Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
India Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Mumbai, India
HERALD1357    11/27/2008 10:11:15 AM
My prayers are with you and your army this day as your people try to restore order out of the mayhem that certain very evil men unleashed in the name of their sick deranged superstition and their despicable so-called cause. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
appleciderus       12/3/2008 10:17:05 PM



Why do we need to examine if the precautions were adequate when the fault lies with the attack?



Because you will be attacked. You prepare for it
 
Here in lies the fundamental or strategic fault with contemporary thinking. Why prepare for the attack you know is coming? Why not prevent that attack? Why not eliminate the threat utilizing shock & awe instead of relegating that opportunity to another secondary consideration? How many innocent lives must be lost or 2 year olds need to be beaten before a government loses the support of its populous and is forced to react to the threat at a later date at greater cost of life to all?



If one expects to be attacked in perpetuity, and admits that there is no perfect way to defend oneself from said attacks, should not the discussion be the elimination of the source of the attacks?



That is the other part of the discussion but is something that is best handled in another thread.
 
Why discuss it somewhere else? This is where the most recent terrorist act was committed. For most of my adult life (and I'm an old man) I have been witness to countless acts of terror committed by State supported/trained/funded organizations thinly disguised by phony names. Yet from my youth to date the emphasis is on defense while countless innocents are sacrificed one an altar constructed by those who believe a smaller number of lambs sacrificed is preferable to a larger number of predators killed.      



What sense does it make to absorb the attack, put into action defenses for that attack, while your attacker studies your moves and attacks in a different place or different manner?



You have a choice of defending against a future Mumbai which you can manage, or possibly risking a major war. I discussed this in the American board with the rather bitter observation that Pakistan is a nation with half the population of the US with an area of France and Germany combined  It is a huge policing problem-even with a cooperative Pak government. If someone has to fight their way in, it will cost thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of lives. War is not an option, unless India or someone is willing to pay that risk price..
 
Your reply is cowardly. Preventing a future war by allowing your own citizens to be murdered will not work. It simply delays the inevitable and increase the cost in lives and treasure. Cowardly you ask? Not confrontational between you and I, but rather burdening our offspring with the eventual cost instead of solving the problem now. And why does the solution have to be invasion and policing?



Either you resign yourself to being attacked while attempting to minimize the damage to citizens, economies, etc., or you prevent future attacks by eliminating the source of the attack, entirely. Eliminate those that attack, those that fund, those that support, those that sympathize, those that tolerate, those that are indifferent.



I've answered this elsewhwere.The anti-western Pak government is a terrorist state enterprise, bent on causing mayhem via proxy while proclaiming its innocence.. 

You seem to agree with the cause, but not the solution.

Or hope it happens to someone else?

 

It's happened to Britain, France, Spain , Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, India , the United States, Russia, China, wetc.

 

 The common denominator is that, its moslems attacking these nations


 

 One day the rest of the planet will have enough of this fact.


 

Until then each of us, nations,  absorbs these attacks.because we don't like the hideous alternatives we would face.
 
Sounds just like Munich to me, but then I'm an old man not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past.

  







Herald



 
Quote    Reply

appleciderus       12/3/2008 10:46:47 PM



India did horribly. Granted there is little initial defense against a terrorist attack, but the Indian police were inadequate in their response. Had they been better prepared would just one life been spared? Had the Indian army responded faster would another life had been spared? If the Indian intelligence services acted on credible information, would many lives had been spared?




Yes, India did horribly -- but you are looking at things from a Hollywood/Bollywood point of view, it is no good.
 
You should know 3 things about me: 1) I do not believe in Hollywood based solutions, 2) I have no idea what Bollywood is or what Bollywood represents, 3) I confess I have over the last 25 years or so occasionally desired to visit Dollywood. (but as Herald might say that belongs on another thread)
 
The best defense against a terrorist attack is making oneself a very dangerous target to touch -- India failed to do that repeatedly after numerous attacks leading up to this one. It is a strategic failure.
 
I agree completelly! Sitting around trying to figure out how to defend oneself from the last terroist attack is like preparing your military to fight the last war. A strategic solution is needed. A strategic solution is available. But there is no political will. Tactical defense is the responce all the victimized nations Herald itemized in his post have chosen because there is no political will. Indeed, angry protestations by India after the fact were met by international calls for restraint.
 
The next thing is basic police work has definitely failed at many levels (a honest investigation will reveal it, but rest assured there will be none of it) -- it was an operational failure. Other things are tactical in nature -- putting a systematic fix on them is very difficult and quite useless while the larger issues remain unaddressed.
 
Again, I agree! While highly public figures fly around the world and/or sit in highly publicized councils (UN)  urging  restraint by the victims and accepting the denials of the State(s) supporting/funding/training the terrorists, the terrorist agree that the cost to them was acceptable.
 
So where next in the world do we prepare the innocents for the last terrorist attack?










 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       12/4/2008 4:53:05 AM

Don't forget that there are moslem or moslem populated nations that also suffered these attacks,

 

Indonesia, Iran, Kiwait. Malaysia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, the Lebanon, Algeria, Chad-southern Philippines . Innocent or mostly innocent nations these.


 

But like Pakistan, there are other current terrorist mislem states, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, to some extent Iran etc.

 

This is to make clear the distinction between the nation state victim and the nation state perpetrator


 

And let us not forget the chief victims Israel and as I study the history, India.


 

Herald





Only if nations that have historically largely supported terrorism and related efforts could be considered victims because a minority that developed into a majority (due and only after bombings of muslims) is against it.

 
Quote    Reply

tigerscratch       12/4/2008 11:44:38 AM
I found the comments and queries about gun laws in India inane. While Indian law allows licenced ownership of handguns and rifles, Indian cities - especially Bombay - do not have a high rate of crimes involving firearms, making the need to invest in a gun unnecessary for most residents.
 
Moreover,  Nariman Point - is part of Bombay's CBD. This district is filled with high rise office complexes flanked by luxury condos much like the CBD of most cities. I can't imagine a situation in Mumbai where office workers come charging out of their buildings brandishing guns anymore than I can imagine something similar in Manhattan.
 
In any case, you cannot expect a group of citizens armed with small calibre handguns to take on highly trained militants armed with kalashnikovs. 
 
SWAT teams: Unlike the US, the low rate of crimes involving firearms in India means that no police force here has a dedicated SWAT unit. The closest is probably Tamil Nadu which has a 'Police Commando Unit', but which is used mostly against organised criminal gangs and in tackling private armed militias in the countryside. New Delhi's administrative district is protected by the National Security Guards - but these come under the Federal Home Ministry and is organised specially for anti terror and military operations. Bombay does have the Anti-Terror-Squad, and then again this is an investigative unit which tracks down and apprehends terror suspects. While trained in the use of assault rifles, it's members do not have SWAT training.
 
But why talk of SWAT teams in a city where the average constable does not frequently carry a firearm? For nine hours, till the NSG commandos were brought in from New Delhi, the only fight-back that Mumbai had were police officers with service revolvers and slightly antique rifles - no match against well armed men with extensive urban warfare training and who fought from behind a screen of hostages. And then, these are men who have accepted their own deaths, and merely seek to inflict maximum damage before they are killed.


 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Applecoderis reply   12/4/2008 5:40:16 PM
Why do we need to examine if the precautions were adequate when the fault lies with the attack?

Because you will be attacked. You prepare for it

Here in lies the fundamental or strategic fault with contemporary thinking. Why prepare for the attack you know is coming? Why not prevent that attack? Why not eliminate the threat utilizing shock & awe instead of relegating that opportunity to another secondary consideration? How many innocent lives must be lost or 2 year olds need to be beaten before a government loses the support of its populous and is forced to react to the threat at a later date at greater cost of life to all?

How many lives are you willing to spend? We saw what Municvh cost, but the lesson was that as long as the cost was somebody else, we would do nothing. Its hard for a democracy to tell its people"We are going to war to murder x millions of people because we think that of we don';t go to war, that y tens of mil;liopns of peopl;e will be murdered. 


If one expects to be attacked in perpetuity, and admits that there is no perfect way to defend oneself from said attacks, should not the discussion be the elimination of the source of the attacks?

That is the other part of the discussion but is something that is best handled in another thread.

Now that you forced this issue, let me state the question baldly in its most brutal terms," How many Pakistanis are you willing to murder? How many Indians? Who decides when and how these murders will occur as you seek to rectify Pakistan and resolve the causes for Mumbai, once and for all?
 
Why discuss it somewhere else? This is where the most recent terrorist act was committed. For most of my adult life (and I'm an old man) I have been witness to countless acts of terror committed by State supported/trained/funded organizations thinly disguised by phony names. Yet from my youth to date the emphasis is on defense while countless innocents are sacrificed one an altar constructed by those who believe a smaller number of lambs sacrificed is preferable to a larger number of predators killed.      

AC, the cost of terroriosm has been with us always. In the old days iot was the assassins, or the more recently the anarchists who coinducted acts of violence to promote their causes. I cannot remember exactkly how many terrorist incidents there were in New York City in the 1890s all the way up to WW I, but there were dozens. We've had the SDS, the Weather Undfwerground, Timothy McVeigh, the Unibomber. etc. It just is. I cannot tell you hiow many thousands of Americansd have been killed by Klukke domestic terrorism. This is not to sday that islamic terrorism isn'yt serious, but it is to put things into perspective, 
   

What sense does it make to absorb the attack, put into action defenses for that attack, while your attacker studies your moves and attacks in a different place or different manner?

Its what you can do within the means you have.


You have a choice of defending against a future Mumbai which you can manage, or possibly risking a major war. I discussed this in the American board with the rather bitter observation that Pakistan is a nation with half the population of the US with an area of France and Germany combined  It is a huge policing problem-even with a cooperative Pak government. If someone has to fight their way in, it will cost thousands possibly hundreds of thousands of lives. War is not an option, unless India or someone is willing to pay that risk price..

Your reply is cowardly. Preventing a future war by allowing your own citizens to be murdered will not work. It simply delays the inevitable and increase the cost in lives and treasure. Cowardly you ask? Not confrontational between you and I, but rather burdening our offspring with the eventual cost instead of solving the problem now. And why does the solution have to be invasion and policing?

My reply is PRACTICAL. If I had my way, then I'd wave a wand and make it all go away.
But I can't do that. I have to balance sheet risks versus outcomes. If the outcomes are not worth the risks, then I have to absorb the losses. Is it worth 30,000 lives to avenge Mumbai? Is it worth 3,000,000 liv
 
Quote    Reply

Barca       12/11/2008 9:29:27 AM


But why talk of SWAT teams in a city where the average constable does not frequently carry a firearm? For nine hours, till the NSG commandos were brought in from New Delhi, the only fight-back that Mumbai had were police officers with service revolvers and slightly antique rifles - no match against well armed men with extensive urban warfare training and who fought from behind a screen of hostages. And then, these are men who have accepted their own deaths, and merely seek to inflict maximum damage before they are killed. 


Herein lies the problem.
This incident was treated as a police matter.
India has the highest number of terrorism deaths, higher than Iraq or Israel.  They need to develop anti-terrorism teams that are deployed in every major city.  To not be ready, despite warnings, in Mumbai is a failure of the highest degree.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics