Sunday, November 30, 2008

Catechism Of The Doomed

Question: Israel Behind Mumbai Attacks?

Answer: “It is clear that Mossad is involved in the whole affair. An entire city has been attacked by Mossad and probably units of mercenaries.”

Tarek Fatah: “As ridiculous as this may sound, chances are that countless Muslims are deluding themselves into believing that it is not their co-religionists who are responsible for the savagery let loose on India, but some hidden U.S.-Zionist conspiracy against Islam.”

In fact, not just Muslims.

UPDATE I: Calling that great city by its proper name (Bombay):

I hope I am not alone in finding the statements about Bombay from our politicians to be anemic and insipid, and the media coverage of the disastrous and criminal attack too parochially focused on the fate of visiting or resident Americans. India is emerging in many ways as our most important ally. It is a strong regional counterweight to Russia and China. Not to romanticize it overmuch, it is a huge and officially secular federal democracy that is based, like the United States, on ethnic and confessional pluralism. Its political and economic and literary echelons speak English better than most of us do. Its parliament in New Delhi—the unbelievably diverse and dignified Lok Sabha—was viciously attacked by Islamist gangsters and nearly destroyed in December 2001, a date which ought to have made more Americans pay more attention rather than less. Since then, Bombay has been assaulted multiple times and the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan blown up with the fairly obvious cross-border collusion of the same Pakistani forces who are helping in the rebirth of the Taliban.

UPDATE II
: In the above piece, the "saps" who would blame the Bombay massacres on, say Bush and Blair - the "moronic faction" that has "not yet been heard from" - has been heard from now, loud and clear. Eamonn McDonagh responds to that faction here.

7 Comments:

Blogger Fred said...

I have it on good authority that it was in fact Aliens, specifically Martians, who masterminded these murderous attacks.

Martians are very upset that some people are giving credit to the CIA and/or MOSSAD for these cold blooded murders.

Shameful, very anti Martian.

3:43 PM  
Blogger Fred said...

I have it on good authority that it was in fact Aliens, specifically Martians, who masterminded these murderous attacks.

Martians are very upset that some people are giving credit to the CIA and/or MOSSAD for these cold blooded murders.

Shameful, very anti Martian.

3:43 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

Holy crap, it never ends.

If any of you guys want to see something good for a laugh, check out Montreal 9/11 "truth"ers trying take on Howard Zinn.

Apparently, they're all bitter because he declined an invitation to join their movement.

5:04 PM  
Blogger Patrick Ross said...

Uh, heh. Sorry. What I meant to add is that these "Deep state politics" retards will fictionalize almost anything into some kind of insidious conspiracy.

5:06 PM  
Blogger double-plus-ungood said...

Calling that great city by its proper name (Bombay):

I believe that the original name of the city was Mumbai, and that after colonization the name was corrupted to Bombay. The renaming to the original name was simply a post-colonial restoration.

To quote a letter published on Andrew Sullivan's blog:

Hitchens is completely wrong. As someone whose roots go back many generations in Mumbai, let me assure you that we've always called the city Mumbai in our local language Marathi. The name Bombay was given to the city by the British. What do you think the city was called before the Europeans arrived? It was called Mumbai.

I think this might be a bit of colonialist sentimentality on Hitchen's part or something. He's been off his game recently.

12:42 PM  
Blogger Transmontanus said...

Wishful thinking, DPU.

Someone who writes a letter to a blogger is no authority on the subject.

Salmon Rushdie calls Mumbai Bombay's new "stage name." It was (and continues to be) forced on the city's residents by Bal Thackeray's Hindu-fascist Shiv Sena - "Call it Mumbai, or else" - which is reason enough to persist in calling the city Bombay. Another reason is that the vast majority of Indians, of of Bombay residents, even of the Maharashtrians for whom Thackeray claims to speak, still call the city Bombay. As Stanley Stewart reported in The Times two years ago: "The irony is that only foreigners have taken up the new name with any enthusiasm, believing they are catering to Indian sensibilities."

Lots of countries change their names and the names of their cities after decolonization, but the attempt at forcing everyone to comply with Shiv Sena's wishes is not, as you say, "simply a post-colonial restoration."

Dublin has been "officially" called Baile Átha Cliath for some decades now. That is "simply a post-colonial restoration," and the people still call the auld girl Dublin, and nobody's forcing the original name on anyone.

That's why, around here, it's Bombay.

1:32 PM  
Blogger double-plus-ungood said...

Someone who writes a letter to a blogger is no authority on the subject.

There's also this:

The city was earlier called Bombay. The name was changed by an act of the Indian parliament in 1997. The reason for this change was that in two of the local languages, Marathi and Gujarati, the city has long been called Mumbai. It is believed that the name comes from the name of one of the old Koli goddesses, Mumba Devi, a temple to whom now stands in Bhuleshwar.

And this:

The former name Bombay had its origins in the 16th century when the Portuguese arrived in the area and called it by various names, which finally took the written form Bombaim, still common in current Portuguese use. After the British gained possession in the 17th century, it was anglicised to Bombay, although it was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi and Gujarati-speakers, and as Bambai in Hindi and Urdu.[7][8] The name was officially changed to its Marathi pronunciation of Mumbai in 1996.

And this:

The name change didn't impact all of Mumbai's residents. Speakers of Marathi and Gujarati, the local languages, have always called the city Mumbai. "Bombay" is an anglicization of the Portuguese name "Bombaim," which is believed to derive from the phrase "Bom Bahia," or "Good Bay." (Portugal held territories in western India until 1961.)*

Or this:

The Burma/Myanmar issue hinges on whether you think its ruling military junta is legitimate. No such ambiguity attaches to Mumbai. The Shiv Sena party may indeed be Hindu chauvinists, but Mumbai's name change was eventually approved by the democratically elected municipal corporation of the city, the state of Maharashtra, and the federal government of India, and they've stuck to it for over a decade now. Like it or not, there's no question that this was a legitimate change. Comparing it to the renaming of Burma is absurd.

Whatever. Everyone is free to call it whatever they want, just as they are free to use the names Edo, Peking, Salisbury, Constantinople, Persia, East Pakistan, or British Honduras. But those insisting on the PC use in this case seem peevish and misinformed.

3:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home