Minister 'quits' over Mumbai attacks

Minister 'quits' over Mumbai attacks

news.bbc.co.uk

Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil has submitted his resignation taking "moral responsibility" for the Mumbai attacks that killed nearly 200 people.

The move comes amid growing pressure on the Indian government to explain why it was unable to prevent the strikes.

There is no word on whether Mr Patil's resignation has been accepted.

(visit the link for the full news article)

'Moral responsibility'? The phrase, when used by a politician, is such a rarity that I almost had to reach for a dictionary.

Now whether the resignation is accepted, whether he's 'jumping before he's pushed' or whether it's some parliamentary 'slight of hand', isn't it still nice to hear a senior politician make such a statement? How often do you hear this from 'western' governments? Not often enough!

Is Patil doing the honourable thing or is his honour misplaced here? Could he be a scapegoat on behalf of the Indian government who need to project an image of being concerned and doing 'something' to perhaps quell some of the alarm surrounding the attacks?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Merriman Weir


It's hard to say. Apparently he's been under fire for a while for not dealing with terrorists, so he might have been on the chopping block for a while. Then again how are you even supposed to fight "terrorism"

I don't know anything about this man personally or how competent or not he is, but I don't think one man can rightly be blamed for not combatting the many headed hydra which is terrorism. If a terrorist decides to blow himself up and take some people with him, there isn't much you can do about it without creating an Orwellian society first.

[edit on 30-11-2008 by unnamedninja]

'Moral responsibility'? The phrase, when used by a politician, is such a rarity that I almost had to reach for a dictionary.

A little melodramatic don't you think?
Some guys killed people.
It happens everyday.
It just so happens it happened to people that the media wants to tell people about.
Now, this is so important because?
How many children in Africa and Asia are slaughtered everyday like animals that no one cares about?
Are they not human beings to, like the people who died in Mumbai?
Screw your media.

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
'Moral responsibility'? The phrase, when used by a politician, is such a rarity that I almost had to reach for a dictionary.

A little melodramatic don't you think?

Not really. How often do you hear senior politicians making such a statement? It is a rarity. More often than not, there's finger pointing at other members of office, or it's the 'media's fault', or they're the victim of a publi 'witch hunt' and so on. For a senior politician to admit some kind of culpability or responsibility - whether it's needed or not - is pretty unusual.

How many children in Africa and Asia are slaughtered everyday like animals that no one cares about?

What, you mean like the thread I created a few weeks ago on children being maimed and murdered in Africa?

I think it was an inevitability. Heads had to roll, so he knew he could quit with a vestige of dignity instead of being turfed out.

Not to mention that there was an Indian woman interviewed outside the Taj who was acting as the Indian version of Joe the plumber... she said "We are sick of empty words and promises. I think if a politician comes here today, he would be lynched".

Quite a credible threat!

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
'Moral responsibility'? The phrase, when used by a politician, is such a rarity that I almost had to reach for a dictionary.

A little melodramatic don't you think?

Not really. How often do you hear senior politicians making such a statement? It is a rarity. More often than not, there's finger pointing at other members of office, or it's the 'media's fault', or they're the victim of a publi 'witch hunt' and so on. For a senior politician to admit some kind of culpability or responsibility - whether it's needed or not - is pretty unusual.

How many children in Africa and Asia are slaughtered everyday like animals that no one cares about?

What, you mean like the thread I created a few weeks ago on children being maimed and murdered in Africa?

Senior politicians always speak crap.
We know this.
They always tell lies and think there lies are real.
Because they have psychopathic tendencies.
And it seems in the current Roman system, only those who posses such tendencies have the drive to be able to make it in that world.
The world that decides the fate of all human beings.
Funnily enough.
And I read your thread.
And ok you see the real world.
For what it is.
So why do you make such a big deal of this?
You should concentrate all your efforts to those who never got a chance.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


No.

One of Thatcher's ministers resigned over the Falklands on the grounds he failed to notice the Argentinian invasion plans. But that was the last time any British politician took the honourable route.

Originally posted by CaptainCaveMan
So why do you make such a big deal of this?
You should concentrate all your efforts to those who never got a chance.

WTF? A significant development in one of the biggest global news stories of the last few days - you know, new news? - and I start a single thread on it, and you think I "should concentrate all your efforts to those who never got a chance"?

Shall I go through your own posting history and assess what I think is important and relevant and what's superfluous and trivial?