Thanks Ian.

digg

FITZ!

Just for old times sake.
Now to read.

and they out thought and out fought the police and even the special forces.

Sounds like Al Queida got even better training or Pakistan was involved any leads on who? Who does India think is responsible?

Why do people do terrorism? Well, one reason is because sometimes it works. 9/11 got Osama bin Laden exactly what he wanted—America bogged down in wars, bleeding men and treasure.

Because they can’t get what they want good or bad through the political process?

Can somebody please send in the grownups.

Good of India to help these folks get what they want.

Unfortunately, that is bad for the rest of the world but overreaction by those in power is an old and not-so-honored tradition all over the world.

9/11 also got George Bush what he wanted: re-elected

What if we talk up to India how bad things have gotten for America since Bush created the Bush Doctrine?

If the goal of the attack was to kill Americans, Brits and Israelis, the attack failed. As you say, there seems to be too much planning for that to be plausible.

More likely, the attack’s secondary goal was to kill Americans, Brits, and Israelis while the primary purpose was to throw a match on the tinderbox of India/Pakistan relations.

Nicely succinct, Ian.

Al Qaida has planned marine attacks before like the Cole, etc. (remember stories of Qaida snorkelers plotting to attack the Golden Gate Bridge?), so it’s fairly obvious that’s who did this thing.

So how else could Al Qaida benefit from India/Pakistan war?

The attack on Jews, which is not an internal Indian Muslim bugaboo indicates that there was at least some outside funding/support. I don’t know if it was AQ, AQ’s usual operations are civilian, not military, and the folks who did this were a lot better than AQ types usually are.

I think they were rounding up the foreigners as high value hostages, and thought/expected? this to devolve into a hostage situation.

As I commented over at Pat Lang’s place:

As the attack could never have had any real military significance, it’s primary motivation had to be destabilization.

And destabilization not of India, but Pakistan.

Wayne Madsen claims Al-CIAda may be part of the Mumbai attcks.

[Mumbai-born Dawood Ibrahim] has been under the protection of Pakistan�s Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) intelligence agency since June. He is being protected in Quetta, near the Waziristan tribal region. The CIA is fearful that if Ibrahim is deported to India, RAW and Russia�s Vladimir Putin will obtain the entire dossier on the CIA’s sponsorship of criminal activities and terrorist attacks…

The CIA has every reason to blame the Mumbai attacks on a coterie of “Islamist” groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al Qaeda, and a new group called Deccan Mujahedin. If the media takes a closer look at Ibrahim they will find links to Langley and that is something neither the CIA nor Pakistan or India wants to see happen lest other dirty laundry also comes to the forefront. Ibrahim’s joint casino interests with the CIA in Kathmandu apparently involves money laundering…

Ibrahim also knows a great deal about the CIA’s operations on the subcontinent, including …agency veterans of Kathmandu who dabbled in personal loans from Ibrahim to pay off gambling debts, personal favors for the CIA, highly sought after prostitutes, and drugs. Many of these veterans of Nepal are now senior analysts and operational personnel at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

I think you are looking in the wrong place. To understand this one, think Kashmir, which in South Asia is as important a flash point as is Palestine to the Northern Hemisphere.

And thse people were different. No one has commented that I have seen, but these people were clean shaven. Now I know they wanted not to stand out, but essentailly all Al Quaeda influenced (and by the way I think we have vastly overplayed the actual reach of Al Quaeda, and why should they discourage us?)players tend to be bearded, for religious reasons. They were different.

OT I have just watched on BBC Newsnight Lt Col (just retired ) Darrel Vandeveld, who gave up as a prosecutor in Gitmo, because he just couldn’t take the shame any more. Very moving, and made me want to see the guys who set this up (and we know who they were don’t we?) in jail for a long time, preferably in soiltary cells with loud music, refrigeration and few clothes.

A lot of what is being said on the MSM is that it came from an area in Pakistan. (Same media that said Russia invaded Georgia first) Maybe so maybe not. One thing that should be understood is that many countries do not control their populations just like many populations do not control their governments.

RAW is a Secret Service agency of India.

RAW is basically a Secret Service established to perform clandestine operations based on the Chanakyan principles of deceit and guile. It has successfully destabilised neighbouring countries, disintegrated independent states and backed the most notorious guerrilla organizations to achieve its ends. If it is compared to other intelligence agencies of the region, it emerges as an aggressive, cold-blooded and ruthless institution, engaged in the most macabre deeds.

why not india? especially with the elections?

is there any reason to positively exclude any of the possibilities (and they are legion) – including the possibility of a black flag operation?

not saying that it’s likely, but nothing i’ve seen makes me ready to exclude anything at this point.

Clean shaven is SOP for Qaida on their missions, remember those training manuals? And the video of Atta at the airport and the London bombers? They looked like everyone else.

My theory is that the general anger generated by disputed Kashmir was the target of the attack. This event alone wouldn’t start a war between the India and Pakistan. But on top of the history of Kashmir, not to mention the whole partitioning of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. . . This was meant to inflame.

If you mean influence India’s elections, that is certainly a possibility, though IMHO, not a likely one.

If you mean destabilize India, that seems highly unlikely in comparison to Pakistan.

India has a far more robust democracy than Pakistan does.

Remember that Pakistan has been ruled via miliary strongmen via coup for almost its entire existence with only sporadic episodes of democratically-elected civilian leadership.

India, on the other hand, has had functioning democratically-elected civilian leadership since its re-birth from British colonialism.

As many others have analysed it, the Mumbai Massacre was never a militarily significant attack on India.

It would however, ramp up India’s anti-Pakistan reactionary forces.

It would then put more paranoia pressure on the already fragile and reeling Pakistani civilian government.

This would in turn increase the likelihood that Pakistan’s military would again resort to an unpopular coup.

And thereby increasing popular resentment against those Pakistani elite (the military, security services, and the wealthy upper class), and increasing popular support for a “bottom-up” people’s revolt led by the jihadis.

Yes, like that school in the former soviet union and like that theater in Moscow.

My definition of al Qaida above is broad and includes all kinds of groups that share the same goals and methods but may not be under the direct control of Bin Laden.

And I suppose the ISI is peace loving, warm blooded (generous hearted?), benign and responsible for saintly deeds?

Asia Times on Line has some good analyses rather than this pro Pakistan drivel from both Pakistani and Indian analysts.

It is not the Indian public that is clamouring for strikes against Pakistani training camps but the right wing BJP who are currently in opposition. This is an election year with six State elections coming up and the Federal election due by the end of 2009. The Indian public anger is focused on governments, State and Federal, responsible for coordinated intelligence and security infrasructure.

@23

Also see Juan Cole (Informed Comment), Cruickshank (Washingtonnote) and Patrick Cockburn (the Independent, UK).