Reply to SirG:
Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:06 am
"One president at a time". Current president is being briefed on terror warnings from around the world. Even if next president is too, he can't act on anything, not yet.
And even I am not partisan enough to think that current president's staff/cabinet/whatever, if they'd known about this one ahead of time, would have just let it "play out".
As it did.
I'm rethinking my own comment about "maybe a better team than the Indian security team could have saved more lives during the offense". Its largely based on the Russians' handling of the school hostage situation; pretty much everybody agrees the offense against those terrorists cost more lives of hostages than it should have. But in that case at least they were hostages. This bunch in India didn't really seem to take hostages except by mistake, or as a last-ditch effort; their main intent was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Unlike the Chetchen rebels in Russia, there were no "demands". Just a massacre. And though the intent was to kill as many Europeans & Americans as possible, they have of course killed way more Indians than Europeans & Americans combined.
Years ago I was reading travel writings by a lot of people, including William Dalrymple. Sorry if I've spelled his name wrong. He has a book of not-so-travel-y essays as well, about the political situation in India. Written pre-911. Large groups of partisans on one cause or another, killing large groups of partisans on one cause or another; political, religious, whatever. Several times a year. 450 per massacre, that sort of thing.
The west barely registers most of these. Because "we're not involved". Maybe the plans for this one snuck by as being one of those.
In any event, I don't seriously see how you can blame either the current or future American intelligence team for every terrorist act that isn't thwarted in the bud.
And even I am not partisan enough to think that current president's staff/cabinet/whatever, if they'd known about this one ahead of time, would have just let it "play out".
As it did.
I'm rethinking my own comment about "maybe a better team than the Indian security team could have saved more lives during the offense". Its largely based on the Russians' handling of the school hostage situation; pretty much everybody agrees the offense against those terrorists cost more lives of hostages than it should have. But in that case at least they were hostages. This bunch in India didn't really seem to take hostages except by mistake, or as a last-ditch effort; their main intent was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Unlike the Chetchen rebels in Russia, there were no "demands". Just a massacre. And though the intent was to kill as many Europeans & Americans as possible, they have of course killed way more Indians than Europeans & Americans combined.
Years ago I was reading travel writings by a lot of people, including William Dalrymple. Sorry if I've spelled his name wrong. He has a book of not-so-travel-y essays as well, about the political situation in India. Written pre-911. Large groups of partisans on one cause or another, killing large groups of partisans on one cause or another; political, religious, whatever. Several times a year. 450 per massacre, that sort of thing.
The west barely registers most of these. Because "we're not involved". Maybe the plans for this one snuck by as being one of those.
In any event, I don't seriously see how you can blame either the current or future American intelligence team for every terrorist act that isn't thwarted in the bud.