| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Mumbai on high alert
No indication yet as to the perpetrator, but of course there are many Islamic jihadists who desire to hit India. They may not be responsible for these attacks, but we have seen coordinated jihad attacks in India before.
"Many 'Terror Attacks' Hit Mumbai," from SkyNews, November 26 (thanks to all who sent this in):
Gunmen conduct a 'coordinated attack' across Mumbai's major tourist hubs, with over a dozen deaths and many injuries reported.There are emerging reports of many fatalities and at least two dozen people injured in at least seven different attacks across the city.
Local television news report at least 10 deaths as a result of the attacks.
The APnews agency is reporting a local hospital official saying at least 25 people have been brought to the city's G.T. Hospital near the scene of the shootings.
Local police say they consider the attacks an act of terrorism....
Indian television channel NDTV says a major attack that hit the city's main link to the airport, the CST train station, where gunmen opened fire in the station hall.
They are also reporting more attacks in the suburbs, with five or six different incidents across the city. There may be three bombs involved, as well as gunfire.
Posted by Robert at November 26, 2008 1:43 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
I suspect the perpetrators are "Asian".
Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 26, 2008 2:02 PM
The ugly face of Islam.
Posted by: Cornelius at November 26, 2008 2:30 PM
Muslims killing innocents, again. But wait, in their parlance, no 'kafir' is innocent.
What a crap religion...
Posted by: Henrik at November 26, 2008 2:53 PM
Taj Mahal hotel? I used to stay there...
In this context "Bombay" makes much more sense than "Mumbay'- wonder why they renamed it....
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 26, 2008 3:11 PM
"Local police say they consider the attacks an act of terrorism...." Poor grammar and the self-evident nature of this labeling aside, is there no information about who the perpetrators were? Let's see what possibilities there are: It might have been those frisky Buddhists, or maybe it was some rowdy Hindu yogas, or perhaps it was those Mormon missionaries blowing up things again? Hmmmm ... what a mystery this is! Anybody have any ideas?
Posted by: Eastview at November 26, 2008 3:28 PM
... what a mystery this is! Anybody have any ideas?
Posted by: Eastview
Perhaps an unholy alliance of scientologists and wiccans? Or maybe the Branch Davidians Strike Back?
at November 26, 2008 3:36 PM
Please, let's stop calling Islam a religion... it its a totalitarian, political ideology draped in religious garb, whose goal is world domination.
There are the minions (peaceful, ignorant, moderate?), the religious 'leaders' (pious, moderate, radical, leaders or underlings or others), stealth jihadists/jihadis, violent jihadis, and governments (who may promote, accommodate or fear jihadis).
This is a world-wide cancer. To excise the cancer, some nearby flesh may be damaged or destroyed. Either that or we build a big wall with the jihadis on one side and everyone else on the other. We can still trade on a heavily regulated basis, but little else.
A whole lotta history and economic unrest relates to Islam. Western leaders are willfully blind or frozen with fear. Speak to them, let them know you want the problem solved before D.C. or New York looks like Mumbai!
at November 26, 2008 4:32 PM
Shall we offend them by declaring WAR on them and their deceitful house?
Not a war on tactics, but a war on enemies of the West. Actually, it is a war on everything non-Muslim (SE Asia, China, Russia). Does this mean we declare a war on Muslims? Islam? A subset of either? How do we separate who we target?
Would the ‘friendly’ Muslims demonstrate they are not on the side of the jihadis? Will they turn on them as they have in Iraq? Sick of the violence and unending hate for the kafir?
Is this India's 9-11? The World’s 9-11? If one thinks Islam to be first a political movement and only second a religion, then could mosques be shut down as centers of organization for the enemy or a segment of the enemy? Militaries, state departments, homeland security, immigration officials, tourism markets all need a new mindset. This CANNOT continue to happen. We cannot continue to avoid seeing what is going on, a concerted effort to bring down sovereign states and economies around the world.
But how do we respond? Does the world have the vocabulary, hardware and human resources to respond? What kind of Crucible are we now in?
Posted by: Civilus Defendus at November 26, 2008 5:59 PM
Please, let's stop calling Islam a religion.
That's it, it isn't. A religion is supposed to improve people's behaviour and their lives. Most other religions do, to some extent. Islam doesn't.
Further, Islam violates the constitution of many countries, and should not be considered qualified for the benefits bestowed on real religions.
Islam gives religion a bad name.
Posted by: Henrik at November 26, 2008 6:56 PM
In this context "Bombay" makes much more sense than "Mumbay'- wonder why they renamed it....
--
Blame it on political correctness.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at November 26, 2008 11:56 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)