I stumbled across The Terrorist Within while searching for something completely unrelated. The story caught my eye and I started to read it. It's a damned good read. The summary is: So it is that Ahmed Ressam — the boy who loved to fish in the Mediterranean, the teenager who loved to dance at discothèques, the young man who tried and failed to get into college, who connected with fanatical Muslims in Montreal, who learned to kill in bin Laden's camps, who plotted to massacre American citizens — has become one of the U.S. government's most valuable weapons in the war against terror. The story isn't great for what it tells us about terrorism or Al Qaeda. Most of us already know all of that. The story is interesting for what it tells us about Ahmed Ressam -- a young man who was searching for acceptance and found it in Al Qaeda. Ressam was apprehended at the Canadian border while smuggling explosives into the U.S. for the purpose of murdering travellers at LAX. His apprehension was a lucky accident that saved the lives of hundreds of people. It's a good read.
Actually, in India, incidents like this have become so common that people don't even take 'em seriously. Every other day, you can see some Moslem terrorist getting arrested somewhere in the country, most of the times caught red-handed with explosives, bomb blast plans, and other such stuff. Unless we bring a universal anti-tolerance policy to kick their asses well, this thing won't stop.
I concur. The article talks a bit about how little the Canadians cared about "a bunch of guys" who were planning mass-murder, because the actual attacks would most likely occur outside of Canada. We in the civilized world need to be very clear with terrorists and their supporters that, regardless of what may seem acceptable in their culture, this behavior is not acceptable in our culture. The Canadians sent the exact opposite message. The message they sent was that mass-murder was a cultural choice. This is multiculturalism at it's worst.
Will, Read this article. Then go back to my last reply. Trust me, it happens every fucking day. But Indian politicians are perhaps the worst lot in the world when it comes to dealing with terrorists. And so, this sorry state of affairs will continue.
We should give a strong response to these politicians in coming 2009 elections... If anyone supports Terrorism one day it's going to turn against themselves...
Thanks for the link. The related articles on the left menu were also good. In India, we don't catch terrorists was particularly supportive of your point. American apologists for Islamist terrorists claim that the Jews are responsible for Islamic terrorism. How many Jews are there in India?
We have a hell lot of pseudo secularists who support these terrorists at any cost. Just like they accuse the Jews in the US, these people accuse the Hindus. But in realty, the Moslem population in India has grown significantly after India became independent. However, the Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh has declined rapidly after independence. But nobody, I mean nobody, in India will talk about this. Because, they need to appease the Moslem vote bank at any cost. Sick bastards.
I hope that the Indian government and the Indian people step up and say to the Islamists "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR." I hope this now more than ever, because we're having a major election here in the U.S. and the odds are that with the coronation of Barack Obama next January our foreign policy will change from "THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR" to "Terrorism is the fault of the victim. We're sorry for making you bomb us. What can we do to accommodate your needs?" The world is going to get very bad very quickly. Our becoming a soft target will enthuse and motivate the terrorists to larger and more frequent attacks. The Islamists in India will see this and will test the Indian government and the Indian people in the same manner. If they appear equally soft, the same pattern will emerge there. If they appear hard, then there will be fewer attacks in India and the attacks will instead shift to softer targets -- which unfortunately will probably be the U.S.!
That, exactly, has been the policy of most Indian politicians for a long time now. Trust me mate, the future looks really bleak.
Unfortunately, I believe that you are correct. It's going to get a lot darker before we start to see light. Most of us humans don't change unless circumstances force us to change. Fighting terrorists requires a level of national will that comes quite unnaturally to the citizens of modern democracies such as India or the U.S. When I worked at IBM, we had a phrase to describe the goals of most of our co-workers -- "fat, dumb, and happy." These three things are the result of comfortable democracy. Unfortunately, these three things also make us almost perfect targets for Islamist aggression.
Whatever happened to MLK and gandhi's form of passive disobediance. I think throughout history this style has always changed the opinions of the masses the most because deep down most people are kind hearted and compassionate. Its a shame more people dont practice it. Life is so precious
In a big picture sense, yes, that would be wonderful. In a more practical sense, that only works against very soft targets. It might work, for example, against the U.S. or India. Can you image how pathetically useless it would be against someone like Kim Jong Il? All of the dissenters would simply end up in a trench. Remember how the Chinese government simply ran over the protesters Tianamen Square with tanks -- and nothing happened as a result? Remember the same story with the Soviet tanks a few decades earlier? You are not going to convince Osama bin Laden and his ilk of anything with passive resistance, because passive resistance is exactly what they want. The Qua'ran teaches that all non-Muslims must be subjugated and ruled -- that's the model. Modern democracies, on the other hand, are much more vulnerable to passive resistance because these societies are built upon the expectation that everyone contributes to the success of the "system." Sympathy alone can play a huge factor in political decision making, not to mention the more direct effects of walk-outs, sit-ins, demonstrations, and riots. These events can cripple an economy and create massive change. But... Osama bin Laden and his ilk don't have an economy to cripple. They are immune to the effects of "silly" tactics like peaceful resistance. If you tried it with them, they would simply kill you on the spot. Asymmetric warfare is a bitch.