Saturday, December 06, 2008

The Case For Shooting Rabid Dogs
As the banner says: Appeasement Will Kill Us All
Helmet tip to Sean over at The Blue Boar

In the days following the Mumbai Massacre, a number of folks in conversation would ask me "why did they go after hotels, a Jewish Center, a Women's and Children's hospital, etc.?"

And I had to point out to the folks I was talking with, "you have to remember, these scum aren't warriors. They're terrorists. I also pointed out that the Indian Marines (MARCOS - Indian Marine Commandos) are stationed right there in Mumbai. But like I said, the terrorists won't take part in a stand up fight against Indian Marines or the Mumbai Police... they'll go after the likes of a 9 month pregnant Jewish housewife and torture her to death.

Here's some of the article from Israel News Network; (Emphasis mine)
Doctors: Terrorist Torture of Victims 'Beyond Words'
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(IsraelNN.com) Mumbai doctors who examined the bodies of the victims of the Muslim terror massacre said the victims were tortured before being slaughtered. "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks," a doctor who examined the bodies told the Indian news website Rediff.com.

"Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks... It was clear that they were killed on Wednesday. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again," he said.
Another doctor commented, "It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatized. A bomb blast victim's body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words," he said.

Intelligence officials confirmed the doctors' observations. Ajmal Kamal, the only terrorist who was not killed after he and his gang had managed to murder nearly 200 people and wound hundreds others, told officials that the terrorists "were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis."

Intelligence Bureau sources were quoted as estimating that the terrorists did not want to keep them alive in order not to attract international attention. "They also might have feared the chances of Israeli security agencies taking over the operations at the Nariman House," otherwise known as the Chabad House.
And here's just a small sample of the article written by Mark Steyn (click here for the entire piece. It's well worth the read);
Jews get killed, but Muslims feel vulnerable

Shortly after the London Tube bombings in 2005, a reader of Tim Blair, The Sydney Daily Telegraph's columnist wag, sent him a note-perfect parody of a typical newspaper headline:

"British Muslims Fear Repercussions Over Tomorrow's Train Bombing."

Indeed. And so it goes. This time round – Mumbai – it was the Associated Press that filed a story about how Muslims "found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion".

Oh, I don't know about that. In fact, you'd be hard pressed from most news reports to figure out the bloodshed was "linked" to any religion, least of all one beginning with "I-" and ending in "-slam." In the three years since those British bombings, the media have more or less entirely abandoned the offending formulations – "Islamic terrorists," "Muslim extremists" – and by the time of the assault on Mumbai found it easier just to call the alleged perpetrators "militants" or "gunmen" or "teenage gunmen," as in the opening line of this report in The Australian: "An Adelaide woman in India for her wedding is lucky to be alive after teenage gunmen ran amok."

Kids today, eh? Always running amok in an aimless fashion.

The veteran British TV anchor Jon Snow, on the other hand, opted for the more cryptic locution "practitioners." "Practitioners" of what, exactly?

Hard to say. And getting harder. For the Wall Street Journal, Tom Gross produced a jaw-dropping round-up of Mumbai media coverage: The discovery that, for the first time in an Indian terrorist atrocity, Jews had been attacked, tortured and killed produced from the New York Times a serene befuddlement: "It is not known if the Jewish center was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."

Hmm. Greater Mumbai forms one of the world's five biggest cities. It has a population of nearly 20 million. But only one Jewish center, located in a building that gives no external clue as to the bounty waiting therein. An "accidental hostage scene" that one of the "practitioners" just happened to stumble upon? "I must be the luckiest jihadist in town. What are the odds?"
In a few short weeks, Mumbai will be but a distant memory to most Westerners.

Bullshit... Mumbai was just a dry run. Or probably closer to the truth, this was Beslan gone wrong (click here for all the posts concerning Beslan. Warning though. The slideshow is especially graphic.)

Get ready, America.

2 Comments:

Blogger Vir Speluncae Orthodoxae said...

"But these are just extremists and blah blah blah." And I'm the King of Ireland. Religion of peace my butt.

12:20 PM  
Blogger Subvet said...

If Islam is a religion of peace dynamite sticks are birthday candles.

8:16 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home