Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg -- along with his wife Rivka -- died in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
AND: "The miracle of this life continues to unfold for me on a daily basis," wrote Alan Scherr, who "devoted his life to meditation and the search for peaceful balance." He took his 13-year-old daughter Naomi with him to India, on a spiritual quest. The 2 of them died in the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
83 comments:
“We need to understand that there’s a world here, our world, that has been attacked. And it doesn’t matter if it’s happened in India or somewhere else. We have here radical Islamic elements who do not accept either our existence or the values of the Western world. And only when incidents of this sort occur is it suddenly understood from conversations with leaders from around the entire world that we are actually party to the same battle.”
Or as President Bush once said: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. He was right about that and still is.
They murdered a father and his 13 year old daughter.
2 From U.S. Meditation Group Killed
I can't wait for Robert Cook and Freder Fuckheadson to make some excuses for the terrorists.
I mean to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.
As Cederford would say, what are a few Jews here or there?
Just be careful you do not denigrate the religion of peace.
Islam sucks.
Thank you, Meade. I agree with that.
What a sad story about the rabbi and his wife, in addition to the rest of the victims.
The excuses for this will be legion from the left. Maybe they should exercise some of Althouse's famous "cruel neutrality" instead of their usual terrorist sympathizing.
It's not hard to understand. Radical Islam has only one rule for non-believers. Convert or Die!
Perhaps these miscreants belong to the same sect as the President Elect.
He might be able to get to exercise some restraint when he comes into power.
Hope and change after all dear lady.
I'm always tickled by those cute bumper stickers on Volkswagons that say COEXIST spelled out with the symbols of various religions.
Funny how the cresecent one is the only one that has a problem co-existing with everyone else.
I can't wait for Robert Cook and Freder Fuckheadson to make some excuses for the terrorists.
When have I ever made excuses for, justified, sympathized, or expressed any support for terrorists or terrorism.
I defy you to find one post on this or any other blog.
You are a fucking idiot. It is especially offensive that you lump me in with Cedarford since I am practically the only one who regularly posts on this blog who is willing to calling him what he is--a racist Nazi.
He was right about that and still is.
Half the world has been AWOL in this standoff. Perhaps new American leadership can better "democratize" the struggle against illiberal fascism, or maybe not.
You are the number one apologist for terrorists who demands that they be coddled and swaddled like new born babies. You hate Cederford because you fear him. You are both sides of the same coin. The extreme right and the extreme left meet in their hatred of the Jews and excuse making for Arab terrorists.
Never again asshole. I hope Israel is smart enough to know that Obama is going to throw them under the bus to make commies like you happy. They better be ready to step up and defend themselves because the likes of you will never find a reason to do so. You will be too busy worrying about the terrorists Bill of Rights.
You are the number one apologist for terrorists who demands that they be coddled and swaddled like new born babies.
Like I said, provide one post where I ever apologized for terrorists. You simply are lying.
Your disdain for my insistence that this country maintain the standards for which it was founded has made you confuse my demands for civilized behavior on our part with sympathy for terrorists.
Cedarford makes the same mistake.
Freder, just out of curioisty, do you view those Muslims who refer to the Jews as pigs and monkeys as nazis? Or those who kill and burn because their so called prophet was drawn in a cartoon?
It is the duty of our government to protect the people of this country "by any means necessary."
To coin a phrase.
I hope the new President is familar with that phrase.
I hope he taps what ever phones he needs to and water boards whatever murdering scum has to make sure that there is not another 911. If he makes some mistakes here and there I will cut him some slack. Unlike you and your friends.
Of course if he follows your lead and there is a similar attack on the United States, the aftermath will not be pretty.
Not by a long shot.
Freder,
"I am practically the only one who regularly posts on this blog who is willing to calling him what he is--a racist Nazi."
Not so, there are plenty who publically object to C4's rantings, myself included (though of course my favorite explanation is that he is a leftist plant trying to discredit those on the right.)
The idiot said...
"Your disdain for my insistence that this country maintain the standards for which it was founded"
What standards are you talking about? Slavery? The Indian Wars? The internment of the Japanese? The bombing of population centers in Germany? The fire bombing of population centers in Japan? Two nuclear bombs dropped on Japanese cities killing civilians?
Not letting women vote until 1920?
Not letting women vote until 1920?
Well you have to admit, we could have used a mulligan on that one....
;-)
I can't think of a better idea than getting America enmeshed in the wars of asia.
Who likes islamic terrorists? nobody. Don't send my brother to get shot by them however.
Some of you cowboys can go join the Indian Army if you think some backwards continent is worth the price.
There's no end to the conflicts. You'll bankrupt this nation fantasies of wiping out religious wars in 3rd world countries.
Women had the vote in Wyoming as early as 1890. The idea that women in general were full or rage an anger at being "denied" the vote is absurd. Women have always been able to Nag US men into anything, and if they had truly wanted the vote they would have got it much sooner.
BTW, as late as 1912, Edith Roosevelt and Mrs. Woodrow Wilson were *Against* woman's suffrage.
Hey we do not want to go there to fight. We want to give the Indian government the information they need so they can go in there and kill these fuckers. India has become a very important ally during the Bush administration. They have never been closer to us than they are right now. Of course Freder would insist that they read them their Miranda Rights but we can leave that up to them.
I just wish that we had the balls to give them a free hand with Pakistan. Obama is good about throwing people under the bus so lets do that with Pakistan. He can figure they are just typical Muslim people clinging to their guns and their religion. They are not worth anything to us anyway. That might end all of our problems with Osama bin Laden and the terrorist enclaves in Pakistan. I am sure that the Indians would be happy to take of that problem if we promised to not make a fuss. They could turn the whole area into a sheet of glass. We could get the Chinese on board because they have their own Muslim problem. It’s a win win for the USA.
Thats all we should care about.
Some of you cowboys can go join the Indian Army if you think some backwards continent is worth the price.
Sounds like a little bit of projection on your part. I don't see many on here advocating sending the marines to Delhi.
I mean to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.
That is so true, Matt. Three eggs for the average omelet. And for a crab omelet, you have to crack open a few crabs too, or else buy them pre-cracked in the seafood section leaving the picking to professionals.
"Women have always been able to Nag US men into anything..."
Not gay US men. At least someone has the balls to stand up to nagging US women.
"Some of you cowboys can go join the Indian Army..."
Something wrong with this, but I don't know what.
There seems to be a history of Muslim extremist violence in India:
March 13, 2003: A bomb attack on a commuter train in Mumbai killed 11.
Aug. 25, 2003: Twin car bombings in Mumbai killed at least 52 people and injured 150. Indian authorities blamed the Kashmiri Islamist group Lashkar-e-Taiba
July 11, 2006: Seven bomb blasts on the Mumbai Suburban Railway killed over 200 people. Police blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba and Students Islamic Movement of India.
Sept. 8, 2006: At least 37 people were killed and 125 were injured in a series of explosions near a mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra. The Islamic Movement of India claimed responsibility.
Aug. 25, 2007: Forty-two people killed and 50 injured in twin explosions at a crowded park in Hyderabad by Harkat-ul-Jehad-i-Islami (HuJI).
July 26, 2008: Serial explosions in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad killed 45 people and injured more than 150. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
Sept. 13, 2008: Five bomb blasts in New Delhi’s popular shopping centers left 21 people dead and more than 100 injured. The Indian Mujahideen claimed responsibility.
I think the Indian authorities should give these terrorist due process.
After they are shot they should have an autopsy.
Then they should be washed and put in a clean shroud.
Then buried in a nice pine box in potters field.
All in due time. All part of the process.
Fitting final words.
The comments here on the other hand....
Chip!!! CHESTNUTS!! OMG I can't stop laughing.....
All this terrorist-codding is the end result of giving women the political franchise. I say strip them of their voting right ASAP and we'll be on the way back to being a tough country again.
Freder - Your disdain for my insistence that this country maintain the standards for which it was founded has made you confuse my demands for civilized behavior on our part with sympathy for terrorists.
Freder, I have, and many others have, called you an enemy-lover, even traitor - because you obsess over their rights and how we cannot attack them or question them lest we "harm innocent enemy civilians" or "trammel terrorist rights".
While you have nothing to say for the complete loss of rights that happen to innocent victims whose lives are extinguished by such unlawful enemy combatants. Or the loss of freedoms and liberties and extra "security expenses" all us ordinary Americans suffer as a consequence of terror danger in travel.
I call you a traitor because you are unconcerned with ordinary Americans rights and obsess instead over "innocent until proven guilty" accused terrorists.
Nor am I any more racist or "Nazi" or socialist than the average white American..my attitudes towards Jews are quite consonant with views of those in most nations outside the US.
Racist? No, honest..non-PC. I expect the winner of the local science fair to be white or Asian, expect that Chinese will win all the ping-pong medals at the Olympics and blacks will dominate sprint events. And whites will dominate swimming and fight it out with Asians in gymnastics at the Games.
And when I hear a white newsreader was savagely beaten to death in a home robbery, or a white senior class president was carjacked and executed later - I expect black thugs immediately.
******************
Eckhart - As Cederford would say, what are a few Jews here or there?
You misread...What I object to is jewish media making it "All About Us Jews" as having lives more special than others and deserving of more "victim commemoration" than what they think are less consequential humans..
Already the US media has spent more time and ink on the dual citizen Israeli-USA family than all the 160 other victims in Mumbai put together.
I always apply the "All About the Jews" test question - where the suffering of Jews subsumes all other suffering and sacrifice of lesser humans, even Americans in America media and classrooms:
"How many Jews were slaughtered in WWII?..
...Ah, excellent...95% of Americans get that "right".(Though numbers vary with academics from 3-6 million)
What was WWII for? (Half Americans will answer "To Save the Jews" - bonus points for indoctrination..)
OK, then how many gypsies were killed? (3% get that right, by survey)
How many Serbs were killed? (0-1% of Americans know - but a staggering number, and percent almost as high as the losses of the Jewish ethnicity)
How many Americans were killed? (Only 5-6% of Americans, most elderly, know the correct answer)
(Only 5-6% of Americans, most elderly, know the correct answer)
and those of us, not elderly, who have served.
answer: a bit (40k more of less) fewer than serve in today's total active US Army
The love-to-hates are out in force.
Can't some of you guys hate without loving it?
We have enemies. Fact of life. Must be faced, forcefully. But some people just seem to jump with joy and exultation when given a fresh reason to hate. And they are quick to spread it around far and wide. Like hating is fun.
It's necessary. No question. And maybe we need you berserker warrior types to lead the charge. Are you the ones who'd really fight, though? Or are they quieter?
When have I ever made excuses for, justified, sympathized, or expressed any support for terrorists or terrorism.
Yesterday.
But some people just seem to jump with joy and exultation when given a fresh reason to hate.
Then there are those who actually grab an AK-47 and some explosives and act on that hate. See current headlines.
I don't know about you but I think you're confusing the 'hate' being posted here with disgust.
my attitudes towards Jews are quite consonant with views of those in most nations outside the US.
Which makes them right, of course, Cedarford. Glad consensus makes you feel so warm and cozy. Funny you have to go outside the U.S. to find it.
Why the U.S. is still great.
Hoosier Daddy,
I'm not talking about everybody here who's angry and disgusted. Who isn't?? It's a tone you can hear in some voices. Savage glee at having justifiable cover for the venting of indiscriminate rage?
And the sweeping assumption that there's NO such thing as a peaceable Muslim. Or a patriotic Democrat. (If they're there, let's see them stand up now, though.)
As Bearbee says, "They murdered a father and his 13 year old daughter." As they target innocent civilians, we're right to want to avoid killing innocent civilians when we can. The difference between them and us is precious and to be protected even when it's a fine line to walk. The "kill them all" mentality is a little too mirror-image, that's all.
Similar thing with "when I see a young black male coming towards me on the street, I go on guard and it's statistically justified, because x percent of crime is committed by black thugs."
Can't you tell a thug from a non-thug? If someone's a different color, body language goes out the window? You think it's OK that there are innocent black men in jail for rape or murder because someone couldn't tell one black man from another?
We have to get to the point where people are judged for their conduct, not their category.
Some of you cowboys can go join the Indian Army if you think some backwards continent is worth the price.
Okay... full stop.
India is not some "backwards continent". It is a highly dynamic (yes, unstable could be another word for dynamic) rising capitalist, industrial, and reasonably democratic power.
Pretending that India doesn't matter to us is ignorant. India has put a probe on the moon and supplies a great deal of our technological "brain" resources live in that country. India is rapidly modernizing. It can continue to do so, or it can bend to the *also* rapidly expanding influence of Islam in that world.
Yeah... "backward continent."
The future is in places like India (as Europe fades) and someone not seeing that makes me wonder why... because the people there *aren't* European?
Does "brown" mean permanently third-world?
Dang uppity Indians.
I was struck by reports of how bravely the staff of the hotels acted to protect their guests....There's a song called the Black Freighter in The Threepenny Opera. The Brecht song talks about rounding up the toffs and asking the maid: "Kill them now or later". The maid says kill them now. But that's not the way it played out in Mumbai......My guess is that the hotel staff must have had some resentments about the wealthy patrons, but they rose above them. The terrorists--(and they included some British born Pakistanis)--have, by contrast, worshipped their resentments against Americans, Indians, Brits, Jews, etc. until it grew into a religious cause.....I will leave to God's judgement the worthiness of these two groups, but I have my preferences.
It's a tone you can hear in some voices. Savage glee at having justifiable cover for the venting of indiscriminate rage?
Well I guess you have a that dog whistle like hearing that I don't.
And the sweeping assumption that there's NO such thing as a peaceable Muslim.
Well it would be refreshing to see a Million Muslim March for peace denouncing terrorism, suicide bombing, honor killings and fatwas demanding the death for cartoonists.
Or a patriotic Democrat.
Well it doesn't help when the Senate Majority Leader is telling the world we lost the war. I don't believe for a minute that Democrats are unpatriotic but you should get better spokespersons.
India is the largest democracy in the world.
Their middle class is larger than the population of the United States.
Eve Carson was the president of the student body of the University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill (>17,000 undergraduates), a Morehead Scholar, and a double major (political science/biology). A remarkable young woman, a great loss.
All this terrorist-codding is the end result of giving women the political franchise.
Actually, it's not the women coddling terrorists, from what I see, but the sandal-men. The ones with Bush Derangement Syndrome, love the terrorists because they hate Bush. Makes so much sense. Who cares how many lives it costs.
Maybe the good side of Obama being elected is people will once again realize who the enemy is. I deeply suspect they will be having tickertape parades in the streets if he decides to bomb any country. The hypocrisy and the irony will escape them.
let's just take off and nuke them from orbit
Considering the distance between the Chabad House and the rest of the targeted buildings, it's certain that the terrorists sought out a Jewish target; it wasn't "collateral damage" from the hotel or railway station attacks. Mrs. Holtzberg was beautiful, which to me deepens her loss.
CNN has a map here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/28/india.attacks/?iref=mpstoryview#cnnSTCOther1
The Drill SGT said...
(Only 5-6% of Americans, most elderly, know the correct answer)
and those of us, not elderly, who have served.
answer: a bit (40k more of less) fewer than serve in today's total active US Army.
Yes, those who have served...That is, on OCS, where I first learned the tabulations of WWII casualties and the Civil War and WWI and Vietnam, were educated beyond the American culture presenting it as the "War of Jewish Suffering".
And it was impressed on me on how few Americans knew the American and allied casualties...while the "Special People's" losses were pounded in.
***************
They fucking came by boat into the city. Unbelievable.
OMG-that Jewish couple's pictures were just on CNN. They were so beautiful.
Some of those Indian police officers/military look kind of hot in their uniforms and their precise marching.
let's just take off and nuke them from orbit
He can't make that kind of decision, he's just a grunt.
No..offense....
you should get better spokespersons.
"They." Not a Democrat.
Amba, if you're not singing the party line, you must be a liberal democrat, at least as some see the world.
Can't you tell a thug from a non-thug?
No. Especially since non-thugs tend to imitate thug style these days.
I'm not at all surprised that a number of hotel staff put their lives at risk to help their guests. Nor that the Indian nanny chose to rescue the toddler, without regard to the risk to herself.
The targeting of Chabad House was just one of several things that distinguish this attack from most of the terror attacks in India over the past several decades.
There is no reason that any domestic terror groups in India would want to strike against a target like Chabad House.
In the twenty-some years that I have been paying attention to India, I can't think of a single incident in which Jews were targets of terrorists.
Or as President Bush once said: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. He was right about that and still is.
Yet he considered Pakistan's government one of the governments that was "with us" and dragged his feet for most of his two terms on changing policy towards Pakistan in the direction...well, that Barack Obama started demanding during the Democratic Party primaries.
Yet he considered Pakistan's government one of the governments that was "with us"
They have nuclear weapons. Once a nation has nuclear weapons, they can do whatever they want and we can't touch them militarily.
So the best we can do in Pakistan's case is support non-Islamist regimes within the country. Obama eventually smartened up enough to realize that, too, which is why you don't hear him advocating the invasion of Pakistan much these days.
But Obama is going to escalate in Afghanistan, possibly beyond what Bush had planned. That inevitably means escalating in Pakistan because that's where the sanctuaries are. And that means more air strikes in both nations, acts that infuriate the governments and people of both countries because of civilian casualties. Both Karzai and Pakistan's leader Don Barzani have both begged US to stop the bombing.
About a week ago, the NYT ran an article quoting the top US military man in the region. He'd had a meeting with 70 Pakistani capos, er, parliamentarians. He came away astounded, dumbfounded, stupefied because the vast majority of them could not understand why the US was in Afghanistan. After all, they said, it had been such a peaceful country, until the US invaded. He was greeted with "an almost total incomprehension."
Good luck with those allies!
The Soviets were in Afghanistan about ten years and had a maximum of 300,000 men there. Today the allies have been in Afghanistan about eight years and have about 60-70,000 troops there.
I don't see how we win, and the situation is worse now than it was in the 1980s. Pakistan is a failed nation state, a feudal society run by mobsters (with vast uncontrolled tribal regions controlled by even more primitive mobs) that will run out of cash reserves sometime in the first quarter of 2009, unless it gets billions in foreign aid. It's General Motors with nuclear weapons.
Declare victory and turn the problem over to India.
Amba said...Similar thing with "when I see a young black male coming towards me on the street, I go on guard and it's statistically justified, because x percent of crime is committed by black thugs."
Can't you tell a thug from a non-thug? If someone's a different color, body language goes out the window?
We have to get to the point where people are judged for their conduct, not their category.
while I understand your comment, I'm an OR guy and like to play the probablities (e.g. odds) (aka profiles).
two examples:
1. New York Times
By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 12, 1993
Jesse Jackson is traveling the country with a tough anti-crime message that he is delivering to inner-city youngsters. In Chicago he said, "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery -- then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
2. my wife and I are both soldiers (ex in my case). We work in DC. I have remarked to her that given the choice of walking on down H street on the side where 8 young black guys are standing in in baggy sweat pants with Red and Gold tee shirts or crossing to the other side where 8 young white guys are lounging in jeans, black tops and chains, I'll go with the Marines.
It's not race, it's knowing the profiles and playing the odds.
Meade: Or as President Bush once said: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
No, this is not what he said. Do some Google and check for yourself. You have it wrong.
Islamofascists: Like tree, like fruit
Sorry, paul, but I did Google the phrase that Meade said, and I got this: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Maybe you're using a different Google. If so, then tell us what Bush said.
Yes, those who have served...That is, on OCS, where I first learned the tabulations of WWII casualties and the Civil War and WWI and Vietnam, were educated beyond the American culture presenting it as the "War of Jewish Suffering".
I don't know where you went to school Cedarford, but where I went to school--public schools in suburban Cleveland and Chicago--WWII was never called the "War of Jewish Suffering", I was fully informed of the American casualty numbers for the Civil War, WWI and WWII. What was not covered was the massive suffering of the Russian people during WWII or that American casualties in WWI were about a tenth of French casualties in that same war.
You of course also claimed that as many American soldiers were dying in training during the '80s as were dying in combat in Iraq. So you are completely dishonest anyway so you are probably lying about not learning about U.S. casualties before you entered the service anyway.
Freder, I have, and many others have, called you an enemy-lover, even traitor - because you obsess over their rights and how we cannot attack them or question them lest we "harm innocent enemy civilians" or "trammel terrorist rights".
I don't know why you put those phrases in quotes since I have used neither. Your entire point is also false, as I have stated repeatedly and you don't even know the definition of traitor.
What is truly sad is that in the face of the barbaric murders of innocent people by fanatics who obviously targeted these people because they were Jews, we are told to tone down our rhetoric. You do not even wait for the bodies to get cold to worry about offending the innocent Muslims. We are told not to display our disgust or anger or hatred of these animals.. To be reasonable. To not show "glee."
There is no "glee." We will have "glee" when each and every terrorist is rotting in his grave. The time for the Muslims to stand up and show some simple human decency is long since past. They will not protest these atrocities. They agree with them. If you do not believe that than you are a fool.
The opposite of hard is not reasonable. It is soft. A soft response plays into their hands. Bush and Republicans time is done. Lets see what President Obama and his legion of ex-bomber college professors and radical preachers brings to the table.
I pass the pit of the World Trade Center every day on the way to work.
Matt, like the media ignored John McCain's Poverty Tour, the media ignores Muslims who speak out against these attacks.
Remember the liquid bomb plot? Broken up when Muslim immigrants told British authorities about the plot.
Did IRA bombers ever get labeled as Christian terrorists? Did the Pope need to express his outrage after each bombing?
It's worth asking why and how the IRA's terror campaign ended. It wasn't because the Brits got more ruthless with IRA suspects.
I'm not going to argue that the IRA and al qaeda are morally equivalent, but that distinction doesn't mean much to the people they killed.
I'm not going to argue that the IRA and al qaeda are morally equivalent
Peter you are in fact conflating the two, and calling them morally equivalent.
In doing so, you miss the worldwide nature of it, and deny the very thing that ties together islamofascists.
Islam here is a political weapon. The IRA were mere nationalists, not a conspiracy of some Christian or Catholic terror.
That is, you refuse to name the enemy, and say instead well we've done some bad stuff, too as if that had any meaning.
The distinction is important to the living, but that has always been the case. The dead don't much care whether I order pepperoni or anchovies on our pizza, either, but it matters alot to those still breathing.
I'm not saying, "Well, we've done bad stuff." Islamist terror is of an order that exceeds that of the IRA, but are you going to argue that understanding the IRA is not necessary to combat islamist terrorism?
Do you know the difference between Muslims who are engaged in nationalist insurgency and those who are nihilist al qaeda types?
Al qaeda would love to convince Kashmiri separatists that their causes are one and the same, but they are not.
I am not excusing Kashmiri terrorists, either, but I think they are a lot more like the IRA than al qaeda.
It is a mistake to speak as though islamist terrorists enjoy broad support of Muslims around the world. That's what al qaeda wants you to believe. And that's how al qaeda wants westerners and the majority of Indians to react to this and every other terrorist act.
"It is a mistake to speak as though islamist terrorists enjoy broad support of Muslims around the world."
There is a distinct lack of evidence to the contrary. The 'moderate Muslim' has the same rate of appearance as unicorns and the yeti.
Pogo, if you want to wed yourself to that idea, fine.
Peter, the IRA gave up when the lost the support of the ordinary Catholic in Belfast. They turned away from them and did not support and enable them the way the Muslim world does their terrorists.
Don't you get tired of making excuses for the terrorist and their apologists and enablers?
Did IRA bombers ever get labeled as Christian terrorists?
No. Probably because they weren't killing in the name of Jesus Christ but rather for a united Ireland.
It is a mistake to speak as though islamist terrorists enjoy broad support of Muslims around the world. That's what al qaeda wants you to believe. And that's how al qaeda wants westerners and the majority of Indians to react to this and every other terrorist act.
Did you happen to see the links to American (Muslim) blogs making excuses for this?
I don't doubt they are fringe, but if there are contrary voices out there they don't get the air-time.
Now, I figure there is a couple of possible reasons for this... and it's not like we haven't been told again and again that it's not Muslims as a whole approving of these sorts of actions.
In fact the evil BushHitler has been insisting on this narrative for the last 7 years, in both word and deed. His insistence on viewing Muslims as allies and rational actors is the basis, entirely, for his plan and hope to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into rational nations. From what I've seen he's right about that, even accepting that there are violent forces in opposition, such as those who throw battery acid at the faces of school girls.
(There is so much that Democrats and liberals could have, and should have, been supporting, if Afghan school girls were actually more important to them than opposing the evil BushHitler.)
So... why don't we see Muslims opposing these attacks? Do they need to play to their political bases? Would it be bad for them to denounce the radicals, or at least to do so with anything but the mildest rebukes, something like understanding the frustration and cause but not approving of the means? Do Muslim leaders make the same sorts of stupid equivocations as our "thoughtful" leaders do?
Or do Muslim political leaders and clerics soundly denounce these sorts of attacks and does our news simply not show us? Does our 24 hour news cycle think we need more Nancy Grace, hour after hour, than to listen to a translated speech of a Muslim cleric that is five or ten or fifteen minutes long?
Matt and Pogo, what do you make of the Muslims who reported the liquid bomber plot to British authorities? Are they figments of my imagination?
Not seeing moderate Muslims is easy if you don't want to see them. I know Christians who lived among Muslims in India for 40 years with no problems. Muslims going about their business do not make the news.
Here is an interesting article about the struggle facing moderate Muslims. Among the forces pushing radicalism is one funded by our friends, the Saudis. That Bush was unable to pressure the Saudis to end this practice after 9/11 is one of the significant failures in the war on terror.
I have not made excuses for the terrorists. My wife knew one of the top cops killed in Mumbai. We have friends and relatives who live in India and in East Africa who would be soft targets for islamist terrorists.
I am interested in seeing these terrorists defeated. Doing it successfully takes more than knee-jerk reactions.
Here's a good commentary on Mumbai that speaks to the vitality and dynamism that is India.
Muslim clerics or commentators are not condemning these actions because they support and agree with them. To say that the vast majority of Muslim disavow these activities is a lie. The Big Lie.
They are always happy when they kill Jews.
We have seen this before.
Peter, the only knee jerk I want to see is when they dance as they are hung by the neck until they are dead.
How are the Christians who live on the West Bank and in Egypt doing these days?
The whole purpose of the Muslim world is to convert the infidel. At the point of a sword if necessary. Or to destroy them if they do not convert.
They are not our friends. They are not members of civilized society. Certainly not the corrupt Saudis. Being in bed with the Saudis is a function of the Arabist apologists in the State Department who stay from Administration to Administration. And the big money Oil interests. It will be no better with Obama. There will always be voices to make excuses and urge that we be reasonable.
After all it is just a few Jews. A few Americans. Big deal.
Matt, Arabs do not make up the majority of Muslims.
Muslims who live in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh have no historic grievance with Jews.
I'm not sure about the other countries, but I know that Jews have been living in India since some time prior to Muhammad. If you can show me any evidence of Jews being targets of Islamic terror in India prior to this incident (which was likely carried out by non-Indians) I'd like to see it.
Here is some evidence for my last claim:
Unlike many parts of the world, Jews have historically lived in India without anti-Semitism from Indians (though they were victims of anti-Semitism by the Portuguese and their Inquisition during their colonial rule in Goa).
paul a'barge said...
Meade: Or as President Bush once said: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
No, this is not what he said. Do some Google and check for yourself. You have it wrong.
Like THIS you mean? What part did I get wrong?
India and Pakistan fought wars in 1947-48, 1965, 1971, and 1999.
Here's is an unbelievable report on Clinton's Oval Office meeting with Pakistan's P.M. Sharif, written by NSC member Bruce Reidel, who attended the sessions during the Kargil War.
Sharif basically fled Pakistan--with his family--during the war (p. 8), admitting to Clinton that he feared for his life, and in his absence Musharraf, then military chief, moved the country's nuclear weapons into position for first strike against India, without Sharif's knowledge, information that Clinton used to horrify Sharif into moderating his positions.
Pakistan has a first-strike policy. Its strategy is to use its 60+ nukes if it thinks India will overrun its positions, in the hope that that threat will deter India from aggressive action. Missile flight time is 3 to 5 minutes from Pakistan to Mumbai.
With news that the Mumbai terrorists were trained in Pakistan, what are the odds that those two nations will again go to war?
Will there be a war between India and Pakistan? I certainly hope not. Whatever the outcome, Kashmir is a flashpoint and will remain as such.
The attacks may give the Hindu nationalists an edge in the upcoming local elections.
Finally, keep an eye on whatever Fareed Zakaria has to say.
Post a Comment