The terrorists in Mumbai

Posted by: Bryan

The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 07:01 AM

I wonder if anyone read them their rights? Did somebody offer to sit down and talk to them? See why they're so upset? They obviously have a legitimate grievance. It must be our fault.

I hope they're not sent to Gitmo; I'm worried they might be waterboarded. What about their comfort items? I hope they aren't offended.

Posted by: eckhard

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 08:00 AM


I thought key and steveg had covered that aspect ad absurdum. That whatever is happening there and in the Middle East is directly and indirectly a result of western (primarily British) imperialism doesn't even need to be mentioned anymore. After all, who drew all those lines in the sand?

Much more important right now, however, is how this will affect the already and permanently strained Indian-Pakistani relationship. India has experienced terrorism for decades now and has been completely and utterly unable, to deal with it. One reason being the fact that they are woefully under-policed.
Already the blaming finger is pointed at Pakistan - and that just a day or so after what could have been important peace negotiations between the two nations.

That the new US administration has been banking on this is also clear, because with the greater importance Obama has been placing on Afghanistan/Pakistan, he would have liked Pakistan to be less concerned with India, which now will be hard, since hardliners in India will most certainly be hard to placate.

Sending more US troops into the region may not be the way to generate peace in the region ..... but perhaps MrO may just place some "military advisors" into India as well. The whole mess is now moving east ... destabilizing India would be major calamity.


Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 09:49 AM

Quote:
I wonder if anyone read them their rights?

Yeah but it didn't take very long because they haven't got any - mainly because they started bombing and shooting people.

Quote:
It must be our fault.

Obviously if they're linking it to Abu Ghraib or the atrocities at Falujah and Haditha it would be your fault but at the moment it's not clear what their motives were.

Quote:
I hope they're not sent to Gitmo; .

I don't think they would be because that's an American facility. In any case if any of 'em are British we wouldn't allow them to go to Gitmo because torture and imprisonment without trial are against the laws of England.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 12:30 PM

Quote:
whatever is happening there... is directly and indirectly a result of... (primarily British) imperialism

Yeah w... the Test Match? That's been moved out of Mumbai to Chennai because there was a terr.... Oh! You mean the... I hadn't heard that one - has someone confessed?

Quote:
whatever is happening... in the Middle East is directly and indirectly a result of... (primarily British) imperialism

Not going far enough back... the nomads of 8,000 BC - it's all their fault.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 01:05 PM

For once I'm in agreement with you . . . I mean, if it hadn't been for the Moghul Empire, there wouldn't have been the division between Hindu and Muslim peoples in the subcontinent, for instance. So why stop with the British Empire, right? At the same time, I do not therefore absolve the British and other European empires of the 18th through early 20th century of a great deal of responsibility.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 01:26 PM

Quote:
I do not therefore absolve the British and other European empires of the 18th through early 20th century of a great deal of responsibility.

It's all coming out now... I never knew Ahmadinnerjacket had so much support on the forum... so it was the creation of Israel then? Leave to one side what we said the borders had to be... temporarily overlook who started making up their own borders...

km
Posted by: eckhard

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 03:22 PM

Originally Posted By: yoyo52
At the same time, I do not therefore absolve the British and other European empires of the 18th through early 20th century of a great deal of responsibility.


As long as Empires remain at home, they don't engage in imperialism. It's when they start that nation building gig that the game changes.
That's why comparing Akhbar the Great with the British Empire doesn't work.




Posted by: carp

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 03:43 PM

Regardless these disputes should be left up to States to determine through diplomacy .

Al-Queada and those other terrorist groups are nothing more then mercenaries who murder people for money - These Stateless groups who seem to act on their own are nothing but groups that are well funded by another entity whose goal is to control the worlds market , they in tern recruit -via- brain washing using religion to KILL.

If I was a Muslim , I would be embarrassed

IMO
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 03:45 PM

How about comparing the Ottoman Empire to the French Empire, or the Umayyad Empire to the Spanish Empire? It's not Europe alone that has had an imperial past. It is true, of course, that the European empires came into being at a time when global reach made such empires truly global. Had the Moghuls had that opportunity . . . .
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 03:50 PM

I can usually follow your arguments, keymaker, but you leave me behind this time. That European empires have some responsibility--for instance, that Britain invented Kuwait in order to keep a toehold in the area--is not to say that therefore I support Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, I do believe absolutely that Iran has a great deal of reason to distrust the US, who almost made it certain that there would be an Islamist backlash at some point in the history of Iran, in the same way that Queen Mary I made it certain that England would never again become a Catholic country.
Posted by: carp

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 06:53 PM

I agree YoYo on some points

History is history more so when its hundreds of years ago - like this Mumbai the attackers were in their 20s <-- What did India do to them let alone Westerners ? ? in a personal nature . These young men were duped -via- religious brain washing to murder people so someone can capitalize on India perceive Market Crash

IMO its all about money
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 10:03 PM

Quote:
I can usually follow your arguments, keymaker, but you leave me behind this time. That European empires have some responsibility--for instance, that Britain invented Kuwait...

Yeah but Kuwait's not the problem, Palestine is. The borders between Jewish and Arab lands over which they're fighting were decided at the UN. The fact that they haven't been observed has got nothing to do with the British Empire. Even when Clinton solved it with Peres and Arafat Israeli militants shot their own Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to maintain the chaos that would allow the annexations to continue.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/28/08 10:35 PM

Quote:
Regardless these disputes should be left up to States to determine through diplomacy

You're saying that the division of land in Palestine should be settled by negotiation right? How long should the negotiations last? Couple of months? Couple of years? Forty years? For ever? Just following that through, because I like making comparisons with our own domestic situation, if some twerp moves into your garden and starts planting onions, playing baseball with his mates and refusing to leave are you going to negotiate with him how much of it he's allowed to keep?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 08:14 AM

No doubt the creation of Israel has a great deal to do with the current causus belli in the area. Absent that, the area would find other causus belli--as Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait. As in Africa, the lines in west and south Asia that define national boundaries mark borders between European empires. By the way, in western Asia, the creation of Palestine, done by the UN to be sure, is as much an expression of European imperialism as it is of European guilt. The Third Reich was a European empire as much as the Napoleonic Empire was, after all. In any case, you were the one who raised the question of Israel in a manner that, as I said, was not germane to the issues under discussion.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 08:55 AM

Quote:
No doubt the creation of Israel has a great deal to do with the current causus belli in the area. Absent that, the area would find other causus belli...

I don't think a nation can accept responsibility for what might have happened, only what did happen. I have pointed to more immediate causes of the Palestinian problem than anything to do with the British Empire. Post Empire we're not going to accept responsibility for way Israel is behaving any more than for the way the US is behaving - it's time for people to start accepting responsibility for their own actions.

Quote:
... as Saddam did when he invaded Kuwait.

He did indeed but not because of the British Empire. What he was doing was breaking provisions of the UN Charter that both Britain and the US thought should be binding on the international community. More importantly the international community has formally accepted the Charter so its those who break it who are the problem. Harking back to the British Empire fails to acknowledge the importance of international agreements.

Quote:
you were the one who raised the question of Israel in a manner that, as I said, was not germane to the issues under discussion.

What Eckard said was "whatever is happening in the Middle East is directly and indirectly a result of ... (primarily British) imperialism." So what I said about Israel was entirely germaine. In fact it was Kuwait that was the red herring and I spent some time trying to work out what you were going on about with that.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 09:36 AM

I think Germaine Greer would object.

I should be used to your mode of argumentation, which is generally to ignore the central and emphasize the peripheral.
Posted by: steveg

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 09:41 AM

Just as long as you don't expect to have the last word. Evah.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 10:10 AM

Quote:
I should be used to your mode of argumentation, which is generally to ignore the central and emphasize the peripheral.

What, you think that in the context of Middle Eastern problems Kuwait is central and Palestine is peripheral? Yeah, right.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 11:49 AM

Quote:
Just as long as you don't expect to have the last word. Evah.

Rubbish... gave Yoyo the last word on Shakespeare... and how to spell 'germane'... blush

km
Posted by: steveg

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 11:57 AM

Good demo. Thanks.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 03:45 PM

So let me get this straight. A thread that is ostensibly about the terrorism in Mumbai is really about the foundation of Israel.

Of course. How could I be such a fool!
Posted by: steveg

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/29/08 04:23 PM

The thread could have begun with a recipe for M&Ms and Tuna, and it would eventually turn to the foundation of Israel.

Oh no. Wait. That's wrong because KM once told me he almost never posts about Israel. I'm the fool. You can relax now.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 01:31 AM

Quote:
M&Ms and Tuna, and it would eventually turn to the foundation of Israel.

If you can't see the connection that's your problem. laugh

Quote:
Oh no. Wait. That's wrong because KM once told me he almost never posts about Israel. I'm the fool. You can relax now.

Correct - I almost never post about Israel... unless someone introduces the subject or unless it commits an offence or tries to get into the Eurovision Song Contest.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 01:41 AM

Quote:
So let me get this straight. A thread that is ostensibly about the terrorism in Mumbai is really about the foundation of Israel.

Eck brought Israel into it not me, as you well know. You brought Kuwait into it. If you check the thread again you'll see that I answered both of Eck's assertions (that Mumbai and the Middle East were somehow our fault) not just the one about Israel. His full statement was...

"whatever is happening there and in the Middle East is directly and indirectly a result of western (primarily British) imperialism doesn't even need to be mentioned anymore. After all, who drew all those lines in the sand?"

With regard to Mumbai I asked for further information to support the statement and didn't get it. With regard to the Middle East I simply pointed out that since Israel was directly responsible for its own actions the British Empire couldn't be. It was going too far back because in the meantime we established a set of rules that have international acceptance and binding force that have been routinely broken by both Israel and the US - so Palestine is their fault not ours.

Although I don't agree with his point he made a logical connection between Mumbai and the Middle East because he thinks they have a common cause so, yes, both of my responses were ger... central to the thread smile

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 08:32 AM

The conversation, so to speak, was about European empires and their responsibility for laying the groundwork for the terror in Mumbai. I pointed out that there are other, non-European, empires that have some share in the responsibility, although the latest greatest and most proximate ones were indeed European--and I pointed to the nonchalance that led to the drawing of borders after WW II at the convenience of European map and policy makers. I took Kuwait as an example, largely because it has so recently been a causus belli, but could have just as easily picked almost any Middle Eastern or African country to illustrate the point. I also pointed out that the creation of Israel, done though it was by the UN, was as much an expression of European imperialism as of European guilt, but that in relation to what happened in Mumbai Israel is a side show because other, more obviously important imperial connections are at work in that incident and in the history of India-Pakistan relations. So I've been consistently thinking about the lingering effect of empires in the subcontinent, both before and after European ascendancy.

About Mumbai, as I said before, non-European empires lay the groundwork for the hatred between Islamic Pakistanis and Hindu Indians. The British Empire adds another layer of complexity to that very long-standing division: there's no doubt about the historical fact that the division of the subcontinent into Pakistan and India is a direct consequence of Britain's loss of its empire in south Asia. I wouldn't say that the border between those two countries was drawn in the sand--but close to it, as is the border-drawing in regards to Kashmir, the history of which is too complicated to begin to discuss in a thread like this. So marry Mughul history to British wash-my-hands policy and you end up with Mumbai.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 11:36 AM

Quote:
... So marry Mughul history to British wash-my-hands policy and you end up with Mumbai.

Your post fails to deal with my point that we established rules of acceptable behaviour through the UN. That's not a policy of wash-my-hands but one for the orderly development of international relations. Those rules which go all the way back to the Atlantic Charter of 1941 have universal acceptance and amongst other things require respect for a nation's territorial integrity and the observance of humanitarian principles such as the right to life. Britain hasn't broken them in relation to Mumbai or the Middle East. Those who have are answerable for their actions by international agreement in the shape of the UN Charter and subsequent treaties. Your position that Mumbai and Palestine is the fault if the British Empire gives terrorists a way out - they can't be blamed for their actions because Britain is 'directly and indirectly' to blame for everything they do. So it's just as well it's not true and that there are procedures for bringing the true culprits to justice.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 01:23 PM

You just don't want to hear, do you?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 01:28 PM

Quote:
You just don't want to hear, do you?

Yeah I do... I want to hear whether you accept that the killers at Mumbai are responsible for their actions?

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 03:57 PM

Well duh. Sure. Of course.

But that's not the issue being mooted, and you know it.
Posted by: newkojak

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 11/30/08 09:11 PM

I'm sure your masturbatory sarcasm is of great relief to all of the men and women who have to shed their blood against images of Guantanamo Bay every day for the sake of democracy.

Way to support the troops.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/01/08 12:45 AM

Quote:
Well duh. Sure. Of course..

Okay so you accept that the killings at Munbai were the fault of terrorists.

What was that you were saying about it being Britain's fault?

Quote:
But that's not the issue being mooted, and you know it.

No - you know it IS what's being mooted.

If I may say so you need to draw a distinction between events that are factually connected as all history is by definition and the question of culpability for events. Eck used a term in relation to Britain's role - 'responsibility' - that implied culpability for the actions of terrorists in Mumbai and the crimes in Palestine when everyone knows that blame lies with the perpetrators.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/01/08 04:34 AM

Boy are you deaf!
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/01/08 05:04 AM

Quote:
Boy are you deaf!

You're the one who's not answering the points. Can you see how a factual connection between events differs from culpability?

km
Posted by: RedStudebaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/01/08 08:04 AM

Good ol divide and conquer tactics. Wars by proxy. And let's not forget covert actions taken by intelligence agencies globally. Something is afoot.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/01/08 05:40 PM

To reduce the issue to one of culpability is a wonderful legal dodge. It absolves everyone of historical responsibility, which is a neat trick for those who, as David Bowie once said, "ain't got the power any more." One sees the same dodge in your response elsewhere to the lack of legal culpability in the bombing of Dresden because the law controlling such activity hadn't yet been passed. Wonderful for the Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Corps, isn't it? I've never questioned the responsibility of the individuals involved in the Mumbai massacres. But on the other hand, I don't believe it to be an absolution of responsibility to think through the historical contexts that make such a massacre almost inevitable. I'm not blaming the Moghul or the British Empires for the massacre. I most definitely am saying that without that historical background the massacre would most likely not have been a possibility. Your implication that one can divorce historical context completely from present actions just boggles the historical imagination. From that point of view, the establishment of the Spanish Empire in Latin America has nothing at all to do with the succession of caudillos that ruled almost all Latin America from the liberations of the 19th century all the way to the present in many places. I wish I could be so cheerfully contemptuous of the influence of history and culture.

edit: I need to add that it's fascinating that the legalism of your response to the bombing of Dresden presupposes that positive law trumps moral behavior, whereas your position in regards to gay marriage presupposes that positive law cannot trump conventional notions of morality. Just lovely.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/02/08 12:56 PM

Quote:
To reduce the issue to one of culpability is a wonderful legal dodge. It absolves everyone of historical responsibility, which is a neat trick for those who, as David Bowie once said, "ain't got the power any more."

It's not a dodge but the only thing that counts. If I invite someone over for dinner and they get run over on the way by a bus going too fast it's useless talking about my part in their death. One needs to focus on what the bus driver was doing. If all you care about is my part in the dinner guest's death or the role of the British Empire in the Mumbai massacre you're absolving the true culprits of responsibility.

Quote:
I'm not blaming the Moghul or the British Empires for the massacre. I most definitely am saying that without that historical background the massacre would most likely not have been a possibility.

As with the dead dinner guest responding to my invitation? Eckhard used the expression 'direct and indirect responsibility' of the British Empire which implied blame.

Quote:
One sees the same dodge in your response elsewhere to the lack of legal culpability in the bombing of Dresden because the law controlling such activity hadn't yet been passed. Wonderful for the Royal Air Force and the US Army Air Corps, isn't it?

The implication of your post is that Dresden was immoral even if it wasn't illegal. However, the bombing was intended to assist the Russian military advance at a time when the war was not yet won so there were military objectives. Civilian bombing in populated parts of London and other parts of England had no such mitigation. A nation is legallly and morally entitled to retaliate with overwhelming force if (a) it's not a against the law and (b) considered necessary to avoid a greater evil for example by providing an effective deterrent against further attacks on England and avoid the ultimate triumph of fascism. That was Dresden.

Quote:
I need to add that it's fascinating that the legalism of your response to the bombing of Dresden presupposes that positive law trumps moral behavior

No, because I don't accept that hindsight is a sound foundation for moral judgments. Remove hindsight and the morality of Dresden is not in doubt.

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/02/08 06:28 PM

The morality of Dresden was in doubt at the time of the decision to do the bombing. It was in doubt after the fact. It continues to be in doubt. The argument that any nation is entitled to overwhelming force in responding to prevent further attacks makes the attack on al Qaeda bases in Pakistan ok, then. Ah, no, of course not: it's not Pakistan that's doing the attacking, so there's no right to hit Pakistani territory. I take it that would be your argument. But then there is no response that can be made to non-governmental attacks, is there? By the way, the analogy to a party invitation is bogus. An invitation does not compel, nor does it alter the terms of engagement, as it were, in the way that imperial conquest and plantation does. If I were to drag the "invited" person behind my truck and force him to attend the party, and in the process the "guest" were to die because a bus ran over him, would I not have at least a smidgeon of responsibility?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/02/08 10:01 PM

Quote:
The argument that any nation is entitled to overwhelming force in responding to prevent further attacks makes the attack on al Qaeda bases in Pakistan ok, then. Ah, no, of course not: it's not Pakistan that's doing the attacking, so there's no right to hit Pakistani territory. I take it that would be your argument. But then there is no response that can be made to non-governmental attacks, is there?

As a matter of fact there is. The UN Charter requires all security matters to be referred to the Security Council. Art 39 provides that:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security.

It doesn't say "unless a member of the Security Council thinks it's going to lose the argument in which case it can do whatever it likes" like Blair and Dubya thought.

Quote:
By the way, the analogy to a party invitation is bogus. An invitation does not compel, nor does it alter the terms of engagement, as it were, in the way that imperial conquest and plantation does.

Well to be honest your distinction is bogus. Alright then let's say it's not an invitation to dinner but an instruction to attend the works canteen and on the way the worker gets run over by a bus... the rest you know.

Quote:
If I were to drag the "invited" person behind my truck and force him to attend the party, and in the process the "guest" were to die because a bus ran over him, would I not have at least a smidgeon of responsibility?

No, the bus driver has sole responsibility because he killed him. In fact you should be mad at the driver because you really wanted the deceased to attend your party.

km

Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/03/08 04:43 PM

Ah yes, of course. And I showed my determination to have the guest attend the party by tying him up and dragging him behind my truck. You know, your perspective is so patently specious that were I the truck driver, I'm certain I wouldn't want you as my defense lawyer.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/03/08 10:19 PM

Quote:
Ah yes, of course. And I showed my determination to have the guest attend the party by tying him up and dragging him behind my truck.

That was all from your fertile imagination of course.

Quote:
... your perspective is so patently specious that were I the truck driver, I'm certain I wouldn't want you as my defense lawyer.

The distinction between tying someone up and killing 'em is not specious but fundamental. As to my availability - not at the moment. smirk

km
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: The terrorists in Mumbai - 12/04/08 10:27 AM

The invitation to a party was originally your fertile imagination. My real point is that argument by analogy is always a crock.