TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS

Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami

All terrorist attacks in India except the Malegaon one are by Muslims. This has been confirmed by no less than a Muslim Minister in the Central Cabinet – Abdul Rehman Antulay. By stating that there was a conspiracy theory because those who were eliminated were investigating the only attack carried out by non-Muslims, he has confirmed that the other attacks were by Muslims. There is no need therefore to be apologetic or secular and state that terrorists have no religion.
However instead of the conspiracy theory it would be more necessary to investigate the “foolishness theory”. Without discounting the contributions made during their careers, let me submit that the three senior police officers died because their training was inadequate and they broke every security protocol possible. What was the Chief of the ATS, essentially a post event investigative body, doing on the ground, chasing terrorists in a jeep? Why were seven men packed, giving no room to manouvre, in a police jeep that can be identified miles away? Why was the best shooter, the one man with the best reflexes and maximum experience in encounters, driving? They were aware that the terrorists had AK-47s. What did they have? You cannot counter superior weapons unless you have a 4 or 6 times number of people. When you are inferior in weapons and number the only way to counter the opposition is to split so that the terrorists have to watch a wider range. With so many tactical errors it is no surprise that they were eliminated and in fact they did not even have time to draw their weapons, while the terrorists were able to pump three bullets into each. Television images show Karkare trying on a helmet, finding it unsuitable and removing it. Was he wearing one when he was hit? Unlikely.
Many are right stating that these were brave men. Yes, but what is bravery? Like all human attributes, bravery is a mixture of several ingredients – ego, foolishness, ignorance, desperation, etc. Your brain undergoes a chemical transformation that disables logical thinking. A “brave” man jumps in an enemy pillbox and eliminates 10 enemy soldiers. But the truth could be that he thought there were only 3. Would he have jumped in if there were 10? That’s why the army does not take into account your gallantry awards for promotion. There is also another maxim in the army – the bravest of deeds sometimes have no witnesses.
– T.R.Ramaswami

 

TERRORIST IDENTITY

Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami

It is intriguing that terrorists are being identified by too many adjectives – “British Muslims of Pakistani origin”. Now should a terrorist be identified by his nationality or religion? And if it is nationality, should it be the present one or the past or even that of his parents, assuming that he held no other citizenship? Why does the media mix nationality with religion – because it suits the western media and even sections of the Indian media to do so. Why not just say that the terrorists were Muslims – regardless of nationality- or that they are British – regardless of his religion or past nationality? That would be really interesting, provided the media has the courage.
In fact if we carry this analogy a little further – are not all Pakistanis and hence the terrorists who come from there of Indian origin?

TERRORISTS AND RELIGION
Remember the often repeated cliché that terrorists have no religion? Then why should the Government have a cease fire agreement during Ramzan, as reported in the media? Let us tell the Hizbul Mujahideen and other groups that there will be no cease-fire as Muslims themselves have said that terrorists have no religion. Hence Ramzan should not matter to them. If we accede to their request then we are hypocrites. Perhaps there may be more attacks on places of worship of other religions but wouldn’t that tell us who the terrorists are? Will the Government show some spunk at least now?
– T.R.Ramaswami

 

TERRORISM AND MEDIA

Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami

Who has behaved most irresponsibly during the recent Mumbai carnage? Apart from the netas it is the media, particularly the visual media. In fact it is they who appear to be on the side of the terrorists by downplaying our anger and not airing the real views. Only those who say things in a sugary way are aired. What’s the use of lighting candles. Let the media, particularly one puny TV anchor, shove these candles up their rear and that of the netas hiding behind walls and Z-security and they will know how it hurts.
The media is so insensitive. First many foreign journalists are shocked that the media is able to show live everything that is happening on the scene of battle with all point of ingress and egress fully visible. I am sure that the terrorists had an accomplice watching the TV or even next to the cameras conveying what is happening outside. That’s why when a fire engine moved in, they threw a grenade. Next watch how they harass the people who come out after undergoing hours of harrowing terror just to get their sound bytes. I would like to place a bomb between their legs, again particularly under the same puny anchor, and then shove a camera in her face and ask – Aap ko kya mehsoos ho rahai? Kitne aadmi the!!???

—-
My comments on yesterday’s post did support free media, but I would agree with your frustration on this one. The quality of Media is really poor and with coverage like this they are indeed compromising the law enforcement activities.

 

DEFEATING TERRORISM

Guest post from T.R.Ramaswami

Let me start by saying that you will never defeat terrorism. Nation states appear to be unable to win this war. In fact it has been acknowledged by military strategists and experts that the 19th. century definition and structure of war given by probably the greatest of military strategists/thinkers – Karl von Clausewitz – has broken down. The definition that war is an extension of politics by other means and essentially waged by nation states appears to have developed several cracks in it. The definition underwent some major changes during the Cold War nuclear era – namely that a military establishment is for averting or deterring wars rather than engage in them. In fact many countries have done away with regular standing armies and even outsourced their defence to a large extent – namely Japan and Canada.

What the world is now witnessing is a more insidious form of war – borderless events with geographical limitations at that point in time, but with global impact, waged by organisations that are not nation-states and with no territorial identity. A terrorist outfit has no area, capital, strategic assets.

Hence the terrorists cannot be engaged or even annihilated in the conventional manner. It is almost like fighting maya.
The reason is that there is no theory that marries the fundamental thought principles of war to the on the ground structure of war now being waged. You are only reacting. Hence all the world’s state owned regular armed forces would continue to fail put down the guerillas, insurgents and terrorists till a viable theory is formulated so that the state is first clear in its mind as to what it wants to do before it moves on the ground. Today the anti-terrorism war resembles the Marxist theory of searching for a non-existent black cat in a dark room. Only when the roots of terrorism are identified will we have a coherent strategy. Till then eternal vigilance is the only antidote. Sadly, in India, even when we have intelligence, we do not act. A month of vigilance, even on a wrong lead, is worth more than a day of terror.