One Reason Terrorists chose Mubai India
Want to know one reason why terrorists chose Mumbai?
Here’s one reason: India’s extremist gun laws.
In order to own a gun you have prove a direct threat on your life. You then have to surrender it as soon as the threat is gone. You have to go to the police station once a month and offer your gun for inspection to the police. You have to show the bullets you have, and in case if you have fired any of them you have to show the casings and tell the police where you used them.
This is not just civilians. Even police officers who use their weapons have to collect their casings and include them in their report of where and why they fired their weapons.
In other words, India is an example of a society which has completely disarmed itself. Now its people are like sheep for the slaughter. The terrorists proved that.
And our President-elect wants more gun control.
Reference: Why India?
thoughts from Ms.Green @ Monday, December 01, 2008
15 Comments:
Wow. Ms Green, you definitely have a point. That is totally ridiculous.
I guess that partially explains why the Indian Police didn't try to intervene. Totally insane.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Insane is right. Thinking you can become a violence-free society by taking away citizens' right to protect themselves...
Totally a wrong conclusion.
Here are the true reasons:
- Proximity to Pakistan
- Huge domestic population of muslims who are sympethetic to radicals.
- Political corruption
- Lack of good planning by policy makers (again, related to corruption)
It's very dishonest to turn this into a 'gun' issue. When you have ten people with AK-47, throwing grenades and willing to die - there will be casualties.
If you are honest, I would like to compare the number of deaths caused by gun in India to USA.
I'm not against or for guns. It's just dissappointing to see people repeating their talking points based on the political party affiliation even in the face of such a tragedy.
By the way, I lived in India for many years.
V,
Ten people with Ak-47's and grenades against an unarmed populace have the advantage. The one terrorist left standing was begging for his life.
If you've really lived in India, then you probably keep up with it and know what is going on there right now and how many people are being slaughtered - and most of these people are totally defenseless against the groups roaming the countryside seeking to murder, rape, and burn alive Christians and others they don't like.
Also, I did say that the gun issue was one reason the terrorists chose Mubai. In all fairness, I did not say it was the only reason.
By the way. Most of your comments, although disagreeing with me, have been cordial and without name-calling or personal attacks. I respect that, and that is why I publish most of your comments. On the other hand, Mr. Anonymous can't wait for my next post so he can attack me and anyone else who agrees with me - he does very little in the way of constructive debate, but excels in ad hominem attacks. That is why I do not publish most of his comments anymore.
V,
I find a few of items in your response to be (in your words) "dissappointing to see".
Sorry to repeat what Ms. Green wrote in response to your post, but, she did say that the oppressive gun laws are ONE reason that Mumbai is an easy choice for illegally armed murderous terrorists, not the ONLY reason.
The "'gun' issue" (as you say) arrises with the following question(s): How far do you think this horrible tragedy would have gone had these Mumbai citizens (in the absence of the current laws of disarmament) been armed? What if they carried weapons for personal protection? What if the terrorists knew it? What if they didn't?
Saying that she has based her post on her political party affiliation is implying that you have some psychic insight into her thoughts, which is of course rediculous.
Although Ms. Green is very gracious in her acceptance of your response, you have in fact claimed that she is being dishonest, which is an address of her character, in my humble opinion. Am I wrong?
V, "Totally a wrong conclusion"? The issue there in India and anywhere else for that matter, is, and will always be about ones personal safety,and the safety of loved ones. Having the right to possess and carry a firearm could be the only deterrent that might save an individual, or others in their proximity, from a terrorist, a fanatic, or just a nut case. The photographer who was photographing all the mayhem in the India massacre was quoted later as saying "IF only I would have had a gun instead of my camera". His statement really speaks to the question of why so many died so quickly. Simply and profoundly the answer--"If only I would have had a gun instead of this camera!!! An armed citizenry is still the best insurance policy any free and democratic society can possess to keep all forms of evil from our doorstep. And the best deal is that its not "based on your political affiliation" if you desire to acquire this Insurance Policy. Its voluntary and no monthly or yearly premiums to pay. What a deal. God Bless, Herm
I would add that the Mumbai incident is an example of how bad such can get when government policy bans guns from the hands of law abiding citizens. One party in this country supports that policy and the other doesn't. In addition, troubles with the country next door or radicals between the two is another reason why I'd want to be armed if I lived there.
Ms.Green,
First of all, thank you for publishing my comments even when I disagree with you strongly. Name-calling or emotional rants don't help - I agree.
Anyways - there are two factual errors in your response. Let me correct. (As I said, I follow what goes on in India very closely because I have many friends out there)
"One of the terrorist left standing was begging for his life" - Well, not really. He was confronted by a group of cops. While his buddy (another terrorist) was shot dead on the spot (inside the Skoda car they were travelling in), second terrorist couldn't use his gun since it was blocked by a cop (who, eventually lost his life). Other cops jumped on the terrorist and disarmed him and arrested him.
Second - you are trying to mix up Islamic terrorism with hindu-christian clashes that went on recently. That's not appropriate. As you probably know, Hindus and Christians lived peacefully together for centuries in India. Christianlity came to India much before it came to europe!!
Indian also have forgiven all the atrocities of portugese/missionaries in today's Goa region. I've met families who fled the region and moved to south due to religious presecution from Portugese.
The trouble started when some greedy missionaries started getting aggressive in spreading christianity once again. I've witnessed it in my own eyes. In fact, many Catholics have opposed this approach. Let me give an example: Mangalore is a small town in the west coast of India. There is a sizable population of Catholics in the city and there was no tension when I lived there. In the recent years, a new group called 'New Life' entered the city and took a very aggressive approach to spread christianity. They will go door-to-door and distribute literature that is offending to Hindu religion, making fun of Hindu gods. They will specifically target poor migrant workers and offer them money to convert. Just a month ago, one of the church members was distributing booklets offending Hindu gods/temples/scriptures in a public square!!! Police had to arrest him!! Local Catholic population has been condemning these acts for years. Due to this incident, one of the hindu radical group attacked 'New Life' church and destroyed the property. To fully exploit the situation, a local Muslim group (KFD) attacked on many other churches!!
So, you need to look at the rootcauses and the other dynamics involved here before comparing it to 'Islamic terrorism'. Occasional Hindu-Christian clashes can be stopped if both parties agree to respect each other. On the other hand, Ismalic terrorism is an evil and it has no easy answers. It's a global level cancer.
Hi, V.
First of all, I’m not mixing Islamic terrorism with Hindu terrorism. To me, terrorism is the same regardless of the group behind it. An unarmed populace is helpless against it.
Also this is a report from abcnews about the captured terrorist, who, as I mentioned, begged for his life. So if that is incorrect, it is ABC news that is at fault.
You mention the root cause of the Goa region violence as over-zealous missionaries. I can’t support the notion that verbally offending someone’s religion is grounds for violence against them. But I agree that anyone, as you said, that would” specifically target poor migrant workers and offer them money to convert” is offensive even to me- because offering money to convert is not a Christian concept. The Bible does not encourage or condone this type of behavior and I can tell you these were not true Christians.
It is not often that you hear of Christians uprising and attacking and killing others because they were verbally offended. If that were common, there would be bloodbaths taking place in this country right now, where Christianity is not only being attacked verbally, but there is an effort to totally eliminate any semblance of Christianity in the public venue.
However, all of these things are side issues. My point was that an unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of any criminal or group (including government) that would decide to exterminate them.
Gotta go. Time to get ready for worship.
By the way, V.
You have rarely agreed with me, but you've always been polite and followed the rules of debate in your disagreements with me - and have never stooped to name calling and attacks - for which I have great respect. I have been accused of never publishing anyone who disagrees with me, but you are proof that is not true - among a few others. Most that disagree with me just don't come back - but you choose to stay and argue your case rationally and with civility - so you are welcome here.
Ms.G,
Thanks again for allowing me to comment here. I guess, we agree to disagree on both 'gun' issue and 'conversion' issue.
Anyways, allowing open discussions certainly reflects on your open mind.
My god bless you.
V
Thanks, V. Although I've heard it say, don't let your mind be TOO open... or your brains will fall out. *grin*
Well, you know what I was talking about. LOL I was only referring to 'Open mind', not 'Opened Mind'! :)
Anyways, I liked your sense of humor....smiles.
Post a Comment
<< Home