Thursday, December 04, 2008

Bombay (Mumbai), Islam, and the West

By Nicholas Stix

“[Lone captured Bombay terrorist Azam Amir Kasav, alias Ajmal Kasab] described how its mastermind briefed the group to ‘target whites, preferably Americans and British’.”

As James Fulford noted, the Moslem terrorists who murdered 188 people in Bombay (Mumbai) and wounded over 300, were not instructed to kill Christians or “Infidels” as such, but to kill whites (“target whites, preferably Americans and British”). (Since they went out of their way to find and kill Jews, the terrorists obviously had special instructions in that case, as well.)

Islam’s apologists tell us that it is a religion transcending race, but few Moslems seem to have gotten the memo. Whether in Australia, Scandinavia, or France, nowadays, a pretty, blonde, Christian girl walking down a street has the sickening realization that she is about to be gang-raped, when she hears a foreign-accented voice cry out, “White slut!” or “Australian slut!”

Not “Infidel slut!...”

Read the rest, in “Bombay (aka Mumbai), and the Convergence of Race and Religious War,” at VDARE.

Please support VDARE. Thank you.


Old Atlantic Lighthouse said...

And yet those who read this are still afraid to say,save the white people, stop non-white immigration and keep the West white majority and safe for whites. Those words are hostages to fortune to be used against me, and every white person reading them quakes with fear. These are the feelings of being occupied. Its lying to ourselves to call it anything else.

Anonymous said...

Your language is very powerful, and yet I will stick to the phrase “civil war,” for the occupation was invited by the West’s elites, rather than being the product of a military invasion. And I recall the phrase of German constitutional theorist Martin Kriele, of a government exercising “partisanship in a civil war” (“Parteilichkeit im Bürgerkrieg”).

And yet, even the phrase “civil war” is imperfect, because it assumes two or more groups of citizens fighting each other, whereas in this conflict, a large chunk of the fighters are not citizens at all.

One thing I just realized I should have changed: Since not only do the attackers not wear uniforms (though they often carry flags!), and the government manipulates them against its own citizens, instead of “civil war,” I should have said “dirty war,” though this requires redefining the latter term as a combination of “civil war,” the previous definition of “dirty war,” and “terrorism.”



1. Noun 1. dirty war - an offensive conducted by secret police or the military of a regime against revolutionary and terrorist insurgents and marked by the use of kidnapping and torture and murder with civilians often being the victims; "thousands of people disappeared and were killed during Argentina's dirty war in the late 1970s"
act of terrorism, terrorism, terrorist act - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear