world

Indian forces kill last gunmen in Mumbai siege; death toll reaches 195

69 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

69 Comments
Login to comment

Well, good job in getting things done. This is a very sad event in India's history, and I hope that the proper authorities learn from it. I also hope they investigate fully and don't just rush to judgement and use this as an excuse to attack Pakistan in some misguided form of vengeance; nothing will be benifitted by starting a war, particularly with Pakistan being nuclear. If PROPER investigations -- not just righties with a bone to pick here on JT -- prove that the US ally in the war on terror had a direct role to play in the attacks, then measures should be taken to punish Pakistan accordingly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This tragic mini-war on Mumbai will bring drastic changes in security infrastructure of India. World's largest democracy with large population of Muslims and growing economy will require such extra-ordinary security measures and most of the countries will be willing to provide necessary aid in this regard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And" why would you use the US ally in the war on terror" for any other reason then to try to get a reaction from Americans? India is also part of the team on terror, and is an Ally to the US, as is your home of Canada, and Many other countries...

India is also a Nuclear country, and has been fighting with Pakistan for many many years already... Just because the people are from a country doesnt mean they are a represenitive of that country.. If it was a goverment sent hit squad then and only then would their country of orgin matter.

Seems some people have to always try to connect everything that happens to the US some way or another, its just truely pathetic... I havent heard any sane person try to connect the US to anything happening to India on this sight, and I still havent..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: You're correct in part; I did intentionally use 'ally in the war on terror' to get a rise out of people who feel guilty like yourself, but I also used it to make a point, which is that people like Helter_Skelter and TooFarGone, etc. who come on here and start talking about potential war with Pakistan as though it were a GREAT thing (and jeering about it) need to remember that when Bush was desperately highlighting the few countries like Liberia, Morocco, etc. that supported the invasion in Iraq, he very much bragged about Pakistan being one. In fact, there were a good deal of people who were against giving Pakistan so many freedumbs in return for allying with the US (or should I say, turning a blind eye to Pakistan's bad behaviour), and the same people who now want to see Pakistan bombed were the ones making heroes of Musharraf after 9/11, despite warnings.

"Seems some people have to always try to connect everything that happens to the US some way or another, its just truely pathetic... I havent heard any sane person try to connect the US to anything happening to India on this sight, and I still havent.."

There have been a number of sane people who have done so, and often in response to insane connections to Obama (TooFarGone in yesterday's thread). The funny part is watching you guys jump up and squirm when you know you're guilty.

My main point, though, aside from getting a bit of a rise, as I said, was to say that I hope India will not jump in and start accusing Pakistan without proper investigation, and countries like the US (who brazenly bragged about the country's support previously) will try to mediate instead of condoning any future attacks (not saying they will -- I'm saying I hope they don't).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I really like how many of you want to down play incidents like this and go end's length to prove there really isn't anything to worry about but god forbid if I were to refute global warming claims....

India has had problem with its Muslim population(s) for a long time, even before there was a such a thing as Pakistan or Bangladesh. Now as many of you want to rant and say don't go after the Muslims, you are going to be the first to cry foul when many of the non-Muslim there go a rampage, as had happened in the past.. Can you really blame them? If you find root causes to Muslim terror actions, why can't you find root causes of backlashes?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope India will not jump in and start accusing Pakistan without proper investigation" I am sure India is well aware that Pakistan is a Nuke Power. Indians are said to be some of the most intelligent people on earth. You should change your post to say that you hope Pakistan doesn't throw support behind these nut cases as they have in the past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The news channels in India are partly to blame for the no of deaths at those hotels.They showed live footages of the NSG commandos getting on to the rooftop,and shown every detail of the operations of commandos.There have been confirmed reports that the terrorists inside were in direct communication with the terrorists in karachi,pakistan.The live footages really helped the terrorists to know exact positions of commandos.The Mumbai police force and news channels lacked commonsense.Freedom of speech at the time of crisis is sometimes dangerous.Hope they will learn from this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why would I feel guilty about going into Afghanistan Actually I think it was one of Bush's best moves (he didnt do it right but it was a good first move)? Do you feel guilty because Canada is there?. What I was pointing out is your M.O. of always including the US as an excuse for everything that happens in the world.. Nothing more..

If you understand the history of those two countries you would know they have been at each other for a long time..You would also know they both are nuclear and have been for a long time. They haven't gone wacky on any of the other attacks either side has done before, and most likely wont this time.

India has internal problems with the different religious groups and this seems to be another of those problems.

Your post is just another excuse to bash a country you are "shitto" about... It takes away from your point (which is a good one) that India shouldnt over react and attack Pakistan, when you inject your hate and "shitto" of America in it. And that goes for all the post you do, if you drop your bias about America your post would have some merit to those of us in the states who have the power to change our goverment.

Its really time to give up the BS you use about the US.. Argue the article on the article and dont use it to bash the country your in love with :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think what smith is trying to say is that he wants to criticize the US and those on the right, and he's using this incident in order to do it.

Any questions?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think what smith is trying to say is that he wants to criticize the US and those on the right, and he's using this incident in order to do it.

Well said, superlib.

India, world's most populous democracy, draws closer and closer to the world's oldest democracy. It infuriates Islamic extremists and the extreme Left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "I really like how many of you want to down play incidents like this and go end's length to prove there really isn't anything to worry about but god forbid if I were to refute global warming claims...."

I don't see too many people saying, "This wasn't that bad," skip. In fact, I've seen just about EVERYONE on here say how awful the situation is. If 'downplaying' means not declaring all Muslims to be terrorists, then EVERYONE should be downplaying the situation. Fortunately, your idea of 'downplaying' is not actually what downlplaying the incident actually means.

"India has had problem with its Muslim population(s) for a long time, even before there was a such a thing as Pakistan or Bangladesh."

If that's the case, then aren't you really just 'downplaying' things by saying these same problems have existed for ages?

"Now as many of you want to rant and say don't go after the Muslims,"

There's the skippy I know! You've been rather tame the last month or so, but racism always does rear its ugly head after sometimes being dormant! Why should we go after Muslims? What we SHOULD do it go after the people RESPONSIBLE! If they happen to be Muslims, as the majority if not all seem to be, fine. But going after ALL Muslims is not the answer.

"...you are going to be the first to cry foul when many of the non-Muslim there go a rampage, as had happened in the past."

If, as you clearly point out, "It's happened in the past (with others)", then why do you proclaim we have to go after all Muslims and not all the other people as well? You're contradicting yourself, skip.

"Can you really blame them? If you find root causes to Muslim terror actions, why can't you find root causes of backlashes?"

You've lost me on this last part, skip... the subject of your sentence is not at all clear. Can I blame Muslims? Ummm... not all Muslims for what happened, not at all. Can I blame the people responsible? Absolutely. Can I blame people for wanting all Muslims labelled terrorists and/or possibly slaughtered -- as SOME people have called for on this site? I can absolutely blame them... they are as bad as the terrorists themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Britain's Telegraph is reporting this

"Two British-born Pakistanis were among eight gunmen seized by Indian commandos who stormed buildings to free hostages, Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Mumbai, reportedly said."

The Daily Mail has this

"Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and 'came from same area as 7/7 bombers' By Justin Davenport , Rashid Razaq and Nicola Boden 28th November 2008

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "Why would I feel guilty about going into Afghanistan Actually I think it was one of Bush's best moves (he didnt do it right but it was a good first move)?"

Funny you should put a question mark after 'one of Bush's best moves' (?). Anyway, who said anything about Afghanistan? I was talking about Bush's support for Pakistan in return for their support in 'the war on terror'. YOU jumped to that conclusion for the same reasons you immediately came on here and accused me of trying to russ up the feather of 'Americans' (as in all), when in reality there are plenty of Americans who would agree with me that welcoming Pakistan into an alliance with open arms and without questions was not the smartest move, and that Pakistan would later take advantage of it. In other words, only people who feel stupid about not heeding the warnings of said actions with Pakistan would later feel embarrassed, as you do now, at being pointed out as hypocritical for supporting bush on that, and now wanting Pakistan attacked.

As I said in the beginning; those who come on here and jeer at Pakistan and say they should be attacked are the same people who seem to forget that a short time ago they supported Bush in welcoming Pakistan and turning a blind eye on Musharaffs shenanigans. I don't see to many other Americans aside from yourself lashing out blindly over my comments.

"If you understand the history of those two countries you would know they have been at each other for a long time."

Clearly I know that better than you do, because I am the one saying the world should not be so quick to condemn Pakistan of any wrong doing, and it should be thoroughly looked into first (first and foremost by India). The hypocrisy is astounding!

"Your post is just another excuse to bash a country you are "shitto" about..."

I'm afraid I don't know what the word you put in quotation marks means. I will admit that you have a point with bringing up the US all too often, but you're wrong in that I'm biased about all issues U-S-A. Not at all. But lest we forget that the terrorists were going around targeting particular hostages who were from... ahem... and I'm not biased in mentioning this... US and Britain, for example. The US is mentioned throughout the article on this, and also in relation to Bush's admirable expression of support and help, but also for possible causes and motivations (for which 'the war on terror' plays a part in terms of the terrorists' reasons). It is, as such, perfectly valid to bring up the US in relation to these things.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "Is this forum being moderated? Is it permissible here to call others names and accuse them, without proof, of being racists?"

Skip has a history of accusing ALL Muslims and their belief system of being akin to terrorists, which I have a history of calling him up on. There's plenty of proof of both, thank you. While 'racist' is perhaps technically not the correct term, the same kind of ignorance is definitely there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Massacre in Mumbai: Up to SEVEN gunmen were British and 'came from same area as 7/7 bombers'

That would explain the choice of targets. UK Muslims, many of whom hail from the disputed Kashmir region, have been vocal critics of Anglo-American cooperation in Iraq as well as Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Hindu Indian was no doubt viewed as some sort of accomplice.

The Mussharef era is, thankfully, over in Pakistan. Mr. Benazir Bhutto is president and his leadership offered the prospect of a new chapter in Indo-Pakistani relations. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "India, world's most populous democracy, draws closer and closer to the world's oldest democracy. It infuriates Islamic extremists and the extreme Left."

The world's oldest democracy is Greece... how is India now getting closer to them?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith

people like Helter_Skelter...who come on here and start talking about potential war with Pakistan as though it were a GREAT thing

Really? That's news to me. Why don't you pull up my quote where I talk about potential war with Pakistan. I'll check back.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anyway, no one should be pointing the figure at any one particular government at this point.

UK Muslims, many of whom hail from the disputed Kashmir region, have been vocal critics of Anglo-American cooperation in Iraq as well as Israeli treatment of Palestinians. Hindu Indian was no doubt viewed as some sort of accomplice." You hit it. For a great many of them, the UK is only their temporary home.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the poster 'betzee' has written

"UK Muslims, many of whom hail from the disputed Kashmir region, have been vocal critics of Anglo-American cooperation in Iraq as well as Israeli treatment of Palestinians."

You seem to be saying that it's global jihad we are looking at.That echoes the conservative Canadian writer Mark Steyn.

Do you read the National Review?:

"We're reluctant to address that "bigger than itself" elephant. All jihad is local: If rockets are fired at Israel, it's a failure to settle the Palestinian question. If an NHS doctor drives a flaming Cherokee into the check-in desk at Glasgow Airport, it must be Tony Blair's foreign policy. The Jerusalem Post's headline writer poses the question:

Homegrown Terror Or International Jihad?

False choice. The answer is: Homegrown terror in the service of international jihad. Clearly, India has had a Muslim problem to one degree or another in the 60 years since partition, but increasingly those locally driven grievances have been absorbed within the global pan-Islamic ideology. What strikes you, as the dust clears in Bombay, is that one assault provided an umbrella for manifestations of almost every strain of Muslim grievance.

There's the local element - the fatal shooting of the city's anti-terror squad, and other prominent officials. There's the crusader element - the targeting of British and American passport holders. There's the Jew-hating element - the Munich massacre nesting within the more general carnage."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter: "Really? that's news to me. Why don't you pull up my quote where I talk about a potential war with Pakistan. I'll check back."

It's actually, "Why don't you quote me where I talk about...", but I won't be too picky about grammar.

Anyway, all I could find from your posts that have not already been deleted is in answer to a post by Betzee on the article which reported the original attacks in Mumbai:

"Betzee - agreed. Pakistan should have never been allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. I've said many times that Islamic countries must never be allowed to go nuclear. This is exactly why Iran's nuclear program needs to be leveled."

So... what do you mean by 'leveled', if you don't mean destroyed in an act of aggression? And if you lump Pakistan in there with the 'Islamic countries' you say 'must never be allowed to go nuclear' you are also voicing that you are in favour of aggression against such things in Pakistan. What's more, on posts where the US has fired missiles into Pakistan and killed civilians (claiming they were militants), etc. and I have criticized the US for it, you have attacked my comments as well from time to time.

Anyway, if I'm wrong, and you're not for attacking Pakistan, let us all know, and I'll gladly take it back. While you're at it, I suggest you also drop the attitude that all Muslims are terrorists, because they are not any more than all Christians are terrorists for the acts of a few, and all Japanese are terrorists for the acts of some of theirs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I suggest you also drop the attitude that all Muslims are terrorists, because they are not any more than all Christians are terrorists for the acts of a few, and all Japanese are terrorists for the acts of some of theirs." c'mon smith. Its a lot more the a few and if they had the complete upper hand, most would be parading for them. You can not compare, because we at this moment are not seeing such acts by Christians but if there were, I'd by yelling the same. There is a very large force in Islam that has put so many of them on a path. They are fight for Islam.. how many choice does anyone really have? How many more acts such as this are to be tolerated? Really the only other thing possible thing is to send in some kind of brain washing mechanism that erases the idea of Jihad.

You may be against these acts and I am sure you are, but your accusation are leaving people with very little room on tackling the issue. When the hammer does come down, I hope you are just as understanding for the victims revenge as you are for these people's actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"We're reluctant to address that "bigger than itself" elephant. All jihad is local: If rockets are fired at Israel, it's a failure to settle the Palestinian question. If an NHS doctor drives a flaming Cherokee into the check-in desk at Glasgow Airport, it must be Tony Blair's foreign policy.

I've read this before. While there is certainly a good deal of truth to it, proponents tend to overlook the fact that the response, namely the "war on terror," was predicated on the creation of an undifferentiated Islamo-fascist whole encompassing disparate groups motivated largely by local concerns. This was necessary to gain public support, Saddam could give Osama WMD; never mind they viewed each other with mutual contempt and were extremely unlikely collaborators.

Instead we should treat these groups (or individuals) like criminals rather than armies (which is a recruiting gift). Behind the scenes intelligence work, coordination with allied governments and law enforcement will yield better results than military action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip: Well, if it's more than a few, how many is it? Can you give ma number? I mean, I can give you the approx. number who led this attack, and I can give you an approximate number of Muslims world-wide; you'll see that there are really quite a number of zeroes after the decimal point in a percentage. Add to that all the terrorists world-wide and you'll still only come up with a percentage of less than zero percent of the Muslim population as a whole. The terrorists certainly are making a big name for themselves, and the fact that people like yourself seem fit to condemn an entire way of life based on the miniscule number of people committing the acts doesn't help in the minds of those brainwashed into thinking Muslim = terrorist, but that doesn't mean that there are many at all. If you think there are, what percentages do you have? Even if you take all the listed terrorist groups and their supposed ranks, they don't come close to being 'a lot' by any means, when compared with the world population of Muslims.

And again, it doesn't matter if there are 4 out of a billion, or even as high as 0.01%; you still don't condemn an entire belief system by how a number of radicals have misinterpreted and abused it for their own means.

Hatred begets hatred, and I can tell you that nothing will empower those who are terrorists more -- or make them want to fight -- than by an open declaration of war on all of Islam. What's more, as has been proven by the wrong path the 'war on terror' has taken, attempting to do so only garners more sympathy for the cause.

YES, as you admit, I am definitely against these heinous acts. If needing 'more room' for people to tackle the issue means putting 1.4 billion people to death to please a few of the remaining ones, then hell yes I'm going to leave people with 'very little room' for them to be comfortable in trying to tackle the issue. Until people stop blaming all Muslims, or others by extension in ANY case, you let the real criminals slip away and avoid confronting the actual issue, and as such the true war on terror can never actually begin because before you know it, you've made EVERYONE your enemy.

I'm not for the victim's revenge at all -- vengeance is clouded by hate and misdirected anger, and all too often claims the lives of the wrong people. I'm for justice, but that justice does not include labelling 1.4 billion people terrorists, and/or doing who knows what else to them. Find out who is directly and indirectly responsible for the planning and execution, then try and punish them accordingly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It seems a lot of people have strayed from the point of this article, and from statements within their own comments. I do not exclude myself from this list, albeit most was in my own defense.

As many have pointed out, India has had many internal problems for ages. I myself yesterday pointed out two (and there are more) terrorist groups within India that aren't even Muslim (when challenged by WilliB to name a few). While I don't think people should leave it as a 'domestic' problem, and particularly because I think other countries are somewhat involved in this whether they like it or not (ex. the US, which was singled out in particular during the attacks, and as an excuse for the attacks by some terrorists involved) and they would be of great help to the Indian government, there are a lot of domestic matters that need to be addressed before people can go laying all the blame on Pakistan and/or Islam in general.

This has been a horrendous week for India and the world, and a blow to peace, the so-called war on terrorism, and the already tarnished image of Islam. There's going to be a lot that unfolds from this, and my fear is that almost none will be good if cooler heads don't prevail. That does not mean I'm saying go out and study Islam, or that nothing should be done. Clearly the Indian government, military, police, and general security need beefing up while they get help by international governments to find any additional culprits in this incident. Of course they need to punish those responsible, and try to help those victims and anyone else who has suffered, along with the nation as a whole, come to grips with what has happened and try to heal where possible.

But all the people on here who have NOTHING to do with what happened, grinding their axes and begging for a crusade against a religion and way of life for more than a sixth of the world's population... do tell me what that's going to solve, exactly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm for justice, but that justice does not include labelling 1.4 billion people terrorists, and/or doing who knows what else to them.

As here it is....smith's Plan B. If there's a terrorist incident that can't be linked to the US, it's guaranteed that the sentence above will appear in one of his posts as his next step. Guaranteed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith, your logic makes a lot sense, it does. But, anyone can flip that. Were all Nazis killers? It didn't start out being a killing group, but we sure as hell took a whole lot of Germans and not all Japanese were Tojo-ites.

First of all, no one is talking about killing 1.4billion muslims and besides some apparel, you don't know who is a Muslim (and I sure as heck didn't say go after the dark skin ones, that would be shooting myself in the foot if you think about it).

Basically, reading your posts only leaves me to believe there is not only nothing anyone can do about this force that has taken over Islam, but we have no choice but to surrender to it. Like you said, we can't fight it conventionally. If so, we are going to take a lot of innocents. You leave me with no alternatives, if I wanted to please you, but to surrender and I really ain't for that as I am sure you would agree, that would make things just as worse.

I never advocated killing everyone, but I did and still do putting up a fight.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith,

My quote that "Pakistan should have never been allowed to obtain nuclear weapons" is because it makes it difficult to go to war with them. And why would you say "I suggest you also drop the attitude that all Muslims are terrorists" when you just responded to my post where I stated maybe one percent are radicalized terrorists?

Yet another EPIC FAIL by smithinjapan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"smithinjapan" has written

"and I can tell you that nothing will empower those who are terrorists more -- or make them want to fight -- than by an open declaration of war on all of Islam."

Empower them more? Make them want to fight more? They follow a creed that rewards them for death in battle against the 'unbeliever.'

How many thousands of innocents have to die before apologists for Islamo-fascism get the picture??

Please, try and educate yourself before posting on topics like this.

There have been over 12 thousand documented cases of terror done in Islam's name, since 9-11. And I am not talking about 'hate crimes' as relatively harmless as calling someone a name or defacing the exterior of a place of worship. These were shootings, beheadings, suicide bombings, attempted murder.

No other group comes anywhere near. Anybody claiming otherwise is transparently a tool of some kind.

These terrorists bought a city of 18 million to a standstill. It is a model that is going to be replicated elsewhere. Multiple scattered attacks and then the grab for a high visibility target and hostage-taking.

These nutjobs have made hate a virtue and murder of anyone outside their cult a sacrament.

Finding examples is so easy it is scary. From an India Times article about the latest massacre in Mumbai:

"All the hostages were asked to reveal their religion. When the Muezzinoglus said they were Muslims, their captors told them that they would not be harmed. The other three Caucasian women were removed from the room next day, and the terrorists informed the Muezzinoglus that they had been shot."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3766609.cms

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These terrorists bought a city of 18 million to a standstill.

That's less significant than the fact they held off hundreds of special forces operatives for nearly 60 hours, reflecting a level of training that they probably could have gotten in only a few places. If it happens to be northwestern Pakistan, then nuclear weapons are added to the equation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That's less significant than the fact they held off hundreds of special forces operatives for nearly 60 hours, reflecting a level of training that they probably could have gotten in only a few places."

Yes. Reminds you of the siege in that Moscow theater a few years back, and of the attack in Beslan, where the Islamists shot fleeing children.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee

If it happens to be northwestern Pakistan, then nuclear weapons are added to the equation.

An ominous prospect indeed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This was no homegrown backyard operation, far too sophisticated for that. Possibly aided by rogue elements in Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, trying to destabilize South Asia. That's the goal, not to resurrect the caliphate Ataturk disbanded. Thwarting such geopolitical goals is a far more promising strategy than taking on the religion itself (which nobody has a credible way to do).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The death toll is expected to top 200,.

This will put the Mumbai massacre among the 20 most deadly terrorist strikes worldwide, a list of which can viewed at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255i.html

From what I can tell all but two of the twenty deadliest were perpetrated by radical Islamists.

You really have to wonder about anyone who'd protest that 'all religions have their extremists.'

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the primary timing of this attack was to stop what was looking as pretty promising cooperation in Paki-India relations to combat terrorism. Look at the date of the article. It was on Tuesday this week.

This was a pre-emptive strike by the Islamic radicals in my opinion to kill these measures. They see the writing on the wall if Pakistan and India work together to kill their networks. Bad news for them.

I hope Pakistan and India's leaders stay calm and pursue the talks and cooperation. If not the radicals will have won this round.

After looking at the timing of this and what was going on in the background with Paki-Indian relations, I'm pretty sure the agenda for them is to stop the cooperation between the two Governments to combat their networks at all costs. Let's all hope that they have failed in this.

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan and India discussed cooperation in efforts to fight terrorism Tuesday as part of a wide-ranging dialogue aimed at resolving outstanding disputes between the nuclear-armed rivals.

The talks between top Interior Ministry officials come after a spate of bomb attacks in both countries in recent months, and as Pakistan battles al Qaeda militants and their Pakistani allies who have unleashed a wave of violence across the country.

"The agenda of the talks include anti-terrorism measures, anti-narcotics measures, the exchange of civilian prisoners and cooperation between the FIA and the CID," a Pakistani Interior Ministry spokesman said, referring to two countries' main crime investigation agencies.

"It is certainly a confidence-building measure."

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AO3QV20081125

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bezee:

" This was necessary to gain public support, Saddam could give Osama WMD; never mind they viewed each other with mutual contempt and were extremely unlikely collaborators. "

Says who? While Sunnis and Shiites hate each other, they share the common goal of jihad against the kuffar world (thats us), and are quite willing to help each other out in that regard. And while Saddam was secular dictator, he did play islamic card with vigor. Remember him shooting Scuds at Israel and flying Mecca pilgrims through the no-fly zone? I guess you have forgotten that. It is absolutely plausible that he would pass chemical or nuclear material to a group like Al Quaeda to do damage to the US.

" Instead we should treat these groups (or individuals) like criminals rather than armies (which is a recruiting gift). Behind the scenes intelligence work, coordination with allied governments and law enforcement will yield better results than military action. "

That is what Bill Clinton tried, and it failed spectactularly. Islamist terrorists are NOT common criminals. In their mind, they are pure and we are dirty kuffars, and they are fighting a noble cause by killing us. There is no profit motive, no "criminal" aspect at all. In fact, for his followers, Bin Ladin is a pious cleric.

We are shooting ourselfes in the foot by pretending the jihad is a criminal problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Indian forces kill last gunmen in Munba siege"

Good.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real enemy behind these satanic attacks is not Pakistan as a country, but extreme Islamism. Once again, the question begs to be asked, what kind of "religion" instructs its followers to go out and kill innocent men, women and children, like those in Mumbai, and imagine they are doing the will of their "god" and that they will be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions? This is pure, unadulterated evil, nothing nore, nothing less. I believe it is time that the places and people who preach these evil doctrines should be watched carefully in "western" democracies and if necessary, the people involved rounded up and imprisoned, and their temples of Evil should be closed down. This evil has been allowed to fester like a cancerous growth for far too long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Toofargone:

" You really have to wonder about anyone who'd protest that 'all religions have their extremists.' "

All religions DO have their extremists. But all extremism is not the same. Christian extremists can go to monastery or live on an Amish farm; Buddhist extremists can become a monk in a temple; Hindu extremists can live as naked sadhu.

No such option in islam. Islam does not have the concept of withdrawal from the world; if you become an islamic extremist, you try to change the world into strict islamic place under Shariah.

So yes, those who say that all religious extremists are the same have not done their homework.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with other posters above - we are dealing with a satanic religious problem - not a poltical one. These people are religious criminal thugs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We should have sent in the SAS, wallop, all the ,ilitants dead in seconds, no innocent casualties.

These extremists are getting too cocky, they need to be hunted down and executed like in the good old days.

Blimey, when we was running India, we would've sorted this situation out bloody quickly, i can tell you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

These killers( about 2 dozen of them) surely have fathers,mothers ,brothers,sisters,...like the rest of us ,right? Do they have any fear at all about people's angers,vengeance toward their loved ones after they already gone? What kind of nervous system they have to enable them to carry such a killing spree of innocent people in such a cool ,calm, merciless manner?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tcl:

" What kind of nervous system they have to enable them to carry such a killing spree of innocent people in such a cool ,calm, merciless manner? "

Read the koran. Kuffars like us are not "innocent", because we don´t submit under A_llah. And actually, Hindus rank even even a notch below Christians and Jews, because they are guily of polytheism, which is the worst crime.

and what it says about the worth of kuffars like us. Actually, Hindus rank even lower

0 ( +0 / -0 )

realist:

" I agree with other posters above - we are dealing with a satanic religious problem - not a poltical one. "

Wrong. If islam was a personal "religion", there would not be a problem. The problem arises because islam is more politics than religion -- it wants to rule. The objectives of islam are practical and worldly, not esotheric and private. And there is nothing "criminal" about people who what they do because they think it is their gods wish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is a possible silver lining to this event - if, IF cooler heads can prevail, a joint agreement can be struck where India and Pakistan "cooperate" when terrorist acts occur. To allow the Indian Govt. to present the evidence of who was responsible for the attacks in Mumbai, and to have both govts. work in conjunction to take the jerks out. This goes both ways where a group in India may create a problem in Pakistan, then both govts. work together to go after the offending party. This scenario can only work when both govts. have an outstanding intelligence apparatus.

I have an ulterior motive - I need both parties to enter APEC, and that can't happen if they are at each other's throats. Both are important, but they don't know it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

apecNetworks:

" There is a possible silver lining to this event - if, IF cooler heads can prevail, a joint agreement can be struck where India and Pakistan "cooperate" when terrorist acts occur. "

That is based on the wishful thinking that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is interested in the welfare of India. Alas, the reality is different.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good post, Sailwind. The new president of Pakistan, widower of Benazir Bhutto, has spoken of expanding trade links and even the prospect of a nuclear-free South Asia, a welcome development for us all. What happened in Mumbai (Bombay), India's NY and LA combined, has probably torpedoed that, a bad thing for everyone, including the US which hoped to build on that cooperation to stabilize Afghanistan.

The Right feels frustrated that the press believes these attacks are motivated by treatment of Palestinians or the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan when those who acted did so to advance a local agenda. While the distinction is real, it glosses over the political strategy of protest and rebellion. Muslims do feel aggrieved about these issues and they become recruiting tools. At the same time, to invoke them as justification for every attack makes Islamic fundamentalism appear more threatening in the eyes of the West, a seamless whole which claims supporters all over the world. This is exactly what they want.

The Right is also loathe to admit any error or miscalculation, forcing them to lump leftists and those perpetrating this violence together. This was evident when we found ourselves fighting a violent insurgency in Iraq, contrary to the claims we would be greeted as liberators. Instead of acknowledging error, this was cited as evidence the war was succeeding on the grounds "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to face them here." Now that violence, thankfully, has dramatically fallen off, well if means "we won." You can't claim diametrically opposed outcomes are both evidence of victory.

My primary problem with "the war on terror" approach is that is plays to our worst instincts, aggressiveness ("preemptive strike") and fear ("they want to take over the world"). I don't worry about being forced to become a Muslim, there's no scenario where that's remotely possible. Nor do I see Islamic extremists having success in non-Muslim Asia.

The prospect of being caught in a terrorist attack has, I think, by contrast crossed most people's minds. This is criminal behavior. And it should be left in the hands of law enforcement. Many a poster has noted there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11. Yet they fail to acknowledge that those which have been preempted were the result of intelligence sharing by law enforcement agencies in different countries, not because we went into Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "You really have to wonder about anyone who'd protest (against the fact) that that 'all religions have their extremists.'"

There... I tightened up the language in your statement a little so your opinion is clearer (I put the minor clarification in brackets). I agree with you; it would be foolhardy to try and protest the fact that all religions have at least a few extremists. Sadly, even one is too much, and can do worlds of damage, as we have seen from Christianity throughout the ages, and are seeing a whole lot more of lately with Islam. Sad state of affairs, and things aren't going to get any prettier any time soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whether in the name of Islam (and the so-called fight against the capitalist west), or whether it was in the name of Kashmir and it's bloody history, how on earth can you shoot dead 2 year old children ? Can somebody please explain that to me because I can't fathom it. Forget about our theories and guessing who may financed this act of bloody murder. I just want to know who on earth can shoot 2 year old children dead ? I would like to see the 'so-called' spiritual leaders of the Islamic faith finally stand up against cold-blooded murder like this, because this has nothing to do with Allah or any book of God. No religion on earth has anything to do with this kind of murder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

northlondon: "I would like to see the 'so-called' spiritual leaders of the Islamic faith finally stand up against cold-blooded murder like this, because this has nothing to do with Allah or any book of God. No religion on earth has anything to do with this kind of murder."

I'm with you... it's unfathomable indeed. While I don't believe any one can or should label all Muslims as terrorists or any such thing, it would help a lot, and be a big step for many, if some of the spiritual leaders of the Islamic faith did indeed stand up and at least verbally speak out against the actions that occurred here. Hopefully we'll see it. It would go a long way to clearing some of the air for a good deal of people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I just want to know who on earth can shoot 2 year old children dead?

A person who wants to make a statement. And it bugs me when some listen to the statement then take up the cause for the terrorists.

When the initial reports came in about terrorists asking for US and UK passport holders there were some here who started talking about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what they don't understand is that when someone open fires into a crowded train station for the purposes of killing innocent people then he's lost all claim to his cause. Even if the terrorists had come out and said that they did this in response to Iraq it doesn't matter. It's how they went about bringing attention to their cause that leaves them discredited.

Meanwhile, others rush in to promote the cause that the terrorists put on the table. They just don't seem to get it. They talk about "understanding their anger" and "root causes" and "I support the cause but not the action" and yadda yadda yadda. Really? Well if their anger is so justified then surely they can understand why someone who shoot a child, right? Isn't that what they're really saying?

The fact is that by taking up the fight for their cause (whatever that may be) you're legitimizing their actions. You are rewarding them. You're guaranteeing that they'll do it again. You're saying that you're willing to look past their actions.

People don't have to be terrorists to spread their message. When they cross that line they no longer have any claim to anything. Look at these people for who they are: People who woke up one day with the goal if killing as many innocent people as possible. Then ask yourself why on earth you'd be promoting whatever message their innocent killing brought to your attention.

If there are Muslims we should be listening to, they're the ones who DON'T go out and do these things, not the ones who do. Stop helping the terrorists set the agenda. They aren't the ones speaking for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They aren't the ones speaking for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.

But I don't see any figureheads of the peaceful Islamic faith stand up and make a powerful statement against these murderers. If Islam wants to get it's house in order, then close down the religious schools in Pakistan and the mosques in the UK that act as breeding grounds for the likes of Al Qaeda and those killers in Mumbai. I don't care what kind of 'statement' a person wants to make, if these animals are going to shoot 2 year old children dead then the rest of humanity needs to sweep them off the face of this earth. And quick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile, others rush in to promote the cause that the terrorists put on the table. They just don't seem to get it. They talk about "understanding their anger" and "root causes" and "I support the cause but not the action" and yadda yadda yadda.

This is a straw man, nobody did that.

But what they don't understand is that when someone open fires into a crowded train station for the purposes of killing innocent people then he's lost all claim to his cause.

So this group was no different than the loser who opens fire at the shopping mall taking out as many people as he can in order to go out in a blaze of glory that his pathetic life never warranted?

However, tragic for the victims, that is different from acts of terrorism which have complex international dynamics and repercussions. The Madrid bombings, for example, brought a new government to power in Spain in a surprise upset victory.

In order to profile such groups, one needs to understand the complicated national/local histories and relationships that have fostered grievances, both real and imagined. By contrast, no amount of such background research will do much to prevent the next shopping mall shooter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib;

It's how they went about bringing attention to their cause that leaves them discredited.

Well said - there is no cause or grievance that forces someone to fire into crowds.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well said - there is no cause or grievance that forces someone to fire into crowds.

Who said anything about being forced? They chose to and actions have consequences. The point is, if you're in law enforcement you're tasked with preventing such acts, obviously there was a massive intelligence failure here and it will have repercussions that have yet to play out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too many of those who are educated through the madrassah educational curriculum lack any secular notion of right and wrong, making jihad inspired violence an easy sell I'm sure.

The "war on terror" was premised on the belief that this "world view" was rooted in tyranny. Draining the swamp, as the response was labeled, would enable secular values to take root. Instead the military force needed to accomplish that has simply reinforced fundamentalism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After attempting to refute superlib, betzee basically ends up proving his point for him:

The "war on terror" was premised on the belief that this "world view" was rooted in tyranny.

Why the need to quote the American approach? This took place in India. They have been battling Islamic extremism for centuries.

Hundreds in Mumbai were murdered in a similar terrorist attack in 1993, when Muslim underworld figures (again, probably with aid from Pakistani forces) set off a series of bombs.

Draining the swamp, as the response was labeled, would enable secular values to take root.

Again, conflating Iraq with India makes betzee end up appearing to want to lend some credit to the actions of Mohammedan terrorists who have adopted the Left's tactic of linking wider, global "issues" with local grievances when trying to justify the unjustifiable murder of innocents.

superlib says it best:

Look at these people for who they are: People who woke up one day with the goal if killing as many innocent people as possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why the need to quote the American approach?

"Draining the Swamp" was a one-size fits all model to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. It was to unleash a sirocco of freedom throughout the Muslim world once Saddam was toppled. As an American, I tend to view developments anywhere through the prism of our national interests. And it's clear things didn't go according to plan (despite all the "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to face them here" spinning).

Pakistan is involved in some fashion in what happened in Mumbai. The terrorists were fair-skinned Urdu speakers who probably launched from a Pakistani freighter waiting to dock at Mumbai Port. But SuperLib is surely wrong to assert:

People who woke up one day with the goal if killing as many innocent people as possible.

Ten people could not have pulled this off on the fly. The level of sophistication involved, not to mention its 60-hour duration, reflects a great deal of training and preparation. Saudi funding has underwritten a lot of the madrassah schooling which they likely received.

Looking at this in a more comprehensive way, rather than just on a nation-state basis, I think we could have much greater success at undercutting Islamic fundamentalism. Developing alternative sources of energy, for example, would render what the Saudi's have in the ground worthless. And without their financial backing, Islamic fundamentalism becomes a spent force everywhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Draining the Swamp" was a one-size fits all model to the problem of Islamic fundamentalism.

Was it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Left's tactic of linking wider, global "issues" with local grievances when trying to justify the unjustifiable murder of innocents.

In fact it was the right who lumped all Muslims together in the camp of undifferentiated evildoers (read GWB's remarks on Mumbai). I mean Osama, Saddam — what's the difference? Most Americans couldn't say.

This feeds into the view "they" want to take over the world which creates the type of fear where rational planning goes out the window. In fact their objectives are geopolitical in nature; probably to destabilize South Asia.

This is something which should be worked on as a regional issue unconnected to the war in Iraq. But it's very complicated; the Indians are worried they will be pushed by Washington to make concessions on Kashmir so that Pakistan will be more cooperative with American objectives in Afghanistan. So much easier to create straw men.....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"This feeds into the view "they" want to take over the world which creates the type of fear where rational planning goes out the window."

"They" (Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and their proxies in the US and Europe ) state quite clearly that this is their goal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can take ten men and teach then that much combat training in two weeks.. Its not as hard as the civilians want to make it sound. Its no different then playing football on a team, or hockey etc etc etc.. It wasnt that well planned and it wasnt done in a very technical way.

It was better planned then a person with a bomb on their back running into a crowd and blowing them selves up, but it wasnt a special ops level attack...

Grasping straws or using straw men isnt much different..... Take it for what it was, and dont try to always link everything to Iraq. Hell you start to sound like Bush when you try to link everything to one source all the time... Think about it, you complain when Bush says Saddam had links to AQ, then you say evey action in the region is linked to the US.. You start to sound like Bush the 3rd to me...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In the aftermath it will be interesting to see how the media plays this one.

Notice how even here none of the Left's apologists for violence against innocents have come here with 'I question the timing', yet everyone knows that had these attacks occurred a month ago and the terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their original plan (see below) the outcome of the recent US presidential election might have been much closer than it was, if not a victory for McCain

The details are frightening:

"The only terrorist captured alive after the Mumbai massacre has given police the first full account of the extraordinary events that led to it – revealing he was ordered to ‘kill until the last breath’.

Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

"He revealed that the ten terrorists, who were highly trained in marine assault and crept into the city by boat, had planned to blow up the Taj Mahal Palace hotel after first executing British and American tourists and then taking hostages."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090546/I-told-kill-breath-Captured-terrorists-account-Mumbai-massacre-reveals-plan-kill-5-000.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They" (Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and their proxies in the US and Europe ) state quite clearly that this is their goal.

How are they going to accomplish this? One of three ways: 1) The majority of its citizens embrace Islam and implement the Sharee’ah on their own accord; 2) A group of Muslims rise, overthrow the government and implement the Sharee’ah by force (coup); 3) The Islamic state carries out Jihad as its foreign policy and removes the government.

I'm supposed to take this seriously???? Clearly Washington doesn't because no preparations have been made to forestall it. Nor has any sacrifice been asked of citizens. Can't have it both ways....

then you say every action in the region is linked to the US..

I said the US is affected by every action in the region, big diff.....

Clearly this has complicated US efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, there's no question about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone at 10:59 AM JST - 30th November

superlib says it best: Look at these people for who they are: People who woke up one day with the goal if killing as many innocent people as possible.

TooFarGone at 12:29 PM JST - 30th November

Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

I suppose such an about face can be justified as long as "the left" reminds the consistent focus since everyone knows that's your real enemy. But I've rarely since such a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib's beef was over the use of the "cult of victim as instigator" to explain terrorist harm of innocents. But he defeated himself by pasting in a laundry list of things nobody had actually written here as evidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, I quoted superlib's advice, with the understanding that he was speaking somewhat figuratively

Look at these people for who they are: People who woke up one day with the goal if killing as many innocent people as possible.

You seem to think I contradict myself

Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

So we go back six months, or a year, or two.

He woke one day a changed man, for the worse. Ready to kill innocent people. The time frame, if anything, clearly removes any doubt.

Premeditated mass murder.

Evil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib seems to take the position that going back inevitably opens the door to other factors creeping in, such as what could have caused them to develop such a mindset? To avoid opening that door, they have to jump out of bed one morning hell bent on murder.

This fits with the "Islamo-fascist" viewpoint of undifferentiated or "pure" evil. One is the same as the next and anyone who wants to address underlying causes is immediately ridiculed by the self-appointed patriotism police for asking politically incorrect questions. Stifling debate is not the way to win an argument.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

195 dead. Unlike in Iraq I doubt the media will get around to giving the details of each death, especially since the final toll - expected to reach around 300 - means an attack that killed more than ever died in a single day in 'occupied' Iraq.

And just out of curiosity - where were all the snide, clever gun control advocates that pop up on any thread about gun violence in the States?

"If all those commuters and hotel guests had each been packin heat this never would have happened."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TooFarGone: "Notice how even here none of the Left's apologists for violence against innocents have come here with 'I question the timing', yet everyone knows that had these attacks occurred a month ago and the terrorists had succeeded in carrying out their original plan (see below) the outcome of the recent US presidential election might have been much closer than it was, if not a victory for McCain."

That's probably because only a moron would come on here and pretend this had anything to do with the American election and its outcome. Stop searching and wishing this had happened just a wee bit earlier; it's sick. YOu guys are so desperate to validate your support for a guy who lost that you'll say just about anything to undermine the president elect, including the 'timing' of this attack.

Sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites