Posted on 12/03/2008 12:21:09 PM PST by knighthawk
Last week in Mumbai we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see. The seven-venue atrocity was co-ordinated in a highly sophisticated way. The terrorists even used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during their three-and-half-day rampage.
This meticulously organized operation was aimed exclusively at civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading tourist restaurant and a Jewish centre. The terrorists didn’t want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other “infidels” as they could.
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain’s most respected TV journalists, use the word “practitioners” when referring to the Mumbai terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors? Why did Britain’s Channel 4 News state that the “militants” showed a “wanton disregard for race or creed” when exactly the opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected.
(Excerpt) Read more at network.nationalpost.com ...
Ping
Sounds as if the British press has already surrendered to terrorism. Sooner or later they are going to come eye-to-eye with what their passive attitudes have wrought.
>>>carefully planned mass terrorism as we are ever likely to see
WRONG. This MO will be copied and applied in the West.
Remember, knighthawk, the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight 99 departing Kathmandu in 2000.
The MO used in that hijacking was then applied to the planes on 11-9.
India exposes the futility of a pacifist mentality.
“practitioners” ?
Not by a long shot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.