Posted on 08/29/2004 11:54:42 PM PDT by miltonim
Like Zia ul-Haq's son, Shujaat Husaain, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has distinguished jihad from terrorism. Unfortunately, the same thing I said before still holds true: the explosions caused by jihad are often quite difficult to distinguish from those caused by terrorism. That is underscored by the fact that Husaain considers the Kashmir struggle to be jihad, not terrorism. Once a conflict is labeled a jihad, all manner of mayhem is justified. From ANI:
Pakistan Prime Minister Shujaat Hussain has said that Jihad is different from terrorism in as much as the former is a supreme duty of a Muslim, and the latter a crime. "There is a great difference between the two, but Jihad cannot be declared as terrorism," The News quoted Hussain as saying.
Pakistan has often said that what is going in Jammu and Kashmir is a Jihad and not terrorism. Claiming that Kashmiris had launched a struggle for freedom, Islamabad has maintained that it is merely supporting their struggle.
one wonders how he views 9/11/2001?
Pure, unadulterated self-serving sophistry.
Sophistry? - that's the educated word for b$lls#t.
He is no longer PM. Can you guess why? He was replaced by Aziz:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3587852&thesection=news&thesubsection=world
Aziz sworn in as Pakistan Prime Minister
30.08.2004 4.31 am
Pakistan's economic tsar Shaukat Aziz has been sworn in as Prime Minister and says his Government's greatest challenge will be combating terrorism and maintaining law and order.
Aziz also promised to modernise the armed forces, reorganise the law enforcement and judicial systems and tackle endemic poverty and unemployment.
Aziz, 55, is a close ally of President General Pervez Musharraf.
Aziz was elected by Parliament despite a boycott by the Opposition, which condemned the process as undemocratic.
Everything I ever needed to know about Islam I learned on 9/11.
Such attitudes are voiced all too often by conservatives. Such attitudes will cost us dearly as we lose the Muslim vote. We should follow the President and distinguish between fanatics and sane Muslims. I'm glad President Bush is the leader of the conservative movement, not Michael Savage.
Considering the overall lack of condemnation of terrorism by the Muslim community, I'd say we don't exactly need their vote and won't likely get it since we're currently in the business of killing their Jihad cousins in the Middle East.
Ask yourself this: do you think FDR should have gone out of his way to court the German and Japanese vote during World War II? Think long and hard about that, pal.
We should follow the President and distinguish between fanatics and sane Muslims.
Considering that "sane Muslims" in the FBI refuse to engage in surveillance of suspected terrorist-sympathizing Muslim groups here in the U.S. and that Islam teaches that it's ethical to deceive infidels, I for one will never turn my back on any Muslim.
And between you, me and the rest of humanity on this ball of mud, I'm sick and tired of hearing Islam passed off as a "religion of peace" when the very name Islam means submission. There ain't nothing "peaceful" about being forced to submit to the Moon God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.