Terrorizing World – "Enough is enough"

Time to ACT tough . Now !

Archive for July, 2009

Terrorism guide

Posted by :) on July 30, 2009

Source : One World .net
Terrorism is the cruellest of crimes; it feeds off the personal suffering by luring governments into actions that abandon hard-earned freedoms of modern civilisation. Gargantuan budgets committed to security mock the lives lost in poor countries to preventable disease and hunger. The dark complexity of suicide attacks has exposed inadequacies of security forces, moral philosophers, psychologists and theologians alike. Failing to take advantage of the universal revulsion at the events of September 2001, the “war on terror” has instead magnified the global threat of terrorism.

The Elusive Definition of Terrorism

Rebels, insurgents, paramilitaries, separatists, militants, guerrillas, insurrectionists, fundamentalists… are these all terrorists? Or does terrorism claim its own exclusive niche? The exasperating inability to define terrorism is betrayed in the UN 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy – “we, the States Members of the United Nations…strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes”.

UN Blast in Baghdad
UN Blast in Baghdad © Amnesty International – International Secretariat

The UN has been striving for decades to find a wording for terrorism which, instead of “all its forms and manifestations”, narrows down to a specific profile of violence which can be condemned regardless of the circumstances. The absence of an agreed definition matters for many reasons. It blocks the possibility of referring terrorist acts to an international court, as for genocide and other war crimes; it leaves individual countries free to outlaw activity which they choose to classify as terrorism, perhaps for their own political convenience; and crucially it enabled the Bush administration to conjure in the public mind parallels between the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. The vocabulary of terrorism has become the successor to that of anarchy and communism as the catch-all label of opprobrium, exploited accordingly by media and politicians.

The Just Cause Conundrum

Mandela's cell on Robben Island
Mandela’s cell on Robben Island © Peter Armstrong

The difficulty in constructing a definition which eliminates any just cause for terrorism is that history provides too many examples of organisations and their leaders branded as terrorists but who eventually evolved into respected government. This has applied particularly to national liberation movements fighting colonial or oppressive regimes, engaging in violence within their own countries often as a last resort. Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya spent years of his life in peaceful independence advocacy with the British government before his involvement with the Mau Mau rebellion. Another convicted “terrorist”, Nelson Mandela, wrote in his autobiography: “the hard facts were that 50 years of non-violence had brought (my) people nothing but more repressive legislation, and fewer rights”.

All countries must deplore indiscriminate acts of terrorism which kill and maim civilians and which create a climate of fear. Countries from Africa and the Middle East have however proved reluctant to endorse any definition of terrorism which fails to place such acts within the broad sweep of history. The dilemma for the international community lies firstly in assessing whether a cause is “just” and therefore capable of remedy by political negotiation, and secondly in identifying which “terrorist” organisations are capable of emerging into the legitimate political process.

Hamas Logo
Hamas Logo © Radio Netherlands

For example, a central aim of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) – to reunite the northern and southern counties of Ireland – was never regarded as a just cause by the UK government, whilst other grievances linked to fair government in the north were accepted as negotiable. Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, is now part of an elected power-sharing government in Northern Ireland. In the Middle East, the vision of a Palestinian state is considered a just cause by all stakeholders but world leaders have so far preferred to negotiate only with the Fatah party. This approach chooses to ignore the electoral success of Hamas which was based on its proven competence to govern at local level, an attribute equally associated with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

These extreme sensitivities in the dividing line between recognition and condemnation are found in other longstanding internal conflicts around the world. Despite a decade of outrages committed by the Communist Party of Nepal, Maoist (CPN- Maoist), its leader, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, alias Prachanda, is now the head of a democratically elected government. By contrast, longstanding peace negotiations with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka have stalled, with the group recently proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the European Union. Potential negotiation dilemmas may also flare up with separatist groups in Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and in the Kurdish regions of Turkey and Iraq.

Global Jihad

Simultaneous bomb attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 followed by the 9/11 tragedy in 2001 marked the globalisation of terror in which a populist and possibly negotiable cause within the nation state becomes subservient to principled grievances against the world order, communicated through the tools of globalisation led by the internet. Both attacks in Africa were traced to the group headed by Osama bin Laden known as al-Qaeda. Its ideology is shaped by the belief that Islam is being degraded and humiliated by “western” values, with particular disgust reserved for those Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which are close allies of the US. The plight of the Palestinians is a rallying call for al-Qaeda whose central goal is to expel Americans from Muslim lands and dismantle pro-US Middle Eastern governments. To this end all US citizens and their sympathisers are to be killed, regardless of whether or not they are Muslim.

This extreme form of fundamentalist Sunni Islam adopted by bin Laden and his closest associates is often described as jihadism and is believed to have been inspired by an Egyptian radical, Sayyid Qutb, who opposed the Nasser regime. Fighting alongside the conservative Taliban in Afghanistan may have been a further influence on bin Laden. The manic ideology of al-Qaeda has no roots in mainstream Islam which shares core values of peace and tolerance with the world’s major religions. The Koran teaches that the killing of innocent humans is a crime and that suicide is unacceptable.

The Jihadis

Guy Fawkes, one of the most infamous terrorists in history who came within a whisker of destroying the English monarchy and parliament in 1605 was, like the modern jihadis, acting in the name of a maligned and misunderstood religion. King James presented a list of questions to the torturers, headed by the demand to discover “as to what he is, for I can never yet hear of any man that knows him”. Four hundred years later the nightmare of suicide terrorism has likewise prompted frantic efforts to understand the psychological motives of individuals who are prepared to strap dynamite around themselves and trigger the detonator whilst surrounded by defenceless citizens.

Although suicide attacks are particularly associated with al-Qaeda ideology, they have been adopted by the Tamil Tigers, by militant groups in Iraq and also recently by the Taliban. Attention is focused on the influence of institutions of Islamic education which in a small minority of cases advocate extreme views which “radicalise” students into beliefs which are inconsistent with mainstream Islam. This is believed to flourish especially in Pakistan where inadequate funding of state education has allowed unregulated madrasa religious education to take hold. About 1.5 million children attend madrasas in Pakistan, some of which are also open to foreign visitors. A number of terrorists belonging to the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) group in Indonesia have been identified as alumni of religious schools there known as pesantrens. In the UK attendance at the radical Finsbury mosque has been traced to a disturbing proportion of known terrorists.

Attempts have been made to construct psychological profiles with proven susceptibility to indoctrination. In Islamic countries such interest focuses on the sense of political impotence created by inadequate democracy and corrupt governance. In Europe, there are suggestions that young Muslims from immigrant families suffer identity problems in reconciling differences between western lifestyles and their upbringing. As yet these theories remain in the realms of speculation. Likewise, media tendencies to brand Pakistan as a source of world terror have been countered by a remarkable petition “Say no to Terrorism” which has been signed by over 60 million people in the country, more than the number of voters in the recent election.


Counter-terrorism is a massive global industry which takes place at various levels, ranging from local police investigation of terrorist acts to the invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and hunt down al-Qaeda leaders. National border control is fraught and trying for all concerned – over one million names feature on the US Terror Watch list of suspects, an FBI compilation which lost all credibility during 2008 with the discovery that it contained the names of Nelson Mandela and his ANC colleagues. Western countries also publish lists of proscribed terrorist groups which link to laws prohibiting membership and movement of funds. Fear of nuclear or biological attack inevitably dominates counter-terrorist thinking and explains the obsessive attention to perceived “rogue states” such as North Korea and Iran.

Over the last 20-30 years the UN has approved 13 Conventions which attempt to eliminate terrorist activity, culminating in 2006 in a broad Global Strategy to Defeat Terrorism which promises a coordinated plan of action thanks to “unique consensus achieved by world leaders”. Such claims to consensus are however undermined by those states that have abused their monopoly of legitimate violence. Although often conducted at arms length, violence sponsored by governments such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe has unquestionably instilled fear into their own populations, perhaps encroaching into the domain of terrorism and adding complexity to its classification.

Washington rally to oppose the use of torture
Washington rally to oppose the use of torture © Amnesty International USA

In the absence of a comprehensive UN treaty, national laws remain a basic tool of counter-terrorism. Led by the US Patriot Act, such laws too often undermine freedom of speech and association, introduce prolonged detention without trial and intrude on standards of privacy. Some ideals of human rights may indeed have to undergo temporary compromise and laws updated to address the crisis of terrorism, but there is an inherent contradiction. The new UN Global Strategy declares that countries which are “conducive to the spread of terrorism” are those characterised by the “lack of rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization, and lack of good governance”. Many counter-terrorism imperatives share common ground with these shortcomings.

A Tragedy of Errors

The failure of the tools of counter-terrorism to prevent the destruction of the World Trade Center led to the introduction of rhetoric as an additional weapon. The Bush administration packaged counter-terrorism as “the war on terror” with references to a crusade. In choosing language which conjured the spectre of a clash between Christian and Muslim civilisations, the Americans reinforced rather than undermined al-Qaeda ideology, uniting rather than exploiting the deep divisions within Islam. It is no wonder that European leaders were horrified. References to a crusade were swiftly abandoned but it was not until the latter part of 2006 that the US moderated its warrior imagery of counter-terrorism.

Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq © Radio Netherlands Wereldomroep

The disaster of the Iraq war has presented unimaginable gifts to the terrorist cause. The decision to invade the country reinforced al-Qaeda accusations of western interference in Muslim territories whilst the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib undermined US claims to moral superiority. Whilst considerable damage has been inflicted on al-Qaeda fighters attracted to Iraq and on the al-Qaeda leadership and its organisational capacity in Afghanistan, the ideology has proved capable of cloning itself. There are “affiliated” groups in North Africa led by Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and countless small local cells of potential terrorists. In the UK alone the authorities claim to have detected around 200 separate plots of indiscriminate criminal activity.

The Precipice of Fear

Global terrorism threatens to undo a generation of multilateral endeavour for human development, inspired by principles of social justice and human rights. Foreign aid budgets are struggling in the wake of security priorities. Whilst there have been no major terrorist incidents in the US since 2001, the US counter-terrorism budget for 2008 is $142 billion, a figure which dwarfs the shortfall in annual funding required to meet the Millennium Development Goals which would assist almost a billion people in extreme poverty. Such dysfunctional spending priorities reflect the imperative of calming a country’s collective fear, the soft underbelly of emotion that terrorists are most adept at exposing.

Jerusalem's disputed Old City
Jerusalem’s disputed Old City © Out There News

A window of opportunity may exist for a new approach. The Bush administration is entering history and there are new leaders in Europe who might bring more resolve to implement the roadmap to a Palestinian state. Perhaps the blunt instruments of eavesdropping technology and counter-terrorism laws will give way to more intellectual exposure of the al-Qaeda ideology for its medieval undertones and deep anti-Semitism. In Indonesia, success against JI has been attributed in part to the advocacy work of converted terrorists to “deradicalise” their former colleagues in prisons. A UK government programme, Preventing Violent Extremism, is dedicated to “winning hearts and minds” in a civic environment.

Nevertheless, real doubts linger over the capacity of politicians. The fundamental adjustment of attitudes necessary to neutralise terrorism can perhaps be engineered only by good citizenship. We may need to devote more energy to the integration of mixed ethnic communities and to the inequalities that are inseparable from modern economics. If we cannot convey to politicians that global fairness, peace and human dignity matter more than the comforts of consumerism, then our fate may indeed be akin to the vision of Shelley’s The Mask of Anarchy in which the English poet reacted to British government-sponsored violence in 1819:

And each dweller, panic-stricken,
Felt his heart with terror sicken….

Posted in Jehad, KILLING AND BLASTS, Terror Camps, Terror Target, Terrorism, Terrorist attack, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Manmohan: no dilution of our position on terrorism

Posted by :) on July 30, 2009

Sandeep Dikshit

“Offered to discuss Balochistan as our hands are clean”

— Photo: PTI/Courtesy Lok Sabha TV

MUCH-AWAITED INTERVENTION: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh clarifying the government’s position on the India-Pakistan joint statement, in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday.

NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday asserted that the government had not diluted its position on terrorism by issuing a joint statement with Pakistan earlier this month but left the door open for dialogue provided Pakistan fulfilled its commitment in “letter and spirit” to root out anti-India terrorist activity from its soil.

Intervening in a debate in the Lok Sabha on issues arising from his recent visits abroad, the Prime Minister underlined the need for engagement with Pakistan to achieve enduring peace in the subcontinent and slammed the “enemies of peace” for trying to make alienation between the two countries permanent and the divide unbridgeable.

Speaking to a packed House for nearly 45 minutes — his longest speech in recent memory — and backed by animated party members and allies, the Prime Minister rejected third party involvement in talks with Pakistan because of its limited effectiveness. It could also lead to longer-term involvement of foreign powers in South Asia which is “not something to our liking.”

Tracing the highs and lows of India-Pakistan ties during his much-awaited intervention, the Prime Minister said India would follow a policy of “trust and verify” on commitments by Pakistan and revealed that the impetus to the joint statement came from the dossier submitted by Islamabad a few days before he left for France and Egypt. The dossier showed some progress had been made by Pakistan but India did not think it was “adequate” for resumption of full-fledged dialogue. The joint statement also took a step forward by committing both countries to share real time, credible information to prevent any attacks in future.

At the same time, the Pakistani leadership was told to ensure that Mumbai-type attacks should not be repeated and another such attack would put an “intolerable strain on our relationship.” Dr. Singh thought the current Pakistani leadership understood the need for action against terrorists of all hues and cautioned that Pakistan would be “consumed” if it did not resolutely counter terror.

The dialogue would now be limited to Foreign Secretary-level capped in the near term by a meeting between the two Foreign Ministers on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

He acknowledged the statesmanship of the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee for pursuing the course of dialogue despite several setbacks. But he pointed out that despite the National Democratic Alliance government’s “tall talk” it was unable to get Pakistan to probe the involvement of its nationals in previous terror attacks. “So the UPA government needs no lessons from the Opposition on how to conduct foreign affairs or secure our nation from terrorist attacks,” he said to the accompaniment of enthusiastic thumping of desks from the ruling alliance benches.

Responding to criticism over the incorporation of Balochistan in the joint statement, Dr. Singh said New Delhi was willing to discuss strife in the Pakistani province because it had clean hands and was willing to remove any misgivings. Far from being engaged in egging on discontent in Pakistan, Indian consulates in Afghanistan were focusing on the large-scale reconstruction work being carried out in the country. “But we were willing to discuss all these issues because we are doing nothing wrong,” he maintained.

Source : The Hindu – eNews Paper

Posted in 26/11, Govt of India, Pakistani terrorists, Past terrorist attacks, Taliban, Terror Camps, Terrorism, Terrorist attack | Leave a Comment »

‘We created, nurtured terrorists’ – Zardari

Posted by :) on July 10, 2009

Zardari First Pak Head Of State To Admit Using Militancy For Tactical Ends

Omer Farooq Khan | TNN

Islamabad: In an astonishingly candid admission—a first by any Pakistani head of state—President Asif Ali Zardari has said militants and terrorists were wilfully created by past Pakistani governments and nurtured as part of a policy to achieve tactical objectives.
“Militants and extremists emerged on the national scene and challenged the state not because the civil bureaucracy was weakened and demoralised but because they were deliberately created and nurtured as a policy to achieve short-term tactical objectives. Let’s be truthful and make a candid admission of the reality,’’ he
said at a gathering of civil servants in Islamabad on Tuesday night.
“The terrorists of today were heroes of yesteryear until 9/11 occurred and they began to haunt us as well,’’ Zardari said, emphasising that Pakistan could not be left alone at this stage of the war on terror. He also pointedly said that future gen
erations would not forgive the current leadership if it did not take corrective measures.
India has long charged Pakistan with sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir by providing arms, ammunition and training to militants who have been engaged in a war of secession. Zardari’s admission is bound to cre
ate a major flutter in Islamabad, especially within the army, which has historically been the author of Pakistan’s India policy.
“Pakistan is a frontline state in the war against terror and we have pledged to eliminate this scourge. I have taken charge of the country at a difficult time and will meet the challenges facing the country,’’ he said. Criticising the former military rulers of Pakistan—in itself an act of derring-do—Zardari said concentration of power in one individual was against the spirit of democracy and good governance.

Posted in LeT, Taliban, Terrorism, Terrorist attack, TERROSIST ATTACK, Terrosist Organizations | 2 Comments »

Q&A: Militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Posted by :) on July 8, 2009

For much of the last decade Nato forces in Afghanistan and Pakistani troops in the north-west of their country have been fighting Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

Source – The BBC

So why is there conflict in the two countries and is there a link?

A US-led coalition spearheaded the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 because it said that the country was being used as a sanctuary by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden following the 9/11 attacks in the US.

From the outset, it has sought the help of Pakistan in rooting out insurgents, determined that there should be no safe havens for militants.

When it became clear that neither bin Laden nor Taliban leader Mullah Omar had been killed or captured, the pressure on Pakistan to eject militants from its border areas simply increased.

Since then the Pakistani army has launched offensives against militant positions interspersed with controversial peace deals. The Americans in particular opposed these, arguing that they allowed the militants to re-group.

The latest such offensive began at the end of 2008, following the election of President Asif Ali Zardari. Pakistan is now pursuing militants across the north-west of the country.

Should the world be worried?

There is a near-universal consensus that the answer is a resounding yes.

The principal concern is the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons which it is feared could fall into Taliban or al-Qaeda hands.

Taliban members in north-western Pakistan

The Taliban have proved themselves to be formidable adversaries

Most commentators agree that the possibility of this happening is remote, but concern still runs high.

In April 2009 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a US Senate committee that while a lot of time was spent worrying about Iran getting nuclear weapons, Pakistan already had them.

Some feel the danger is being exaggerated in Washington in order to build support for the Obama administration’s “Af-Pak policy”.

But the BBC’s Mark Urban says that the real danger lies in subversion – one or more individuals working inside the system providing militants with nuclear materials or even an entire atomic weapon.

There are concerns that India may become involved in the conflict against militancy – especially in Pakistan – if there is a repeat of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, which were blamed on extremists operating out of Pakistan.

Both India and the US suspect that radical madrassas in Pakistan are exporting militants around the world.

What’s being done to fight the militants?

Apart from the ongoing Pakistani army offensive in parts of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) the Americans have over the last few years used controversial drone attacks to hit militant targets in Pakistan from Afghanistan.

British soldier with an Afghan man in Kabul

Nato says it aims to help stabilise Afghanistan

These have generated much concern because in many cases civilians have been killed in these attacks.

President Obama has also announced a “troop surge” in Afghanistan of around 21,000 additional US troops, while considering a further deployment of 10,000 more to add to around 70,000 foreign troops who are currently based there.

The US military has stressed that if the war in Afghanistan is to be won, the development battle is almost as important as the military conflict.

That is why the West has poured billions of dollars into north-west Pakistan and into Afghanistan for the construction of schools, hospitals and community centres.

How serious is Pakistan in defeating the Taliban?

Pakistan’s government says that it is serious about tackling the Taliban. The country’s powerful military is currently shoulder-to-shoulder with the government on this issue, especially when it comes to targeting the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud.

Baitullah Mehsud

It is Mehsud’s fighters who are said to be behind the intensified attacks on military installations and personnel.

But doubts remain over the army’s willingness to fight those Taliban involved in cross-border attacks in Afghanistan. Indeed, some elements are thought to supportive those militants focusing on Afghanistan.

They see seen as a useful counterweight to what the army says is the growing influence of perennial rival India in Central Asia.

So can Pakistan beat the militants?

At the moment that is difficult to say. A lot depends on whether President Zardari can muster the political will to do so amid rising military and civilian casualties.

So far the militants appear to have been ejected from most of NWFP – including the Swat valley but they still entrenched in tribal areas. In North and South Waziristan for example – the area widely believed to be the hiding place of Osama Bin Laden – the army has yet to begin a full-scale offensive.

Even if Pakistan does remove the militants from their strongholds in the Fata, the terrain there is difficult and ideally suited to guerrilla warfare. No-one is expecting either the Taliban or al-Qaeda to disappear overnight.

What is the human cost in both countries?

The human cost of the war in both countries has been immense.

In Pakistan it is estimated that more than two million people have been displaced by the latest fighting.

In Afghanistan, the UN says that the number of civilians killed rose by 39% in 2008. It said that militants were to blame for 55% of the 2,118 civilian deaths, while US, Nato and Afghan forces were responsible for 39%.

Who is going to win overall?

In the short term, neither side in either country, are likely to claim victory.

British troops in Helmand

Helmand is the ‘largest single source of opium’ in Afghanistan

Recent analysis of where things stand in Afghanistan was provided in June 2009 by Nato’s outgoing supreme commander, Gen John Craddock.

He said that a lack of troops is putting severe constraints on its military operations in Afghanistan and that there was in effect a stalemate in the south and east of the country, the areas worst affected by the insurgency.

Nato commanders hope that President Obama’s surge will rectify this, so more heavy fighting can be expected in Afghanistan in the months ahead.

In Pakistan, the army is also pushing back the militants who are now confined to their heartlands on the border with Afghanistan.

But no-one expects them to be easily defeated in their mountainous homeland.

Posted in AF-PAK, Militant, PAKISTAN TERROR, Pakistani terrorists, Terrorism, Terrorist attack | Leave a Comment »

New York: A 9/11 Hindi movie review

Posted by :) on July 6, 2009

Movie: New York; Cast: John Abraham, Neil Nitin Mukesh, Katrina Kaif, Irrfan Khan; Director: Kabir Khan; Rating: 4 out of 5.

When a hardcore commercial flick gets a standing ovation and a huge round of applause at the end of the show, you know that there is something definitely right that the director has done. In this regard, Kabir Khan can take a bow because he has done exceedingly well in making a film that is not frivolous, has a message and still carries enough commercial ingredients to reach out to masses as well as classes.

His “New York” is a gripping dramatic thriller that has all the trappings to finally end the drought that Bollywood has been facing for an entire year so far.

The film gets on to the point right away. The entire sequence of events involving FBI and the round up of suspects is brilliantly executed that makes you further believe that Kabir Khan knows the job right.

Cute Three someIf in his first attempt “Kabul Express” he gave a documentary start to the film by showing actual clippings of 9/11, in case of “New York” too he doesn’t shy away from showing the world what US has become post 9/11.

So what one gets to see is not just America’s mentality after 9/11, but also the way suspects are detained for months and tortured in spite of lack of concrete evidence. However, to the credit of the filmmaker, the brutality being demonstrated is pretty much under control. Even though the desired impact is created for the audience to be a part of the lives of John Abraham, Neil Nitin Mukesh and Katrina Kaif, nothing goes over the top or something that cannot be swallowed.

With a subject like “New York” where one of the protagonists is labelled as a terrorist and the other is out to prove that he isn’t, the film could have become a grim drama, more so because it deals with real issues. Still, the makers do not allow the film to go beyond the boundaries where it could possibly have been classified as an art or an offbeat film.

John Neil and KatrinaInstead, a strict eye is kept on the box office hence making sure there is enough drama, thrills and emotional moments to keep audiences thoroughly engaged in the not-so-lengthy movie.

John can finally do away with his trunks and ignore coming out of the sea and show his body beautiful for next few years. The acting potential in him has finally been tapped by Kabir Khan and he gives his career’s best performance so far in the movie. Watch out for the scenes in the detention centre or the film’s climax – they are surely going to bring a lump in your throat.

Neil has the most complex role of the three as he has to be a part of the proceedings in spite of being on the peripherals. Without revealing much about his part, it can be comfortably said that all the flak that he got post the release of “Aa Dekhen Zara” would be forgotten once audiences see him in this author backed role.

His scenes with Irrfan Khan, who plays an FBI officer and is extremely effective once again, need a special mention. They are extremely well written and enacted.

Katrina too suits the role to a T and after “Namastey London” again gets to play a part where she actually contributes to the film’s plot.

With the kind of subject that “New York” has, it could have easily become a sermonising or a pseudo exercise in motion. Thankfully, Aditya Chopra, who has written the film’s story, doesn’t allow that to happen. He keeps it all under check to ensure that “New York” reaches out to the masses while also ensuring itself quite a few awards when the best of the best are announced at the end of the year.

“New York” is a must watch!

Posted in 9/11, AL QUIEDA, Terrorism, Terrorist attack, WTC | Leave a Comment »