Bangladesh Attack: 28 Killed, Mostly Foreigners

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:59:00 AM EST
Tags: ISIS, Dkaka, Bangladesh (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

ISIS has taken credit for the attack at the Holy Artisan Bakery in Dhaka, Bangladesh in which 28 people were killed, many of whom were foreigners.

At least three of the attackers attended a private English immersion school in Dhaka. They have been identified as Rohan Imtiaz, Shameem Mubasher, and Nibras Islam. According to witnesses, the attackers gave the people in the restaurant a test:[More...]

"The gunmen asked everyone inside to recite from the Koran," Rezaul Karim told the Associated Press, describing what his son, Hasnat, had witnessed inside the restaurant. "Those who recited were spared. The gunmen even gave them meals last night." The others, he said, "were tortured". More than 10 hours passed between the start of the raid and when Bangladesh's rapid-reaction army commandos entered the building.

Five of the attackers' photos were published by the ISIS affiliated Amaq News Agency, along with a statement purportedly from ISIS taking credit for the attack. In all there were 7 attackers. Police killed 6 and captured 1.

Among the dead: 9 Japanese, 7 Italians, 2 Bangladeshis and an Indian. Three of the dead were students at U.S universities. Emory Undergraduate Abinta Kabir was 18 years old and an American citizen. She was from Miami, but born in Bangladesh. She was there on vacation. Her cousin asks on Facebook, why was she killed? Was she just unable to recite the Koran well enough?

< 4th of July Weekend Open Thread | Sunday ISIS Readiing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bangladesh Attack: 28 Killed, Mostly Foreigners | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Bangladesh Reels at Revelations About Attackers (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:53:13 PM EST

DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Bangladesh's capital city reeled in shock on Sunday as clues began to flood social media about the privileged backgrounds of the half-dozen attackers believed to have butchered 20 patrons of a restaurant during a bloody siege here late last week.
The men, all in their late teens or early 20s, were products of Bangladesh's elite, several having attended one of the country's top English-medium private schools as well as universities both in the country and abroad.

: this is the pattern (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 01:24:04 AM EST

it goes back at least as far as the 9/11 Al Qaeda terrorists, the 7/7 London tube bombers, &c, &c, &c
& yet people continue to profess surprise when it appears over & over again

This is just so sad (none / 0) (#1)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:12:40 AM EST

These attacks are becoming too commonplace, not unexpected, and people just move on, nothing to see here.
I understand Jeralyns desire to avoid the whole region, the desire not to disturb the hornets nest.
I feel perhaps that may have worked if it was applied during the 1980's, but then again . maybe not.
Does anyone really feel that if we ignore ISIS that they will just ignore us and leave us alone, and instead continue their jihad in Europe and Asia only?
It will take a world leader with resolve, courage and respect to put together some world unified action to stop this malevolent disease from spreading.
Perhaps in another year or so, after we have more worldwide terrorist attacks, someone will take the lead

A White KnightTheory (3.50 / 2) (#2)
by FlJoe on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:43:56 AM EST

of fighting international terrorism?

It will take a world leader with resolve, courage and respect to put together some world unified action to stop this malevolent disease from spreading.

You are out of of your mind.


I guess so (none / 0) (#3)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 09:12:38 AM EST

Is it really too much to ask?

Or will we see 20 dead, 30 wounded , every month from here on out?


: Only in the "good" months (none / 0) (#5)
by Mr Natural on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 12:12:17 PM EST

115 killed in one Baghdad attack alone, yesterday.

If wishes (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 11:45:13 AM EST

were horses beggars would ride.


As Bernie "Irrelevant"Sanders would say (none / 0) (#21)
by jondee on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 01:09:10 PM EST

It's going to take a lot of world leaders, not A world leader.

The world is a big place.

For those with eyes to see, the unilateral, world leader with-the-big-swinging-d*ck paradigm has been tried and found wanting.


I Feel That Way (none / 0) (#4)
by RickyJim on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 09:46:18 AM EST

Does anyone really feel that if we ignore ISIS that they will just ignore us and leave us alone, and instead continue their jihad in Europe and Asia only?

Tell us about how much ISIS has attacked countries in the western hemisphere besides the US.


Still think the situation (none / 0) (#6)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 12:34:57 PM EST

Is too far gone to think if we announce we are no longer fighting ISIS, and will not help our allies in fighting ISIS (which probably won't go over well) that they will leave the Great Satan alone.

http://tinyurl.com/znrhly8

Islamic terrorism is not new to Latin America. In 1992 Islamic Jihad bombed the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, killing 29 and injuring 250. In 1994, Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, were responsible for bombing AMIA, a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, killing 87 and injuring over 100 people.

Venezuela became a de facto subsidiary for Iranian terrorism in the Western Hemisphere through Hezbollah's Rabbani and Nasseredine networks and has established more than 80 "cultural centers" to promote their brand of Islam in the region.
While Iran's Shi'a Islamists have had "first mover" advantage over Sunnis in penetrating Latin America, both are actively spreading their reach in the region, which is home to 4 million Muslims, more than half residing in Brazil and Argentina and the rest primarily in Central America, Ecuador, Chile, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago.
Radical Islamists are especially active in the Tri-Border area (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay), a notorious locale known for smuggling, piracy, money laundering and drug dealing. Strategic alliances abound between radical Islamists and criminal networks such as Colombia's FARC and Mexico's Zetas.

: What I Think (none / 0) (#15)
by RickyJim on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:48:56 PM EST

Every Muslim terrorist who has attacked the USA, either inside it or out, has given the reason that they don't like the way the US has conducted its foreign policy, in particular the US is responsible for the deaths of many Muslims in Muslim regions. All US military actions in those regions have not cut down on anti American attacks from jihadists. In fact the more the US eliminates, the more new jihadists are created. Time to try a more hands off strategy. Trying to prevent them from killing each other doesn't work and makes them want to kill us.

Mr. TrevorBolder: In general & in part (none / 0) (#7)
by christinep on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 04:29:12 PM EST

I agree with you that we cannot simply ignore ISIL and pretend or dream that they will go away. What follows from a general statement & resolve to be proactive in strategy & tactics to stop the spread of such a threat is really what the issue is. Clearly, we--the US--are already engaged. We are openly engaged via limited military response (e.g., methodical & targeted drone strikes); we are openly engaged in developing a unified, coordinated approach with the essential other countries; we are acknowledging & developing a cyber-oriented education response to counter the heretofore rather successful allure of ISIL's sophisticated propaganda arm.

While you don't specify the kind of response--the level, scope, amount of military--that would meet the direction you desire, it does seem that your apparent angst leads you to one extreme or the other. In my book, the best strategies in dealing with upheavals & threats that typify the Mideast since our full-throated & full-booted military incursion known as Iraq in 2003+ are not framed in all-or-nothing terms. To turn away from a measured response and try to ignore is foolish ... it is foolish for a number of practical reasons; yet, to brandish a fist and rage in the manner that led us to Iraq could well make the Iraq military operation seem mild compared to the possible proxy precursor to a broader than regional warfare. Frankly, I think that all-in approach goes nowhere with our own public and, certainly, would not be touched by other western countries and allies.

In any reconsideration and furtherance of military action in the Mideast, btw, it makes no sense to assign to One Leader the impossible task of being-in-charge (so to speak) of ending the regional and potential world threat of ISIL. The superhero or demi-god approach may pull you or others--the Wagnerian horn--but we are all to close to the fiasco, the disaster of a Bushian notion of vengeance or whatever that became Iraq. There is a proximate lesson of history here, I'd say.

Look, in my gut, I have occasionally felt those feelings you feel about this 21st century foe ... but, I think that we can't let pride get in the way. This really is about reducing a determined real-world threat without blowing everything up--ourselves included--only to wonder in a daze "what happened?"


ISIS (none / 0) (#8)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 05:05:17 PM EST

Islamic terror, is a cancer, and sometimes it takes more than a measured response to eradicate a cancer. I would prefer it be eradicated (ISIS) than to corral it with measured responses. Then we are destined to endure these ISIS inspired events for how much longer?
The SuperHero, the Leader needed need not be the strongest militarily, but one with the will and perseverance to form a coalition and wipe them out of the Middle East. That should not be too difficult , or lengthy. The difficulty is getting the commitment. And that leader might emerge after another ISIS attack, one that takes too many lives, is too gruesome for his/her country to endure, when popular opinion pushes the politician to actions that are needed.
Without any territory to claim, no "wives" to offer fighters, there is no mighty movement to join, to sacrifice ones life for.
To me, that is a clear solution, I am just tired of watching Orlando, Bangladesh, France...and on and on.
This is one cause I would think the world could get behind.You are not invading a country, you are taking back territory from a terrorist organization with maybe 30k troops, no air support, and limited firepower.
Or we can continue the drip drip drip, drone kills, bombing raids, and another civilian target shot up in some country.


Super hero? (none / 0) (#9)
by FlJoe on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 05:14:44 PM EST

You've been reading to many comic books trevor.


Actually haven't read them (none / 0) (#10)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 05:22:16 PM EST

Since we moved from Far Rockaway in the late 60's.
Spider Man and Thor were my favorites.

But I was actually replying to Christines comment

. The superhero or demi-god approach may pull you or others--the Wagnerian horn--but we are all to close to the fiasco, the disaster of a Bushian notion of vengeance or whatever that became Iraq. There is a proximate lesson of history here, I'd say.

seems to me (none / 0) (#17)
by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 01:13:22 AM EST

that Trevor Bolder is talking about deft & committed political leadership, & that your insulting comments have added nothing to the discussion except evidence that you lack historical knowledge & political insight


You (none / 0) (#19)
by FlJoe on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 06:06:53 AM EST

and Trevor are the ones insulting history and reality. Only simpletons believe in simple solutions to an extremely complex long standing global problem.

Time and time again it is you, Trevor and the rest of the usual suspects ignore much of history pre 2009 and cherry pick the rest.

Time and time again you use slogans like "deft & committed political leadership", what the hell does that even mean in this context?


: your comment (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by The Addams Family on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 01:46:44 PM EST

is the kind that one posts & almost immediately feels embarrassed by
almost anyone could sympathize

: I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by TrevorBolder on Mon Jul 04, 2016 at 06:11:25 PM EST

Maybe something along the likes of this,
What, maybe 25 years ago.
Per Wiki
The Gulf War (2 August 1990 - 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 - 17 January 1991), for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 - 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
Can we get 34 nations to wipe out a cancer called ISIS, it didn't take that long to defeat Saddam the 1st time, and Iraq is far superior militarily than ISIS
The Iraqi Army's occupation of Kuwait that began 2 August 1990 was met with international condemnation, and brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq by members of the U.N. Security Council. U.S. President George H. W. Bush deployed U.S. forces into Saudi Arabia, and urged other countries to send their own forces to the scene. An array of nations joined the Coalition, the largest military alliance since World War II. The great majority of the Coalition's military forces were from the U.S., with Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom and Egypt as leading contributors, in that order. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid around US$32 billion of the US$60 billion cost.[25]
The initial conflict to expel Iraqi troops from Kuwait began with an aerial and naval bombardment on 17 January 1991, continuing for five weeks. This was followed by a ground assault on 24 February. This was a decisive victory for the Coalition forces, who liberated Kuwait and advanced into Iraqi territory. The Coalition ceased its advance, and declared a cease-fire 100 hours after the ground campaign started. Aerial and ground combat was confined to Iraq, Kuwait, and areas on Saudi Arabia's border. Iraq launched Scud missiles against Coalition military targets in Saudi Arabia and against Israel.

Again, your sentiments along the lines of (none / 0) (#11)
by christinep on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 05:47:39 PM EST

there-must-be-something-we-can-do are quite similar to my visceral response. Yet, I strongly disagree with the allure that you seem to see in the magical person who is the preferred or only way to save the world, us, the day. In my memory & experience, the world today or in the hundreds of years preceding today does not lend itself to literary or "if only" dreams of a deus machina. That assistance is enthralling in literature, but ....

The frontier theory. We are going to grab our peacemaker (aka gun) & saddle up & go get-the-job-done & we will be recognized as the good guy winner(s) waving like a royal as we ride off into the sunset. I loved those shows, those tales ... as a child (and then, as a young adult, I admired the antihero winning model in the "spaghetti westerns.") I'm still enchanted by the fable. But, then I remember that other countries have their own dreams about riding into battle & winning ... my old Russian professor recalled how her older brother took off to find his passion in Alaska and beyond, leaving the family at home in Russia as a teenager; and, she explained as we read Russian literature in the late 60s that the lure of that adventure was a strong motif growing up in Russia in her youth.

The urge to blast ISIL/ISIS is genuine. I'd guess that that desire is dominant in a good majority of Americans, actually. BUT ... we need to look at history, we need to consider the lessons of the past & appreciate what is doable now. As an example: Consider that the UK is challenged even in keeping its unity together now in the throes of "populist" rejection of a longtime structure... then, take a gander at any number of countries challenged by indecisiveness as to direction in their own countries, let alone getting involved in the kind of commitment that this full-bore undertaking would entail, etc. etc.
A modern Caesar or a new Alexander the Great ... not likely. A modern-day dictator to smash ISIL/ISIS ... you can't be asking for that.

Nope. The dull reality is that these terror instances--seemingly on a worldwide stage now--are going to be resolved or diminished by a form of worldwide union & agreement. Not by a non-existent hero, superhero, anti-hero. The saddest part of it all would be to succumb to a fantasy about the perfect solution rather than address the world as we find it .... as a country and together with a union of world community members.


Funny (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 06:34:51 PM EST

While I am not 100% unsympathetic to the idea of crushing ISIS I am reminded of the "we just have to do something about Saddam" stuff that drove me absolutely nuts early in the century.

Worth at least noting that what we "did" about Saddam pretty much got us where we are as we once again hear we just need to "do something"

Maybe we should try doing nothing and see what happens.


: Yes, howdy, but... (none / 0) (#13)
by christinep on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 07:04:38 PM EST

I also hear--as you do--the way the unfortunate build-up to get Saddam occurred. Remember the hoopla from what should have been wiser men when the announcement later came that Saddam had been extracted from that "hidey hole." We ourselves do not need to go down another rabbit hole or worse again.
Where I go another way tho is with a conclusion of doing something headlong and stupide--like the Iraq continuing disaster--is to do nothing. In my own incremental there is a middle ground way, I'm also reminded that the definitive action taken by President Obama to rid us of Osama-bin-Laden was precise, effective, & successful ...and without a bunch of Bushian bravado preceding the successful mission. That kind of thinking & the leadership that it takes is what I've been urging with Trevor.

Oh well (none / 0) (#14)
by TrevorBolder on Sun Jul 03, 2016 at 08:27:37 PM EST

We will have to agree to disagree.
I still have faith. The actual dismantling of ISIS would be relatively simple and quick. The capability is there, but the willingness , for now is lacking
Yes, putting it together, the coalition, is the ultimate problem.
Your example of Iraq, and Saddam. I do believe ISIS represents a clearer visceral evil than even Saddam.
No Alexander the Great, that would be catastrophic.,The hero I seek is a politician, willing to risk it, to badger cajole , and gather the world community.
Not likely but I still have some faith it could be done. Unfortunately, only after much more blood and mayhem is spilled in the name of ISIS.
As for the UK, and that long time structure....well the UK has been united and on its own much longer than the European Union has been in existence. The EU has been chipping away at sovereignty for years, and the future seemed more of the same.


SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#25)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 06, 2016 at 12:45:51 PM EST

several threads