Having discussed the article with a few friends, I find myself as the most tolerant of the lot. The guy is on point when he talks about the shabby response of Indian authorities. I understand the sentiment behind "Indians hope this is their 9/11" - It probably means we are hoping there is action now and no more repeats of such incidents. I understand when he says"This was more personal - it had characters" - you associated the incident with specific images of persons rather than a force called "terrorism" or "Indian Mujahedeen".....and so I can imagine it staying in our memory for longer....
But then, there are some parts that completely stump me!
Sample this: “They took time to ask your nationality and vocation. Then they spared you, or herded you elsewhere, or shot you in the back of your skull.”
Much of the media started out with such reports. Eyewitness accounts from those initially rescued do suggest that some terrorists asked for British and American passport holders, and it is a fact that a Jewish center was stormed. But shouldn't reporting change, now that we know more?
The body count of (Indian) Muslims is higher than that of Britons and Americans put together. Survivors have spoken of Holocaust style murder with people lined up against a wall and casually executed, and of men entering restaurants and spraying bullets without uttering a single word.
Whom, then, were these terrorists “sparing” or “herding”? Is there any evidence of any logic displayed by these men?
I do not wish to imply that anyone’s loss was more than the others’. But by attributing a rationale and purpose where there was none, isn’t Mr. reporter severely downplaying the sheer barbarism and lack of humanity displayed by these killers; and worse, effectively serving as a mouthpiece for the perpetrators of these mindless acts of violence?
Further down the article, “It was unlike the many strikes of the last many months, bombs left in thronging markets or trains or cars: acts of shrinking cowardice. The new men were not cowards."
What were these men, if not cowards? Courageous heroes? Brave warriors? True, they were prepared to die. But a hero is someone who displays valor IN PURSUIT OF HIS GOAL. What was the goal here, other than cold blooded murder? By this fellow's definition of a non-coward, the student that gunned down 30 odd classmates at Virginia Tech last year before shooting himself was also “brave”.
Doesn't calling such inhumanity anything other than cowardice serve to glorify it? Especially when followed by “They killed face to face; they wanted to see and speak to their victims; they could taste the violence they made.” It almost seems to savor the insane brutality.
I wonder if I am reacting so much because I am indignant about what happened......but then again, someone who calls such people ANYTHING other than a coward deserves to be slapped!