Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

[gunsnroses]

["In its judgment on August 5 2005, the supreme court admitted that the evidence against Afzal was only circumstantial, and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group or organisation. But it went on to endorse what can only be described as lynch law. "The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, had shaken the entire nation," it said, "and the collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender."

That paragraph is worrying.
]

Hull, I agree that paragraph is indeed worrying...we don't want a democracy where ppl r killed just bcos a large number of ppl asking for their blood..

[gilleshk]

you don't reason with a terrorist.

One of the stupidest cliches out there that makes no room for them being human beings with needs and wants and that will continue to foster hate around the world. If the British had used that attitude, there would be no Ireland today...

That's the best way to foster hate...an eye for an eye and soon everyone is blind. You will never kill them all and terrorism is about politics and politics is about negotiation. To portray all terrorists as raving, bloodthirsty lunatics is so shortsighted it isn't even funny.

There comes a time where you have to look beyond the acts that have been committed and sit down and talk or else all you'll ever get is more deaths.

[PDLM]

PDLM don't tell me you are one of those pseudo intellects who believe what Madame Arundhati Roy says.

I wouldn't say I know much of what she writes. I simply asked you to show me the irrefutable evidence, or some discussion of it since the points she raises seem at least the basis of a reasonable refutation.

[kombuchakid]

...one of those pseudo intellects who believe what Madame Arundhati Roy says.

Have a dekko at The shape of The Beast
Arundhati Roy: The Shape of the Beast: Conversations with Arundhati Roy - global-sisterhood-network.org

and then tell us if you can afford to be a pseudo anything these days.

[Lammarite]

Recent update:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/latest-news/...5875-20934502/

[freeier]

Freeier: we are talking about the Geneva Convention with regard to handling prisoners, none of your examples are relevant to this.

By the way, does it really say you can not shoot parachutists and you have to ask the enemy to yield first? Or did you just make that up? Seems strange when the Geneva Conventions relate to prisoners of war, the injured, and civilians.

it does.
the yield part might not be that 'accurate' its like 20 years since i was coached on that.

but yes, you are not suppose to shoot at a guy parachuting down or heli-pelling down until the guy reaches the ground and can hit you back.

well, its geneva convention right ? so we are just going to pick some again and not pick the rest ?

you know that in geneva convention any war has to be officially 'declared' before two parties can fight ? and when terrorist starts attacking a place before declaring the attack, they are the one that forfeited their rights under the convention!

[freeier]

almost certainly not...and if so, should be fired.

for whatever it is worth, i was trained by professional soldiers on the convention and that was 20 years ago. doubt anything changed.

and for that matter of fact, its the least interesting part of real military training and nobody cares what clause and which rule it belongs to.. tell that to a group of 100 soldiers in a hot humid room 3pm afternoon that they need to remember the clause so they are going to argue about it 20 years down the line with someone online ?

[freeier]

Fact: They had been warned about the attack 2-3 months ago. They have been told to keep an eye on the boats as well as big hotels. Which they did, but 2-3 months is a long time to sustain the high level of security and ppl got lax thinking just one of those scares.

bear in mind, they might also have been warned at least 15 times a day on alot of other potential terrorist acts and none of them came true..

how are you going to judge which is true and which is not ? just rumour and information that ended up being mistaken ?

[PDLM]

you are not suppose to shoot at a guy parachuting down or heli-pelling down until the guy reaches the ground and can hit you back.

Rubbish. From Protocol I of 1977:

"Article 42 - Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."

[freeier]

what, exactly, are you saying here? I know people who have been tortured and people who have done the torturing. I can't be the only one who reads this forum with that kind of exposure. maybe some people posting here live in a bubble, but from what I've read over time, it's pretty clear many don't.

there's a reason why so many experts question the effectiveness of torture and sure doesn't have anything to do with making it easier for terrorists to do their work. there's also a large number of reasons why our forebears, in a time when everyday reality was more harsh and the prospect of going to war was greater for the average citizen, decided to enact laws about torture and the treatment of prisoners.

it's a nice ploy to accuse people of armchair punditry and media-dependence, because then we don't have to actually consider their point of view. sarcasm aside, it brings the whole level of discussion down, because when points of view are not taken seriously we just descend into name-calling and abuse.

which is why laws against torture are so important - we humans are so easily tempted to race to the bottom. the line from torture as a pragmatic tool to torture as a weapon of social conditioning, or torture as a punishment for its own sake is not just theoretical; it's a historically proven fact.

aren't you arguing something that's precisely a double edged sword..

1. if all the experts are so right, why did torturing exist till today ? obviously it does have proven effectiveness for it to persist ? i.e. a reason for them to exist.

2. things that we have seen, things that we have heard, are just very minor parts of what exactly exist in this world.. i.e. there are alot more unknown unknowns that we can never think of.

3. so tell me then, a confession letter would work with the suspected terrorists ?