or its cuz their food can give you the squirtsKptk92 wrote:
I think that's because there were attacks going on in Mumbai!!SgtHeihn wrote:
My Cousin wanted to go their for a month, umm don't think she is going anymore.
Not all Islamic terrorists have the steretypical beard, turban, robes and bomb belt look.CameronPoe wrote:
Pretty crap Muslim terrorist - not even sporting a beard or keffiyeh. And he looks Indian to me.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD … gunman.jpg
It gets weirder:M.O.A.B wrote:
Not all Islamic terrorists have the steretypical beard, turban, robes and bomb belt look.CameronPoe wrote:
Pretty crap Muslim terrorist - not even sporting a beard or keffiyeh. And he looks Indian to me.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD … gunman.jpg
"They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed," says Mr Amir.
Some of the stuff in this article is pretty fucked up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7752625.stm
ahh, I see how people could be so unrealistic about citizens having the ability to use fire arms when they live in a cuntry where the streets are ruled by a bunch of 14 year old chavs.Uzique wrote:
Lotta-Drool = Armchair Hero.
but trust me, if people can take images of the gunmen like this
then people could have gunned them down if allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-11-27 10:51:37)
Hmm...
Unless the state/city has its own laws...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws#IndiaIndian citizens have the right to own, possess and carry guns provided a license / permit is obtained under the Central Arms Act, usually necessitating a background check from the nearest police department, or other law enforcement agency. The Indian government also distributes arms to citizens in areas ravaged by foreign infiltration and insurgency, as state policy.
Unless the state/city has its own laws...
Last edited by Mekstizzle (2008-11-27 10:52:31)
So we should hear if anyone killed a terrorist and saved lives, or if like the EuroTrash on the forum state, the people with the concealed weapons just ended up killing other civilians accidentally because it is too unrealistic for someone to be able to use a weapon in these situations.
Yer right it has, and it is nothing short of Islamic radicals coming to power, there is nothing the US could have done to avoid this era. Being the US and believing in freedom, equality, Jesus and everything else the west holds morally is all that is needed to be hated.Varegg wrote:
Good points lowing and that has something to do with it but that is also considered a kind of intervention, intervention can be done in more ways than millitary ...lowing wrote:
Ummmmmmm ohhhhhhh I dunno. Radical thinking maybe? Lets see, if the US did not invest in the ME for oil and help develope ways of getting it out of the ground, none of those countries would be as rich as they are. Is there any chance that the citizens (who are being denied, by their own govts. and religion, any kind of quality of life while the few govt officials get rich), are tired of poverty?Varegg wrote:
Of course not ... no interventions and no sanctions of any kind between 1945 and 1991, no links to what i'm talking about at all lowing, you are correct that the innocent foreign policy of US and it's allies does not provoke anyone ... then what is the explanation for all these terror attacks? ... because there must be one right? ... or is it just Muslims killing for fun because they have nothing better to do?
Try to figure out what causes terror lowing ...
Is there any chance that these people are getting tired of watching Americans flourish while they are kept in povery because the govts. keep the money gained from the sale of oil to themselves? Could it be that these people, whose lives are so bad that they see death as a release and a better option than living this life be, the problem? I dunno, you tell me.
In short, envy of watching Americans live great quality of lives at the expense of them, is the perception I think they rally behind. However it is their own govts. keeping them down, not the US.
But you have to admit there are more underlying issues than this that causes US citizens to be a legit target amongst many groups as soon as they step out of their own country ... this buildup against the US and western part of the world has taken years, many many years ...
Might do as its like a mjaor financial/tourist centre.Mekstizzle wrote:
Hmm...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws#IndiaIndian citizens have the right to own, possess and carry guns provided a license / permit is obtained under the Central Arms Act, usually necessitating a background check from the nearest police department, or other law enforcement agency. The Indian government also distributes arms to citizens in areas ravaged by foreign infiltration and insurgency, as state policy.
Unless the state/city has its own laws...
On another note, these guys sound like they've come from loads of different places and have attempted to make themselves blend with crowds and stuff.
I dont think they do atleast, most people ive met have atleast a few guns in their house. My uncle carries a pistol round in his pocket wherever he goes (all tho hes paranoid as and ex military.) Gun laws are fairly relaxed out there.
Where are you from?Balok77 wrote:
I dont think they do atleast, most people ive met have atleast a few guns in their house. My uncle carries a pistol round in his pocket wherever he goes (all tho hes paranoid as and ex military.) Gun laws are fairly relaxed out there.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Im from England but Im half Indian ( My father is Indian.) Most of that side of the family therefore lives in the country and ive travelled there a lot over the years.FatherTed wrote:
Where are you from?Balok77 wrote:
I dont think they do atleast, most people ive met have atleast a few guns in their house. My uncle carries a pistol round in his pocket wherever he goes (all tho hes paranoid as and ex military.) Gun laws are fairly relaxed out there.
So do you think any of the civilians may have shot up some of the attackers?Balok77 wrote:
Im from England but Im half Indian ( My father is Indian.) Most of that side of the family therefore lives in the country and ive travelled there a lot over the years.FatherTed wrote:
Where are you from?Balok77 wrote:
I dont think they do atleast, most people ive met have atleast a few guns in their house. My uncle carries a pistol round in his pocket wherever he goes (all tho hes paranoid as and ex military.) Gun laws are fairly relaxed out there.
I could safely say, if this happened in Houston Texas, that for every terrorist with a gun he would have 5 guns pointed back at him in minutes of firing his first shot on a crowded street.
One of the few things I liked about Texas.
I hope the citizens took some terrorists out and foiled something intended to be much bigger. Death to terrorists, Islam is a mental disorder.
What's the reaction in the family been like?Balok77 wrote:
Im from England but Im half Indian ( My father is Indian.) Most of that side of the family therefore lives in the country and ive travelled there a lot over the years.FatherTed wrote:
Where are you from?Balok77 wrote:
I dont think they do atleast, most people ive met have atleast a few guns in their house. My uncle carries a pistol round in his pocket wherever he goes (all tho hes paranoid as and ex military.) Gun laws are fairly relaxed out there.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
If a civilian had a gun then yes they would have put up fight almost definetley, thats the sort of country Indias like. I'm not sure however in this case if this would have occured. The hotels where the shootings happened are very up market 5 star ones and its unlikely the people staying in them would have been carrying anything however the guards on the gates would have been most likely carrying some sort of rifle.
It's been quite a strange reaction from my family. One member thought that India should invade Pakistan right away which I think may be a tad ott (seeing as there not even sure if the attackers where from there), but it shows that there is still a very anti muslim feeling in the country. The rest are supprised. If you could see how much India has changed recently many people thought that the country was past this sort of thing. If your trying to establish yourself in the world a large terroist action has a very negative effect on your image. As this was such a large attack it has genuinely made people feel unsafe in a country which normally is perfectly so.
It's been quite a strange reaction from my family. One member thought that India should invade Pakistan right away which I think may be a tad ott (seeing as there not even sure if the attackers where from there), but it shows that there is still a very anti muslim feeling in the country. The rest are supprised. If you could see how much India has changed recently many people thought that the country was past this sort of thing. If your trying to establish yourself in the world a large terroist action has a very negative effect on your image. As this was such a large attack it has genuinely made people feel unsafe in a country which normally is perfectly so.
Last edited by Balok77 (2008-11-27 13:23:00)
I was about to mention your first point about guns actually.Balok77 wrote:
If a civilian had a gun then yes they would have put up fight almost definetley, thats the sort of country Indias like. I'm not sure however in this case if this would have occured. The hotels where the shootings happened are very up market 5 star ones and its unlikely the people staying in them would have been carrying anything however the guards on the gates would have been most likely carrying some sort of rifle.
It's been quite a strange reaction from my family. One member thought that India should invade Pakistan right away which I think may be a tad ott (seeing as there not even sure if the attackers where from there), but it shows that there is still a very anti muslim feeling in the country. The rest are supprised. If you could see how much India has changed recently many people thought that the country was past this sort of thing. If your trying to establish yourself in the world a large terroist action has a very negative effect on your image. As this was such a large attack it has genuinely made people feel unsafe in a country which normally is perfectly so.
This area is a popular tourist/business area.
So realistically, how many people inside these areas are going to be carrying a firearm?
I had the same family thing with the whole ireland thing, it's shit. I think the only sort of connection the Indian Gov has to Pakistan is that ship they caught, so hopefully India won't be as rash as to commit to another war with them just on that.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081128/ap_ … stan_indiaPakistani spy chief goes to Mumbai
With the Mumbai terrorist attacks looking more and more like a Pakistan-based operation, Islamabad is now moving quickly to limit the political damage. The government announced this morning that it will send the head of the ISI to India to cooperate in the investigation, even as many people speculate that the Pakistani intelligence service may have helped stage the attacks:
Pakistan will send its spy chief to India to help probe the Mumbai terrorist attacks, the government said Friday, scrambling to avoid a crisis with its South Asian neighbor after India linked the atrocity to Pakistan’s largest city.
Clear Pakistani fingerprints on the attacks would chill relations between the nuclear-armed rivals and could wreck U.S. hopes of persuading Islamabad to focus on battling the Taliban and al-Qaida near the Afghan border.
According to a Pakistani government statement, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told his Pakistani counterpart in a telephone conversation on Friday that “preliminary reports” about the attacks “point to Karachi,” Pakistan’s main port and financial hub. …
Pakistani premier Yousuf Raza Gilani agreed to Singh’s request for the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency to travel to India to share information, the statement said.
ISI chief Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha will head to India “at the earliest,” the statement said.
Sending Pasha to India could help cool tempers. .. might piss off some Pakistanis though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
it certainly wont piss your average pakistani off, they arent celebrating the outcome of this attack in any way.Kmarion wrote:
Sending Pasha to India could help cool tempers. .. might piss off some Pakistanis though.
also:
CNN wrote:
One highly placed intelligence official who has been briefed on the attacks said that the head of the operation is a Bangladeshi and that the militants are Indians, Kashmiris and Bangladeshis. The Indian military has sustained a large number of casualties, the source said.
They're talking about how some of the attackers might have also been British Muslims (of Pakistan descent) ... Although I wouldn't be surprised the Muslims here are crazier/worse than the one's in most other countries on the planet
I talked to an Indian guy who works at 7 eleven when i stopped after work tonight(he is a very nice,peaceful guy normally)
.... I said... hey how's it going... Sucks about India... he said... my family is from Bombay and they are ok...
he then said... it's the muslims... they are all terrorists... Pakistan is all terrrorists...these were kids that were brainwashed by Osama Bin Laden.... I didn't know what to say....lol... i was like...yeah...uhhh... I'm seeing now why India and Pakistan don't get along too well...
.... I said... hey how's it going... Sucks about India... he said... my family is from Bombay and they are ok...
he then said... it's the muslims... they are all terrorists... Pakistan is all terrrorists...these were kids that were brainwashed by Osama Bin Laden.... I didn't know what to say....lol... i was like...yeah...uhhh... I'm seeing now why India and Pakistan don't get along too well...
Love is the answer
Someone correct me where I'm wrong, but didn't this all start with Gandi? I mean he divided India gave the Muslims Pakistan? Right?
Isn't that a version of appeasement? Seems like a similar situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip/West Bank????
Now Pakistan wants Kashmir (NE corner of Pakistan, NW corner of India)...
So the gunman want everyone in India to convert to Islam? I think they could learn a thing or two from the Christians, at least they don't kill you if you don't convert (in modern times I mean).
Isn't that a version of appeasement? Seems like a similar situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip/West Bank????
Now Pakistan wants Kashmir (NE corner of Pakistan, NW corner of India)...
So the gunman want everyone in India to convert to Islam? I think they could learn a thing or two from the Christians, at least they don't kill you if you don't convert (in modern times I mean).
Errr quite a few erraneous things about this post.Harmor wrote:
Someone correct me where I'm wrong, but didn't this all start with Gandi? I mean he divided India gave the Muslims Pakistan? Right?
Isn't that a version of appeasement? Seems like a similar situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip/West Bank????
Now Pakistan wants Kashmir (NE corner of Pakistan, NW corner of India)...
So the gunman want everyone in India to convert to Islam? I think they could learn a thing or two from the Christians, at least they don't kill you if you don't convert (in modern times I mean).
But I do agree, everyone could learn a few things from Christians... like how to more effectively and efficiently gain land, influence and power through the mass-murder and indoctrination of entire populations. Don't hide behind the 'in modern times' excuse either, we weren't a degenerative sub-human race at the time of The Crusades or during the Spanish Inquisition-- same race of the same people driven by the same greedy motives. No religion can really assume a superior stance over the other when it comes to pointing the 'You Dun Bad!' finger...
My own personal summary of the India-Pakistan history:
Uzique wrote:
Now if that isn't an allegory for post-Imperial Raj then I don't know what is.Beduin wrote:
...got fucked?.Sup wrote:
Smart Brits jumped in the water and got rescued while Indians stayed and...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No.Harmor wrote:
Someone correct me where I'm wrong, but didn't this all start with Gandi? I mean he divided India gave the Muslims Pakistan? Right?
Pakistan being part of India is like Cuba and Mexico being part of America. It simply would not have worked, much better this way. Kashmir is hte problem.
I suppose in your books if you give a Muslim anything he remotely wants it's "appeasement."Isn't that a version of appeasement? Seems like a similar situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip/West Bank????
So does India, so does China. What's your point? Things had been coming along quite nicely this year, too.Now Pakistan wants Kashmir (NE corner of Pakistan, NW corner of India)...
What's your point?So the gunman want everyone in India to convert to Islam? I think they could learn a thing or two from the Christians, at least they don't kill you if you don't convert (in modern times I mean).
Last edited by Spark (2008-11-29 01:12:44)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
rly? you mean those douche bags are not celebrating in the streets like they did after 9/11? ya, sure they are not. lulz.tahadar wrote:
it certainly wont piss your average pakistani off, they arent celebrating the outcome of this attack in any way.
No basically the country was divided because, after centuries of Muslim rule, and then abit of British rule, the country was going to be back in the hands of the majority Hindu population. The Muslims naturally didn't want this considering they'd not been the most nicest of rulers over time feared a massive backlash, and so they got their own nation for Muslims (Pakistan/East Pakistan which later became Bangladesh) whilst India went down the secular/no-religion path. The partition process wasn't pretty but it was probably the best solution as otherwise there would've been a civil war which would've been worse anyway.Harmor wrote:
Someone correct me where I'm wrong, but didn't this all start with Gandi? I mean he divided India gave the Muslims Pakistan? Right?
Isn't that a version of appeasement? Seems like a similar situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip/West Bank????
Now Pakistan wants Kashmir (NE corner of Pakistan, NW corner of India)...
So the gunman want everyone in India to convert to Islam? I think they could learn a thing or two from the Christians, at least they don't kill you if you don't convert (in modern times I mean).
And then about Kashmir, I was reading up about it the other day, this is where India is wrong IMO. Well, for the most part, Kashmir is a Muslim area but the non-Muslim ruler at the time (Sikh) decided to join India instead. Pakistan didn't like that, invaded and then the war broke out (and again, and again). Forward to nowadays where it's divided between Pakistan/India, and really only one part of Indian-ruled-Kashmir is a Muslim majority area (Kashmir valley) the rest is Hindu/Buddhist, IMO they should just give back that one Muslim part of Kashmir and keep the rest, sounds reasonable to me. In terms of area the Muslim part is small anyway.
/Kashmir dispute
They should give Kashmir to Tibet, man they got a RAW DEAL.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/