sustained organized acts of violence designed to murder as many innocent defenseless civilians as possible plus to inflict widespread panic, economic collapse, and political instability? Muslims would appear to be unique in this respect. And since as stated earlier the Muslims that attack India can hardly claim themselves to be targeting a regime that has waged economic, diplomatic and military aggression against severely overmatched Muslim and Arab states, then the “self – defense” angle is not nearly plausible as it is with the United States, Britain, and Israel.
So that leads to this conclusion: the bombings in Mumbai are not acts of terror designed to cause the India government to change their policies, as India has no policies that can be construed to be opposing Islam or Arab regimes beyond maintaining financial and diplomatic ties with nations who allegedly do, which incidentally Muslim regimes such as Syria and Iran do the same by having relations with Russia, who is subjugating Islamic Chechnya, and China who has their own aforementioned problems. In other words, there are no anti – Islamic actions on the part of India for any terror acts to change. (Please, do not raise the Kashmir canard, as the Kashmir extremists will settle nothing less for India giving up control of the region, so Muslims and liberal apologists ought to call the Kashmir dispute what it is … Muslims attempting to start a civil war and to grab land that is internationally recognized as belonging to India. In other words, what ultimately happened in Kosovo, except in that instance the Muslims had our help in their land grab scheme!)
No, make no mistake, this is war. The Muslim world is at war with India. It is no less than an imperialistic war of aggression, because as stated before India has done nothing to Muslims either outside of or within its borders to provoke such a war. The Muslim world is trying to exert violent and economic pressure from without and within in order to bring about the collapse of the secular Indian government and replace it with an Islamic one. Of course, when that happens, such a government will go about forcing its Hindu population (as well as its other religions, including but not limited to Christianity) to either convert or leave. (That is assuming that they even allow anyone to leave, as they certainly did not give the Christians in Sudan that option, it was either convert or be killed or made a slave.) So, the Muslim world is waging an imperialistic war with India in order to make it into a Muslim land, just as Islam set about doing shortly after the religion was founded, just as the Koran commands Muslims to do.
Again, I am not convinced by the notion that all of these are internal problems with internal Muslims. First, even though everyone including the Indian government is falling backwards over themselves to implicate first the Kashmir situation and then Pakistan, and that a local obscure group has claimed responsibility, and that Al Qaeda has distanced themselves from the attack, we cannot ignore that this attack has Al Qaeda’s fingerprints all over it. There was the nature of the attack, a spectacular coordinated event. There was also the goal of attacking economic centers to cause financial turmoil (please note Al Qaeda’s recent claims that our current financial problems were caused by 9/11). It fits the methods, goals and ideologies of bin Laden. Also, what evidence is there that the obscure India militant group had the resources and expertise to carry out such an attack?
So, you might ask, why would Al Qaeda deny involvement and allow a local front group to take credit? For P.R. purposes. Al Qaeda’s support is based on the notion that they are defending Muslim victims of aggression. As India does nothing to harm Muslims within its borders or without, for Al Qaeda to target India turns them from freedom fighters to aggressors in the eyes of Muslims and other people in the region. Add that to the huge number of innocent Muslims that Al Qaeda has killed in Iraq, it is something that their image could ill afford right now. But rest assured (according to my theory anyway) let the Indian government take violent action, a military or police crackdown against these murderous criminals, against this army attempting to overthrow its government, and we will very shortly see a tape from Al Qaeda declaring jihad against India for its crimes of aggression against Islam.
And as for the Kashmir situation … that is even more evidence that this is an international Islamic war on India. After all, who denies that Muslims from other countries haven’t been smuggling arms and fighters into the Kashmir region that ultimately filter down into other parts of India for years? Kashmir merely serves as a front, an opening, an excuse just as “Palestine” serves the same purpose to funnel arms and extremists in through the Syrian, Egyptian, Lebanese etc. borders. Kashmir is merely what the Muslim world is using as the entry point, their home base for their war with India, and were India ever to grant “independence” to Kashmir, a) Muslims would then merely claim for themselves other places in northern India and B) Kashmir would be the launchingpad for military and terror campaigns in India. For Muslims do not merely want Kashmir. They do not merely want northern India. They want the whole country.
So, if the Muslim world is attempting to conquer India for Islam, what makes you think that they will stop there? And if they succeed in conquering India, who’s next? That is the first question that must be asked. However, the second and most important question that must be asked: what should the proper Christian response be to Muslim designs for global domination? Christian imperialism in turn? Globalism? The new world order? Mandatory religious pluralism, where all religions are forced to deny that their religion is the only way to salvation? I dare say that none of those are solutions that the New Testament would endorse.