Should India go the Israel way?

This is the topic doing rounds in Internet after the Bombay blasts .By attacking terrorists ,most people mean India should attack Pakistan. If that is the line of thinking ,then I would say a firm no. Is this a sign of cowardice as the right wing thinkers say? No. A war should never be undertaken unless we are convinced that it would fulfill its objectives (US can give lessons on this as they are discovering that war on Afghanistan and Iraq is proving frustratingly fruitless). In this case India's objective is to end cross border terrorism, will war on Pakistan end cross-border terrorism? No, it will only make the terrorist camps shift to Afghanistan and Bangladesh. What we must do is to firmly establish the facts that Pakistan acts as a base for Terrorism. This is not to show Pakistan that it needs to act (even if truth spits on it's face Pakistan won't agree that there is terrorist activity on it's homeland) but to bring International pressure on it to stop terrorist acts.
Intelligence network is the best way to counter terrorism. We must seal our borders at all ends - even a "friendly" nation like Nepal acts as a gateway for terrorist infiltration, and ensure that there is proper communication between various law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence networks of different states. One more way India must act is to cause internal disturbance in Pakistan.Pre -1998 (mostly during PV Narasimha Rao's rule) India was following a policy of "talk and hit”, even as we were having govt level talks with Pakistan, our Intelligence agencies were given a free run to twist the internal politics of Pakistan.

What has Israel achieved by attacking Lebanon, attracted International condemnation, Increasd the count of Hizbollah sympathizers and turned Lebanon into a radical Islamic ground for new terrorist recruits.
What will India achieve by attacking Pakistan? US Condemnation and possibly a few other countries joining in, local politics which try to create communal disturbance for electoral benefits and of course a few Jingoistic bollywood movies added to the collective swelling of national ego. An idealist is an Idiot, who can't face the truth, an extremist is an evil who will destroy himself, I hope we have the courage to be a realist and act intelligently.

Islam and Terror : Questioning the Connexions
------------------------------------------------
The Bombay blasts that killed 200 innocent lives have once again brought back the sharp debates on "Islamic Terrorism"The main accusation is that the basic teaching of Islam that all non-believers shud be eliminated is the main reason behind terrorism.Add to this , the media especially the webworld is full of articles about how quran preaches hatred with english
translations provided as proof for their argument.

Here are my counter arguments to that accusation:
1.If Islam does indeed preach hatred for all non-muslims , where was it hiding for a long time?I am talking about modern history which by my definition is post second world war.Atleast I do not remember reading about islamic terrorism before Osama.How is it that after 9/11 this kind of material is getting wide publicity?Is it just a case of clever western Propoganda?Afterall the world's most crucial resource -Oil, is in control of Islamic powers and western Imperial powers would want to gain a moral high ground before attacking them and capturing the Oil resources,This propogand may just be a part of their build up towards their eventual seizure of Islamic powers.I would even go as far as to say that the blasts in Mumbai may have had US involvement to force India to take an extreme stance and toe the US line in Iran and West Asia,yest it's an extreme idea , but I am not ruling out that possibility.

2.Taking the specific case of India where were these "Hindu haters" before 1990s? There was bloodshed during partition but after that there weren't many Hindu-Muslim clashes till late 1980s when Kashmiri pandits were targeted by millitnat groups and then the the 1992 riots.If Islam does indeed preach hatred why is that Muslims were maintaining restraint for long periods of time?

3.Is this accusation of Islam being a religion of hatred just a case of bad translation?I mean is there a difficulty in translating Arabic verses ?Are we reading the meaning too literally and ignoring what the verses actually communicate? or is it being used by certain vested interests to poison Muslim minds that their religion orders them to kill the "kafirs"?

I have posted these questions at various forums on the net and I have got extremely insghtful replies as why these could be true.The basic summmary of the responses that I have got is thid, Islam preaching hatred is definitely not a case of bad translation.The Quran is written in Arabic and Arabic countries also interpret Islam in this extreme form only and the only reason restraint was maintained was that the logistics of organizing a terror network were impossible.It's very easy now to stay connected an operate through a network secretly .

My thoughts on those responses ?Yes , organizing a network is much easier now than it was two decades ago,but if Islam asks to get rid of all "kafirs" , why is that they were not passionate abt it for quiet sometime.If their god tells them to do that , they'll do it at any cost right?
About Arabic countries , most of the Arabic countries are friendly with US , the biggest "kafir" going around , so I do not see much value in the argument that they also interpret Islam in an extreme form.

I do agree that Islam is probably the most intolerant to changes.The argument I have heard from Muslims for this is that ,they believe that the Koran tells them everything about their way of life and since it was written by god , how can the mere mortals intrepret god's word according their convinience.

Recently there was an Article in "The Hindu" about how Muslim leaders in Varnasi are having a relook at Islamic preachings after the March 7 bomb blasts at varanasi.Please read it to retain the hope that may be not all muslims are thirsting for the blood of non-muslims.

Summary-
I am delibrately taking a stance counter to popular perception here to question the group think that seems to have afflicted us The reason I want to question the logic of blaming Islam for terrorism is that , if we take that argument to be true, we are not very far away from World War III , with west asian Islamic countries on one side and US and Israel on the other, rest of the world has to join one of the sides.This is just too ugly a scenario for me to imagine.

And here's a response I got from a person of Muslim faith to my Initial argumentsJews were protected by muslims at a time when christian kingdom were bent on eliminating them… one good example is that caliph Omar, in his time jerusalem surrendered to caliphate thru truce and there was no war… so when he signed the truce and it was prayer time, the christians told him that he can do the prayer at a space near the entrance of church. But the caliph refused
saying that if he pray it there today, it might be an excuse in future for some muslims to claim that this place belongs to them. (Caliph Omar is one of the best friend of Prophet). If hatred is what Islam preaches as claimed by somebody, there shuld be no people of other religon in palestine today.

Lastly there is prohphet muhammed (p.b.u.h) saying:A man who helps people who commit atricities on the society is against Islam (This is my translation of what he had said in tamil).

Disclaimer: My view are NOT NEUTRAL , they are meant to look at the opposite point of view.Please ignore the typos , I am toosleepy to correct them now...