We here at NZ Conservative, do not shirk from the t-word. If a group acts like terrorists, then that is what they are.
I read a couple of posts yesterday (NoMinister, HolySmoke) on the fact that a number of journalists are afraid of mentioning the word "terrorist" in their articles. If journalists do not mention the t-word, then the terrorists have already won part of their aim - striking fear into their enemy and therefore being able to influence their behaviour to win the ultimate war.
This way of attacking the enemy was developed more than 900 years ago, and it could be as effective now as it was then. Back then, terrorists such as these Mumbai ones were instead called Assassins.
From the book, What Every Catholic Wants to Know - Catholic History, paraphrased in places:
So, when a journalist writes: "We may never know exactly what those men in Mumbai hoped to achieve with their horrible crimes," consider what the Seljuk Turks experienced. An attack on their leader lead to a loss of nerve and a cessation of hostilities against the Assassins. Could it be that this attack in Mumbai is an effort to achieve a similar aim, to get the Indian Government onside?
I read a couple of posts yesterday (NoMinister, HolySmoke) on the fact that a number of journalists are afraid of mentioning the word "terrorist" in their articles. If journalists do not mention the t-word, then the terrorists have already won part of their aim - striking fear into their enemy and therefore being able to influence their behaviour to win the ultimate war.
This way of attacking the enemy was developed more than 900 years ago, and it could be as effective now as it was then. Back then, terrorists such as these Mumbai ones were instead called Assassins.
From the book, What Every Catholic Wants to Know - Catholic History, paraphrased in places:
The original Islamic terrorists came from a sect of Islam - Ismailism - that developed within the Shiite faction in Persia, Arabia, and North Africa. These Islamailites were said to practice Taqiyya, dissimulation of a person's identity and beliefs. In the 11th Century, under the leadership of an extraordinary man called Hasa-e Sabbah, a more sinister form of Islamic warrior was developed. From his headquarters in a formidable castle in Persia, one of his many strongholds, he taught young men religion, combat techniques, languages, the art of disguise and of course, Taqiyya, before sending them out to kill his enemies. They were not to fail in such assignments, even if it meant their deaths - which it often did because of the boldness of their attacks.
To gain recruits, Hasan would drug young men with hashish and have them carried into a secret garden full of exotic sensual delights. When they later came to their senses, back in the grim barracks of the castle, he would tell them they had seen Paradise, where they would go if they died "martyrs" in the assignments he gave them.
Between 1092, when the first religiously motivated murder occured, and 1256, many kings, viziers, and other enemies of Hasan were killed, as well as some Crusaders. The Assassins main targets were the Seljuk Turks under the leadership of Saladin, who were attempting to suppress them. Since both the Crusaders and the Assassins were fighting the Seljuks, Europeans soon ceased to be targets.
One of the terrorising tactics practiced by the Assassins was the use of warnings they sometimes gave. So skilled were they at disguise that they could infiltrate almost anywhere without suspicion, and many an enemy of their leader awoke to find his room empty but an Assassin dagger or threatening note on his pillow, an unnerving experience. Saladin himself seems to have been the target of this approach. One night he awoke to find poisoned dagger, a written threat, and some hot breads that only Assassins made on his bed. Believing that the Old Man of the Mountain himself had visited him while he slept, the great Seljuk leader lost his nerve and called off hostilities with the sect.
An article by Iyer Pico, published in Smithsonian Magazine, sums up what Hasan had discovered: "The Assassins had discovered that, with a single carefully planned blow, a tiny force prepared to die in the course of killing others could cripple a Goliath of an enemy. They realised, too, that the fear of such an attack could be as paralysing as an attack itself."
So, when a journalist writes: "We may never know exactly what those men in Mumbai hoped to achieve with their horrible crimes," consider what the Seljuk Turks experienced. An attack on their leader lead to a loss of nerve and a cessation of hostilities against the Assassins. Could it be that this attack in Mumbai is an effort to achieve a similar aim, to get the Indian Government onside?