As we have reported again and again, the Islamic war of conquest is global and aimed at all non-Muslims. India has suffered from Islamic warfare for centuries; it is estimated that some 80 million Hindus were killed by Muslim invaders and occupiers before they were driven out.
Today's attacks in Mumbai (Bombay) are intended to bring down the government, deliver a body body to tourism and the economy, sow fear, discord, anger and chaos.
Muslims constitute 10 to 15% of India's population, which translates into some 110 to 160 million. How many of those are active terrorists or supportive of such terrorists is unknown.
n addition, suspicions about recent murderous Islamic attacks inside India have centered on Muslims from Pakistan. Pakistan itself has become a target of homegrown Islamic supremacists as well as of terrorists leaving Iraq. To this point, the Indian government has, incredibly from an American point of view, treated these attacks as business as usual, sort of a nuisance, a large nuisance to be sure, but a nuisance nonetheless.
The decades-long insurrection by Muslims in Indian-controlled Kashmir has resulted in thousands of deaths. Kashmiri terrorists have been arrested staging terrorist attacks outside Kashmir elsewhere in India.
What's difference about today's attacks is the level of sophistication and its magnitude. Will this shake the Indian government out of its torpor?
Will it also have the effect of making the U.S. government finally acknowledge that the terrorism and other attacks being fought worldwide are Islamic in nature, flowing from the core documents of Islam?
Rumors are surfacing that similar attacks are in preparation for New York City's subway system during the holidays. Hugh Hewitt reminds us:
When highly coordinated attacks like those in India unfold, the families of victims have to wonder whether the attacks might have been prevented but for the blows to surveillance of terrorism suspects brought about by leaks such as those involving the Swift program that tracked terrorist financing. The New York Times defended its actions and those of the Los Angeles Times at the time, but it is in the aftermath of deadly attacks that we should all revisit the recklessness of MSM in dealing with such matters.No one will ever be able to prove whether an uncompromised Swift program might have penetrated such a big ring of terrorists, but at the time of the controversy, I did interview the Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus, who admitted that the story might have helped terrorists elude capture. When hell breaks loose, we ought to remind ourselves that the media has in the past decided for itself when security could be breached.
The villains are the terrorists, of course, but their lives are made easier by every leak of a national security secret.
