So you think Muhammad was a good dude, that Muslims today are childish (like Christians of yore were childish), but I'm still not sure then what you think of the religion itself. I'm not trying to be asinine, I think I'm just missing your over-arching point here.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Mumbai Attacks
- Thread starter JSF_Dreamer
- Start date
So you think Muhammad was a good dude, that Muslims today are childish (like Christians of yore were childish), but I'm still not sure then what you think of the religion itself. I'm not trying to be asinine, I think I'm just missing your over-arching point here.
I'm not a fan of the religion (and honestly, not a huge fan of most organized religion). What Muhammad built is not what you see today. Just as Christianity has changed over the years, so has Islam but I believe for the worse.
This is not to say that probably the vast majority of Muslims aren't fine, upstanding citizens! I will not pass judgment on someone simply based on their faith, just as I expect that someone will not discount me because I do not subscribe to one religion or another. It is a person's actions that speak to who they really are.
As a whole though, the actions of Muslims, in the name of their faith (be it a twisted view or not) have not impressed me. Certainly it is a relatively small minority of Muslims who engage in these deplorable acts, but the vast majority do not seem to take an active role in protesting theses acts. The most fired up I have ever seem the Muslim world was over the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish newspaper. What's a bigger insult to a your religion? - a cartoon by a non-believer, or 20,000 chukleheads blowing themselves (and other Muslims) up in the name of their faith?
If Islam were practiced as Muhammad had originally taught then they would be the very beacon of civilization. Of course, the same could be said about a lot of Christians...
Clear as mud?
I mostly agree.
These are the points I'm not so sure of. I wouldn't argue that there has been some grand spiral down since the Siege of Mecca, in fact I would argue that this religion had some of its most violent days at its very outset (these guys practically invented religious warfare as we see it today).
I think it's fundamentally misguided to try and develop an opinion about the whole of a religion based on either its present context or its history. I know you admit you aren't a fan of any particular organized religion. Clearly, you believe Islam can, theoretically, be "better." I guess what I'm trying to understand is if you believe this religion, as interpreted and acted out by many, today, is the source of the problems we see in that part of the world?
Because I would disagree with such a notion. I'm fairly certain it has to do with the intersection of fundamentally poisoned economic situation combined with cultures that live in places where there really isn't enough to go around.
These are the points I'm not so sure of. I wouldn't argue that there has been some grand spiral down since the Siege of Mecca, in fact I would argue that this religion had some of its most violent days at its very outset (these guys practically invented religious warfare as we see it today).
I think it's fundamentally misguided to try and develop an opinion about the whole of a religion based on either its present context or its history. I know you admit you aren't a fan of any particular organized religion. Clearly, you believe Islam can, theoretically, be "better." I guess what I'm trying to understand is if you believe this religion, as interpreted and acted out by many, today, is the source of the problems we see in that part of the world?
Because I would disagree with such a notion. I'm fairly certain it has to do with the intersection of fundamentally poisoned economic situation combined with cultures that live in places where there really isn't enough to go around.
From what I have seen, they did not do all that good a job in some cases. While it was a very challenging problem some of the CT units did not have very good results in the end. It seemed like they just wanted the crisis to end in some cases, not end it 'right'. That was on top of some of the institutional issues there that impeded a better response.
Finally, when you see a picture like this, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/newsdesk,1689,indian-troops-storm-jewish-centre,59048e
Eliot Watts
New Member
I knew exactly what photo you were talking about before I clicked the link.
Agreed, does not inspire confidence.
Agreed, does not inspire confidence.
BlackBearHockey
go blue...
This article seems to agree with you:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece
Also, I remember some talk in this thread about British origins of some of the attackers (my apologies for not remember who brought it up). It appears that is false (there was a different article which said it more explicitly that I can't find now); scroll down about 2/3:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/353...-horror-of-the-terrorist-attacks-emerges.html
Layzee101
Final Select SWO
On the contrary:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.amarillo.com/images/080406/39358_512.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.amarillo.com/stories/080406/new_5266916.shtml&usg=__nBOZEofjV4Jd8g38GIiLKjhmAuk=&h=512&w=372&sz=55&hl=en&start=25&tbnid=045vgsK5PB5DqM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dkkk%2Bprotest%26start%3D20%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN
Usually when I watch the news the kkk actually need police escorts when they do their demonstrations to protect them from the angry masses.
Was Christian for 1000 plus years, the whole Byzantine empire thing... Sorry motbaillie I seem to be picking on you
Without actually BEING there ... I don't see how anyone can make a reasoned judgment on what was called for -- tactically -- from a picture.
For example: hoisting a relatively light, pistol caliber weapon over your head (or around a corner??) to deliver lead onto a target ... when you need some "height" or cover that might not otherwise be immediately available ... ??? Makes sense to me ... and of course, anything's always possible in a "fight" ...
But then, I don't place too much credence in the second-hand, ill-informed "tactical" judgments of journalists in the first place.
Without actually BEING there ... I don't see how anyone can make a reasoned judgment on what was called for -- tactically -- from a picture.
For example: hoisting a relatively light, pistol caliber weapon over your head (or around a corner??) to deliver lead onto a target ... when you need some "height" or cover that might not otherwise be immediately available ... ??? Makes sense to me ... and of course, anything's always possible in a "fight" ...
But then, I don't place too much credence in the second-hand, ill-informed "tactical" judgments of journalists in the first place.
What A4s said...
My opinion was purely based on my own belief that it could have been worse. I've kicked around the idea of this kind of attack in one of my grad school classes - and I honestly thought that it would have been worse, especially in a place like India (high population density, and probably not the most elite CT unit in the world).
In the end though, I wasn't there (thankfully). I'm just glad more people didn't die. Not that 180 (or whatever it's up to now) is anything to sneeze at.
It could have been worse in terms of casualty count if they weren't targeting foreigners and just looking to rack up numbers. And that probably succeeded in boosting their visibility. Sad truth is, "500 Indians dead, British vacations ruined", won't draw as much coverage as "Gunmen hunt westerners in Mumbai"
And of course, the terrorists were instructed to fight to the death but many of them were captured.
Without actually BEING there ... I don't see how anyone can make a reasoned judgment on what was called for -- tactically -- from a picture.
For example: hoisting a relatively light, pistol caliber weapon over your head (or around a corner??) to deliver lead onto a target ... when you need some "height" or cover that might not otherwise be immediately available ... ??? Makes sense to me ... and of course, anything's always possible in a "fight" ...
But then, I don't place too much credence in the second-hand, ill-informed "tactical" judgments of journalists in the first place.
+1- Tactical decisions are hard to make in the moment and very easy to critique after the fact.
If that caption said "Indian armed officer protects innocent family of three with skillful marksmanship"-he'd be instant hero...no need to add water.
Which is why I was a bit reluctant to post something like that in the first place, but I am relying on more than just that picture (using it as an example of a the larger issue). I like to leave the judgement of such actions to the experts, including in this case, which have not been kind so far.
It will take a while to settle down and I really wouldn't rely too much on what is coming out quite yet. The Indian government is not known for its efficiency or at times, accuracy.
Layzee101
Final Select SWO
Guess here are some that condemn the attack....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_muslims_india_shootings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_muslims_india_shootings
If true about the origins of the group ('a creation of pakistan's intelligence service'), I wonder how much more this will strengthen our ties with India and push us further from Pakistan.
It's not quite as cut and dry. If it were any other nation, we'd sanction them like Iran or Syria. But ISI knows that we fear an isolated and further radicalized Pakistan (that's the kind of respect that Nukes buy you) gives them some leeway. So long as the evidence isn't particularly overt, we'd be reluctant to press hard on them.