Hate Finds an Outlet in Mumbai Attacks
Published November 26, 2008 @ 09:33PM PT
You always dread stories like this and wait for the death count to rise. It's particularly upsetting when you consider that killing people is viewed as an acceptable goal to which to dedicate your life. It's a tremendous waste not only for the victims, but for the killers. Who knows how these young bombers could have contributed to their society had their energies not been misdirected down a hateful path.
But they believed they were acting honorably. This is true of most soldiers, of most who choose a profession the principal aim of which is to kill people more efficiently. It does not excuse the results.
As nationality is the principal trait governments use to select targets, it should come as no surprise that the attackers searched for targets by nationality as well. It makes it no less upsetting, however.
Alex Chamberlain, a British citizen who was dining at the Oberoi, told Sky News television that a gunman had ushered 30 or 40 people from the restaurant into a stairway and, speaking in Hindi or Urdu, ordered them to put up their hands.
"They were talking about British and Americans specifically," he said. "There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said, ‘Where are you from?' and he said he's from Italy, and they said, ‘Fine,' and they left him alone."
. . .
Rakesh Patel, a British businessman who escaped the Taj, told a television station that two young men armed with a rifle and a machine gun took 15 hostages, forcing them to the roof.
The gunmen, dressed in jeans and T-shirts, "were saying they wanted anyone with British or American passports," Mr. Patel said.
As an American, this is terrifying. I think that's the point.
I'm afraid we'll be reading stories like this for some time to come, until we reach the improbable point where:
- It's never deemed acceptable to raise a weapon against another person.
- Hatred is condemned, rather than promoted, by our leaders.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (9)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
David is an attorney in Philadelphia, PA, where he helps immigrants to the U.S. navigate the complex immigration legal system. Views he expresses at change.org are his alone and don't represent the views or opinions of his employer, Nationalities Service Center. The information contained on this site is intended for educational and advocacy purposes only.
Featured Immigration Actions
-
-
-
Feinstein, why are you deporting U.S. Citizens?
1419 People
-
Feinstein, why are you deporting U.S. Citizens?
There's actually a great new-age geographical question on this and speaking for the 'no borders and binaries' ideology, the idea that American lives can be threatened even as we place high walls / smart walls around our 'physical' borders.
Terrorists, freedom fighters, whatever PC or non-PC terms they adhere to don't need to come to America to harm Americans in this era of globalization so our securitizing of Immigration seems even more of an egregious fallacy.
Posted by Prerna Lal on 11/27/2008 @ 08:20AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You're right ... the border wall only works if Americans stay sequestered within its parameters.
Or create a mobile wall through ever-present security for a shrinking elite, per Children of Men. That's a dystopic future I don't believe in, but it's the logical extension of building up militarized borders in a globalizing world.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 11/27/2008 @ 10:34AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
really, guys? So this all Americas' fault? If we would just let them eradicate all jews and convert to islam we would probably all be the best of friends!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 12/04/2008 @ 08:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Now where did I say it was "all America's fault?" That doesn't even make sense.
I can tell it's upsetting to some that I don't preface everything I say with patriotic platitudes. Lower your blood pressure--read somebody else's blog instead. This one is dedicated to critiquing U.S. immigration law and foreign policy.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 12/04/2008 @ 04:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It seemed to me that you are saying that people who join the military are on the same level as those who murder civilians. Regards to other sites, I do visit other sites Dave, but I can not expand either my mind or cause thought in others by communicating only with those who agree with me. On the subject of immigration we are actually pretty close. I want secure borders, but plenty of people flowing both ways. Some day we will be a one world government the way most lefties want it, and that may even be a good thing. If we rush in to it, it will not be.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 12/07/2008 @ 12:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"It seemed to me that you are saying that people who join the military are on the same level as those who murder civilians."
If you think that our military hasn't killed civilians, then you haven't been paying attention. That is what militaries do. If you are innocent, and dead, then I doubt you'll quibble much over whether the person who shot you/blew you up was affiliated with a government or not. Or your surviving family members, rather.
I agree that rapid social change usually has negative unintended consequences.
Posted by Dave Bennion on 12/07/2008 @ 02:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The differences between the U.S. military and terrorists is intent. The U.S. military never deliberately targets civilians, and soldiers who do, face criminal prosecution. This distinction has helped me separate "terrorist" from "freedom fighter". A person who blows up a barracks full of occupying soldiers is a "freedom fighter" even if he and I are on opposite sides. The person who blows up civilians is doing it for only one reason, to invoke terror. People join the military for a variety of reasons, education, experience, patriotism, paycheck, I'm sure I missed plenty. The military actually tries to eliminate applicants who just want to kill.
Posted by Charlie Reed on 12/08/2008 @ 10:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"The U.S. military never deliberately targets civilians"
I assume you are exempting from this statement the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nukes we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. Or the carpetbombing of Cambodia and the systematic targeting of civilians in Vietnam.
Certain bombings in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been so egregious as to call into question whether civilians were targeted deliberately. At the very least, it's a level of gross negligence or recklessness that resulted in many civilian deaths.
I understand the distinction you are drawing, but I'd argue the military doesn't yet have an *effective* policy (one that was actually pursued and carried consequences when it failed) of avoiding "collateral damage."
Also, if you recall, there were proponents of U.S. military action who wanted the Iraq War more or less to strike fear in the hearts of our 'enemies.' (e.g., Michael Ledeen, the "shock and awe" campaign)
http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/Crappy.html
How is this measurably different from invoking terror in the minds of your opponents?
Posted by Dave Bennion on 12/08/2008 @ 12:16PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually Dave, I have to concede that point. I was guilty of forgetting these tragic historical events. They may or may not have been necessary to win these wars, but either way we definitely targeted civilians, not befitting the American ideal. As side bar, I actually feel if we had any justified role in Vietnam at all, it should have been assisting them to throw out the french. Besides being the right thing to do, it would have taken no more than one sunny afternoon!
Posted by Charlie Reed on 12/09/2008 @ 05:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.