Leisler,
You love to argue. Here in America, we would say you have Diarrhea of the mouth.
Some Would say you are educated beyond your intelligence. You obviously are very young or very naive about man’s duties to his fellow man. You would not, I am coming to realize, go to the assistance of these unarmed civilians were you in a similar situation.
You remind me of one of my cousins who was a Communist nun-—a Cesar Chavez sycophant. She would argue a wrong cause until she was (or more likely, you) blue in the face. She said, the world needs Communism. I said, “No, the world needs Jesus.”
You arguments are specious, however, because you are trying to justify the inexcusable-— inaction and cowardice on the part of the armed Indian police.
Each one of these men had a moral obligation to engage the terrorists-—irrespective of his training, his lack of leadership, his ancestry, his culture.
They acted as fools and as criminals. End of argument.
People who have facts, relish a debate.
You know one of the missions of SF was for an A-Team to take people out of the bush and make a fair light infantry battalion.
Something you would know nothing about.
A good leader, something else you would know, would be curious as to why a unit failed, in some case dropped their guns and ran. Almost uniformly it was found in the officer leadership.
So, same men, different leaders, different behaviour. No change of ‘heart’ or any other organs.
Fact.