THE BODIES are still being counted in Mumbai, and the blame for the atrocities has yet to be allocated. But it is already amply clear exactly which country constitutes the chief suspect.
Claims from unnamed Indian government ‘insiders’ over the weekend that seven of the perpetrators were British – including two from Leeds, one from Bradford and one from Hartlepool - now thankfully seem discounted.
The key question is whether Pakistan had anything to do with the carnage; while full details have yet to emerge, the likely answer is a straightforward ‘yes’.
One captured attacker has apparently admitted membership of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba. Such a confession has intuitive plausibility, not least because Islamists in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir have often used the divided territory as a base for terror attacks elsewhere, most notably India.
And Lashkar-e-Toiba is known to enjoy support from sections of the Pakistani state, most notably the intelligence service ISI. But simply to accuse Islamabad of pulling the strings here will not do. Irrespective of who is in government in Pakistan, the ISI is an autonomous unit, beyond any semblance of democratic control.
Nor will it do to airbrush out grounded suspicion of ISI involvement by suggesting that ‘the real reason’ that India has become a target for terrorism is its ‘increasingly prominent role as an ally of US imperialism’.
From everything we know so far, there is no good cause to think that the horrific killing spree was motivated by any sophisticated analysis of the workings of international politics. The grudge at hand is very much India’s brutality in Kashmir, and that is unfinished business from the Raj, not in any way related to the recent nuclear deal between New Delhi and Washington.
As the bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September and last year’s assassination of Benazir Bhutto underline, ISI-sponsored groups are entirely capable of destruction on home soil. Politics in South Asia does not reduce itself to the simplistic ‘imperialism versus anti-imperialism’ narrative proclaimed by sections of the far left.
Islamism in Pakistan, at least in its modern format, emerged in the 1970s, deliberately encouraged by dictator General Zia ul Haq, the better to undermine support for secular parties that opposed him.
In the following decade, the very same US imperialism some portray as an indirect target of last week’s bloodshed offered cash and training to Islamist groupings in Pakistan, in support of the anti-Soviet mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, the US and Britain openly propped up the military regime of General Pervez Musharraf as part of the masterplan behind the Global War on Terror, pumping $10bn into the country.
But through repeated military strikes within Pakistan, aimed at killing Afghan insurgents holed up on the other side of the border, the US has almost entirely succeeded in alienating any internal constituency it may have built.
The only solution that is going to work is a political settlement on the Kashmir issue. Without that, hotels are going to burn and burn and burn, in Pakistan as much as in India.
Posted at 14:34, 1 December 2008
Comments (27)
The Pakistani Prime Minister has announced that the 100,000 soldiers currently operating in the North Western Provinces next to the Afghan border will re-deploy to the border with India.
So, I surmise that whoever planned the Mumbai attack had this as their objective - they wanted to increase the tension between Pakistan and India so that just such a movement of forces would come about.
The two main parties I can see desiring such a shift would be the Pakistan Taliban (who've suffered quite heavy losses in fighting the army) and the US military who want the Pakistani army out of this area so that they can conduct their own operations free of any oversight or interference.
Quite possibly, the CIA may have used undercover agents inside the Pakistan Taliban to run this Mumbai operation. Or the Taliban did it alone.
Either way, we will see a big increase in US military action in the North Western provinces - they may even invade and occupy the region with the fresh troops Mr Obama says he will send.
The Marriott Hotel bombing still has many mysterious aspects - such as the US military operation taking place at the hotel hours before the attack (US Marines unloaded large steel cases from a lorry and took them into the hotel, bypassing the security guards and scanners, witnessed by, among others, a Pakistani MP). A US Navy cryptographic technician turned up in the list of dead afterward. The US had some kind of intelligence op running at the Marriott and the enemy took them out.
That’s all correct and the Indian occupation of Kashmir has been brutal. But then it should also be remembered, in the eyes of many (including the leftist JKLF whose star has waned in recent years, to be overtaken by Islamists) that Pakistan occupies Kashmir as well. All the people of Kashmir should have a free choice to collectively accede to India, Pakistan or be independent.
For both India and Pakistan are prison houses of nations and whose brutal hand has been felt by those seeking independence such as for Baluchistan (from Pakistan) particularly in the 70s and various nations in the NE of India.
And whilst ‘Pakistan’ may be to blame that is a very loose term indeed. As well as being continually divided there also numerous factions in the army, in the government and elsewhere. To blame an Islamist group bombing India can be a bit like blaming ‘Britain’ for the actions of the loyalists.
Benazir Bhutto’s widower, has been making some amazing sounding overtures to India recently e.g. for close economic links (and, from what I’ve seen without the usual preconditions of the settlements of the Kashmir issue) and he has also has appeared top moved against bodies like the ISI - maybe to enjoy the same fate as his wife.
If I really was going for conspiracy theories, like Socialist Worker or Fellow Traveller (which are both ludicrous - and do they think Pakistanis or Indians need Westerners organising it all for them?), I would say that the USA would be keen to encourage India to get involved in its (so far) minor undeclared war against Pakistan.
If such turns to a full invasion (although can it when they are even getting beaten in Afghanistan) I still have hopes that those divisions would be overcome and those in the sub continent would act in unison against an American Raj.
and more to 'Fellow Traveller'
"Senior Pakistani intelligence officials have threatened to end military operations against Islamist militants along the country's Afghan border if India deploys troops on their eastern frontier. ...threatened to pull out all the troops committed to the "war on terror" in the event of "an unwanted conflict" with India…Pakistan currently has more than 100,000 soldiers engaged in operations in the semi-autonomous tribal zones" (from today's Guardian)
i.e. Pakistan has said it will pull all i.e. 100,000 troops from NWFP IF war starts with India. That's not "100,000 soldiers currently operating in the North Western Provinces next to the Afghan border will re-deploy to the border with India" as you claim.
And "The US had some kind of intelligence op running at the Marriott and the enemy took them out." So you think Al Qa'aeda, the Taliban, whoever, had the trawler ready knew the US Marines would be doing an operation at that time (and the railway shootings and the Jewish centre and the other hotel were what? cover?) and they attacked them but then weren't the CIA behind it all anyway? Hmmm. So was it all an inter US fight - CIA versus the new Obamaites - played out in Bombay - maybe with the faked death of Elvis thrown in (did you see the photo of the killed head of the Bombay police?).
And as for "The US had some kind of intelligence op running at the Marriott and the enemy took them out." 1/200 dead is an American. That really is an appalling comment. You are a 'Fellow Traveller' of what exactly? Something insalubrious.
Just say no to conspiracy theories
You can't avoid conspiracy in this area. One way or another, some group of men, acting in concert and in secret perpetrated these acts. By definition, a conspiratorial group.
You can only decide which conspiracy theory you believe (if any) and every party to these secret wars has their own theory they want you to believe.
be that as it may, why did the attackers choose to gun down dozens of the Indian poor in the Mumbai railway station? and why did they kill a young Rabbi and his wife?
I am trying to work out why they hunted out the Chabad House in a large city like Mumbai and did what they did? to what purpose?
why did the attackers deliberately hunt down and kill Jews in that city? also why are those questions are not being asked?
Mr Modernity - you may find this item discussing Israel's relationship with the Indian government of interest:
The visit of Indian Secretary of Defense Vijay Singh to Israel three weeks ago as head of a high-ranking military delegation passed quietly and was barely mentioned in the local media. The press releases said the officials discussed security-related purchases, including the sale of three Phalcon aircraft radar systems, manufactured by Israel Aerospace Industries, as well as missiles, helicopters, maintenance equipment and unmanned aerial vehicles. In the past decade, India has acquired Israeli weapons systems to the tune of $8 million.
However, two other issues were also on the table which were no less important: cooperation between Israel and India against Islamic terrorism, and the two countries' concern - along with that of other Western nations - over the expected dissolution of Pakistan, India's historic enemy and the first, and so far only, Islamic nuclear power.
"Our security cooperation with the Indians is excellent - there is simply no other way to put it," said a senior Israeli security official this week, who stressed that it is necessary to silence all criticism here against the Indian security forces' response to the terror rampage in Mumbai.
Relations between Israel and India tend to grow stronger when tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad rise, or when India experiences a rightward shift in anti-Muslim public opinion or in leadership. The incident that cemented diplomatic relations between the countries was the 1999 war between India and Pakistan over the Kargil area of Kashmir when, according to foreign news reports, then-Defense Ministry director general Amos Yaron arrived in India with an emergency shipment of artillery shells.
Whoever ordered this attack may have wanted to sow discord between Israel and India, hence the killings at the Jewish Centre which many Israeli's may blame on the Indian government inadequate security preparation.
aye right enough, Fellow Traveller "...may have wanted to sow discord between Israel and India,..."
or maybe they just wanted to kill Jews?
If they just wanted to kill Jews, why did they attack two hotels, the railway station and a cafe as well? Why not, the centre only? And why did they not attack at a time (say during Yom Kippur, October 8-9 this year) when many more Jews would be found there?
Fellow Traveler
[sigh] I did NOT state that they ONLY wanted to kill Jews and no one else, but that it was a more probable and simpler explanation than your suggestion that they were trying to disrupt relations between India and Israel.
This killing spree would not have been planned at the last-minute, or even three weeks ago. It is more likely that the planning for the attack started at least three or six months ago, and the targets (including Chabad House, Mumbai) would have been decided then, and not three weeks ago as suggested by you.
Thus it is fair to deduce that the attackers wanted to kill Jews for the sake of killing Jews, they also wanted to kill Westerners, the poor at the railway station, but not exclusively so.
Also,there are some news reports that those in the Chabad House may have been tortured before being killed.
[sigh] I did NOT state that they ONLY wanted to kill Jews and no one else
What you said was "or maybe they just wanted to kill Jews?" Perhaps you can explain the difference between only wanting to kill Jews and just wanting to kill Jews.
"but that it was a more probable and simpler explanation than your suggestion that they were trying to disrupt relations between India and Israel."
Why do you think there might be any contradiction between the goal of killing Jews and exacerbating Indian-Israeli relation?
"Also,there are some news reports that those in the Chabad House may have been tortured before being killed."
There is one such news report, from a not particularly reliable source, and it alleges torture of many hostages, not just the Israeli ones.
Lots of people were killed Jews Muslim Christians do not turn this into a Jews only killing spree. The fact is this type of murder is a waste of all life and does nothing to get these fanatic what they want. which I've no idea, more then likely war
India is pointing the gun at Pakistan and has an itchy trigger finger.
I agree with what you wrote but am probably more cynical about whether it will ever happen.
"Lots of people were killed Jews Muslim Christians do not turn this into a Jews only killing spree"
Nobody is suggesting that it was 'Jews only' but it is significant that Jews were sought out any for torture and murder. That doesn't seem to fit with the Kasmir connection. If you object to injustice in Kasmir, why on earth start killing Jews (anti-Zionist Jews as well, by the way)?
The only solution that is going to work is a political settlement on the Kashmir issue.
No. A political solution is worth pursuing for its own sake but it will not placate the kind of people who committed these atrocities because they have movable grievances. As has been pointed out above, the fact that Jews were specially singled out for torture and mutilation gruesomely illustrates this point. If history teaches us anything at all it is that nihilistic death cults like this gain a momentum of their own and lose any rational connection with any grievance - whether legitimate or otherwise.
"As has been pointed out above, the fact that Jews were specially singled out for torture and mutilation gruesomely illustrates this point"
As has been pointed out by me, the one not particularly reliable source that carried the torture story claimed that all manner of hostages were tortured, not just the Jewish ones.
And lo and behold, a story in the "Jerusalem Post" is headlined "Mumbai Doctor finds no sign of torture on Chabad House bodies"
It notes "On November 30, an article was posted on the Rediff Indian news portal which cited an unnamed doctor from an unspecified hospital as claiming that torture marks were evident on the hostages' bodies".
So that's the "fact" that underpins your case. But I suppose in Decentland, this kind of thing counts as rock solid confirmation.
The general behaviour of the Mumbai terrorists hardly suggests that torturing their victims was simply beyond them.
"The general behaviour of the Mumbai terrorists hardly suggests that torturing their victims was simply beyond them"
No it doesn't. But neither does the placing of an unsubstantiated story on the internet make it an incontrovertible fact, to be used as a rock solid basis on which to develop further fanciful theories.
revolt against modernity,
thanks.
I haven't check the JP or other sources recently, but I'll take your word that news reports are saying that they were not tortured, I am glad that was not the case.
"neither does the placing of an unsubstantiated story on the internet make it an incontrovertible fact, to be used as a rock solid basis on which to develop further fanciful theories."
True enough. But presumably one article in the JP isn't irrefutable negative proof, either. And even if they didn't *torture* their victims, they still, well, killed them. I'm not sure what point is being made by rushing to their defence. That they're not *quite* as bad? Okay. Maybe not. Ergo - what, exactly?
I am making no claims at all about the significance of them not singling out Jews, or indeed anybody, for torture, I am questioning the claims of significance made by those who believe they did so.
"it is significant that Jews were sought out any for torture and murder"
"the fact that Jews were specially singled out for torture and mutilation gruesomely illustrates this point".
So you should address your questions about what difference it makes to those who claim that it did.
revolt against ed wrote:
"I am questioning the claims of significance made by those who believe they did so."
my, you are revolting
what are the chances of meeting, or randomly coming upon, Jews in Mumbai? by chance?
Mumbai has a population of some 18 MILLION (that's 3 times the size of London)
apparently the Jewish community in Mumbia numbers some 4,000
so, what is the chance of that killing spree at Chabad House being random or deliberately planned?
well, revolting? what is more likely?
and supposing it was deliberate, what could the motives for the killing of a young Rabbi and his pregnant wife in the middle of Mumbia be?
well, revolting??
Nobody claimed that Chabad House was chosen at random. The question of motivation for the choice is of course how this discussion started. It was suggested that it may have been in order to disrupt Indian-Israeli relations. You dismissed this on the grounds that Jewish hostages had been singled out for torture, a claim you now seem to have withdrawn. As yet we know very little of the motivations of these people so it would be wiser to wait until we do before speculating.
[sigh] revolting wrote:
You dismissed this on the grounds that Jewish hostages had been singled out for torture, a claim you now seem to have withdrawn.
NO, again, I did not, you'll have to re-read what I wrote:
"but that it was a more probable and simpler explanation than your suggestion that they were trying to disrupt relations between India and Israel.
This killing spree would not have been planned at the last-minute, or even three weeks ago. It is more likely that the planning for the attack started at least three or six months ago, and the targets (including Chabad House, Mumbai) would have been decided then, and not three weeks ago as suggested by you."
my point was given the TIMING, that it seemed unlikely
you'll see that I emphasised TIME, not torture as the issue
again, the TIME to plan the attack and the complex nature of it were the issues, try re-reading my comment of 01:43, 2 December 2008
so revolting, which is more likely? kill Jews for simply being Jews or for the sake of some complex foreign policy issue?
which is more likely? be honest
I have no idea why an attack motivated solely by Jew hatred would take longer to plan than an attack motivated by a desire to disrupt Israeli-Indian relations. Or why you believe these motivations to be mutually incompatible.
"why you believe these motivations to be mutually incompatible.",
what I believe is, that YOU would deliberately lie, mislead and otherwise drag this point up a blind alley, rather than concede a bleeding obvious, that planning such an attack takes MONTHS, not weeks
why you would do such a absurd thing I can't say, but the evidence of your conduct is above and I'll leave it for readers to judge.
I remain baffled as to why an attack should take longer to plan because of having a different motivation. Perhaps you can explain this to me, without employing personal abuse.