Mumbai Under Terrorist Attack; 80 Dead
A previously unknown terrorist organization called the Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility for multiple brutal, synchronized attacks in Mumbai, India. The Times of India reports least 80 people have died so far, with perhaps 200 more people held hostage.
A later report indicates that the Indian Army stormed the Hotel Taj and the Oberoi Trident, capturing 9 terrorists alive. Reports on Twitter indicate that at least 1 terrorist was killed, while the Times reports 2 of them are dead.
New Zealand’s One News speculates that Deccan Mujahideen name is meaningless and perhaps a simple alias for Al Qaeda. That’s unclear at this point, as are the motivations behind the well-planned and vicious attacks, and I wonder if it’s important.
What is clear is that the world is a dangerous place and it’s still filled with murderous misanthropes like those that killed hundreds in Bali and thousands in New York City.
There are two ways to respond to attacks on civilization by such savages: capitulation or confrontation. The effects of the former are clear – Sharia, anyone? – which is why the policy of confrontation pursued by the Bush administration is, if not a marvel of success, at least an attempt to deal with terrorists on a proactive basis.
The fact that he’s largely gone it alone – particularly since John Howard was defeated in Australia last year – is quite simply a disgrace free countries everywhere. Thus emboldened, this latest batch of terrorists have left Mumbai feeling the effects of an appeasement that should never have happened.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Giving in to any terrorism induced demands, let alone the demands of terrorists in general, is bad policy and no one is likely to argue that point. To imply that the alternative is to agree with George Bush’s approach is a false dichotomy. Stooping to your enemy’s level and treating all your citizens as potential terrorists unless they are card carrying members of the RNC and even then eavesdrop and intrude on their personal lives is not an alternative any free democratic society should seek to emulate. Fortunately enough Americans have finally seen that light as well and now there is some hope we can move towards a more balances approach.
That said, your straightforward summary of events was refreshing.
Really? Only 2 diammetrically opposed options?
Well then, should we invade another country or prepare Osama bin Laden’s welcome party.
Yes, Tom, there are fundamentally only two options – fight or capitulate. How we fight – if we choose to do so – as well as when and where are all vectors that should be carefully analyzed. Given publicly available information, Iraq seems to have been an incorrect choice, as I think you suggest. Likewise the relative abandoning of Afghanistan.
Fighting doesn’t always mean military action. For instance, creating safe, *secure*, secular or even Christian schools and educating the populace of troubled regions in Afghanistan is a good long-term mechanism to attack the root problem of radical Islam.
Radical Islam reminds me of all of the worst evils of the 20th century; Mass movements such as Fascism, communism, nationalism or whatever. These movements always appear in a deceptive romantic guise as something good and positive, yet all they offer is death and destruction on a massive scale. Unfortunately the human mind is quite susceptible to romantic fantasies and therefore these movements were able to get a lot of support despite their violence and bloodshed.
When it comes to the battle against radical Islam, a very large percentage of the population of the west buy into the Islamist romanticism. Analyses of Islamism tend to focus on the Islamists’ grievances rather than on their actions. Look at the Mumbai attacks; how many Jews are there in India? Very few, yet one of the biggest targets of the Islamists is the tiny Jewish community.
Unfortunately western liberals are incapable of dealing with Islamism because they just do not go in for the idea of evil any more. Evil, if it exists, is something that is confined to neo-Nazis, evil coming from any other source is simply invisible to the western liberal mindset.
I think that a useful exercise in fighting Islamists would be to focus on the activities of the Islamists, especially their large scale killing of innocents which is currently airbrushed out by looking at their grievances.
It seems kind of like a broad definition of “fight”, to include the building of schools, but OK…but doesn’t that kind of reduce your suggestion to “do something, or capitulate”, which strikes me as kind of obvious….
…if you don’t think western liberals believe in evil, you should see what they have to say about George Bush.
Or get beyond the stereotypes of liberals as extreme moral relativists. Or explain why if so many in the West have a romantic notion of Islam, Obama felt the need to strongly deny that he was a Muslim.
Tom, fair point. Western Liberals find it difficult to see evil that does not come from the political right. I accept your criticism on that point.
On the romanticism, on re-reading my comment I didn’t express myself that well. I do not believe that western romanticism is with Islam at all, but with revolutionary movements, politically motivated (non-right wing) violence and utopian political solutions. Somehow violence that comes from a non-right wing political source it is taken as evidence that the perpetrators are really oppressed or have no other options etc.
Also I am writing from Europe, not the US. I think that the political class in the US is in general more robust. The sort of people that usually only become academics in the US get to run political parties and sometimes even states here.
Here in Europe the difference in approach between Islamist and neo-nazi violence is very striking. When Islamists carry out an attack there is a lot of hand wringing and a lot of emphasis on how these people have real grievances etc. etc.
When neo-Nazis carry out an attack nobody starts wondering if this is due to excessive immigration or the excessive influence of Jews on government policy. In other words neo-Nazis are isolated, while Islamists are appeased.
I am not criticising the isolation of neo-nazis because I think this is the correct approach. In countries like Britain this has led to neo-nazis trying to become more “respectable” by ditching some of their most unpleasant ideas. It is not a perfect process and it is far from complete, but isolation seems to be driving them towards reform.
The appeasement of the Islamists has the exact opposite effect. By conceding their self-claimed grievances, grievances that often have little or no basis in reality, Islamists are encouraged and strengthened. While neo-nazi violence is still present, Islamists are far more active.
When it comes to the moral relativist point, I think that this is probably the key to the whole thing. I agree that all liberals are not moral relativists, but moral relativism is becoming a stronger force in the West in general; some of it is liberal, some is conservative and some is centrist. This is the real rot that is causing our collapse.
Why is this? Because someone who doesn’t really believe in anything will not have any bottom line when dealing with a bully. If enough pressure is put on the moral relativist will surrender. I am a conservative, I dislike most of what an old style (pre 1980) liberal believes in, but because he/she believes in something he/she won’t just give in. New style “politically correct” liberalism does not believe in anything much, so it will surrender.