Comments on: Also Aimed at America

By: sona

sona — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:56:43 +0000

thank you Toby – i’m still coming to terms with it all and my daughters, half english on their father’s side, are very upset – they were in Mumbai last december and loved the place and know the Taj and the Leopold well – the latter did the best bhelpuri in the world

By: TobyWollin

TobyWollin — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:37:23 +0000

Sona – this is terrible for your family and very frightening for the future.

By: sona

sona — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:33:26 +0000

my second cousin was a victim – he was a grand chef at the Taj – so the feelings in my family are very mixed – there is a lot of anger and grief but also fear that it would get the BJP back – my family is very intermixed and secular although born into hinduism but that is an atheistic religion (i don’t want to to argue this here but i think i know i know what i am saying)

By: sona

sona — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:18:07 +0000

i often agree with what you have to say but this time you are dead wrong – no hindu nationalist would ever launch such a destructive assault on the the Taj in Mumbai bc it has an iconic status in that it was built by jhk Tata in 1903 when he was denied entry to the Walton Hotel bc he was a ‘native’ when the Brits were still there – in other words, it is a monument that says f*** u to colonial racism.

By: teeoh243

teeoh243 — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:16:54 +0000

I’m sure we’ll learn more in the coming days, but I don’t think this analysis will stand up over time. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria did some q&a with Newsweeks managing editor on Wednesday (early in the siege, I know) and he says there were better targets if they wanted to kill Westerners (or merely grab the attention of the Western media, as Mr. Partridge says). He also points out that Indian Muslims have been left behind in India’s economic boom over the past decade, which has alienated many. I was hoping Zakaria would do an update, but as of Saturday morning, I haven’t seen one. Here’s the link if you want to check out what he said Wednesday. http://www.newsweek.com/id/171006

By: KayInMaine

KayInMaine — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 12:50:40 +0000

Since Reagan/Bush Sr. were into arming & financing the mujahideen, my current assumption is they’re behind the financing & arming of this new group, the Deccan mujahideen. Hey, since his son has allowed the pilfering of TRILLIONS from American taxpayer money, the Bush Cartel has plenty of money now to put death squads on the payroll again. Spit.

Before Clinton came on in 1992, there were lots of these kinds of attacks on Americans around the world and out of nowhere came the 1993 WTC by a group called al-Qaida that no one had ever heard of (Bush sr., the bin Ladens, and the Saudi royals were already in business together at this time), so it seems to me history is repeating itself again.

My guess is the next 9/11 will be nuclear and the nukes will have come from our own arsenal and perpetrated & conspired by neocons in our government currently.

Just saying…

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:58:53 +0000

LaRue…you make some good points. I understood that the US/Brits were being selected for HOSTAGES. That would be a trump card and drag out the opportunity to receive media exposure. If they had taken Indian hostages the government may have been less tentative in sending in the military.

The terrorists did not seem so concerned about killing Indians. You make a good point about the attacks in the hospitals. No Westerners there. Perhaps they wanted to disrupt the caregiving facilities…sort of like using a second bomb when the police and ambulances come to help victims of a first attack. Plus people in the hospital are often non-ambulatory and sitting ducks.

They were not targeting in a precise way high officials. This was largely an attack designed to cause maximum carnage, but also international attention. That’s why they went after major centers in the center of “Bollywood” - where Indian elites and others were likely to be.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:47:10 +0000

BTW The attack was undertaken for what might appear to be the most contrary of rationales. It was INTENDED to spur a reaction of forcible response and oppression by the Egyptian government. This was because there had been a deal brokered by some in the Islamist faction with the Government to operate within a political space in exchange for renunciations of violence. In exchange there would be a limited amnesty for those who renounced violence and assisted in turning in those who continued acts of terror.

Zawahiri saw this as a highly dangerous situation and saw a single, highly visible act against foreign tourists as the way to get the Mubarek regime to withdraw their support…they’d be forced to crack down.

Much the same thing is occurring now in India. The BJP and other nationalists are screaming for Pakistani blood…at the very time that the two governments are reaching closer to resolving several long standing issues. But if Pakistan is faced with sanctions or military threats this only strengthens the hand of the fundamentalist parties in that nation, weakens the moderates and modernists who currently control the government (although they are of separate parties).It would be the religious parties and the military who “win” if India and Pakistan go back to a war footing.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:33:56 +0000

One thing that I’m surprised hasn’t been raised is that Ayman al-Zawahiri has, in fact, planned something very much like this type of attack before. The Luxor Massacre in November 1997, was a coordinated attack on tourists at a major national tourist site intended to bring down the government by targeting NON-CITIZENS of that state.
Similar types of weaponry were used, and it was a coordinated operation between two, or more, different groups with somewhat different aims.

By: Larue

Larue — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:24:49 +0000

My deepest condolances . . .