Mumbai Terrorist Attacks India's 9/11: Why not a single thread on TFP?
 

Why isn't there a single mention of the situation that unfolded in India last week? Is it because we were too self-interested in Thanksgiving?

The tsunami that struck on Boxing day got a response, but not a single photo, not a single, thread about what transpired in Mumbai, India.

I know it affected our local Jewish community in Brooklyn. This was covered by many social networking sites, twitter, flckr, blogs... Some of the reads are amazingly detailed and paint a very clear picture of the fear and tension in the air.

I'm curious as to why it never became a discussion, or even still not a discussion?

... because we're all too busy shopping and worrying about our IRAs.

If it isn't white people getting bombed, we don't seem to care a whole lot.

I was waiting for you to make one.

November 2008 Mumbai attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Basically, terrorists, probably from Pakistan, orchestrated and carried out 10 attacks in Bombay last week. There were attacks on a railway station, several major hotels, the Oberoi Trident, Taj Mahal Palace, a major Cafe, a hospital, a movie theater, and a police station. There was active gunfire between militants and Indian police and anti-terorrism forces for several days, not to mention hostages were taken.

I think we were all waiting for somebody else to start a thread.

Well, two Aussies killed means it was hardly non-whites. For us Aussies, this attack didn't strike as hard as Bali, where lots of Aussies died.

Why didn't this make as many waves? Personally, I think this is a little like hearing about a bombing in Gaza - the news of it just doesn't mean anything anymore, as it is so common.

Bombings in India and Pakistan are both fairly regular occurrences and maybe this was seen as 'just another attack'. Obviously this one *is* different as the targets are considered Western and Touristy.

There was a sizeable 20/20 cricket tournament supposed to be starting in India shortly, but the Aussies who were supposed to be attending have stayed home, and the English Cricket team (who were in India at the time), immediately flew home. This is quite unexpected (though just about no cricket country has toured Pakistan for a while, India was seen as safer).

Maybe some of us are resentful toward India because so many of our white collar jobs have been outsourced there; meanwhile, our country is facing the worst finincial crises it's faced since the Great Depression?

:surprised:

I find it interesting that the response from American media is "India's 9/11" - as if world terrorism started in September 2001.

Pesonally, I lived in Lonon through the late 1980s and early 1990, and there was barely a week that went by without a terrorist incident near me.

In the mid 1980s our prime-minister was lown up in a hotel 10 minutes from my home (she was in Brighton).

That gives me a totally diferent perspective on terorism. This incident was sad for those involvd, but I have no personal onnection to it, and it appears to be related to the 60 year old Indian/Pakistani tension.

From what I read, "white" people were the target of choice for these Mumbai terrorists.
-----Added 2/12/2008 at 06 : 02 : 21-----
Oh? I've read lots of news articles about these Mumbai terrorist attacks, over the past several days, and that's the first I heard them declaired as "India's 9/11".

I thought the idea that the attacks were seen as "India's 9/11" came from the Indians themselves.

my immediate reaction was to the stupidity of the coverage, particularly the television coverage. this nitwit category of "terrorism" still functions to centralize what is not centralized, to impose a narrative that is not a narrative but more a paranoid fantasy.

what's worrying about this is obvious--the tendency to blame the pakistani government and thereby to turn this into a pretext for destabilizing and already volatile relationship between two countries that have nuclear weapons. there are few good scenarios.

it seems that internationally, folk are hoping that it brings down the indian government and replaces it with another that will perhaps invest more money in buying the sort of uselessly theatrical hi-tech "security" trinkets that have experienced such a boom under the reign of the bush people since 2001. this is what the following seems to me to add up to:

US 'warned India before Mumbai attacks' | World news | guardian.co.uk

I was thinking about this the other day when I browsed the forums. I wondered when there was nothing if people were just beginning to become apathetic about attacks such as this. My daughter-in-law's father and I discussed the attacks Thanksgiving day, but now that I think about it, after returning to work Monday there was no discussion about it in the break rooms.

And now, we have a discussion here about not discussing it here. Interesting... Maybe the theory about where it happened is correct. When it happens over there, perhaps American's really aren't caring.

think about it this way...the us is in transition. the sitting administration is lamer than most lame ducks. it has shown itself only barely able to cope with the financial crisis in the states. it has no political credibility domestically to speak of, and even less internationally. we collectively sit, waiting for 20 january and hoping that nothing bad happens that is outside the ability of the us to manage--assuming that mumbai represents something that the us has to manage. and i think there is a sense in which it does, to the extent that what i wrote above is unfolding. the americans---and everyone else---has an interest in not allowing the obvious tendency within india to deliver the fuck you response to pakistan as a whole to lead to anything foolish like military action.

i would see the non-response as partly a function of the holiday, maybe to some extent a function of parochialism--but i'd factor in anxiety as well.

It's big news here. The first local to be killed in a "terrorist" action made the front page of every paper.

As for it being "brown people"... the militants were seeking out US and English passport holders specifically. It's why they attacked the hotels they did. Reading the Canadian press, there were two Canadians killed and many more injured.

What I find troubling is that the Indians had warning of this sort of thing happening and yet, took no actions to stop it. I think it also represents a shift in thinking on the part of the militants. They are shifting their focus to softer targets which means they are having trouble achieving their goals in the West. It could also be part of an effort to destabilize the new Pakistani government so they can operate with more freedom.

but this group has been tied to actions in kashmir.
i think that's the subtext here, not the west directly---the west as it is seen as supporting india, which has been accused to brutality in kashmir (on this topic, i am at the moment agnostic)....here's a little wikiblurb about the history of conflicts over kashmir that highlights the role of guerilla organizations in getting the last war underway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict

this is one of the problems that follow from the discourse of "terrorism" a la bush administration--it reframes things so they refer to nutty frames like the huntington thesis, which in turn says nothing particular about india and so rebounds back onto what that "thesis" talks about--the "clash of civilizations" between christendom ("the west" and the Other (read islam)....

Disclaimer: When I say "white" I mean "white Americans." Sorry. We're really self-centered materialistic weenies here in the US and we just assume that Brits, mainland Europeans (especially the French) and Aussies aren't as important as us. Just check out any major newscast from any major network. Cute white girls and dead white people 24/7. Tsunami? What tsunami?

Thanks.

(flips back to FOX News for some objective coverage of the world)

I have nothing of value to contribute to this thread other than the obvious: I'd reckon people don't see a bomb blast going off overseas as anything new and exciting.

For further reading reference: Israel. Iraq.

We're numb and hammered with body counts every day of our lives through a news ticker. Seems like nobody cares. Except Cynthetiq and a few of the educated people here on TFP.

I chose not to start a thread about it because every news report I read left me without words.

I fear this is true.

Quite frankly, all the news coverage over the weekend was overwhelming enough, and I'll be the first to admit that I had a lot going on in my local sphere that required my attention. I would assume the same is true for others.

While I see that there are things to discuss about this incident, and the multitude of issues it creates/brings back to the fore, it is such a tragedy that it's hard to pull things apart in order to discuss them.

My heart goes out to India, and to all those countries that lost citizens in the attacks.

Sadly, I believe this is true too.

Ok, most of these extremists believe that a muslim-controlled world is inevitable, and the sooner they get on with the war leading up to it the better. They will do anything they can to destabilize any non-muslim countries, and particularly those countries that don't do things they like, such as India (for keeping Cashmire), and the US.

Lashkar E-Tayiba is the big extremist organization operating in india (and in some form or fashion almost certainly is responsible for this attack), with the support of Pakistani ISI, and there has been a serious increase in the effectiveness of their attacks recently which may be because they see opportunity in Pakistan's weakness and are operating independent of the ISI, or more likey IMO Pakistan is trying to destabilize India and upset their economy in order to keep them in check.

This is what I fear. Let India use Pakistan as a blame for the attacks, and next thing you know we have a return to Pakistan/India border clashing going on.

I hadn't thought twice about the lack of discussion about it on TFP.

What I wonder, is in America, we are still sheltered. We had our 9/11, but has anyone thought what would we do if the city we lived, or were visiting had a similar attack while we were there?

The other thing that strikes me, is I stayed at the Oberoi in Shimla, India when I was there. While a smaller town in the Himilayas, what if I happened to be there when a terrorist attack happened? While in transit in Delhi, a few small bombs went off in a mosque only a few miles from where I was spending the night. No one stateside even heard about that.

These attacks won't deter me from any future foreign trips, or even any potential trips to India. It reminds me to keep my wits about me wherever I may be.

greg's post above is what i'm talking about exactly.

To the original question, why was it not discussed? I can only give my own reasons. I don't discuss such topics normally because they don't hit a nerve for me. Is it horrible? God yes. It is a concern? Yes, it is a concern. We are a global community, therefore what happens across the world can affect me and my family. But if I talk about it, what does that accomplish? I get to get my "feelings" out, perhaps with a political message. Maybe I get to feel the global loss of human life, or cry in front of the camera at the loss of someone I've never met, not even their extended family.

Nah...

I feel pity for animals in shelters more than humans. We have the power to change anything on this planet we want, so long as we stay within the laws of thermodynamics. All you need is a charismatic leader, or enough pissed off people to drag the oppressors down with rakes and shovels.

I don't know the story on the attack. I haven't even read up on it. Yet I find myself saying that's unfortunate, but we have problems in our own house to deal with. That's as far as I'll push our homefront issues in this thread.

That's the truth. It may or may not upset you, but at least I got it off my chest :)

I tend to think the best way to respond to terrorism is to completely ignore it. Yea, when I walk out my door today, I might get crushed by a vending machine or blown up by a bomb, but it's not going to stop me.

Add Lebanon as well, since that's one that ktsp and I pay very close attention to, but no one else seems to care about.

Personally, the news from Thailand has preoccupied my thoughts more than the Indian news, since my mother has been stranded there for the last week (she was supposed to fly home last Wednesday, and then on Monday, and now finally her ticket is for Saturday--with fingers crossed, since the airport seems to be open again today). Has anyone started a thread about the situation in Thailand?

That sums it up for me. I saw everything I needed on the first page.

What happened in Thailand?

Whoa. It won't stop you, huh? Thank supernatural magical champions like our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that you're not running for office.

I think part of the reason that terrorism is so successful in this modern world is the lack of a "gung ho" (all together) society in so many parts of the better-to-do capitalistic me-me-me world. Like the limp-wristed flag-wavers after 9/11, as soon as anything hits us... we flip out and demand somebody else do something (i.e. super flop response to victims and survivors of VA Tech). If it hits our neighbor? We check our insurance policy and do the "maybe they deserved it" thing.

The intense sensational media coverage only acts to create secondary victimization and propagates the terrorist's wishes: getting attention for their batshit cause. Government clusterfucks like the UN prevent the necessary sledgehammer type action required to deal with immediate threats and political/religious/nyuck-nyuck ideals prevent governments from working together to repair the societal needs factors that cause terrorism: poverty, persecution, bored teenagers, etc. We talk about terrorism like it is a some sort of masked bipedal entity. Terrorism is like homelessness: a social problem that can be cured by social means. Boxcutters and Daisycutters aside... terrorism is often about poor people and religious nuts who see no other means by which to change their lives and need an enemy to fight in order to feel a sense of life purpose.

Thanks. I'll start busting out Sun Tzu and Clausewitz for my next act.

I checked a few days ago for a thread on this but didn't have the time to collect my thoughts and start one. This attack bothers me on several levels, the least of which is the fact that there was no mention of it on TFP.

An attack like this could occur anywhere in the world, even in the US. It was highly orchestrated and from the looks of it very successfully executed. Security in India seems to have been unprepared for this. Seeing the Taj burning for days and reading about hostages held for days made this more successful than it needed to be. There's a new term that was coined for the recognition gained by the ones that created this "celebrity terrorists" or "celebrity terrorism". They had worldwide coverage, probably became celebrities to many. The fact that a boat carrying a load of terrorists were able to bring the terrorists to India without being discovered should give someone in the India government pause. I can't believe their defenses are that low. However, I have no doubt a similarly executed attack could be carried out in any major city in the world: New York, Chicago, LA, London, Paris, you name it. That's what bothers me the most. How do we prevent this from occurring again? Can government (any government) actually protect its citizens against this type of terror?

I hope your mom arrives back in the US safe and sound.

Thailand has been in my thoughts as well, my cousin from Bangkok visited me the other week. As far the thread about it, I thought the same thing, but deferred to Mumbai because of the deathtoll.

While it is possible that an attack could be orchestrated on any large metropolitan city in the U.S., I don't think it would be as widespread, or last as long. When you step back, it's basically an simple assault, but instead of taking hostages (which we're used to anticipating), they're simply opening fire. What made the situation worse, was not that India's military was unprepared, it was that there seemed to be a lack of coordination between their army and Mumbai's police force, possibly made worse by the untimely death of their anti-terrorism chief.

Because firearms are used to commit most crimes in the U.S., our police departments would likely be more prepared to deal with this situation. SWAT-type teams are already trained to deal with situations involving armed gunmen, to include anti-drug operations in locations held by individuals who have the same amount of firepower that these terrorists had.

The two things I noticed from this situation as well was the lack of crowd control and the mishandling of information. Reporters (at least the American ones) were surprised that they were able to make their broadcasts as close to the Taj Mahal as they did, noting that in similar situations in the U.S., they wouldn't even be able to see the building from where the police would push them back to. If people are that close to the situation when it's still that chaotic, you have too many bystanders in danger, not to mention you leave yourself open to a 'sleeper' agent who can do more damage.

The poor flow of information is another problem. Indian authorities told the media three or four times that the Taj was cleared out only to hear explosions and gunfire and see flames coming out from another side of the hotel. The left hand was not talking to the right hand and that could've made things worse, especially if they started letting reporters in to survey the damage without knowing that there was one last holdout.

This isn't to say that this can't happen in the U.S. I've already mentioned that it was possible, but it's apparent that there are serious problems in India's security network. These problems didn't make the attack possible, but it did make a bad situation worse than it should've been.

On another point, the idea that 'celebrity terrorism' is something new is misleading. One of the goals of any terrorist act is to generate as much attention from it. This is why al Queda goes for the truly spectacular attacks like 9/11 and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. The massive proliferation of media outlets (both traditional and non-traditional web-based) means that our collective attention has decreased. Years ago, all it took was the image of a pistol at a pilot's head to get our attention. Now they have to compete with protesters overthrowing their government, financial meltdowns, historic elections, genocides, missing college girls, etc. They need to go above and beyond what their predecessors have done to get the world's attention, and a well-placed suicide bomber doesn't cut it anymore. It's the natural progression of terrorism. We can no longer afford to be shocked and awed by the audacity of their acts if you truly want to fight them.

There's no way one could get elected without using scare tactics in a campaign now-a-days.

I'm not aware of Mr. Obama and Biden using any scare tactics. Did I miss something?

Four more years of the Bush Administration-esque government wasn't a scare tactic? While not the standard form of political scare tactic, I certainly agree it was a scare tactic.

Certainly scared the crap out of me.

It's not a scare tactic when you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Obama's been crystal clear on Afghanistan and Pakistan; they are "terrorist" havens and we're redoubling our efforts in Afghanistan and we're possibly committing to another war in Pakistan. If you don't think those are scare tactics, you may very well be desensitized. Banging the war drum is a classic campaign strategy, and it's nearly always successful because people want to turn their fear into anger. Talking overtly and repeatedly about the supposed extreme danger we're all in from what's actually isolated groups of militants cannot be anything but scare tactics. And a man as bright as President-Elect Obama knows this, but was willing to stoop to scaring people in order to win.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for Obama because he was the better candidate between McCain, Hillary, and himself, but he's not really all that different from most politicians. He's not the second coming of progressivism. He's not likely to be a president that is in office during a time of real peace.

We control Bangkok airport: protesters - Travel - smh.com.au

Lots more in that article - the first when I googled Bangkok airport on the Sydney Morning Herald site...

nobody wants to post things like this because they are probably tired of having me smack them in the face with reality that disarmed people end up dead when attacked by people who don't obey the disarming laws.

why do i get the feeling that you're probably right?