Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Mumbai attacks

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Intel assessment: The Sub-Continent continues to be a shit-hole in the short and long term...

That's not fair to say. India is becoming increasingly modern and our (the U.S.) future is heavily tied with theirs and more and more of our goods and services are produced there. This represents something very significant. Indians are equating this to 9/11 in some ways. It shows that India is at a crossroads, on one side their is Islamic Totalitarianism and on the other side is there booming economy and ties to the West. Hopefully this will show which path they should take, and who is really trying to hurt them.

Here is a news story documenting the developments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It shows that India is at a crossroads, on one side their is Islamic Totalitarianism and on the other side is there booming economy and ties to the West. Hopefully this will show which path they should take, and who is really trying to hurt them.
In terms of public opinion, it really isn't "India" that has to make this decision any more that the "US" had to decide not to go down the road of the UNA-bomber or Timothy McVeigh. Most Indians think of these bad guys as an aberration, and assume that they are are financed and sponsored by foreigners from Pakistan and elsewhere.

Though India has seen many terrorist events -- train bombings, and so on -- this event has had a very different impact. This one has shown a much larger scale of organization and execution that the planting of a set of bombs. The typical Indian is viewing this event much like a typical American viewed 9/11.

If one sums up the Indian reaction to an event like this, it would typically be: "It is time to get serious about Pakistan".

BTW: If anyone wants to follow this (or other world events) a good site is WWiTV, which streams TV channels from all over the world. Among the Indian channels, the good English ones are NDTV and CNBC-TV18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem as though our "ally" Pakistan is turning out to be a bit of a problem, both for the Afghan effort and for India.

Even if Musharraf were genuinely interested in being our friend (which I doubt--though I think we had him running scared for a while) the rest of the government is clearly a lot more ambivalent at best. Large portions of it sympathize with the extremists and--whether or not they themselves would be willing to do violence--will basically stand by and do nothing to stop them, giving them free reign. Effectively Pakistan ends up a terrorist haven.

This is why it is dangerous to give someone who sympathizes with radicals any sort of government power.

Anyhow, returning to the concrete of Pakistan, they have The Bomb and will therefore be very difficult to deal with. Imagine what a forthrightly extremist state like Iran would be like, with The Bomb. And note that as of the beginning of this year we knew we would not have a president who would do what was necessary to prevent it (that's a criticism of every candidate, not just the one who won).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of public opinion, it really isn't "India" that has to make this decision any more that the "US" had to decide not to go down the road of the UNA-bomber or Timothy McVeigh. Most Indians think of these bad guys as an aberration, and assume that they are financed and sponsored by foreigners from Pakistan and elsewhere.

If one sums up the Indian reaction to an event like this, it would typically be: "It is time to get serious about Pakistan".

I want to preface this by saying that I don't consider myself well informed on the Kashmir issue.

I think India absolutely has a decision to make both on dealing with Pakistan (although I'm not sure what the right course of action would be here- I don't have enough information), and more importantly on turning toward individualism, toward a change in the culture that would allow their own citizens to live and let live, in their respective faiths. Until that happens, the modest economic advances will not turn India into a peaceful nation, even if they somehow(can't imagine how) manage to resolve this one issue, Kashmir, which is currently causing most of the headaches.

Until individuals can exist as independent entities, free to pursue their own life and happiness, there will always be something to cause civil unrest and terrorism, history proves that much.

P.S. By India I mean not only its government, but also its intellectual leadership and in general the people who have access to enough information from the West that they can come across the right ideas.

What I am rejecting is the idea that these acts of terror are committed by extremists that spring up naturally(therefor it cannot be helped) or independently of the culture around them. Since you mentioned Tim McVeigh, I'll say about him that he is an American problem, not an inevitable accident, or a freak of nature, just as these extremists are India's problem. Of course McVeigh is a much smaller problem, isolated to a tiny part of American culture, where he came from. India on the other hand has a huge problem on its hands, and solving it will require decades of radical cultural and social change.

[edit] Wanted to mention that my opinion on India isn't at all based on today's attacks. (which seem to be aimed against westerners, probably sponsored by al Qaeda) These attacks are more of a global problem we are supposed to solve, so I don't want anyone to interpret my post as "blaming the victim for these deaths".

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the most important point on this one is India is very suspicious of Pakistani involvement. Why? Well, because Pakistan supports jihadism! They inspire, fund, arm, train, and provide sanctuary for Muslim activists worldwide. And no one really calls them on this. America actually says the jihadi-loving Pakistani semi-dictatorship is a ally(!) of the US, and an ally(!) in the "war on terror!" Sick, sick. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...India ... has a decision to make... more importantly on turning toward individualism, toward a change in the culture that would allow their own citizens to live and let live, in their respective faiths.
I am not sure exactly what concretes you're referring to. In general, since independence, India has kept quite a distance between church and state.

There have also always been religious parties, and India's economic resurgence has seen an increase in national pride, which these religious parties use to the full. Also, as elsewhere, the parties that lean toward religion and nationalism also talk a slightly more free-market line. So, a lot of businessmen support them. The danger of an incident like this one is that it might push more voters to vote for those religious/fascist parties, who are already blaming Pakistan for this.

When the dust settles, it is a good chance that we'll find this operation was planned in Pakistan and executed by Pakistanis. However, it is less clear whether it is really "official". I think the reality is that the Pakistani government does not have complete control of its own country, and -- even worse -- does not have control of all elements of its own security apparatus. The Indian government has long maintained that the Pakistani "ISI" (their CIA equivalent) has officers at high levels who conduct a clandestine war against India regardless of what the Pakistani Prime minister tells them to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have also always been religious parties, and India's economic resurgence has seen an increase in national pride, which these religious parties use to the full. Also, as elsewhere, the parties that lean toward religion and nationalism also talk a slightly more free-market line. So, a lot of businessmen support them. The danger of an incident like this one is that it might push more voters to vote for those religious/fascist parties, who are already blaming Pakistan for this.

This is slightly off topic, but there is no other thread available.

I just watched the Charlie Rose interview with two survivors of a 12 hour ordeal in Mumbai. They described where they were helped by the Taj hotel staff to find a safe room in the basement (?) and when they were guided to this room the staffed lined both sides of the hallways intent on protecting them with their lives if the terrorists should appear.

I immediately envisioned the line of workers on protecting the John Galt line.

They spent seven hours (?) hiding in this room, and one of the staff members guarded the door, and at one point a terrorist asked they how to get to another hotel, and then demanded that the staff member open the door. He calmly assured the terrorist, "Don't worry, there's nobody in there." and the terrorist ran off. While the husband and wife of the interview were waiting in this room, this staff member kept assuring them that things would be ok, and at one point said, "Don't worry, they will kill me before they kill you".

Now, the common, and maybe even objectivist response to this might be that these staff members were being selfless. And the husband and wife felt that way about them, and the many staff members who protected their guests with their lives. But I just couldn't buy this. They gave their lives for others, yes. And yes, some of them would be following a religious code that told them to do this. But given how far India has grown up in the past decades, I could not buy this.

What made me cry is the probability that some of these men and women who died protecting their guests did so because on some subconsciously ethical level, they realized were fighting for a value, and against those who would take that value away. They were not police, firemen or emergency personnel, who are trained to respond this way, and chose this line of work, as in 911. These are people just making a living, who stood up to the plate, and in my opinion, made their lives stand for something. I don't see this as selfless, but the most selfish act a person can make with their very lives. They made a statement, with their very lives, "this far, and no farther".

India, you have come a long way baby.

<*>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they start killing these animals and condemning radical Islam for the savagery that it is, then they'll have come a long way.

Context.

Besides, I wasn't talking about the Indian Government, but the Indian People, and more specifically those who work in Mumbai and support what it stands for.

I remember watching on TV the second tower coming down, from the staffroom of the aerospace campus at Vancouver International Airport, and as soon as they said, World TRADE Center, a chill went up my neck. These bastards are attacking the best within us, and in this case, in Mumbai, the best within India stood their ground. Revolutions are always made by the poor slob on the ground who's tired of being pushed around, and because the corrupted hypocrites are too cowardly to do their duty. (and making sure the security forces had a plane fueled and on the runway at all times, fits that category)

Don't belittle the courage and honor of the common man, for they bled and died to make America a reality. Now it is India's turn, if, as the previous poster said, they don't turn back to irrationalism founded on fear. They should turn towards reason and justice founded on a justified anger over and a respect for those who died.

If something similar happened in a US hotel, how many bellhops, or cooks, or hotel managers would have reacted so calmly, and would have given their lives to save others?

Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

(Especially the government, but not the people who did the best they could, and better than most.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rather interesting how the United States refuses to "give permission" for retaliation to those countries who have been attacked or have evidence that there is going to be an attack. In this story, Israel is preparing to attack Iran in a first strike move, since Iran is making enough material to have a nuclear bomb soon. Of course, the US says no. So I have to wonder that since India was supposedly given advanced warning of an Islamic attack on Mumbai, why they didn't take first strike initiatives to prevent it. Did we say no? And if we said no, how does that gel with us going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq after 911? Unless they are saying it was OK in our case because we had a coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rather interesting how the United States refuses to "give permission" for retaliation to those countries who have been attacked or have evidence that there is going to be an attack. In this story, Israel is preparing to attack Iran in a first strike move, since Iran is making enough material to have a nuclear bomb soon. Of course, the US says no. So I have to wonder that since India was supposedly given advanced warning of an Islamic attack on Mumbai, why they didn't take first strike initiatives to prevent it. Did we say no? And if we said no, how does that gel with us going to war against Afghanistan and Iraq after 911? Unless they are saying it was OK in our case because we had a coalition.

I don't recall the US asking for permission from India (or Israel) when we went into Afghanistan. Who knows why they asked, and who knows what answering yes involved?

I'm pretty sure Bush didn't threaten to attack India if they took action, he just didn't guarantee them unconditional American support no matter what India did. Why should the US jeopardize its relationship with Pakistan just to lend some political support to a weak, unprincipled Indian government, who decided to act like a child and depend on someone else for its defense?

We have a manhunt going on in Pakistan, the last thing to do is piss off Musharaff and the Pakistani army by holding the hand of their mortal enemy, while they are doing a few useless air strikes near the border, not for self defense, but just to appease the hawks at home. (What possible use could some random, limited air strikes with Indian weapon systems have? Not even the US can get bin Laden from the air.)

It is annoying how these politicians imply that they need "US permission" to act militarily once they are in office, forgetting how during their campaigns they were all quite anti-American, blaming Western capitalism for poverty in the Third World.

Olmert shouldn't rely on American support either. In fact he should bomb Iran (if they really can pull off an effective attack) as soon as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context.

Besides, I wasn't talking about the Indian Government, but the Indian People, and more specifically those who work in Mumbai and support what it stands for.

I remember watching on TV the second tower coming down, from the staffroom of the aerospace campus at Vancouver International Airport, and as soon as they said, World TRADE Center, a chill went up my neck. These bastards are attacking the best within us, and in this case, in Mumbai, the best within India stood their ground. Revolutions are always made by the poor slob on the ground who's tired of being pushed around, and because the corrupted hypocrites are too cowardly to do their duty. (and making sure the security forces had a plane fueled and on the runway at all times, fits that category)

Don't belittle the courage and honor of the common man, for they bled and died to make America a reality. Now it is India's turn, if, as the previous poster said, they don't turn back to irrationalism founded on fear. They should turn towards reason and justice founded on a justified anger over and a respect for those who died.

If something similar happened in a US hotel, how many bellhops, or cooks, or hotel managers would have reacted so calmly, and would have given their lives to save others?

Mercy for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

(Especially the government, but not the people who did the best they could, and better than most.)

Yes, context. A government's response to terrorist attacks exists within the context of that country's philosophy. It is the philosophy of a country that determines who it sanctions to govern it. Governments don't exist on philosophical islands detached from the people they govern. They must rely on the cooperation, or at the very least apathy, of the population in order to govern. In the history of man, no government has existed that was able to subjugate a population that opposed it.

Thus, the fact that India is willing to put up with Pakistani aggression demonstrates that Indians are willing to put up with it, just as America is willing to put up with Islamic aggression. It's great that some Indians are willing to defend fellow citizens with their lives in a moment of peril. It's not great that they fail to demand that their government smash the enemy to prevent such peril from happening in the first place. Both actions involve Indians surrenduring their lives -- the one, a long, agonizing surrendur to Islamic animals, and the other, a desperate, altruistic surrendur to the terrorist attack du jour. India will have come a long way when its people begin to think long-term about protecting themselves from animals by annihilating them and breaking their will to threaten, rather than bravely and unnecessarily throwing themselves on grenades every couple of months. The same goes for America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not great that they fail to demand that their government smash the enemy to prevent such peril from happening in the first place
Some do. India has had quite a few previous incidents. There have been shootings and bombings. The previous bombing in Mumbai killed over 200 people. Some years ago, there was a brazen incident that was also blamed on the Pakistan-based terrorists, either the L.E.T., or others. In that incident, a team of gunmen stormed into the Indian parliament, shooting people up.

At the time of that incident, both India and Pakistan began to build up troops on their borders is what's called the "2001-02 standoff". Over a thousand soldiers were killed on both sides, in skirmishes, while both countries were holding back (or being held back) from war.

There are a few issues with going to war:

Firstly, many Indians are concerned about Pakistan's nuclear capability. It is pretty believable that the Pakistanis could hit Bombay and Delhi with a bomb each. So, it is quite different from the U.S. going after Afghanistan or Iraq: in distance, in the "enemy's" capability, and in the capability of India (as contrasted to the U.S.).

Secondly, anyone realizes how such a war will end, even if nukes are nor used and India thrashes Pakistan. Virtually every country in the U.N. will insist that India move out at some point. Popular opinion in Pakistan will be extremely anti-India, and after moving out things will start to go downhill all over again.

Finally, many Indians are wary of the right-wing religious parties within India who want to use anti-Pakistan rhetoric to rise to power, but have a dangerously religious home-agenda. In fact, in the recent past, Indian governments ruled by such Hindu elements have acted unjustly against Muslims within India. In some states that they rule, they have passed "anti-conversion" laws, aimed at disallowing Hindu's from converting to Christianity or Islam. India has a huge Muslim population (larger than Pakistan), that is almost completely peaceful -- -at least, just as peaceful as the Hindus. So, many Indians are wary of having the right-wing Hindus come to power again at the Federal level and stir up tensions within the country.

At the same time, this recent Mumbai incident has seen a different reaction within India. In the past, people have spoken about how Bombay is resilient and will bounce back from an attack. This time one hears most people say: "Don't talk about us being resilient; we need to do something". A large number of people want the government to do something about the L.E.T. Indians realize that the Pakistani government is not a single, well-controlled entity, nor does it have complete control within its own country. So, rather than war targeting(say) Lahore or Rawalpindi, many Indians are asking their government to hit the L.E.T. camps that are in towns and villages just inside the Pakistani border, just as the U.S. is doing on Pakistan's other border.

Pakistan itself is a complicated place, where the government is obviously not in full control. For instance, just before the Bombay attacks, the newly-elected Pakistan Prime Minister was talking about becoming more friendly with India, and mentioned that he would be willing to agree that his country would not be the first to use a nuke in a conventional war. Days later, obviously scolded by his generals, he back-tracked. Then, the day after the Bombay attack, the Pakistani PM spoke to the Indian PM. As a sign of support, he said he would send the ISI chief to India, for discussions. (That is quite a big deal. Imagine sending the KGB chief to Washington during the cold-war. ) Again, a day or two later, he back-tracked and said a lower-level ISI official would do for now.

The Pakistani ISI (their CIA equivalent) definitely used to be out of control a few years ago. Their ex-chief (Hamid Gul) was interviewed on CNN this weekend and he is a crazy coot, who says that 9/11 was planned by American Zionists, etc. On the other hand, he is an ex-chief, who was once arrested by Mussharaf, and was accused by Benazir Bhutto of being behind bombings that targeted her.

Because of this, some people in India hold out hope that the best course is for pressure on Pakistan to to be increased in a way that weakens the worse elements in the ISI and military, and strengthens their civilian government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...