Muslim Terrorists Bombed Mosque Because of Tourists in Mini-skirts

Yasin_Bhatkal_PTI_Clearest_29Aug13_295

This man really hates mini-skirts

Muslim terrorists really have issues with women. They’ll even attack their own mosque over the length of a woman’s skirt. (via Religion of Peace)

In 2010, four Muslim terrorists from the Indian Mujahadeen carried out two attacks around the historic Jama Mosque in Old Delhi. While two of the attackers opened fire on a Taiwanese camera crew, injuring two, the others set off a pressure cooker car bomb which underperformed.

Now we learn why they did it. Mini-skirts.

Foreigners wearing mini skirts and entering Jama Masjid in New Delhi prompted Indian Mujahideen (IM) co-founder Yasin Bhatkal and his aides to commit terror strike at the historic mosque in September 2010, the Delhi Police has told a court here.

In its charge sheet filed against Bhatkal and his aide Asadullah Akhtar, the Special Cell of Delhi Police said the accused considered wearing of short clothes by the foreigners as “un-Islamic” and due to this they decided to strike at gate number three of the mosque.

“After the recee carried out by Yasin…., it was decided that gate number three of the Jama Masjid was suitable for shootout as foreigners were found frequenting the place and their wearing of mini skirts/ short clothes while entering the Jama Masjid compound was considered by these terrorists as un-Islamic,” the police said.

So they Islamically carried out attacks around a mosque in the name of Islam… because of women in mini-skirts.

Islamic terrorism isn’t about foreign policy. It’s about the homicidal impulses of Islamic supremacism and its infinite collection of hang ups about everyone who isn’t a Muslim man.

  • Sean

    If the Muslim Iman or caretaker of the mosque wants to ban tourists from wearing
    miniskirts inside the mosque I am totally onboard.

    If Yasin Bhatkal & Asadullah Akhtar want blow people up, they should be
    given their own medicine. They certainly have no right to dictate clothing to the
    general society outside a Muslim place of worship.

  • john spielman

    Wait a minute! Let me see if I understand this process. If we were to send a woman in a very short skirt into a mosque (any mosque ) it would be BLOWN UP?
    Great, we can solve the world’s number one terror problem overnight! Tell the Indian goverment and the UK, France, Germany Australia USA, Canada..
    Add; I mean to imply that the mosque would be destroyed AFTER the woman leaves.

  • Veracious_one

    normal men love seeing women in mini skirts….

    • Adelson

      Yes, we do.

      Do you recall the fact or concept that if people try to avoid something like a pot hole in the road because obviously it is bad that many people cannot but help to steer into it?

      Such are miniskirts in a Sunday service. When everyone else dresses down, bare legs stick out like a neon sign saying “Look at me!”. Muslims have a point when they advocate conservative dress. Others Muslims take it it too far. So far in fact that they sin.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Islamic terrorism isn’t about foreign policy. It’s about the homicidal impulses of Islamic supremacism

    Look Daniel it’s not that difficult. If it is perpetrated only by Muslims and perpetrated only in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme alone, then it is either violent or non-violent jihad (holy war). Now, on the other hand, if it is perpetrated by non-Muslims and perpetrated for various causes, then it is terrorism.

    Additionally, terrorism is always and only violent. Meanwhile, jihad manifests both violently and non-violently or by any means at their disposal. As a matter of fact, non-violent means of jihad relative to violent means of jihad, manifests today astronomically far more prevalently, but because you and so many other writers that have failed to understand the institution of jihad conflate violent jihad all the time as somehow being terrorism, which again is always and only violent, the many non-violent varieties of jihad that isn’t seen through the prism of terrorism, exactly because they are non-violent, gets ignored for the most part and thus is able to manifests today totally without opposition.

    So in essence, when you conflate jihad as being terrorism, at the same time you also ignore the many non-violent varieties of jihad which manifests astronomically far more prevalently and that is suicidal.

    Additionally, when you conflate jihad as terrorism, you also open the door for the Left to blame it on everything else but what it really is and you also open the door for Ron Paul kooks to blame it on American “interventionist” foreign policies, as terrorism is perpetrated for all kinds of various causes. Meanwhile, jihad, whether the violent variety or the non-violent variety, is always only perpetrated strictly by Muslims and again it is always only in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme, and unlike terrorism, manifests non-violently as well.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      It’s not difficult.

      Terrorism is the act. Islam is the motive.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        Even though it isn’t violent, Mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage is an act of jihad and making Islam supreme is the motive. Since it isn’t violent, it isn’t perceived as being a threat and thus is able to manifests totally without opposition. Why? Because clueless writers like you routinely conflate what is actually jihad as somehow being terrorism, which is always and only violent. Thanks for helping to enable it!