Indian Muslim Council resisting burial of Mumbai Muslim terrorists anywhere on Indian soil

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

Edited December 2, 2008 by mawilson

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Didn't some of the 9/11 hijackers purported drink alcohol and eat pork as a way of blending into our society?

I find it rather suspect to believe that people pursuing extremist ideologies (who already find ways of twisting a religion to their own purposes) would be stumped by a technicality about will be done to their body after death.

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

Plus, it's such a low cost thing to try! Talk about serious ROI.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

That's not exactly something you can 'measure'

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

That's not exactly something you can 'measure'

Kinda like Eric's dong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its sick.

You have got to chillax, bruthaman.

Probably. But even in jest its poor taste.

Religiously minded people - in particular, should know better.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

That's not exactly something you can 'measure'

Demolishing the homes of terrorists' families has been Israel's policy for some time now,

and it's been very effective. It deters potential terrorists from carrying out attacks,

fearing harsh consequences for their family.

It *is* collective punishment and "illegal under international law" and whatever blah blah blah,

but it's effective.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

That's not exactly something you can 'measure'

Demolishing the homes of terrorists' families has been Israel's policy for some time now,

and it's been very effective. It deters potential terrorists from carrying out attacks,

fearing harsh consequences for their family.

It *is* collective punishment and "illegal under international law" and whatever blah blah blah,

but it's effective.

You eeeevil Zionist!

[Amby 490]

They're dead - what does it matter where they are buried?

In a country like India, it matters a great deal. Religion is life in those parts.

Well... what happens to the bodies of other heinous criminals in India?

I'm guessing that they don't export them...

Right. This is symbolic. Indian Muslims are eager to demonstrate that these people are not "one of theirs".

Given the history of anti-Muslim rioting in India in the aftermath of such terror attacks (there is a long history, even if CNN only recently discovered the phenomenon), that eagerness is not misplaced.

I'm always learning something new from AJ

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They're dead - what does it matter where they are buried?

In a country like India, it matters a great deal. Religion is life in those parts.

Well... what happens to the bodies of other heinous criminals in India?

I'm guessing that they don't export them...

Right. This is symbolic. Indian Muslims are eager to demonstrate that these people are not "one of theirs".

Given the history of anti-Muslim rioting in India in the aftermath of such terror attacks (there is a long history, even if CNN only recently discovered the phenomenon), that eagerness is not misplaced.

I'm always learning something new from AJ

Just wait till you find out what I have planned for your next lesson, young lady.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not saying it's the be-all and end-all solution, but if it helps prevent even a single attack, it's totally worth it.

That's not exactly something you can 'measure'

Demolishing the homes of terrorists' families has been Israel's policy for some time now,

and it's been very effective. It deters potential terrorists from carrying out attacks,

fearing harsh consequences for their family.

It *is* collective punishment and "illegal under international law" and whatever blah blah blah,

but it's effective.

Sure... because that really takes away the underlying resentment and anger...

Needless to say I don't agree with barbarism, or with lowering ourselves to an equivalent level.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, but if it works? It's really on the level of bringing in corporal punishment as per BY - any solution is acceptable as long as it 'works'.

Effective is also rather a spurious conclusion. It's effective if you eradicate everyone and anyone who has any connection with the terrorists - a sort of genocide solution.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Madame Cleo

[Amby 490]

They're dead - what does it matter where they are buried?

In a country like India, it matters a great deal. Religion is life in those parts.

Well... what happens to the bodies of other heinous criminals in India?

I'm guessing that they don't export them...

Right. This is symbolic. Indian Muslims are eager to demonstrate that these people are not "one of theirs".

Given the history of anti-Muslim rioting in India in the aftermath of such terror attacks (there is a long history, even if CNN only recently discovered the phenomenon), that eagerness is not misplaced.

I'm always learning something new from AJ

Just wait till you find out what I have planned for your next lesson, young lady.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh, but if it works? It's really on the level of bringing in corporal punishment as per BY - any solution is acceptable as long as it 'works'.

Ahh how easy it is to take the moral high ground from the comfort and safety of your home.

Try living under the (very real) threat of terrorism for a couple of days and then let's talk

about what's acceptable and what's not.

Edited December 2, 2008 by mawilson

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh, but if it works? It's really on the level of bringing in corporal punishment as per BY - any solution is acceptable as long as it 'works'.

Ahh how easy it is to take the moral high ground from the comfort and safety of your home.

Try living under the (very real) threat of terrorism for a couple of days and then let's talk

about what's acceptable and what's not.

From the tone of this thread - it seems that its also very easy to indulge in armchair barbarism.

Of course the reasoning you are using here is not unlike one of the rationales trotted out to justify owning a gun for self defense - because once you or a loved one gets robbed or raped (and it will inevitably happen you know - because we only deal in certainties here) you'll slap yourself for being so stupid that you didn't see it coming...

Of course - what tends to happen is that fear, loss and anger invariably put people at their worst and its often then that they are most prone to extreme ideas that they wouldn't ordinarily consider.

I tend to think that we (the collective "we") ought to behave better than someone at their worst.

The world already has more than enough dangerous insanity to go round.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, but if it works? It's really on the level of bringing in corporal punishment as per BY - any solution is acceptable as long as it 'works'.

Ahh how easy it is to take the moral high ground from the comfort and safety of your home.

Try living under the (very real) threat of terrorism for a couple of days and then let's talk

about what's acceptable and what's not.

Oh, really? That's the criteria? Just how 'bad' does the terrorism have to be to be valid for us to 'talk about it'? NI during the early 80's count?