Death Toll At 101 & Rising After Horrifying Terror Attacks In Mumbai,India!!!!

There has been a terrorist attack in Mumbai that has killed over a 100 people & the death toll may rise from there.This attack came without warning & no one is sure of the motive. Here is more from BBC:

"Eyewitness reports suggest the attackers singled out British and American passport holders.

If the reports are true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it implies an Islamist motive - attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda. A claim of responsibility has been made by a previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen.

Our correspondent says it could be a hoax or assumed name for another group.

The motive is far from clear - but the attacks come amid elections in several Indian states, including in disputed Kashmir.

On Thursday, reports said five gunmen had taken hostages in an office block in the financial district of Mumbai.


There has been a wave of bombings in Indian cities in recent months which has left scores of people dead.

Most of the attacks have been blamed on Muslim militants, although police have also arrested suspected Hindu extremists.

Mumbai itself has also been attacked in the past: in July 2006 a series of bomb attacks on busy commuter trains killed almost 190 people and injured more than 700." (END OF EXCERPT) Read the whole article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7751160.stm

Go here to read up on the entire history of terrorism in India.(http://indiaabroad.com/news/2003/apr/03spec.htm) Here's an excerpt:

"Since its independence in 1947, India has been facing the problem of insurgency and terrorism in different parts of the country. For the purpose of this column, insurgency has been taken to mean an armed violent movement, directed mainly against security forces and other government targets, to seek territorial control; terrorism has been taken to mean an armed violent movement directed against government as well as non-government targets, involving pre-meditated attacks with arms, ammunition and explosives against civilians, and resorting to intimidation tactics such as hostage-taking and hijacking, but not seeking territorial control. India has faced exclusively terrorist movements in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir, bordering Pakistan, and part insurgent-part terrorist movements in the northeast, bordering Myanmar and Bangladesh; in Bihar, bordering Nepal; and in certain interior states like Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa that do not have international borders.

India has also faced terrorism of an ephemeral nature, which sprang suddenly due religious anger against either the government or the majority Hindu community or both and petered out subsequently. Examples of this would be the simultaneous explosions in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, which killed about 250 civilians, and the simultaneous explosions in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, in February 1998. Tamil Nadu has also faced the fallout of terrorism promoted by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka in the form of attacks by LTTE elements on its political rivals living in the state and in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in May 1991."(END OF EXCERPT) The video that precedes this post is about terrorism in India told from an Indian perspective.

When Are We Going To Stop The "War On Drugs" That Has Failed Miserably!

Everyone knows that the "war on drugs" is really just a war on poverty. I have not seen how it has improved the conditions of the folks stuck in the ghetto. All I have seen is the murder rate increase & countless black men get locked up. Look at how much time John Forte got for his first offense. That is due to this ridiculous war on drugs. Too often,it has really just been an assault on the black community.Many are wondering if this is one of the wars that Barack Obama will put to an end. I mean, this has been the longest running one. Since I have lived in the ghetto, I can honestly say that it feels like we are living under martial law. So far, here's what StoptheDrugWar.org has to say about some of Obama's picks for his administration:

"In addition, US Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the DC Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana. "We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling.

Holder said he hopes to discourage some of that activity by being tougher on marijuana crimes. New guidelines should be in place by the end of the month, he said, noting that the District could learn from New York's "zero-tolerance" policy. There, crime plummeted when police aggressively enforced quality-of-life crimes, including panhandling and public drinking, which gave officers an opportunity to check for drugs, guns and outstanding warrants.

That same year, he told the Washington Times he was considering proposing a mandatory-minimum 18-month sentence for any marijuana sales. That, at least, didn't happen.

Drug reformers took some small solace, however, from Holder's comments on mandatory minimum sentencing in a 1999 interview. Responding to a question about whether it was time to review mandatory minimums, Holder said:

I do not think that we should ever foreclose the possibility that we take a look at how the laws that we have passed are working. I tend to think that mandatory minimum sentences that deal with people who commit violent crimes are almost always good things. I think the concerns are generally raised about mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. And I think there are some questions that we ought to ask." (END OF EXCERPT) Read the whole thing here:(http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/561/obama_appointments_drug_policy_reform_emanuel_biden_holder

Watch the video because it's bona fide reality!

I Can't Believe That George Bush Actually Pardoned John Forte

I find the news that John Forte has been pardoned to be quite shocking! I mean, that's the last person that I thought Bush would have mercy on. It's funny,but have you noticed just how much George Bush has mellowed out. He does not seem angry anymore. I think he has resigned himself to the fact that he is the most unpopular president in the history of the United States! George Bush seems like he's just counting the days until it's all over. A whole lot of people are afraid that he may do more damage than he has already done. So, when he pardoned John Forte that irked a lot of conservatives. Lou Dobbs just said that George Bush pardoned a "drug dealer"! It's not as if he hasn't served enough time for his first drug offense already. Here's a little background on his case from freejohnforte.com:

"John Forte's life was forever changed in July of 2000. He agreed to transport a package, and in turn was arrested on a drug trafficking charge. He did not accept the plea bargain offered him, as he maintained that he was innocent of the charges against him.

In 2001, John Forté stood trial in a Texas court and was convicted of this non-violent crime. It was his first offense. Due to the outdated mandatory minimum sentencing laws currently in place, he received the only prison term available for the judge to hand down - 14 years in a federal penitentiary. John is not eligible to be released until he is at least 38 years old.


Many judges (both liberal and conservative) agree that Mandatory Minimum last leave them unable to use their own discretion in evaluating individual cases. Even Justice Anthony Kennedy of the Supreme Court calls them "harsh and unjust."
(END OF EXCERPT) Link to the site here:http://freejohnforte.com/AboutJohn.shtml