U.S. Embassy Warns Of Possible Terror Attacks In India

Associated Press ^ | August 11, 2006

[HAL9000]

NEW DELHI -- The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi warned Friday that foreign militants, possibly al-Qaida members, may be planning to carry out bombings in India's two major cities in the coming days.

In an e-mail sent to American citizens living in India, the embassy said New Delhi, the capital, and Bombay, the country's financial and entertainment hub, were the likely targets, and the attacks were believed to be planned for either before or on India's Independence Day, Aug. 15.

The embassy confirmed that it had sent the e-mail, although Indian officials refused to comment on the warning.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Foxnews.com:
"The Bank of England said it had frozen the accounts of 19 people arrested Thursday. The men, ranging in age from 17 to 35, had names of Muslim origin, many of which are common in Pakistan."

Hey, maybe we can get the money donated to the IDF to pay for more strikes in southern Lebanon on the Hezzies.

[sarasota]

Fits the profile exactly for racial profiling. What are we waiting for?

[sam_paine]

Colonization was the reason

....that the Allies won WWI and WWII. British colonization sowed the seeds of rule of law and individual liberty in America, India, Australia, etc.

Compared to the rapage and pillage of French/Spanish other colonial powers, Britain created the only friends we have in this world through their seapower.

That -we- aren't utilizing our superpower status in the 21st century as well as the British did says more about us than it does about 18th century British Imperialism.

[Gengis Khan]

I didn't know British India had rule of law and individual liberty. The rule of law and individual liberty that you witness in India was created and sustained by INDEPENDENT INDIA. You dont see the same in other British colonies such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and large parts of Africa.

[Gengis Khan]

"That -we- aren't utilizing our superpower status in the 21st century as well as the British did says more about us than it does about 18th century British Imperialism."

The Brits did it for the purpose of enslaving and exploiting her colonies and sucking it dry. Not for spreading democracy, liberty or rule of law. Among its great achievements, Britain has left behind a legacy of creating a hunger holocaust that killed 10 million people in several man made famines in Bengal. At least America has no such claim to fame.

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

One of the benefits of "colonization" as I understand, is that the Islamic tumor was removed from mainstream India in the form of Pakistan. May not have been a surgically precise job but it did save India a lot of headache.

[sam_paine]

Your hatred for the British Empire is your own cross to bear.

INDEPENDENT INDIA as you so screamed did not just pop up with the ideas of democracy from their Asian history.

India was on the road to being just as broken and poor as Bangladesh (or East Pakistan for you) had the British not influenced it.

Facts are facts. French and Spanish and other European Imperialism left a complete wake of squalor and chaos from the plunder of natural resources, etc.

But the resultant civilization in Singapore, Hong Kong, United States, Canada, Australia and yes, India are a stark contrast to Vietnam or Guayana, even compared to Sierra Leone.

And I'll put the Islam-infested civilization in Pakistan that just helped the British thwart the recent AQ attack against Islam-infested ALGERIA, for example, any day of the week.

Here's an interesting blog I googled for ya....

French vs. Anglo-American "Imperialism"

[little jeremiah]

What you say is true. Don't have time to join in, but Britain's colonization was for her enrichment, to the great detriment of India.

[Gengis Khan]

I dont see any "benefit". The land you called Pakistan had 50% Hindu + Sikh population pre-partition who were cleansed out. My folks had too flee what is now Bangladesh. In all 3 million Hindus (& Sikhs) were purged out of Pakistan. While only 1.2 million Muslims went from India to Pakistan. Almost 160 million Muslims remained behind in India. Pakistan and Bangladesh became almost devoid of Hindus who were systematically removed from their lands. In 1971 another 3 million Hindus were killed in East Pak. The same kind of ethnic cleansing of Hindus is being carried out in Kashmir. Do you suggest another partition to remove yet another "tumor"?

Secondly had there been no Pakistan in the first place, there would never have been a "nuclear Pakistan" for us to deal with.

[sam_paine]

Here's a subset of the comparison. This is really the core of my comments on comparison.

Sure 'foreign' colonization was ugly. Sure, the internecine wars of conquest between 'native American' Maya etal were bloody and terminal, too.

If I understand you correctly, it seems that you believe British colonialism is worse or no better than any other imperialism, whil I believe that there is a recognizable difference, and indeed, the coincidence and contrast of the resultant prosperity and freedom is interestingly correlated with which evil power you had the luck to be colonized by...

Colonies Sorted by Current GDP Per Capita

Parent	Colony	GDP per Capita	Freedom (1=free, 5+ = not free
GB	United States	37.8	1
GB	Bermuda	36	1
FR	Louisiana	33.3	1
FR	Quebec	30.5	1
US	Alaska	30.1	1
GB	Canada	29.7	1
GB	Australia	28.9	1
GB	Hong Kong	28.7	1
US	Hawaii	28.2	1
GB	New Zealand	21.6	1
GB	Malta	17.7	1
GB	Bahamas	16.8	1
GB	Barbados	16.2	1
GB	Cyprus	16	1
US	Virgin Islands	19	1.5
GB	British Virgin Is.	16	1.5
GB	South Africa	10.7	1.5
GB	Grenada	5	1.5
GB	Israel	19.7	2
FR	Mexico	9	2
GB	Botswana	8.8	2
GB	Ghana	2.2	2
FR	Mali	0.9	2
US	Philippines	4.6	2.5
GB	Jamaica	3.8	2.5
GB	Lesotho	3	2.5
GB	India	2.9	2.5
FR	Senegal	1.6	2.5
GB	Antigua & Barbuda	11	3
FR	Seychelles	7.8	3
GB	Sri Lanka	3.7	3
GB	Kenya	1	3
FR	Madagascar	0.8	3
FR	Fiji	5.8	3.5
FR	Burkina Faso	1.1	4
FR	Niger	0.8	4
GB	Nigeria	0.8	4
GB	Zambia	0.8	4
GB	Singapore	23.7	4.5
GB	Malaysia	9	4.5
FR	Gabon	5.5	4.5
GB	Uganda	1.4	4.5
FR	Morocco	4	5
FR	Djibouti	1.3	5
GB	Brunei	18.6	5.5
FR	Tunisia	6.9	5.5
FR	Algeria	5.9	5.5
FR	Mauritania	1.8	5.5
FR	Cambodia	1.7	5.5
FR	Togo	1.5	5.5
FR	Chad	1.2	5.5
GB	Swaziland	4.9	6
GB	Egypt	3.9	6
GB	Zimbabwe	1.9	6
FR	Haiti	1.6	6
FR	Central African Rep,	1.2	6
FR	Congo	0.7	6
FR	Vietnam	2.5	6.5
FR	Laos	1.7	6.5
GB	Sudan	1.1	7
GB	Cayman Islands	35	NR
GB	Falklands	25	NR
FR	French Polynesia	17.5	NR
GB	Gibraltar	17.5	NR
US	Puerto Rico	16.8	NR
FR	Martinique	14.4	NR
FR	French Guiana	8.3	NR
US	American Samoa	8	NR
FR	Montserrat	3.4	NR

[Gengis Khan]

Your hatred for the British Empire is your own cross to bear.

 

Its not hatred. Its harsh reality about British empire from our POV. What you are parroting is simply Anglo-American propaganda. And I dont really subscribe to that propaganda that British Empire was all benevolent and beneficial to its colonies. The fact that India's democracy, liberty and rule of law has any thing to do with Britain is propaganda spread by none other than the Brits themselves (the Indians did the hard work of creating and sustaining these institution and Brits got the credit). The reality was that British Empire was only a shade better then Nazi Germany.

 

For every Canada, Australia. US you have Burma, Nigeria, Uganda, Sudan, Kenya, Botswana, Zimbabwe which are as bad or worse then Vietnam, Guayana orSierra Leone. Moreover the Whites in Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the US enjoyed the same status as the Brits under the Empire so their opinion about the British Empire isn't likely to be negative. Canada, Australia, New Zealand enjoyed dominion status under the Empire which wasn't the case with India. India and other places in Africa were simply colonies. Ask a native of any other colony and you will know. So no matter how corrupt, crime-ridden, totalitarian or screwed-up their own country/government maybe the certainly don't want to go back to the enslavement/apartheid under the British system.

"India was on the road to being just as broken and poor as Bangladesh (or East Pakistan for you) had the British not influenced it. "

How so? To me it sound like a very silly comment thats without British enslavement we would never have succeeded in anything. What evidence you have to prove that?

[sam_paine]

but Britain's colonization was for her enrichment,Given.

to the great detriment of India...as compared to what?

As compared to the perpetually un-industrialized path it was on? As opposed to annexation by some other imperial power?

This sound like the Communist argument that the workers are exploited by the factories instead of sharecropping or some other alternative for unskilled labor.

[sam_paine]

What evidence you have to prove that?

Please address the table in Post 31.

I am not minimizing the pain caused by colonization. I am pointing out that India was lucky to go through the pain of British colonization instead of Chinese, French or who knows what.

Of course nobody can say what India would be today otherwise, but it is impossible to get around the fact that it is far and away better off than if it were infected by the French

The reality was that British Empire was only a shade better then Nazi Germany.

Except that the result of one leads the world in freedom and prosperity, and the other was defeated in WWII and re-colonized by ex-British colonies.

[Gengis Khan]

"as compared to what?"

As compared to..... not being colonized. Duh!

"As compared to the perpetually un-industrialized path it was on?"

How do you assume it would have remained "un-industrialized". Even Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia and the US were "un-industrialized" in the period prior to the British colonisation of India and embarked on industrialisation quite late. Far later than England, France, Spain or Portugal.

[Gengis Khan]

"Of course nobody can say what India would be today otherwise, but it is impossible to get around the fact that it is far and away better off than if it were infected by the French"

I dont know of any French colonies that had anything close to the Irish famines or a far more devastating Bengal famine that on sheer human scale dwarfs Stalin's reign of terror or equals Mao's cultural revolution.

"Except that the result of one leads the world in freedom and prosperity, and the other was defeated in WWII and re-colonized by ex-British colonies."

Thats the only difference. Germany lost and Britain won (albiet with large number of soldiers from India to do the fighting and dying)......and then Britain wrote her own version of history for your consumption.

[sam_paine]

How do you assume it would have remained "un-industrialized".

Just letting results speak for themselves.

Either:

A - India was strong enough to defend herself and evolve on its own as a world player

-or-

B - India was susceptible to forced colonization (rape, pillage, etc) and she was damn lucky that the British Empire was there other than some other conquerer.

Again, as you point out with Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia....better for freedom and prosperity to be manhandled by Britain or British ex-colonies than otherwise.

[sam_paine]

BTW before European colonisation India was richer than Europe. After independence we was ranked alongside Ethiopia.

India certainly had a longer history of civilization than England. So how is it that a sh!tty little island in a frigid sea hopped all over the world and was able to beat India down to Ethipoian stature?

[USMMA_83]

Easy...The Brits latched on the fact that most Indians would sell their own mother for profit...rest is history. BTW, India was the richest nation on Earth prior to the Brit take-over. Then the riches started flowing to the England.