Oh no. Just read on the web that commuter trains have been bombed in Mumbai (formerly Bombay). Everytime I hear something like this, the possibility that it's the work of yet more lunatic jihadis makes me feel sick. No one has claimed responsibility for this yet, but authorities are suspecting separatists from the Indian state of Kashmir, where a number of bombings occurred just hours earlier.
This is terrible. Must have been hell for all those people on the trains. I'm amazed the death toll wasn't far higher, considering the population density of Mumbai and the fact that they have far less capacity to deal with this sort of thing than London.
The last time Muslims were accused of attacking a train full of people in India in 2002, anti-Muslim riots killed something like a thousand people. I hope that doesn't happen again.
Thanks for addressing this so quickly, Zeeshan.
I keep checking CNN and BBC websites at work to see if anyone has claimed responsibility with a pit in my stomach. How awful for those people indeed. It makes me sick when these things happen to people who are just going about their lives. I cant understand how anyone can justify this.
Ginan Rauf
I second that Willow. This is disguisting, the targeting of innocent
civilians. Uggh!!!!
This might seem a wee abrasive, but we need to be more pro-active than just sitting back and feeling bad. I have taken to coming out and clearly saying that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is not a morally defensible position. It wasn't when Ronald Reagan said it, and it isn't today. When The Gipper used it as excuse for his foreign policy alliances, it gave us Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a man that, if I am told right, when The Gipper and Pakistan's Mard-e-Momin (Gen. Zia) started patronising him, already had a record of throwing acid in the face of a fellow student at Kabul University who had the audacity not to wear a veil. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" seems to imply that if a person who is otherwise committing a terrorist act does it for a valid cause like fighting for freedom, it is okay, or at least less “evilâ€Â. Even if someone commits an act of terror, or other heinous act for my personal, social, or national benefit, it is my moral, religious and legal responsibility to call it out as exactly that. An evil, yes, evil, indefensible act. And then it is my duty to either stop it, denounce it, or at least recognize it as such. I believe says it is a sign of how strong one's faith is to either put it right with one's hand, speak against it, or at the lowest level of faith, to know it is evil in my heart. This is not to say that "suspect" minorities should be early and often with their condemnations. Condemnations should not be demanded. But we shouldn't feel it inappropriate to condemn and call a spade a spade because it might *seem* like we're caving. Or, worse, because it might be a "brother" (sisters are nicer ;)) that did something. Isn't Islam one of those religions that says to be truthful in witness, be it against a brother? Isn't Islam the religion that says one should help an aggressor or a transgressor by stopping him or her from committing such transgresions? At this point, I guess I will post this comment as independent post, too. iFaqeer http://iFaqeer.blogspot.com
Post new comment