NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/26/mumbai-terror-attacks-india)

India suffered one of its deadliest terrorist attacks last night when gunmen ran amok in the wealthiest part of Mumbai, killing dozens of people, storming hospitals and luxury hotels, and taking a number of foreigners hostage.

At least 80 people were believed killed, with 10 shot dead at Chhatrapati Shivaji terminus, formerly known as Victoria terminus, one of the two big stations in central Mumbai. Shots and explosions were reported in eight locations across India's financial capital including the crowded CST railway station, and two five-star hotels, the Taj Mahal and Oberoi Trident , leaving hundreds injured. At least 11 police officers including Maharashtra's anti-terrorism squad chief, Hemant Karkare, were killed in the attacks. Karakare was killed in a bomb blast at the Oberoi Trident.

At 12.50 am local time the Taj, a Mumbai landmark, was shaken by gunfire and explosions and its roof enveloped in smoke and flames as attackers threw grenades at police outside. Near dawn this morning, police and gunmen exchanged sporadic gunfire at the two luxury hotels, where an unknown number of western hostages were still being held.

Six gunmen were killed by police and nine suspected terrorists arrested, according to reports. A previously unknown group calling itself the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility for the attacks, in emails to local media outlets.

At one hospital, St George's in south Mumbai, 60 bodies and 200 injured people were brought in.

Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state of which Mumbai is the capital, said he had put the army on red alert in an unprecedented admission that civil forces were unable to control the law and order situation in the city.

I sometimes think India's a pretty good encapsulation of the world at large, and I think terrorism, along with the environment, are the most serious issues the globe has to deal with, as does India.

For me, a lot stems from a global world interacting with traditional community structures, it's the actual clash of civilizations.

What, in your mind, is the most pressing global concern?

What, in your mind, is the most pressing global concern?

Poverty and Education. Every other global concern can trace it's roots back to these two which are often so intertwined, they can really only be solved together.

Poverty and Education. Every other global concern can trace it's roots back to these two which are often so intertwined, they can really only be solved together.

What about claims that some terrorist are actually well educated and aren't poor at all?

What about claims that some terrorist are actually well educated and aren't poor at all?

Seems like they do most of the planning and recruiting and the poor ones seem to be the ones blowing themselves up more often than not.

Try signing this petition and helping out. http://www.everyhumanhasrights.org/

Despite what people think, groups like Amnesty International and other groups do make a difference.

Poverty and Education. Every other global concern can trace it's roots back to these two which are often so intertwined, they can really only be solved together.

Terrorism and the environment seem to bring governments together to resolve them, as effective as that might be.

Globally, I'm not sure we can coordinate education and poverty, are they more pressing?

On one side I guess you could say that if we resolve those we would eliminate other problems but it's a bit like resolving to train boat builders better when you're on a sinking ship.

Seems like they do most of the planning and recruiting and the poor ones seem to be the ones blowing themselves up more often than not.

Ahh..fair enough. :)

Poverty and Education. Every other global concern can trace it's roots back to these two which are often so intertwined, they can really only be solved together.

I think what LG is saying is that you all need to shell out for my Underpaid Teacher Charity Fund. I promise 100% of the donations will go to an underpaid teacher.

Poverty and Education. Every other global concern can trace it's roots back to these two which are often so intertwined, they can really only be solved together.

LG as a fellow traveller you probably seen some things I have. I know you probably saw a lot in the military. Which is why I couldn't have said it better myself. It really amazes me the sheer lack of education a large portion of the world misses as compared to our western world. I know we laugh out our education systems sometimes but it is vastly superior to what a large group of people have. This leads to some severly backward thinking and poverty.

I think what LG is saying is that you all need to shell out for my Underpaid Teacher Charity Fund. I promise 100% of the donations will go to an underpaid teacher.

Heck its not even underpaid teachers. It is a lack of teachers in many instances.

Seems like they do most of the planning and recruiting and the poor ones seem to be the ones blowing themselves up more often than not.

Well you are right. I speak fluent Arabic. I have travelled through a number of Arabic countries. It surprises me at some of the ignorant things that are asked and percieved by the poorer populace sometimes even by the educated. I know this because I usually am bombarded (pardon the pun) by questions about America when I travel. There are some things that really bother me that are said. At times it made me question my safety.

Well you are right. I speak fluent Arabic. I have travelled through a number of Arabic countries. It surprises me at some of the ignorant things that are asked and percieved by the poorer populace sometimes even by the educated. I know this because I usually am bombarded (pardon the pun) by questions about America when I travel. There are some things that really bother me that are said. At times it made me question my safety.

The most ironic one is being told that 9/11 could not have been carried out by uneducated Muslims living in caves, not that this view is isolated to the Middle East alas.

An update...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/27/mumbai-terror-attacks-india4

It's pretty bad really,

This bit's a little crazy...

Eyewitnesses have provided accounts of how the gunmen involved in yesterday's Mumbai massacre landed undetected in the heart of the port city's bustling downtown area.

At least some of the terrorists, said to be in their early twenties and armed with AK-47 assault rifles and hand grenades, landed on the coast of Mumbai's commercial and entertainment neighbourhood in light and fast Gemini boats, powered by small outboard motors.

These inflatable dinghies, according to Indian navy sources quoted by the Headlines Today TV news channel, were launched from a larger vessel, the MV Alfa, which arrived near Mumbai sometime yesterday and anchored offshore a distance from India's financial capital.

The navy, the news channel reported, became suspicious of the ship only on intercepting wireless communications in the region after the lethal assault began around 9.40pm (4.10pm GMT) last night.

By this time the vessel had left the vicinity of Mumbai. When first reported by the news channel today, the MV Alfa was said to be off the Gujarat coast and heading towards Pakistan. The navy was reported to be in pursuit of the ship, although this could not be independently verified.

I don't think terrorisim is a pressing matter at all.

Poverty, and corruption of those in charge. The gap between the rich and poor.

A wider perspective...

What do the Mumbai terror attacks mean globally?

First of all, the standard caveat. It is extremely early days. India saw 2,700 killed in terrorist attacks last year by a wide range of groups and individuals making it one of the worst hit countries in the world, if clearly its size plays a role in the statistics. The point is that the range of possible culprits is large.

Equally, the style of the attack – more a mass guerrilla assault on a series of soft-targets in a major city than the standard spectacular blasts that we have come to associate with those strikes linked closely to the al-Qaida hardcore – makes it that much more difficult to decipher.

Using boats to attack is certainly original and rare – though al-Qaida used boat bombs against the USS Cole in 2000. Hostage taking is also not a usual feature of core al-Qaida attacks. There was the instance of the Chechen group holding a cinema and audience captive in Moscow of course but they were not an "al-Qaida" group whatever the Kremlin may have said at the time. The mass irregular infantry assault has been seen before – in Saudi Arabia in Khobar in 2004 but again by a group acting semi-autonomously from the al-Qaida hardcore. Indeed, the guns and grenade style is more reminiscent of the operations of militant groups in Kashmir (and elsewhere in India), Afghanistan or even in the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. Tourist industry has also been targeted elsewhere, notably in Indonesia and in Egypt during the late 80s.

Putting together this jumble of tactics and the targeting of an Orthodox Jewish centre and the apparent singling out of UK and US and Israeli citizens would certainly seem to indicate a homegrown local Indian outfit. The Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is already talking about the involvement of "external links" which could mean al-Qaida or Pakistan, but analysts recently have down-played foreign involvement in the series of attacks in the last 18 months. The homegrown explanation fits, insofar as anything based on an unknown name of an unknown group, with the claim of responsibility from the Deccan Mujahideen who appear likely to be close to the fragmented but effective Indian Mujahideen movement. The claims of responsibility the Indian Mujahideen have made in recent months have been treated as credible.

The homegrown explanation too would follow global trends in militancy. Though the hardcore of al-Qaida has unquestionably reconstituted a base and some of its commissioning and logistics capability in recent years in the tribal belt of western Pakistan, most global Islamic militancy remains a local business. In Morocco, Algeria, Iraq, Europe and across into Asia and the Far East, most militant organisations are characterised by a mass of horizontal links not vertical hierarchies or lines of command. They are fragmented and based on a chaos of personal relationships and shifting dynamic mini-structures. Bringing them all together for one operation is ambitious but clearly possible – experts talk of "swarming" – and is likely to result in the kind of varied but effective attack that we saw today. It also makes the culprits – if they survive – much harder to catch and any overarching organiser of whatever nature much harder to trace.

I visit Mumbai every 3-4 months though I generally stay around the airport and Lower Parel area, I've been in these hotels though, this is an assault on a city.

What does Al-Qaeda mean these days, I hardly feel they're some sort of S.P.E.C.T.R.E type organisation, they're always mentioned as if they're the core as opposed to one group among many, more a symbol than reality.

The guys behind the Bader Meinhof Group, the CCC, the ETA, the Brigate Rosse were not dumb, but in general educated. Some of them were not poor at all.
Osama Bin Laden isn't dumb or poor...

I think that terrorism is baked in our brain. Under certain conditions, anyone could turn into a terrorist.

I think it's education issue, but not just about being dumb. It's about enlightenment.

What does Al-Qaeda mean these days, I hardly feel they're some sort of S.P.E.C.T.R.E type organisation, they're always mentioned as if they're the core as opposed to one group among many, more a symbol than reality.
How would governments and other institutions justify The War Against Terrorism if they had to show how there were a multitude of differing groups, each with different grievances and detailed issues, rather than simply naming them all as 'al Qaeda' while painting the world in black and white?

Some call war terrorism and others call terrorism war.

It depends on which side you're standing.

But I know one thing for sure, in the end it is al shit.

How would governments and other institutions justify The War Against Terrorism if they had to show how there were a multitude of differing groups, each with different grievances and detailed issues, rather than simply naming them all as 'al Qaeda' while painting the world in black and white?

What's your issue here?

Are you saying coordinated action against terrorism is unjustifiable or that the public needs simple terms to support a problem they can't understand if properly outlined?

This bit's a little crazy...

what worries me is they are heading to Pakistan. If Pakistan shelters them or even drags their feet in capturing turning this vessel over to India there very well likely could be another Indo-Pakistan war. At the very least expect boarder skirmishes.

What's your issue here?

Are you saying coordinated action against terrorism is unjustifiable or that the public needs simple terms to support a problem they can't understand if properly outlined?
Neither.

I'm saying that the whole project of war against 'International Terrorism' is screwy. The threat is inflated, the disparate terrorist 'organisations' are grouped together under the bogeyman title of 'al Qaeda', the grievences of these terrorists (legitimate or not) are never discussed, and the whole language of the debate descends into 'us vs. them', 'good vs. evil'.

what worries me is they are heading to Pakistan. If Pakistan shelters them or even drags their feet in capturing turning this vessel over to India there very well likely could be another Indo-Pakistan war. At the very least expect boarder skirmishes.

Yeah, Pakistan have condemned the attacks and I can hardly believe a ship would be so obvious about running for Pakistan, I'd agree with the idea that this was more homegrown but to have fast boats and a ship at all, the money's coming from somewhere.

Seriously, how much money goes towards violent actions, whether simple military spend or funding different groups, it beggars belief.

Neither.

I'm saying that the whole project of war against 'International Terrorism' is screwy. The threat is inflated, the disparate terrorist 'organisations' are grouped together under the bogeyman title of 'al Qaeda', the grievences of these terrorists (legitimate or not) are never discussed, and the whole language of the debate descends into 'us vs. them', 'good vs. evil'.

Again, there's always links, money flows between groups, I just don't think that it's all separate groups, there might not be a central core but there's certainly links.

Is it really inflated? Entire states are turning over into essentially criminal enterprises.

The IRA wasn't always just about liberation, at times it was practically a fully functioning business, it's not just grievances, it can be a way of life.

I suspect we underestimate the issue as much as governments overhype it.

Yeah, Pakistan have condemned the attacks and I can hardly believe a ship would be so obvious about running for Pakistan, I'd agree with the idea that this was more homegrown but to have fast boats and a ship at all, the money's coming from somewhere.

Seriously, how much money goes towards violent actions, whether simple military spend or funding different groups, it beggars belief.

yeah but the hostilities from that will take a few weeks to ramp up as India investigates.

yeah but the hostilities from that will take a few weeks to ramp up as India investigates.

I certainly don't disagree.

Again, there's always links, money flows between groups, I just don't think that it's all separate groups, there might not be a central core but there's certainly links.
Idealogical more than monetary would be my guess.

And, certainly, many groups are inspired by the actions of/against al Qaeda. But that's most worrying.

When three lads from Leeds blew themselves up in London, 2005, the Home Secretary at the time, John Reid, outright refused to talk about the effects that British foreign policy had on impressionable British Muslim youths, even after a video emerged of one of the boys saying exactly that, while the vast majority of the media denounced the boys as evil, inhuman monsters.

They were little more than children, yet we still aren't questioning why young men were driven to such extreme acts. We simply sweep the issue under the carpet of 'International Terrorism'.

The way the big hotels were targetted will certainly look to Westerners like an attack on the West.

But it's really an attack on India. Tourists and trade delegations being afraid to go there will hurt the Indian economy, and you can be sure that the majority of fatalities would have been Indian. For hostages, the terrorists clearly targetted Westerners. That doesn't necessarily make it part of the al Qaida pattern.

It's bad news either way really. Unfortunate that the terrorists mentioned Kashmir, even worse if they have strong links to Pakistan. I guess it will be clearer after I've had my night's sleep. *goes thence.*

They look for the weakest spot. In Europe and USA it's more risky to do an attack (doesn't say it can't be achieved). In countries as India everything is less, so it's just easier...

Idealogical more than monetary would be my guess.

And, certainly, many groups are inspired by the actions of/against al Qaeda. But that's most worrying.

When three lads from Leeds blew themselves up in London, 2005, the Home Secretary at the time, John Reid, outright refused to talk about the effects that British foreign policy had on impressionable British Muslim youths, even after a video emerged of one of the boys saying exactly that, while the vast majority of the media denounced the boys as evil, inhuman monsters.

They were little more than children, yet we still aren't questioning why young men were driven to such extreme acts. We simply sweep the issue under the carpet of 'International Terrorism'.

I question foreign policy unless one points to the time it took to act in Bosnia, yet that wasn't just government whim, it was also a public questioning of why we should fight in another country.

I don't mean to isolate Britain other than the example you used, but people's actions are often in spite of government, not because of government.

It's not just Western foreign policy, some of it is internal isolation of ethnic groups as well, though it's not one-sided.

'We' sweep the issue...who's 'we'? I don't mean that as 'hey, don't include me', I mean to just blame government absolves everyone else.

Neither.

I'm saying that the whole project of war against 'International Terrorism' is screwy. The threat is inflated, the disparate terrorist 'organisations' are grouped together under the bogeyman title of 'al Qaeda', the grievences of these terrorists (legitimate or not) are never discussed, and the whole language of the debate descends into 'us vs. them', 'good vs. evil'.

Indeed, and when people use the word terrorist, do they mean Muslim?

I was watching 'Stephen Fry in America' last week and he was in some remote place in Idaho, with no other houses or building anywhere in site, interviewing a chap, when he menatuoned Muslim, and right away the bloke says 'Ohh terrorists!'

I agree that poverty and lack of education globally are major engines driving terrorism -- especially the recruiting.

We should never underestimate the corrosive effect of poverty upon society. It doesn't only affect the actual poor themselves -- it eats away at all levels of society. It generates crime and disease, which damage the lives of all social strata. It expands class gaps, separating people from each other, making them view each other as enemies -- the rich keeping the poor down, the poor seen as threats to the rich -- generating hostility and receptiveness to violent messages. It creates an overall sense of a society degenerating, not just economically but morally as well, which can lead even well-off individuals who are unhappy with their own lives to take up vague, violent causes for "change", too.

And we should never underestimate the effect of lack of education as well. Not only does it allow large numbers of people to never develop the skills that will let them lift themselves out of poverty and effect social change in a positive way, and cling to false, prejudiced and xenophobic ideas of what other people are like, but it also causes people to react poorly to the social stresses of poverty, as well.

Ignorance and Poverty. I've said it before -- they are twin evils that stalk humanity and always have. A truly civilized society must combat them all the time, every time.

Terrorism is just one of their bastard children. In the long term, if you want to truly weaken terrorism and make it an isolated crime instead of a system of politics, you must attack the ignorance and poverty that feed it.

As to the OP itself: Terrorism is a pressing global issue right now, because it is being so actively used in so many places. But poverty and lack of education are more pressing global concerns for the long term because terrorism is only one of the bad effects they generate. Others include epidemics, social instablity, and crime.

I agree that poverty and lack of education globally are major engines driving terrorism -- especially the recruiting.

We should never underestimate the corrosive effect of poverty upon society. It doesn't only affect the actual poor themselves -- it eats away at all levels of society. It generates crime and disease, which damage the lives of all social strata. It expands class gaps, separating people from each other, making them view each other as enemies -- the rich keeping the poor down, the poor seen as threats to the rich -- generating hostility and receptiveness to violent messages. It creates an overall sense of a society degenerating, not just economically but morally as well, which can lead even well-off individuals who are unhappy with their own lives to take up vague, violent causes for "change", too.

As has been pointed out, the rich are not strangers to crime themselves.

Perhaps social division is worse, it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.

And we should never underestimate the effect of lack of education as well. Not only does it allow large numbers of people to never develop the skills that will let them lift themselves out of poverty and effect social change in a positive way, and cling to false, prejudiced and xenophobic ideas of what other people are like, but it also causes people to react poorly to the social stresses of poverty, as well.

Some people are entirely happy being uneducated by our standards. Again, division seems to be worse for me.

Ignorance and Poverty. I've said it before -- they are twin evils that stalk humanity and always have. A truly civilized society must combat them all the time, every time.

Terrorism is just one of their bastard children. In the long term, if you want to truly weaken terrorism and make it an isolated crime instead of a system of politics, you must attack the ignorance and poverty that feed it.

As to the OP itself: Terrorism is a pressing global issue right now, because it is being so actively used in so many places. But poverty and lack of education are more pressing global concerns for the long term because terrorism is only one of the bad effects they generate. Others include epidemics, social instablity, and crime.

I don't know, even if poverty and education were equal, I'm certain you'd still have aggression. Poverty by whose definition, education by whose definition?

Perhaps I might switch to judgmentalism as the main problem.

Indeed, and when people use the word terrorist, do they mean Muslim?

I was watching 'Stephen Fry in America' last week and he was in some remote place in Idaho, with no other houses or building anywhere in site, interviewing a chap, when he menatuoned Muslim, and right away the bloke says 'Ohh terrorists!'
I bristle at those remarks of Chumbly's that seem to suggest that there might be a justification for terrorism because, in my view, there is no justification and can be no justification for the specific kinds of attacks that terrorism uses, regardless of who is doing them or what they claim their cause is.

That said, however, I also look at the "War on Terror" as the most disgusting political boondoggle I've ever seen. Unlike CW, I do not ascribe it to a misdirection or confusion of the issue. Rather, I see it as a cyncial and deliberate manipulation of terrorism so that it can be exploited for political and financial gain. Just look at what it has "accomplished" so far -- more terrorism than ever; a thriving narco-illegal weapons-terrorism blackmarket industry worldwide; and an even more thriving profiteer's market for the military-industrial complex and the security industry (yeah, Halliburton and Blackwater and their ilk). The "War on Terror" is nothing but a bunch of fat cats making billions off the murders of civilians. I cannot express how much I hate it and the murderous fucks who thought it up.

As has been pointed out, the rich are not strangers to crime themselves.
I enjoy it when people read things into my posts that are not there and fail to read things that are there -- at the same time! :rolleyes:

ONE: I never said that the rich were strangers to crime. I merely said that poverty drives crime. If you notice, I never said that the poor commit crimes, either. The poor are disproportionately victims of crime. I also specifically stated that the social effects of poverty harm the rich as well.

Perhaps social division is worse, it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor.


Some people are entirely happy being uneducated by our standards. Again, division seems to be worse for me.
TWO: Did I say "by our standards?" Did I suggest any particular standard for defining education? *re-reads original post* Why, no, I didn't.

I guess it needs saying again: I do not defend arguments I never made. Kindly do not prop your pet issues up on me. If you have a response to what I actually said, then please give it and I will respond. But if you put words into my mouth, I will just spit them back at you.

I don't know, even if poverty and education were equal, I'm certain you'd still have aggression. Poverty by whose definition, education by whose definition?

Perhaps I might switch to judgmentalism as the main problem.
Aggression, in and of itself, need not be a negative force. It all depends on how that aggression is directed and expressed. Ignoring all ethno-centric definitions of "education" or "affluence," history shows that when a society -- any society -- is in a condition where the majority of it members feel secure in their ability to feed/house/clothe themselves and their families, where they feel secure in the sense that they are not about to be targets of violence, and where they do not feel as if they are surrounded by people who wish them ill, the society in general is far less likely to produce large numbers of recruits for violent anti-social organizations such as groups that espouse violence for political change.

Does this mean there would be no crime? Of course not. Does it mean that there would be no terrorist groups? No, it doesn't mean that, either, because there will always be some people who desire violence and some who are angry that society is not exactly the way they want it to be. But it does mean that terrorism is not likely to become the major issues it is right now because it will gain fewer supporters and members. History shows that when people feel that things are going well on a personal level, they tend not to want to rock the boat. The majority of people prefer stability over change, even if that change is presented as "progress."

None of the above, by the way, requires any society to adopt the social norms of any other society.

I enjoy it when people read things into my posts that are not there and fail to read things that are there -- at the same time! :rolleyes:

Curious because that's what you're doing here, I'm making an observation, questioning aspects, not attacking your point - though I do understand that in the context of NSG, everything contrary might seem an attack.

ONE: I never said that the rich were strangers to crime. I merely said that poverty drives crime. If you notice, I never said that the poor commit crimes, either. The poor are disproportionately victims of crime. I also specifically stated that the social effects of poverty harm the rich as well.

TWO: Did I say "by our standards?" Did I suggest any particular standard for defining education? *re-reads original post* Why, no, I didn't.

I guess it needs saying again: I do not defend arguments I never made. Kindly do not prop your pet issues up on me. If you have a response to what I actually said, then please give it and I will respond. But if you put words into my mouth, I will just spit them back at you.

You're honestly putting words into your own mouth, I'm not attacking your points.

Aggression, in and of itself, need not be a negative force. It all depends on how that aggression is directed and expressed. Ignoring all ethno-centric definitions of "education" or "affluence," history shows that when a society -- any society -- is in a condition where the majority of it members feel secure in their ability to feed/house/clothe themselves and their families, where they feel secure in the sense that they are not about to be targets of violence, and where they do not feel as if they are surrounded by people who wish them ill, the society in general is far less likely to produce large numbers of recruits for violent anti-social organizations such as groups that espouse violence for political change.

Agreed, but is this due to the disparity itself or the conditioned social groupings within a society, people can be kept poor through no other reason than their social standing, such as the Dalits.

Does this mean there would be no crime? Of course not. Does it mean that there would be no terrorist groups? No, it doesn't mean that, either, because there will always be some people who desire violence and some who are angry that society is not exactly the way they want it to be. But it does mean that terrorism is not likely to become the major issues it is right now because it will gain fewer supporters and members. History shows that when people feel that things are going well on a personal level, they tend not to want to rock the boat. The majority of people prefer stability over change, even if that change is presented as "progress."

I'm merely suggesting that poverty is not the only cause of crime, possibly not even the greatest in terms of amount stolen compared to the amount of daily acts.

None of the above, by the way, requires any society to adopt the social norms of any other society.

Understood, and understand that I'm not attacking, I'm merely discussing through questioning some aspects.

It's not just Western foreign policy, some of it is internal isolation of ethnic groups as well, though it's not one-sided.
I fully agree. There's a huge amount of issues that motivate the differing groups around the world who use violence to get to their desired ends.

'We' sweep the issue...who's 'we'? I don't mean that as 'hey, don't include me', I mean to just blame government absolves everyone else.
Once again I agree; it's not just the government. The whole mass-paranoia of terrorism in the West is an issue far outside of the corridors of Westminster or Washington.



Indeed, and when people use the word terrorist, do they mean Muslim?
Some seem to.



I bristle at those remarks of Chumbly's that seem to suggest that there might be a justification for terrorism...
I'm suggesting nothing of the sort.

Groups who use violence to achieve their desired ends (and this includes far more than those we'd describe as 'terrorists') have grievances and issues they feel passionate about. Sometimes these are legitimate issues, sometimes not, but I believe there's little to gain from refusing to even discourse with these groups.

The "War on Terror" is nothing but a bunch of fat cats making billions off the murders of civilians. I cannot express how much I hate it and the murderous fucks who thought it up.
Partly, but I also think there's a lot of zealous people caught up in the nonsense, genuinely convinced that they are 'fighting the good fight'.

Go figure. When youre country is a hotbed of secratarian and ethnic violence, various government leaders condone it or look the other way when the "out" group is marginalized, and youre mortal enemy is a country that shares a lot in common with the people you are marginalizing, eventually your shits gonna get blown up.

Time to give a few billions and some F16s to boot to Pakistan. This has worked before and will work again.

Obviously this is because there is "poverty and ignorance" and not at all anything to do with the ideological jihadi zeal to 'fly the green flag on red fort' as it is boldly expressed by "Hafiz" Mohd Saeed of L-e-T. They are just some meaningless slogans by harmless cuddly people. Then we also have to explore the possibility of hindoos themselves doing this as is their wont with inputs from Mossad too..

AL: I am in India now and I was in Mumbai airport at that time. It is fucking crazy here.

Don't worry though. This too will pass. We will have the obligatory and customary statements from Indian govt and world leaders...you know..the "We condemn this ghastly act...terrorists don't have a religion...India should address grievances of muslims.." etc etc.

125 dead is nothing. I think even a nuke going off in Delhi would get the same meaningless statements.

Last count 125 killed (14 cops + 6 foreigners), 327 hurt many of them critically, 8 terrorists killed, 3 captured from Taj.

At least one captured is identified as Kamal from Faridkot in Multan, Pakistan

Picture of one of them
http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00709/eng_mumbai_gunmen2__709639e.jpg

Obviously this poor and ignorant lad had to sell all his belongings to buy arms and a boat and travel from Pakistan to India and attack people in his noble quest to be rich and educated.

Obviously this poor and ignorant lad had to sell all his belongings to buy arms and a boat and travel from Pakistan to India and attack people in his noble quest to be rich and educated.

That's the thing a lot of people forget. Many terrorists, including those that struck on 9/11, were relatively wealthy and well-educated professionals that could have easily succeeded at home or abroad in a legal field. Bin Laden is the son of a millionaire construction mogul and many other top leaders in Al Qaeda

All the poor and disenfranchised masses are nothing more than a tool that allows these professionals to carry out their violent and destructive work. In fact, these terrorists often exploit these people far, far more than their governments or foreign powers, using their anger to further their own goals rather than directing it towards meaningful social improvement. After all, if those people had access to a free and democratic government, good education, jobs, and healthcare and a prosperous future, who would these terrorists exploit to achieve their fanatical, bloody, and virulently hateful visions of a purified society?

125 dead is nothing. I think even a nuke going off in Delhi would get the same meaningless statements.

Here's an honest question. Short of starting a full scale war between Pakistan and India, what do you propose should be done?

This IS war.

This IS war.

This IS war.

If this is NOT a war, then what is this?

Armed gunmen invading a nation and killing its people. I think this is what is called a war. It has been a war for a long time.

This IS war.

This IS war.

This IS war.

If this is NOT a war, then what is this?

Armed gunmen invading a nation and killing its people. I think this is what is called a war. It has been a war for a long time.

This isn't technically a war. It's a raid.

A full scale war would involve a Pakistani armored column moving in through the Kashmir region, backed by airborne troops and whatever artillery they can bring to bear.

Right now, I am guessing the ISI is seeing how far they can push using agents solely to cause chaos.

I would not be opposed to India creating a full scale blockade of their border with Pakistan at this point, with shoot to kill orders on anything crossing the line.

Other than that, short of putting the Indian army on high alert and preparing for an invasion of Pakistan, I don't see any workable solutions.

I don't buy the BS that Pakistan cannot "control" its jihadis..."Pakistan is also a victim" BS. Pakistan likes to keeps its options (jihadis). If Pakistan cannot control its jihadis..then there is no reason for Pakistan to exist.

This intercept during the Kargil war of Lt.Gen Aziz to Musharraf says it all
Sir, we have the jehadis by the scruff of the neck. They will do what we tell them to do

Hafiz Saeed is still roaming free in Muridke on an imported bullet-proof car doesn't he? It is not like these folks are in the "lawless mountains where it is hard to find them". Muridke is a bustling city hardly 100 Kms from Lahore.

Not to be too humorous at such a time but well done the black cats of NSG, we're not just a bunch of layabouts on a message board...

NSG closing in on Jewish centre

Lyla Bavadam
Mumbai: After almost 12 hours of attempting to flush out at least two terrorists, who are hiding and holding hostages in Nariman House, at Colaba, the NSG has sent its troops to storm the building. More than a dozen black cat commandos entered the lane of the building.

Link (http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/28/stories/2008112861901200.htm)

Israel has sent Sayeret(?) to rescue its people at Nariman house (a Jewish centre...has a lot of Jews). The storming is going on now..I think. Commandos were airdropped from a heli..dunno how many dead.

For a nation with no history of Jews...Pakistanis are probably the most virulent anti-Jewish country around...would be comical if not for the deaths..

I don't buy the BS that Pakistan cannot "control" its jihadis..."Pakistan is also a victim" BS. Pakistan likes to keeps its options (jihadis). If Pakistan cannot control its jihadis..then there is no reason for Pakistan to exist.

This intercept during the Kargil war of Lt.Gen Aziz to Musharraf says it all


Hafiz Saeed is still roaming free in Muridke on an imported bullet-proof car doesn't he? It is not like these folks are in the "lawless mountains where it is hard to find them". Muridke is a bustling city hardly 100 Kms from Lahore.

Well, as I asked, what would you propose be done? Uncap the Agni IVs and have done?

This isn't technically a war. It's a raid. ...

yeah..it is a 'skirmish' maybe?...wait I think this is just a 'oppressed people speaking out'..if only the people would listen..I mean every year on December, these poor and ignorant people speak in Mumbai..they spoke in 1993 and only 250 people heard. They spoke 3 years back in subway trains and only 250 people heard.

This time only 125 heard. Clearly they should speak more..

I can already see the spin from Eric Margolis, Deepak Chopra et al on many media attributing this to everything else but what the jihadis themselves say what they are killing for....'hindu terrorists, hindu extremism, kashmir, indian high handedness, indian apathy to muslim plight'..

It is morning now. Our great Prime Minister will shortly address the nation and say with a solemn face how hardly he is denouncing the terrorism..oops I think he will say militantism.

Undoubtedly I will feel safer. My sister and her kids are still stuck in Mumbai. I will tell them that they can feel safer too.

Well, as I asked, what would you propose be done? Uncap the Agni IVs and have done?

For starters, I would also hardly denounce the terrorism. I think it has worked wonderfully so far. I have great faith it will work now also.

I have to go now. Cry for some time. Hope my sis family is safe. bye...

Well, as I asked, what would you propose be done? Uncap the Agni IVs and have done?

I think stopping the supply of arms to Pakistan might help, frankly I think stopping arms to anywhere would be a bit of a bonus for the world.

Sooner or later, the idea of national sovereignty will be torn to shreds, I was reading about Moldova becoming essentially a criminal enterprise now.

The fact is that it's not just about Jihadi fanatics, there's criminal money at the top that absolutely profits from terrorism, just as the IRA did in the 80's, these acts are an aspect of advertising, more and more states are absolute havens for the underworld and its transfer of money. People sitting in fancy houses passing money through middlemen as though they're donating to charity.

The 2002? Mumbai bombings were devised by the lead criminal in Mumbai at the time, who has since pocketed himself in Pakistan.

Money, money, money, and arms sales.

I think that would be a start.

yeah..it is a 'skirmish' maybe?...wait I think this is just a 'oppressed people speaking out'..if only the people would listen..I mean every year on December, these poor and ignorant people speak in Mumbai..they spoke in 1993 and only 250 people heard. They spoke 3 years back in subway trains and only 250 people heard.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not lessening the impact. This is the sort of conflict that India and Pakistan had over the Kashmir region not that long ago, except instead of army units, they're using guerrilla warfare agents. I suspect these are Pakistani intelligence agents in any case.

The question remains over what is to be done about it though. Blockade Pakistan, invade Pakistan, nuke it, what?

I think stopping the supply of arms to Pakistan might help, frankly I think stopping arms to anywhere would be a bit of a bonus for the world.

Sooner or later, the idea of national sovereignty will be torn to shreds, I was reading about Moldova becoming essentially a criminal enterprise now.

The fact is that it's not just about Jihadi fanatics, there's criminal money at the top that absolutely profits from terrorism, just as the IRA did in the 80's, these acts are an aspect of advertising.

The 2002? Mumbai bombings were devised by the lead criminal in Mumbai at the time, who has since pocketed himself in Pakistan.

Money, money, money, and arms sales.

I think that would be a start.

Perhaps, but you'll need an international coalition for that to work. If Pakistan only bordered India, blocking off arms shipments would be a snap. But it doesn't, and American help in blocking off the Afghanistan border seems to be unlikely since they don't have the manpower to do it properly while nobody is sure about the Iranian's want in this case. China, unsure, they're going to find customers for their weapons one way or another.

Perhaps, but you'll need an international coalition for that to work. If Pakistan only bordered India, blocking off arms shipments would be a snap. But it doesn't, and American help in blocking off the Afghanistan border seems to be unlikely since they don't have the manpower to do it properly while nobody is sure about the Iranian's want in this case. China, unsure, they're going to find customers for their weapons one way or another.

There is in terms of money, Kim Jong-Il had his 'bank' in Macau stopped through international coordination to follow the trail of money. Stanley Ho, the lizard king of Macau, with his blatant links to the Triads gets off with nary a slap on the wrist.

Why?

Can't accuse now, cause an international incidence and I do understand Ayavartha's point about the media and public being all sensible - oh we can't impinge on national sovereignty and, hey, everyone's to blame here, those poor little freedom fighters.

It's why I questioned earlier as to whether we underestimate the threat of terrorism, and that's possibly not the right word, it's criminals, criminals of murder, criminals of extortion, criminals of theft, criminals the lot of them.

They're linked, which is why I tire of talk of Al-Qaeda, it's national governments and states and people sitting around in fancy mansions with influence because you can't prosecute without proof, especially when they're not in your country, and even then, with the global media, even where the proof is right there, there's people who'll cry 'victim'.

I'm not saying there's no religious, cultural, poverty reasons, I'm saying it's fueled by outright criminals who have no belief whatsoever other than their own power.

Just for some context...

In late 2002 Hong Kong police apprehended three men based in South Asia for attempting to trade hashish and heroin for anti-aircraft missiles they planned to sell to the Al Qaida terrorist network.

Link (http://www.spa.msu.ru/e-journal/2/26_2.php)

Al Qaeda again, whatever, it's not about religion, that's merely a tool to build an army, distort and cloud the enormous money-making enterprise that is international crime.

FARC - what's that about then, a private army for criminals who buy influence to sustain themselves.

I'm not saying it's a coordinated from the top down thing, it's a vast mutually beneficial network.

It's why I questioned earlier as to whether we underestimate the threat of terrorism, and that's possibly not the right word, it's criminals, criminals of murder, criminals of extortion, criminals of theft, criminals the lot of them.


Underestimate? Probably the public perception. The profiteering elements of the government? Not at all. Terrorism is an easy blanket term used to rubber stamp a lot of things, so of course it's going to be encouraged discretely, not to mention direct profits of weapons sales to such groups.

Merchants of death and preachers of hate have long been bedmates since time immemorial.

I sometimes think India's a pretty good encapsulation of the world at large, and I think terrorism, along with the environment, are the most serious issues the globe has to deal with, as does India.

For me, a lot stems from a global world interacting with traditional community structures, it's the actual clash of civilizations.

What, in your mind, is the most pressing global concern?

I think you might be reading too much into these attacks. Shane Warne was enroute to Mumbai and was to be staying at the Taj Mahal Hotel.
Maybe these terrorists were nothing more than a collection of anti-Shane Warne and/or anti-Twenty20 cricket fans as well as several married men fearful over what a horny Warny with access to a cellphone might do.

I think you might be reading too much into these attacks. Shane Warne was enroute to Mumbai and was to be staying at the Taj Mahal Hotel.
Maybe these terrorists were nothing more than a collection of anti-Shane Warne and/or anti-Twenty20 cricket fans as well as several married men fearful over what a horny Warny with access to a cellphone might do.

There's the joke based on the idea that Koala Bear fingerprints are indistinguishable from a human's, where forensics at a murder scene interjects 'Wait, are we discounting that this could be the work of a Koala?'

Shane Warne's record against India is pretty poor, I doubt they've too much of a grudge :)

the family is safe..for now. hoping they can catch a flight to where I am.

There is fighting on in Nariman point. This targeted attack on Jews..I hope..will point clearly to the perpetrators.

There are confused reports on the Taj hotel. Apparently there are still 3 terrorists..oops 'militants of no religion speaking out for a justified cause' are holed up having some hostages.

I, as usual, strongly denounce this.

Barringtonia,

I believe that the top brass of Pak army and ISI are making a lot of money in this. All the heroin factories on this side of the Durrand Line is owned by Pak generals. They make a lot of money in this. They also make a lot of money from 'aids' from western countries given to them for 'fighting al qaeda'. Most of that money goes to the pockets of these generals.

Predictably, they are loath to let go of their dogs. Occasionally some dogs do bite the hands that feed them..but the dogs are still valuable..to let loose on others..like now.

the family is safe..for now.

That's exactly what the MD of our Mumbai office said '..for now'.

hoping they can catch a flight to where I am.

Best wishes.

There is fighting on in Nariman point. This targeted attack on Jews..I hope..will point clearly to the perpetrators.

There are confused reports on the Taj hotel. Apparently there are still 3 terrorists..oops 'militants of no religion speaking out for a justified cause' are holed up having some hostages.

I, as usual, strongly denounce this.

It's been interesting that the Internet has been way quicker with information than traditional media, contradicting reports that fighting has stopped. Twitter has especially been pointed out.

Barringtonia,

I believe that the top brass of Pak army and ISI are making a lot of money in this. All the heroin factories on this side of the Durrand Line is owned by Pak generals. They make a lot of money in this. They also make a lot of money from 'aids' from western countries given to them for 'fighting al qaeda'. Most of that money goes to the pockets of these generals.

Predictably, they are loath to let go of their dogs. Occasionally some dogs do bite the hands that feed them..but the dogs are still valuable..to let loose on others..like now.

Terrorism changed at some point in the 80's, it crossed boundaries and raised serious money.

People need to realise that the world has changed, as much a benefit that globalization and the Internet has brought, its also come with some serious ills.

Anyway, I hope your family remains safe and returns soon.

You're misunderstanding. I'm not lessening the impact....

I know..sorry..I am venting..never felt so impotent. The few hours I spent in Mumbai airport when this happened..and knowing that airports are likely targets and that some of the fighting were in areas where I last saw the family..it was horrible. I felt terror personally.

News on hostages released from Oberai hotel. about 30 most/all of them westerners.

Well, as I asked, what would you propose be done? Uncap the Agni IVs and have done?

You addressed this to Aryavartha when he's obviously angry, and bitter. When he was (at the time you posted this) fearing for members of his family in Mumbai.

To Aryavartha's credit, he didn't rise to the bait and call for the death of millions, or tens of millions. That's YOUR idea.

How dare you! How dare you! You have the strategic thinking of Idi Amin. You're just a gamer in this world of real lives, aren't you?

I know..sorry..I am venting..never felt so impotent. The few hours I spent in Mumbai airport when this happened..and knowing that airports are likely targets and that some of the fighting were in areas where I last saw the family..it was horrible. I felt terror personally.

News on hostages released from Oberai hotel. about 30 most/all of them westerners.

Well I hope that you and your family will continue to stay safe as this mess unravels.

Well I hope that you and your family will continue to stay safe as this mess unravels.

Much more reasonable now. You've been engaged all along, but the canvassing of "final solutions" quoted above was pretty outrageous. I worded it too strongly, but I don't think you played well there.

Perhaps it's just NSG. Between the personal, the abstract, the partisan, the fatuous ... so many opportunities for misunderstanding. I'm angry too, and I can easily turn that anger on anyone who sees this as anything but an attack on India and on innocent civilians.

There will be posts like that. I'll try to calm down, try to inform myself. I'll come back tomorrow.

I talked to my daughter this morning. This "abominable mess in Mumbai" as she calls it, is having wide-ranging effects - she was on duty this morning (what should have been a day off) because of it, doing phone checks on people for whom she's responsible to make sure they're safe. I imagine it's the same on Air Force bases all over.

In the meantime, I'm hoping that Aryavartha's family comes out of this safely.

This war between "The West" and the (for want of a better word) Islamists was long in coming. Certainly thr Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the opportunistic deal done by the then Reagan administration laid the groundwork. The CIA funded and armed the Taliban who then fought the Russians and then drove them out of Afghanistan. The result? A theocratic Sunni state that imposed Wahabi law on its citizens.
A HUGE step backwards and a perfect example of BLOWBACK that often occurred during the decades of Machiavellian US Cold War foreign policy. Yes the CIA funded Osama bin Laden too. The "enemy of my enemy" strategy meant a rise in militant Islamism.

The Russians got into being all Glasnost and Perestroika because - yes - Reagan did manage to outmanoeuvre the Russkis and the Soviet Union had collapsed. Hooray! Hooray! Now there was a bigger threat. Exit stage left, "the Cold war" enter stage right the Islamists.
Their world view was incompatible with Pax Americana and they demonstrated how incompatible it was when they blew up the World Trade Centre. Yes boys, you really caught our attention - but not in a nice way.

The Taliban was hosting Osama bin Laden - the mastermind of 9/11. George Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to hand him over. The Taliban stalled. This was the beginning of a fateful decision - to send a coalition of national forces into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. Could Bush have waited? Could the rest of the world got the Taliban to hand over bin Laden?
It's a pretty academic question now because - as we know- patience is not George W's strong suit. This was the "War on Terror" starting.....the danger was always going to be that it was a rerun of "The Crusades". The coalition toppled the Taliban. Even though I didn't want an Afghan War, I lost no tears over the Taliban - a thoroughly unpleasant bunch of goat-molesters. The unrealised goal was to capture Osama bin Laden.

Now politicians make bad decisions. Hitler, after losing the Battle of Britain chose to attack Russia. This was his undoing. The turning point. His fatal flaw. George W, not to be outdone, was persuaded by the neo-Cons (emphasis on the word "con") to invade Iraq because they'd heard there was some oil there. So the military genius went ahead and did just that (Without the backing of the UN, China , Russia, France or Germany).
Well....Mission Accomplished? They found Saddam in his "Spider hole", handed him over to the Iraqis whose farce of a government they set up and the Iraqis promptly hanged him.(Thereby managing to make a martyr of another no-goodnik mass-murderer. Great going there boys.)
Now every Moslem kid wants to machine-gun Americans. The Jihad is in full swing and is happening in every country which has Moslems.

Meanwhile, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Why didn't Bush try to finish what he'd started? What a stuff-up!

Well Osama ahs fulfilled his dream - Jihad is in full swing. Maybe he died? We don't know. We only know that US foreign policy has failed and that Islamists are operating around the globe against all sorts of governments and people.

So what would I do if I were world dictator? (Heh! Heh!) I'd pay for every Afghani, Pakistani and Iraqi unemployed person to learn English and to join a citizens' militia. I'd say to them:
"Boys, we're getting out. You have to run your own country now. Here's the guns. Good luck. Then I'd pay their governmnets to keep them preserving the peace for say five years. And I'd take every foreign soldier out of those hell-holes immediately. Yes, every one! Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq can govern themselves. We'll arm them. We'll give them the cash to defend their nations but they must take responsibility.
After all, where not imperialists.

To the people of Mumbai, it's tragic that you were "collateral damage" but maybe India should have resolved a few issues like Kashmir and how it treats its Moslem minortity before this.

This war between "The West" and the (for want of a better word) Islamists was long in coming. Certainly thr Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the opportunistic deal done by the then Reagan administration laid the groundwork. The CIA funded and armed the Taliban who then fought the Russians and then drove them out of Afghanistan. The result? A theocratic Sunni state that imposed Wahabi law on its citizens.
A HUGE step backwards and a perfect example of BLOWBACK that often occurred during the decades of Machiavellian US Cold War foreign policy. Yes the CIA funded Osama bin Laden too. The "enemy of my enemy" strategy meant a rise in militant Islamism.

The Russians got into being all Glasnost and Perestroika because - yes - Reagan did manage to outmanoeuvre the Russkis and the Soviet Union had collapsed. Hooray! Hooray! Now there was a bigger threat. Exit stage left, "the Cold war" enter stage right the Islamists.
Their world view was incompatible with Pax Americana and they demonstrated how incompatible it was when they blew up the World Trade Centre. Yes boys, you really caught our attention - but not in a nice way.

The Taliban was hosting Osama bin Laden - the mastermind of 9/11. George Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to hand him over. The Taliban stalled. This was the beginning of a fateful decision - to send a coalition of national forces into Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. Could Bush have waited? Could the rest of the world got the Taliban to hand over bin Laden?
It's a pretty academic question now because - as we know- patience is not George W's strong suit. This was the "War on Terror" starting.....the danger was always going to be that it was a rerun of "The Crusades". The coalition toppled the Taliban. Even though I didn't want an Afghan War, I lost no tears over the Taliban - a thoroughly unpleasant bunch of goat-molesters. The unrealised goal was to capture Osama bin Laden.

Now politicians make bad decisions. Hitler, after losing the Battle of Britain chose to attack Russia. This was his undoing. The turning point. His fatal flaw. George W, not to be outdone, was persuaded by the neo-Cons (emphasis on the word "con") to invade Iraq because they'd heard there was some oil there. So the military genius went ahead and did just that (Without the backing of the UN, China , Russia, France or Germany).
Well....Mission Accomplished? They found Saddam in his "Spider hole", handed him over to the Iraqis whose farce of a government they set up and the Iraqis promptly hanged him.(Thereby managing to make a martyr of another no-goodnik mass-murderer. Great going there boys.)
Now every Moslem kid wants to machine-gun Americans. The Jihad is in full swing and is happening in every country which has Moslems.

Meanwhile, what happened to Osama bin Laden? Why didn't Bush try to finish what he'd started? What a stuff-up!

Well Osama ahs fulfilled his dream - Jihad is in full swing. Maybe he died? We don't know. We only know that US foreign policy has failed and that Islamists are operating around the globe against all sorts of governments and people.

So what would I do if I were world dictator? (Heh! Heh!) I'd pay for every Afghani, Pakistani and Iraqi unemployed person to learn English and to join a citizens' militia. I'd say to them:
"Boys, we're getting out. You have to run your own country now. Here's the guns. Good luck. Then I'd pay their governmnets to keep them preserving the peace for say five years. And I'd take every foreign soldier out of those hell-holes immediately. Yes, every one! Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq can govern themselves. We'll arm them. We'll give them the cash to defend their nations but they must take responsibility.
After all, where not imperialists.

To the people of Mumbai, it's tragic that you were "collateral damage" but maybe India should have resolved a few issues like Kashmir and how it treats its Moslem minortity before this.

I almost concur. I cannot concur with the Mumbai comment (last paragraph). Nor do I like paying to arm Iraq, especially while their economy is at a surplus. Let's give them the guns already in Iraq and a few tanks for good measure and that should be enough. Pakistan does need NATO funding, but we also need a pro-NATO government in Pakistan. Before anyone is shocked by me saying this, I would like to refresh your memories about how I said that NATO should be a defensive alliance, not an offensive alliance. Instead of silly "shields" and swords, NATO should put all its efforts to rig the election in Pakistan, or to get the nukes out of Pakistan. I have nothing against Muslims, indeed I am one of the few posters not terrified by Iran. By I don't like the fact that everyday Al Qaeda inches closer to nukes. And quite frankly I think NATO should beg Russia, and should negotiate with Iran on stopping Al Qaeda.

The current Pakistani Gov't. is doing jack shit to fight it and they may have a valid reason. If Pakistan goes against Al Qaeda, then the government of Pakistan may well collapse. Al Qaeda has already established a base in the lawless regions of Pakistan, are making more and more regions "lawless". Everyone underestimated Al Qaeda, everyone! The Russians, who are themselves often underestimated, should've known better. Anyways, here's an article on the bombings:

http://exiledonline.com/mumbai-exporting-pakistans-resources/

Thanks for the almost concurring Shofer. Actually, the idea just to get the hell out but arm the friendlies is a dangerous strategy (It failed for the South Vietnamese army but at least the US got out of an unwinnable war). It's a "left-field" idea but it would save the West billions and put the responsibility back on these countries for their own defence.

Here are some important analyses of Mumbai:
Yossi Melman / Is al-Qaida behind the Mumbai terror attacks?

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent



According to prior intelligence, the little known terror organization Deccan Mujahideen (The army of Deccan) is behind the orchestrated string of terror attacks in the financial hub of Mumbai Wednesday evening, which left at least 125 people dead and hundreds wounded.



However, India's security officials believe that the Deccan Mujahideen is actually a front for the veteran extremist Muslim organization Lashkar a-Tayeb (Army of believers). Lashkar a-Tayeb was founded in 1989 by the Pakistani security service and was outlawed in 2003 by then Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf outlawed the group, in response to pressure from the U.S. and India.



According to Indian officials, the connection between the two organizations surfaced during questioning of terrorists that have been caught following Wednesday's attacks, but no official blame has been cast, and India does not intend to involve Pakistan.



Experts believe the main goal of Wednesday's terror attacks was to destabilize India's regime, harm the country's economy and its ethnic fabric while inciting the country's large Muslim population.



The armed group, which appears on many countries' terror lists, operates in hopes of liberating Kashmir, but has also carried out attacks inside India in the past, including an attack on an Indian military base in May 2002, in which 36 soldiers lost their lives.



The group's ideological platform revolves around anti-Western ideas and relies on attacking points of interest and tourist attractions in India as a means of achieving its political goals.



It is clear to all the experts who have examined the chain of events that began Wednesday evening that the group in question is well organized, and that the attacks were meticulously planned well in advance. The fact that the terrorists targeted ten different locations simultaneously indicates the group's high organizational skills and its attention to detail.



Experts believe that some 50 to 60 militants were involved in carrying out the attacks. Nine of them have been arrested and have undergone questioning so far. Between 15 and 20 terrorists were killed during the attacks. The remainder of the group members are still holding hostages at different locations across the city. According to reports, four terrorists are holding at least eight hostages at the Chabad center in Mumbai.



An initial investigation by Indian authorities revealed that the terrorists traveled to Mumbai by boat. Police officers have located the boat, and in it they uncovered large quantities of weapons and grenades.



An analysis of the group's previous operations reveals ties to the global al-Qaida terror group and the followers of Osama bin-Laden in Afghanistan. Abu Zubeida, one of the top al-Qaida militants currently in U.S. custody, was arrested in March 2002 in a joint Pakistani intelligence ? CIA operation, at a Decca Mujahideen safehouse.



Oudai Pashkar, a former senior Indian army officer, said that several months ago, another little known group calling itself Mujahideen India carried out an attack. In his opinion, an operation like the one in Mumbai and previous one accredited to Decca are beyond the capabilities of local organizations, and therefore are likely the work of a worldwide network such as the global Jihad or al-Qaida



As in similar incidents in Pakistan, Iraq and Spain, in this incident, the terrorists targeted Western symbols and tourist attractions, in efforts to harm the economy while killing as many people as possible, especially Westerners - Americans, British and even Jews are seen as a target.



http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bcommentb/2008/11/27/1227491736645.html

Not just India's problem any more
November 28, 2008

Much is at stake in a growing nation whose struggle with terrorism had gone unheeded, writes Sandy Gordon.

THE US State Department has consistently listed India as the country with the second-highest number of terrorism casualties after Iraq. However Western media has given scant regard to the problem and this is sometimes resented in India.

All that is likely to change with yesterday's attacks in Mumbai. Mumbai has been at the epicentre of India's terrorist problem but there have been many attacks in other key cities.

Terrorism in India is perpetrated by a number of groups, including Maoists in eastern India and separatists in the north-east and Kashmir. But one of the most persistent and costly problems has been so-called "violent jihadi" terrorism in India's major commercial and administrative centres.

Indian authorities and commentators point to Pakistan, and especially the secretive Inter-Services Intelligence, as having a hand in the Indian attacks. After an attack on the parliament in December 2001, India mobilised against Pakistan and the two very nearly slipped into war - a frightening prospect for nuclear-armed powers.

It is clear that arms and training have been provided by Pakistani groups, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba; that the ISI has been heavily engaged in helping insurgents and terrorists in Indian Kashmir; and that Pakistan has refused to extradite accused terrorists to India.

But there is no "smoking gun" indicating direct involvement of Pakistani authorities in terrorist attacks outside Kashmir. On the contrary, most of those involved appear to be "home-grown" terrorists intent on revenge against the activities of Hindu zealots, incensed by the poor socio-economic status of India's Muslims or inspired by the so-called "global jihad".

Frequently members of the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, have been involved. Recently SIMI seems to have morphed into the Indian Mujahideen, or at least acted with its members. The group claiming responsibility for yesterday's attacks, Deccan Mujahideen, may be another example of such morphing.

The stakes in this "game" of terrorism in India are extremely high. Exponents of violent jihad and political Islam would like to see an end to the India-Pakistan rapprochement over Kashmir, which has resulted in a diminution of Pakistani support for the Kashmiri separatists.

If they could mount an attack of sufficient seriousness, the rapprochement could quickly unravel, especially in the highly charged climate of impending state and national elections.

Moreover, increased India-Pakistan tension would be highly damaging to the broader "war on terrorism". It would draw Pakistan's security efforts away from the western frontier and give virtual free rein to the militants in the tribal belt to operate in Afghanistan.

The attacks also target commercial and IT hubs, such as Mumbai, Bangalore and Hyderabad, apparently with the purpose of undermining India's economic renaissance. They also target communal hotbeds, such as Malegaon, and important religious centres, such as Varanasi. The apparent purpose is to fan communal unrest (Hindu-Muslim rioting) and thus drive Muslims to support militancy.

It is this strategic targeting, among other things, that has prompted accusations by Indian commentators of official Pakistani involvement. But, given that many of those terrorist leaders are well educated, especially in technology and science, it is possible that they, themselves, are capable of picking strategic targets.

Moreover, there is also an evident motive of revenge apparent in some of the targeting. Several attacks in Mumbai, including the rail bombings of 2006, have apparently targeted lines, business places and suburbs frequented by the Gujarati Hindu business community, evidently in revenge for the terrible rioting against Muslims that occurred in Gujarat in 2002 In those riots, the authorities - under a Hindu-leaning government - turned a blind eye to the horrors and failed subsequently to prosecute their alleged perpetrators.

A successful counter-terrorism campaign requires that two things be done well: investigation and intelligence to catch those involved and pre-empt attacks, and alleviation of the conditions that give rise to terrorism. India's record in the first of these has been patchy. Investigatory and forensic skills have not, on the whole, been well honed. Where the authorities have done very well is to keep the lid on the difficult communal situation after terrorist attacks. With the exception of Gujarat, there has not been widespread communal unrest after what are frightful terrorist attacks.

Long-term alleviation of the situation of Muslims is more problematic. Here the Congress-led coalition is caught between the rock of needing to act affirmatively to assist the community and the hard place of reaction to such action fanned up by the so-called "Hindu right", led by the Bharatiya Janata Party. Should a BJP-led coalition win next May's national election, the outlook for Muslim regeneration would probably be bleak. The BJP is making considerable political play of the Congress Government being "soft" on terrorism. Consequently the Government is contemplating toughening the counter-terrorism laws.

Moreover, there has recently emerged a violent Hindu reaction to the growing problem of jihadi-inspired terrorism.

What India is experiencing is well short of the kind of violence and counter-violence in Lebanon and Iraq. Given that 140million of India's 1.1 billion are Muslim, that would be a development not to be contemplated. After each such attack, India seems able to pick itself up and resume where things left off.

Sandy Gordon is a visiting fellow at the Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy at the Australian National University. He is the author of India's Rise To Power In The Tw

..
To the people of Mumbai, it's tragic that you were "collateral damage" but maybe India should have resolved a few issues like Kashmir and how it treats its Moslem minortity before this.

Wonderful.Yes, I fully agree. I think India should just hand over Kashmir on a platter to Pakistan.

But wait...groups like LeT and JeM etc want Hyderabad, Junagadh and also my neighbors house. You see, my neighbor is a muslim and as it is clear that all muslims are Pakistanis, Pakistan should just exercise their sovereignty over every muslim household in India. Heck, if a muslim stands on a bustop, then that place where he stands is Pakistan and Indian govt better stay out of that area. Otherwise there will be a justified cause for the oppressed people to speak out.

I think for the first time ever the govt has said that there is no hostage situation because it will not negotiate.

The supplies are running out on the holed up terrorists (dang it..sorry..disgruntled poor and ignorant youths fighting for a just cause) and hopefully soon this will end.

To those concerned, my sis and family or on the plane home and they should be here soon.

Aryavartha, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Or maybe you do understand and are still shocked and angry at this terrible outrage.There is an enormous amount of bad blood since the Partition. Too bad not enough people listened to Mahatma Gandhi - maybe there would have been less blood shed over the decades? Why is the cry of nationalism always the loudest?

Many Moslems and Indians want peace on the subcontinent.

There are reports of second wave of shootings at CST (the railway terminal) and in other places too. Dunno if it is rumors or for real.

Meanwhile

Commandos just found all those diners at Oberai shot dead. Some of them kids too. Death count will increase drastically.

and

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Turkish_couple_let_off_by_terrorists_for_being_Muslims/articleshow/3766609.cms
Turkish couple let off by terrorists for being Muslims

This conclusively proves that terrorists have no religion.

Many Moslems and Indians want peace on the subcontinent.

And they're the one's doing the dying. The one's who don't want peace are the one's doing the killing. So far, the one's doing the killing more often are the one's coming in from Pakistan with tentative links to the ISI.

Aryavartha, you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Or maybe you do understand and are still shocked and angry at this terrible outrage.There is an enormous amount of bad blood since the Partition. Too bad not enough people listened to Mahatma Gandhi - maybe there would have been less blood shed over the decades? Why is the cry of nationalism always the loudest?

Many Moslems and Indians want peace on the subcontinent.

I am fully understanding what you are saying.

You are saying, give land for peace.

I am saying, I agree. I have seen how effective that has worked in the past.

We gave them Pakistan, Bangladesh. Then we will give them Kashmir, Junagadh, Lower Assam, Western UP and finally my neighbors house.

Yes but... there are plenty of fanatical Hindus too - and while they preach their hatred the Islamists can point to them and say to other Moslems -"Do you see? Do you see what they intend to do to us?"

I hope that your family and friends remain safe and that India can find peace - internally and with its neighbours.
But I think that the Ultra-nationalists from all sides could very easily stir up further harm.

The reported second wave is a rumor..spread mainly by an idiot with a microphone on a TV.

Heavy firing now in Taj and Nariman.

I have stayed at the Taj before. It is truly one of the best places in the world. I hope it is not damaged beyond repair.

Yes but... there are plenty of fanatical Hindus too - and while they preach their hatred the Islamists can point to them and say to other Moslems -"Do you see? Do you see what they intend to do to us?"
...

Ah yes the fanatical hindus who have invaded Arabia and other muslim places for centuries establishing a reign of terror over them..the hindus who keep sending armed fanatical hindus into Pakistan to kill muslims and claim Pakistan in a quest for revisionist glory..

Are you denying there are fanatical Hindus?
Please don't play the bitter innocent Aryavartha. A fanatical Hindu killed Gandhi.

This doesn't make india or Indians bad - it is just a fact that every country has ultra-nationalists and they are the enemies of peace.

Are you denying there are fanatical Hindus?I don't think he is.
What makes you think that?

Are you denying there are fanatical Hindus?
Please don't play the bitter innocent Aryavartha. A fanatical Hindu killed Gandhi.

This doesn't make india or Indians bad - it is just a fact that every country has ultra-nationalists and they are the enemies of peace.

I don't. 4000+ people are dead in India from terrorist attacks since 2004, making India only next to Iraq in terrorism related deaths.

I believe we have to focus on hindu extremists to fix that problem. It is quite obvious that hindu extremism is what is causing all these issues.

Heck hindus should just give up their pretense of a religion and excuse of a country and convert to Islam wholesale. Then whatever they do, it is justified..for some just grievance, I am sure.

Gauntleted, this is meant to be sarcasm:
"Ah yes the fanatical hindus who have invaded Arabia and other muslim places for centuries establishing a reign of terror over them..the hindus who keep sending armed fanatical hindus into Pakistan to kill muslims and claim Pakistan in a quest for revisionist glory.."
What Aryartha is saying here is that "We don't kill Moslems - they kill us!" I think this is denial.
We all have to take our blinkers off. Otherwise we blunder into the trap that Islamists (and other enemies to peace) set for us.
Once we get into the dangerous habit of thinking "Us and them" we can be manipulated by our ultra-Nationalists.
I'm not ever going to let that happen again.
So keep cool guys....... The Crusades lasted for centuries - do you really want them all over again?
There's a neo-con waiting near you to take your call.

Here's but one example from Reuters:

Mob kills woman, destroys churches in east India
Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:56pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (-) [-] Text [+] (Recasts with new violence)

By Jatindra Dash

BHUBANESWAR, India, Aug 25 (Reuters) - A mob burned down a Christian orphanage in eastern India on Monday, killing one woman, police said, in rising religious violence sparked by the killing of a Hindu leader.

The mob beat up a priest, drove children away and set the orphanage on fire in Orissa state, trapping the 22-year-old woman. "The woman was found burned to death inside one of the rooms," Thakur Prasad Patra, a senior police officer said.

Hindus protesting their leader's death also destroyed several churches, blocked traffic with burning tyres and clashed with police.

Last week armed men raided a Hindu school in the rural Kandhamal district and killed five people, including a religious leader linked to India's main opposition Hindu-nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The Hindu leader had been leading a local campaign to reconvert Hindus and tribal people from Christianity.

Police blamed the killings on local Maoist rebels taking sides in a controversy over religious conversions, but Hindus say Christians were to blame for the killings.

The remote and forested Kandhamal region is rife with religious tension between hardline Hindus who accuse Christian priests of bribing poor tribes and low-caste Hindus to change their faith. Christians in eastern India condemned the killing of the Hindu leader.

Christian groups say lower-caste Hindus who convert do so willingly to escape the highly stratified and oppressive Hindu caste system.

Tensions came to a head late last year when one person was killed in fighting and churches and temples were damaged.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/000200811280343.htm
Mumbai (PTI): Three terrorists, including a Pakistani national, were arrested by the security forces from the Taj hotel here on Thursday night.

Ajmal Amir Kamal, a resident of Faridkot, Multan in Pakistan and two others were arrested from the hotel, official sources said.

The arrested militants belong to Lashkar-e-Taiba, they said.

Kamal told the investigators that they had come in a merchant vessel, which dropped them at 10 nautical miles ahead of Indian waters. From there, they took a dingy fibre glass boat to enter the Indian waters, he said.

There were 12 people on the boat, he said.

How dare them fanatical hindus..

How dare them fanatical Hindus ideed! This is from the Guardian:
Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing ChristiansAs a fresh wave of sectarian violence is unleashed across the Indian state of Orissa, Gethin Chamberlain talks to homeless survivors in Kandhamal district who were forced to abandon their religionGethin Chamberlain guardian.co.uk, Sunday October 19 2008 00.01 BST The Observer, Sunday October 19 2008 Article history
Kumari Naik with her son Santosh amid the ashes of their home. Photograph: Gethin Chamberlain

Hundreds of Christians in the Indian state of Orissa have been forced to renounce their religion and become Hindus after lynch mobs issued them with a stark ultimatum: convert or die.

The wave of forced conversions marks a dramatic escalation in a two-month orgy of sectarian violence which has left at least 59 people dead, 50,000 homeless and thousands of houses and churches burnt to the ground. As neighbour has turned on neighbour, thousands more Christians have sought sanctuary in refugee camps, unable to return to the wreckage of their homes unless they, too, agree to abandon their faith.

Last week, in the worst-affected Kandhamal district, The Observer encountered compelling evidence of the scale of the violence employed in a conversion programme apparently sanctioned by members of one of the most powerful Hindu groups in India, the 6.8-million member Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) - the World Hindu Council.

Standing in the ashes of her neighbour's house in the village of Sarangagada, Jaspina Naik, 32, spoke nervously, glancing towards a group of Hindu men watching her suspiciously. 'My neighbours said, "If you go on being Christians, we will burn your houses and your children in front of you, so make up your minds quickly",' she said. 'I was scared. Christians have no place in this area now.'

On her forehead, she wore a gash of vermilion denoting a married Hindu woman, placed there by the priest at the conversion ceremony she had been obliged to attend a day earlier, along with her husband and three young children. 'I'm totally broken,' she said. 'I have always been a Christian. Inside I am still praying for Jesus to give me peace and to take me out of this situation.'

She and her neighbour, Kumari Naik, 35, gazed forlornly at the charred remains of the house. The mob that arrived one evening in the first week of the violence, armed with swords and axes, had looted what they wanted before dousing the building with petrol and setting it alight. Kumari had fled into the nearby forest with her husband, Umesh, and 14-year-old son Santosh. A smoke-damaged child's drawing of Mickey Mouse pinned to one wall was all that remained of their former lives. Shattered roof tiles crunched underfoot as the women moved through the blackened rooms.

The priest had given them cow dung to eat during the ceremony, they said, telling them it would purify them. 'We were doing that, but we were crying,' Jaspina said.

The roads between the villages are rough and potholed, adding to the difficulties in accessing what is already a remote region, a six-hour drive from the state capital, Bhubaneshwar. The remoteness has undoubtedly played a part in the continuation of the violence, making it harder for police to move about quickly, even if they were minded to do so. Christian leaders, though, have accused the authorities of dragging their feet, claiming they are reluctant to antagonise the majority Hindu community in the run-up to parliamentary elections next year.

Sumani Naik, 18, stands beneath a torn Christian poster in her fire-damaged house in Kandhamal district after being forced to convert. Photograph: Gethin Chamberlain Relations between the Hindu and Christian communities were already at a low ebb when the killing of VHP leader Swami Laxmanananda Saraswati on 23 August provided the trigger for the current wave of violence. The VHP blamed Christians and the mobs descended on the homes of neighbours and friends. Those who were too slow to get away were killed. Amid the savagery, two incidents stood out: a young Hindu woman working in a Christian orphanage was burnt alive and a nun was gang-raped.

Yet the VHP is unrepentant and appears to be involved, at least at grassroots level, with the campaign of forced conversions. One priest who converted 18 Christians in the village of Sankarakhole last week told The Observer that he had been approached by local VHP representatives to carry out the ceremony.

'The VHP people came with letters that said they wanted to be converted, so I converted them,' said Preti Singh Patra, who is the brother of a senior VHP official. Crouching on the ground in front of his temple, set in a small walled garden beneath a huge banyan tree, he ran through the details of the ceremony: first some fruit to eat, followed by a mixture of cow dung and urine mixed with milk and curd, a dip in water from the Ganges, an hour of prayers and then the painting of a bindi on the forehead.

Some local men stepped forward to speak to him. 'Don't say too much,' they warned. The priest seemed unconcerned. The 18 had been the only Christians in the village, he said. They were happy to convert.

Around the village, the countryside is a sea of green, a beautiful lush vista that offers, at a distance, no clues to the turmoil. Yet up close it is a landscape scarred by the ugly remains of homes and churches which lie shattered between other houses still inhabited and unscathed, those belonging to Kandhamal's Hindus.

A few miles down the road from Sankarakhole, in the village of Minia, Sujata Digal, 38, stood outside her own burnt-out home. The mob had arrived at 3am, she said. She and her husband Hari hid in the forest and watched the house burn. When they came out of the forest, the mob returned and told them to convert, and it was not a hard decision.

'They said, 'If you don't become Hindu, we'll burn your houses too and start killing you',' said Ashish Digal, the former Christian pastor. 'I've been forced to convert. Everyone is being converted. They beat us in the fields. I went to the temple. We had to say that we belonged to the Hindu state of Orissa, and that from this day we are Hindus.'

Here's but one example from Reuters:

Mob kills woman, destroys churches in east India
Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:56pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page | Recommend (-) [-] Text [+] (Recasts with new violence)

By Jatindra Dash


The Hindu leader had been leading a local campaign to reconvert Hindus and tribal people from Christianity.



Christian groups say lower-caste Hindus who convert do so willingly to escape the highly stratified and oppressive Hindu caste system.



I think hindus should convert to christianity instead. Then they will be saved. Then they can fight jihadis. Then whatever they do, it is because they (as christians) are being persecuted.

Collectivity,

Be honest. Are you affiliated with any churches involved in 'christian work'?

Don't worry. I won't persecute you.

Aryarvartha, I'm not denying that Lashkar-e-Taiba is fomenting terrorism in India! Whoever committed these terrorist outrages has done an evil thing.

But the ultimate evil is blind sectarian hate - from any country and NOBODY should pretend that his country is entirely blameless.

update: Oberai and Trident sanitised. Last two 'angry youths fighting fanatical hindus' killed.

Taj and Nariman - fighting is still on.

Aryarvartha, I'm not denying that Lashkar-e-Taiba is fomenting terrorism in India! Whoever committed these terrorist outrages has done an evil thing.

But the ultimate evil is blind sectarian hate - from any country and NOBODY should pretend that his country is entirely blameless.

I don't. I completely agree with you. Fanatical hindus have been the scourge of the world for centuries, spreading mayhem wherever they go.

Hindus better get rid of their evil casteist religion, which is clearly causing disgruntled youths rising up against them, and convert. Either to Islam and join Pakistan as a colony or to Christianity and join the highest bidder.

Collectivity,

Be honest. Are you affiliated with any churches involved in 'christian work'?

Don't worry. I won't persecute you.

Dear Aryvartha, no I'm not religious. My mother was a Christian who converted to Judaism and I have been influenced by Jewish culture. I was also a choir boy in a Christian Church.
I am anarchist who tries to respect all world cultures but who distrusts religion and ultra-nationalism as two sources of much of the world's unhappiness.

I thought of your beautiful elephant-headed god, Ganesha when I heard of these terrorist atrocities.
He is the God of innocence - no?
My prayer to Ganesh is that India and Pakistan draw closer and work together to protect their citizens.

Your suffering is the world's suffering! Your peace is our peace.

Oberai is cleaned up. Toll bumped up to 150+ due to bodies inside.

Fighting still on in Taj and Nariman house.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3533075/Mumbai-attack-British-men-among-the-terrorists-Bombay-India.html
^ is reporting that UK citizens of Pakistani descent are involved. It is so heartwarming to see how much the lack of education and economic opportunities are there in the UK..forcing them to speak out against the oppression...in a land that is 1000s of miles away.

Indian PM has invited the ISI chief..ostensibly to 'share evidence of involvement of ISI' in this. Pak PM Gillani has agreed to this.

I am sorry but...I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

During the 93 Mumbai blasts, India gave the US evidence of Pak involvement, the detonators used were traced back the stuff US gave Pak back in the original Afghan jihad. Fat lot of good that did. After a while the CIA said they lost the evidence and that was the end of it.

Dear Aryvartha, no I'm not religious. My mother was a Christian who converted to Judaism and I have been influenced by Jewish culture. I was also a choir boy in a Christian Church.
I am anarchist who tries to respect all world cultures but who distrusts religion and ultra-nationalism as two sources of much of the world's unhappiness.

I thought of your beautiful elephant-headed god, Ganesha when I heard of these terrorist atrocities.
He is the God of innocence - no?
My prayer to Ganesh is that India and Pakistan draw closer and work together to protect their citizens.

Your suffering is the world's suffering! Your peace is our peace.

It's not as though Britain thought 'Here's a jolly, bang-up wheeze, let's separate the Muslims and Hindus and see what happens eh, old chap'. Pakistan was asked for, and received, by the All India Muslim League.

It's somewhat similar I suppose to Northern Ireland, where enough Protestants live to mean that there's also partition. Yet the Protestants invaded Ireland, they're there because it's the current solution.

Similarly Pakistan exists because the Muslims, having invaded, wanted their own space. So one can understand why Hindus rather bristle at the idea that it's all their fault, if only they'd be nice to the poor Muslims, one can also understand why giving up more land is a bit of an ask.

Tell you what, we'll come back and take over, I don't know, Queensland, we'll then terrorize your other states and see how much you mind.

Popcorn history as shown by your initial post.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blnus/10281481.htm
Terrorists let go 17 Russian hostages after checking passport

MOSCOW: Terrorists holed up inside Mumbai's Taj and Trident-Oberoi hotels allowed 17 Russian hostages, including nine defence contractors, to leave after checking their passports, following which they were safely evacuated.

Earlier on Thursday, spokesman of Russian arms exporting company 'Rosoboron export' had confirmed that nine of its specialists working on various defence projects in India were safely evacuated from the Taj hotel.

According to the 'Kommersant' daily, eight crew members of Russian Aeroflot airlines dining in the restaurant of Trident-Oberoi were also “politely asked'' to follow the hotel staff, who guided them to safety outside the hotel.

It is becoming clear that this was targeted against US, UK, Israel and Indian elites primarily. The railway terminal and hospitals were for general mayhem. Current evidence points to 15 to 20 terrorists.

A fully armed gunman can easily kill a hundred just spraying bullets on a busy Mumbai street. The streets are that packed. The picking of targets is new...not like the last few attacks which were for maximal death of Indians in crowded places of commute/religious worship etc.

There are also reports of how well trained the gunmen were and their tactics used. In the initial attacks, one of them was firing, while the other was concealed and the active one withdrew slowly drawing in the security forces and the concealed one then fired on the leaders of the security forces and killed them with head/neck shots. The three big names of Mumbai police including the Anti-terrorism squad chief Karkare were killed like this.

These are no wild-eyed yahoos who sprays and prays. These are military tactics from my understanding of such matters (willing to get corrected here). The calm and collected posture of the gunmen (from security camera shots) also indicate that these are probably not the run-of-the-mill madrassa recruits.

There are also reports of how well trained the gunmen were and their tactics used. In the initial attacks, one of them was firing, while the other was concealed and the active one withdrew slowly drawing in the security forces and the concealed one then fired on the leaders of the security forces and killed them with head/neck shots. The three big names of Mumbai police including the Anti-terrorism squad chief Karkare were killed like this.

These are no wild-eyed yahoos who sprays and prays. These are military tactics from my understanding of such matters (willing to get corrected here). The calm and collected posture of the gunmen (from security camera shots) also indicate that these are probably not the run-of-the-mill madrassa recruits.

Leapfrog tactics are SWAT equivalent and military tactics taught to infantry squads. This one is similar enough to such a tactic. You don't pick it up, including the unit cohesion, by random chance. If true, it's clear that these people have at the very least gone through infantry school.

Poverty, corruption, enviromental damage, cappitalism as it is now!
Corruption causes poverty by letting the rich opress the poor. So we need to solve both. Powerty is vital and needs education and fair trade to be eliminated nothing will improve until there is fairtrade and socialism globally!

Poverty, corruption, enviromental damage, cappitalism as it is now!
Corruption causes poverty by letting the rich opress the poor. So we need to solve both. Powerty is vital and needs education and fair trade to be eliminated nothing will improve until there is fairtrade and socialism globally!

And lets not forget the massivce corruption inherent in the Indian goverment.

Nariman house cleared. 4 terrorists killed. No news on hostages including the rabbi and his wife.

AL: update. 5 hostages dead.

May this end with no more loss of innocent life.
May those responsible be found.
May justice be delivered swiftly to them.

India does not deserve this.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089711/Mumbai-gunmen-BRITISH-Indian-authorities-say-arrested-militants-UK.html
British-born Pakistanis were among the Mumbai terrorists, Indian government sources claimed today, as the death toll rose to more than 140.

Two Britons were among eight gunmen captured by commandos after they stormed two hotels and a Jewish centre to free hostages, the city's chief minister said.

..

firebrand British-based Muslim preacher Anjem Choudhary backed the terrorists and said any Britons killed or held hostage were legitimate targets because they should not have gone to India.

Choudhary, right-hand man to preacher of hate Omar Bakri, said Britain and America is at war with the Muslim world and their citizens must keep off the battlefield.

'Muslims are being killed in Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan every day through acts of atrocity against them. But the media only report events like Mumbai.'

This is not the first time a British citizen is involved in jihad against India. Back in 2000 christmas eve (IIRC), a British citizen blew himself up at a army checkpost in Kashmir.

Leapfrog tactics are SWAT equivalent and military tactics taught to infantry squads. This one is similar enough to such a tactic. You don't pick it up, including the unit cohesion, by random chance. If true, it's clear that these people have at the very least gone through infantry school.

they might have downloaded a book like this.
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~18699.aspx

not as fast as having an experienced instructor. but practice it with paint balls and you can normally figure out what the book means.

they might have downloaded a book like this.
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail~bookid~18699.aspx

not as fast as having an experienced instructor. but practice it with paint balls and you can normally figure out what the book means.

Regardless, they seem to have at least an idea of what they're doing.

edit:

From this article (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/28/india.attacks/index.html)

The gunmen were young men in their 20s who "obviously had to be trained somewhere," a member of the Indian navy's commando unit said Friday.

They fired at guests "with no remorse" and knew the layout of the hotels well enough to "vanish" after confronting security forces, the commando said.

"Not everybody can fire the AK series of weapons, not everybody can throw a grenade like that," the commando said outside the Taj hotel. "It is obvious that they were trained somewhere."

You don't really need any specialized training to use an AK or throw grenades, but given that that Indian navy commando probably knows his business I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

You don't really need any specialized training to use an AK or throw grenades, but given that that Indian navy commando probably knows his business I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I imagine that any yokel would know how to aim down an iron sight, pull a trigger, and with 30 seconds of instruction, figure out how to reload. But accurately firing an AK on the other hand, as well as learning proper suppression fire techniques from behind cover, not to mention really learning how to accurately throw a grenade (same as a baseball somewhat), takes more than common sense and five minutes of training I would think.

^http://www.witness.co.za/portal/witness_db1/UserFiles/SysDocs/bb_content/16671/p6-gunman.jpg

edit : Taj hotel has been cleared. This is the end of all operations.

The guy above is captured as well. He is Azam Amir Qazab, 21 years from Abu Dera Ismail Khan in Farid Khot, Pakistan.

Says "I want to live".
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/4234/piggi7.jpg (http://img237.imageshack.us/my.php?image=piggi7.jpg) http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/piggi7.jpg/1/w413.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img237/piggi7.jpg/1/)

Everything is over now. Back to normal transmission. Life will go on as usual, I suppose. Toll will cross 200 with fresh bodies being brought out of the Taj.

Thanks Aryavartha - you did your best...updating us etc. It must be gut-wrenching being away from your country when these terrible things are happening.
In military jargon: The perimeter is now secured!

Hopefully we can all move on.

Hopefully we can all move on.

Move on? Are you serious? The one's who financed and organized this are still out and about and aren't rotting in a jail cell or swinging from a gibbet. Until they are brought in for justice, moving on is impossible because you'll just have a repeat of the Mumbai crisis.

Nah! You'll have a repeat of the Mumbai crisis anyway.

Maybe Obama will find a way to end it. Bush was the fireman with the high pressure hose full of gasoline

Nah! You'll have a repeat of the Mumbai crisis anyway.
Indubitably
Maybe Obama will find a way to end it.
I seriously doubt it.

Nah! You'll have a repeat of the Mumbai crisis anyway.


So you're saying get over it, do nothing, roll over and die?


Maybe Obama will find a way to end it. Bush was the fireman with the high pressure hose full of gasoline

Obama's got his own problems to deal with. He's not Superman.

So you're saying get over it, do nothing, roll over and die?

I believe the correct process when one's financial city is attacked is to not go after the country that supplied the terrorists but another country in that region, which is a bit easier but still has lots of energy supplies.

I think Kazakhstan is a good prospect.

Curious because that's what you're doing here, I'm making an observation, questioning aspects, not attacking your point - though I do understand that in the context of NSG, everything contrary might seem an attack.



You're honestly putting words into your own mouth, I'm not attacking your points.
If you say so.

Agreed, but is this due to the disparity itself or the conditioned social groupings within a society, people can be kept poor through no other reason than their social standing, such as the Dalits.
That is not a counter to my statement. If a group is "kept poor" (suggesting that they are being restricted by others in the society), that is likely (rightly, imo) to be experienced as an injustice, and likely to feed receptivity to extremism.

I'm merely suggesting that poverty is not the only cause of crime, possibly not even the greatest in terms of amount stolen compared to the amount of daily acts.
Which, once again, would, possibly, be remotely vaguely interesting to me if it had fuck-all to do with anything that I said.

Look, do me a favor, and next time you want to make an observation apropos nothing in particular and especially apropos nothing that I was saying, either quote someone else or post it without a quote. Thanks.

Understood, and understand that I'm not attacking, I'm merely discussing through questioning some aspects.
I just wish they were aspects of my argument. :rolleyes:

So you're saying get over it, do nothing, roll over and die?

That is exactly what will happen.

This is exactly what happened before.

There has been 3 major attacks on Mumbai alone in the past 15 years each with toll around 250. India had no response. We just rolled over.

Since this worked amazingly effective for us, Pakistanis got frustrated and tried to attack the seat of the government, the parliament itself and very nearly succeeded in getting the 500+ members as hostage. And then they threw in attacks on religious places like Akshardham, Ayodhya, Benaras etc.

We just frustrate the Pakistanis by not responding at all.

One day they will lob a nuke at us. We will still not respond. That will show them Pakistanis how hard and tough we are.

I am certain that this will work.

You see, the world (UK before and US now) needs Pakistan to exist. So India can do nothing except roll over and die.

We are getting really good at that.

In a month all this will be forgotten. Life will go on, except for those who are dead. And their relatives. I am sure they deserved this....they were hindus in India. If only these people had recited the Kalima and cut their dick - they would have been alive.

I am sure come next December, there will be again attacks by disgruntled youths of no religion, escaping poverty and ignorance, speaking out against the oppression of their fellow co-religionists (oops...I thought they had no religion..I am confused...)..and we will have stern condemnations from Indian leaders and world leaders expressing their outrage.

And then next December..

I believe the correct process when one's financial city is attacked is to not go after the country that supplied the terrorists but another country in that region, which is a bit easier but still has lots of energy supplies.

I think Kazakhstan is a good prospect.
Why do things by half measures? India should invade Finland.

To be serious: I fear this horror is far from over, though if the immediate violence in Mumbai is ended, that at least is part of a blessing.

That is exactly what will happen.

This is exactly what happened before.

...

I am sure come next December, there will be again attacks by disgruntled youths of no religion, escaping poverty and ignorance, speaking out against the oppression of their fellow co-religionists (oops...I thought they had no religion..I am confused...)..and we will have stern condemnations from Indian leaders and world leaders expressing their outrage.

And then next December..
Aryavartha, I am glad that your family got out safely. I, for one, do not pretend that the men who attacked Mumbai were anything but murderous fucks attempting to trigger full scale war and that they base their hate on religion -- at least as their excuse. I also have no intention of baiting you with veiled "final solution" questions like NAL seemed to do.

But I am curious -- what DO you think should be done about the conflict between India and Pakistan?

I ask that in full awareness of how dangerous the situation is, how bitter and intractable the situation is, that it has implications for more than those two countries, and that I, myself, have absolutely no idea what could possibly be done about it.

Barringtonia, I have no idea where your politics are or what you are trying to say. You are really good at the quick smart answer that has ZERO substance. So what is your solution them?
Attack Pakistan? Yeh! Right! They too are being attacked by Islamist forces.
There is a battleground - and it may not be one that can be won by force majeur.

It is also ignorant in the extreme to assume that all Pakistanis are behind htis.
I predict that the Hindu ultra-nationalists will use this opportunity to launch anti-Moslem pogroms across India. I really HOPE I'm wrong and that what Aryavartha said (ironically) is India's response.
Time will tell.

But as for you Barringtonia - shit or get off the toilet. I want to hear some sensible ideas from you rather that the snide put-downs you've been offering.
If you don't know Jack shit, I suggest that you take some time out to bone up on the situation before penning your oh so eloquent thoughts.

Pakistan should be sanctioned against by all nations. The terrorists were connected to their army and the Pakistani government is increidibly slow to help despite the fact that their people caused the damage

Are you assuming that the Pakistani governmnet has much control of its army or intelligence service, S-S?

It's a fair assumption with many countries but Pevez Musharif's experience was that he had little control. Benazir Bhutto couldn't stop herself being assassinated. Why should her husband fare any better.

It's all right to knee-jerk but if you really want to pursue the war on terror, you need to pinpoint them and not to employ a scatter gun approach.
George W is in the garbage can of history because he made that fundamental (fundamentalist?) error.

Barringtonia, I have no idea where your politics are or what you are trying to say. You are really good at the quick smart answer that has ZERO substance. So what is your solution them?
Attack Pakistan? Yeh! Right! They too are being attacked by Islamist forces.
There is a battleground - and it may not be one that can be won by force majeur.

It is also ignorant in the extreme to assume that all Pakistanis are behind htis.
I predict that the Hindu ultra-nationalists will use this opportunity to launch anti-Moslem pogroms across India. I really HOPE I'm wrong and that what Aryavartha said (ironically) is India's response.
Time will tell.

But as for you Barringtonia - shit or get off the toilet. I want to hear some sensible ideas from you rather that the snide put-downs you've been offering.
If you don't know Jack shit, I suggest that you take some time out to bone up on the situation before penning your oh so eloquent thoughts.

I've already given my solution - as much as there is a solution - go after the money, these people were trained and paid for.

Look, do me a favor, and next time you want to make an observation apropos nothing in particular and especially apropos nothing that I was saying, either quote someone else or post it without a quote. Thanks.


Given the sensitivity of NSG these days I'd hesitate to quote anyone, if I actually cared.

I've already given my solution - as much as there is a solution - go after the money, these people were trained and paid for.


Bit of a problem with that. America is sort of friends with parts of Pakistan at this point, and it does get weapons and money from America purportedly for the war on terror. Given the problems with Pakistan, and America's track record of losing billions of dollars without trace, it's not much of a surprise that much of that hardware and money ends up in the wrong hands.

Bit of a problem with that. America is sort of friends with parts of Pakistan at this point, and it does get weapons and money from America purportedly for the war on terror. Given the problems with Pakistan, and America's track record of losing billions of dollars without trace, it's not much of a surprise that much of that hardware and money ends up in the wrong hands.

Absolutely, I think that was roughly my first response when you initially raised the question, the supply of arms and money to states such as this is handed out far too freely for far too little in response.

It's hardly a secret that if Pakistan really wanted to root out the terrorists they could, since many are freely walking - or as Aryavartha posted, driving round in bullet proof limousines - around cities in Pakistan, that radio intercepts have shown that the Generals have control over them.

Of course, it's a bind because Pakistan leaders and generals will counter that they need the money and arms to do it - though why they need fighter planes given the terrorists are yet to acquire these, give it time - but they also have to be mindful of public opinion.

Yet are they really trying to change public opinion?

I don't really think so, and I think they're more than happy to receive more cash and more arms they can sell and more of everything they can get their hands on.

Good work is being done tracking down money transfers through the banking systems but there's a million ways to transfer money in this day and age, some as simple as using a middle man in one country who can then instruct his partner in another to pay whoever needs paying.

It happens most obviously in Macau, where legally a mainland Chinese person can only bring in RMB20, 000 - yet millions are gambled.

It's achieved because 'travel companies', known as junkets, are paid by the punter in China and then their partners in Macau lend the money there. All triad controlled, hell, most of the casino floors are owned not by the casino but by these junkets, so the players can gamble as long as they gamble on those floors.

Kim Jong-IL had a bank account there for foreign spending, go figure, triads, heads of criminal states - and watch Africa for more of these - terrorism, all these are linked in one very profitable exercise.

Criminal money is simply enormous these days, the downside of globalization.

Between this sort of underground economy and money simply being siphoned off from aid, through a myriad of means, too much is given too freely.

It's hardly a secret that if Pakistan really wanted to root out the terrorists they could, since many are freely walking - or as Aryavartha posted, driving round in bullet proof limousines - around cities in Pakistan, that radio intercepts have shown that the Generals have control over them.

Of course, it's a bind because Pakistan leaders and generals will counter that they need the money and arms to do it - though why they need fighter planes given the terrorists are yet to acquire these, give it time - but they also have to be mindful of public opinion.

Yet are they really trying to change public opinion?


Who wants to change public opinion? Because if it's America, or Pakistan, probably not. Packs of rabid dogs are too useful for them for them to put down completely.


I don't really think so, and I think they're more than happy to receive more cash and more arms they can sell and more of everything they can get their hands on.

Which only leaves one workable solution if you want to strangle Pakistan of the flow of weapons and money. And that's an act of war. A full scale blockade.

Which only leaves one workable solution if you want to strangle Pakistan of the flow of weapons and money. And that's an act of war. A full scale blockade.

I'm moving into tricky areas here but I did earlier post that the concept of national sovereignty would soon be ripped to shreds, I was a little ambiguous but...

One of the issues of the moment, that I believe could lead to its downfall, is that America is a very reluctant empire. It has all the attributes of an empire in terms of trade, military personnel overseas, going into countries that upset international, or its own, interests but it will not commit.

The idea was most starkly seen with the current administration, that you can go into a country, topple a dictator and then build democratic features and 'hey presto' a democracy. The invasion of Iraq was sold mostly on the idea that American would be out in a couple of years, this, coupled with the exaggerated threat of WMD, gained the support of the American public, who were reluctant to go into WW2 as well.

That had to be a lie, America isn't even out of Germany yet, South Korea...

No one wants this, no one wants an American empire, not even Americans, I'd say mostly not Americans - but the fact is that if national sovereignty is always the excuse for not dealing with problems, then these issues are going to get worse and worse.

So we're going to come to a problem, either America commits to being an empire or we're going to have more criminal states, more loopholes, more terrorism. What was the line - the thing that keeps me awake is not the country with nuclear missiles but one man with a bomb.

Alas, the very thing that could be said to have brought an end to the Cold War - the hugely accelerated economy of the US in the 80's, fueled by US companies investing in overseas countries, thus accelerating globalisation - also means that an American empire is increasingly unlikely, given the resultant rise of China and the recent resurgence of the USSR.

Empires are a bogey word, especially since America was born of ridding itself of one, but they're not necessarily bad - was the Roman Empire bad? Was the British Empire bad? The real trouble came when they fell not when they existed, although that really depends on how you measure things, and I'm not fully convinced on this - India and Pakistan are a good case in this sense, the end of an Empire but could one really say the British Empire was good for India at the time, in terms of investment and infrastructure, yes, in terms of the pride of the people, certainly not, then again, one could say that Britain was a bad Empire as opposed to a good Empire, I could ramble on here...

I suspect this is a contentious position and I'm sure I haven't expressed it as well as I'd like, but I just don't think we can afford to allow state-sponsored terrorism, or states that harbour criminals under the idea of national sovereignty - Iraq was a poor choice in that respect when there's others that perhaps deserve more attention.

There's what we want, what we feel, that negotiation and rights and freedom are paramount but there's also a reality that serious shit is happening and we're only seeing the beginning. A failed state was fine when cash was limited to one country, but money is utterly global now, someone in Saudi Arabia can arrange for payment to a middleman in Singapore who distributes to groups in Indonesia.

I could probably write a book on this but Naill Ferguson has done a far better job already with Colossus.

I'm not certain on this position either, it's full of murky issues.

Ultimately, I would like everyone to be honest, responsible and cool, that's just not the case in varying degrees from myself being irresponsible now and again, though harmlessly, to countries, to religious movements.

All in all, I'd say, it's complicated and unlikely to be resolved soon.

Thanks N.A.S. you managed to get Barrintonia talking intelligently - more than I could do!

I'm glad you've recognised how difficult a knee-jerk response can be in these situations. If there's a definite ant trail that's one thing but when someone can crack the Pakistan labyrinth, well that's a really good start.
Who was the last person to do it? Kublai Khan - or maybe Alexander the Great!

Who was the last person to do it? Kublai Khan - or maybe Alexander the Great!

Neither of those. They claimed them as their land but just bypassed them. It's almost impossible to conquer Afghanistan or the mountains of Pakistan.

You know, in the 70s and 80s when the National Front and skinheads were going around "Paki bashing", I knew it was going to create bad karma.

There are just too many extremists of all kinds who just love to play the race card and get a bit of "bovver"

Are you assuming that the Pakistani governmnet has much control of its army or intelligence service, S-S?

It's a fair assumption with many countries but Pevez Musharif's experience was that he had little control. Benazir Bhutto couldn't stop herself being assassinated. Why should her husband fare any better.

It's all right to knee-jerk but if you really want to pursue the war on terror, you need to pinpoint them and not to employ a scatter gun approach.
George W is in the garbage can of history because he made that fundamental (fundamentalist?) error.
I agree. This is a very good point.


Given the sensitivity of NSG these days I'd hesitate to quote anyone, if I actually cared.
Thanks for letting us know that you don't give a shit about making sound arguments that are relevant to what other people say. That is a good guide for how to treat your comments in future.

Seems like they do most of the planning and recruiting and the poor ones seem to be the ones blowing themselves up more often than not. Groups like that run off a "Cult of personality" and since the followers are uneducated people with pathetic lives it's easier to convince them "You'll have everything you want if you obey me."

I agree. This is a very good point.


Thanks for letting us know that you don't give a shit about making sound arguments that are relevant to what other people say. That is a good guide for how to treat your comments in future.

You misunderstand, I don't care too much whether people misinterpret me, I certainly can't expect you to decipher my meaning, or how my comments related to your points but I can at least expect a request for clarification rather than aggressive response.

...which probably ties in to why tensions persist, from misunderstanding to conflict, different people can view the same event from different perspectives, form different conclusions.

Groups like that run off a "Cult of personality" and since the followers are uneducated people with pathetic lives it's easier to convince them "You'll have everything you want if you obey me."
Oh, don't sell people short. They can be from relatively stable and affluent parts of society and have decent educations and still be pathetic fucktards who indulge in magical thinking and want a magic "daddy" to be their Dear Leader that will give meaning to their (hopefully) short and ineffectual lives.

You misunderstand, I don't care too much whether people misinterpret me, I certainly can't expect you to decipher my meaning, or how my comments related to your points but I can at least expect a request for clarification rather than aggressive response.

...which probably ties in to why tensions persist, from misunderstanding to conflict, different people can view the same event from different perspectives, form different conclusions.
I told you exactly what I found objectionable about your statements. When you clarified them, the objection remained because it turned out that I did not actually misunderstand your meaning and that it really was as irrelevant to my statements as I thought it was. Since you apparently still don't have anything to say to me that is responsive to my statements, and since the conversation has moved on in the meantime, I'm going to stop talking to you now, until you do say something relevant.

It's not always people from low socio-economic backgrounds that are the ones recruited for the "suicide missions". The spectacularly unsuccessful Glasgow airport terrorists were well-educated and from privileged backgrounds (doctors!)
Lot's of people can be sucked in by "mad mullahs" and feel it's their patriotic duty do die for Allah (Christ, Jahweh or whatever.)

What the Gung-Ho crew continually mistakenly believe is that this sort of attitude can be defeated by a conventional military response. It can't because the people involved are not playing by conventional military rules - the clandestine operations of a fanatical group can only be contested by neutralise their base of support. Moslems have to feel that they are accepted by the rest of the world and that there are at least two sides to the story. In the absence of a perceived fair deal from the West, Moslems can be manipulated to launch Jihad - even if they personally are well off.
So what are the sticking points - Western military units saving democracy in Moslem countries; the lack of a viable Palestinian state; fawning Western tolerance of Wahabi regimes in the Middle East that has helped to entrench these despotisms because the West wants their oil.
Can we do anything about all of this? In the words of the President-elect:
"Yes we can!"

It's not always people from low socio-economic backgrounds that are the ones recruited for the "suicide missions". The spectacularly unsuccessful Glasgow airport terrorists were well-educated and from privileged backgrounds (doctors!)
Lot's of people can be sucked in by "mad mullahs" and feel it's their patriotic duty do die for Allah (Christ, Jahweh or whatever.)

What the Gung-Ho crew continually mistakenly believe is that this sort of attitude can be defeated by a conventional military response. It can't because the people involved are not playing by conventional military rules - the clandestine operations of a fanatical group can only be contested by neutralise their base of support. Moslems have to feel that they are accepted by the rest of the world and that there are at least two sides to the story. In the absence of a perceived fair deal from the West, Moslems can be manipulated to launch Jihad - even if they personally are well off.
So what are the sticking points - Western military units saving democracy in Moslem countries; the lack of a viable Palestinian state; fawning Western tolerance of Wahabi regimes in the Middle East that has helped to entrench these despotisms because the West wants their oil.
Can we do anything about all of this? In the words of the President-elect:
"Yes we can!"

You are completely ignoring three facts.

One, the use of small scale insurgent/terror/sabotage groups have long been in play by the powers of the world. And they work. South American countries have been destabilized this way to the point where they were toppled with minimum direct involvement on the sponsors part. The relative cheapness of investment means that even private organizations can reap significant effects with such tactics for a song. And why shouldn't they? They have plenty of incentive to if they want even just a bit of power, especially if it works.

Two. Increased globalization, including the demand for, and use, of weapons and armaments by such groups means that weapons dealers can make significant profit off black market sales without having to worry too much about issues like inter-national arms sales restrictions.

Three. There will always be easily influenced idiots incapable of forming a single coherent thought but quite capable of doing whatever their "leader" wants them to do, no matter how stupid. Religious fundamentalists from every corner, cultists, extreme end libertarians, they come in all sorts of flavors, incapable of independent thought, but certainly capable of unflinching doctrine. You can't escape this. You can't change all their minds unless you have mind control devices.

I'm not disagreeing with these points N.A.S. (nor was I ignoring them). What I was stressing was that by addressing the root cause of an ethnic discontent - the real root cause - the world can dramatically cut down the number of people who may be drawn to terrorism.
I'm not saying that terrorism can be eliminated - merely reduced.
Look at Northern Ireland as an example of that.

I'm not disagreeing with these points N.A.S. (nor was I ignoring them). What I was stressing was that by addressing the root cause of an ethnic discontent - the real root cause - the world can dramatically cut down the number of people who may be drawn to terrorism.
I'm not saying that terrorism can be eliminated - merely reduced.
Look at Northern Ireland as an example of that.

Addressing ethnic discontent is all well and good, if you're from a place that has an overarching sense of identity, maybe. Most first world countries don't have too much of this problem because they identify themselves by country first, then their ethnicity. That's simply not true for most of the rest of the world. The Brahmin caste before the untouchables, Shiites before Pashtuns, and how many hundreds of permutations of deeply entrenched ideas of tribalism that can't be rooted out short of sending every single damned one, and that's billions of people, into re-education camps.

Rome had an interesting way of dealing with the threats from the Vandals. They slaughtered or enslaved them and then destroyed their land by sowing it with salt.

Now that was serious ethnic cleansing.

Former Yugoslavia's recent past demonstrates that regimes are not squeamish about using ethnic cleansing "solutions' in the 21st Century. Personally, I see 're-education camps" as a half-way step to genocide.
I think that the honest truth is that we all need re-educating about a whole lot of things.

In 1947 some French socialist philosophers came up with a memorable phrase: "Socialisme ou barbarite" - socialism or barbarism. They called for a break from the tired thinking of the stalinists:

In Western Europe the war had brought about a strong shift to the left. The Communist parties were more popular than ever. Their percentage of the vote often grew to a multiple of what it had been before the war: there was a massive increase in membership. After the years of misery in the depression and the war the population longed for progress and social reforms. Communists had been taken into the government in many countries. At the beginning of 1947 Austria, Belgium, France, Italy, Iceland and Finland all had Communist ministers.

In the course of 1947 this relatively peaceful co-existence came to an end. The relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union had been worsening for some time. Economic problems came to the fore in Western Europe, while at the same time the American economy was in danger of overheating and frantically searched for new markets. It was in these circumstances that George Marshall, the American Secretary of State, developed the plan to offer Europe a substantial program of aid. In this way a number of aims could be achieved at the same time: the power of capitalism in Europe would be increased; American capital could secure its exports; and the influence of communism could be forced back. The Marshall Plan marked a turning point which led to a changed international constellation. In Western Europe the Communist ministers were put out of office. In Eastern Europe a political and economic transformation to 'people's democracies' was enforced, which meant that these societies increasingly began to resemble Soviet society. The polarization between the blocks started dominating developments: the Cold War had started.
http://www.left-dis.nl/uk/lindsob.htm

Perhaps the choice confronting us today is "Humanism or Barbarism"
We have huge problems of which terrorism is more a symptom rather than a disease. Thus military solutions are useless by themselves. Maybe we need another Marshall Aid Plan - but a multilateral one - why should the US be alone in this? Either we help the countries that need it now or we continue down the path iof an endless war on terror.

But I am curious -- what DO you think should be done about the conflict between India and Pakistan?

Sorry for the delay. I am kinda busy here in India..moving houses..family functions etc.

India is a status quo power. India would even settle for giving up claims on Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir for peace, because...well..unless Pakistanis we don't want to expend our energy on what is already in enemy hands.

The problem is with Pakistan. It is a revisionist state which thinks of itself as the successor to the erstwhile Mughal state. I am serious. Many Pakistanis do think along the lines of "British took India away from Mughals and gave it back to hindus....it is rightfully ours and inshallah we will have it".

Its ideology is "muslims and hindus cannot live together and hence muslims need a separate state". As long as this ideology exists, a natural consequence is that "all muslims in India are being oppressed and hence needs our protection". Hence Pakistan sees itself as the "fortress of Islam" and "guardian of muslims of old India". The popular slogan in pakistan are "Pakistan ka ma tlab kya ---La illaha illallah" (what is the meaning of Pakistan - there is no god by allah).

This is a very dangerous ideology. This is why I am against any solution that involves India losing any more territory. It WILL lead to hindus asking themselves "well dang it...these muslims..they will never give up taking land from us..we might as well kill them all now when we can".

India and Pakistan are the ideological polars.

Either India becomes a hindu Pakistan and kills scores of muslims and subjugates the rest and becomes violent against Pakistan - that is a language Pakistan will understand and there will be truce....truce not peace.

Or Pakistan gives up its pretenses (mughal state, fortress of islam etc). This may lead to the unraveling of the state. The generals of the army hope to prevent this by allowing just enough jihad against India to keep the pot boiling.

There simply is no easy solution.

I would like to think of targeted bombing and elimination of the top brass and after thoroughly destroying all offensive capabilities, negotiate with a civilian leader for peace. Anything like this needs US to actively support (at least to keep away China and in neutralising the nukes...which I believe is already in protective custody of US). India does not have the capability to do this. So we just roll over and die.

After 1965, Pakistan understands that it does not have the capability to militarily take over India. So they vent their frustration by killing civilians when they can.

Like I said, life goes on..except for the dead.

Sorry for the delay. I am kinda busy here in India..moving houses..family functions etc.

...snip...

Like I said, life goes on..except for the dead.

I feel your sorrow and frustration even if you don't say it. My understanding was Mumbai was the place where Muslims, Hindus, and everyone got along in India. And that is the reason why the more extreme elements target Mumbai so much.

I don't see the sort of military intervention in Pakistan that you would like happening. For one the Pakistanis are a US ally in the war on Terror. And for two The Chinese don't respond well to threats and I only see being able to keep them out of a Pakistan India conflict by giving them Taiwan(aka agreeing not to come to their aid if attacked) which just wont happen.

The best I can suggest is control your boarder with Pakistan as best you can. Wait for the Afghanistan crap to end then for US funding and aid to Pakistan to dry up. Hopefully their regime collapses on its own. If it becomes a civilian ran government talk and make peace with them.
If it falls to theocracy the US and China would likely both support you in your plan. Not even the Chinese want a theocracy with Nukes.

I sincerely believe that India will become the successor to the US's World power in influence in time. So try not to go over board in making world enemies yet (you will make plenty once your at the top).

something to support my argument about Pakistan's pining for 'resurrecting mughal glory'

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1862650,00.html
"We [Muslims] were the legal rulers of India, and in 1857 the British took that away from us," says Tarik Jan, a gentle-mannered scholar at Islamabad's Institute of Policy Studies. "In 1947 they should have given that back to the Muslims." Jan is no militant, but he pines for the golden era of the Mughal period in the 1700s and has a fervent desire to see India, Pakistan and Bangladesh reunited under Islamic rule.

Until 1965, Pakistan did believe that India will just fragment (us casteist and ethnically divided hindus were supposed to do that...for some reason we did not..). And then they lost east Pakistan (Bangladesh). It is this anger and frustration that is manifesting as jihad. Ever since the original Afghan jihad ended, Pakistan (army+ISI leaders) has been putting that expertise to good use. Result is the narco-weapons conflict-economy logistics chain and aid from west for putting a leash on the dogs and letting them on us whenever they feel like it.

Now that the west is directly in Afg, they are feeling it too. Speak to any low and mid level western military person who has been in Afg and you will hear the same complaints you will hear from Indians. But the language from state department and other heads will be different due to political compulsions (of their own making).

some disturbing details

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/nov/30mumterror-doctors-shocked-at-hostagess-torture.htm
Doctors working in a hospital where all the bodies, including that of the terrorists, were taken said they had not seen anything like this in their lives.

"Bombay has a long history of terror. I have seen bodies of riot victims, gang war and previous terror attacks like bomb blasts. But this was entirely different. It was shocking and disturbing," a doctor said.

Asked what was different about the victims of the incident, another doctor said: "It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatised. A bomb blast victim's body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words," he said.

Asked specifically if he was talking of torture marks, he said: "It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood," one doctor said.

The other doctor, who had also conducted the post-mortem of the victims, said: "Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks. It was clear that they were killed on the 26th itself. 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," he said.

Corroborating the doctors' claims about torture was the information that the Intelligence Bureau had about the terror plan. "During his interrogation, Ajmal Kamal said they were specifically asked to target the foreigners, especially the Israelis," an IB source said.


For a country that has no known history with Jews, Pak-jihadis are some of the virulently anti-jew people around.

This also puts to rest all these theories of "home-grown terrorism" (in this instance).

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-3774038,prtpage-1.cms
Sources said a satellite phone recovered from one of the rafts that the 10 jihadi desperados used to enter Mumbai on that fateful Wednesday night has yielded tell-tale evidence of the direct involvement of top hierarchy of ISI-backed Lashkar-e-Toiba in the Mumbai mayhem.
The satellite phone records show that the gang remained in touch with Muzammil alias Yusuf who is in-charge of Lashkar's anti-India operations. More crucially, Ajmal has told his ATS interrogators about the direct interest that Zakiur Rahman, a top-ranking jihadi and one of the founding members of Lashkar, took in the anti-Mumbai plot.
Sources said information harvested from the satellite phone, the GPS device that the jihadis used to navigate their way to Mumbai and the detailed account of Ajmal, the gang member in custody, add up to a solid body of evidence of Lashkar's direct complicity.
The Lashkar leadership was directly involved at each step of the plot -- from organising a safe house for the gang in Karachi's Azizabad locality before they set out on the deadly mission to arranging the Pakistani vessel Al Hussaini with arms and ammunition on which they travelled.

and

http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21439&sectionid=22&issueid=80&Itemid=1
The group suspected to be behind the attack, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) continues to run its terror operations from Muridke in Punjab province in Pakistan.

Only recently, much to India's anger Pakistan had cleared the purchase of a bullet proof Land Cruiser for the use of Jamaat-ud-Daawa supremo Haafiz Mohammed Syed, who is the ideologue for Lashkar-e-Toiba and has been holding rallies in Pakistan asking his followers to hit at Western targets.

'Pakistan too a victim of terrorism'...my ass.

Bit of a problem with that. America is sort of friends with parts of Pakistan at this point, and it does get weapons and money from America purportedly for the war on terror.
That's only true up until Jan. 20. Obama is no fan of the Pakistani state, and has already said he will not respect their sovereignty if they are shielding terrorists on their soil.

Fine but just don't think that all Pakistanis agree with each other or even like each other. It was the intention of the terrorists to get the governments of India and Pakistan fighting each other. The more tension and ultra-nationalist activity that the terrorists can produce, the more they can succeed in creating Islamist states. One thing that the West must not do is to push Moslems into the welcoming arms of Jihadism.

This should be a time for very careful negotiating. The Pakistani governmnet has offered to work with India against the terrorists. That offer should be taken on face value even if there are pro-Al Queda elements in Pakistan's military and Intelligence.

That offer should be taken on face value even if there are pro-Al Queda elements in Pakistan's military and Intelligence.
It CANNOT be taken at face value until the terrorist elements in Pakistan's military and intelligence are arrested or killed. It is long past the time when any words, unbacked by action, from Pakistan could be considered meaningful.

This has probably been reported or at least dicussed, but the one capture terrorist has confessed to being trained in Pakistan by LeT and "a former member of the Pakistani army". I just heard of this recently and wanted to share.

http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/idINIndia-36798120081201

MUMBAI (Reuters) - The gunman captured during the attacks on Mumbai said he had undergone months of commando-style training in an Islamist militant camp in Pakistan, two senior officials involved in the investigation said.

The training was organised by the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group, and conducted by a former member of the Pakistani army, a police officer close to the interrogation said, on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to give his name.

"They underwent training in several phases, which included training in handling weapons, bomb making, survival strategies, survival in a marine environment and even dietary habits," another senior officer told Reuters.

That's only true up until Jan. 20. Obama is no fan of the Pakistani state, and has already said he will not respect their sovereignty if they are shielding terrorists on their soil.

Neither has Bush or perhaps those cross boarder raids in Pakistan and Syria he has taken lots of heat for has gone unnoticed. We are not going to launch a full scale invasion of Pakistan. It would be worse then Iraq, the leader here is somewhat more popular then Saddam was in Iraq and the Terrain is more conducive to a guerrilla war.

not to mention China wont tolerate US intervention so close to their boarders.

A full scale war there would turn into the worst of Iraq, Vietnam and the Korean wars.

<snip>
There simply is no easy solution.

I would like to think of targeted bombing and elimination of the top brass and after thoroughly destroying all offensive capabilities, negotiate with a civilian leader for peace. Anything like this needs US to actively support (at least to keep away China and in neutralising the nukes...which I believe is already in protective custody of US). India does not have the capability to do this. So we just roll over and die.

After 1965, Pakistan understands that it does not have the capability to militarily take over India. So they vent their frustration by killing civilians when they can.

Like I said, life goes on..except for the dead.
So, what you personally think should be done about the India-Pakistan conflict is forcible regime change in Pakistan, not too dissimilar to what was done in Iraq? And you want the US involved in that? After Iraq? Really? Are you sure?

I do not dispute your characterization of the Pakistani attitude. However, I fail to see how a change of government is going to affect anything at the grassroots level, especially in the Afghan border regions, and even in the cities. It won't do jackshit about the madrassahs, for instance, nor will it make the mountainous regions any easier to control, for either a new Pakistan government or US forces. I fail to see how targeted bombing is going to root out treachery and corruption in the military and intelligence services. After all, the Israelis have been targeted bombing the Palestinians for a while now and getting precisely nowhere with it.

As you say, there is no simple answer. But forced regime change IS a simple answer, and in my opinion it would be the wrong one. Accepting your characterization of the Pakistani attitude and how it drives the conflict, I just do not believe that your suggested course of action would actually address that attitude at all. As far as I can see, it would most likely lead only to a further decentralization of the controlling powers behind the attacks on India, scattering them through government, communities and outlying areas in a way even harder to track down than now but not in any way interrupting their ability to gather resources with which to commit attacks across the Indian border. But that's just my opinion based on looking at the situation from the outside.

So, what you personally think should be done about the India-Pakistan conflict is forcible regime change in Pakistan, not too dissimilar to what was done in Iraq? And you want the US involved in that? After Iraq? Really? Are you sure?

I do not dispute your characterization of the Pakistani attitude. However, I fail to see how a change of government is going to affect anything at the grassroots level, especially in the Afghan border regions, and even in the cities. It won't do jackshit about the madrassahs, for instance, nor will it make the mountainous regions any easier to control, for either a new Pakistan government or US forces. I fail to see how targeted bombing is going to root out treachery and corruption in the military and intelligence services. After all, the Israelis have been targeted bombing the Palestinians for a while now and getting precisely nowhere with it.

As you say, there is no simple answer. But forced regime change IS a simple answer, and in my opinion it would be the wrong one. Accepting your characterization of the Pakistani attitude and how it drives the conflict, I just do not believe that your suggested course of action would actually address that attitude at all. As far as I can see, it would most likely lead only to a further decentralization of the controlling powers behind the attacks on India, scattering them through government, communities and outlying areas in a way even harder to track down than now but not in any way interrupting their ability to gather resources with which to commit attacks across the Indian border. But that's just my opinion based on looking at the situation from the outside.

There is a technical solution to the Pakistan problem. The use of specifically salted airburst thermonuclear weapons to depopulate the nation of Pakistan.

Say, something with a half-life under 30 days that is bioavailable, and readily taken in by the body.

In a few months, you could march in and bury the corpses. Problem solved.

Rome (.......)on terror.

There was 10 of them. Getting a bit out of proportion aren't we?

There is a technical solution to the Pakistan problem. The use of specifically salted airburst thermonuclear weapons to depopulate the nation of Pakistan.

Say, something with a half-life under 30 days that is bioavailable, and readily taken in by the body.

In a few months, you could march in and bury the corpses. Problem solved.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the return of Deep Kimchi.

There is a technical solution to the Pakistan problem. The use of specifically salted airburst thermonuclear weapons to depopulate the nation of Pakistan.

Say, something with a half-life under 30 days that is bioavailable, and readily taken in by the body.

In a few months, you could march in and bury the corpses. Problem solved.
Do me a favor and never, ever attach this kind of bullshit to a post of mine, ever again. Thanks ever so.

We are not going to launch a full scale invasion of Pakistan.
No, we're not. But we are likely to cut off their subsidies.

That's only true up until Jan. 20. Obama is no fan of the Pakistani state, and has already said he will not respect their sovereignty if they are shielding terrorists on their soil.

The CIA, NSA, and other political blocs in America have their own agenda, and it wouldn't be unexpected for them to go against presidential orders, even if he did order a cessation of arms shipments.

The CIA, NSA, and other political blocs in America have their own agenda, and it wouldn't be unexpected for them to go against presidential orders, even if he did order a cessation of arms shipments.
Losing the weapons and the money will hurt the ISI more than a few rogue agents of the CIA could compensate for. I also think you overestimate how easy it is for agents to go rogue: I believe that all or nearly all of the "rogue" operations of the past were actually approved by the President, despite some layers of deniability.

Fine but just don't think that all Pakistanis agree with each other or even like each other. It was the intention of the terrorists to get the governments of India and Pakistan fighting each other.


Not all Pakistani's agree with each other. Fine. Neither did American's all still agree with each other. That didn't stop America from launching it's unilateral and unpopular invasions. Same with Pakistan. The people who want to cause damage to India aren't some disgruntled youths who lucked out. They're agents directly linked to Pakistan's intelligence services as well as armed forces.

The one's who planned and organized all of this are top people in Pakistan who will never stop their acts unless their destruction is assured if they continue. Which of course, you don't want, which means they will continue to act with impunity.

Do you think Bush would have launched his war if Iraq had a credible chance of putting a bullet in his brain if he did so? Ask the same question of Pakistan's leadership and their actions in Mumbai.


The more tension and ultra-nationalist activity that the terrorists can produce, the more they can succeed in creating Islamist states.


Unless the people at the top die of course. This took infrastructure, hierarchy and planning not available to anything short of a state government.


This should be a time for very careful negotiating. The Pakistani governmnet has offered to work with India against the terrorists. That offer should be taken on face value even if there are pro-Al Queda elements in Pakistan's military and Intelligence.

Which is why top level terrorist masterminds and criminal bosses are walking about freely in Pakistani cities, under the control of Pakistani generals, not having to worry about Pakistan bothering to put an end to them.

I also have a bridge to sell you.

Losing the weapons and the money will hurt the ISI more than a few rogue agents of the CIA could compensate for. I also think you overestimate how easy it is for agents to go rogue: I believe that all or nearly all of the "rogue" operations of the past were actually approved by the President, despite some layers of deniability.

This is the American government we are talking about. The same one that has already lost billions of dollars without a trace.

This past week the world was shocked to see a co-ordinated assault by a band of Christians on heavily fortified and strongly defended military facilities in Mumbai, as well as a mosque and an abortion clinic. Despite the fierce resistance of the defenders, the Christians were eventually able to storm the buildings and proclaim their message of freedom before falling at last to their enemies.

Er, what? You mean, they weren’t military facilities? They were . . . unarmed, undefended hotels and cafes full of helpless men, women and children? And it wasn’t a mosque, it was a . . . Jewish charity and religious center? And there wasn’t any attack on an abortion clinic?! And it wasn’t Christians carrying out bold raids in the cause of freedom, but . . . MOSLEM TERRORISTS?!! SAY IT AIN’T SO!!! I mean, Jim Leach (a former Republican Congressman who even endorsed The One) just wrote in Politico ( http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/jim_leach.html ) that the outrage was “not just . . . an act related to a particular group but . . . an outbreak of pent-up irrationality that can occur anywhere, anytime.”

This is the American government we are talking about. The same one that has already lost billions of dollars without a trace.
I doubt that very much. I expect that Bush and Cheney know where all of it went.

I doubt that very much. I expect that Bush and Cheney know where all of it went.

Maybe. But only up to a certain point I believe. It's not like the American government doesn't have a history of huge sums of money going *poof* before. There's probably caches of the stuff all over the place.

snipped...

My understanding is, while lack of state support may not completely stop jihad attacks against India, it will definitely reduce the scale and frequency of such attacks. Hence the favoring of a removal (as in removal from this world) of current army leadership (and the jihadi mullahs too) and installation of a civilian leadership which has complete authority over a destroyed army.

Currently the civilian leadership has no authority over army affairs and hence no control over policies of the army about India and Afg and nukes etc.

There will be madrassas. Madrassas by themselves are not bad. Many of them offer some kind of free boarding and teaching for poor students. They need to be reformed of the curriculum and teachers. This too needs a strong leadership which is free to take and do such a thing.

Pakistan needs a destruction of their 'empire' (to break them out of this current thinking) and an Ataturk to set them on a changed policy.

Problem is not with all of Pakistan. It is the deobandi segment of the Punjab and Pukhtoon ethnicity. Sindhis are quite non-jihadi. Even Punjabi Barelvis are non-jihadis. Shias too. None of the above segments were ever found to be involved in jihad against India.

The power of the deobandi Punjabis and Pushtoons flow from the army and deobandi clergy. It is 'doable' to target them and leave the rest to pick up the pieces and fashion new policies for Pakistan..one that is at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The US need not have 'boots on the ground' for this. If it stops supporting army leadership (in the vain hopes of weaning them away from their habits)..it would be a start. Pakistan has been on life support for many years now and US is the one keeping it alive.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/11/28/
Seven of the terrorists who brought carnage to Mumbai are British, Indian government sources claimed yesterday.

They said two British-born Pakistanis are under arrest. And another five suspects are said to have been born and raised here.

What the fuck is a British-born Pakistani?

Isn't the word...umm...British citizen?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/11/28/


What the fuck is a British-born Pakistani?

Isn't the word...umm...British citizen?

Depends. They could have rejected their British citizenship and I'm not sure if Britain supports dual citizenships.

What the fuck is a British-born Pakistani
A useful term to separate oneself from non-white British citizens.

It seems that Mumbai is becoming India's 9/11 in more than one disturbing sense:

Mumbai attacks: US intelligence warned India of Taj Hotel plot in October (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3540776/Mumbai-attacks-US-intelligence-warned-India-of-Taj-Hotel-plot-in-October-in-Bombay.html)

My understanding is, while lack of state support may not completely stop jihad attacks against India, it will definitely reduce the scale and frequency of such attacks. Hence the favoring of a removal (as in removal from this world) of current army leadership (and the jihadi mullahs too) and installation of a civilian leadership which has complete authority over a destroyed army.

Currently the civilian leadership has no authority over army affairs and hence no control over policies of the army about India and Afg and nukes etc.

There will be madrassas. Madrassas by themselves are not bad. Many of them offer some kind of free boarding and teaching for poor students. They need to be reformed of the curriculum and teachers. This too needs a strong leadership which is free to take and do such a thing.

Pakistan needs a destruction of their 'empire' (to break them out of this current thinking) and an Ataturk to set them on a changed policy.

Problem is not with all of Pakistan. It is the deobandi segment of the Punjab and Pukhtoon ethnicity. Sindhis are quite non-jihadi. Even Punjabi Barelvis are non-jihadis. Shias too. None of the above segments were ever found to be involved in jihad against India.

The power of the deobandi Punjabis and Pushtoons flow from the army and deobandi clergy. It is 'doable' to target them and leave the rest to pick up the pieces and fashion new policies for Pakistan..one that is at peace with itself and its neighbors.

The US need not have 'boots on the ground' for this. If it stops supporting army leadership (in the vain hopes of weaning them away from their habits)..it would be a start. Pakistan has been on life support for many years now and US is the one keeping it alive.
I see what you are saying, and it makes good sense. However, I have two problems with it still:

1) Are you sure that the removal of government support for terrorist factions will really effect those factions the way you think it will? For instance, do you have historical evidence (which I guess would be recent) of such an effect in Pakistan? The reason I ask is that I am not convinced that these factions do not have other means of supporting and financing their efforts. I do not believe Pakistan is the only state willing to help them out, nor the only power capable of reaching into Pakistan to do it. I do not believe they cannot be equipped and financed by other states and by other terrorist groups via the black market in narco-terrorism.

What if you succeed in killing the people you want to kill and it turns out to have no effect at all on the incidence of terrorism from the identified group?

2) Ethically, I cannot support any plan that hinges on the targeting and killing of individuals without fair trial and conviction. That is what the US did in Iraq (among other places) and I firmly believe it to be a crime against international law as well as our own US law, for which I feel quite bitter in the certainty that neither Bush nor Cheney will ever see prison for it. As an American citizen and voter, I would vehemently oppose any US involvement in such as scheme as you describe. I would also vehemently oppose India taking such action, even under the present circumstances, and would denounce it as a crime just like what the US did in Iraq. A murder is a murder, regardless of who does it or what their motive was, and if India did that, they would be no better than their jihadist enemies, in my opinion.

Do you want to destroy India's reputation and standing in the world in order to destroy this threat? Do you want to make a criminal state of your nation?

There's an old saying that it is easy as pie to kill all the fleas on a cat -- UNTIL you are told that the cat must still be alive when you're done.

It seems that Mumbai is becoming India's 9/11 in more than one disturbing sense:

Mumbai attacks: US intelligence warned India of Taj Hotel plot in October (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3540776/Mumbai-attacks-US-intelligence-warned-India-of-Taj-Hotel-plot-in-October-in-Bombay.html)
Terrific. :rolleyes:

The terrorists have already been successful in some respects. There have been reports of the Pakistan army deploying to the Indian border and away from the Pashtun areas.

This terrorist attack was done partly to switch the focus of Pakistan from the Al Queda threat to the old Indian Army bogey.

We are playing with chess players here who are anticipating our moves and are a couple ahead of us.

Pakistan is not just another Islamic state to waste. It is a country that is in the midst of a quiet civil war. That war is being exacerbated by nationalist feelings of Pakistanis who are reacting against Bush and the Bush doctrine. Pervez Musharaf was removed from power because he was seen as too close to the Americans. His original opponent, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by a well-orchestrated terrorist plan that may well have been orchestrated by well placed officials colluding with Al Queda. We still don't actually know who killed her and Pervez Musharaf was not helped by his death. Benazir's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was on Saturday elected as the country's 13th president.

Identified as "corruption maestro" and "Mr Ten Percent", for his alleged reputation in taking commission on major government deals when his late wife and two-time prime minister Benazir Bhutto was in power from 1988-1990 and 1994-1996, Zardari is now the most powerful man in the country as co-chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which is in power at the centre and in three of the four provinces.
(Hindustani Times Dec 2nd 2008).
The US will support Zardari because it cannot afford to lose an ally in the region. Besides, Zardari is no friend to these terrorists. Howver, Zardari lacks the will to root out all the Islamist forces who are part of Pakistan's social fabric.

Why do I have a feeling that it could be checkmate in 3 moves?

The terrorists have already been successful in some respects. There have been reports of the Pakistan army deploying to the Indian border and away from the Pashtun areas.

This terrorist attack was done partly to switch the focus of Pakistan from the Al Queda threat to the old Indian Army bogey.

We are playing with chess players here who are anticipating our moves and are a couple ahead of us.

Pakistan is not just another Islamic state to waste. It is a country that is in the midst of a quiet civil war. That war is being exacerbated by nationalist feelings of Pakistanis who are reacting against Bush and the Bush doctrine. Pervez Musharaf was removed from power because he was seen as too close to the Americans. His original opponent, Benazir Bhutto was assassinated by a well-orchestrated terrorist plan that may well have been orchestrated by well placed officials colluding with Al Queda. We still don't actually know who killed her and Pervez Musharaf was not helped by his death. Benazir's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was on Saturday elected as the country's 13th president.



what scares me is they elected the guy who is so corrupt they will turn to the extreme religious elements in Pakistan.

Yeah! Zardari is as corrupt as they come - but he's currently popular and part of that popularity lies with his apparent distancing himself from Washington (e.g. refusing to allow allied troops to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan despite being an "ally") Benazir was really the drawcard. He had beenthoroughly discredited. (Benazir's father was also a Pakistani leader. He was executed after General Zia al Haq took power.)

Being a Pakistani leader is not the safest of jobs.

Yeah! Zardari is as corrupt as they come - but he's currently popular and part of that popularity lies with his apparent distancing himself from Washington (e.g. refusing to allow allied troops to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan despite being an "ally") Benazir was really the drawcard. He had beenthoroughly discredited. (Benazir's father was also a Pakistani leader. He was executed after General Zia al Haq took power.)

Being a Pakistani leader is not the safest of jobs.

the only thing i hope is that when the fundies come to power in Pakistan we can convince the government being toppled to move their nukes into US possession. I don't think India will tolerate a nuclear armed fundie government on their boarder for long.

Nope! That would be WWIII - Obama has a big job in front of him: a domestic and world economy in crisis and a very strife-torn world.

Fortunately Barack means "Blessing" in arabic. I hope the Moslem world sees it that way.
Interestingly it's "Baruch" in Hebrew.

Fortunately Barack means "Blessing" in arabic. I hope the Moslem world sees it that way.
Interestingly it's "Baruch" in Hebrew.
"Baruch" means "blessed". The word for "blessing" is "Barakhah", same as Arabic except that it's in feminine gender (the -ah ending). Arabic and Hebrew are actually rather similar.

Nope! That would be WWIII - Obama has a big job in front of him: a domestic and world economy in crisis and a very strife-torn world.

Fortunately Barack means "Blessing" in arabic. I hope the Moslem world sees it that way.
Interestingly it's "Baruch" in Hebrew.

well i think a secular government about to be over thrown will have the sense not to let the fundies over throwing them have nukes.

The 20 fugitives India believes have taken refuge in Pakistan include India's most wanted man, Mumbai underworld ruler Dawood Ibrahim, and Masood Azhar, leader of the Jaish-e-Mohammad, one of the most violent militant groups in Pakistan. India said that the list would be a test of Pakistan's pledge of cooperation following the attacks.

However, the list does not appear to include people sought specifically in connection with the Mumbai assault, leading to charges in Pakistan that India is taking advantage of the crisis to press unrelated grievances. It appears to be similar to names produced for extradition by India in 2002. "They have used this as a pretext, to go for an old list of people. It's very strange. Instead of concentrating on the evidence at hand, they are really trying to play a political game," said Ikram Sehgal, a security analyst based in Karachi.

Ibrahim is Indian but is believed to be hiding in Pakistan, supposedly under the protection of the country's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, since 1993, when he was accused of masterminding a bomb attack in Mumbai that claimed 250 lives.

He is the overlord of a criminal syndicate called D-Company, which is involved in multi-million dollar smuggling, betting and extortion scams. In 2003, he was declared a "global terrorist" by the US. Pakistan denies his presence but he is widely thought to be in Karachi. Independent experts believe that D-Company could have provided vital logistical support to the Mumbai terrorists last week.

Ibrahim is far from the typical Islamic extremist. He enjoys the high life, including associating with Bollywood stars - his group is thought to have financed many Indian films. He is also a big cricket fan, where he is suspected of being involved in match-fixing. He is believed to have been motivated by the destruction of the Babri Mosque in India, by Hindus, in 1992 and the killing of Muslims in communal violence in Mumbai shortly afterwards.

Azhar is a classic jihadist, whose militant outfit is behind many attacks in India. He lives in Karachi, under ISI safeguard. He was captured by India in 1994 but was released after hijackers of a Indian Airlines plane in 1999 sought his freedom.

I doubt Pakistan will hand over a single one.

I doubt Pakistan will hand over a single one.

I can almost garuntee it.

What can the Pakistani leadership do to remove this very real threat to them and to peace in the region? Targetted assassinations?
Building of more governmnet schools instead of Madrassas that are funded by shady oil-rich types? Less corruption?

One of the big claims by the fundamentalists is that they are not corrupt (which I doubt!) But everyone expects the Pakistani president to be corrupt?

What can Obama do?

What can Obama do?

That depends. Do you want him to respect sovereignty or not? Because funneling weapons and money to Pakistan to "help" fight terrorism is merely enriching the corrupt elements of the government and army, some of which are more than happy to pass a few handouts to terror and criminal elements.

I doubt Pakistan will hand over a single one.

Knowing Pakistan, they would send their own list asking for Bal Thackeray, Modi, Advani etc.

Btw, Obama says that India has the right to retaliate. Not sure what to make of it. Rice is in India to 'defuse tensions'.

Btw, Obama says that India has the right to retaliate. Not sure what to make of it. Rice is in India to 'defuse tensions'.

It probably means that if a bunch of high ranking Pakistani ISI and army officers were to suddenly fall down a tall flight of stairs and break their necks tomorrow, he'd go "Oh what a shame" and nod his head sagely.

Knowing Pakistan, they would send their own list asking for Bal Thackeray, Modi, Advani etc.

They're not quite there yet...

Pakistan's president yesterday rebuffed India's key demand that he hand over 20 alleged terrorists, as the US intensified its efforts to ease tensions between the two nuclear powers in the wake of last week's terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Speaking from Delhi, the visiting US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, told Pakistan it had a "special responsibility" to help India's investigation into the terrorist attacks. Washington also sent its most senior military official to Islamabad to hammer home the same message.

Western powers, led by the US, are trying to stop tensions between the two countries spilling over after last week's attacks in Mumbai, which killed more than 170 people. India and Pakistan have fought three wars and had numerous skirmishes in the past 60 years.

India has demanded that Pakistan stop providing sanctuary to 20 people it alleges are linked to violence against it. But Pakistan's president, Asif Ali Zardari, yesterday appeared to reject this demand, saying the 20 would be tried in Pakistan if there was evidence to charge them.

Zardari's comments are likely to anger India's government, which is under sustained pressure from its people to take strong action in the wake of the attacks.

Btw, Obama says that India has the right to retaliate. Not sure what to make of it. Rice is in India to 'defuse tensions'.

The US do seem to have lost a little patience with Pakistan...

Yesterday Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, arrived in Pakistan. Mullen urged Pakistan to "investigate aggressively any and all possible ties to groups in Pakistan" and "take more and more concerted action against militant extremists in the country".

But in Delhi, Rice said: "This is the time for everybody to cooperate and do so transparently ... Pakistan needs to act with resolve and urgency. That message has been delivered to Pakistan."

Of course, it's all Obama's fault, and I know this is from your favourite man Arya...

Extremists could be reacting to Barack Obama’s gestures towards Muslims. This was not the conjecture of a wild imagination but the gist of the statement made by one of the world’s most renowned thinkers — Dr. Deepak Chopra.

Link to that one, here (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=420913)

A 'peace rally' in Mumbai turned into a protest rally with people baying for the blood. I hope the unthinkable is happening...common man outraged enough to demand action from the paralysed govt.

If there is no appreciable action from Congress govt, it is definitely going to fall in the coming elections. People are being fed up.

My worry is that if the govt does not do anything, people feel let down by the govt and they will resort to 'mob justice' and riot (like what happened in Gujarat after the Godhra train burning).

With every attack, Pakistan is crossing "red lines" that Indians just talk about and do nothing. Some day, a "rogue" terrorist is going to attack by air on a nuclear plant or even lob a nuke. I mean, where does this stop?

I mean, where does this stop?

At the current rate, in blood, tears, and so much death that there won't be anyone left to fight.

If the problem can be nipped in the bud with targeted killings and disappearances, maybe with less death.

But make no mistake, whichever way it's going to turn out, death will be happening, and in significant quantities. The only question is who and how many.

I googled Mumbai attack + Pakistan and came up with a Pakistani blog site that had lots of interesting info - but they had no idea who in Pakistan was linked to it either. Worth a read though:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/2008/11/29/pakistan-mumbai-terror-blame-game-and-the-blogospheres-perspective/#comment-1536993

I have this image of India as the warrior in the fog.
I hope Indians wait a while until the fog clears.

Here's a very interesting blogsite on Mumbai:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2438026.htm