On CNN 'Breaking News': [rquoter] The U.S. warned India of a potential maritime attack on Mumbai weeks before 179 people were killed, a U.S. official says. [/rquoter] No actual story up yet, but interesting.
Not that I agree with DD, but I think they did help in unifying the countries otherwise Indians would just fighting among themselves which they kind of still do. The railroad and school system the British left behind was a big plus as well. Blaming the British for the mumbai attacks is stupid.
The Brits are not the problem. It is an uncomprimising view of the Islamic faith that is causing most of the current terrorist issues. DD
Though saying that the Indians would be like Africa without the British lets not forget that the British colonized much of Africa too and they and other European powers deliberately stoked tribal rivalries to their advantages. Nobody knows what India would be like if the British had never colonized it but it is highly questionable to say that the British were a net positive for the Indian subcontinent. I think on the whole the British empire led to much more death and misery than any benefits of economic development. Still I agree blaming the British for the recent attacks is stupid. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FYzlSumoQdc&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FYzlSumoQdc&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Of course the British don't deserve direct blame but given the legacy of British colonialism and some of their actions carving up and tampering with the Islamic world during the last two centuries has indicrectly contributed to current problems.
The Militant Islamic sects have been killing each other for centuries. It has now spread to the rest of the world.....and continued the killing. DD
I find it nuts that this thread has diverged to british colonialization and kashmir strife as some sort of "explanation" for islamic ****tards. Is this some sort of plea for sympathy? Do you honestly think anyone with half a brain will somehow rally around (legitimate) injustice against muslims after a despicable, reprehensible, and callously inhumane terrorist attack against innocents? This type of rationalization only makes you part of the problem. Anyone else see the irony of this attack being perpretrated in India, birthplace of modern civil disobedience? A poignant commentary on islamic fundmentalist ignorance if I've ever seen it.
Not sure how you fight the Islamic militants, their dogma is so radical, and their agenda is the same. Maybe you target those preaching the hate? But if you do that...aren't you assaulting the tennements of Free speech? Such a quandry. DD
The attack needs to be on multiple fronts. Phase One tactic is to dry up their support base. Don't support oppressive regimes and dictatorships, give aid to impoverished Muslim populations, help rebuild infrastructure, cut out the torture and prejudice from the U.S. and other western nations. A positive image and good deeds won't breed as many people willing to kill themselves and innocents. However others will just be die hard fundamentalist, dogmatic, and violent. Use some of the good will built up by Phase one, as well as cash, trickery etc. to gain reliable intel, and infiltrators, then wipe out the leadership without taking out civilians. But when you do have plans to fill the vacuum. All of this will be an ongoing effort that will never stop. It will greatly reduce terrorism.
I agree with your thoughts and intentions, but I feel that reality will never enable such a (relatively) painless transition. It just does not work that way.
The problem is though if the recent problems are reduced down to just being the fault of radical Islam with the argument that radical Islam has always been and is inherently violent ignores a whole range of issues and just guarentees that there will continue to be a conflict between the West and Islam. The flip side of rhetoric like DD's is Muslims who say that Europeans have been killing each other and other people for centuries and the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan is just a continuation of that. Without understanding the history and world view of both sides we're just locked into an ongoing and conflict. I don't think that acknowledging that British Colonialism or India's actions in Kashmir are an excuse or justification for the actions of the terrorists in Mumbai but acknowledgement of those is a way to perhaps prevent future Mumbais.
I don't know that it's ever really been tried in the long term. I think that this kind of stuff would take decades before seeing the maximum effect. I do think in limited similar types of strategies we have seen success. At the time of communism's expansion in Latin America they were providing services and support for the lower rungs of society and made huge gains with that. That worked in some form just because of that, and it worked in spite of the idea being communism and supported by the USSR. I don't know that anyone has the will to actually attempt the strategy, and it would definitely cost money, and resources, and alienate some of the old oppressive regimes that are currently our allies, but it seems like it should be more effective than what we are doing now.
Judoka: I understand the sentiment, but historical inferences are only useful in the context of avoiding past mistakes in the future. In regards to current events such as the terrorism in Mumbai, such commentary is unavoidably linked to justification. How could it not be, if it is an agreed upon "mistake"? My point is not that analyzing past events that led to this murderous rampage are irrelevant entirely - but they are irrelevant in regards to our current reaction. If we can agree that the actions of these terrorists is only prolonging and accelerating the already engaged conflict, the starting point is moot. My own personal feelings are that these fundamentalist murderers want a war. They desire a conflict of the world vs. islam. Whether or not such a radical ideology is the product of british imperialism, centuries of religious strife, or inherent violence within the islamic religion is a useless argument to have when dealing with the present. It's almost assuredly a combination of factors so numerous as to be unavoidable. Dealing with the problem now requires continual reaction, not prevention. This is not a justification for any of the aforementioned atrocities or miseries - just a statement regarding the current situation and it's potential culmination. FB's thoughts that only a decades long strategy of education and renewed prosperity can end terrorism is probably true, but it seems to me that it ignores dealing with the current strife. You can't expect to just pump "aid" into Iran and expect some wave of liberalism to sweep away islamic hatred - that hatred has to be significantly deflated first. There is nothing wrong with FB's methodology or your own interest in past transgressions - but it must be handled within the confines of a pragmatism that seeks more than ultra long-term tempering. Some ideologies, by necessity, must be broken before they can be rehabilitated. Examples abound...
rhad, i don't really disagree. i just don't see the more aggressive attacking option to be much more plausible either at least in its potential effectiveness.
Neither option is "good". And both are highly dependent on follow-through. Our invasion of afganistan was the correct approach. Our follow-through was utter disaster.
Sorry I am not trying to irritate some people on the BBS but a lot you back bencher analyst need to stop with your conclusions as to who and what is responsible behind these barbaric acts. Some are now blood thirst for an invasion of Pakistan as if that is going to solve anything after what we did to Iraq. The greatest problem fighting terrorism in today's world stems from the fact that these groups are not from one particular country or ethnic group. The broad term "Islamic Terrorists" is applied to them because that is the only distinguishable characteristic they have in common. Al-Qaida and the likes uses different people from many countries to carry out their operations and no one know how they really operate. So we are left always on the crumb trail pointing at different directions like Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Pakistan. A good comparison of this would be lets take the Clan here in the US for example and suppose they were still carrying their terrorist activities to this day. Now most people would assume the Southern States are the root of this problem because most Clan members are from the South which also known to be somewhat racially intolerant. This would lead to a polarization between the North and South where people on both sides would taking arms to protect their regional interests and not the Clan itself. Similar thing is happening in the Islamic world where Muslims are now polarized because the West is bent on classifying all these different people from various ethnicity into one broader group. Invading more countries isn't going to solve anything. By now we should have learned enough to know that terrorism is dynamic and always adapting and shifting from one country to another as a base of operations.
Agreed, which is why you need a multinational hit squad to take out the leaders that are preaching hate......even in those schools that teach hatred from the Koran... DD
