21 killed, 141 injured as terror strikes Mumbai again

[Valin]

The Hindu:

Staff
7/13/11


The scene after a blast near Opera House, Mumbai on Wednesday. Photo: Vivek Bendre

Three blasts between 6.54 p.m. and 7.05 p.m. on Wednesday rocked the crowded areas of Mumbai, killing 21 persons and injuring 141 others. The most powerful one, suspected to have been set off by an IED (improvised explosive device), occurred at Zaveri Bazaar in south Mumbai, a congested part of the city, the second at Kabutarkhana near the Dadar suburban railway station in central Mumbai and the third at Opera House, also in south Mumbai.

Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan, confirming the death toll, said the blasts were a terror strike and the police would get to the bottom of it. He said the blasts occurred at 6.54 p.m., 6.55 p.m. and 7.05 p.m.

(Snip)

Mr. Sarangi said the bomb at Zaveri Bazaar was placed in an umbrella, while the one at Opera House was in a manhole. While Mumbai Police Commissioner Arup Patnaik confirmed that it was an IED that was used at Zaveri Bazaar, investigations are still on to confirm the kind of explosive used at the other two places.

(Snip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHCPj9VA5cQ

[Casino67]

Is someone trying to get India to attack Pakistan? It would one heckava war. Both would get to see how well their nukes worked.

[Valin]

Is someone trying to get India to attack Pakistan? It would one heckava war. Both would get to see how well their nukes worked.

 

 

You could be on to something.

[Argyle58]

Is someone trying to get India to attack Pakistan? It would one heckava war. Both would get to see how well their nukes worked.

 

 

You could be on to something.

 

 

150 million against 1.15 billion.......Pakistan would HAVE to use nukes to win a war with India. Not only do the Indians outnumber the Pakistanis 10/1, they also have the technological advantage in their defense forces.

[Casino67]

Is someone trying to get India to attack Pakistan? It would one heckava war. Both would get to see how well their nukes worked.

 

 

You could be on to something.

 

 

150 million against 1.15 billion.......Pakistan would HAVE to use nukes to win a war with India. Not only do the Indians outnumber the Pakistanis 10/1, they also have the technological advantage in their defense forces.

 

Now that I posted it, I wonder who would stand to win? I can't seem to figure that one out. If it is like the last Mumbai attack, this one was instigated by someone in Pakistan. What would Pak gain? They would take a hellava beating. And India would also take a big hit. MAD would seem to keep them from going to war.

 

If Pakistan was beaten down, it may give Iran a chance to move in and expand their empire. But do they want a radio-active Pak? And Iran would probably be overrun with Pak refugees which they probably don't want. Who would be interested in India? Who has oil? China is searching the planet and buying up all of it they can get their hands on. But then, would China want so much instability in the area?

 

So I am back where I started, who would gain anything from a war?

 

Come on Valin, what do you think?

[Sabre86]

150 million against 1.15 billion.......Pakistan would HAVE to use nukes to win a war with India. Not only do the Indians outnumber the Pakistanis 10/1, they also have the technological advantage in their defense forces.

 

India has more nukes than Pakistan, more missile deliverable nukes than Pakistan, and more nuclear capable aircraft than Pakistan.

 

The dangerous thing is that both sides operate under a pure "launch on warning" strategy which is fail deadly rather than fail safe. All it would take is for some radar operator to think there are incoming missiles, even if nothing was actually there, and within minutes mushroom clouds would be rising.

[Valin]

Is someone trying to get India to attack Pakistan? It would one heckava war. Both would get to see how well their nukes worked.

 

 

You could be on to something.

 

 

150 million against 1.15 billion.......Pakistan would HAVE to use nukes to win a war with India. Not only do the Indians outnumber the Pakistanis 10/1, they also have the technological advantage in their defense forces.

 

Now that I posted it, I wonder who would stand to win? I can't seem to figure that one out. If it is like the last Mumbai attack, this one was instigated by someone in Pakistan. What would Pak gain? They would take a hellava beating. And India would also take a big hit. MAD would seem to keep them from going to war.

 

If Pakistan was beaten down, it may give Iran a chance to move in and expand their empire. But do they want a radio-active Pak? And Iran would probably be overrun with Pak refugees which they probably don't want. Who would be interested in India? Who has oil? China is searching the planet and buying up all of it they can get their hands on. But then, would China want so much instability in the area?

 

So I am back where I started, who would gain anything from a war?

 

Come on Valin, what do you think?

 

I try not to think..."A mans gotta know his limitations" ...but if you insist...

 

A. Who would win? Right off the bat I'd say the violent Jihadists. The reason being they thrive in an environment of chaos, that and they don't really believe in anything like the nation state....so the destruction of one or both nations would serve their purposes, and if millions of people die..oh well too bad.

 

B. As far as Iran goes...see the above

 

C. China....?...? I believe they do see India as a competitor, but no, doing this kind of attack is not their way.

 

So I come back to Point A. as to who would be the big winner

[Valin]

‘The Lights Are Blinking Red, Mr. President’

James Jay Carafano

7/13/11

 

This infamous warning, made famous by the 9/11 Commission, reminds us that Washington should take seriously the messages its enemies are sending. Today’s horrific bombing in Mumbai comes hot on the heels of the recent attack on a prominent hotel in Kabul and Tuesday’s assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai in Kandahar. These may or may not be parts of an orchestrated campaign. But either way, they are all red flags suggesting that President Obama’s new counterterrorism strategy is all wrong.

 

This new strategy basically reduces America’s focus to playing “whack-a-mole” with a few dozen high-level al-Qaeda operatives. Meanwhile, the president is telegraphing a premature exit from Afghanistan, a tragic course of action that could well lead to the next 9/11.

 

These recent events show what is wrong with Obama’s plans. First, transnational terror groups, like the ones who likely perpetrated the attacks in Kabul and Mumbai, have common cause. They cooperate with each other and have each other’s backs. Just focusing on al-Qaeda won’t cut it. It would be like going after Al Capone and ignoring Frank Nitti.

 

Second, the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai (whether the Taliban engineered it or not) shows that the gains in Afghanistan are reversible. By cutting back now, the president makes finishing the job harder. It will probably mean more U.S. casualties. And in the end we could fail, leaving the Taliban the space to reestablish sanctuaries in Afghanistan and giving al-Qaeda the option of deciding on which side of the border it wants to spend its weekends. That bodes ill for the future. More than half the attacks aimed at the U.S. since 9/11 originated with individuals who trained at or worked with individuals schooled in terrorist training camps.

 

(Snip)

[Casino67]

Catherine Herridge

 

Her report on the lists of suspects. Indian actors with Pak assistance?

 

And Valin, thanks for your input.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Casino67

[Pepper]

‘The Lights Are Blinking Red, Mr. President’

James Jay Carafano

7/13/11

 

This infamous warning, made famous by the 9/11 Commission, reminds us that Washington should take seriously the messages its enemies are sending. Today’s horrific bombing in Mumbai comes hot on the heels of the recent attack on a prominent hotel in Kabul and Tuesday’s assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai in Kandahar. These may or may not be parts of an orchestrated campaign. But either way, they are all red flags suggesting that President Obama’s new counterterrorism strategy is all wrong.

 

This new strategy basically reduces America’s focus to playing “whack-a-mole” with a few dozen high-level al-Qaeda operatives. Meanwhile, the president is telegraphing a premature exit from Afghanistan, a tragic course of action that could well lead to the next 9/11.

 

These recent events show what is wrong with Obama’s plans. First, transnational terror groups, like the ones who likely perpetrated the attacks in Kabul and Mumbai, have common cause. They cooperate with each other and have each other’s backs. Just focusing on al-Qaeda won’t cut it. It would be like going after Al Capone and ignoring Frank Nitti.

 

Second, the assassination of Ahmed Wali Karzai (whether the Taliban engineered it or not) shows that the gains in Afghanistan are reversible. By cutting back now, the president makes finishing the job harder. It will probably mean more U.S. casualties. And in the end we could fail, leaving the Taliban the space to reestablish sanctuaries in Afghanistan and giving al-Qaeda the option of deciding on which side of the border it wants to spend its weekends. That bodes ill for the future. More than half the attacks aimed at the U.S. since 9/11 originated with individuals who trained at or worked with individuals schooled in terrorist training camps.

 

(Snip)

 

 

Thanks for article, Valin.

 

And no thanks to the premature Obama.