Seems to be because they are known to host western visitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Mac
Who's doing it?
Loaded question. No matter what one answers, others will jump all over the answer to point elsewhere, rationalize, claim it is a false flag op, too quick a jump to conclusions, etc. Right now it looks like Muslim extremists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Mac
Who's claiming responsibility?
A group called Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Mac
Why India?
Why not? Huge muslim population, long history of extreme violence between religious groups, large numbers of western visitors. If you want somewhere to make a statement in the region, India would be a good place to start.
Because life is boring and wouldn't it be so much more entertaining for muslims if a few hundred people get blown up?
Why India? Because it has less security than, say, USA.
BS!!!! No matter how much "security" there is anywhere, there will always be attacks. It's a hazard of human existence; terrorist attacks have been happening throughout history, the difference being that each attack is now treated by the media as the major news item du jour, dwarfing all other current affairs. Constant news of terrorism, real and imaginary, keeps the populace in a constant state of fear... and the ongoing reporting of "probable future attacks", such as the recent "WMD attack on the US by 2013 forecast" and numerous other bogus or fabricated reports of upcoming terror incidents by the corporate media (especially in the last 7 years) is equally effective at scaring.. read terrorizing the public. In other words, government agencies and the media are, in effect, extending and enhancing the work of terrorist gangs by scaring the living hell out of the people. That is what terrorism is.
Terrorism is largely motivated via oppression.. where a targeted demographic feel they have nothing else in life, where anger and abject poverty rule their miserable, hellish existence; their entire focus is taking it out on their oppressors. The most effective way of making sure that terrrorist attacks, and thus a state of internal strife are ongoing is to continually target a particular group, thus rendering their most hotheaded and unbalanced folk (which are present in all societies) as angry and as vengeful as possible. And the US has been incredibly effective at doing such during the last several decades, all over the world. Luckily we don't have Central American folk lashing out at the US, considering all the death and destruction we've doled out in those nations in recent decades.
The chance of getting hit by a terrorist's bomb or bullet is remote in India, and the odds in the US are even longer (terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare). There are literally millions of soft targets in the US which have little or no security, but they are not being hit by terrorists' bombs and bullets. Anyone with a creative mind, given enough anger combined with a unbalanced personality, could become a very "good" terrrorist. I heard mention a few days back, in the wake of the recent California fires, that all the investment a latent terrorist gang would require to cause utter devastation in the dry West during fire season would be a few boxes of matches combined with a Santa Ana wind event.... and there are literally hundreds of other similar "opportunities" for terrorism which no practical degree of security could counter. What would it take to make everything "secure"? Prodigious numbers of personnel, like an equal ratio of of cops to civilians? Total restrictions on personal freedoms and rights? Complete surveillance of everyone and their activities, 24/7? This, of course is incompatible with the notion of a civilized society, but there are many folk in current US politics who WANT that type of society, and have been doing everything in their power, especially in the last 7+ years to impose it... provided the sharp end of such authoritarianism don't affect them or their peers... while the rest of us are thrown under heavy manners.
Those goddamned traitors can all go and roast in hell with their terrorist friends, patsies and accomplices.
I hope people have a better understanding now of why a building collapse or fear of a bomb attack could cause a crowd panic in India.
Crowd panic?
It took one day after the corpses were cleared for the city to start functioning normally. The hotels reopen on the 21st of December.
Any country that doesn't have a clue about people using it's territory for such operations against another state (when the suspects in question can give local television interviews propagating their stand) needs sanctions imposed on it. But we live in a US dominated world with some really weird allies on the war against "terror", so... \
Comments
Why are specific places being targeted?
Seems to be because they are known to host western visitors.
Who's doing it?
Loaded question. No matter what one answers, others will jump all over the answer to point elsewhere, rationalize, claim it is a false flag op, too quick a jump to conclusions, etc. Right now it looks like Muslim extremists.
Who's claiming responsibility?
A group called Deccan Mujahideen has claimed responsibility
Why India?
Why not? Huge muslim population, long history of extreme violence between religious groups, large numbers of western visitors. If you want somewhere to make a statement in the region, India would be a good place to start.
Why are specific places being targeted?
Who's doing it?
Who's claiming responsibility?
Why India?
The fingers are being pointed at Pakistan, right next to India.
The differences between Pakistan and India go back to British Empire times, and they used to be one country.
Fuel this with the latest Islamic extremist terrorist networks, and... well...
Sad day in world peace.
Of course, all this is still speculative.
Why are specific places being targeted?
Who's doing it?
Who's claiming responsibility?
Why India?
Because life is boring and wouldn't it be so much more entertaining for muslims if a few hundred people get blown up?
Why India? Because it has less security than, say, USA.
Because life is boring and wouldn't it be so much more entertaining for muslims if a few hundred people get blown up?
Why India? Because it has less security than, say, USA.
BS!!!! No matter how much "security" there is anywhere, there will always be attacks. It's a hazard of human existence; terrorist attacks have been happening throughout history, the difference being that each attack is now treated by the media as the major news item du jour, dwarfing all other current affairs. Constant news of terrorism, real and imaginary, keeps the populace in a constant state of fear... and the ongoing reporting of "probable future attacks", such as the recent "WMD attack on the US by 2013 forecast" and numerous other bogus or fabricated reports of upcoming terror incidents by the corporate media (especially in the last 7 years) is equally effective at scaring.. read terrorizing the public. In other words, government agencies and the media are, in effect, extending and enhancing the work of terrorist gangs by scaring the living hell out of the people. That is what terrorism is.
Terrorism is largely motivated via oppression.. where a targeted demographic feel they have nothing else in life, where anger and abject poverty rule their miserable, hellish existence; their entire focus is taking it out on their oppressors. The most effective way of making sure that terrrorist attacks, and thus a state of internal strife are ongoing is to continually target a particular group, thus rendering their most hotheaded and unbalanced folk (which are present in all societies) as angry and as vengeful as possible. And the US has been incredibly effective at doing such during the last several decades, all over the world. Luckily we don't have Central American folk lashing out at the US, considering all the death and destruction we've doled out in those nations in recent decades.
The chance of getting hit by a terrorist's bomb or bullet is remote in India, and the odds in the US are even longer (terrorist attacks in the US are extremely rare). There are literally millions of soft targets in the US which have little or no security, but they are not being hit by terrorists' bombs and bullets. Anyone with a creative mind, given enough anger combined with a unbalanced personality, could become a very "good" terrrorist. I heard mention a few days back, in the wake of the recent California fires, that all the investment a latent terrorist gang would require to cause utter devastation in the dry West during fire season would be a few boxes of matches combined with a Santa Ana wind event.... and there are literally hundreds of other similar "opportunities" for terrorism which no practical degree of security could counter. What would it take to make everything "secure"? Prodigious numbers of personnel, like an equal ratio of of cops to civilians? Total restrictions on personal freedoms and rights? Complete surveillance of everyone and their activities, 24/7? This, of course is incompatible with the notion of a civilized society, but there are many folk in current US politics who WANT that type of society, and have been doing everything in their power, especially in the last 7+ years to impose it... provided the sharp end of such authoritarianism don't affect them or their peers... while the rest of us are thrown under heavy manners.
Those goddamned traitors can all go and roast in hell with their terrorist friends, patsies and accomplices.
Fuck Them.
I hope people have a better understanding now of why a building collapse or fear of a bomb attack could cause a crowd panic in India.
Crowd panic?
It took one day after the corpses were cleared for the city to start functioning normally. The hotels reopen on the 21st of December.
Any country that doesn't have a clue about people using it's territory for such operations against another state (when the suspects in question can give local television interviews propagating their stand) needs sanctions imposed on it. But we live in a US dominated world with some really weird allies on the war against "terror", so...