Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
General Barron

Muslim terrorist attacks in India

Recommended Posts

I'm surprised nobody seems to have talked about this yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2008....ex.html

Quote[/b] ] (CNN) -- At least 160 people were killed and more than 300 were wounded in Mumbai, India's financial capital, when gunmen took scores of hostages and targeted several areas in the city, including the Oberoi and Taj Mahal Palace and Tower luxury hotels.

Gunfire and explosions were heard at various times Saturday morning at the Taj Mahal Hotel, where Indian security forces believed a gunman was still holed up.

Indian security forces were working to clear the Taj of gunmen who stormed the hotel more than two days earlier, according to police officials.

Before the Saturday morning gunfire, Commissioner of Mumbai Police Hasan Gafoor told CNN-IBN that one gunman remained at the hotel, shooting and throwing grenades at security forces.

"There is one terrorist who is still shooting and throwing grenades at the security forces," he said. "Hopefully, also, we should be able to succeed in another short while."

He said that most of the attackers had been heavily armed. "Most of the terrorists, the ones who were already shot dead, they were carrying an AK assault rifle, one or two handguns and grenades."

Asked whether it was possible that the remaining attackers would keep shooting until they were killed, he answered, "that's possible."

This is absolutely crazy. Open warfare in the streets of Mumbai. I hope that nobody here has friends or family that have been hurt by these evil #$#$-holes.

I honestly don't see how we can live in peace with these kinds of people. These Muslim extremists seem to want the death of absolutely anybody who doesn't fall into their narrow world view. I wonder what it will take before we can finally live in peace, free from these bastards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely sickening and the fact is, death is too good for them, it's an easy escape.

As you said, I hope no one here has any family in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing thats shocking me most is that I don't care anymore. There have been so many terrorist attacks during the last years that I have become some kind of numb... sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All other items aside, this is pretty much a "strike 3" proving a point that the objective is subjugation and liquidation, not negotiation.

They didn't go into the hotel to take hostages and make demands. The only demand was to see passports, and execute desired targets. They had nothing to negotiate over, and no interest in negotiating.

For people who have a tangible grievance, principles of COIN apply. For these cases, it is kill or be killed. There is no other option. You can argue over causes and responsibilities all you want, that makes no difference at all at this point. Your actions and beliefs and opinions do not matter. Your very existence is a blight on the planet and must be purged as the cancer you are. There is no negotiation, no tolerance, no ambivalence, and no equivocation.

It is not a matter of stretches of irrational thought presuming conspiratorial links that supposedly the 'civilians' made themselves targets by supporting, condoning, and funding 'imperialistic adventures'. The contrivance of a 'self-defense' causi belli is mere packaging. Now there are those of you here that will try and twist my words there to twist into logical backstabbing for personal political grudges. Keep that in mind the next time you and your neighbors and friends and acquaintances are targeted for liquidation solely for who they are. This is evil, and the longer you deny that reality, the harder it will be for you to cope and repel it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it is evil. So are many other things. Invading Iraq was even more evil, I am sure many think. Which were first, evil muslims or evil christians?

General Barron, I was a bit troubled of the fact that you chose to write the word "muslim" into the thread title and into your post.

A group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Mujahideen has allegedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and it is allegedly an "Islamist Terrorist Organization". It is in dispute if such a group carried out the attacks, as you can find out if you follow the link.

I was troubled of the word "muslim" because to this moment I have not read anything which would indicate that these terrorist attacks were driven by religion. That's the first reason why I was troubled by your use of that word.

For your information, I am an atheist and thus I do not take sides regarding religions.

I could understand the association of a religion into these terrorist attacks if there was evidence that their actions were driven by their religion. Currently I have seen nothing which would indicate that. I was wondering if you can educate me on this.

Perhaps their actions were driven by politics? Or perhaps by religion? Or all sorts of things combined, including the two mentioned.

Then there is another reason why I was troubled by the word "muslim". Should we call them by their religion? Perhaps in some cases, yes. Where does the line go when we should start calling them by their religion and when we shouldn't?

If a group of Christians commits a terrorist attack, and they are known to belong to a Church and we know that they were actively practicing their religion, should we call them "Christian terrorists?" That would be right, wouldn't it.

I certainly condemn the terrorist attacks. I always do. I'll say put two armies fighting against each other and I'll say it is as fair as it can get. But these sort of attacks are far from being fair.

Thanks, and best wishes,

Baddo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorists stay evil no matter what religion or extremist party they belong to ...

anyway the arguments about religions should stay out of this forum as it usually leads nowhere ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR Editorial:

Quote[/b] ] I get increasingly uncomfortable with the convention of journalism that requires us to say that so far, we don't know the motives of the people who carried out this week's attacks in Mumbai.

A word like "motive" seems to imply there was reason or purpose. It suggests that, however profane their actions, the terrorists had the incentive of some goal in mind.

But after covering too many killings, as a reporter or host, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Oklahoma City or Somalia, I've come to the conclusion that the perpetrators of such crimes might just be ... evil.

Evil is a word that many people of my generation shrink from using. It seems so imprecise and uneducated — biblical, rather than cerebral and informed.

But there are times and crimes that remind me how often the Bible gets it right.

At some point, someone might record a statement, credited to some group, claiming responsibility for the killings in Mumbai, and send it out to the world. At some point, someone might write some kind of screed, display his education by calling it a manifesto that gets quoted by the best news organizations, including our own.

Terrorists may rationalize their actions with political rhetoric. They may band together, train together, and, ultimately, die together, and thereby give each other the strength and reassurance to believe that they are not alone. Other people share their convictions and help shoulder their actions. So how can they be crazy, much less evil?

But Romeo Dallaire, the courageous Canadian general who tried to stop massacres in Rwanda, once told us that evil men and women see no innocents in the world. They will slaughter mothers without conscience and their children, too, because mothers give birth to children who can grow up to be their opponents.

Evil people are not dumb, he said. They simply use the power of their mind to cut off their conscience.

The people killed this week in Mumbai were not collateral damage, which has become an ugly enough term, but the very objects of damage: human beings who became the targets of a murder spree, however terrorists and apologists may ultimately embroider the assault with supposed political significance. Americans, Britons, Israelis, Indians and Jews seemed to be the particular targets. But those who died were from all over the world and at all stages of life: married couples, religious pilgrims, old people and young people, a father and his young daughter who were learning about meditation.

As investigations and analysis continue over the next few weeks, it may be good to refresh ourselves with the memory of their worthy lives.

@Baddo:

Whatever irrational delusions you likewise cling to in a dogmatic fashion to support your own beliefs packaged with the misapplied label of reason, it's still evident that those points still are based on negotiable objectives. Whether it be imperialism or economic greed etc, those are points of which there has always been negotiable premises.

My point was that it is quite clear that this was different. No negotiable demands were made, the only questions asked were to prioritize the execution of people for the sole purpose to kill them. Not to control them, not to plunder them, just to kill them. Why? Because they had no 'right' to live solely for being born in the first place. It is not a negotiable point.

"Forfeit property / liberty / associates" - those are terms of negotiation. This was not a case where any negotiable demands were made or intended. Not only that, but there were no self-centric points either "your cause is futile; save yourself" etc points either. The terrorists sole objective was to slaughter, with the fringe benefit of terror.

You can't toss in a phone and say "Let's talk, you want money, land, what?" - because the only answer would be "I want you dead". So let's run with that then, as truly irrational it is. So you let them purge yourself, then what? The job's not done, so the killing goes on. It's solely kill or be killed.

It's not a classic crime/punishment discussion, it is an immediate parasitic matter. You attempt to make the argument that this being religiously motivated is a dubious or debatable matter. I believe you have your terminology rather confused. There is a possible argument that this is an extra-denominational case. Fair enough, we don't have enough information on that. But I will disagree in part because it clearly is a dogmatically based event, because the discerning factor in the known targeting was based off of the identification of the victim's self-existence, rather than their tangible assets. To assault someone or something for personal gain without regard to the victim's own humanity is to a point a matter of rational prioritization. To assault someone however for the cause of their self-existence without concern for personal gain for self or loss of property or liberty to the victim, is inherently a matter of a belief system.

To invoke Godwin's Law, the historically argued 'worst case' was based on the dogma of 'Untermensch'. That was an argued, taught, and believed belief system. When the dogma is in place in that manner, points of negotiation become unnecessary and actually become encumbrances.

-edit- Fixed a typo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably you noticed it but to make sure, my intention was to voice my concern that the label "muslim" is used perhaps too carelessly here.

It is like when one Somali refugee here in Finland rapes a woman, people write about it in style "we need to beat the shit out of the somalis" like it's the fault of every Somali immigrant that one of them raped the woman. Why people don't behave like this when a white Finnish man rapes a woman, is a very good question, as those cases are to my understanding much more numerous.

I would prefer it not mentioned in the news that it was a Somali man who raped the woman. It does not bear any relevance whether the crime was committed by a white Finnish man or a black Somali man, the crime is the same and there is no need to distinquish between race.

Similarly, I would not distinquish terrorists based on their religion as has been done here. They are terrorists to me whatever their religious beliefs are.

And further, I decided to write about it here especially because I had not seen anything that confirms that the terrorists in this case are muslims. There is a claim that an islamist group is responsible for the attacks, but it seems that claim has been disputed by various parties so I wouldn't declare widely that they were muslims.

The obvious danger for using the word "muslim" in this context is that whenever the general public will hear it, they will go "hey that was something bad wasn't it, terrorists or something, stay out of here you muslims", which is the kind of reaction I don't want to hear especially from the USA after all the PR work done by the USA to create an image of a melting pot and allegedly having a lot of liberty and freedom.

To put it short: I don't think the use of the word "muslim" was warranted at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...label "muslim" is used perhaps too carelessly here.

But, they were Muslim, even according to Muslim leaders in India. Also, at least 1 survivor said they belonged to a known extremist group.

They carried out the attacks consistent with extreme Islamo-fascist doctrine (i.e., indiscriminate killing of civilians to maximize fear and economic impact and they targeted, British, American, and Jewish individuals, whenever possible, the willingness to die, demanding the release of other terrorists from prison).

If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like chicken and if the chicken says "cluck" - it probably is a chicken...

So, in other words, I'm failing to see you're point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

Yes they are muslims like the IRA, the Real IRA and the UDA/UFF are christians or Irgun and the Haganah were jewish or Shining path were communist.

Criminals always like to hide.

Broad religious or political groupings provide camoflage. Those who are too stupid to realise this fall into the terrorist/criminals trap of attacking the cammoflage. Since this group they hide in, is often in the millions by attacking the cammoflage group you act as the terrorist's recruiter.

Kind regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In before "Bush did it". wink_o.gif

Broad religious or political groupings provide camoflage. Those who are too stupid to realise this fall into the terrorist/criminals trap of attacking the cammoflage.

Without getting into details I must point out it really is a special case.

Walker if you want to reaserch I strongly suggest you get an independent translation of muslim scriptures (the one you will get by just asking will be an appologetic version labelled "for converts" in arabic letters on the cover, no I am not kidding). And in case of contradicting verses, contrary to what historians and biblists do, the older verse is ignored, so the verses closer to the end of the book are in power.

Of course you have for example Sufism (muslims under strong influence of buddhism), but these are minority and heretics in the eyes of the muslim world.

Koran red in mainstream muslim fashion is shockingly explicit.

The only point I find the extremist breaking is this: Jihad has to be started by an authority of a true islamic state. And it is not certain even one exists. Other slippery thing is suicide strikes, but this is by now an established tradition. They explain those objections away quite easilly.

Unfortunately Scubaman is right (but I belive "Islamist" is the propper word for what he described and we better use it before they make it sound positive. It's irritating how fast words change meaning nowadays with all those liberal kids around wink_o.gif ).

Back to the actual event: it was a millitary-style operation. It seems many of the attackers escaped after the job. It was obviously not a suicidal strike. Experts called it a "new quality".

The operation was well-preapared, with many of the explosive charges installed before it began. Seems like Pakistan's people destabilizing the region... again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...label "muslim" is used perhaps too carelessly here.

...

If it looks, smells, tastes, and feels like chicken and if the chicken says "cluck" - it probably is a chicken...

So, in other words, I'm failing to see you're point.

The 'point' is that the chicken is not allowed to be 'labeled' a chicken because that would be incompatible with biased agendas. When vindictive anti-zionistKBRbush / black-whisper-helicopter / katerina-bodies-in-swamps agendas take priority over the defense of simple life and liberty, there's nothing to discuss further.

There are several very valid reasons for 'sticking that label' on the topic. First, it references an ongoing problem in multiple nations with relations with immigrant and minority populations. These communities are established by respectable and honorable individuals. However, for a wide variety of factors, needs and values of those communities have not been integrated with the majority demographic population. As a result, you have responsible respectable parents as upstanding citizens, and their children are left vulnerable.

Liberal well-intentioned naivety has ironically entrenched segregation and ghettoization of the communities, instead of enabling them, by turning them inwards on themselves, the populations have been deliberately isolated from opportunities to defuse explosively dividing problems.

Take your 'somali rape' example. Plenty of people within the community would be outraged by it, but to what extent would / could they turn to a 'foreign' (resident nation/community) source for resolution to an offense within the community? Pick your minority, anyone, anywhere, and that problem is systematic.

Secondly, there are ill-intentioned individuals and organizations that deliberately target for exploitation the vulnerabilities of the minorities. When kuffar and infidels make allegations that 'honorable' charities entrusted with sacred alms are in actuality funneling those funds to groups for the purpose of butchery and destruction, the tendancy is to be self-defensive, rather than introspective. The 'persecution' of the community instead 'motivates martyrs' rather than causing the community to be introspective. Serving federal indictments and successful prosecutions only further puts the communities on edge, rather than forcing them to reassess the integrity of their neighbors. As a result, the brother, the cousin, the nephew is protected in community honor, while their actions may be abhored.

Those principles are not conducive to law and order in stable societies. So long as that continues to be the rule, there will continue to be bloodshed and destruction. And that blood will in part be on the hands of those politically correct owners of the urban sharecropping plantations. There will be blood on the hands of the parents that put their family relations and public honor ahead of neighborly association and community stability. And there will be plenty of blood for those that revel in it until even their gluttonous lusts are repulsed.

Islamic doctrine's been argued lots of places, it's not going to be effective or allowed in this thread. What is certain though is that 'independent third party' opinions would not be considered credible by both Muslims and kuffar or infidels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course it is evil. So are many other things. Invading Iraq was even more evil, I am sure many think. Which were first, evil muslims or evil christians?

General Barron, I was a bit troubled of the fact that you chose to write the word "muslim" into the thread title and into your post.

A group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Mujahideen has allegedly claimed responsibility for the attacks, and it is allegedly an "Islamist Terrorist Organization". It is in dispute if such a group carried out the attacks, as you can find out if you follow the link.

I was troubled of the word "muslim" because to this moment I have not read anything which would indicate that these terrorist attacks were driven by religion. That's the first reason why I was troubled by your use of that word.

For your information, I am an atheist and thus I do not take sides regarding religions.

I could understand the association of a religion into these terrorist attacks if there was evidence that their actions were driven by their religion. Currently I have seen nothing which would indicate that. I was wondering if you can educate me on this.

Perhaps their actions were driven by politics? Or perhaps by religion? Or all sorts of things combined, including the two mentioned.

Then there is another reason why I was troubled by the word "muslim". Should we call them by their religion? Perhaps in some cases, yes. Where does the line go when we should start calling them by their religion and when we shouldn't?

If a group of Christians commits a terrorist attack, and they are known to belong to a Church and we know that they were actively practicing their religion, should we call them "Christian terrorists?" That would be right, wouldn't it.

I certainly condemn the terrorist attacks. I always do. I'll say put two armies fighting against each other and I'll say it is as fair as it can get. But these sort of attacks are far from being fair.

Thanks, and best wishes,

Baddo.

An killing 1000's of innocent people like he did (SH).. was that not evil too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet in this case apparently it had nothing to do with any minorities.

Each time a really large and succesfull strike takes place it is never some homegrown militia. Apparently you need a base country to perform it.

Pakistani goverment might not be backing the strikes but AFAIK it has little influence over its people. They don't respect their authorities much. I think they might be a bit out of controll.

Anyway it appears to me you need state to back you up or at least tollerate you to preapare a large-scale terrorist attack.

And shinRaider, indeed there is an offtopic going on, but someone else started the usual "relligion of peace" and I felt provoked. :/ My apologies.

Edit: I appeal NOT TO start discussing Iraq, bring up Bush, etc. Please. Just ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberal well-intentioned naivety has ironically entrenched segregation and ghettoization of the communities, instead of enabling them, by turning them inwards on themselves, the populations have been deliberately isolated from opportunities to defuse explosively dividing problems.

I definitely agree with you on this and there are certainly things western society can be doing differently to encourage integration, not segregation - a problem more pronounced in Europe than the US.

Yet, I'm sorry, I think its clear that these were Islamic terrorists and I don't see a problem calling them what they are. The muslim clerics in India have condemned the attacks, and they should be applauded for that - we need more clerics like this.

Maybe I'm just not understanding and we can have these ideological arguments all day, but here lies the problem. How do you convince people that these nutjobs are really just a small portion of the population, when the problem appears to be so prolific that it pervades nearly every society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
General Barron, I was a bit troubled of the fact that you chose to write the word "muslim" into the thread title and into your post.

You make good points, and I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone, or jump to any conclusions. My understanding was that the attacks were religiously motivated, although I'm not sure where I may have read that. Maybe I assumed that it was similar to the religiously motivated / Muslim attacks in Pakistan.

I certainly don't want to paint all Muslims as terrorists, but I think we'd be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't notice the fact that currently there are a lot of Muslim terrorist organizations around the world, trying to take down the governments of the countries they are in. That applies not only to western countries, but all nations (the Philippines, the middle east, south east asia, etc).

I think a lot of people try to paint this as a US-only or western-only problem, when in fact it is a world wide problem. You may not like Bush's "war on terror", but try not to let that blind you to the fact that a problem does exist. We'd be best off to argue about the best way to solve the problem, instead of turning it into an "us vs them" issue, be it "muslims vs us" or "us vs Bush". Lets try to look at the problem for what it is, without being overly influenced by our biases towards any certain religion or government.

Again, I'm not trying to vilify real Muslims, I just lack a better term to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Muslim and I deeply condemned this attack like every other sane person. Also I read in the papers that they did kill Muslims too! I mean if theses guys just started bursting rounds randomly obviously thats not discriminating anyone. Personally I think their a political agenda behind this..........w/e RIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×