Hotel Shootings in Mumbai, India (MERGED)

This is a discussion on Hotel Shootings in Mumbai, India (MERGED) within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense I don't remember the colonists mudering innocent civilians. Yes, they would have been hanged for treason. That does not make them ...

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 104

Thread: Hotel Shootings in Mumbai, India (MERGED)

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member Array GWRedDragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    1,413
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't remember the colonists mudering innocent civilians. Yes, they would have been hanged for treason. That does not make them terrorists, now does it?
    I seem to recall that in many cities Tories were hanged from lampposts...either way it was certainly not a pleasant time to be a British loyalist.
    "Trust in God with hand on sword" -Inscription on my family's coat of arms from medieval England
    ---Carry options: G26/MTAC, PF9/MiniTuck, PPK/Pocket, USP40/OWB---
    ---NOTE: I am not an expert. If I ever start acting like a know-it-all, please call me on it immediately. ---

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    How do we use an incident that occurred in 1993 as justification for our actions in 1986? If we follow that logic any of the current attacks against the US could be for something that an American is going to do in 2015.
    I only wanted to provide evidence for Sandanista terrorism. Making a moral equivalency argument between the Contras and the Sandanistas is disingenous. It is like believing that beheading Nichlas Berg was equivalent to executing Saddam Hussein.

    The Sandanistas were and are bad guys. The Contas were good guys. We supported the Contras because it was/is in our national interest to remove the terrorist regime.

    Perrhaps that person in 1993 was acting in retalliation for our actions in 1986. Makes a little more sense don't you think?
    No, I don't. The terrorist network is worldwide. It was alive and well going back before the Lebanon bombings (Reagan should have retaliated immediately rather than withdrawing.) The communist takeover in Nicaragua was not an isolated incident.

    In any case, an act of terrorism against innocent civilians is never justifiable.

  4. #63
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,758
    And the communist take over was by an election certified as free and fair by international observers in which the Sandinistas won 67% of the vote.
    And what terrorist acts did that regime commit that were any different from the execution of our foreign policy in that region at the time? They simply decided that their national interests diverged from ours. It's their country, they can do that.

    And yes, terrorism against innocent civilians is never justified, even when it serves to advance US interests. There is ample evidence of attrocities by both sides in Nicaragua back in the 1980's. Even by those that were materially supported by the United States.

    We are not saints. Our country has done plenty of "evil" things in the past to advance our national interests. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. A government that is not willing to get it's hands dirty when it needs to is not really serving it's people to the best of it's abilities. But to believe that anything done for us is right and pure and good is rather naive. And to believe that anyone that seeks to advance their own interests by the only means left available to them have to be evil is in my opinion equally so.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  5. #64
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,665
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    OPFOR,
    Do you think the collateral damage in Pakistan cares that they do not live in a major metropolitan area?
    No, but they also don't care that they are harboring terrorists that are actively engaged in killing US and coalition forces.
    Our armed forces, while completely justified from our point of view, have violated the sovereign nation of Pakistan. They are supposedly an ally of ours, but they have not given permission for us to conduct these operations.
    I'll grant you this, but so what? If they were the ally they say they are, they'd take care of these people themselves. Allowing the enemy to have safe havens somewhere is a LOSING proposition; we did it in Vietnam, and it was a major contributing factor to our loss there.
    in your analysis of the analogy in that Pakistan did not provide the base of operations and training sites for 9/11. That was Afghanistan.
    Pakistan created and supported the Taliban. Their Madrassas gave them their ideology, their intel services gave them their training and weapons (and yes, I know we gave them a good number of weapons ourselves...) Pakistan bears more ultimate responsibility than most realize, or at least will publically admit.
    Now substitute Mexico for Afghanistan, Venezuela for the U.S. and the U.S. for Pakistan and tell me again how the analogy is ridiculous.
    OK, I'm telling you again: that analogy is ridiculous. The US has not had anything to do with any Mexican terrorist organization that has killed thousands of Venezuelans...Period. There is absolutely no basis for comparison.
    And Ok, lets not strike major metropolitan areas. How would the U.S. respond to foreign troops launching strikes against and operating in rural New Mexico, Texas and California. Instead of the French bombing Buffalo, how about they fire missiles at Attica? Does that make it ok?
    The point is moot, because the analogy fails outright. And we have responded to foreigners attacking major US cities - that's why we're in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) in the first place.
    I am not saying that we necessarily have to change the execution of our foreign policy, just that we had better understand the possible consequences of that policy and be ready to pay the price. To believe that we can do stuff like that and not suffer reprisals is lunacy.
    We've paid the price for NOT doing anything over and over and over again. We weren't shooting rockets into Pakistan when terrorists blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, when they hijacked the numerous airplanes that they have, when they threw grenades into German discos, and so on. There are large elements of the Pakistani intel and military forces that already actively supported the enemy - a few rockets here and there isn't going to change much.

    The bigger question is How much involvement did Pakistan have in the Mumbai attacks? If it turns out to be a lot, then I suspect the Indians will do a lot more than blow up a Taliban base camp or two...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  6. #65
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    21,383
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Either that, or it doesn't say much for who we call a "terrorist"

    I guess the basic rule is if they are on "our" side they are "freedom fighters" it they aren't they are "terrorists" at least until they win and become popular in the US.
    Gots to read them history books!

    One man's terrorist is another man's patriot! Just depends on who is writing the propaganda.
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  7. #66
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,758
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle View Post
    Gots to read them history books!

    One man's terrorist is another man's patriot! Just depends on who is writing the propaganda.
    Thats the thing about history, the winners get to write the books.

    Look at how Stalin was viewed over the last seventy years. Both by the U.S. and the former Soviet Union.


    And OPFOR, you are correct, we haven't supported Mexican terrorists that attacked Venezuela. But if we had, would support Venezuelas right to pursue and attack those mexican terrorists on US soil? And would you condemn any American that attempted to strike back against Venezuela?

    Oh yeah, I thought the German disco grenades were Lybians, and Reagan did deal with that appropriately. Something involving F-111 strikes.....
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #67
    VIP Member
    Array OPFOR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Nomad
    Posts
    4,665
    Did anybody really ever like Stalin? Really?

    I know we haven't supported any Mexican terrorists, that was my point entirely. If we had, then I'd have to take a good hard look at what the target of that terrorism was justified in doing. That's a mighty big, if, however...

    The Lybians were at the heart of some serious terrorism over the years. Reagan took some significant action against them, and now they're buddy-buddy with us. I think that nugget actually supports our stikes inside Pakistan on an historical basis, doesn't it?

    The real point is this: terrorism against civilians is never justified. Have we done it, or at least supported it, in the past? Of course. That still doesn't make it right. Complaining about things that happened 200 years ago is silly, as the moral code of the world was drastically different. Even a generation or two ago, the difference between justified and not, right and wrong seemed a little blurrier. We can't judge the people and actions of the past against todays moral guidelines...
    A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.

  9. #68
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    And the communist take over was by an election certified as free and fair by international observers in which the Sandinistas won 67% of the vote.
    And what terrorist acts did that regime commit that were any different from the execution of our foreign policy in that region at the time? They simply decided that their national interests diverged from ours. It's their country, they can do that.
    Are you accusing the United States of terrorists acts. Yes, the Sandanistas won an 'election.' Hussein won 98% of the vote in his elections, as well. Yes, if the people actually want a nation that oppresses their rights, imprisons those who speak out against government, and murders innocent civilians then you are correct, that is their perogative. We elected Obama, after all.

    Do you eally need specific examples of the Snadanistas terrorizing the people? I suppose you believe Michael Moore's contention that Cuba has the best health care.

    And yes, terrorism against innocent civilians is never justified, even when it serves to advance US interests.
    Terrorism against civilians does not advance US interests. Are you referring to any specific incident, such as Murtha accusing the troops of cold blooded murder, or Obama claiming we air raid civilians? Or maybe Durbin equating our troops with Nazis?

    There is ample evidence of attrocities by both sides in Nicaragua back in the 1980's. Even by those that were materially supported by the United States.
    Atrocities are not necessarily acts of terror. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atrocities. Totally justified. And not an example of terrorism.

    We are not saints. Our country has done plenty of "evil" things in the past to advance our national interests. I personally wouldn't have it any other way. A government that is not willing to get it's hands dirty when it needs to is not really serving it's people to the best of it's abilities. But to believe that anything done for us is right and pure and good is rather naive.
    No, we are not saints and we have done plenty of bad things. But our goals are moral and altruistic. We have done more good for the world than any society in history. The terrroists are pure evil and any argument relying on moral equivalence does not stand up to even marginal scrutiny.

    And to believe that anyone that seeks to advance their own interests by the only means left available to them have to be evil is in my opinion equally so.
    Exactly what interest of the terrorists are you attempting to justify here? The only means left? Have you considered democracy and elections as viable alternatives? Yes, they are completely evil and should be eradicated. Not captured and provided trials, they should be executed immediately, on the battlefield.

    The fact is these terrorists have little to no support of the people. This is not a democratic revolution. It is anarchy, mayhem, murder and terror on an international scale.

  10. #69
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,758
    SelfDefense,
    "certified as free and fair by international observers" that hardly equates to Saddam's 98%

    That was a democratically elected government with national interests that differed from ours. As far as the oppression of the people perhaps you should take a long look at the track record of the Somoza regime that the US had been supporting for so long. Even the US government gave up on it as further support being political suicide.

    As far as US involvement in terrorism, it was mostly by proxy, but not always. We had our friends in El Salvador that took care of folks that had communist sympathies there. They were frequently refered to as "Death Squads". Most of their leadership received training at the "School of the Americas" at Fort Benning. I actually had to track some of them down when they got seperated on a tour of my battalion area. Lets not forget that twenty five years ago Saddam was one of our best buddies in the gulf.

    And as far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and lets not forget Dresden the only reason they don't meet most of the over 100 definitions of terrorism is that it was an official act by a government. Most of the definitions are written by governments so as to excuse their own conduct. If my homeowners association committed the same acts for the same reasons under the same circumstances they would have been labled as terrorist acts.

    Yes our goals are moral and altruistic and we have done more good for the world than any society in historyby our own definition of good!
    Do those that do not share our values necessarily think that all of our "help" is good? On what grounds do we have the right to force our values upon them?
    That moral and altruistic argument is the same kind of thing the gun grabbers use all the time. They are just trying to give us better lives and save us from ourselves.

    And OPFOR you are exactly right about changing moral values. That is part of the point I am trying to make. Those "terrorists" I listed by name earlier, not only won Nobel Peace Prizes, they were guests at the White House.

    And Stalin was quite popular even after his death. His image didn't start to really tarnish over there until Brezhnev had settled in. According to my father ( who retired after 42 years at C.I.A.) the Agency loved Stalin. Dad used to say that Stalin killed more communists than Mac Arthur!
    Last edited by mcp1810; November 29th, 2008 at 03:35 PM.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  11. #70
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    SelfDefense,
    "certified as free and fair by international observers" that hardly equates to Saddam's 98%
    Do you mean Jimmy Carter?


    That was a democratically elected government with national interests that differed from ours. As far as the oppression of the people perhaps you should take a long look at the track record of the Somoza regime that the US had been supporting for so long. Even the US government gave up on it as further support being political suicide.
    I wouldn't dream of defending Somoza's regime. That does not excuse other regimes. Bad behavior is not justified by pointing to other bad behavior.

    As far as US involvement in terrorism, it was mostly by proxy, but not always. We had our friends in El Salvador that took care of folks that had communist sympathies there. They were frequently refered to as "Death Squads". Most of their leadership received training at the "School of the Americas" at Fort Benning. I actually had to track some of them down when they got seperated on a tour of my battalion area. Lets not forget that twenty five years ago Saddam was one of our best buddies in the gulf.
    I never claimed we were pure and pristine. However, our motives and ideals, liberty, freedom, and opportunity for the people are clearly good. Communism and oppression is clearly bad, no matter how you want to spin it. Moreover, many nations that practice dictatorship and fascism pose a grave threat to our national security.

    And as far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and lets not forget Dresden the only reason they don't meet most of the over 100 definitions of terrorism is that it was an official act by a government.
    Dresden was a military target. It was the heart of transportation in Germany and served a military purpose. Are you suggesting the terrorism in Mumbai is in any way comparable?.

    There are not 100 defintitions of terrorism. Only one. Like pornography, some want to blur the obvious but I know it when I see it.

    Most of the definitions are written by governments so as to excuse their own conduct. If my homeowners association committed the same acts for the same reasons under the same circumstances they would have been labled as terrorist acts.
    There is quite a difference between military strategy to defeat and well defined enemy and a homeowner's association toching a neighbohood because they want their houses painted orange rather than green.

    Yes our goals are moral and altruistic and we have done more good for the world than any society in historyby our own definition of good!
    Are you still saying you cannot determine good from evil? Oppression/tyranny/murder/rape bad. Liberty, justice, freedom, opportunity good. Not really a difficult concept.

    Do those that do not share our values necessarily think that all of our "help" is good? On what grounds do we have the right to force our values upon them?
    It has thing to do with 'sharing our values.' It has everything to do with good and evil. No, those are not politically correct and we see how much trouble we have allowed by not calling a spade a spade. I remember how Reagan was villified by liberals because he correctly identified the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire. I remember how Bush was villified when he correctly identified the Axis of Evil. Those two great men were absolutely correct. There is no moral equivalence or nuance or any other mumbo jumbo to justify murdering civilians, raping lttle girls and beheading innocent people.

    The same people want to free terrorists from their prisons and allow them to run loose in the United States. Madness...madness.

    That moral and altruistic argument is the same kind of thing the gun grabbers use all the time. They are just trying to give us better lives and save us from ourselves.
    Are you suggesting that antis are equivalent to beheading terrorists or murdering tourists? The antis do not forceably confiscate your guns. They convince their neighbors and ty to effect change through the legislative process.

    And OPFOR you are exactly right about changing moral values. That is part of the point I am trying to make. Those "terrorists" I listed by name earlier, not only won Nobel Peace Prizes, they were guests at the White House.
    Moral values never change.

  12. #71
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    21,383
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    And OPFOR you are exactly right about changing moral values. That is part of the point I am trying to make. Those "terrorists" I listed by name earlier, not only won Nobel Peace Prizes, they were guests at the White House.
    I can at least vouch for the visit of Menachem Begin, I was part of his protective detail. The one thing that struck me about him was how short he was.
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  13. #72
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,096
    All this foreign policy stuff makes my head spin. Guess that's why we elected a globalist.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That sure doesnt say much for the "Nobel Peace Prize" does it?
    Well, Alfred Nobel did invent dynamite!
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  14. #73
    Senior Member Array Paladin132's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    528
    OPFOR: Many Russians really thought Stalin was the cat's meow. They cried when he died, many of them - including many that went to Siberia more than once! They felt he was their leader and many of them felt that they had failed him and had to be punished. Its backwards from our thinking, but its in many academic sources - makes my head hurt but hey, he was their guy during a nasty time in history.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,758
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Do you mean Jimmy Carter?
    And the Irish Parliamentary delegation, New York's Human Rights Commission, the U.S. Latin American Studies Association among others.




    I wouldn't dream of defending Somoza's regime. That does not excuse other regimes. Bad behavior is not justified by pointing to other bad behavior.
    Then why are you pointing to others bad behavior to justify ours?



    I never claimed we were pure and pristine. However, our motives and ideals, liberty, freedom, and opportunity for the people are clearly good. Communism and oppression is clearly bad, no matter how you want to spin it. Moreover, many nations that practice dictatorship and fascism pose a grave threat to our national security.
    And what if in their freedom, they choose communism? Are they clearly bad? And what of our client states that we supported that practiced dictatorship and fascism? Did they pose a grave threat to our national security? Why should our national security be a higher priority to another country than their own?



    Dresden was a military target. It was the heart of transportation in Germany and served a military purpose. Are you suggesting the terrorism in Mumbai is in any way comparable?.
    No the attacks in Mumbai are not justified. But by your logic was the 9/11 attack on the pentagon justified? I can't think of any other facility that serves more of a military purpose.

    As far as the fire bombing of Dresden and the nuking of Japan, there is ample documentation of much internal debate on our policy of "total war". The fire bombing was not so much a matter of strategic import as to break the will of the people. There was discussion as to warning the Japanese to allow the evacuation of civilians from Hiroshima and Nagasaki before the bombing but we decided against it.

    There are not 100 defintitions of terrorism. Only one. Like pornography, some want to blur the obvious but I know it when I see it.
    Actually each government has its own definition of terrorism. The U.S. government at one point had at least three. One for the State Department, one from the Army, and one for the Department of Justice.



    There is quite a difference between military strategy to defeat and well defined enemy and a homeowner's association toching a neighbohood because they want their houses painted orange rather than green.
    You are right of course, but the point was that the only reason those acts of violence against a civilian population to force a political change i.e. the end of hostilities between the involved nations does not meet most of the definitions of terrorism is because they were carried out by a government. Any other entity that did the same would be labled as terrorists.



    Are you still saying you cannot determine good from evil? Oppression/tyranny/murder/rape bad. Liberty, justice, freedom, opportunity good. Not really a difficult concept.



    It has thing to do with 'sharing our values.' It has everything to do with good and evil. No, those are not politically correct and we see how much trouble we have allowed by not calling a spade a spade. I remember how Reagan was villified by liberals because he correctly identified the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire. I remember how Bush was villified when he correctly identified the Axis of Evil. Those two great men were absolutely correct. There is no moral equivalence or nuance or any other mumbo jumbo to justify murdering civilians, raping lttle girls and beheading innocent people.
    You are right, there is no justification for murdering civilians, raping little girls and beheading innocent people. And yet (other than the beheading stuff) that is exactly what some of our peope have been doing. We must hold our own people as accountable for these acts as we are trying to hold our enemies or we are inviting further violence against us.

    And "good" and "evil" are most definitely culturally based moral values. Until we accept this we have no hope of understanding the motivation of our enemies. And without understanding that motivation we have no hope of defeating them.

    The same people want to free terrorists from their prisons and allow them to run loose in the United States. Madness...madness.



    Are you suggesting that antis are equivalent to beheading terrorists or murdering tourists? The antis do not forceably confiscate your guns. They convince their neighbors and ty to effect change through the legislative process.
    And after that legislative process is complete then they will forcibly confiscate our guns. They are only doing it for our own good after all........


    Moral values never change.
    And yet people who are labled "Terrorsts" by our government get invited to the White House after time passes and hailed as great men of peace.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  16. #75
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    The winners of the conflict will allways be the ones that get to decide who is the terrorist and who is a hero. That is the problem with the deffinition. Someone can be a terrorist for 40 years. When his side comes out on the winning side he is looked on as a freedom fighter.

    No one will win this argument. There is no deffiniate answer. It all depends on which side your on.

    Michael

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. NYPD trains for Mumbai Style Attack
    By scott625 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2011, 12:30 AM
  2. FBI says MUMBAI style attack very possible..
    By ExSoldier in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: December 29th, 2010, 07:29 PM
  3. Hotel Room Defense - Al Qaeda eyes more Mumbai-style attacks
    By Coder in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: November 18th, 2010, 12:56 AM
  4. Mumbai in US?? (Merged)
    By ada229 in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: December 7th, 2008, 12:53 PM