The Mumbai Mysteries
We could now be facing a moment as dangerous as the run-up to the Cuban Missile crisis. Roughly two thirds of the number of people alive in the whole world in 1962, if statesmen make the wrong decisions, might soon be manoeuvred into a nuclear confrontation. I find myself asking how people got into this rut.
On one level, of course, there is no mystery. A group of militants have invaded a city, in a coordinated manner, and killed a very large number of people. They have done so with planning, well-known specialist tactics, and with widely available small arms. They were accompanied by what is now everyday technology.
A number of questions have arisen. Some are more important than others. I have listed mine below.
1) Why and with what evidence are reporters able to say with confidence that the terrorists were 'trained' in or near Rawalpindi-- a 'garrison town' but also the home of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence? There appears to be a mismatch. If one of the terrorists is saying that he was trained in 'marine warfare' at the Mangla Dam, and that he was, as were the others, organised in pairs on a buddy system, why would they all have been brought together and by whom?
2) I assume that the revelation that the 'one surviving terrorist' comes from Faridkot is not a cover story. Is he the only one? Are others being interrogated, and have lines simply become confused? Is he from Fardikot in India or the Pakistani Punjab? Can his presence in Pakistan and his movement backward and forward be explained?
3) Were any British people involved, or was this just assumed because of the various complications involved in British Kashmiri politics or a wider association of British muslim youths with militancy by Asian writers?
4) Who started a story that British and American individuals were being targeted--separately from the Jewish people who were clearly targeted--if the death toll now suggests an indiscriminate level of killing?
4) Who within Pakistan--whether retired or serving ISI--would be mad enough to want to split India into confessional groups and light a war in South Asia?
5) Why is Amir Taheri straight out of the stalls today with a definitive note on Al-Qaeda style planning?
6) Why is the ISI refusing to comply with the Pakistani government request to talk to India?
8) Is there any sense in which a confrontation between India and Pakistan would 'take the heat' from US and Pakistani military involvement in tribal areas and who would benefit from this?
9) Are the Lashkar-e-taiba training camps functionally the same as Al-Qaeda camps, and do both have access to ISI resources in some fashion?
10) Is any electronic record of 'chatter' or communication available?
UPDATE: You may wish to check out this article from the South Asia Analysis Group. The scale and intensity of the challenge facing the free world as it slips into the pincers of deflation and cultural stagnation, is laid out here by the inimitable Shariah Finance Watch.
We could now be facing a moment as dangerous as the run-up to the Cuban Missile crisis. Roughly two thirds of the number of people alive in the whole world in 1962, if statesmen make the wrong decisions, might soon be manoeuvred into a nuclear confrontation. I find myself asking how people got into this rut.
On one level, of course, there is no mystery. A group of militants have invaded a city, in a coordinated manner, and killed a very large number of people. They have done so with planning, well-known specialist tactics, and with widely available small arms. They were accompanied by what is now everyday technology.
A number of questions have arisen. Some are more important than others. I have listed mine below.
1) Why and with what evidence are reporters able to say with confidence that the terrorists were 'trained' in or near Rawalpindi-- a 'garrison town' but also the home of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence? There appears to be a mismatch. If one of the terrorists is saying that he was trained in 'marine warfare' at the Mangla Dam, and that he was, as were the others, organised in pairs on a buddy system, why would they all have been brought together and by whom?
2) I assume that the revelation that the 'one surviving terrorist' comes from Faridkot is not a cover story. Is he the only one? Are others being interrogated, and have lines simply become confused? Is he from Fardikot in India or the Pakistani Punjab? Can his presence in Pakistan and his movement backward and forward be explained?
3) Were any British people involved, or was this just assumed because of the various complications involved in British Kashmiri politics or a wider association of British muslim youths with militancy by Asian writers?
4) Who started a story that British and American individuals were being targeted--separately from the Jewish people who were clearly targeted--if the death toll now suggests an indiscriminate level of killing?
4) Who within Pakistan--whether retired or serving ISI--would be mad enough to want to split India into confessional groups and light a war in South Asia?
5) Why is Amir Taheri straight out of the stalls today with a definitive note on Al-Qaeda style planning?
6) Why is the ISI refusing to comply with the Pakistani government request to talk to India?
8) Is there any sense in which a confrontation between India and Pakistan would 'take the heat' from US and Pakistani military involvement in tribal areas and who would benefit from this?
9) Are the Lashkar-e-taiba training camps functionally the same as Al-Qaeda camps, and do both have access to ISI resources in some fashion?
10) Is any electronic record of 'chatter' or communication available?
UPDATE: You may wish to check out this article from the South Asia Analysis Group. The scale and intensity of the challenge facing the free world as it slips into the pincers of deflation and cultural stagnation, is laid out here by the inimitable Shariah Finance Watch.
Comments