|
9264. wonkers2 - 12/2/2008 3:02:19 AM Plenty of hostages have been rescued alive or ransomed from the FARC in Colombia. I doubt that ransom would have moved the terrorists in the Jewish center in Mumbai. Before coming in with guns blazing I would have cut off the water, and electricity and waited for a couple of days before shooting the place up. This might not have worked but waiting doesn't cost anything. Catching a couple of more terrorists alive would have been useful, not to mention the saving the lives of the Rabbi and his wife. It would have been worth a try.
Do you remember the disaster at Waco where the BATF and Janet Reno got impatient and needlessly burned up a bunch of women and children. And for that they were roundly criticized, justifiably so.
Waco Shootout 9266. JJBiener - 12/2/2008 3:40:39 AM Wonk - I am sure there have been successful negotiations with the Basque separatists as well, but it was clear early on the terrorists in Mumbai were on a different level.
I hope you aren't expecting me to defend Reno over Waco. She should have resigned over it. She was a lot of what was wrong with the Clinton Administration. 9267. wonkers2 - 12/2/2008 5:14:12 AM Perhaps you're correct. But a bit more patience wouldn't have cost anything other than the risk of critical public opinion. And it might have worked either to save the Rabbi and his wife or to capture the terrorists alive. The commandos apparently didn't wait until the finite amount of ammunition, food and water was exhausted. They could have done so. 9268. robertjayb - 12/2/2008 6:47:40 AM I want someone to prepare and publish an illustrated tick-tock that will explain how twelve (or is it ten?) men were able to wreak such havoc. Step-by-step, minute-by-minute? How did they do it? Was there any timely resistance at all? 9269. JJBiener - 12/2/2008 7:14:21 AM RJB - My understanding is that it wasn't just 10-12 men. That is how many came in from Pakistan for the attack. I don't think they know how many were already on the ground in Mumbai. This was a well planned operation. They would have had plenty of time to get people in place. 9270. JJBiener - 12/2/2008 7:18:49 AM Wonk - "But a bit more patience wouldn't have cost anything other than the risk of critical public opinion."
I don't think we know this. The whole thing was happening very quickly. I don't think the police could have known when the terrorists were going to start executing hostages. This wasn't exactly the kind of hostage situation we are used to in the US. 9271. jexster - 12/2/2008 10:33:17 AM Where's Marc-Albert?
Seems that asshole Harper's screwed himself. Oppo Bloc Sets Terms for Government
Nice! Vive le Québec libre ! 9272. alistairconnor - 12/2/2008 4:32:59 PM Objectively, the Mumbai thing is looking like a strategic Al Qaeda operation.
I thought their goal was to provoke trouble between Hindus and Muslims in India, and incidentally to stir trouble between India and Pakistan. But if you think through the probable effects, another picture emerges.
The Indian government has no choice but to blame Pakistan, and make hostile moves in that direction. If not, the government will most likely fall, AND there will probably be major Muslim/Hindu strife with many deaths. Going to the brink of war is their best hope of keeping the lid on the domestic situation.
This puts the government of Pakistan in a tough spot : yes, their military intelligence should have prevented the massacre, but the government have little control over the military, and none at all over military intelligence... who may or may not have been complicit or turned a blind eye. So they can give no guarantees that it won't happen again. If they try to assert control over the military, they may well provoke an islamo-military coup.
What they will have to do is shift troops to the Indian frontier if India picks a fight. And where will they shift them from?
... from the northwest, where they have been putting pressure on Al Qaeda and co-operating in the fight against the Taliban.
How to avoid this outcome, which is clearly positive for AQ? 9273. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/2/2008 6:26:49 PM The malevolent efficacy of the terrorists is worrisome. They always seem to outwit us in strategy and guile. 9274. jexster - 12/2/2008 10:58:50 PM Mumbai - International Dick Move
9275. robertjayb - 12/2/2008 11:01:33 PM Mombai police wouldn't shoot, photographer claims...
"There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."
9276. wonkers2 - 12/3/2008 12:56:26 AM Maybe the Bombay policemen aren't allowed to carry loaded weapons without authorization??? 9277. jexster - 12/3/2008 3:35:28 AM The Raj Mahal
 9278. jexster - 12/3/2008 3:36:51 AM 
9279. jexster - 12/4/2008 5:34:08 PM I can't keep track of all AC's gambling activities but I recall something on the price of oil now estimated heading for $25/bbl if China joins in the Great Recession 9280. wonkers2 - 12/4/2008 5:39:19 PM To demonstrate his intention to break with the failed Bush policies and improve our international relationships Obama should join the majority of civilized nations and sign the anti-cluster bomb treaty ASAP! CLUSTER BOMBS 9281. wonkers2 - 12/4/2008 6:52:18 PM More on cluster bombs--Obama--Sign the treaty ASAP! 9282. Wombat - 12/4/2008 8:20:51 PM From what I've been reading, it seems more Kashmiri-related that Al Qaeda. That's too bad, in a sense, because all parties can get behind blaming Al Qaeda instead of each other. If the attackers were linked to Kashmiri groups, then it becomes tricky.
Pakistani regimes in the past sponsored Kashmiri groups in part to make life difficult for India, and in part to give Islamicists someone to fight instead of--potentially--the Pakistan government.
India seized and continues to hold Kashmir against the wishes of the majority of the region's population. Indian government repression in Kashmir is far removed for the picture of Democracy that India presents to the world.
The attack strikes directly at the thawing of relations between India and Pakistan that has been taking place since Musharraf stepped down. The current Pakistani government can correctly deny that they had a role in the attack, but they cannot deny that elements in the military and intelligence communities played a role in training and protecting Kshmiri militants--and may still be doing so.
India can justifiably blame Pakistan for its role--however indirect--in the attack, but they canot evade their own responsibility for keeping the conflict over Kashmir bubbling away.
The US can usefully attempt to mediate between the countries and work toward a joint investigation. Hopefully Condolezza RIce retains enough influence to get that process going.
There will not be progress toward a longer-term solution until India and Pakistan are able to admit their roles in feeding the conflict, and not evade their responsibility for the conflict by inflaming nationalist and religious sentiments instead. 9283. wonkers2 - 12/4/2008 10:16:32 PM That's my impression from what I've read. Condolezza Rice would very much like to blame it on Al Qaeda, but it doesn't like this will fly. 9284. wonkers2 - 12/5/2008 5:17:46 AM Looks to me like he trail for the Mumbai terrorists leads straight to fanatics in Pakistan Pakistan groups appear to be source of Mumbai terror
|
