Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Locked
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RayC »

The Mumbai attacks were directed not only at India but also at Pakistan’s new democratic government and the peace process with India that we have initiated. Supporters of authoritarianism in Pakistan and non-state actors with a vested interest in perpetuating conflict do not want change in Pakistan to take root.


Zardari's article is interesting.

What is more interesting is that is he making a veiled reference to the Pak Army and the ISI sabotaging the Pakistani civilian govt by mentioning 'supporters of authoritarianism'?
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RayC »

By allowing citizens to carry guns will in no way add to security.

If one feels firing a weapon accurately is an easy matter, then militaries the world over, would not, inspite of regular range practices, require so much of ammunition to fight a war. Ek goli, ek dushman would be adequate. Now, imagine citizens being allowed to carry guns and allowed to shoot in say, an urban environment. Why should I die because the gun toting citizen is a poor shot and I happen to be in the vicinity?

How many people die because of altercations in what is known as road rage? Google and check. Now give them a gun and see the mayhem!

I believe in the US one can shoot an intruder and go scot free. Can one do so in India? Laws require to be amended if it were to be so. In fact, if you even thrash an intruder in your house, you are up for a high jump or even if your dog bites a thief.

So, the issue that guns being allowed to be carried by citizens as a measure of security remains debatable.

US is a country that is singularly unique. It does not mean that it is a shining example. If it were, then we would not have the regular school and college shoot outs and mayhem.
amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by amit »

RayC wrote:By allowing citizens to carry guns will in no way add to security.

If one feels firing a weapon accurately is an easy matter, then militaries the world over, would not, inspite of regular range practices, require so much of ammunition to fight a war. Ek goli, ek dushman would be adequate. Now, imagine citizens being allowed to carry guns and allowed to shoot in say, an urban environment. Why should I die because the gun toting citizen is a poor shot and I happen to be in the vicinity?

How many people die because of altercations in what is known as road rage? Google and check. Now give them a gun and see the mayhem!

I believe in the US one can shoot an intruder and go scot free. Can one do so in India? Laws require to be amended if it were to be so. In fact, if you even thrash an intruder in your house, you are up for a high jump or even if your dog bites a thief.

So, the issue that guns being allowed to be carried by citizens as a measure of security remains debatable.

US is a country that is singularly unique. It does not mean that it is a shining example. If it were, then we would not have the regular school and college shoot outs and mayhem.
Just to add to your point Sir, making guns easily available to ordinary citizens also makes them easily available to all manner of goons, thugs and terrorists. There'll be mayhem all over. As it is our police force can barely control criminal elements, this will make it well nigh impossible.

And for what gain? For the perchance someone with a handgun will challenge a AK-47 toting mad cap terrorist who's (according to reports posted here) been trained to the level of a top notch US Navy Seal?

If ever there was a prize for a bad idea this one must be a strong contender for the top honors!
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by ramana »

Enough of the unobtanium ideas.

The talk of guns is like the mice who debate "who will bell the cat?"

Talk about something implementable in India.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4480
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vera_k »

Opinion piece about relaxing gun control laws. Some of it looks sensible and doable.

Arming India Against Terrorism
Relaxing gun control laws would be a good start

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122877201598989093.html
By SHIKHA DALMIA | From today's Wall Street Journal Asia
For three bloody days, just 10 determined killers held a city of 18 million hostage. The sheer ignominy of this fact has jolted Mumbaikars -- and Indians -- out of their fabled chalta hai (anything goes) attitude, and into a burst of citizen activism. Even Mumbai's business community has shed its habitual political timidity and filed an extraordinary public-interest lawsuit demanding that the government fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect its citizens.

But Indians shouldn't just stop there. They should also demand reform of the country's draconian gun laws -- a holdover from British times -- that prevent them from defending themselves. That would surely deliver far quicker results than waiting for India's slow-moving political classes to plug the vast lacunae in the country's security apparatus.

After all, what was particularly infuriating about the Mumbai attacks was not just that the Indian government failed to prevent them, even though it had received repeated warnings. Nor was it their tragic death toll; Mumbai, after all, experienced worse in the coordinated series of bombings in 1993 and 2006. Rather, it was that had there been anything resembling meaningful resistance, the attackers never would have been able to stage the kind of spectacle they did. Before they holed up in the Taj and Oberoi Hotels, they seemed to operate with almost complete impunity, freely moving from one target to another.

The same duo that opened fire at Café Leopold -- among the first targets -- managed to escape undetected and join their comrades at the Taj Mahal Hotel -- a few miles away -- before the police could even catch their breath. Likewise, the pair that attacked Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus subsequently hopped over to Cama Hospital, where they killed three top antiterrorism officials, hijacked the officials' van and sped away -- shooting at onlookers the whole time. And while at the Terminus -- named, ironically enough, after a fearless Maratha warrior-king -- the two gunmen marched up and down the station emptying their machine guns into commuters as the police stood by paralyzed, bolt-action rifles and lathis (bamboo sticks) in hand.

The true problem was not a shortage of heroism in those three horrible days. The courageous staff at the two hotels was nothing if not heroic, likely saving as many people as the police watched being killed. At the Taj, one employee even took the bullets for a group of guests he was trying to escort to safety.

But if the hotel staff could take bullets, the question is why couldn't they return them? The reason, as P.R.S. Oberoi, chairman of Oberoi Group, noted, is that none of the hotel's security staff was armed, thanks to the country's strict gun laws that make it virtually impossible to obtain permits. This is also perhaps why the gunmen moved around the city as if they owned it without fearing that anyone would shoot back.

India's gun laws have their genesis in colonial policy when -- following the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny -- British authorities drastically restricted gun ownership. So notorious were these laws that even the great apostle of nonviolence Mahatma Gandhi condemned them. "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest," he said.

Although the Indian government repealed these laws after Independence, it replaced them with ones almost equally hostile toward its citizens in 1959. It created a new licensing authority and gave it virtual carte blanche to deny permits. It also restricted private manufacturing to primitive munitions that no one wanted while subsequently banning imports, all of which has made guns prohibitively expensive.

The consequence is that India has among the lowest gun ownership rates in the world -- four guns per 100 residents, according to estimates by Martin Killias and his colleagues at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland. By contrast, the U.S. has a rate of 90 per 100; Canada, 31.5; Thailand, 16; and Pakistan, 12. But the most relevant comparison might be with Israel -- another country facing a chronic terrorist threat -- where 15% of adults carry concealed handguns, according to John Lott of University of Maryland.

One of the big obstacles to gun liberalization in India is the fear that more guns will lead to more violence, given that India is a tinder box of sectarian tensions ready to erupt at the slightest provocation. In fact, more gun ownership -- especially by India's minorities -- might have a deterrent effect. But India could at least begin by relaxing gun laws for business establishments -- malls, hotels, corporate offices -- that are particularly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. These businesses could be allowed to acquire state-of-the-art weapons. In exchange, they could be held accountable for whom they entrust with the weapons and how they are deployed, creating an incentive for them to conduct their own background checks. Such a policy would not only make it easier for businesses to defend themselves, but it would also allow the government to direct more security resources toward airports, train stations, bus terminals and other public infrastructure that only it can defend.

No open society can completely protect itself against all acts of terrorism. Security resources are always finite and the potential terrorist targets always infinite. But India's government surely can do a better job of protecting its citizens. Ultimately Indians can't count on their government alone. They need to also reserve the right -- and the means -- to defend themselves.

Ms. Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles-based think tank.
Last edited by vera_k on 09 Dec 2008 10:53, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60273
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by ramana »

Why are they writing in WSJ instead of Indian papers? is it psy-ops? The gun laws in India are based on the Indian Arms Act of 1868(?) with updates. They are a codification of Mughal restrictions on bandhukchis to enure there is no mass uprising against the rulers.

I dont think more guns with citizens i required. What i srequired is to arm the constublary in times of emergency or alerts. The uniqueness of the Indian policeman is his lathi which is his source of pwer. If he gets killed the outrage is immense as he is effectively unarmed. I dont want that shield taken away from him. He should have training and access to small arms for emergencies like invasion, alerts, pursuit of armed criminals and terrorists. Currently only ranks above Sub Inspector have the revolver. Need to be able to issue them lower at the descretion of the police station in charge.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by VikramS »

amit wrote:
RayC wrote:By allowing citizens to carry guns will in no way add to security.

If one feels firing a weapon accurately is an easy matter, then militaries the world over, would not, inspite of regular range practices, require so much of ammunition to fight a war. Ek goli, ek dushman would be adequate. Now, imagine citizens being allowed to carry guns and allowed to shoot in say, an urban environment. Why should I die because the gun toting citizen is a poor shot and I happen to be in the vicinity?

How many people die because of altercations in what is known as road rage? Google and check. Now give them a gun and see the mayhem!

I believe in the US one can shoot an intruder and go scot free. Can one do so in India? Laws require to be amended if it were to be so. In fact, if you even thrash an intruder in your house, you are up for a high jump or even if your dog bites a thief.

So, the issue that guns being allowed to be carried by citizens as a measure of security remains debatable.

US is a country that is singularly unique. It does not mean that it is a shining example. If it were, then we would not have the regular school and college shoot outs and mayhem.
Just to add to your point Sir, making guns easily available to ordinary citizens also makes them easily available to all manner of goons, thugs and terrorists. There'll be mayhem all over. As it is our police force can barely control criminal elements, this will make it well nigh impossible.

And for what gain? For the perchance someone with a handgun will challenge a AK-47 toting mad cap terrorist who's (according to reports posted here) been trained to the level of a top notch US Navy Seal?

If ever there was a prize for a bad idea this one must be a strong contender for the top honors!
RayC sir: We are not talking about firing a rifle hundreds of yards away. We are talking about a shoot at 10-20 feet. I do not have any arms training but even I can aim my son's pump-action BB-gun at 20 feet. I presume a regular side-arm will be more accurate since it does not require me to pump and aim at the same time :wink:

amit: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. (bumper sticker in the US).

Personally, I am afraid of guns. I simply get scared by their power to kill. When a police officer friend takes out his gun, I get uncomfortable. However, as I grow older and have more responsibilities, sometimes I do feel the need to get a gun.

ramana: As the Mumbai incident showed, you can not count on the police (or the NSG) to help you all the time. The same holds true for arms kept under lock at a police station. And the author is US based who contributes regularly to the WSJ.

So yes, I too am thinking of getting a gun (US). Clearly getting a gun is an act which requires careful planning. You should take a course in gun handling and storage. In house with kids you have to be especially careful to keep guns under lock.

I too believe that if Indians carried more guns, the death toll would have been much smaller. Even these steroid pumped, cocaine driven terrorists did not have eyes at the back of their heads. If there were a couple of people with side-arms at CST, they would have either run or been taken out. We have seen CCTV footage of how a single 0.303 kept them at check at CST. Now imagine six guns instead of one, aiming at them.
Last edited by VikramS on 09 Dec 2008 10:59, edited 2 times in total.
vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4480
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vera_k »

ramana wrote:Why are they writing in WSJ instead of Indian papers? is it psy-ops? The gun laws in India are based on the Indian Arms Act of 1868(?) with updates. They are a codification of Mughal restrictions on bandhukchis to enure there is no mass uprising against the rulers.

I dont think more guns with citizens i required. What i srequired is to arm the constublary in times of emergency or alerts. The uniqueness of the Indian policeman is his lathi which is his source of pwer. If he gets killed the outrage is immense as he is effectively unarmed. I dont want that shield taken away from him. He should have training and access to small arms for emergencies like invasion, alerts, pursuit of armed criminals and terrorists. Currently only ranks above Sub Inspector have the revolver. Need to be able to issue them lower at the descretion of the police station in charge.
With the profusion of private security services, there may be a case for having some of these arm themselves. Aren't a lot of these services staffed by ex-servicemen who would have firearms training already?
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RayC »

Carrying guns is not the problem.

The problem arises after one has used the gun.

The Law is what is the problem.

Even when the police fires and some is killed, there is a hue and cry and inquiries are instituted and the human rights lipstick brigade and candle lighting brigade bay for the blood of those in uniform.

Even in J&K, one has to be dead sure before firing and one has to have everything videoed, so that one can prove that there were good reasons to fire. If one has to always have one's hand tied behind one's back in genuine situations of insurgency control, how does the gun carrying citizen ever hope that he will not be behind bars or harassed, should he have good reasons to use his firearm?

Tough tittie!
RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RayC »

RayC sir: We are not talking about firing a rifle hundreds of yards away. We are talking about a shoot at 10-20 feet. I do not have any arms training but even I can aim my son's pump-action BB-gun at 20 feet. I presume a regular side-arm will be more accurate since it does not require me to pump and aim at the same time
Vikram,

Have you tried a game of darts?

How many times were you spot on at 20 yards or less?

A pistol or a revolver are the most difficult weapons to fire, since they 'jump'.

Read Brassey's books on weapon technology as to the effect of recoil.

BB guns are a different kettle of fish.

I sure would not like to be anywhere near you when you fire a pistol since you have the confidence but not the whys and whereofs of weapon technology! Just ribbing! :lol:

Heard of Dick Cheney? He shot his friend! :wink:

Was it because he was old and with a feeble eyesight or was it because he was a poor shot, though confident and had to be a true blueblooded American who has to go shooting since it is a macho American pastime? :lol:

Sarah Palin is my favourite. She kills moose from a helicopter. Brave woman. So typical of Americans - gung ho so long it is safe! Does not want to be gored!

Yet, let my views not deter you in any way. I would love a thousand flowers to bloom! That is how we can learn and even temper our views.

I have faced all this on US forums and I dare say I came back convinced!
Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19477
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Raja Bose »

RayC wrote:By allowing citizens to carry guns will in no way add to security.

If one feels firing a weapon accurately is an easy matter, then militaries the world over, would not, inspite of regular range practices, require so much of ammunition to fight a war. Ek goli, ek dushman would be adequate. Now, imagine citizens being allowed to carry guns and allowed to shoot in say, an urban environment. Why should I die because the gun toting citizen is a poor shot and I happen to be in the vicinity?

How many people die because of altercations in what is known as road rage? Google and check. Now give them a gun and see the mayhem!
Could not agree more. I have no idea how people think that they will be able to identify bad guys and shoot accurately under duress of bullets flying and general mayhem without 'collateral damage'. If it were so easy to do so without rigorous training then maybe we need to do away with all the training being provided to our armed forces! And also do away with all the super-rigorous training our NSG/MARCOS/Para Cdo go thru! give me a break! :roll:

Vikram,

Can you aim the said gun while bullets whine past you or you see other people getting shot down in front of you?
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by VikramS »

Raja Bose wrote:
RayC wrote:By allowing citizens to carry guns will in no way add to security.

If one feels firing a weapon accurately is an easy matter, then militaries the world over, would not, inspite of regular range practices, require so much of ammunition to fight a war. Ek goli, ek dushman would be adequate. Now, imagine citizens being allowed to carry guns and allowed to shoot in say, an urban environment. Why should I die because the gun toting citizen is a poor shot and I happen to be in the vicinity?

How many people die because of altercations in what is known as road rage? Google and check. Now give them a gun and see the mayhem!
Could not agree more. I have no idea how people think that they will be able to identify bad guys and shoot accurately under duress of bullets flying and general mayhem without 'collateral damage'. If it were so easy to do so without rigorous training then maybe we need to do away with all the training being provided to our armed forces! And also do away with all the super-rigorous training our NSG/MARCOS/Para Cdo go thru! give me a break! :roll:

Vikram,

Can you aim the said gun while bullets whine past you or you see other people getting shot down in front of you?
Raja:
Q: How many eyes did the terrorists have? What is their field of vision?

If you can answer that question then read on; else go look at a mirror and count.

These guys were strolling along the station while they were firing; if you were hiding behind a wall and they have passed you, and you had a gun, taking a shot from their behind would not require a lot of bravado.

The terrorists knew that most Indians do not carry weapons. That is why they could storm the hotels and the restaurants. If they knew that the hotel employees could be armed, their dance would have been dramatically different.


RayC: I think you are taking guns and road-rage way to far. You have to be extremely unlucky to be driving by at just the exact time to be hit by a stray bullet in a road-rage. Not that it does happen.

It is clear that a society which is armed will have more accidental deaths. It is also clear that a society which is unarmed is a sitting duck for armed outlaws (whether it is a terrorist or a local mafia). Americans chose to take things in their own hand and defend their turfs. Indians tend to be less fearful and would rather be a soft target. As long the use of arms by outlaws is a rare event it is fine to be soft; however if it becomes a regular event then I would rather be armed.
niran
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5538
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 16:01

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by niran »

Folks, arming Citizens with a gun won't make terrorism go away.
answer me this, Did making a Law to have Drivers Permit before you could drive
make traffic accidents go away?

This talk of "Number of Death would be mucho lower only if people carried guns"
is hogwash. imagine you are walking with your SHQ and somewhere near you
a Porki attacks, you pull out your gun, SHQ pulls her gun, Paanwalla pulls his,
autowalla pulls his, so, who to shoot, Paanwalla do not know you, in his eyes
you are a terrorist, he discharges towards you, SHQ discharges towards Paanwalla,
so on, and so forth, the net result will be ..... I think mucho educated folks at
BRF get my drift.

Kill all terrorist to end terrorism, granddaddy of terrorism is Pakeistan.
therefore kill Pakeistan.
nsa_tanay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 95
Joined: 11 Nov 2008 16:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by nsa_tanay »

Acharya wrote:

MUST READ!!!!! WHAT A WONDERFUL ARTICLE BY AN
EDITOR OF TIMES OF INDIA


LETTER TO PRIMEMINISTER

Dear Mr. Prime minister,

I am a typical mouse from Mumbai. In the local
train compartment which has capacity of 100
persons, I travel with 500 more mouse. Mouse at
least squeak but we don't even do that.

Today I heard your speech. In which you said 'NO
BODY WOULD BE SPARED'. I would like to remind you
that fourteen years has passed since serial bomb
blast in Mumbai took place. Dawood was the main
conspirator. Till today he is not caught. All our
bolywood actors, our builders, our Gutka king
meets him but your Government can not catch him.
Reason is simple; all your ministers are hand in
glove with him. If any attempt is made to catch
him everybody will be exposed. Your statement
'NOBODY WOULD BE SPARED' is nothing but a cruel
joke on this unfortunate people of India.

Enough is enough. As such after seeing terrorist
attack carried out by about a dozen young boys I
realize that if same thing continues days are not
away when terrorist will attack by air, destroy
our nuclear reactor and there will be one more
Hiroshima.

We the people are left with only one mantra. Womb
to Bomb to Tomb. You promised Mumbaikar Shanghai
what you have given us is Jalianwala Baug.

Today only your home minister resigned. What took
you so long to kick out this joker? Only reason
was that he was loyal to Gandhi family. Loyalty to
Gandhi family is more important than blood of
innocent people, isn't it?

I am born and bought up in Mumbai for last fifty
eight years. Believe me corruption in Maharashtra
is worse than that in Bihar. Look at all the
politician, Sharad Pawar, Chagan Bhujbal, Narayan
Rane, Bal Thackray , Gopinath Munde, Raj Thackray,
Vilasrao Deshmukh all are rolling in money.
Vilasrao Deshmukh is one of the worst Chief
minister I have seen. His only business is to
increase the FSI every other day, make money and
send it to Delhi so Congress can fight next
election. Now the clown has found new way and will
increase FSI for fisherman so they can build
concrete house right on sea shore. Next time
terrorist can comfortably live in those house ,
enjoy the beauty of sea and then attack the Mumbai
at their will.

Recently I had to purchase house in Mumbai. I met
about two dozen builders. Everybody wanted about
30% in black. A common person like me knows this
and with all your intelligent agency & CBI you and
your finance minister are not aware of it. Where
all the black money goes? To the underworld isn't
it? Our politicians take help of these goondas to
vacate people by force. I myself was victim of it.
If you have time please come to me, I will tell
you everything.

If this has been land of fools, idiots then I
would not have ever cared to write you this
letter. Just see the tragedy, on one side we are
reaching moon, people are so intelligent and on
other side you politician has converted nectar
into deadly poison. I am everything Hindu, Muslim,
Christian, Schedule caste, OBC, Muslim OBC,
Christian Schedule caste, Creamy Schedule caste
only what I am not is INDIAN. You politician have
raped every part of mother India by your policy of
divide and rule.

Take example of former president Abdul Kalam. Such
a intelligent person, such a fine human being. You
politician didn't even spare him. Your party
along with opposition joined the hands, because
politician feels they are supreme and there is no
place for good person.

Dear Mr Prime minister you are one of the most
intelligent person, most learned person. Just wake
up, be a real SARDAR. First and foremost expose
all selfish politician. Ask Swiss bank to give
name of all Indian account holder. Give reins of
CBI to independent agency. Let them find wolf
among us. There will be political upheaval but
that will better than dance of death which we are
witnessing every day. Just give us ambient where
we can work honestly and without fear. Let there
be rule of law. Everything else will be taken care
of.

Choice is yours Mr. Prime Minister. Do you want to
be lead by one person or you want to lead the
nation of 100 Crore people?



Wonderful.
The real threat lies inside. not out side.
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by krishnan »

So you people think its so easy to use a gun, I think you people need to see that video of that arab guy firing a shut gun and the way he falls back
vdutta
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vdutta »

krishnan wrote:So you people think its so easy to use a gun, I think you people need to see that video of that arab guy firing a shut gun and the way he falls back
Its easy to use gun but it is very hard to fire it at someone.having said that... let me reiterate that gun is no solution. how about giving gun to every police officer, allowing ex military and police personal to carry a concealed weapon?

btw come on bro... that guy was an Arab... ofcourse he couldnt shoot...
krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by krishnan »

Arab or no arab, its not a joke to use a weapon especially if you are going for a specific target. Yes you can use a AK-47 with some basic training to carry out assault on a group with no specific target. Try using a sniper riffle
Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 9122
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Sachin »

vdutta wrote:I work with police in USA and i can tell you that just giving them better weapons wont solve problem.
Have you been to the site http://www.officer.com ? They have a LE discussion forum, and have a thread on the attacks on Mumbai as well. Some of the cops don't have much clue on how policing works in India, and is surprized by many issues like uniforms, weapons the men carry etc. Perhaps you could share such news (regarding how un-armed policemen captured a Jehadi alive).
Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Chandragupta »

Relaxing gun control is a very bad idea. I would'nt even want to imagine our fickle & easily pissed public to have access to handguns & rifles. Have you not seen how people behave in India, on roads, in markets, in their homes even! An altercation that ends in a few blows would then end in a few rounds being fired & somebody getting killed. No thanks, no guns for our irresponsible people.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1887
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by VikramS »

RayC Sir:

I have seen a lot of mere mortal (Indian) men, with a much smaller build than mine, fire side-arms at gun ranges and come back with a nicely shot out paper trophy to mount on the wall. So I am confident that once I get over my fear of guns and their power to kill, I too will be able to fire one.

And in case you have not fired one, a BB gun too has a recoil, a reverse recoil. When you are pumping you are applying increasing pressure but as soon as the ball gets out of the gun and the vacuum seal breaks the pressure opposing the pumping action drops off which tends to shift the barrel. It is not an easy, as say firing a 155 mm gun (or whatever you used to order fire with). :mrgreen:

------

To others who worry about accidental deaths: We are not talking about a society where everyone carries a gun. Even in the US where gun ownership is 90 guns for 100 people, it is rare to hear about an accidental killing in a situation where a gun is being used in self-defense. In India, a terrorist is guaranteed that no one will challenge him/her with a gun. However if gun ownership grows to 10-20/100, the terrorist wouldn't have that fearless swagger in their stride. They would know that their meeting with God could be arranged by any body in sight since they might be carrying a weapon. This would slow them down significantly since they would need to cover each other's backside instead of their brazen walk.

Guns, even guns in the hands of civilians, serve their purpose best while they remain holstered. If there is a need to unholster them, then clearly there was a significant failure somewhere else; they after all are the last line of defense.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by disha »

For all those gurus out there advocating guns, charity begins at home. In this case, get a gun and donate it to the police!

Guns in the Indian context should not be allowed freely. Only the rich and powerful [remember Sanjay Dutt] will get guns and they will be on rampage without any control. For terrorist attacks, police can and will save as this incident proves.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/08m ... tation.htm
Salute the brave constables of D B Marg police station

December 08, 2008

Let me begin this column on a personal note. I spent the last years of college in Mumbai (then Bombay). I cut my teeth as a journalist in Mumbai. It was to Mumbai that I brought my wife after my marriage. In all those years I never thought of the Taj Mahal Hotel [Images] as an 'icon,' which is how seemingly all my journalistic brethren refer to it today. If anything it was VT -- now Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus [Images] -- that was a touchstone of my life, not the Taj Mahal Hotel.

Given the frequent references to how 'all of us' visit 'the Taj' -- no other identification required! -- young reporters today enjoy a different lifestyle. Back then I met very few CEOs in the elegant suites at the Taj but did spend time with SHOs in police stations on the crime beat. It is to such men, the policemen in those grimy rooms, that I respectfully dedicate this column.

A few days ago as you read this there was a simple ceremony at the not-so-iconic D B Marg police station, when garlands were placed around the photograph of Assistant Police Inspector Tukaram Gopal Ombale. Were there any reporters present to honour Ombale's tale of heartbreaking courage?

On the night of 26-27 November, Ombale and several other policemen were on alert in the Girgaum Chowpatty [Images] area. They had been told that two terrorists were on the run in a Skoda. The twenty policemen out there had a grand total of two self-loading rifles and two bullet-proof vests. The vests were given to the men with the rifles, who were placed at vantage points around metal barricades. The rest of the policemen carried only lathis (batons)); some were plainclothesmen, others in uniform.

Those (virtually unarmed) policemen tried to stop the Skoda. The driver fired at them. The police shot back from the pre-determined vantage point and got him. The other man slid out, pretending to surrender, but carrying an AK-47.

Ombale rushed to secure him when the terrorist started pumping away with the AK-47. Call it guts or instinct but Tukaram Gopal Ombale refused to let go of his assailant. I am told that something like 30 bullets were recovered from his body.

His colleagues took advantage of Ombale's last act as they rushed at the terrorist with their lathis. The plainclothesmen were later identified as a 'mob' in grainy footage shot by someone on a mobile phone!

Tukaram Gopal Ombale died for his bravery. Assistant Police Inspector Sanjay Govilkar received bullet injuries. But those ordinary policemen -- some in their forties, laughably ill-equipped -- succeeded in doing what nobody else could, they captured a terrorist on a suicide mission alive. They also recovered artillery dwarfing their modest weapons -- AK-47s, several magazines, 9mm pistols, and grenades.

Today security agencies from across the planet are sending men to Mumbai, from the FBI, the CIA, Britain's MI-6, Israel's Mossad and Shin Bet, and even from Russia [Images]. Between them, they have mixed opinions of the Indian security forces' tactics -- especially the Israelis -- but to a man they salute those constables from D B Road police station.

There is nothing they prize more than information, and that is what they are extracting from the captured terrorist -- how he was recruited, how, and where, and by whom he was trained, and so forth.

Every major nation, even the Chinese, have problems with Muslim fundamentalists, yet none could capture a suicide attacker trained from the Al Qaeda [Images] manual. That honour goes only to the Mumbai police.

These were ordinary constables, not trained men from the Anti-Terrorist Squad, the Black Cats, or the Marine Commandos. I would love to say that their naked courage has been honoured by a renewed determination to fight terrorism but it would be untrue.

With one accord everyone is rushing to place all the blame at Pakistan's doors. I do believe the ten terrorists who carried out the actual attacks were indeed all from Pakistan, but it stretches credulity to breaking point to believe that there was no local support.

Investigators say there is no way that just ten men carried all that equipment, including timers and explosives, into the Taj Mahal hotel, so who smuggled it all in? Can men setting foot in the city for the first time really negotiate Mumbai's network of streets without guides to find Nariman House?

What of the politicians? What was the situation in Mumbai in the week after a weary NSG leader confirmed that the last terrorist had been killed in the Taj Mahal hotel?

No chief minister. No home minister. No replacement for the chief of the Anti-Terrorist Squad. A director general of police fighting for his office.

Maharashtra Director General of Police A N Roy was appointed amid controversy several months ago; the appointment was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on October 8, 2008, and he is now battling it out in the high court.

Sharad Pawar [Images] named Chhagan Bhujbal as a replacement for former Maharashtra home minister R R Patil, but he could not take office until the Congress got its act together because you cannot have ministers without a chief minister.

The Congress loves to accuse others of playing 'politics as usual.' What do you think kept the party from selecting a new chief minister if not 'politics as usual' -- with more to come from Narayan Rane [Images]?

So Sonia Gandhi [Images] packed off the external affairs minister and the defence minister to Mumbai -- not to inspect the security situation, but to find a new chief minister. These are precisely the two ministers who must be in Delhi [Images] during an international crisis. Couldn't his mother have sent Rahul Gandhi [Images] in their place?

Few expect better of our politicians. But what of the media? It spent so much time around its beloved 'icon' that it almost forgot about VT -- or CST, call it what you will. There are roughly 13 million citizens of Mumbai. Do you think even a million of them have set foot in the 'icon?' But how many of those millions are not familiar with the railway station?

VT became a footnote to those reporters around the 'icon.' So, I fear, will be the names of Tukaram Gopal Ombale, and the other ordinary policemen with him, the likes of Hemant Bowdankar, Mangesh Yende, and Bhaskar Kadam. Can this ungrateful nation offer the living policemen and the families of the dead nothing but faded garlands around a photograph in a police station that today's journalists rarely bother to visit?

T V R Shenoy
So all the arm chair experts who are advocating for more guns in the hands of "ordinary" people, just pray that the ordinary person does not go berserk and put more innocent lives at risk. Imagine the tension in the crowd during Ganesh Immersion or EID or Holi where you are not sure if the crowd in front of you has 10000 guns or 20000 guns. Imagine controlling that. Or those arm chair experts want us to become another pakistan? Or Oakland? Or LA?

And again for guys advocating guns just on the pretext of "police will not be able to protect my a*s*" please read the above article again and campaign for providing better arms and training to Police. Also for people in Mumbai, once - just for once, go and offer your salutations at the D.B Marg Police station.
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by disha »

VikramS wrote:To others who worry about accidental deaths: We are not talking about a society where everyone carries a gun. Even in the US where gun ownership is 90 guns for 100 people, it is rare to hear about an accidental killing in a situation where a gun is being used in self-defense.
Apparently you are out of touch with the ground realities in India. Go talk to a police officer in US of A and how much he/she sweats out trying to control crowd of more than 50 people! He is afraid that even 5 guns among them makes the crowd lethal to both police and the crowd and the innocents nearby. Have you seen the amount of control exercised in "gun transporting"? Guns not allowed in several hundereds of places... and yes a small town may have lots of guns, particularly when the small town farmers have to control some hundered of acres of farm land ...

All of your talk is pipe dreams drawn out of experience from a BB Gun.
In India, a terrorist is guaranteed that no one will challenge him/her with a gun. However if gun ownership grows to 10-20/100, the terrorist wouldn't have that fearless swagger in their stride. They would know that their meeting with God could be arranged by any body in sight since they might be carrying a weapon. This would slow them down significantly since they would need to cover each other's backside instead of their brazen walk.
Provider that the arranger of the terrorist has not himself/herself has been arranged by another deranged arranger.
Guns, even guns in the hands of civilians, serve their purpose best while they remain holstered. If there is a need to unholster them, then clearly there was a significant failure somewhere else; they after all are the last line of defense.
And pray how are you going to arrange that they remain unholstered?
disha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 8423
Joined: 03 Dec 2006 04:17
Location: gaganaviharin

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by disha »

vdutta wrote:In south people carry guns like they carry their wallets. my boss has 120 guns and he keeps two on him all the time and another shotgun in his truck. All loaded.
Most of my friends carry guns. Some even have AKs, and there was a report of a guy with a rocket launcher(illegal though).
you can carry a concealed weapon almost everywhere, the gun free zones will specifically mention that guns are not allowed.
I always wondered why South [the American South that is] is an un-civilized area. Now I know.

So one question, when you cannot get a project done, and your Boss says he will shoot you unless it is done, does he really mean it? Or you work under the pressure of death?
Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19477
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Raja Bose »

Vikram,

Unfortunately you are assuming that shooting at a paper target on a range is someway equivalent to shooting at a terrorist causing mayhem. All this shooting behind pillars stuff looks all hunky-dory when typing on a keyboard (mind you, I am no newbie to guns and I am not talking about kid's BB guns either),....reality unfortunately usually dictates otherwise. And then you didnt answer my question, will you able to look at a person shooting around you and take him down without taking 5 other bystanders with him? Your answer only counts if you have ever been under hostile fire coz nobody knows how he/she reacts under fire unless he/she has been under fire....its as simple as that especially if you are a civilian with no prior military/paramilitary/police training (training which tries to atleast prepare you for that ordeal).
vdutta
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vdutta »

disha wrote:
vdutta wrote:In south people carry guns like they carry their wallets. my boss has 120 guns and he keeps two on him all the time and another shotgun in his truck. All loaded.
Most of my friends carry guns. Some even have AKs, and there was a report of a guy with a rocket launcher(illegal though).
you can carry a concealed weapon almost everywhere, the gun free zones will specifically mention that guns are not allowed.
I always wondered why South [the American South that is] is an un-civilized area. Now I know.

So one question, when you cannot get a project done, and your Boss says he will shoot you unless it is done, does he really mean it? Or you work under the pressure of death?
Actually south is more civilized then north in usa. People actually respect each other and help strangers, kids respect their parents etc etc...
Guns are just in their culture. but even the most backward redneck will have gun decipline.
i hope you are joking about threats from my boss. that was such a ignorant post from you...
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Singha »

there is no north-south divide on gun ownership in US. the states around the great lakes, rockies, maine, NH, appalachia have heavy gun ownership. its a rite of passage to hunt deer, rabbits, ducks etc in most of the rural states.

its only CA, central east coast(MA,CT,lower NY,NJ,MD,DL where the anti gun lobby has a voice perhaps.

there's no republican or democrat divide either. the great lakes states are usually democratic but hunting for deer is a serious pastime up there.
Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19477
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Raja Bose »

Hunting rifles are fine ....my main problem is with AK-47s, M-16s, CAR-15s, INSAS and so on. :((
Dhiman
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 13:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Dhiman »

vdutta wrote: Actually south is more civilized then north in usa. People actually respect each other and help strangers, kids respect their parents etc etc...
Guns are just in their culture. but even the most backward redneck will have gun decipline.
i hope you are joking about threats from my boss. that was such a ignorant post from you...
That is the most ridiculous thing that I have heard in a long time. Many in south are openly racist, narrow minded, intolerant, less educated, and even somewhat xenophobic as compared to people in west coast or north-east area. South is the "hard" area of US. West, north-east, and even Midwest are the "soft" areas of US and more friendly, open, better educated, happier, and economically better off people as opposed to many in south who seem to be moving around with a grudge all the time.

There are advantages to being a "soft state" as opposed to a "hard state". I for one would never want to see India become a hard state INTERNALLY. Off course externally we to need to arm our army, navy, air force, and coast guard right upto their teeth and then some more so that we can take action against Pakistan without worrying about their nukes.

Don't let the enemy (TSP) change you so much that you don't even recognize yourself. India is a certain idea, character, spirit - and that is what we are fighting for against terrorism. The basic idea of India and its diversity by definition requires India to be soft state and we should find a way to fight terrorism without destroying this character.
vdutta
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vdutta »

akl wrote: That is the most ridiculous thing that I have heard in a long time. Many in south are openly racist, narrow minded, intolerant, less educated, and even somewhat xenophobic as compared to people in west coast or north-east area. South is the "hard" area of US. West, north-east, and even Midwest are the "soft" areas of US and more friendly, open, better educated, happier, and economically better off people as opposed to many in south who seem to be moving around with a grudge all the time.
Its off topic and i dont want to derail this thread. but i want to add that you need to come down and see yourself instead of making opinion sitting in front of your computer.
you have so many misconceptions , you should not go with stereotypes... its just like some gora calling you a terrorist because you look like one of them...
Dhiman
BRFite
Posts: 527
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 13:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Dhiman »

vdutta wrote: Its off topic and i dont want to derail this thread. but i want to add that you need to come down and see yourself instead of making opinion sitting in front of your computer.
you have so many misconceptions , you should not go with stereotypes... its just like some gora calling you a terrorist because you look like one of them...
I am not derailing the thread, simply challenging your incorrect assertions. Only "goras" in south would mistake an Indian with a "look like them" due to lack of exposure :eek: Best regards.
vdutta
BRFite
Posts: 682
Joined: 08 Nov 2002 12:31
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by vdutta »

akl wrote:
vdutta wrote: Its off topic and i dont want to derail this thread. but i want to add that you need to come down and see yourself instead of making opinion sitting in front of your computer.
you have so many misconceptions , you should not go with stereotypes... its just like some gora calling you a terrorist because you look like one of them...
I am not derailing the thread, simply challenging your incorrect assertions. Only "goras" in south would mistake an Indian with a "look like them" due to lack of exposure :eek: Best regards.
I live in south... i must know more than you right... btw regarding your lack of exposure thing.. guess who is governor of la.
no body ever dared to tell me terrorist on my face , you can count on that. ;)
p_saggu
BRFite
Posts: 1055
Joined: 26 Nov 2004 20:03

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by p_saggu »

Watch ACM SP Tyagi go off @ 1:15 onwards :twisted:
animesharma
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 20:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by animesharma »

I liked the look at the face of ACm Tyagi.
Btw, what did he say at 1:25

"then quietly, then act, but when we act...................."
I can't grasp his accent.
animesharma
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 20:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by animesharma »

Hamid Gul: The man who knows too much
http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/09m ... o-much.htm
Mumbai's 26/11 has all the makings of a watershed in world history. As a fallout, the United States is reportedly using its unmatched diplomatic clout to get the United Nations to brand four people as terrorists.
And, surprise, surprise, all the four have links to Pakistan's dreaded spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.

One of them, pictured alongside, is retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, a former ISI chief whose name has over the years been associated to terrorist activity in the world in general and South Asia in particular. From instigating violence in Kashmir to warning Osama bin Laden of an impending US missile strike to former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto's [Images] assassination, Gul's name has cropped up in all the wrong places.

Just why is the general considered among the most dangerous men in the world?

Originally from Sarghoda in Pakistani Punjab, he was General Zia-ul Haq's blue-eyed boy; the then Pakistan dictator nominated Gul ISI chief in March 1987. Gul was apparently no slouch in battle; he is a winner of the Sitara e Jurat, Islamabad's [Images] third highest military honour, awarded to him for his services in the 1965 war with India.

Before he became the ISI's boss, Gul was one of the biggest supporters of -- and a Central Intelligence Agency collaborator in -- the long Afghan struggle against the erstwhile Soviet Union. Probably because of that, then CIA station chief Milt Bearden viewed him as a US ally. Bearden, in a book he co-authored, The Main Enemy: The Inside Story of the CIA's Final Showdown with the KGB, later admitted that Gul eventually turned against America.

Why does he matter to India?

Gul is credited with being the brain behind Pakistan's proxy wars with India, first in the Punjab, and then in Kashmir. He is referred to as a godfather of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Tayiba, which India believes carried out 26/11 and numerous other terror attacks in India.

According to counter-terrorism expert B Raman, Gul told Benazir Bhutto when she became prime minister: 'Madam, keeping Punjab destabilised is equivalent to the Pakistan army [Images] having an extra division at no cost to the taxpayers.'

The Washington Post reported earlier this week in the 26/11 aftermath, Gul is among the people that India wants Pakistan to hand over.

The never-short-of-a-harsh-retort general dismissed the latest allegations in conversation with The Washington Post: 'They (India) are saying these boys were village boys trained to be killers. How can this be believed? Village boys don't know anything about a 5-star hotel. They would not know how to use the toilet.'

Why does he matter to the US?

Gul is also called the godfather of the Taliban [Images]. He denies that charge too.

He told rediff.com's Sheela Bhatt in an earlier interview: "You can't create the Taliban, it was a spontaneous body."

He said he "didn't create the Taliban. This is an Ahmed Rashid (journalist and author of a book on the Taliban) saying. I was a friend of (Gulbuddin) Hekmatyar, (Burhanuddin) Rabbani and many Northern Alliance leaders like (assassinated Northern Alliance leader) Ahmed Shah Masood. I was trying to broker peace between them in my individual capacity. They are wonderful people but very difficult to deal with."

In August 2003, Gul was quoted as saying, 'The Muslim world must stand united to confront the US in its so-called war against terror which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped.'

But there are many anti-American individuals in the Islamic world. What's special about Gul?

Gul is believed to be the man who tipped off bin Laden in August 1998 that the US was tracking the Saudi's satellite phone to launch a missile attack on him. Counter-terrorism expert and former US government adviser Richard Clarke later told The New Yorker: 'I have reason to believe that a retired head of the ISI was able to pass information along to Al Qaeda [Images] that an attack was coming.'

Gul was also part of the Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, a charity for the reconstruction of Afghanistan that was later alleged to have planned to give bin Laden and Al Qaeda the know-how to make a nuclear bomb.

In 2004, sections of the US media was also abuzz that Gul was 'bin Laden's master planner' in the 9/11 plot.

Gul, on his part, maintains 9/11 is America's own creation. He told Sheela Bhatt: "To slap sanctions on Afghanistan they (the US) started spreading baseless allegations against Osama (bin Laden)."

So, what happens to Gul now?

As evidenced by his advanced knowledge of the missile strike on bin Laden, the man has friends in very high places. And he has survived much longer than the people he once served -- like Benazir Bhutto (who accused him of trying to kill her), Zia-ul Haq. Gul is hale and hearty though a former protege, a man who goes by the name of Pervez Musharraf [Images], has been buried on the outskirts of relevance.

Like all spymasters Gul knows secrets too deep, too buried in the haze and maze of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. If India can smoke him out, it will be a major triumph. But that seems highly unlikely. The general is much too powerful for the Pakistan army to agree to its extradition.
Does any of our Cong or BJP leader has balls to think unconventionally to tackle the issue.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RajeshA »




George Stephanopoulos: I can imagine, Indian leaders saying, "wait a second. United States has been sending drones over Pakistani territory and striking Pakistan for months. Why should India be not be allowed to do the same?"

Condolleeza Rice: Well again, the regional dynamics are important to keep in mind. We don't need something that would set off unintended consquences, and more difficult situation, and I do believe, that India's leaders understand that.

Indian Leaders: Please, please, Condi, give us a reason to not do anything! :roll:
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21537
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by Philip »

Excerpt cross posted from the "War & Peace " thread.

"Without significant Pakistani action, India is believed to have decided to undertake military strikes against Pakistan in the next few days."

One Pakistani observer, who met him privately, said he believed "the US was giving a green light to India for one strike against Pakistan so long as it was in Kashmir and was not repeated".
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by RajeshA »

animesharma wrote:I liked the look at the face of ACm Tyagi.
Btw, what did he say at 1:25

"then quietly, then act, but when we act...................."
I can't grasp his accent.
.... we rip their balls off.

He said,
"then quietly, then act, but when we act, we act firmly"
animesharma
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 20:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by animesharma »

Indian leaders and pakistani extremist complement each other. For terrorism, our netas think more abt US and PAkistani interest instead of my interest.
It is well said: Your enemy's enemy is your friend.
probably our netas misinterpreted it.
animesharma
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 20:56

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by animesharma »

One Pakistani observer, who met him privately, said he believed "the US was giving a green light to India for one strike against Pakistan so long as it was in Kashmir and was not repeated".
If that is true, and indeed followed. it will be my most insulted day as Indian.
hey, but the source is porkistani :mrgreen: ...
the answer is: Very,very unsafe.
We can't use mauser to hunt flies.

@Rajesh :Thanks
milindc
BRFite
Posts: 761
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - IV

Post by milindc »

Someone is reading BR and especially Shiv's comments

India closely “monitoring and verifying” Pakistan arrests
“It is like getting into bed with your rapist,” Chandra added.

The anti-terror mechanism was set up by India and Pakistan in 2006 to address issues relating to terrorism so that the peace process between the two countries is not derailed by accusations over the origin of terror attacks.
Locked