Mumbai, 125 dead: thank you Gandhi

Nov 27, 2008, New York Times:

MUMBAI, India--Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India's commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city's largest train station, a Jewish center, a movie theater and a hospital...

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons...

Fire also raged inside the luxurious Oberoi Hotel, according to the police. A militant hidden in the Oberoi told India TV on Thursday morning that seven attackers were holding hostages there.

"We want all mujahedeen held in India released, and only after that we will release the people," he said. Some guests, including two members of the European Parliament who were visiting as part of a trade delegation, remained in hiding in the hotels, making desperate cellphone calls, some of them to television stations, describing their ordeal...

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen said it had carried out the attacks. It was not known who the group is or whether the claim was real ...
Lawrence Auster:
Thank you, Mohandas Gandhi, for using your fabulous moral suasion, backed up by a personal hunger strike, to prevent the Indians from expelling the Muslims at the time of the Partition of India and Pakistan (even as the Muslims were expelling millions of Hindus from Pakistan), leaving a vast Muslim minority in India, now 150 million strong, forever carrying out jihad. Thank you, Nehru, thank you, Congress Party, and thank you, liberalism, which in the name of universal human sameness refused then and refuse now to recognize the nature of the eternal warrior religion of Islam, and thus leave civilized humanity helpless and vulnerable before it.

The only solution, the only way to save the world from Islam, is Separation, the permanent exclusion of Muslims from all non-Muslim countries and the containment of Muslims inside their own lands. In India, tragically, that is not possible, at least in the short term, because of the sheer size of the Muslim population that lives there thanks to the great liberal saint Gandhi. In India, the main method of preventing Muslim terrorism is the threat of mass reprisals by the Hindu majority, as explained here and here. But if such deterrence ceases to be effective, as is evident in this unprecedented Muslim attack, what is to be done?
(Note, see my views on separation below).

This gallery is brought to you by Gandhi, Nehru, and subsequent perpetuators of liberalism.
** warning: graphic **

Note: I agree that separation is the only solution. I'm in favour of separating Muslims and non-Muslims. But I think it's too late to talk in terms of excluding Muslims from non-Muslim countries. So that leaves some form of internal separation. How to do that democratically? I don't know, maybe a new federalism with ethnically homogeneous states.

Update: Lawrence Auster explains his view of separationism:
... it's not a one-shot deal--instantly expelling all Muslims. To put it in those terms is to kill it in people's minds, just as making the removal of illegal aliens appear to be a matter of instantly deporting them all has the effect of killing the idea of doing anything about illegals, other than legalizing them. It would not involve, at least in the early and medium stages, expelling law-abiding Muslims with no connections to sharia and jihad. I have proposed a range of measures, starting with (1) expelling the most objectionable and most excludible Muslims, (2) placing legal restrictions on the religion of Islam, such as, at a minimum, closing pro-jihad, pro-sharia mosques, and (3) offering to pay Muslims to return permanently to their home countries. These steps would make Muslims feel unwelcome here, leading many of them to start to depart voluntarily, a process helped along by the offer of payment. The minimal, and perhaps the sufficient, goal of the policy is not to have literally zero Muslims in America, but to reverse our present course, so that the presence and power of Islam in America, rather than steadily increasing, as is now the case, is steadily decreasing.

As far as legal measures to restrict Islam are concerned, my own preference, which I recognize goes too far even for many people who support Separationism, is for a constitutional amendment banning the practice of Islam in the United States.

No comments: