Terrorist Attacks In Mumbai
 

Thought we should have a thread to discuss the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

A sizeable number of well-armed attackers apparently arrived at the city by boat. They split up and took over several high-profile targets, luxury hotels and a Jewish center, attacking with automatic rifles and grenades.

The attacks appear to have been well-planned, the attackers prepared with ammunition, food, and apparently knowledge of the buildings' layouts.

Initially looking for Westerners, they killed a large number (200? more?) of Indians and foreigners, some shot down randomly, others taken hostage and then killed, before the attackers were themselves killed by counter-attacking Indian military troops. I think some fighting is still going on, or was as of recently.

Still unclear who is responsible. An unknown group has claimed responsibility. Some reports that one or more attackers are Pakistanis. Not sure how many, if any, were captured alive. Speculation of Al Queda ties.

Certainly one of the most spectacular terrorist attacks ever, and one of the most unusual - I can't think of any prior attack that involved so many attackers, and was of this "armed assault" style rather than the usual "plant a bomb" style. Munich '72 comes to mind, but this attack was much larger.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/28/africa/mumbai.php?page=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7754456.stm

It would be nice to keep this thread non-political. If you want to argue that the attacks were B--h's or O--a's fault, start your own thread in PARF.

Bunch of sick fu(kers! War and attacking your enemy is one thing, randomly killing is murder and there isn't a religious or political justification in the world.

I just posted on Harddrive's Oberai thread that I was surprised that nobody was posting about it.

This is a serious one. Organized, well-executed & unfortunately very effective. The fingers are starting to point but they seem to have a very broad agenda of targets. The west will want to blame Al Qaeda as usual but it might be more complex.

Ian

Kind of thing that bring me to think than I'm not proud to be a part of the human specie.

+1000

Last I heard, 146 people dead and over 325 wounded. The reports say 4 Americans dead among them but I'm not sure thats all that pertinent. Its a reasonless tragedy regardless of what your birth certificate or passport says. God Rest those poor victims and their families.

the response while swift ..it was sad to see..
3 days to breach a Hotel..ROOM
hostages where NOT an issue...
kids with guns, dressed in black/blue lets call them Commandoessssssssssssss.
most likely they killed many victims..and each other ..

Rika

Did anyone else see the video of the gunmen who had hijacked a police van and drove down the street shooting at innocent people on the street? Crazy. That kind of thing could happen in any city over here. The gunmen are on suicide patrol, they know they will die and dont care.

What a strange response.

A few hours of watching CNN, and you are second guessing the Indians response to a massive terrorist attack. Never mind the loss of life.....

Yes, yes, this all would have turned our differently if it would have been fine American commandos, not those silly Indians.....

Sure makes one appreciate the efforts of our President, military, etc...over the last seven years...to keep that from happening here again.

pure luck it hasn't happened here. nothing stopping them. do you think they're not here already?

Ditto. I don't buy the pure luck crap for a second.

We are now living in the world of the movie Brazil

I am waiting for the hit at a subway station in NYC

Actually "gunmen" terrorist attacks have been an extremely common technique used internationally. The U.S. media has generally failed to report such attacks.

The scale of this recent attack in India is just too large for them to ignore so we are getting reporting on this one.

I think the media decides to not report on "gunman" terrorist attacks -- and only reports on "bomb" terrorism -- because they have such an "anti-gun" bias. The reason for the media's normal silence about "gunmen terrorists" is connected to the same reason the media fails to report on any of the literally thousands of instances where U.S. citizens successfully use a firearm to defend themselves against domestic crime attacks -- the media wants to create an idea in people's minds that they are "helpless" against criminals, including that group of criminals called terrorists.

Look at Israel, in the 1970s and 80s, suicide gunmen terrorists were being shot dead so quickly by armed civilians, the terrorists had to change their techniques to suicide bombing in an attempt to increase the "effectiveness" of their terror campaign.

Odds are, if there is an organized terrorist attack in the U.S., it will involve gunmen and not "bombers." I've expected such an attack in the U.S. for years. Long before 9/11, I've carried "extra firepower" in the odd chance I happened to be someplace nearby when such a gunmen terrorist attack takes place. Based upon what has been seen internationally -- including this most recent attack in India -- terrorists will choose a "soft" target. It could happen anywhere in the U.S., but will likely involve targeting someplace where the terrorists will know that people will be completely unarmed. (They understand that it's easier to kill people if their intended victims aren't shooting back at them.)

Really? I don't think the US media collectively decides anything. They don't cover foreign terrorist attacks because it is not news worthy unless Americans are involved. The US media is too busy filling page after page with endless political crap or Brad & Angelina's latest hot story because that's what sells.

Ian

Yes, when Americans don't die, it is often not considered news worthy here in the U.S. and "political crap" and "fluff" are desired by large segments of the population.

But my personal experience with people in media, while limited, convinces me that many working in the media have left-leaning political ideas and see their roles in media as "society molders." They think it is their job to "sway" public opinion, not report the facts as objectively as possible.

My point is that foreign terrorist attacks (even with no Americans killed) do receive media coverage when they are bombings, but do not receive coverage when they just involve "gunmen" -- even when the death tolls can be very similar.

"jyl's" comment indicating his "surprise" about an "armed assault" terrorist attack rather than a bombing is an indication of how a generally intelligent and informed person (based upon the previous comments he has made on threads here -- even though I disagree with him about the bailout of financial firms ;) ) can be swayed by the media's bias in reporting international terrorism.

Tell Americans that they might be attacked by a suicide bomber, and they conclude that they "can't do anything about it" if it happens. Tell Americans that they might be attacked by a gunman, and they think about getting a gun to be able to shoot back if attacked.

I wasn't clear. I meant I'm not aware of a prior terrorist attack that was (1) so large and (2) of an "armed assault" type.

I recognize that there are attacks by one or two gunmen, pretty often. But seems to be that, until now, the really big terrorist attacks have been via bombs - and airliner :-( (Excepting terrorist actions that are essentially part of ongoing wars, e.g. Iraq.)

Here is the most detailed article I've yet seen on how the Mumbai attacks were carried out.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/11/analysis_mumbai_atta.php

and an excerpt:

A unique attack

The Mumbai attack differs from previous terror attacks launched by Islamic terror groups. Al Qaeda and other terror groups have not used multiple assault teams to attack multiple targets simultaneously in a major city outside of a war zone.

Al Qaeda and allied groups have conducted complex military assaults on military and non-military targets in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Somalia, Algeria, and Pakistan. But these are countries that are actively in a state of war or emerging from a recent war, where resources and established fighting units already exist.

Al Qaeda has also used the combination of a suicide attack to breach an outer wall followed by one or more assault teams on military bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as at the US embassy in Yemen. But again, these attacks are focused on a single target, and again occur where the resources and manpower is available.

Previous terror attacks in non-war zone countries such as India, London, Spain, the United States, Jordan, Morocco, and Egypt have consisted of suicide or conventional bombings on one or more critical soft targets such as hotels, resorts, cafes, rail stations, trains, and in the case of the Sept. 11 attack, planes used as suicide bombs.

The only attack similar to the Mumbai strike is the assault on the Indian Parliament by the Jaish-e-Mohammed, aided by the Lashkar-e-Taiba, in December 2001. A team of Jaish-e-Mohammed fighters attempted to storm the parliament building while in a session was held. A combination of mishaps by the terrorists and the quick reaction of security guards blunted the attack.

The Mumbai attack is something different. Foreign assault teams that likely trained and originated from outside the country infiltrated a major city to conduct multiple attacks on carefully chosen targets. The primary weapon was the gunman, not the suicide bomber. The attack itself has paralyzed a city of 18 million. And two days after the attack began, Indian forces are still working to root out the terror teams.

Anyone know the "why" of this? I mean WTF are these sick ba$turds up to? What is the point?

It's starting to look like they were Pakistani. Their issue might be the ongoing Kashmir border dispute. The targets were possibly chosen - Westerners & Israelis in Mumbai's business district - to attempt to destabilize India's economic boom & to increase tensions between the two countries.

Ian

Wanna know how to tell when a Pakistani is lying? His lips are moving.