Friend and Ally Update: "Saudi-based NRIs funded Mumbai blasts: ATS," from the Times of India, with thanks to Infidel Pride. An NRI is a Non-Resident Indian.
MUMBAI: More than nine lakh riyals - nearly Rs 1.2 crore - were transferred from Saudi Arabia to Mumbai in the past one year for the 7/11 blasts, said anti-Terrorists squad sources on Tuesday.A part of the money was used over a period of six months to plan and execute the blasts on Mumbai's suburban trains, which highly placed sources said was the job of Lashkar-e-Taiba, which had used ex-SIMI members.
An officer, involved with the 7/11 investigations, told TOI that NRIs in Saudi Arabia had funded the Gujarat Muslim Revenge Force in 2003, when it carried out twin explosions at Gateway of India and Mumbadevi - killing 53 people.
"A similar group of NRIs funded the train blasts and the motive again is revenge for the Gujarat carnage. If you see a list of casualties, 12 men are Gujarati diamond brokers while 25 injured are Gujarati businessmen. The entire operation was meticulously planned and terrorists had studied the profile of passengers," the officer stated.
Sources told TOI the money was sent to India through hawala and at least a dozen locals were involved, including two from Pune, two from Mumbai and one from Bihar. Those detained in this connection include Altaf and Badrul Jama, but a key operator, identified as Kamrul, is still absconding.
Hawalas are informal money transfer systems. Very hard to trace.
Not our strong allies in the war on terror!!!But the bush's get so much much money from the house of saud,how can they be bad?
interesting site, keep on bloggin
-- FreeCyprus
http://hellenic-reporter.blogspot.com/2006/07/killing-in-name-of-religion_31.html
NRI (Non Resident Indian) is a term used for Indian expats abroad. Rs 1.2 Crore == $275,000 .
"A similar group of NRIs funded the train blasts and the motive again is revenge for the Gujarat carnage. If you see a list of casualties, 12 men are Gujarati diamond brokers while 25 injured are Gujarati businessmen
Absolute bumkum..... when did jehadis need any reason to murder people. This sort of moral equivalence abounds Indian MSM. Hindus are to tolerate all jehadi attacks on them in the name of Gujarat. Moreover why would terrorists bother targetting Gujaratis in Bombay... Indian state of Gujarat is full of them.
NRI INDIANS.
of course this article doesn't say who these nri indians are. Are they hindus? jains? buddhists? sikhs? christians? tamils? bengalis? westerners are left with the impression that it's just some indians living outside india. we know that these NRI indians seeking revenge for gujrat riots can only be muslims. Maybe even so called moderate muslims, supporting jihad in india. These muslim indians have no love for india and no love for the culture of india they have love only for islam and the Arab culture.
NRI INDIANS.
Of course this article doesn't say who these nri indians are. Are they Hindus? Jains? Buddhists? Sikhs? Christians? Tamils? Bengalis? or any other groups?
Westerners are left with the impression that it's just some indians living outside india. we know that these NRI indians seeking revenge for gujrat riots can only be muslims. Maybe even so called moderate muslims, supporting jihad in india. These muslim indians have no love for india and no love for the culture of india they have love only for islam and the Arab culture.
Gujarat was the first time since 1947 when Hindus inflicted more casualties than they sustained in riots that commenced when muslims burnt a train.
http://images.google.com/images?q=Godhra&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
The Hindu reaction was spontaneous and hard to control since it was widespread over an entire state, with sporadic incidents in other areas. The government did all that it could to stop the Hindus, and they were suppressed. There have been a number of terrorist strikes in the name of Gujarat, and everyone in the establishment is afraid of such reaction happening again.
Arjun, I'm afraid that from islamic history the only way to get them to treat other people with respect is to instill the fear in them that if they practice jihad they and their mosques and their korans will be totally wiped out. Basically make them aware that if they do unto others then others will do the same to them. Not quite the Golden Rule, but it works.
Bohemond,
If you have followed naseem's postings, she seems to be afraid of Sikhs. This warrior caste was conceptualized out of dire need and eventually became a full fledged path. The Sikhs did not fight with the Code that was binding on Kshatriyas. (This code made them meet the enemy on equal terms, man to man, armed to armed, no prisoners of war, no torture, no killing of unarmed. No fighting at night, no guerilla warfare, no forced evacuation of muslim populations from cities that the Kshatriyas won back.) That is why they were singularly effective. The Sikhs took no POW's, but they never let a muslim walk away alive after a battle, even when he had dropped his arms and pleaded for life. (The Kshatriyas let them go, they simply rebanded and attacked again a few years later). That is why naseem is afraid of Sikhs. That is why all muslims are afraid of Sikhs. When the Sikhs won a city back from muslims, they made the muslim population leave, and since they had finished off the males, the remaining families left and the victory was absolute. ONLY this solution worked. The Sikhs were born during the Latter campaigns, and all the good that they did was undone by the arrival of the British, hence the present situation in the Indian subcontinent. Had the defensive continued for some more time, we would have thrown them in the badlands of iran, where they came from. Alas.
Yes, I know Arjun. Hard tactics by todays standards, but they got the desired results. Brute force in large amounts is the only thing the muslims seem to understand or respect. Vald Tepes/Drakul had similar results in Transylvania. Brutal, cruel, ruthless, but he definately got their attention. An old military saying : "When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds WILL follow". Maybe we need to return to those days of yesteryear.......
Bohemond,
I am doing some reading on Vald Tepes after reading your post. Very interesting. Words often are modified in the course of time. Do you think Wallach = Balooch ?
Also, since he remained the prisnoner of turks for so long, do you think he was sadistic because of that ? Here is a link to what 'peaceful' turks did in a more recent time. It is relevant, since we are discussing cruelty of Vlad Tepes here.
http://www.bibleprobe.com/christianmartyrs-armenia.htm
Yeah right, do unto them, what they do unto you. We need hindu terrorists. No quarters given. NO prisoners taken.
Vikrant
You are right that the Jihadis don't need a provocation per se, although a 'rationalization' never hurts when it comes to justifying their actions. Also, Gujjus weren't the target of Mumbai - SIMI very blatantly states that they want to 'liberate' India. In Marxist speak, that meant bringing a place under the red flad of communism; in Muslim speak, it means bringing it under the rule of Allah. They probably have wet dreams about Aurangzeb.
That said, if they were targeting Gujratis, they wouldn't dare pull that off in Gujarat - it would be Godhra all over again. As it is, Gujjus do a fantastic job keeping the Qatloos on a leash - boycotting them thoroughly both socially and economically (using Gandhi's tactics, but against his favorites in a way he would have recoiled), and their police do not hesitate to crack down on the slightest provocation. So if they want to take it out on Gujjus, do it outside the state, and in Mumbai, run by Vilasrao Deshmukh, they know there'll be no consequences.
NRI seems to be a new substitute term here, much like 'youths' is used by the Guardian. However, it's well known that if any Indian paper used the term 'Muslim', or in this case, 'Indian Muslims', the government would aggressively go after them for fostering communal propaganda. This by no means justifies their use of such misleading terms, but they could have used terms like 'members of a certain community', just like they did for the Aligarh riots during Ram Navami several months ago.
Also, if India is serious about combatting terror, they need to crack down on money coming in from the Gulf states, or indeed, anywhere in dar-ul-Islam.
Arjun, very possible. I'm fairly sure that his treatment under the Turks was the reason for his excessive cruelty, but who can really say for sure? It's possible the traits were already there and his captivity just brought them out. His impaling the muslims (along with anyone else who displeased him) and leaving their corpses to rot in a grisly "forest" surely struck the fear of God in them. Regardless, what he did, like the Sikhs, worked.
Bohemond,
Yes, it is. The turks thought that they have had him for so long that he would better serve their interests, only he turned on them a short time later. Observe also the fact that Vlad II was forced to pay tribute to the sultan of Turkey (Jizyah) as did his father. In 1443, Vlad II retained the throne of Wallachia, but with Turkish support, and he sent a battalion to supplement the sultan's janissaries (life-givers, a word used by modern day suicide bombers). Vlad III and his brother were sent as appeasement, too. Vlad lived through it, though the Turks thought his brother unfit, and killed Radu. I think that Vlad was converted when he was in Turkey, though when he returned, he reconverted, and thus was his mixed personality. Observe also the complex politics of those days, the Christian rulers tried their best to prevent all out war, and tried to appease the muslim rulers, (see it happening today), they wanted peace in those times (like we want today).
Also, his first wife chose to commit suicide rather than be taken by the Turks. And the secret passages that existed in the castles of that area correspond with the secret passages in the castles and palaces of that period in India. These passages were very narrow, (only one person could crawl, a thin one at that) and mostly were made during muslim aggression. Note that nation states were involved then, and nation states are involved now (Lebanon, Somalia etc.). The world reaction was the same towards islam in those days, as it is today. No one actually could see the big picture (We have a hard time reading and connecting the dots even today) but jihad was there then. jihad is here now.
I am not finished reading about Vlad. So far his tortures are the ones preferred by muslims, (some done by muhammad ?). I think he was a mixed up personality. The turks converted him, but he turned on them. Also note the fact that when he was killed, his perfumed head was sent to the sultan in Constaninople. This in itself proves how much the muslims feared him. (There were several incidents in India when the heads of Kshatriyas were sent to the sultans as proof that they were dead finally. These things never took place before muslim aggression.)
I think that the Crusades were just that. The Reaction. jihad was the action.
Arjun, well said.