While the specifics of this attack are not all known, or at least not all publicized, the history and background of Lashkar-e-Taiba tell a familiar story that may explain all we need to know about the "deep reasons" for terror, how to stamp it out, and why it doesn't get stamped out.

While some aspects of Lashkar may be strange to those who live in the Levant, others are all too familiar. While ostensibly aiming to end the occupation of Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba has the goal of abolishing the Indian Republic and several other states, and setting up a pan-Islamic state in their place:

The LeT's professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India's sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar's 'agenda', as outlined in a pamphlet titled Why are we waging jihad includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of India. Further, the outfit seeks to bring about a union of all Muslim majority regions in countries that surround Pakistan. Towards that end, it is active in J&K, Chechnya and other parts of Central Asia.

Hafiz Saeed, a scholar of Islam, has said that the purpose of Jihad is to carry out a sustained struggle for the dominance of Islam in the entire world and to eliminate the evil forces and the ignorant. He considers India, Israel and US to be his prime enemies and has threatened to launch Fidayeen (suicide squad) attacks on American interests too.

The Lashkar-e-Toiba does not believe in democracy and nationalism. According to its ideology, it is the duty of every 'Momin' to protect and defend the interests of Muslims all over the world where Muslims are under the rule of non-Muslim in the democratic system. It has, thus chosen the path of Jihad as the suited means to achieve its goal. Cadres are drawn from the Wahabi school of thought. (source)

. Sound familiar?

And this may be familiar as well:

[Lashkar al Taiba] is the military wing of the well-funded Pakistani Islamist organization Markaz-ad-Dawa-wal-Irshad, which was founded in 1989 and recruited volunteers to fight alongside the Taliban. During the 1990s, experts say LeT received instruction and funding from Pakistan's intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in exchange for a pledge to target Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir and to train Muslim extremists on Indian soil. Pakistan's government has repeatedly denied allegations of supporting terrorism. (source)

As we might expect, there is a well grounded suspicion that Lashkar began as a U.S. sponsored group, created to fight the Soviets. Another Golem that turned on its creators.

And here is another charming similarity to certain Middle Eastern groups. Lashkar has a "charitable" group that runs hospitals:"Jamat-ud-Dawa," which is tolerated by the Pakistani government and quite legal. Here is a description of their "charitable" activities:

It has long been an open secret, and a source of some hilarity among foreign correspondents, that under the guise of "humanitarian relief operations," Lashkar practiced amphibious operations on a lake at its vast headquarters campus, outside Lahore. The events in Mumbai have taken the humor of these "humanitarian" rehearsals away. That day on the Neelum, I chatted with our thick-bearded captain in my very poor Arabic. He spoke Arabic as well -- from his religious studies, he said, although he conceded, too, that he had travelled to Saudi Arabia, where it is well understood that Lashkar has raised money. I was also told that around the time of the earthquake they set up fund-raising operations in Britain, to tap the Pakistani diaspora there.

Lashkar is officially banned by the Pakistani government, but the Jamad ud Dawa is not banned, and the Merkaz ad Dawa party is not banned, in the hope of encouraging moderation and democracy. Does it sound familiar? And of course, the Lashkar group has formed several splinter groups, which can claim responsibility for attacks that are disowned by Kashkar. And of course, everyone suspects that Pakistan's ISI still supports Lashkar, even though it is now officially banned.

There are some differences from other terrorist groups. At least, a few media outlets were willing to call the Mumbai terrorists, "Terrorists." And nobody cares much about their "human rights." When asked about why almost all the attackers were killed, an Indian National Guard officer said, "Unko bachana kaun chahega?" - (Who will want to save them)?" Who indeed? The down side of that attitude is that it leaves few suspects for interrogation. On the other hand, it leaves no prisoners for hostage blackmail either. Is European MP Chris Davies going to protest this violation of the human rights of the Mumbai terrorists? Will Professor Norman Paech protest against it?

So what do we have? A group that wants to destroy or take over a state or several states. Governments that outlaw and tolerate this group and perhaps aid it all at once. Funding through "charities." A legal political party and a legal charity that support a supposedly illegal terror group. Tolerant journalists who thought that rehearsals for terror operations are a big joke, and who recommend that terrorists should be tolerated in order to foster stability! Unbelievably, there are also fools who insist on "dialog" with these groups. And inevitably, there is a demented conspiracy theory circulating in "liberal" journals, which claims that the Mumbai attacks were the work of the Mossad and the CIA.

A vast smokescreen of intellectual drivel has been set up to fool people who want to be fooled. Successful terror groups hide behind "religion," "charity" and "struggle against occupation." Foolish governments sponsor them to gain the advantages of asymmetric warfare. They collect their funding under the guise of charity, like the familiar con-men in clerical collars. They set up terror indoctrination schools under the guise of "scholarship." In reality, the terror groups are bandits. Like all bandits, they want money and power. The leaders of these groups are not very different from Al Capone or John Dillinger, except that they are far more dangerous. Their "cause" is themselves. Were Bonnie and Clyde Shahid martyrs? Wasn't Jessie James fighting on behalf of the oppressed? Shouldn't the G-men have undertaken dialog with Dillinger, in order to ascertain the deep reasons for his discontent?

The case of the Somali pirates offers an instructive contrast. They are good, honest bad guys. They do not call for Jihad. They have no charities except themselves, and no political parties and no Dawa and no Madrassas. They don't kill Indians to liberate Kashmir and they don't kill Jews to liberate Palestine and they don't worry about the height of women's skirts, western cinema or the teaching of evolution. They mind their own business. They just want money. What you see with the Somali pirates is what you get: bandits, out for money. Unlike the terror groups, they don't murder people for no reason either. Compared to someone like Hassan Nasrallah, they are pacifists.

Honesty is not always the best policy, at least not for crooks, and neither is morality. The result of the honesty and morality of the Somali pirates is that they have no support. No government supports them, at least not openly. The UN does not pass resolutions in their favor. No groups call for dialog with them, or for understanding how their deprived childhood drove them to hijack Saudi oil tankers. No crowds march in the streets of Cairo or Gaza City with portraits of their leader. No "liberal" journalists claim that the hi-jacking of the Saudi Arabian oil tanker was carried out by the CIA, the neo-cons or the Zionists. They are pirates. Nobody calls them "fighters" or "militants." They get none of the benefits of terror groups. Professor Eagleton and other learned terror groupie academics will probably never write theses explaining the altruistic reasons for piracy. If they do, they will be ignored. Nobody likes pirates and child molesters and similar types, regardless of the responsibility of poor upbringing or traumatic personal histories.

To everyone, it is clear that pirates are a danger that must be eliminated. There is no "dilemma." Why not? Don't they have "legitimate" demands? Is it right that they are so poor and the Saudis have all that oil money? Surely there must be deep social and psychological reasons for their discontent. Pity the Somali pirates, who get no understanding and no help. But in essence, there is only one difference between them and the terror groups that are protected by the UN, alibied by supposedly liberal groups, supported by governments as 'charities' and 'political parties' and 'resistance groups,' pleaded for by Oxfam and Amnesty International and lionized by Middle Eastern politicians and media. The difference is that pirates are threatening the oil supply, which is very important as everyone knows, while the terrorists are only killing people and threatening civilization.

The Asian terror groups, east Asian and west Asian alike, are all part of the same theme that has repeated itself throughout Middle Eastern history: Civilization against the bandits, the desert versus the city, as it was partly understood and explained by Ibn Khaldoun. As Hulagu and the Mongols were ultimately defeated, it is understood that they were destructive vandals. Had they won, they would have written a different history. In fifty or a hundred years, if the struggle against terror is won, people will scratch their heads in wonder as to why civilized countries and international organizations tolerated "political parties" and "charities" that promoted murder and destruction of civilization. On the other hand, if the terrorists win, they will write the history that tells of the triumph of Jihad over the decadence and "Jahiliya" of Western inspired crusader states and Takfiri governments.

Ami Isseroff