why there was a Jewish center inside the “Taj Mahal” hotel at the time of attack?
Tags: attack, Center, hotel, inside, Jewish, Mahal, there, time
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, March 16th, 2010 at 2:52 pm and is filed under Jewish Center.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Why not? One place is as good as the next for organizations promoting the belief in the preposterous no matter what brand.
There wasn’t. There was one nearby.
And possibly a few unfortunate Jews staying at the hotel.
There wasn’t.
It was a completely separate building and the terrorists had pre planned to attack it and all of those inside.
Taj Mahal Hotel
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081204/GJNEWS02/712049759
Taj Mahal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_Mahal
There is a difference.
Think about it. The Taj was a major tourist hotel, and so – Jews come to visit India too. Is there some restriction in your mind that says there should not be a Jewish center in a hotel? One place is as good as another.
There wasn’t.
The Chabad centre, run by a Rabbi and his wife, was entirely separate and was one of about three in the whole of India.
The terrorists deliberately sought it out – they arrived at the Jewish centre the DAY BEFORE, posing as Sephardi Jews; the Rabbi’s wife cooked them dinner, for crying out loud! The next day, some of the terrorists returned and tortured the Rabbi, his pregnant wife, and several others, before finally killing them.
Here’s an article about it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marshall-herskovitz/why-is-the-chabad-center_b_148182.html
On Monday, Dec. 1, the UK Telegraph reported statements by doctors who examined the bodies of those killed in the Mumbai massacre.
“Many of the bodies showed signs of torture,” they said, one going on to explain that: “of all the bodies, the **Jewish** victims bore the maximum torture marks.
It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again.”
Horrifying. And mystifying — because this news item, carried around the world, has been utterly absent from the mainstream U.S. media.
Other than The Huffington Post and The Drudge Report (unusual bedfellows indeed), you cannot find this report anywhere on CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, The New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post — nowhere.
Why? I have no idea. Is this not news? If not well-enough substantiated to be reported as news, is it not worth investigating? We have been privy to every other detail of the Mumbai atrocity, to all sorts of unsubstantiated eyewitness accounts.
Why would a report by government doctors be ignored?
But the story gets stranger. Since that time, the Telegraph’s online article has been edited and cut down, and though it still mentions the “Israeli” (meaning Jewish) bodies showing the most signs of torture, it no longer contains the doctor’s frightening quote about not wanting to go over the details in his head.
Now Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times has a long article describing in great detail the sequence of events at the Nariman Center. Nowhere is torture mentioned, nor any description of the bodies.
Who were those doctors quoted in the original Telegraph story, and why did they know so much about the bodies if they had been persuaded not to examine them?
Why isn’t CNN (particularly apt as Christiane Amanpour promotes her new series on those who’ve tried to stop genocide) trying to find out? Terrorists targeting Jews is nothing new, but torturing them in front of their children certainly would be. Game-changingly new.
I cannot escape the feeling that — for whatever reasons, and I am truly at a loss as to what they would be — this lack of coverage (or even curiosity about the story) is absolutely intentional. I challenge the Huffington Post — who at least had the courage to post the original report — to get to bottom of why this essential story is not being reported….