Terrorists in Their Own Words -(A compilation drawn from translations ......)

The Heritage Foundation ^ | August 1, 2007 | James Phillips and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Islamist terrorists have long been at war with the United States and frequently have proclaimed their determination to win the war. In fact, they see their enemies' unwillingness to acknowledge this war as an act of cowardice. If their enemies refuse to wear the mantle of warrior, terrorists assume that they are weak, lacking in honor, and spiritually infe­rior—and the notion that their enemy is vulnerable emboldens them. Failing to acknowledge that we are at war only encourages the enemy to be more warlike.

Conclusive proof that terrorists are at war with us requires little more than reading their own words. A compilation drawn from translations of a number of authoritative sources illustrates the nature of the challenge that America and its allies face and what needs to be done to combat it.

Declaration of War

Osama bin Laden declared war on America in 1996, but before September 11, 2001, few paid more than episodic attention to the one-sided war that al-Qaeda waged against American targets. Over the past five years, others have echoed his call, as these quotes demonstrate. Together they reflect clear and consistent themes.

• These pronouncements clearly advocate terror­ism, the intentional murder of innocents for polit­ical purposes. They advocate an agenda that is illegitimate under any recognized legal or moral authority.
  
  
• These terrorists use religious terminology to legitimize their inexcusable acts. Terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda advocate a totalitarian Islamic ideology that manipulates religious words and ideas but does not accurately represent traditional Islam. Many Islamist terrorists have never received a legitimate religious education.
  
  
• Iraqis the most critical front in al-Qaeda's ter­rorist war effort, as repeatedly stated by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, his chief lieuten­ant. Even Abu al-Layth al-Libi, al-Qaeda's com­mander in Afghanistan, recognizes that Iraq is the "focal point" of the global conflict.
  
  
• Although Osama bin Laden and others of his ilk seek to provoke a clash of civilizations, they also promote a clash within Islamic civi­lization. Al-Qaeda has killed many thousands more Muslims than non-Muslims and more Ira­qis than Americans. Muslims have a major stake in defeating al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups because they are among the terrorists' chief vic­tims and pay a heavy price when forced to live under terrorist regimes.
  
  
• Terrorists do not speak with one voice. Vari­ous terrorist networks pose different kinds of local, regional, and global threats. For instance, while al-Qaeda is the most well known of the terrorist groups, many different terrorist net­works are at work around the world. These include Hezbollah, which has killed hundreds of Americans and struck in Europe and Latin America as well as in the Middle East, and ter­rorist groups in Africa, Asia, and the Indian sub­continent, which have carried out attacks in India and Pakistan. While they do not represent a single cohesive enemy, they all pose distinct threats and are a grave danger to Americans and U.S. interests around the world.

Nothing demonstrates these truths more than the terrorists' own words. The first step in winning a war is understanding the enemy's goals, strategy, and conception of that war. This collection of quo­tations is meant to clarify what the United States and its allies are fighting, using the actual words of terrorist leaders and their affiliates.

Their Words

Sheikh Hussein bin Mahmoud, senior al-Qaeda leader, April 17, 2007:

May Allah send the [Muslim] nation someone who will kill them even more [savagely], strike terror in their [souls], tear their hearts out…cut their heads off, tear them limb from limb and shed their blood in rivers.[1]

Adam Gadhan, a.k.a. Azzam the American, American spokesman for al-Qaeda, May 29, 2007:

[Y]ou and your people will…experience things, which will make you forget all about the horrors of September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq, and Virginia Tech. And let us be clear: A pullout from Iraq alone, in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands, will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes. So stop wasting your time and trying to save face with these futile farcical maneuvers on Capital Hill and start making some serious moves.[2]

Muhammad Nimr Al-Zaghmout, head of the Islamic Palestinian Council in Lebanon, May 15, 2007:

Our number one enemy is Satan, and then comes the greatest taghout idol, in the form of Bush, Blair, and the Zionist Crusaders. These have become the mentors of our Arab leaders.…

The Koran says: "Make ready for them what strength you can…." But we say to Allah: We don't want to, because we're afraid that they will call us terrorists. If killing the Zionist Jews, the Ameri­cans, the English, and the French in Palestine, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan is considered terrorism— I am the number one terrorist.[3]

Mullah Dadullah, high-ranking Taliban leader, May 14, 2007:

We will be executing attacks in Britain and the U.S. to demonstrate our sincerity and make them understand how hard it is to endure under a foreign occupation.[4]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The above is an EXCERPT...................

Hattip to the Strata Sphere for pointing to this.....

What The Terrorists Have Said

***********************************************

Every American needs to read this compendium of what al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda inspired or allied terrorists have said in their own words over the years. A small sample:

Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, July 8, 2006 (the first anniversary of the London bombings):

We are 100% committed to the cause of Islam. We love death the way you love life. I tell all you British citizens to stop your support to your lying British government, and to the so-called “war on terror,” and ask yourselves, why would thousands of men be willing to give their lives for the cause of Muslims?[11]

Mohsen Rezai, Iranian Expediency Council Secretary, June 8, 2006:

America seems so big, but in fact is like a paper tiger—even the slightest tremor could easily make it crumple and disappear. That’s why America’s strength depends upon maintaining its hegemony.[12]

Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda, April 23, 2006:

The West created the United Nations to defend their unjust doctrine. America and Europe consid ers the Jihadi groups in Palestine, Chechnia, Iraq and Afghanistan as Terrorists, so how can we dia logue with them without the use of weapons. And the leaders of our region considers America and Europe as friends and allies, and consider the Jihadi groups against the Crusaders Terrorist groups, so how can we have an understanding with them, without weapons? The UN is an infidel organi zation, and whomever accepts its ruling is also an infidel. It is a tool to execute the Crusader and Zionist decisions against Muslims.[13]

Instead of relying on biased media spin, just read the terrorists’ statements and come to your own conclusions. And note to the Surrendercrats - if you crumple in fear the terrorists will have been proven right.

Posted by AJStrata on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the Strat-Sphere:

al-Qaeda Has Lost Iraq - No Question

*******************************EXCERPT*******************************

I predicted back in March (and maybe before) that the Iraq Province of Diyala would tell the tale of Iraq, and therefore the world at large for years to come. At that time The Surge was just beginning as troop rotations were being planned to accommodate The Surge. But also by that time the sea change had begun that would spell al-Qaeda’s demise: Anbar Province had risen up against al-Qaeda and began fighting alongside Americans and Iraqi forces to purge the bloodthirsty Islamo Fascists from the Province.

I could tell this was happening because you could see a sharp increase in the number of Iraqis dying in bombings by al-Qaeda. Clearly al-Qaeda was vainly trying to regain or retain control over the people who lived in their supposed stronghold. The mass killings of Iraqi Muslims tore the facade from al-Qaeda’s propaganda, which finally exposed these killers to the general public for what they truly were. The deaths of Iraqis in Iraq has been and is now at the hands of Muslim extremists.

So Anbar rose up and killed and chased al-Qaeda from its region, with our help. Diyala Province then became the last large sanctuary for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Surge was orchestrated to close the noose around al-Qaeda in Diyala. But it would only really work if, as in Anbar, the local population rose up to kill and chase al-Qaeda out of their Province. And if that happened we had the making of a domino effect that would not only sweep Iraq, but would sweep across the Middle East and the Muslim world. That is why I said, as goes Diyala so goes Iraq and the world.

Diyala is now the next domino to rise up and purge itself of Islamo Fascists, to take arms and swear on the Koran to defeat al-Qaeda:

*******************************

Posted by AJStrata on Friday, August 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

Iraq Transitioning To Success

*****************************EXCERPT****************************

Last fall Anbar Province was a safe haven and operational base of al-Qaeda. It is not anymore. The Surge is designed to transition the trouble spots in iraq through three stages: secure, hold, build. It is now being reported from Iraq that many of the areas that were deemed unsalvageable a few months ago are now moving through these stages of evolution towards success, beginning with the capitol city of al-Qaeda’s last strong hold after Anbar fell:

Operations in Baqubah, Iraq, are transitioning to the “hold” phase of the “secure, hold, build” strategy, the commander of coalition forces in northern Iraq said today.

…

Elsewhere in his area of operations, Mixon has recommended that Ninewah province — the capital of which is Iraq’s second-largest city, Mosul — be transitioned to Iraqi provincial control. “That determination is made by people in the government. But from a security standpoint, there is no reason not to,” he said.

Salah ad Din province appears to be the primary area the enemy is moving to, Mixon said. The area most affected is the region between the towns of Samarra and Balad. “We are focused on those areas,” he said.

In Kirkuk, the general said, the security situation is improving and the Iraqi police are gaining strength. There have been some car bombs in the city, but the police generally have the situation in hand, he said.

The general also said he is closely watching the southern portion of Kirkuk province where it borders with Diyala, because Diyala province is the epicenter for violence in the region.

The report to Congress is going to be impressively positive. It will include how al-Qaeda was chased from Iraq by locals who swore on the Koran to fight al-Qaeda along side us - a stunning uprising of the Muslim street against al-Qaeda. It will include the transitioning of Iraq to at least “secured and hold”, which means we simply need to get the local Iraqi security assets up and operating. Will there be pockets of resistence - of course. Hitler is still, to this day, idolized by some wackos. But the fact is Iraq in general is turning a corner. And as it does so it is rejecting al-Qaeda and Islamo Fascism, and setting an example for the region.

I have been saying it for months, al-Qaeds destroyed itself through its murderous and cruel ways. But take this news from someone who has spent a year and half on the ground in Iraq, Micheal Yon. He knows this to be true too. And he makes the right point, if not figthing this evil now in Iraq, when will we fight back for humanity and America?

Posted by AJStrata on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 9:22 am.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More:

American al-Qaeda Cries “Uncle”

************************************EXCERPTS***************************

al-Qaeda is in deep, deep trouble in the Middle East. Since 9-11 and their one success, President Bush made good on his claim at the WTC site where, through a bullhorn, be promised those responsible for 9-11 would be hearing from all of us, soon. Now Afghanistan is a promising democracy with a bright future. And Iraq is on its way to changing the face of the Middle East. Not so much because Saddam Hussein is gone and unable to destabilize the region as before, and not because Iraq is the first large democracy in the region combining three Muslim factions into a single governing entity. While those two features of Iraq and large and important, they pale in comparison to the result al-Qaeda has garnered from Iraq. Their brutal ways created a massive backlash across the country. Former allies and enablers have now sworn on the Koran to defeat al-Qaeda. And the Muslim world is spurning the murderous ways of al-Qaeda, which is obvious given Muslims are by far the most numerous victims of al-Qaeda’s bloodlust.

So as Iraq has become a terminal disaster for al-Qaeda, it is not surprising they have released a video with lots of bravado and lame threats, and a cry to the US to stop whipping them up so badly:

American al Qaeda leader Adam Gadahn says al Qaeda will continue to target the United States at home and overseas, singling out U.S. embassies as a target, in a new Internet video released by as Sahab, the propaganda wing of al Qaeda.

…

“We shall continue to target you at home and abroad, just as you target us at home and abroad, and these spy dens and military command and control centers from which you plotted your aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, and which still provide vital moral, military, material and logistical support to the Crusade, shall continue to be legitimate targets for brave Muslims,” says Gadahn, who hails from Orange County, Calif. “Stop the Crusade, and leave the Muslims alone”.

Emphasis mine. Gadahn seems to be almost pleading in that last bit. It’s as if al-Qaeda is saying “you better stop or else we might try and hit you”. It sounds to me like al-Qaeda is crying “uncle” because they are in a headlock and finally realizing they are not strong enough to get out of it. Too bad, they should have thought of this before 9-11 and all the other attacks.

Posted by AJStrata on Sunday, August 5th, 2007 at 10:19 am.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Heavy reading ping!

[gcruse]

I’ve often wondered how differently things would have been if the President had gotten Congress to declare war.

Would the country have remained more united behind the war effort, or did the weakened involvement of Congress make splitting easier?

As Napoleon famously said, “If you’re going to take Vienna, take Vienna.” Half-measures lead to half-hearted strategies. When the greatest sacrifice asked of the public is that they keep on shopping, seriousness is lost.

Maybe the Founders knew what they were talking about when they left it to Congress to declare war.

[shield]

Great News!

[no-to-illegals]

mho....therein lays the problem....or at least part of the problem.....War was not Declared......instead a police action is taking place.....winning a police action does not work.....I reference Vietnam.....mho

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Declaring WAR would not suit our slimey politicians...they want to change their mind as the military effort progresses.

Just read some more from the Strata Sphere Blog ( They are getting crazy including Newt....):

Forget al-Qaeda And Iraq, Let’s Attack Pakistan And Saudi Arabia!

**************************EXCERPTS***************************

Between Tancredo’s calls to nuke Muslim in prayer at Mecca and Obama’s calls to invade our ally Pakistan it seems clear the war in Iraq has sent the DC crowd over the edge. They are all going mental. I just cannot help but think how embarrassed Americans must be with these two idiotic parties and their idiotic ideas. Instead of winning in Iraq they want to broaden the war by attacking our allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What next - invade France? Think of all the hoots and hollerings across the world when they read op-eds like this one:

Within the past several weeks, presidential aspirant Barack Obama has announced that he would meet with America’s enemies and attack America’s friends. Those interested in a dramatic departure from Bush/Cheney need look no further.

I do not think the American people had this in mind when they demanded a change in course on the war on terror. And the insanity now seems to be spreading as Newt Gingrich claims there is no war on terrror:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a “phony war” on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.

A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.

Yeah, Osama and his terrorists buddies will put down their arms because the Congress passes some energy legislation. Folks, stop trying to avoid the brutal truth. We are at war and we need to beat these people so they understand that while we are tolerant to a point, killing 3,000 innocent people will invoke a very heavy price. And that price will not be from the gavel of a judge but from the business end of our incredibly military arsenal. Don’t pretend those who saw off the heads of women and children in front of their families and neighbors will bow to anything less than annihilation.

Posted by AJStrata on Saturday, August 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm.

[Aria]

Thanks!

If we were united NO ONE could beat us and might not even try. The Democrats, whose craving for power trumps a rational fear of the enemy, are the ones who make some think we’re a paper tiger. The stakes in this next election couldn’t be bigger - for our kids and their kids.

However, even if we defeated them in Iraq we still have the mentality of whites/liberals who want to surrender our culture. They’re creating a cultural vacuum that will be filled by those with stronger beliefs - including all sorts of deviants and also the Muslims. We have a long way to go if we're ever going to get this once great country back.

[gcruse]

Or that other police action, Korea.

By dumbing down terrorism to carrying bottled water onto a plane and labeling domestic criminality as terrorism, which is happening, we are de facto making terrorism a matter for the police. It’s a way of accomodating, if not outright surrendering to the enemy.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See #9,.

[gcruse]

“Declaring WAR would not suit our slimey politicians...they want to change their mind as the military effort progresses.”

Which is exactly what’s happening. Instead of an icky declaration of war, Bush seems to have extended the penumbra of compassionate conservatism to our enemies, bless his heart.

[no-to-illegals]

You are correct, but one has to remember America had just Won WWII. There certainly is a difference, in attitude from our elected, after Korea. Again, you are correct.

[no-to-illegals]

Saw it...I am as surprised as you. btw, I did see the interview with Newt. I wanted to throw something at the television set.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Regarding the Leftists......

There is a book (now available in paperback ):

***********************

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz

********************************************************

And reviews:

****************************************

Editorial Reviews

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review

David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle

An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

***********************************************************

See all Editorial Reviews

Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006

Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews

A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.

The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,

Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.

***************************************

[sinclair]

save

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

More from the extraordinary musings at Strat Sphere Blog:

Democrats Voted To Oppose Protecting America From Terrorist Attack

***************************************EXCERPTS*************************************

The legislation just passed by the Congress to establish into law the post 9-11 changes to our intelligence gathering and law enforcement efforts against terrorism show how the Democrats see protecting America as totally irrelevant. I have written extensively on this subject since the NY Times exposed the fact we will monitor known terrorists overseas and ALL their communications - especially those coming into the US. We do this because it is legal to monitor the communications of terrorists overseas, and because we do not need a repeat of 9-11, where it seems we had intercepts involving Atta and the other four key leaders of the 9-11 attacks as they communicated from America.

While the NY Times claimed, wrongly (who knows it if was deliberately), that the post 9-11 intelligence gathering bypassed the FIS Court, which is responsible for authorizing intelligence based surveillance and searches, the truth is just the opposite. Since its inception the FIS Court has enforced an antiquated and, until 9-11, quaint policy that required deleting any leads related to terrorism or attack here in the US that terminate in America or with Americans. This was a bullet proof way to make sure intel alone was never used in a case against Americans. It also ensured that we would one day be attacked, as we literally pretended information of pending attack from within did not exist or matter. I learned of this policy while reviewing the Church Committee proceedings in the late 1970’s and their commentary about the NSA. Here is what the Church Committee said back then:

The interception and subsequent processing of communications are conducted in a manner that minimizes the number of unwanted messages. Only after an analyst determines that the content of a message meets a legitimate requirement will it be disseminated to the interested intelligence agencies. In practically all cases, the name of an American citizen, group, or organization is deleted by NSA before a message is disseminated.

Internal NSA guidelines ensure that the decision to disseminate an intercepted communication is now made on the basis of the importance of the foreign intelligence it contains, not because a United States citizen, group, or organization is involved. This procedure is, of course, subject to change by internal NSA directives.

Emphasis mine. Even if we had Bin Laden talking to Atta (because, as he was legally in the country, he is treated as if he is an American citizen - just in case you know), the information leading to Atta would be deleted. So it seems prior to 9-11 someone knew of some kind of pending attack, but could not tell the FBI where to find these people involved in the attack.

The above statement claims the NSA can change the rules, but the fact was the FIS Court refused to use any NSA leads in their probable cause presentations. This meant the FBI had to detect the attack independently and without much help from the NSA and other agencies. Even after 9-11 the court required, before they would even consider a warrant, that the FBI generate independent evidence that could now be included with the intel. Again, this is clear from the reporting, when it is accurate and honest:

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush’s eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.
The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly — who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.

While it is stated stronger in this snippet than in the general article I found it in, the fact is the intel could be used if it followed a procedure of notification to the court regarding which evidence was NSA intel, and it included FBI evidence independently developed. But we can see the FIS Court was stuck in the pre 9-11 mindset.

But recently we had a solution developed which was supported by the FIS Court and worked with the administration, codifying a process of detection, investigation, followed by request for FIS Court warrant. It would not last long.

One of the FIS Court judges apparently tried to undo the compromise in a recent decision. This new wrinkle could be overturned by once again going to the FIS Review Court (the appeals court to the FIS Court), or by legislation. The latter option closes down all opportunities for another judge to impart their personal opinion on why we should not be protecting Americans to the fullest, legal extent. Instead of protecting Americans and detecting misuse of the process, the judges and liberals want to assume the process will be misused and tailor it that way. It is a disgusting and insulting position to take against those trying to make sure another 9-11 does not happen.

So we get to this weekend and the choice is to track down leads here in America which are garnered by our monitoring of terrorists, or go back to the pre 9-11 days when we let people die in massive attacks just to make sure there is no possibility intel could be used illegally in the future. It is still illegal to use our intel capabilities for personal or political gain. The difference now is we have to prove this happened instead of naively pretending we can put up barriers against it ever happening. The same wall that protected Americans from some mythical abuse by the intel agencies stopped the intel from being used to save their lives on 9-11.

This is all well known to those briefed, and is why this legislation passed so quickly this weekend. But look at the party numbers and ask yourself who is looking out for your best interest and who is protecting terrorists who might be here and planning the next big attack:

**********************************************

See the link for much more on this......................

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

See#18....and the Blog for much more......

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Meanwhile the Islamfascists continue their efforts....

Kashmir: Latin America new base for struggle (Confusing Title)

*********************************************

Karachi, 3 August By Syed Saleem Shahzad

(AKI) - The limited scope of armed struggle for the liberation of Kashmir, in the aftermath of 9/11, has meant the political struggle of Kashmiris has taken precedence and after holding London, Brussels and Washington, the expatriate Kashmiris are now targeting Latin America to win support for their struggle.

The first ever Kashmir Conference in Latin America was held recently in the Uruguayan capital Montevideo, bringing together scholars, experts on conflict management and researchers to discuss ways and means to resolve the 60- year-old dispute.

The highlight of the conference was the presence of 17 Uruguayan army officers who has served with the UN peacekeeping force (UNMOGIP) that controls the Line of Control and monitors the ceasefire between India and Pakistan.

In his inaugural address, Ghuam Nabi Fai, executive Director of Kashmiri American Council said that the UN Security Council Resolutions have given the right to the people of all zones of state of Jammu and Kashmir and no one else to decide the future status of the disputed land.

"The international community must impress upon both India and Pakistan to include the genuine and accredited leadership of the state in all future negotiations to settle the issue of Kashmir to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Diego Escuder of Uruguay's Oriental and Catholic University welcomed the participants stressing that it was tradition with the Uruguayan people to support human rights, international freedoms, democratic, international law and the inalienable right to self-determination, and that Kashmiri fits in these principles.

General Ricardo Galarza of Uruguay, former chief of United Nations Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) said that the instrument of accession was accepted by Lord Mountbatten subject to the reference of the people.

Prime Minister of Pakistan Kashmir Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan appreciated the initiatives undertaken by both General Pervez Musharraf and Manmohan Singh but he said that so far there has not any substantial impact of this process on the situation in Kashmir.

Ved Bhasin, editor in chief Kashmir Times, painted a grim picture of the human rights situation saying that despite the peace process the situation on the ground had not changed and the families of "disappeared" persons are still in the dark.

Columnist Zahid G. Muhammad said that Kashmir issue at no point of time was a communal issue but was wedded to the cardinal principle of the right to self-determination. He stated that there was need for ending the policy of proocrastination and committing to meaningful and purposeful dialogue.

Angana Chatterji of the University of California stated that demilitarization of the region had become imperative for improving human rights.

Maria Viera University of Rio Grander do Sul of Brazil stated that Kashmir dispute was not a "clash of civilizations", it was not a question of Islam nor was it a battle between good and evil but a struggle for the right to self-determination.

The Brazilian scholar stated that the presence of Kashmiris in the peace process was mandatory to find a just solution of the problem.