And if already heated diplomatic exchanges escalate further, analysts say tensions could have dire consequences -- affecting Afghanistan to the north and embroiling the West in new chaos as militancy flourishes.
Even before the attacks that left 179 people dead had stopped, India's government had made vague accusations against Pakistan, while TV stations aired pictures they said was evidence against the neighboring country.
On another thread, Bob made reference to an article in which an Indian cameraman witnessed what he took to be inaction or hesitation on the part of the police. The cameraman bemoaned the fact that he'd had only a camera and not a gun. What do you think about that?
Wouldn't armed citizens be just about as powerless as unarmed ones when faced with a well coordinated terrorist attack? Wouldn't the same apply to armed teachers? I mean, how armed do you want people to be? The way I see it, only in very limited circumstances would arming the good guys save the day. I know it happens. But I don't accept that it happens so often and so reliably that it makes the least bit of difference.
Does that mean I say we should just lie down and let the bad guys have their way? No, of course not. Why not expect, or even demand that the police and other forces of law and order do their job? Let's invest time and money there where it belongs.
What's your opinion?