Terrorists attack in Mumbai, hold Westerners

[Maikeru-sama]

Terrorists attack in Mumbai, hold Westerners
At least 80 people killed in gun, grenade attacks on hotels, train station

breaking news
NBC News and news services
updated 31 minutes ago
MUMBAI, India - Terrorists armed with automatic weapons, bombs and grenades attacked at least seven sites in Mumbai on Wednesday and were holding Western hostages at two hotels, authorities said. Police and Indian media reported at least 80 people were killed and 250 wounded.

The gunmen targeted luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, a police station, a crowded train station and other sites in India's financial capital in attacks that began late Wednesday and continued into Thursday, police and witnesses said.

"We have reports of 80 people dead and at least 250 injured. Many have serious injuries and the toll will go up," P.D. Ghadge, a police officer in the main control room in Mumbai, told Reuters.

A.N. Roy, a senior police officer, said police were continuing to battle the gunmen. "The terrorists have used automatic weapons and in some places grenades have been lobbed, the encounters are still going on and we are trying to overpower them," he said.

Trying to account for Americans
Among those killed in the attacks was Hemant Karkare, chief of the police anti-terrorist squad in Mumbai, Indian television reported.

A U.S. State Department official told NBC News that all U.S. diplomats in India were accounted for and safe, but officials were "still trying to account for any Americans who may have been staying in the hotels and areas affected."

Gunmen opened fire on two of the city's best-known Luxury hotels, the Taj Mahal and the Oberoi.

The attackers were holding an unknown number of Western hostages at both locations, media reports said. NDTV reported gunmen asked for U.S. and U.K. passport holders to be pulled aside.

Assailants also attacked a police station, the crowded Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus station in southern Mumbai and Leopold's restaurant, a Mumbai landmark.

The motive was not immediately clear but Mumbai has frequently been targeted in terror attacks, including a series of blasts in July 2007 that killed 187 people.

Chaotic scene
"I guess they were after foreigners, because they were asking for British or American passports," said Rakesh Patel, a British witness who lives in Hong Kong and was staying at the Taj hotel on business. "They had bombs."

" They came from the restaurant and took us up the stairs," he told the NDTV news channel, smoke stains all over his face. "Young boys, maybe 20 years old, 25 years old. They had two guns."

"It was really scary. It was like the sound of loud crackers, not one but several, we just ran out of there," said Janice Sequeira, a tourist who had been at a restaurant in the Taj.

Several European lawmakers were among those who were staying at the Taj, a century-old seaside hotel complex and one of the city's best-known destinations.

"I was in the main lobby and there was all of a sudden a lot of firing outside," said Sajjad Karim, part of a delegation of European lawmakers visiting Mumbai ahead of a forthcoming EU-India summit. He turned to get away "and all of a sudden another gunmen appeared in front of us, carrying machine gun-type weapons. And he just started firing at us ... I just turned and ran in the opposite direction," he told The Associated Press over his mobile phone.

Hours later, he remained holed up in a hotel restaurant, unsure whether it was safe to come out.

The lucky escaped quickly.

Arvind Kodekar was at a wedding reception at the Taj when an explosion rang out

Americans, Britons singled out
"When we heard the sound of the blast everyone — the bride, the groom, everyone — just ran. We heard the sound of two blasts and we just ran," said Kodekar, who was wearing a black suit with a rose in the lapel, but whose trousers were frayed and bloody from where he had been cut by broken glass.

At the Oberoi, police officer P.I. Patil said shots had been fired inside and the hotel had been cordoned off. He would not give any other details.

Alex Chamberlain, a British restaurant-goer at the Oberoi, told Sky News television that the attackers singled out Britons and Americans. He said a gunman, who appeared to be in his early 20s, ushered 30 or 40 people from the restaurant into a stairway and ordered everyone to put up their hands.

"They were talking about British and Americans specifically. There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said: 'Where are you from?' And he said he's from Italy and they said 'fine' and they left him alone. And I thought: 'Fine, they're going to shoot me if they ask me anything — and thank God they didn't," he said.

Chamberlain said the gunman spoke in Hindi or Urdu. He managed to slip away, but said most of the group was still being kept hostage.

Some of the injured were evacuated from the Taj on the hotel's golden luggage carts, while waiters in black and white formal wear and chefs were seen leaving the Oberoi.

The gunmen also attacked police headquarters in south Mumbai, the area where most of the attacks took place. "We are under fire, there is shooting at the gate," said constable A. Shetti by phone from police headquarters.

Leopold's, a restaurant popular with tourists, was riddled with bullet holes and there were blood stains on the floor and shoes left by fleeing customers.

Sourav Mishra, a Reuters reporter, was with friends at the Cafe Leopold when gunmen opened fire Wednesday night. He received injuries and was taken to a local hospital.

"I heard some gunshots around 9:30. I was with my friends. Something hit me. I ran away and fell on the road. Then somebody picked me up. I have injuries below my shoulder," Mishra said from a hospital bed he was sharing with three other people.

The wreckage of a red scooter, the remains of shop awnings and broken glass were strewn across the street.

Armed police, rifles ready at the hip, set up barricades around the explosion site, and local people were seen yelling at each other, angry that another terror attack had hit the city.

Vehicles and street vendors' barrows were used to keep locals away, and military four-wheel-drives with horns blaring sped to the bomb site.


Click for related content
On the scene? Send us your photos, reports


History of terrorist attacks
There were other attacks elsewhere.

The Press Trust of India quoted Mumbai General Railway Police Commissioner A.K. Sharma as saying that several men armed with rifles and grenades were holed up in the train station.

Sameeran Chakraborty, a Mumbai resident, told the NDTV news channel he heard a blast inside a car near the city airport.

"It was a big noise and one car was involved, definitely not more than that."

India has suffered a wave of bomb attacks in recent years. Most have been blamed on Islamist militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists thought to be behind some of the attacks.

link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27928718/)

[ethiostar]

good grief!

[JiggsCasey]

from the railway station... carnage...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/india.attacks/art.blood.ap.jpg

[Maikeru-sama]

from the railway station... carnage...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/india.attacks/art.blood.ap.jpg

Wow...

[ZB9]

wow I wonder how connected to the Pakistani government those terrorists are...we might see India declare war on Pakistan

[Sasquatch]

I hope they get the you know whats and bring them to justice.

[irvin88]

I hope they get the you know whats and bring them to justice.

Obama has a "comprehensive plan" for this.:rolleyes:

Will he hold his 4th straight news conference tomorrow ?

[ethiostar]

Obama has a "comprehensive plan" for this.:rolleyes:

Will he hold his 4th straight news conference tomorrow ?


and here we go.....

[Maikeru-sama]

wow I wonder how connected to the Pakistani government those terrorists are...we might see India declare war on Pakistan

And if there is sufficient evidence Pakistan was involved, India should declare war on Pakistan.

Yes, I know both have nuclear weapons, but this would be no different than the United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Indian Government has the right to protect its citizens.

[Maikeru-sama]

Obama has a "comprehensive plan" for this.:rolleyes:

Will he hold his 4th straight news conference tomorrow ?

Do you ever quit with your stupid agenda?

[Sasquatch]

And if there is sufficient evidence Pakistan was involved, India should declare war on Pakistan.

I'm sure if that turns out to be the case we will prudently counsel restraint and advise them against taking drastic action that could potentially destabilize the region and lead to more destruction, suffering, and death.

:cool:

[Maikeru-sama]

I'm sure if that turns out to be the case we will prudently counsel restraint and against taking drastic action that could potentially destabilize the region and lead to more destruction, suffering, and death.

:cool:

No doubt.

If we were to do that, it would be very hypocritical.

80 dead and 900 wounded...it would be hard to show restraint if evidence clearly links the Pakistani Government.

[iceberg]

Do you ever quit with your stupid agenda?

I'm sure if that turns out to be the case we will prudently counsel restraint and advise them against taking drastic action that could potentially destabilize the region and lead to more destruction, suffering, and death.

:cool:

there are those on both sides i wish would drop their agenda, maikeru. : )

[Maikeru-sama]

there are those on both sides i wish would drop their agenda, maikeru. : )

True, but what Sasquatch was saying is very relevant. They are talking about what the US response would be right now on the news.

However, Barack Obama holding a 4th PC and all the crap had nothing to with the situation.

[iceberg]

True, but what Sasquatch was saying is very relevant. They are talking about what the US response would be right now on the news.

However, Barack Obama holding a 4th PC and all the crap had nothing to with the situation.

he's also taking shots at bush in a backhanded manner to keep whipping that dead horse. i see the both people doing the same thing.

[Phrozen Phil]

there are those on both sides i wish would drop their agenda, maikeru. : )

I agree. One of my co-workers is from Mumbai and is deeply concerned about her family. She's calling home for details and is just plain frightened. Put yourself in her shoes and you'll know what I mean. As for who's responsible, it's way too early to be pointing fingers. There's a significant history of animosity between Sikhs and Hindus, Moslems and Hindus, and a host of other ethnic groups. India is a very complex nation and it may not be readily apparent who's idea this was.

[iceberg]

I agree. One of my co-workers is from Mumbai and is deeply concerned about her family. She's calling home for details and is just plain frightened. Put yourself in her shoes and you'll know what I mean. As for who's responsible, it's way too early to be pointing fingers. There's a significant history of animosity between Sikhs and Hindus, Moslems and Hindus, and a host of other ethnic groups. India is a very complex nation and it may not be readily apparent who's idea this was.

i couldn't pretend to know what it's like over there and can only imagine the simple panic we'd all share despite our faiths and nationalities when something like this happens.

this is just an ongoing war that likely has no real end in site. kill one, another carrys the cause.

[Sasquatch]

True, but what Sasquatch was saying is very relevant. They are talking about what the US response would be right now on the news.

However, Barack Obama holding a 4th PC and all the crap had nothing to with the situation.

I see you've met my stalker. He's my constant companion and unofficial interpreter. If you ever have any questions about the meaning of my posts, no need to ask me directly, he will provide you with all the relevant information you need.

[iceberg]

I see you've met my stalker. He's my constant companion and unofficial interpreter. If you ever have any questions about the meaning of my posts, no need to ask me directly, he will provide you with all the relevant information you need.

so that wasn't a backhanded bush slap you love to do?

[Mysterio]

Disgusting, I wish we could just go Hitler on every terrorist on the planet and just exterminate them. Killing innocent people, repulsive.

[arglebargle]

The fact that they were looking for Brits and Americans for hostages points to a more internationalist agenda. I doubt that there was a direct Pakistani government link, though given the history of their intelligence arm, there could be some connection there.

Pretty awful situation there in Mumbai.

[vta]

The fact that they were looking for Brits and Americans for hostages points to a more internationalist agenda. I doubt that there was a direct Pakistani government link, though given the history of their intelligence arm, there could be some connection there.

Pretty awful situation there in Mumbai.

Yeah that's pretty much telling.
What a disgusting shame and it should polarize everyone to the same cause. The us vs. them should be the civil against these animals, no matter your nationality or religion.

Good luck to your friend Phil, I hope she gets some good news.

[ologan]

Twenty two posts and not one single mention of the words Al Qaeda anywhere,or any splinter group of theirs. Maybe Al Qaeda isn't a real threat anymore.

[The30YardSlant]

Scum of the Earth. There is a whole other level of Hell for people like them who do these despicable deeds and kill innocent people in the name of God, destiny and "pride".

I'm not a huge advocate of torture, but stories like this make me wish we could go medieval on these people.

[Phrozen Phil]

Twenty two posts and not one single mention of the words Al Qaeda anywhere,or any splinter group of theirs. Maybe Al Qaeda isn't a real threat anymore.

I wouldn't go that far. News on the CBC indicated that a militant Islamic group has claimed responsibility. I don't know the group's name or affiliation with any other group. Anybody else have more info?

[ethiostar]

They are now saying 'indian mujahideen' calling themselves "Deccan Mujahideen' has taken responsibility. They could very well be funded by Al queda but too soon to tell. But the coordination and the resources it must have took to carry out such an attack indicates there is/are bigger players involved.

[iceberg]

Twenty two posts and not one single mention of the words Al Qaeda anywhere,or any splinter group of theirs. Maybe Al Qaeda isn't a real threat anymore.

8 years have gone by since we were last hit on our home soil.

maybe bad dudes are gone now.

[burmafrd]

Look how many of the far lefties kept saying 9/11 was our own fault.
Wonder what they say about this one?

[iceberg]

Look how many of the far lefties kept saying 9/11 was our own fault.
Wonder what they say about this one?

well as a "rightie" i'll be saying "god damn if my own side won't quit being stupid".

but that's just me.

[Garland powerplay]

These executives better think twice about outsourcing jobs in India!

[vlad]

At least we don't have an ingorant government that's going to buddy up to Pakistan while they laugh at us behind our backs. India and Israel should always be our biggest allies, two democratic, peaceful nations surrounding Islamic nations.

Sorry if that is harsh, growing up in my background I have nothing but negative opinions of Islam. Not individuals, but the movement. Honestly, what will really ever stop this type of attack, ever? Something serious, that's it.

[ologan]

8 years have gone by since we were last hit on our home soil.

maybe bad dudes are gone now.

:hammer: .......Oh,and by the way...............:hawks: :hawks: :hawks:

[iceberg]

:hammer: .......Oh,and by the way...............:hawks: :hawks: :hawks:

just for the record, i was being sarcastic, not agreeing.

[ThaBigP]

The fact that they were looking for Brits and Americans for hostages points to a more internationalist agenda. I doubt that there was a direct Pakistani government link, though given the history of their intelligence arm, there could be some connection there.

Pretty awful situation there in Mumbai.

Never forget that they murdered their way through Indians to get to the Americans, Brits, and Israelis. As always, the "us vs. them" is just a pretext to murder and terrorize towards a common end...power. And the Indian military seems to think that the terrorists came from Pakistan...no word on if they think there was any involvement on any "official" level, but it could make things dicey...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081127154723.so012gc9&show_article=1

Also, apparently Indian Coast Guard found and boarded the ship used to transport the terrorist gang to the city..they're not releasing what they've found (if anything) just yet...

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Coast_Guard_locates_suspected_terrorist_ship_M_V_A lpha/articleshow/3765920.cms

[Aikbach]

I'm sure if that turns out to be the case we will prudently counsel restraint and advise them against taking drastic action that could potentially destabilize the region and lead to more destruction, suffering, and death.

:cool:You and I are in agreement, best take pictures.
All out war plays to the terrorist intention, the best thing would be for Pakistan and India to find common ground against Isalmic terror, realize they have to live with each other and are being played by terrorists to make thing sticky for the Americans and the local efforts to reign in terrorism.

[ologan]

just for the record, i was being sarcastic, not agreeing.

I know you were,but you may have been closer to the truth than you know.
Baddies still out there??? You betcha,but fewer than before. A lot of them picked Iraq to be their battleground,and now that a whole passel of 'em have gotten their 72 virgins,the ones left seem to be shifting to Afghanistan. Baddies still out there??? You betcha, as evidenced by attacks against a whole host of other countries. Sure makes me think somebody's doing something right here in this country to prevent it happening here.

[iceberg]

I know you were,but you may have been closer to the truth than you know.
Baddies still out there??? You betcha,but fewer than before. A lot of them picked Iraq to be their battleground,and now that a whole passel of 'em have gotten their 72 virgins,the ones left seem to be shifting to Afghanistan. Baddies still out there??? You betcha, as evidenced by attacks against a whole host of other countries. Sure makes me think somebody's doing something right here in this country to prevent it happening here.

maybe. and maybe they're just waiting for the right time as well.

ask india if the bad guys can't hurt still.

[Aikbach]

maybe. and maybe they're just waiting for the right time as well.

ask india if the bad guys can't hurt still.The bad guys are opportunistic cowards, they knew India was a "soft" target where westerners could be strategically picked out and murdered just as in Bali.

No doubt they like to plan grand scaled attacks on American soil but they realize that American security limits the soft targets and risks exposing their cells on small scale attacks.

[vta]

The bad guys are opportunistic cowards, they knew India was a "soft" target where westerners could be strategically picked out and murdered just as in Bali.

No doubt they like to plan grand scaled attacks on American soil but they realize that American security limits the soft targets and risks exposing their cells on small scale attacks.

Give 'em hell Aikbach.

[Phrozen Phil]

My co worker's family was further north in Mumbai and escaped the worst of it. They are extremely frightened and aren't going outside at the moment.

[iceberg]

My co worker's family was further north in Mumbai and escaped the worst of it. They are extremely frightened and aren't going outside at the moment.

glad to hear they're safe!

[burmafrd]

That attempt at Ft Dix could have been almost as bad. The public road runs right through the installation and all they would have had to do was get out of the vehicle and shoot through a chain link fence into a morning formation.

[arglebargle]

A little thumbnail sketch of the history of modern Muslim-Hindu struggles, if you are interested....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081127/wl_time/08599186265000;_ylt=AlPQM_eziWHsiXLIBVlGfZj9xg8F

[vta]

A little thumbnail sketch of the history of modern Muslim-Hindu struggles, if you are interested....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081127/wl_time/08599186265000;_ylt=AlPQM_eziWHsiXLIBVlGfZj9xg8F

I just read that over at Time, and while it is quite interesting, it won't hold much water of laying it out as cultural Indian clash, if the gunmen were in fact looking for Americans and Brits.

If they're going to hold a century old grudge against the Brits for their part in their standing in India, that's fine for them, I suppose, but targeting modern day Westerners for such a grudge in the face of their Eastern brethren's current prejudice falls a bit flat.

[arglebargle]

I think it was for the shock PR value more than anything else. Though they could just be following their financier's views. I would not be surprised at all if iturns out to be all local gunmen. The sophistication of the tactics, and the money needed to set everything up does make it look like they had some serious outside backers, in any case.

That part of the world has enough of their own conspiracy theory views that that the USA pulls all the world's puppet strings.

[Aikbach]

Give 'em hell Aikbach.
Soon, i'm getting quite motivated.

[Phrozen Phil]

I just read that over at Time, and while it is quite interesting, it won't hold much water of laying it out as cultural Indian clash, if the gunmen were in fact looking for Americans and Brits.

If they're going to hold a century old grudge against the Brits for their part in their standing in India, that's fine for them, I suppose, but targeting modern day Westerners for such a grudge in the face of their Eastern brethren's current prejudice falls a bit flat.

That part has me wondering as well. It wouldn't surprise me to see some connection, but it could be an Al Quaeda "inspired" set of attacks. It would be interesting to see if there's any connection or co-ordination among these groups.

[vta]

That part has me wondering as well. It wouldn't surprise me to see some connection, but it could be an Al Quaeda "inspired" set of attacks. It would be interesting to see if there's any connection or co-ordination among these groups.

CNN reported that some group called Deccan Mujahideen (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/india.attacks.responsibility/index.html) has taken responsibility, which the article says is an off shoot of another. It might be part of the Pakistan/Kashmir thing, but singling out Westerners makes it a broader concern.

[JiggsCasey]

The bad guys are opportunistic cowards, they knew India was a "soft" target where westerners could be strategically picked out and murdered just as in Bali.

No doubt they like to plan grand scaled attacks on American soil but they realize that American security limits the soft targets and risks exposing their cells on small scale attacks.

Well, it's not like they have mechanized divisions, radar or ships to shell positions from offshore. Of course they have to be "opportunistic."

OK, this won't be popular.... But, dismissing these people as "cowards" always seemed illogical to me. Crazy? Misguided? Even evil? Sure. .... But cowardly? No, I don't think so. ... What is cowardly about consciously willing to go down in a hail of gunfire for your political and spiritual beliefs? ... I'd say that takes brass ones. But being insane certainly helps towards that.

Nonetheless, we are at war, and a response is necessary.

[Aikbach]

Well, it's not like they have mechanized divisions, radar or ships to shell positions from offshore. Of course they have to be "opportunistic."

OK, this won't be popular.... But, dismissing these people as "cowards" always seemed illogical to me. Crazy? Misguided? Even evil? Sure. .... But cowardly? No, I don't think so. ... What is cowardly about consciously willing to go down in a hail of gunfire for your political and spiritual beliefs? ... I'd say that takes brass ones. But being insane certainly helps towards that.

Nonetheless, we are at war, and a response is necessary.
What is noble about killing women and children and who says their spiritual beliefs deserve respect since they obviously have no regard for human life, only their own selfish martyrdom rewards.

It is most cowardly to surprise attack a mother with a baby stroller in a train station, a tourist on vacation in Bali and a receptionist starting their day at the WTC.

You have dared to compare standing militaries that engage in the rules of war, target military targets and not civilians and abide by the Geneva Convention to terrorist murderers, shame on you sir.

You have highlighted your moral ineptitude and disregard for the sanctity of human life in one foul swoop.

[JiggsCasey]

I knew I'd get a strawmanning reaction like this. You're revealing yourself as one of the forum's most well-played instruments. Focusing on what you hope I mean and ignoring entirely what I literally said.

What is noble about killing women and children and who says their spiritual beliefs deserve respect since they obviously have no regard for human life, only their own selfish martyrdom rewards.

Who said it was noble? Who said their beliefs deserve respect? You understand the entirety of the word cowardice, do you not? Stupidity and brazen religious zealotry is not "cowardice."

It is most cowardly to surprise attack a mother with a baby stroller in a train station, a tourist on vacation in Bali and a receptionist starting their day at the WTC.

Is it "noble" to vaporize 10,000 civilians in the first 3 days because their leader wouldn't sell us his oil?

You have highlighted your moral ineptitude and disregard for the sanctity of human life in one foul swoop.

Don't talk to me about the sanctity of human life when you advocate war and destruction in here on a daily basis. It doesn't do very well for your own integrity. I daresay I have exponentially more regard for human life than you do.

[Aikbach]

I knew I'd get a strawmanning reaction like this. You're revealing yourself as one of the forum's most well-played instruments. Focusing on what you hope I mean and ignoring entirely what I literally said.



Who said it was noble? Who said their beliefs deserve respect? You understand the entirety of the word cowardice, do you not? Stupidity and brazen religious zealotry is not "cowardice."



Is it "noble" to vaporize 10,000 civilians in the first 3 days because their leader wouldn't sell us his oil?



Don't talk to me about the sanctity of human life when you advocate war and destruction in here on a daily basis. It doesn't do very well for your own integrity. I daresay I have exponentially more regard for human life than you do.The definition of cowardice is an ignoble act so by refuting it you have subsequently defended their nobility, you are respecting them for following through with their self-martyrdom and proclaiming it takes "brass".

Your personal agenda seeks to use hubris in place of fact, I know you are righteous in your own eyes which is one reason you come across so unflappably foolish.

How dare you talk down to me about advocating death and destruction, that is the own ARROGANT RANT of an asinine fool! You have no basis beyond your own heinous accusations against me and you have sought to use character assassination as a tool to promote your own myopic view, you are the captain of the ship of fools and thankfully you are but a powerless internet user, the real men will protect the country inspite of your own personal intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice.

If I am incorrect in considering Al Quida cowardly I will only defer to you because you are well versed in the practice of cowardice and know it quite well.

In the mean time you seem content to side with infanticide and terrorism.

[burmafrd]

Aik don't waste your time trying to educate the uneducateable.

[JiggsCasey]

The definition of cowardice is an ignoble act so by refuting it you have subsequently defended their nobility, you are respecting them for following through with their self-martyrdom and proclaiming it takes "brass".


Did you look up the word? Because you used the adjective "ignoble," yet conveniently left out the operative word.cow·ard·ice (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cowardice) n. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.The operable NOUN here is "fear." They are not afraid, period. I'm not respecting nor defending them. I'm merely pointing out that fear is not part of their equation. It's clear you're incapable of debating without strawmanning, and demonizing your opponent with tired "you must be with the terrorists" Bush League nonsense. I take exception to that, and will not be railroaded by that unoriginal tactic like so many of your previous debate challengers here.

Your personal agenda seeks to use hubris in place of fact, I know you are righteous in your own eyes which is one reason you come across so unflappably foolish.

Hubris? Now there's priceless irony. I believe an excellent book was written entitled exactly that -- "Hubris" -- impeccably sourced, pointing out the undeniable arrogance and fraud of an administration that people of your ideology almost unanimously admire. Please don't suggest that I'm the one void of fact here; it will be embarrassing for you. An example being your avoidance of presented fact in this very exchange, and your punt instead to personal inuendo.

How dare you talk down to me about advocating death and destruction, that is the own ARROGANT RANT of an asinine fool! You have no basis beyond your own heinous accusations against me and you have sought to use character assassination as a tool to promote your own myopic view,


As opposed to you, who addressed me first with "respect and goodwill" from the start, right?... :rolleyes: ... Because focusing on my signature link and other petty personal insinuations before I ever spoke to you wasn't "talking down" in the least. ... Oops, here we are:YOU to ME:Last year the economy was solid dipstick... (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2428827&postcount=15)

Just for perspective, here's me addressing you for the first time:Thank you for your service (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2386383&postcount=97). Godspeed, and come home safe. Keep your eyes and ears open... on all fronts...

Here's you addressing me for the first time, essentially calling me a liar:That may be expedient for you believe but it just ain't true. It will provide a convenient scapegoat for the rough patch ahead however and allow you to give Obama a free ride (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407872&postcount=14)if things worsen.Not that I care what you said, but you're really isolating yourself if you're going to sit here and suggest I'm the one who initiated disrespect between the two of us. Ummm, that would be you. You earned it.


Regardless, indignant one, I'm not the one who offered this curious statement in response to someone suggesting we may not be winning the conflict against radical Islam:In all honesty with the 45 million children we've butchered since 1973 we've done more than any terror attack could ever hope to achieve (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2435695&postcount=29).Perhaps you were just offering perspective, but it was an odd response.

Still, a simple use of the search feature displays some unflattering pro-war, pro-US hegenomy rhetoric of yours within seconds. You can act outraged if you want for merely being called on it, but your post history is what garners that opinion, nothing else.
Although I'm displeased with the handling of the aftermath of the Iaq war I understand why we did it and support the initial decision (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1615001&postcount=28). His foreign policy may rankle feathers but a lot of it was necessary ...It is a shrewd move in many ways to exhaust other nations before depleting ourselves (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2215965&postcount=21), the fact of the matter is that oil isn't going away as the primary cheap and efficient fuel source of the globe any time soon.Yeah... "no basis."

I mean, you qualify your sentiment fairly well, so as to not sound completely heartless and bloodthirsty. But to you, US imperialism is always beyond reproach. As are the tactics of the US military. Of course there's always "a time to fight" (1939-1945), but advocating endless and brutal pre-emption on nations that never attacked us is advocating death and destruction. Sorry, but it is.

It's really rather mindboggling to see you advocate and make excuses for hasty war rhetoric in thread (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100689&highlight=invade) after thread (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93619&highlight=invade) after thread, and then watch as you turn around and get untucked when anyone reminds you of your pattern. "Foolish," indeed.

you are the captain of the ship of fools and thankfully you are but a powerless internet user, the real men will protect the country inspite of your own personal intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice.

Ah, how Sarah Palin of you. (you know, the candidate you thought would be a "wise choice (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2210333&postcount=28)")... So "real men" only include the military? Noted. Perhaps next you can tell us the "real parts of America." ... Like, say the swamps of Blackwater?

I've seen that kind of lazy rationalization many times before, from much more informed and high-ranking current and retired military members than you, just on my softball team and newsroom alone. It doesn't work for them either, and I never let them get away with it.

If I am incorrect in considering Al Quida cowardly I will only defer to you because you are well versed in the practice of cowardice and know it quite well.

What does this even mean? For all your pseudo-intellectual babble, you often present so much nothingness. You didn't even use the word correctly in its context. I believe somewhere in there, you actually called me a coward? Is that because I have a better grasp of what the word literally means? As opposed to you, who has a reactionary concept of what the word connotates. This kind of frat-boy debate style... has it worked for you in the past here?

In the mean time you seem content to side with infanticide and terrorism.

Where have I once "sided with" infanticide? (Heck, where have I ever mentioned abortion?) Where did I "side with" terrorism? Or, does perspective immediately indicate empathy to people like you? Wait, don't answer that. Eight years later, and that's almost universally the case when locking horns with the "with us or with the terrorists" war advocates.

Curious, is there a drama team in your military division? Your propensity to create an ideological link between posters you dislike and radical Islam is grating, unoriginal and the sign of profound debate futility. I notice you've used it against pretty much every poster you've come in contact with regarding the War on Terror.

For a poster so well-versed in history, it's disappointing that you'd feel a need to resort to such tired Archie-Bunkerish tactics.

Stick to the facts of a debate, and focus on what's said, not what you think you hear. And whatever you do, avoid acting indignant when a person you've already directly insulted holds your pap accountable.

[Aikbach]

Did you look up the word? Because you used the adjective "ignoble," yet conveniently left out the operative word.cow·ard·ice (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cowardice) n. Ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.The operable NOUN here is "fear." They are not afraid, period. I'm not respecting nor defending them. I'm merely pointing out that fear is not part of their equation. It's clear you're incapable of debating without strawmanning, and demonizing your opponent with tired "you must be with the terrorists" Bush League nonsense. I take exception to that, and will not be railroaded by that unoriginal tactic like so many of your previous debate challengers here.



Hubris? Now there's priceless irony. I believe an excellent book was written entitled exactly that -- "Hubris" -- impeccably sourced, pointing out the undeniable arrogance and fraud of an administration that people of your ideology almost unanimously admire. Please don't suggest that I'm the one void of fact here; it will be embarrassing for you. An example being your avoidance of presented fact in this very exchange, and your punt instead to personal inuendo.




As opposed to you, who addressed me first with "respect and goodwill" from the start, right?... :rolleyes: ... Because focusing on my signature link and other petty personal insinuations before I ever spoke to you wasn't "talking down" in the least. ... Oops, here we are:YOU to ME:Last year the economy was solid dipstick... (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2428827&postcount=15) Just for perspective, here's me addressing you for the first time:Thank you for your service (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2386383&postcount=97). Godspeed, and come home safe. Keep your eyes and ears open... on all fronts...Here's you addressing me for the first time, essentially calling me a liar:That may be expedient for you believe but it just ain't true. It will provide a convenient scapegoat for the rough patch ahead however and allow you to give Obama a free ride (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407872&postcount=14)if things worsen.Not that I care what you said, but you're really isolating yourself if you're going to sit here and suggest I'm the one who initiated disrespect between the two of us. Ummm, that would be you. You earned it.


Regardless, indignant one, I'm not the one who offered this curious statement in response to someone suggesting we may not be winning the conflict against radical Islam:In all honesty with the 45 million children we've butchered since 1973 we've done more than any terror attack could ever hope to achieve (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2435695&postcount=29).Perhaps you were just offering perspective, but it was an odd response.

Still, a simple use of the search feature displays some unflattering pro-war, pro-US hegenomy rhetoric of yours within seconds. You can act outraged if you want for merely being called on it, but your post history is what garners that opinion, nothing else.Although I'm displeased with the handling of the aftermath of the Iaq war I understand why we did it and support the initial decision (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1615001&postcount=28). His foreign policy may rankle feathers but a lot of it was necessary ...It is a shrewd move in many ways to exhaust other nations before depleting ourselves (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2215965&postcount=21), the fact of the matter is that oil isn't going away as the primary cheap and efficient fuel source of the globe any time soon.Yeah... "no basis."

I mean, you qualify your sentiment fairly well, so as to not sound completely heartless and bloodthirsty. But to you, US imperialism is always beyond reproach. As are the tactics of the US military. Of course there's always "a time to fight" (1939-1945), but advocating endless and brutal pre-emption on nations that never attacked us is advocating death and destruction. Sorry, but it is.

It's really rather mindboggling to see you advocate and make excuses for hasty war rhetoric in thread (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100689&highlight=invade) after thread (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93619&highlight=invade) after thread, and then watch as you turn around and get untucked when anyone reminds you of your pattern. "Foolish," indeed.



Ah, how Sarah Palin of you. (you know, the candidate you thought would be a "wise choice (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2210333&postcount=28)")... So "real men" only include the military? Noted. Perhaps next you can tell us the "real parts of America." ... Like, say the swamps of Blackwater?

I've seen that kind of lazy rationalization many times before, from much more informed and high-ranking current and retired military members than you, just on my softball team and newsroom alone. It doesn't work for them either, and I never let them get away with it.



What does this even mean? For all your pseudo-intellectual babble, you often present so much nothingness. You didn't even use the word correctly in its context. I believe somewhere in there, you actually called me a coward? Is that because I have a better grasp of what the word literally means? As opposed to you, who has a reactionary concept of what the word connotates. This kind of frat-boy debate style... has it worked for you in the past here?



Where have I once "sided with" infanticide? (Heck, where have I ever mentioned abortion?) Where did I "side with" terrorism? Or, does perspective immediately indicate empathy to people like you? Wait, don't answer that. Eight years later, and that's almost universally the case when locking horns with the "with us or with the terrorists" war advocates.

Curious, is there a drama team in your military division? Your propensity to create an ideological link between posters you dislike and radical Islam is grating, unoriginal and the sign of profound debate futility. I notice you've used it against pretty much every poster you've come in contact with regarding the War on Terror.

For a poster so well-versed in history, it's disappointing that you'd feel a need to resort to such tired Archie-Bunkerish tactics.

Stick to the facts of a debate, and focus on what's said, not what you think you hear. And whatever you do, avoid acting indignant when a person you've already directly insulted holds your pap accountable.So you have written a long bit of tripe conceding you have taken a personal vendetta against me? Bizarre, you really are an insecure soul to waste so much time caring what a stranger things of you, I was correcting the dangerous charges of your accusations, you however apparently lose sleep over the rebukes. You seek a little perspective my friend.

I think you need to look in the mirror before offering any complaint about much of anybody and their rebukes of your callousness and often indefensible positions.

This you against the world demeanor nonsense may make you feel like you are on a righteous crusade but honestly, you are the one who opens your integrity up to question and gets mad when it happens.

As far as not answering every charge you make, I need not do it, I actually go outside at times; plus your every post can be summed up as follows: hubris, self-victimization, ranting, platitudes, accusations and gross generalization, rinse, repeat.

[burmafrd]

By their own words shall ye know them.

Jiggs does a pretty good job of convicting himself, doesn't he?

[iceberg]

Aik don't waste your time trying to educate the uneducateable.

hear that a lot? :)

[jrumann59]

And if there is sufficient evidence Pakistan was involved, India should declare war on Pakistan.

Yes, I know both have nuclear weapons, but this would be no different than the United States going into Iraq and Afghanistan. The Indian Government has the right to protect its citizens.


Except neither are really afraid to use thier nukes.

[JiggsCasey]

So you have written a long bit of tripe conceding you have taken a personal vendetta against me? Bizarre, you really are an insecure soul to waste so much time caring what a stranger things of you, I was correcting the dangerous charges of your accusations, you however apparently lose sleep over the rebukes. You seek a little perspective my friend.

Wrong again. I love posters like you. I consider it a catharsis dealing with a poster who blows a gasket and tries to lazily paint me as a terrorist sympathizer. You earned it, and I'm not your friend. You didn't correct anything, you got corrected. No sleep was lost, just 20-25 minutes of letting you know your tired Sean Hannity talking points weren't going to work on this poster.

I think you need to look in the mirror before offering any complaint about much of anybody and their rebukes of your callousness and often indefensible positions.

Really? What's your own excuse?

This you against the world demeanor nonsense may make you feel like you are on a righteous crusade but honestly, you are the one who opens your integrity up to question and gets mad when it happens.

The only person who's integrity was opened up to question was you, the moment you used connotation and emotion to change the literal definition of a word you so anxiously wanted to apply to the enemy. I merely challenged that logic. Now, you're doing whatever you can to conjure up attacks on my character and deflect from the issue. Seen it before by much better posters than yourself. You're going to need to bring a bit more to the table if you're going to blindly defend U.S. hegemony at every turn. Attacks on what you GUESS my personality exhibits will be ineffectual, and are the sign of a debater who essentially prefers to punt on 3rd down.

As far as not answering every charge you make, I need not do it, I actually go outside at times; plus your every post can be summed up as follows: hubris, self-victimization, ranting, platitudes, accusations and gross generalization, rinse, repeat.

Are you insinuating that I don't go out because I actually had the audacity to take you to task for once? Do get over yourself. More convenient self-rationalization by the forums most self-important pseudo babbler. Regardless, your every post can be summed up as follows: Arrogance, unapologetic defiance, condescension, slanted history, ACCUSATIONS, ranting, subtle demonization and, when all else fails, direct personal attack.

I'll let you get back to pretending I'm "with the terrorists" now.

[vta]

True bravery isn't running headlong to your death in any form; facing a standing army of people prepared to do battle, while knowing you're likely to lose, is.

Attacking sitting ducks and dying in the process is cowardly; you'll never face the repercussions of that cheap action. The jerk off who shoots up a MacDonalds and turns the gun himself at the very end did not want to face the consequences of his actions. Therefore he is a coward.

Intentionally dying for a cause is cowardly; dying in the furtherance of that cause while trying to win isn't.

By definition of action, Webster not withstanding, these people are hard core cowards.

[Aikbach]

Wrong again. I love posters like you. I consider it a catharsis dealing with a poster who blows a gasket and tries to lazily paint me as a terrorist sympathizer. You earned it, and I'm not your friend. You didn't correct anything, you got corrected. No sleep was lost, just 20-25 minutes of letting you know your tired Sean Hannity talking points weren't going to work on this poster.



Really? What's your own excuse?



The only person who's integrity was opened up to question was you, the moment you used connotation and emotion to change the literal definition of a word you so anxiously wanted to apply to the enemy. I merely challenged that logic. Now, you're doing whatever you can to conjure up attacks on my character and deflect from the issue. Seen it before by much better posters than yourself. You're going to need to bring a bit more to the table if you're going to blindly defend U.S. hegemony at every turn. Attacks on what you GUESS my personality exhibits will be ineffectual, and are the sign of a debater who essentially prefers to punt on 3rd down.



Are you insinuating that I don't go out because I actually had the audacity to take you to task for once? Do get over yourself. More convenient self-rationalization by the forums most self-important pseudo babbler. Regardless, your every post can be summed up as follows: Arrogance, unapologetic defiance, condescension, slanted history, ACCUSATIONS, ranting, subtle demonization and, when all else fails, direct personal attack.

I'll let you get back to pretending I'm "with the terrorists" now.K, mr.self-victim, sorry you were held accountable for sticking your foot in your mouth repeatedly.

[ZB9]

just on my softball team and newsroom alone. It doesn't work for them either, and I never let them get away with it.








which newsroom? AlJazeera?

[JiggsCasey]

K, mr.self-victim, sorry you were held accountable for sticking your foot in your mouth repeatedly.

Oh, I'm no victim, I can assure you of that. I'll take you on any time. When you make the mistake of acting indignant again, I'll remind you again of were the disrespect originated.

Further, I never stuck my foot in my mouth in this exchange... That would be you. Perhaps if you entered the fray with a bit of respect for a fellow poster, your pap would have been allowed to pass as just more run-of-the-mill, fervent, yet hollow jingoism. Unfortunately, you cashed in that opportunity the moment you made the mistake of calling me a "dipstick."

[JiggsCasey]

True bravery isn't running headlong to your death in any form; facing a standing army of people prepared to do battle, while knowing you're likely to lose, is.

Attacking sitting ducks and dying in the process is cowardly; you'll never face the repercussions of that cheap action. The jerk off who shoots up a MacDonalds and turns the gun himself at the very end did not want to face the consequences of his actions. Therefore he is a coward.

Intentionally dying for a cause is cowardly; dying in the furtherance of that cause while trying to win isn't.

By definition of action, Webster not withstanding, these people are hard core cowards.

I understand what you're saying. I do. But we're not talking about "true bravery."... We're talking about cowardice. Further, they didn't appear to just attack sitting ducks. They resigned themselves to prolonged gun battles with Indian commandos for over 60 hours.

Still, do you honestly expect them, with the limited resources they possess, to meet in some distance battle field and face a standing army and get obliterated? And, in the process, assure themselves of looking like fools on the world stage and having their message not resonate? Their leaders are crazy, but not dumb or afraid. Sorry.

Would you expect a cornerback to square up on a pulling guard down after down? Of course not. He wouldn't survive to play another week. Is it "cowardice" when that player chooses to go low and take the blocker out?