People need to keep things in perspective because one of the aims of these groups is to spread racism, which in turn will increase their numbers. It's so vital that ordinary people don't react against anyone of a different culture who they perceive to be somehow involved.
Gunmen attack Mumbai in at least seven places
- Thread starter mehro
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Mumbai is being targeted because of the number of US companies that have moved jobs over there. Citigroup have thousands of workers and contractors in the area, and American managers make trips over to Mumbai. I bet they will have a tough job finding people willing to make business trips to the area now.
Two degrees of separation.
Here's one for you Cafers, you know how they say the world is becoming a smaller place, so interconnected?
I just found out that that the Brit who was killed [albeit of Cypriot origin], Andreas Liveras, well his family are clients of my father and the accountancy company he works for. The guy used to run a barely 20 minutes walk from where i'm sitting.
Here's one for you Cafers, you know how they say the world is becoming a smaller place, so interconnected?
I just found out that that the Brit who was killed [albeit of Cypriot origin], Andreas Liveras, well his family are clients of my father and the accountancy company he works for. The guy used to run a barely 20 minutes walk from where i'm sitting.
To be fair, Muslims come in every shape and color, that said it is bad to be saying that they are involved, although an Islamic terrorist group has claimed the attack
We dont need any external support to handle terrorism, never needed one survived worse bomb attacks.
This is being more attributed to the Intelligence failure.
Prime Minister and the Home Minister should take up the ownership and call it quits but unlikely to happen though.
People gets killed in every other part of the world in one way or the other, India and Israel have faced more fatal attacks than 9-11 or the current one that might not be spectacular.
Yet the media blows these issues out of proportions.
I was unaware that there was a larger casualty count of the 3200 plus of 9/11, could you enlighten me as to which ones?
Kashmir and Partition of Palesitine?
Things to mull over after you finish off your bricks.
Islam has been around for 15 centuries but during this time has used barbarism to spread its religion and forcibly convert and terrorize others, although it's not the only religion to do this, so you're right it hasn't changed suddenly.
It does amaze me how in the light of recent events Muslims continually try to portray themselves as victims in these situations.
Those have been over a long period of time, certainly you could say the Holocaust was a terrorist event using your criteria as well
How do you define Terrorism then?
Anything that destroys human values is called Terrorism in my book.
Guess you make it two then.
I would say that we all need at least some external support, to cooperate. If this had a foreign element which seems likely, it would seem a tad stupid to go all insular.
I was just saying, jeez.
It's not a bloody competition you morons.
Only one continent on this planet hasn't known bombings of one form or another, and besides, who'd want to blow up a load of penguins anyway.
Its basically Pakistani terrorist organizations backed by ISI and Al Queda who indirectly fund these blasts in India. They are clever enough to pick up retarded youth from Indian suburbs, brainwash and train them as fundamentalists. If an Indian Muslim pulls the strings behind these blasts naturally it can trigger internal riots and more apparent in a sensitive place like Bombay where the Hindu fundamentalists also operates.
For the start according to one of the victims, the terrorist were looking for British and American citizens and demanded the passports of foreigners when they first broke in and also held a Jewish couple as hostage.
Those feckers have had it coming to them for a long time they are an abomination neither fish or bird kill the bastards, they make shit biscuits anyway !!!
The funny thing to me is Americans now think they are experts on terrorism and its effects because they watched two towers fall down on TV. They forget many millions of people around the world have LIVED with the threat of attacks on a daily basis over several decades.
Yes, undoubtedly they can weave it into a good story about a perceived assault against Islam from the west.
What were your thoughts on the invasion of Afghanistan Sults? I don't mean the way it has been carried out, because it has suffered many strategic flaws and increasingly looks un-winnable, but the actual decision to use military force itself? Personally I support the intervention in Afghanistan.
I opposed the war in Iraq for various reasons.
I would never walk out and protest just to appease dipshits like you. You need to have your face pounded into the ground
That said, RIP for the victims, the Indians have been dealing with this for too long, I'm sure they know how to handle it. I don't think they need any help from Brits who by comparison are complete amateurs when it comes to terrorism, starting from the law enforcement, through media, and the general population.
America's war on Iraq was a terrorist attack especially the WMD one. Dubya and Sadaam were the most dangerous terrorists ever, only Khmer Rouge and fascist bastards were more worse.
It's quite evident that India could use some help on intelligence and security issues from other countries. The system in place now is clearly not working.
Christ this is nuts... I had a recall at 0700 this morning because of this.
Now we have alerts in the US of NYC subways being targeted.
Now we have alerts in the US of NYC subways being targeted.
I haven't heard any news updates - is the situation in Mumbai under control?
I didn't hear of the US being targeted. Although, somehow I think if gunmen showed up in a NYC subway, the riders of the NYC subway would whip out their weapons in exchange.
Carry permits are VERY hard to get in NYC. Only people carrying are cops, diamond dealers, and criminals that have no sense.
Now if they tried it in Texas we might see a bloodbath.
The current situation according to NDTV:
125 fatalities [of which 14 are police and six are of foreign origin], 327 wounded.
1 injured terrorist and perhaps up to a couple of others still in the Taj.
1 or 2 terrorists have crossed over from the Trident to the Oberoi hotel, up to a hundred people are awaiting evacuation from the Trident.
The Jewish cetntre has been assaulted by troops from helicopters and through the main entrance on ground level, a couple is still presumed to be held hostage by several terrorists.
No precise figures on the Oberoi and someof the above could be off to a degree.
125 fatalities [of which 14 are police and six are of foreign origin], 327 wounded.
1 injured terrorist and perhaps up to a couple of others still in the Taj.
1 or 2 terrorists have crossed over from the Trident to the Oberoi hotel, up to a hundred people are awaiting evacuation from the Trident.
The Jewish cetntre has been assaulted by troops from helicopters and through the main entrance on ground level, a couple is still presumed to be held hostage by several terrorists.
No precise figures on the Oberoi and someof the above could be off to a degree.
Becoming radicalized and brainwashed isn't gonna be prevented by speeches from 'top levels of islamic sects', although the muslim communities apart from the extremist elements such as the Wahabi muslims assoicated with Al Qaeda always condemn any terrorist acts. In fact, Saudi Arabia is doing a good job infiltrating the al-qaeda subgroups and foiling many plots in their own country even though it's the hub of hte extremist ideolgies behind al-qaeda adn the like.
http://www.economist.com/world/mideast-africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12470503
Likewise, the muslim communties here in Canada denounce any terrorist activities especially those carried out by the so-call islamists. In fact there was a Muslim informant here in Canada who foiled a serious terrorist attack on the parliament http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/shaikh-interview.html
The sheer scale and sophistication of hte attacks suggests that al-qaeda was behind this in some way or form. Pakistan is where the anti-terrorism efforts should be directed at as it's the safe-haven for the al-qaeda leaders and much of the radicalization takes place. Bush and cheney should've gone after teh taliban and al-qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorims, not invent bullshit to go after Iraq's oil. Hopefully Obama follows up his talk with action and actully does something about Afghanistan & Pakistan.
System
Yes the military and police system is pretty much flawed. Apparently at CST station it was 2 terrorists vs 100 policemen. And out of those only 4 of them where equiped with guns. Secondly it took the police 30 hrs to storm and clear out the hotels. Only at the end, did they use advanced storming techniques to neutralize the attackers. IMO they don't have the advanced weaponry and techniques to eliminate the attackers. I believe US navy seals and mosad's forces are much more advanced. I'm Indian btw.
I wish there was more co-ordination in dealing with this. I have no knowledge of whether there is actual incompetence amongthe security forces on the ground but the way the communications have been handled seems to clearly point to people not knowing what is going on.
There have been various statements within the last 16 hours from various sources including the NSG, Maharashtra government, Maharashtra police and even the home minister about the Taj being clear, not clear, about to be cleared within an hour, hostages still there, not there, 2,4 and 5 terrorists holed up etc. It has been similar for the other places under siege. Relatives of hostages have been given little to no information and in fact do not know whom to ask.
I'm afraid there has to be a lot of improvement in the way the Indian government and security forces respond to terrorist events. And it has to be fast.
There have been various statements within the last 16 hours from various sources including the NSG, Maharashtra government, Maharashtra police and even the home minister about the Taj being clear, not clear, about to be cleared within an hour, hostages still there, not there, 2,4 and 5 terrorists holed up etc. It has been similar for the other places under siege. Relatives of hostages have been given little to no information and in fact do not know whom to ask.
I'm afraid there has to be a lot of improvement in the way the Indian government and security forces respond to terrorist events. And it has to be fast.
The Mumbai attacks
Terror in India
Nov 27th 2008
From The Economist print edition
A dangerous new front-line in the global war against terrorism
TERROR has stalked Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, all too many times before. In 1993 more than 250 people died in a series of bomb attacks, seen as reprisals for the demolition by Hindu fanatics of the mosque at Ayodhya. In 2003, more than 50 people were killed by two car bombs, including one just outside the Taj Mahal hotel, next to the monumental tourist attraction, the “Gateway of India”. And in 2006 over 180 people were killed in seven separate explosions at railway stations and on commuter trains. But the latest atrocity—or rather co-ordinated series of atrocities (see article)—is something new to the city. It has alarming implications not just for India, but for the entire international fight against terrorism.
It differs from most previous attacks in two important ways: in the sophistication of the operation’s planning and the terrorist manpower that must have been involved; and in selecting foreigners as targets: hostage-takers seem to have sought out American, British and Israeli victims. As The Economist went to press, the crisis in Mumbai was still unfolding. Hostages were still held, fires still smouldering at the Taj Mahal hotel and occasional gunfire and explosions still to be heard. It was uncertain who was responsible, though a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen had contacted television stations to claim credit.
Whether or not such a group really exists, suspicion will inevitably fall on Islamist extremists. Moreover, the tactic—familiar from New York’s twin towers to the London Underground—of simultaneous assaults on “soft” targets, designed to kill large numbers of civilians, suggests an al-Qaeda involvement, or at least that the group has provided an inspiration. This is deeply worrying for India, which until recently thought itself immune from that particular scourge. Introducing Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, to Laura Bush a few years ago, George Bush reportedly noted that India was a country of 150m Muslims and not a single al-Qaeda member.
Home-grown poison
In the past, terrorist attacks in India were routinely blamed on foreigners. This usually meant Pakistan, either as part of deliberate government policy or as the work of rogue elements of the state apparatus, or occasionally Bangladesh, also suspected at times of tolerating terrorist training camps on its soil. But in recent months a series of attacks in Delhi, Jaipur, Bengalooru (Bangalore) and Ahmedabad have been claimed by the “Indian Mujahideen”. Indeed, this group, which the government since claims to have dismantled, had explicitly threatened to carry out “deadly attacks” in Mumbai.
India’s Muslim population does indeed look like fertile ground for those sowing hatred. Although there is a general impression that the two-decade-long insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir—the country’s only Muslim-majority state—is in remission, it still festers. Last year the conflict killed more than 800 people. This year more than 30 unarmed demonstrators were killed in mass protests against Indian rule. Tension there is again high as a state election, which separatist leaders want boycotted, is under way. Elsewhere in India, the Muslim minority is economically disadvantaged. A report the government commissioned in 2006 found Muslims across the country faring, on average, worse than the Hindu majority in education, jobs and income. And Muslims have occasionally been subject to hideous communal slaughter. More than 2,000 died in a pogrom in the state of Gujarat in 2002, for which the perpetrators have never been brought to justice.
That pogrom followed allegations that a Muslim mob had been responsible for the deaths of Hindu activists. This highlights one of the dangers facing India now: of a rise in communal tension and tit-for-tat violence. A general election is due by next May, which adds to the risks. One of India’s two biggest parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party, now in opposition, champions the rights of India’s Hindus. Accusing the Congress-led government of being “soft on terrorism” is a campaign tactic it has often used. In this it may now be constrained by the recent arrest of alleged Hindu bombers, seeking to avenge the attacks by the Indian Mujahideen. But the emergence of that new phenomenon—Hindu terrorism—is scarcely a comfort.
The usual suspects
A second danger is that if Indian suspicions again point to a Pakistani involvement, the slow thawing of relations between the two hostile neighbours will revert to the deep freeze. In fact Pakistan’s new president, Asif Zardari, has been going out of his way—and courting controversy at home—to placate India. He has annoyed jihadists by describing Kashmiri militants as “terrorists” (as India has long wanted them to be known). And he has said Pakistan would never be first to use its nuclear weapons. This week it has also emerged that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the spook network habitually blamed by India for involvement in cross-border attacks, has been revamped. Its “political” arm (previously, in theory, non-existent) is said to have been disbanded. So any official Pakistani involvement would suggest that Mr Zardari and his government are not in control.
A third danger is one that faces not just India, but the world as a whole: that the attacks in Mumbai mark a serious setback or even turning-point in the battle against al-Qaeda and its clones. The group has been losing ground in some of the Muslim countries where it has been fighting: in Indonesia, for example, where since the Bali bombings in 2002 the extremists have been in retreat; or in Iraq, where the Sunni “awakening” illuminated the resentment many Iraqis felt for the terrorists. Killing fellow Muslims has been the group’s biggest mistake. But countries where Muslims are in a minority may offer terrorists a better target. Many Muslims in such places feel marginalised, pushed to the fringes of society. Attacks there can provoke a backlash, feeding a sense of Muslim beleaguerment for al-Qaeda to exploit. This tactic has already worked in places such as Britain. If it succeeds in India, which has the biggest Muslim minority in the world, the implications for the global struggle against terrorism could be catastrophic.
Terror in India
Nov 27th 2008
From The Economist print edition
A dangerous new front-line in the global war against terrorism
TERROR has stalked Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, all too many times before. In 1993 more than 250 people died in a series of bomb attacks, seen as reprisals for the demolition by Hindu fanatics of the mosque at Ayodhya. In 2003, more than 50 people were killed by two car bombs, including one just outside the Taj Mahal hotel, next to the monumental tourist attraction, the “Gateway of India”. And in 2006 over 180 people were killed in seven separate explosions at railway stations and on commuter trains. But the latest atrocity—or rather co-ordinated series of atrocities (see article)—is something new to the city. It has alarming implications not just for India, but for the entire international fight against terrorism.
It differs from most previous attacks in two important ways: in the sophistication of the operation’s planning and the terrorist manpower that must have been involved; and in selecting foreigners as targets: hostage-takers seem to have sought out American, British and Israeli victims. As The Economist went to press, the crisis in Mumbai was still unfolding. Hostages were still held, fires still smouldering at the Taj Mahal hotel and occasional gunfire and explosions still to be heard. It was uncertain who was responsible, though a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen had contacted television stations to claim credit.
Whether or not such a group really exists, suspicion will inevitably fall on Islamist extremists. Moreover, the tactic—familiar from New York’s twin towers to the London Underground—of simultaneous assaults on “soft” targets, designed to kill large numbers of civilians, suggests an al-Qaeda involvement, or at least that the group has provided an inspiration. This is deeply worrying for India, which until recently thought itself immune from that particular scourge. Introducing Manmohan Singh, India’s prime minister, to Laura Bush a few years ago, George Bush reportedly noted that India was a country of 150m Muslims and not a single al-Qaeda member.
Home-grown poison
In the past, terrorist attacks in India were routinely blamed on foreigners. This usually meant Pakistan, either as part of deliberate government policy or as the work of rogue elements of the state apparatus, or occasionally Bangladesh, also suspected at times of tolerating terrorist training camps on its soil. But in recent months a series of attacks in Delhi, Jaipur, Bengalooru (Bangalore) and Ahmedabad have been claimed by the “Indian Mujahideen”. Indeed, this group, which the government since claims to have dismantled, had explicitly threatened to carry out “deadly attacks” in Mumbai.
India’s Muslim population does indeed look like fertile ground for those sowing hatred. Although there is a general impression that the two-decade-long insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir—the country’s only Muslim-majority state—is in remission, it still festers. Last year the conflict killed more than 800 people. This year more than 30 unarmed demonstrators were killed in mass protests against Indian rule. Tension there is again high as a state election, which separatist leaders want boycotted, is under way. Elsewhere in India, the Muslim minority is economically disadvantaged. A report the government commissioned in 2006 found Muslims across the country faring, on average, worse than the Hindu majority in education, jobs and income. And Muslims have occasionally been subject to hideous communal slaughter. More than 2,000 died in a pogrom in the state of Gujarat in 2002, for which the perpetrators have never been brought to justice.
That pogrom followed allegations that a Muslim mob had been responsible for the deaths of Hindu activists. This highlights one of the dangers facing India now: of a rise in communal tension and tit-for-tat violence. A general election is due by next May, which adds to the risks. One of India’s two biggest parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party, now in opposition, champions the rights of India’s Hindus. Accusing the Congress-led government of being “soft on terrorism” is a campaign tactic it has often used. In this it may now be constrained by the recent arrest of alleged Hindu bombers, seeking to avenge the attacks by the Indian Mujahideen. But the emergence of that new phenomenon—Hindu terrorism—is scarcely a comfort.
The usual suspects
A second danger is that if Indian suspicions again point to a Pakistani involvement, the slow thawing of relations between the two hostile neighbours will revert to the deep freeze. In fact Pakistan’s new president, Asif Zardari, has been going out of his way—and courting controversy at home—to placate India. He has annoyed jihadists by describing Kashmiri militants as “terrorists” (as India has long wanted them to be known). And he has said Pakistan would never be first to use its nuclear weapons. This week it has also emerged that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the spook network habitually blamed by India for involvement in cross-border attacks, has been revamped. Its “political” arm (previously, in theory, non-existent) is said to have been disbanded. So any official Pakistani involvement would suggest that Mr Zardari and his government are not in control.
A third danger is one that faces not just India, but the world as a whole: that the attacks in Mumbai mark a serious setback or even turning-point in the battle against al-Qaeda and its clones. The group has been losing ground in some of the Muslim countries where it has been fighting: in Indonesia, for example, where since the Bali bombings in 2002 the extremists have been in retreat; or in Iraq, where the Sunni “awakening” illuminated the resentment many Iraqis felt for the terrorists. Killing fellow Muslims has been the group’s biggest mistake. But countries where Muslims are in a minority may offer terrorists a better target. Many Muslims in such places feel marginalised, pushed to the fringes of society. Attacks there can provoke a backlash, feeding a sense of Muslim beleaguerment for al-Qaeda to exploit. This tactic has already worked in places such as Britain. If it succeeds in India, which has the biggest Muslim minority in the world, the implications for the global struggle against terrorism could be catastrophic.
I just hope the government dosent take the easy way out by blaming it all on pakistan.Clearly there are major influences from within the country as well
News channels are carryin reports that army intelligence had warned the center and maharashtra govt about the possiblity of a terror attack but no action was taken
New line coming out this morning, from the Chief Minister i believe.
The Indian authorities are saying that at least some of the attackers are thought to be British born Pakistanis. Seems fast to have such detailed info and go public with it. However perhaps they learned it in the field so to speak during the last 36 hours or so, and the reasons for releasing it being political you'd think.
The Indian authorities are saying that at least some of the attackers are thought to be British born Pakistanis. Seems fast to have such detailed info and go public with it. However perhaps they learned it in the field so to speak during the last 36 hours or so, and the reasons for releasing it being political you'd think.
at this point they'll do anythin to ease the preassure on them.. just wait till the blame game begins
This is JMO watching on from afar, but i would say that any flaws in the "system" are in fact before that stage in the chain of events. Sure you can arm your security guards at hotels to the tetth and have utterly awkward defences, however is that the life people want to live, moreover it is merely supplying a tougher bandage as opposed to tackling the weapon that inflicts the wound if you will.
Heavily armed personnel or no, a truly determined terrorist will find their wya through.
No i'd say that prevention of radicalisation and the progression of plots is the most needy area for improvements in policy. India is not short of locations as regards these, within the country already, Kashmir, and Pakistan to name but three.
Finally in relation to the response of the police and military, naturally we will have to wait some days for a full and frank analysis of what occurred iside the seized buildings, although without that we know that it was a chaotic and tough situation from the off.
You can't simply storm in like a bull in a china shop, there are civilians in play if such a move required any further deterent beyond that of self preservation of the assaulting troops. Let's think back to the siege of the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980, these scenarios are delicate and the right type of forces employed.
I do agree in most of your points raised. But a country must prepare itself i every way to fight terrorsim. Yes India has not been vigilant in monitoring the underground activities. Everything is flawed. Our standards does not yet match our western peers. It is difficult especially in Mumbai with the sheer population density. But I feel that is an even bigger reason for improved armed protection. Havr you ever seen an american cop without a gun ? I'm pretty sure all british cops have guns too. I'm just saying that the rescue effort could have been better.
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Arabic: يوسف القرضاوي Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwiy), (born September 9, 1926) is an Egyptian Muslim scholar and preacher best known for his popular al Jazeera program, ash-Shariah wal-Hayat ("Shariah and Life"), and IslamOnline (a website that he helped to found in 1997), where he offers opinions and religious edicts ("fatwa") based on his interpretation of the Qur'an. He has also published some fifty books, including The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam and Islam: The Future Civilization.
Although al-Qaradawi has long had one of the more prominent roles within the thought leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood[1], he has twice turned down offers for the official directorship role of the organization.[2] Among many Muslims, he is considered a moderate conservative, who seeks to explain and adapt the ideals of the Islamic lifestyle with those of modern society.[3]
Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Arabic: يوسف القرضاوي Yūsuf al-Qaraḍāwiy), (born September 9, 1926) is an Egyptian Muslim scholar and preacher best known for his popular al Jazeera program, ash-Shariah wal-Hayat ("Shariah and Life"), and IslamOnline (a website that he helped to found in 1997), where he offers opinions and religious edicts ("fatwa") based on his interpretation of the Qur'an. He has also published some fifty books, including The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam and Islam: The Future Civilization.
Although al-Qaradawi has long had one of the more prominent roles within the thought leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood[1], he has twice turned down offers for the official directorship role of the organization.[2] Among many Muslims, he is considered a moderate conservative, who seeks to explain and adapt the ideals of the Islamic lifestyle with those of modern society.[3]
Some pretty horrific stories coming out about this on the radio.
I can equally copy and paste many disgusting quotes from prominent Jewish religious/secular websites all day.
Suicide for any reason, or the use of one's body to turn into a bomb, is not allowed in Islam, and it is not martyrdom. Prophet Mohamed (PBUH) has clearly drawn a line separating martyrdom from suicide. He had strongly repudiated the term martyrdom from those who deliberately took their own lives in the course of battle, even the soldier suffering from sever wounds. The Muslim fighter enters battle not with the intention of dying, but with the conviction, that if he should die, it is for reasons beyond his control.
Martyrdom is the will of God, not of any human being. Thus suicide bombings and other suicide attacks in the name of 'Jihad' are not Islamic, and the perpetrators are not 'Mujahideen' In fact these are against the two basic principles of War laid down in the Holy Quran. In Islam, firstly, no one has the right to take his own life, and secondly no one is allowed to attack and kill non combatants, whether or not they are Muslims. Islam dictates to protect innocent people.
So, terrorist acts committed by people having Muslim names have nothing to do with Islam, nor with 'Jihad'. These are all political acts committed in the name of Islam, and false martyrdom.
And whoever preaches otherwise is a scoundrel.
And whoever repeats the canard is also a scoundrel.
Don't be daft, Sultan. Qaradawi is one of the most influential Sunni clerics, and his interpretation of terrorism as some divine justice is far more dangerous than you and Nistlerooy not taking the streets in protest after 7/7.
There are nutjobs in any religious groups of human beings. It's the platform these people are given, and the number of followers they attract that make a difference. We're talking Muslim Brotherhood, Al Jazeera and IslamOnline here, which means 100's of million of people here hearing those words of wisdom whereas nutcase settler Rabbies are denounced and ridiculed by 95% of the Israeli popualtion and kept off any semi-respectable media channel.