A series of attacks were carried out this evening on business and tourist areas of Mumbai. Thus far 78 people have been killed and several hundred injured. It has been reported (on the World Tonight) that several five star hotels have been siezed and a number of tourists kidnapped. It is reported that holders of British and American passports have been specifically targetted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7751160.stm

There have been a series of "radical Islamic" and other attacks in India already in the last month, very shocking attacks on civilians.

Cactus Flower

YoungDan made a comment that he hoped that the Indians would not be fooled by the attacks. What would worry me more is how some politicians in India may seek to use the attacks to foster the interests of their party. Secondly how will they chose to play this internally in relation to any future relationship with Pakistan?

I have no doubt that the US intends to increase the scope and scale of its raids into Pakistan. How that will play out is anyone's guess. What happens to the stability of the country? Will the incursions receive tacit support from the current government? Will it eventually result in a more Islamic government or will the country simply disintegrate? It is not beyond possibility that some fool will start chucking nuclear weapons around.

The division of India at independence was a disgraceful mistake. Currently the Muslim population of India is probably around 13-14% so another question is was this attack intended to increase the possibility of internal strife in India?

And then there is Iran!

US foreign policy since WW2 has been truely lamentable. Many of the problems we now face are due to their botch ups. Their supremacy is undoubtedly waning and I could easily envisage a scenario where war could be a distraction from internal problems. Nothing unites like external threat.

Squire wrote:

Cactus Flower

YoungDan made a comment that he hoped that the Indians would not be fooled by the attacks. What would worry me more is how some politicians in India may seek to use the attacks to foster the interests of their party. Secondly how will they chose to play this internally in relation to any future relationship with Pakistan?

I have no doubt that the US intends to increase the scope and scale of its raids into Pakistan. How that will play out is anyone's guess. What happens to the stability of the country? Will the incursions receive tacit support from the current government? Will it eventually result in a more Islamic government or will the country simply disintegrate? It is not beyond possibility that some fool will start chucking nuclear weapons around.

The division of India at independence was a disgraceful mistake. Currently the Muslim population of India is probably around 13-14% so another question is was this attack intended to increase the possibility of internal strife in India?

And then there is Iran!

US foreign policy since WW2 has been truely lamentable. Many of the problems we now face are due to their botch ups. Their supremacy is undoubtedly waning and I could easily envisage a scenario where war could be a distraction from internal problems. Nothing unites like external threat.

After 9/11 the Pakistan government rolled over and allowed the US the run of the place, it appeared. The US supported non-democratic government in Pakistan so long as they facilitated the war in Afghanistan, is that right ? Now the US is sending rockets into the North of Pakistan and seems to do everything possible to destabilise the region. With the nuclear agreement between the US and India, I had thought this might be something to do with forming a bulwark against China. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and relations have been tense for as long as I can remember.

I can't make sense of it. Who benefits?

Yes cui bono.

IMO the most likely outcome is to stir up anti Islamic feeling in India and worsen relations with Pakistan. This would seem to suit the USA and Israel. However there is also a mind set within some revolutionary groups that would argue that you need unrest for the revolution to happen. Stupid martyrs being used, probably.

Quote :

revolutionary groups that would argue that you need unrest for the revolution to happen.

It is extraordinary how the interests of these groups coincide with the interests of the major powers.

There is plenty of unrest now, but it is not being stirred up by young guys with bombs and guns - food prices and and unemployment are doing it.

Why would war between India and Pakistan suit Israel and the US ?

Sorry lads, what are we suggesting here? That these attacks are part of some Machiavellian scheme to further America's interests?

Instead of pondering the mysteries of the US' foreign policies, maybe we should bear in mind that the simplist explanation is often the best. Youngdan might have notions of his own, but he generally takes a dim view of the intelligence of any group that disagrees with his own opinions.

I can't see how further instability in the region helps anyone. I doubt Pakistan's further isolation helps US policy.

905 wrote:

Sorry lads, what are we suggesting here? That these attacks are part of some Machiavellian scheme to further America's interests?

Instead of pondering the mysteries of the US' foreign policies, maybe we should bear in mind that the simplist explanation is often the best. Youngdan might have notions of his own, but he generally takes a dim view of the intelligence of any group that disagrees with his own opinions.

I can't see how further instability in the region helps anyone. I doubt Pakistan's further isolation helps US policy.

These lads were very well trained. Who do you think they are, and what is their agenda, 905?

I think it entirely possible that they were who they were supposed to be: some militant Islamist types. They can train too.

Many have suggested Pakistan's erratic intelligence service had a hand. Motive and purpose are not neccessities when it comes to that shower. I believe that it is a strong possibility but I am no expert.

Misha Glenny has a slightly different slant to everything else I've read on this so far. Still involving the ISI inevitably, but also Mumbai's criminal element -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/01/comment-and-debate-misha-glenny

"The operational key to the Mumbai attacks, however, is almost certainly held by D-Company, the sprawling and hugely effective organised criminal syndicate that is steered from the Pakistani port city of Karachi by the most powerful figure in Mumbai's fabled underworld, Dawood Ibrahim. It is virtually impossible that Dawood was unaware of the preparation of the attack, given the D-Company's extensive intelligence network (which in several past instances has proved more effective than the Indian state's intelligence capacity).
India's security services have begun investigating Dawood's possible role in the attack because he controls most of the smuggling routes into India's great commercial centre. In 1993, he put his network at the disposal of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, to let it smuggle in huge amounts of the explosive RDX."

It would greatly favour the US to break up Pakistan. Are the bombing Pakistan just for fun

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it favours the break up of Pakistan. What it does is paint Islamic fundamentalists in a bad light. It makes more reasonable any actions taken against them. Now the question is how would the government of Pakistan fair if there were a major rooting out of fundamental types in the border. I could see this suiting some in Pakistan.

The second line of thought would be that the fundamentalists see that they are about to get pounded and did this in the hope that India would start to mobilise yet more troops to the border. Unless my eyes deceive me there are armoured divisions constantly located near the border. Serious deployments near places like Jammu. In a conventional war India would overrun Pakistan in a matter of months, controlling it would be a different matter.

If India were to respond with troop movements then the hope would perhaps be that Muslims would unite against the outside threat and thus lessen the possibility that the tribal regions would be isolated and cauterised.

The big problem I have in comprehending this region is the disregard for what the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and other Saudi interests finance and get up to. This country practices religious apartheid, is extremely intolerant of other beliefs and finances all sorts of extreme teachings and groups. It is also a repressive regime in a more general sense. You can't win the Hearts and Minds if on one hand every religious crank on the globe is being financed and on the other the USA is hell bent on proving that their teaching are indeed correct. If you ever wanted a western Imperialist demon then the USA is truely heaven sent.

youngdan wrote:

It would greatly favour the US to break up Pakistan. Are the bombing Pakistan just for fun

Evidently not. What is the plan youngdan?


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/articles/2008/12/04/hammond_mumbai_attacks_more_than_meets_the_eye.htm

I don't think it is easy to overrun any country nowadays as the logistics necessary for any big force seem immense. I would put money on the Indians not getting too far in a conventional war. What do you think 905, lets have a prediction from you.

Squire, it could be a ploy by some Pakis to draw the Paki army away from the Pashtuns all right. Were this the case then it would have been a great success.

Who knows what the plan is Cactus. However months ago we discussed how Brezinsky in his global chessboard wanted Russia and China defeated. This would entail destroying Pakistan to get rid of a Chinese ally. China now is goimg to be pinched economically and if their muslims act up all the better..

We are about to find out as the markets are crashing even as I type

youngdan wrote:

Who knows what the plan is Cactus. However months ago we discussed how Brezinsky in his global chessboard wanted Russia and China defeated. This would entail destroying Pakistan to get rid of a Chinese ally. China now is goimg to be pinched economically and if their muslims act up all the better..

We are about to find out as the markets are crashing even as I type

That must be one of the biggest days yet.



Time to start pounding the war drum to drum up some business ?

In a conventional war the Indian Army would defeat the Pakistan forces. I have seen more armour on that border than there probably was in Normandy. The Indians have the numbers and unless the Pakistan army have the modern equivalent of Hannibal they would be ground down. The problem is the towns and cities and just trying to retain control. A few ounces of poison can do more damage than a tank. Also I think such a conflict would result in a nuclear war. So it is just too costly for any sane person.

In such a scenario question is what would China do?

I would be surprised if India does anything other than issue some statements. There is no gain in doing otherwise. They will be glad to see the USA get on with it. Why muck in if someone else is willing?

Again what will China do, could it start to use its financial might, sell bonds etc?



Audi

What is 7%-8% these days?

Well I'm not one for predictions youngdan, I leave the 'I told you so' to you. I certainly can't see India getting too far in dominating Pakistan (you see, we agree on something).

I can't see the Americans wanting a nuclear country broken up, there's way too big a risk factor. Remember please that Pakistan is an ally of ours as well as China's. They are bombing parts of Pakistan in frustration at the numerous attacks that come from that direction, they know the Pakistanis can't do anything about them.

Things aren't going well in Afghanistan, the last thing they need further instability in the region. I very much doubt they would try to pull off the destruction of one country and the abandonment of another just to get one up on the Chinese (which would not be a certain outcome). China's economic pinching is probably nothing compared to ours.

China does not have any financial strenght. All they have is a trillion or two of US bonds. They have a lot of gold though.

Ibis.I don't think Pakistan is an ally. It is proven that the ISI wired 100 grand to Atta. The Pakis hate America and Squire will correct me if I am wrong in that opinion. That is like saying the Iraqis loves America after a million of them have been killed

So you don't see Pakistan being broken up, at least you have some opinion of the future as this is supposed to be a chat on what we think will happen in the future. In this case the immediate future

China has more sense than to put all their eggs in one basket. I'm not saying they won't be stung, but I believe they have the capacity to weather the storm much more effectively than many others.

The ISI have a long and very murky history that rarely seems to run in tandem with government policy. I think to generalise all Pakistanis (and all Iraqis for that manner) is foolish. What are we basing their hatred of America on, the Afghan war? It should be remembered that Pakistanis are fighting (and being attacked) the same people in their own country.

I don't know if Pakistan will break up or not. It's relatively instable. But I don't think it will be broken up. The Indians won't do anything about Pakistan, if they were going to fight they'd have done it back in 2002. The Americans will carry on as before and nothing in Pakistan will change, unless from within the groups. Negotiations have been mentioned with regard to the Taliban, and the Americans will need Pakistan for that. Those are my predictions.

Sounds good to me and we await Squires opinion as he has been there

India won't want a war with Pakistan, I don't think it wishes that territory and the problems it would bring, but it does want to hold existing parts of and Kashmir, Ladakh and all existing territory. A weaker Pakistan would suit them or if there ever was the possibility an agreed reunification is always a dream.

The ISI is truely a strange beast with its own agenda and could well be up to mischief. This is from India Express;

New Delhi: A day after Pakistan promised to send the ISI chief to India, it backtracked, blamed “miscommunication”, and said that instead of the ISI chief a director-level officer will now come to India. On the other hand, through a declaration, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (front organisation of the LeT, which is headed by LeT chief Hafiz Sayeed), urged the Pakistan Government to stop dialogue with India and added that taking a cue from the US, India could begin attacks inside Pakistan.

On Saturday, Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari told a TV channel, “There was a miscommunication... we had announced that a director will come from my side. That is what was requested by the Prime Minister and that is what we agreed.”

It is learnt that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had asked for sending “the director” of the ISI, thereby meaning that the chief of Pakistan’s intelligence agency should come for a meeting. Zardari had agreed and an announcement was made by Pakistan PM Yousaf Raza Gilani’s spokesman.

On Saturday, Zardari, however, tried to rationalise the change of mind. “The DG is too senior a person to get into the investigation. It is too early for the directors general to meet. Let the evidence come to light, let the investigations take its course. Then perhaps there is a position where the DGs could meet,” he said.

To my way of thinking that is an inappropriate response.

IMO from Algeria to Pakistan the only place that the USA is not reviled is Isreal. They are universally viewed as aggressors and as a major cause of the problems. In many ways they are a convenient scapegoat, but there is no doubt that interference has produced the regimes in Iran and Iraq and is being used by fundemantilists. Also with that sort of opinion in mind what sort of 'friends' do they think they have in the region. I wouldn't trust any of them and would definitely keep an eye on Saudi Arabia.

That is what I would have thought. However we still hear the happy talk about our friends and allies. About Israel, the accepted fact is that the US is Israel's friend. Well with friends like that who needs enemies

This is a very detailed account of the murky origins of the attack, and who was involved, or may have been involved. Even though it draws no definite conclusions, I recommend it as by far the most substantial report on these events that I have seen.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/articles/2008/12/04/hammond_mumbai_attacks_more_than_meets_the_eye.htm

The article claims the 10 men who killed over 200 had a variety of drugs including LSD and cocaine in their systems and that they used submachine guns of a type designed for use by US Navy Seals.



The comments are also well worth reading.

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN07491735

There are numerous articles like this and I believe this may be the most important news. The attacks were to ignite a war. Everyone can agree with that regardless on who actually carried out the attack. Indian leaders have so far been wise and have not taken the bait. Rice now is turning up the heat.

Most on this site think that a new administration is actually a new team. Nothing can be as childish. It would be better if the war was started now so that the Obamobots could be kept deluded.

The most dangerous time in the immediate aftermath passed safely and this could be treated as a crime. But no, the pot must be stirred and kept on a boil. We are to be asked to believe that Rice/Hillary or Bush/Obama care about an American couple getting killed in India. As we have seen 60 people get shot here every day and nobody gives a hoot.

If war breaks out about 300 million will get killed but that is not the problem. The problem is what is in store for say the people of Ireland. Ho Ho Ho