Mumbai - What keeps going through my mind

[drmeow]

I keep thinking - If we'd responded to the 9-11 attacks with criminal investigations and cooperative counter-terrorist policies instead of starting 2 wars, could we have prevented or minimized this? If we had spent the money we've spent in Afghanistan and Iraq on intelligence and diplomacy and making friends instead of enemies, I can't help but think yes.

[rockymountaindem]

1. Probably not

This is about India, Pakistan and Kashmir, apparently. That conflict and its attendant terrorism were going on well before 9/11 and it's not really about us.

[OhioChick]

3. If it wasn't about us....

Why were they picking out/looking for Americans/British with passports? Or was that story a crock?

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. There are several factors

The state of affairs in India provided the cell leaders with willing and enthusiastic foot soldiers with knowledge of the scene. The ongoing slaughter (somehow missing the furious condemnations that a media spectacle like this has) of Muslims by US, Britain, Pakistani stooges, Israel, and India in the theatres of Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, Palestine, and Kashmir provided the direct motivation and specific targets of choice. If one wished to take the evil moral relativist pro-terrorist line of cold rational thought, you can directly tie these incidents to the recent US/UK/Pakistani stooge campaign of wholesale bombings and destruction of villages in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan. One does not have to have sympathy with the activities in order to notice their cause, despite what will probably be said by the great patriots who enthusiastically cheer on all of these horrific causes. But, it is much easier and far more common to think of such matters as having no cause, with the only response being "more of the same that led you here". That is why such things keep happening and will continue to, because their provocations (which are indeed equal, if not worse, but certainly better choreagraphed and marketed) are only being multiplied.

[HillbillyBob]

10. It also goes further back , hell they are still pissed off

about the Crusades, the treatment from the west on up to the present.
Not quite a full fledged student of history, but a lot of interest, it seems to be all of what you said plus the agitation between India and Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Excerpt: Per Wikipedia excerpt:

"The borders of present-day Bangladesh were established with the partition of Bengal and India in 1947, when the region became the eastern wing of the newly-formed Pakistan. However, it was separated from the western wing by 1,600 kilometres (1,000 mi) across India. Political and linguistic discrimination as well as economic neglect led to popular agitations against West Pakistan, which led to the war for independence in 1971 and the establishment of Bangladesh, with the help of India. However, the new state had to endure famines, natural disasters and widespread poverty, as well as political turmoil and military coups. The restoration of democracy in 1991 has been followed by relative stability and economic progress."

Granted this is blamed on Pakis their main argument seems to be religious intolerance between followers of Hindi and Islam. I suspect this particular lot did not really care who they killed, but with emphasis on westerners, if some Hindis got dead eh so what they are infidels too. Of particular gall is the sending of western protestants to Muslim countries.
This I heard from the daughter of Baptist Missionaries who lived in Pakistan and Afghanistan for many years. From personal experience, having some missionary come to my door repeatedly
try to come in my house to bring me whatever flavor of Gawd they espouse gets really fucking old and irritating.
The West has repeatedly invaded, post crusades..the British, French, Germans, then we fight a world war part of it across their yard, pump oil that does not bring any profit for the lower income folks,it seems an almost perfect storm of intolerance, insults, grabbing of resources.

[FarCenter]

16. While the Crusades were going on, the Muslims were invading India

From the 11th through 17th centuries in various stages, with considerable massacres of the Hindus.

[aquart]

14. Any Afghan among these killers?

I don't want to interfere with your wonderful theory, but are any Afghan people among the Mumbai murderers?

No, they seem mostly a bunch of disaffected Brits. You might want to ask what's up the young men of Leeds, first. And why they're killing strangers so far from home.

[Alamuti Lotus]

19. The first two I saw identified..

were from Paktun villages north of Islamabad, just south of the Northern Areas.

[smitty]

9. Even if this is a Pakistani vs. India thing, jihadis will always

be looking to kill Americans, Brits and (especially) Jews. Adds a little zest to the mayhem.

[sixmile]

12. That will turn out to be false like most of the reporting thusfar

As of yesterday only 6 were foreigners, of the wounded 7. While those hotels and the bar frequently have foreigners those numbers and the attack on the railway station and the cinema do not fit to an "attack on foreigners" scheme.

There also seems to be no special religious anti-Muslim or anti-Hindi scheme in this as no place of worship was attacked.

The attacks, even while there were a lot of casualties, seem not designed to cause the maximum number of dead. One would do that with explosives within the crowded railway station. Not by shooting into the masses or by blowing up a random taxi.

There were no suicide bombings. Apparently there was no hostage taking either. But the attackers did not care or prepare to get away either. Instead they waited for the police and then had a shootout at each place.

[drmeow]

7. A few thoughts about that

1) It appears that anti-American and anti-British sentiment played a part even if it wasn't the only or even primary focus.
2) Dealing with 9-11 differently probably would have meant that the political climate in Pakistan would be different. International cooperation in the investigation of international terrorism would not just have benefited the US or prevented anti-US terrorism.

[sandnsea]

11. And Afghanistan

They are saying this is a group called Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was formed in Afghanistan. It's all connected. Until India and Pakistan resolve the Pashmir problems, Pakistan can't resolve their terrorist problem, which means it will bleed over into Afghanistan. And continue to involve us.

[Warpy]

2. Probably, but there's no glory in meticulous police work

and international cooperation, which is why our dime store cowboy wanted to go in with bombs.

What strikes me is that this isn't a typical AQ operation. They'd have used multiple truck bombs and simply leveled all the targets.

These guys are rank amateurs. It will be very interesting to find out who supplied them and planned this thing.

[peace13]

4. Where has shooter been lately anyway? n/t

[drmeow]

8. There also is no billions of $$$ for

Halliburton etc to loot.

[Idealism]

5. There are tons of things we could've prevented

Millions dead in Iraq being foremost in my mind.
The hotel bombing in Pakistan last month wouldn't have happened if we wiped out terrorist in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of shifting our sights to Iraq, either most likely.

[alittlelark]

13. I keep thinking my hubby was at that hotel 3 weeks ago.

creepy.

[Bucky]

18. I'll say. That really brings home how bad foreign policies can affect all of us.

I had a colleague at school who used to praise Ronald Reagan's dealing with El Salvador & Nicaragua, until one of our students shared his mother's story about what her life had been like living in fear of the terrorists that Reagan funded. When it's people instead of foreign tallies, it starts to look different.

[Captain Hilts]

15. They don't use the same continuum of logic that we use. nt

[Bucky]

17. Invading Afghanistan after 9/11 wasn't an option.

Although Bush managed to fuck it up pretty bad, the "cooperative counter-terrorist policy" following 9/11 was exactly what the invasion of Afghanistan was about. Nato & Russia & China... and even Iran... all supported that initial response to the Taliban refusing to hand over bin Laden to us. As Al Franken put it, "Even a President Ralph Nader would have done Afghanistan."

That said, your larger point is correct--world terrorism has escalated in part because of Bush's disastrous foreign policy--and principally because of the Iraq occupation. We don't want to excuse the actual terrorists in Mumbai or Madrid or elsewhere for their own actions. There are elements in the Middle East who want to see their own region driven to violence & chaos, because they think it will lead to a New Caliphate, or some other such nonsense. The guys shooting up the streets of Mumbai these last few days are the puppets of these evil men.

As you say, intelligence, diplomacy, international pressure, smartly targeted aid, and international coordinated counter terrorism would be the way to put them down. That will mean piling up a few bodies along the way. But done with an eye toward containing and isolating the extremists, it is an achievable goal. Bush's policy has only spread the contagion and provided a fertile environment for extremists to recruit in.

We'll never be able to take a full measure of all the possibilities for peace & progress & prosperity that the Bushies have wasted in the last eight years. But history shows sometimes you really gotta face your worst possible disastrous consequences before a democracy gets around to deciding to really fix its problems right.