new info on Mumbai drama

I think your conclusions are unwarranted.

Municipal police are not supposed to be armed and trained like assault battalions.

Had the same event happened in any large, modern city in the US, the city leadership quite properly would have appealed to the government for National Guard and/or Federal military troops to handle the situation.

And I think 72 hours would be a very optimistic estimate for the time period required to eliminate the threat.

The only difference between what happened in Mumbai and what might happen here (at least in "shall issue" CCW states) is that the terrorists would have had their fire returned quite quickly by their intended victims.

 

Sorry bud but the fact is that the very term 'terrorist' is a bit of moral equivocation. Right now we use it to cover anybody attacking us physically on moral grounds, lets face it if we use any definition involving 'using terror to pursue political means' that pretty much covers US and other western actions throughout the middle east for quite a while.

Call them terrorists if you like but that is a massive oversimplification of a very complex situation.

 

I agree LOL. And I did right from the start when I read the one and only article that was posted on the web.

 

I agree. The term "terrorist" has been overplayed. It's all a question of which eye you use to view all this.

Example: the uprising in India in 1857 is called by the British "The Indian Mutiny". India on the other hand has erected a statue to those brave freedom fighters. So, who is right?

If this is a war - and I happen to think it is, though undeclared - these people are not terrorists at all. You can't call people terrorist just because their behaviour is revolting. There's countless examples of Allied troops being revolting in WW2 for one example.

 

Yes you can (call them terrorists). They are terrorists because they have a political agenda and their behavior is consistantly revolting. If they were truly engaged in a war or revolution with political goals they would not consistantly target "soft" civilian targets that will do nothing to bring them closer to their goals.
Yet, this is exactly what Al Queida and other radical Islamic terrorist groups do.

 

Ah! Now I understand. So the British, Americans, German and Japanese who consistently targeted civilians during WW2 are actually terrorists!

 

Every one intitled to there own opinion.

Too me they are Terrorists. Willing to harm and hurt people at there govenments despents, there Terrorists and that goes for all Races of people not just muslims.
During ww2 thats a different conflict to peace time.

Warm Cheers.

 

And Germans,Japanese and "countless" others who commited revolting acts regardless of which side they were on. So don't just use the Allies as an example. Even so what happened over 60 years ago does not make what happened any more right. There were no military needs for this.This was done purely to murder and create havoc for the sake of advancing thier goals and agenda. Be they religious or political. Not to accomplish a military objective. And the odds are they are religious. And how are, if they are Pakastanis for example, '"Freedom Fighters" for a country not their own? Its real easy to kill innocents who are unable to fight back.

 

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I'd say this pretty well sums up what these people did in Mumbai. I was glad to hear some of the Islamic cemetaries refused to let the men be buried in them because they did not feel these terrorists exemplified Islamic doctrine.

 

If this is a war, then the people who attacked Mumbai are, by definition, war criminals, pure and simple. If it is not a war, then they are terrorists, pure and simple.

And no, there are NOT numerous examples of Allied troops being "revolting" during WW II. They did commit atrocities on occasion, but documented instances of those occasions are remarkably few and far between. So much so, that we find genuine cases of atrocities committed by Allied troops to be doubly shocking and disturbing. In any case, citing examples of some other group committing atrocities in no way excuses or mitigates the most recent examples.

 

I know of no examples of Americans "consistently" (or even once) targeting civilians during WW II. In every case that I have ever read of, Americans sought to damage or destroy legitimate military targets, and in every case, where civilians were killed, the attacks fell under permissible actions under international law.

If you would care to cite a case where this was not so, I will be happy to discuss the matter.

 

guys what about getting back to the topic? There are several threads which discussed the bombings of WWII already and this is not the proper place.

 

IIRC it was about the alleged "Torture" that was stated in the very first post.

 

Ill just point out that the originator of this thread was the one that opened the door for the sub topic.

 

In the words of George Carlin "Why is that Israel killers are called Commandos and Arab Commandos are called Terrorists?"



Cheers...

 

Don't you just love biological diversity?

 

- Sir, the natives are revolting!
- I know they are, but what are doing with those spears?”

 

Apparently the US warned them of an attack

 

Maybe more to it, but Id like to see the more if it ever comes out.

I could warn Liverpool city council of the same risk within the next few months too.

Im not so sure it would be specific or intelligence led though. Ill wait and see.

Begs the question though, if it was intelligence led, why not a warning to own travellers if it was specific and not just the normal this could happen scenario?

 

Taking on terrorists with World War-II guns

Ruhi Khan
Principal Correspondent, NDTV
Wednesday, December 03, 2008 5:55 PM (Mumbai)
While the focus of the media may have been on the terrorist attacks at the Taj and Trident hotels, it was at the Chhatrapati Shivaji terminus, the lifeline of Mumbai, where the maximum casualties took place.

It was at CST, where a group of 8 policemen with World War II-era rifles took on superbly trained terrorists, armed with AK-47 automatic rifles.

The eight brave policemen were Assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Narayan Chavhan, ASI Anandrao Desai, constable Dhondiba Chandane, constable Nielkant Khanolkar, constable Sohail Sheikh (rifle), constable Anand Mayekar, constable Raghunath Choudhar and driver Vishwas Andhale.

They fought the armed terrorists with nothing but their 303 rifles, just after two terrorists had opened fire on unsuspecting commuters, and escaped onto the streets.

The policemen, some near retirement, dodged bullets and grenades forcing the terrorists to escape towards Cama hospital.

"When we realized there was firing at CST, I told my team to grab their rifles and take positions," said constable Dhondiba Chandane, Pydhonie police station.

For many of the policemen, it was the first time they had ever fired a bullet while on duty. Others had not pulled the trigger for well over a decade.

"I first once in 1984 during the riots and another during the 1993 riots," said constable Dhondiba Chandane, Pydhonie police station.

The battle may only have lasted a few minutes but the policemen say it's taught them the lesson of their lifetime.

"Now we will always be alert," said ASI Narayan Chavhan, Pydhonie police station.

Now, bullet holes at CST are a chilling reminder of the gun battle that took place there on November 26. But before the wounds heal and memories fade, it is important for the government to arm our guardians of law with assault weapons to combat the new age terrorism.



NDTV.com: Taking on terrorists with World War-II guns