Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A Lesson From Mumbai on The Occasional Futility of Common Terror Countermeasures
Some observations, which seem spot on to me, from security maven Bruce Schneier:
If there's any lesson in these attacks, it's not to focus too much on the specifics of the attacks. Of course, that's not the way we're programmed to think. We respond to stories, not analysis. I don't mean to be unsympathetic; this tendency is human and these deaths are really tragic. But 18 armed people intent on killing lots of innocents will be able to do just that, and last-line-of-defense countermeasures won't be able to stop them.
- If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.
- Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything.....
Another salutary thing we can learn from Mumbai, given that the resources and openings to commit horrible crimes like this are quite common, is that it seems there just aren't that many people inclined to commit acts like this, even if they can't really be prevented from doing so.
Instapundit w/links on gun control, and a lack of inclination on the part of even the legally armed to shoot, in India.
Schneier's name is oft-dropped here at reason.
Link via Unqualified Offerings.
|12.1.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Terrorism is very, very rare, but most people think that the
reason it is so rare is because of some measure the government has
taken or will take. That is why most people are helpless to do
anything.
I call it the "Alphonse and Gaston" routine about who holds the
door and who goes through first. It causes everyone to freeze or,
at least, hesitate just long enough.
Otherwise it would have been easy to nip every one of those little
shits in the bud.
shecky|12.1.08 @ 8:01PM|#
The War Nerd makes some interesting points about the nature of the attack.
|12.1.08 @ 8:02PM|#
I'm not saying that these terrorists are bit short in the gray
matter department, but give me 18 armed suicidal guys in a major
city and sure my death toll wouls top the two measly hundred these
fuck-ups managed to rack up. That's only about ten per
nutcase.
OK, I guess I am saying it. What a bunch of incompetent loser
terrorists. It also is beginning to appear that a captured one
spilled his guts.
Fucking dimwitted losers. If I were Pakistani I'd be ashamed of
this incompetent lot of special education washouts.
thoreau|12.1.08 @ 8:02PM|#
While I'm all in favor of the right of self-defense, I'm not sure I want to go around saying "Yeah, this would have been TOTALLY DIFFERENT if everybody had been packing." It's easy to be a tough guy on the internet, but if confronted with an actual gunman the smart move is to find cover, not go out and be a bad-ass who tries to clear the building, gunning down the terrorists that he finds before they can return fire.
thoreau|12.1.08 @ 8:09PM|#
David E. Gallaher-
Nope, not referring to you, just the general mention of gun
control. No doubt a lot of ice cream commandos are sitting in front
of keyboards right now explaining that if they had been guests in
the hotel the terrorists would have been taken down quickly.
|12.1.08 @ 8:37PM|#
Dear India,
Don't adopt stringent new security laws.
Don't create a big new domestic security apparatus.
Don't make your police prioritize counter-terror over ordinary
police work.
Don't let the countermeasures you launch against the responsible
parties get conflated with the pre-existing agenda of any domestic
political factions. Because they're going to try.
And fer chrissakes, don't invade anyone unless they were involved
in these attacks.
Trust me on this.
|12.1.08 @ 8:44PM|#
joe,
Not only does government prevent effective action with its Alphonse
and Gaston routine, it follow up with closing the barn doors after
the horses have escaped.
Peaceful anarchist here.
Ruthless
|12.1.08 @ 8:47PM|#
They were hunting British and American citizens, J sub D, not firing into the crowded Mumbai sidewalk. They even let Italians go.
jasno|12.1.08 @ 8:54PM|#
It wouldn't have been *totally* different, but I bet if some
asshole tried this in, say, Texas that it wouldn't have been as
prolonged.
Also, I disagree with the idea that there aren't a lot of people
willing to do this. I think there are, thanks, in part, to our
foreign policy choices of the last 40 years. However many of them
are too old, too stupid, or lack the logistical support to do
anything. I think if you offered free transport to any Pakistani
willing to go on a suicide mission, you'd find a fair amount of
takers in a population of millions.
Things like this happen, and they'll probably happen again, and in
the future they could be much worse, involving more sophisticated
attacks, better weaponry, and non-conventional warfare.
I'm not offering any solutions, but it seems like wishful thinking
to assume these tactics won't be used with increasing frequency in
the future.
Derrick|12.1.08 @ 9:26PM|#
Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks.
None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against
specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any
difference:
"Last-line-of-defense" countermeasures necessary to prevent any
possible type of terrorist attack in any possible location within a
country, are also financially unsustainable. You'd have to lock
down every inch of the country as tightly as the White House. The
U.S. (or India) could afford to do that for about 20 minutes before
running out of money.
Doug|12.1.08 @ 9:29PM|#
I agree with Schneier. If al-Qaeda's primary interest was in killing Americans, then al-Qaeda would be killing Americans...period. Hell, who even needs guns and grenades when all a determined terrorist organization needs to do is mobilize sleeper cells to poison coffee pots across the nation one day. Think 9/11 was ugly, imagine tens of thousands of Americans poisoned to death one morning. Nice thought, huh? Ain't nothing big daddy government can do to stop a creative and determined terrorist. Embrace the horror.
|12.1.08 @ 9:47PM|#
...go out and be a bad-ass who tries to clear the building,
gunning down the terrorists that he finds before they can return
fire.
But dammit thoreau, I kinda look like Bruce Willis.
|12.1.08 @ 9:49PM|#
"Hell, who even needs guns and grenades when all a
determined terrorist organization needs to do is mobilize sleeper
cells to poison coffee pots across the nation one day. Think 9/11
was ugly, imagine tens of thousands of Americans poisoned to death
one morning."
Nah. Anyone who's had a Mickey Dee's coffee is immune to poisoned
caffine.
SIV|12.1.08 @ 10:03PM|#
...go out and be a bad-ass who tries to clear the building,
gunning down the terrorists that he finds before they can return
fire.
Handguns are personal defensive weapons. You defend yourself with
them.Armed civilians aren't an ad hoc commando force.Much like
individuals pursiuing their self interest economically benefits
everyone, those individuals defending themselves does so as
well.
Geoff Nathan|12.1.08 @ 10:03PM|#
I'm also a fan of Schneier, and have met and talked with him a
few times. He's got it absolutely right on security, but he's no
libertarian. He's of the opinion that the government should be
making certain kinds of regulations on software (like making
software makers responsible for economic damage caused by bad
programming, and setting minimum standards for security measures in
software (although leaving it up to the industry to decide how to
meet the standards). Actually argued with him on this in public
once.
Still, everybody should read his blog. Regularly.
Bruce Schneier's
Blog
|12.1.08 @ 10:04PM|#
Excellent points by Schneier! So very true.
As for me, considering the lengthy history of the CIA in fomenting
rebellion and war throughout the world, and considering the very
professional way in which this was pulled off, and considering
Schneier's most valid points, it seems there is some measure of
probability that there might have been CIA assistance in this
attack. Please pardon the cynicism, but Schneier's analysis firms
up my feelings on this.
Alice Bowie|12.1.08 @ 10:07PM|#
I agree.
The TSA took away my wife's 1 1/2 inch nail clipper as it can be
used as a weapn. Five minutes after boarding, they gave her a
bottle of White Wine.
Alice Bowie|12.1.08 @ 10:12PM|#
THE TSA is a Bunch of BOZOs.
I have to agree with Brian Doherty. Terrorism and Suicide flakos
are probably pretty hard to come by.
But if we continue our RACIST Policies...particularly our policy to
support a bunch of Racist Seperatist like the Israelies...expect a
lot more of this. We didn't support South Africa with Apartheid. We
didn't support the Separate but equal clause in the Southern USA.
WHY DO WE SUPPORT a GROUP OF PEOPLE that a SEPARATIST? WHO ONLY
WISH TO LIVE AMONG THEMSELVES? Whos ONLY contact with PEOPLE
OUTSIDE OF THEIR RACIST FAITH is ONLY COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION.
America...World...Keep supporting Israel...And you'll see
that THIS TYPE OF SHIT WILL NEVER END.
Kolohe|12.1.08 @ 10:20PM|#
That's only about ten per nutcase.
The dudes at Columbine got 13 combined. The Va Tech guy seems to
have the 'high score' of 32.
Ten seems to be about 'the fleet average'
not firing into the crowded Mumbai sidewalk.
There was also the pair that was firing indiscriminently on the
platform of the train (subway?) station.
category fetishist|12.1.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Thank you, Alice Bowie. That clears things up nicely. Regards to the wife.
The Angry Optimist|12.1.08 @ 11:10PM|#
America...World...Keep supporting Israel...And you'll see
that THIS TYPE OF SHIT WILL NEVER END.
What, is that some kind of threat?
The Wine Commonsewer|12.2.08 @ 12:06AM|#
None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against
specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any
difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports,
fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public
transportation, anything.....
Exactly.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.2.08 @ 12:12AM|#
While I'm all in favor of the right of self-defense, I'm not
sure I want to go around saying "Yeah, this would have been TOTALLY
DIFFERENT if everybody had been packing
On the way back from Home Depot just now I heard that one guy who
wrote that book (CRS) say that the ideal target city in the US
would be a mid-sized, mid-western city. LA and NY no good because
the cops are too good. Other southwest cities? Too many civilians
with guns.
I'm not naive enough to say if the citizenry in India was packing
that there would have been a take down. However, nobody in India
has a gun and I have to believe that after three days of mayhem
that somebody would have shot at least one of the bastards had
there been a pistola handy.
The Wine Commonsewer|12.2.08 @ 12:16AM|#
Five minutes after boarding, they gave her a bottle of White
Wine.
Cretins.
Well, your old lady is safe because lips that touch white wine
shall never touch mine.
A comfort to teh gaiz and married women everywhere.
|12.2.08 @ 12:19AM|#
They were hunting British and American citizens, J sub D,
not firing into the crowded Mumbai sidewalk. They even let Italians
go.
Did one not claim they were aiming for a body count of 5,000? Such
discrimination would seem counterproductive.
Paul|12.2.08 @ 3:14AM|#
It's easy to be a tough guy on the internet, but if
confronted with an actual gunman the smart move is to find
cover,
Interesting, thoreau. That's
exactly what the few armed people policemen
did.
If we can't
depend on the armed agents of the state who are trained to deal
with these situations, then I'm afraid I'm going to have to take
matters into my own hands.
In the end, it has little to do with being a bad ass. If I were
armed, and lunatics were running around shooting civilians, and I
have a clear shot and I have decent cover, I'll probably see my way
to making an attempt to take one down. I may fail, I may not ever
get a clear shot, but being legally armed would make me feel ever
so much better.
However, I would like to throw one wrench into the works. In a
terrorist attack, where you've got a dozen 'backpacker' looking
civilians shooting at other civilians, if yet more civilians open
fire in defense, how is law enforcement to know which civilians are
the terrorists, and which are defending themselves? I honestly
can't say I have a straightforward answer to this.
Art-P.O.G.|12.2.08 @ 6:02AM|#
Embrace the horror.
Isn't that the kind of thing that got Spitzer in trouble?
Abdul|12.2.08 @ 7:59AM|#
None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against
specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any
difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports,
fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public
transportation, anything
I find this to be a bit of a stupid argument. It's like saying
having Marines at the embassy to protect the diplomats didn't stop
terrorists from killing Americans in a luxury hotel down the
street.
Of course these counter-measures didn't stop this particular
attack. This particular attack was designed to avoid those
coutnermeasures. If we got rid of the countermeasures, perhaps the
Mumbai terrorists would've hijacked an airplane instead of a
fishing boat. And we now know that crashing a plane into a
skyscraper leads to a higher body count than shooting randomly in
hotels.
The counter-measures Schneier talks about are specific to airports.
They've made airports a harder target, so terrorists went after a
softer target. This doesn't necessarily mean that we should make
airports softer targets again.
|12.2.08 @ 8:11AM|#
Did the head of the CIA resign on September 12, 2001?? The head
of the FBI? The Secretary of Defense? The head of the FAA? His
secretary?
At least the Indians have some sense of personal honor and
responsibility.
Fluffy|12.2.08 @ 8:27AM|#
One thing this post leaves out is the "countermeasure" exposed
as the most pointless of all - the military response on the level
of the nation-state.
The Mumbai attack was undertaken by 10 men with fairly common and
prosaic weaponry available on the black market at a limited cost.
The 9/11 attack was undertaken by 19 men with plane tickets and box
cutters.
Has EITHER the Iraq or Afghanistan operation resulted in a
situation where, in EITHER country, groups of 10 to 19 men can't be
assembled to undertake attacks? Have the Iraq or Afghanistan wars
reduced terrorist ranks and operational capabilities to the point
where they can't buy the Mumbai weapons or a handful of plane
tickets and some box cutters from Home Depot?
No. They have not. And they never will. The Red Brigades, the IRA,
the Basques, hell - even the Klan - could have pulled off a Mumbai
attack at any time. They didn't need failed states to operate from.
All they needed was the desire. That is still true today.
|12.2.08 @ 9:05AM|#
The last line of defense is an armed citizenry. In the US, there would be at least some chance that the intended victims would be armed and be able to defend themselves. Hopefully if this ever happens here, the US won't let the fascistic Democrats and their dear leader use it as an excuse to confiscate guns and really end our last line of defense. I hope so but I doubt it.
|12.2.08 @ 9:09AM|#
"Have the Iraq or Afghanistan wars reduced terrorist ranks and
operational capabilities to the point where they can't buy the
Mumbai weapons or a handful of plane tickets and some box cutters
from Home Depot?"
No but it has killed 1000s of their recruits who would have
otherwise been engaged in mischief somewhere else and discredited
Al Quada in the Muslim world after they resorted to killing other
Muslims. Al Quada is very popular in the Muslim world as long as
they are killing Jews, Christians and anyone else but Muslims. If
they start killing Muslims, not so much.
You are right in so far as these types of attacks being difficult
to stop if someone really wants to do it. The problem is the
ideology bent on killing anyone who is not a Muslim and inflicting
a Islamic theocracy around the world. You have to kill the ideology
to stop the attacks. To do that, at some point you have to
overthrow or deter the governments who spread and support that
ideology.
|12.2.08 @ 9:19AM|#
You can't guard against every kind of attack. It's not possible. So you have the choice of implementing futile, liberty-destroying, security theater methods (which the government prefers), or having a distributed solution in the form of armed citizenry. Neither one is going to stop attacks, but at least the latter retains liberty and saves a ton of money.
|12.2.08 @ 9:26AM|#
rst,
Did one not claim they were aiming for a body count of 5,000?
Such discrimination would seem counterproductive. I've heard
that claim, too, from the U.S. media reporting on what Indian
sources allegedly got out of the yahoo terrorist they
captured.
Two points: first, there were witnesses, people who were captured
and let go, who said that the terrorists were checking IDs for
British and American citizens.
Second, as the War Nerd in shecky's link says, these are ignorant
yahoo cannon fodder. Some guy with a robe and a beard tells them
they're going to exceed 9/11, they believe him.
|12.2.08 @ 9:37AM|#
"Second, as the War Nerd in shecky's link says, these are
ignorant yahoo cannon fodder. Some guy with a robe and a beard
tells them they're going to exceed 9/11, they believe him."
Exactly. It is harder to be an arch terrorist than people think. It
takes training time and money and a safe place to do it in. A guy
like Mahuamad Atta who can learn to fly a plane and lead 19 people
on multi level operation is tough to find. Even building bombs is
harder than it looks. To do a big attack like Bali or 9-11 or worse
a chemical of nuclear attack, you need a lot of money time and very
sophisticated people. Without that you end up with a bunch of
yahoos running around with guns shooting people. That sucks but
ultimately doesn't accomplish much.
Alice Bowie|12.2.08 @ 9:44AM|#
You Can't Guard against every kind of attack...This is
TRUE.
And searching everyone's shoes and purses before going on the
train, bus, or plain is as effective as searching no one.
I live in NYC ... I see young Police officers randomly
search bags on the Train almost every day.
Consider the following:
A. Do you think this officer even knows what a chemical/biological
bomb or explosive looks like ?
B. If this officer did, in fact, stop a SUICIDAL TERRORIST and ask
to check his bag...What do you think THE TERRORIST WOULD DO?
***The ONLY PURPOSE THE Police randomly search in NYC Trains is for
DRUG Interdiction...as searching for terrorist...this approach
would be completely ineffective.
The Psyco suicidal maniac is difficult to STOP.
The Government PUTS on the SHOW of HIGH Security because they are a
bunch of ASSHOLES that seek ultimate control. They don't welcome
critizism or difiance in ANYTHING they do.
|12.2.08 @ 9:46AM|#
Bag checks and the like aren't meant to interdict terrorist
attacks, so much as deter them.
"Hey, everybody! Checking bags here! If you try to get a bomb
through, we're gonna find it, cuz we're checking bags here!"
Alice Bowie|12.2.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Joe...They do NOT Deter them in the LEAST.
Anyone who cares to do it (blow up a Bomb in Public places) would
do it.
Luckly for us, there aren't many people who really want to do this.
Thanks to the great prosperity in America...If you ask me.
|12.2.08 @ 10:00AM|#
They were hunting British and American citizens
And Jews. You can't have one of these attacks without someone going
after Jews.
|12.2.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Alice,
So, there have been a great many people bringing bombs onto the New
York subway, have there?
I'm pretty sure I would have read about that. There's really no way
you can say that there hasn't been a deterrence effect.
But agreed about the prosperity here. You sometimes see the
question "Why is there so little Islamic terrorism in America?"
Probably because the typical American Muslim is too busy saying,
"Honey, I don't like this room freshener scent as well as the other
one. Can you get the Country Sage refills next time you go to the
supermarket?" just like everybody else.
|12.2.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Sean,
I wonder about that. The Jewish center they took over, and the
rabbi and his wife who were murdered, were Americans. So, was it an
anti-American thing, or an anti-Semitic thing? Or both?
The Indians are claiming these people were from a Pakistani group
that's mainly been involved in the Kashmir fight - anti-Indian
terrorists. But then, why would they target Americans and
Brits?
Mike M.|12.2.08 @ 10:17AM|#
But agreed about the prosperity here. You sometimes see the
question "Why is there so little Islamic terrorism in America?"
Probably because the typical American Muslim is too busy saying,
"Honey, I don't like this room freshener scent as well as the other
one. Can you get the Country Sage refills next time you go to the
supermarket?" just like everybody else.
Prosperity and freedom, which tend to go together. If more of these
predominantly Muslim countries would follow the lead of Turkey and
stopped acting as a bunch of fascist dictatorships and gave their
people something to look forward to in life besides dying in the
service of Allah, this sort of thing wouldn't be happening nearly
as much.
Bush's basic idea was correct, but the best way to go about
bringing freedom and prosperity to societies that won't permit it
is the difficult question.
|12.2.08 @ 10:20AM|#
To all those who are claiming that the terrorists are pussies
because they only killed "ten" per man.
First, there were ten shooters and 183 deaths. Thats 18 killed per
man
Second, on top of the 183 killed, there were 293 injured. That's 46
shot and bombed by each man.
Third, keep in mind that this was a gunfight that happened in the
REAL WORLD, not in a video game. If the terrorist ran out of ammo,
there was none on the ground for him to pick up. If the terrorist
got shot, He would not find cover and wait for his shield to
recharge. Firefights in the real world are very different then what
most people are familiar with.
Finally, If you are shot once, it is pretty unlikly that you will
die. As long as the bullet doesn't hit the vital organs or major
arteries, you will probably live. Most people have a difficult time
understanding the kill/wound ratio because the only time they see
people get shot is in movies. In movies, nobody is ever wounded,
everyone is always killed immediantly (BTW, this almost never
happens) Thus people have a tendency to only look at the Killed and
not at the Wounded when judging a terrorist attack.
I thought a comment page on a libertarian site would feature more
gun-knowledge. I was wrong
Alice Bowie|12.2.08 @ 10:23AM|#
No Joe...It's not a deterrence. As this article mentions, there
aren't many people carry bombs and looking to kill many people.
Nobody brings bombs onto the NYC subways with intent on killing
people. There are NOT THAT MANY SUICIDE BOMBERS in the NYC...That's
a good thing...and we wanna keep it that way.
If there were, that silly officer checking GYM Bags with minor
marijuanna offenses in the cover of Anti-Terrorist interdiction
would BE USELESS !!!
I'm very very very very HAPPY that we don't have many SUICIDAL
MANIACS...and again, I thank our ever growing secular community (as
religion promotes the use of SUICIDAL MANIACS) and the prosperity
in NYC.
I am not deterred by that silly cop. Why, you may ask? because I'm
not interested in committing mass murder...me an d the rest of us
in NYC with very few exceptions.
Things are good here. And I enjoy the VAST selection of romm
fresheners.
|12.2.08 @ 10:32AM|#
You keep making this assertion, Alice:
No Joe...It's not a deterrence.
I suppose bag checks don't deter drug smugglers from putting kilos
in their carry-on bags, either.
Your observation about the rarity of terrorism has nothing to do
with question of whether bag checks deter people from smuggling
things in their bags. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Two completely
different questions.
|12.2.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Now, whether the resources put into creating that deterrent effect are being intelligently utilized, given the rarity of the threat, is a legitimate question.
|12.2.08 @ 10:44AM|#
joe, there's a pretty big difference between smuggling something
you intend to sell for profit (like cocaine) and something that you
intend to detonate. If the suicide bomber were apprehended I would
imagine something and someone would explode.
I know that if I suspected my bag would be checked I would avoid
putting drug paraphanalia in it. However, if I'm going to blow
myself up anyway, why would I worry if a cop wants to come over and
get a good look at the explosion?
Alice Bowie|12.2.08 @ 10:46AM|#
I suppose bag checks don't deter drug smugglers from putting
kilos in their carry-on bags, either.
That's my entire point. The Purpose of the random searches is for
DRUG INTERDICTION.
The SUPREME COURT ruled several years ago that such STOP-SEARCH
checkpoint for DRUGS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Please see the follwing
link:
Court Rulling
WHAT I'm saying is that they use the EXCUSE of TERRORISM to get
around THIS RULLING.
THAT's what I've been saying ALL ALONG.
Ska|12.2.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Not to mention, if it's my last hour on earth and I want to blow up in front of the Hawaiian Tropics or ESPN Zone, I'd just take a cab. Yes, the traffic is hell in Times Square, and the only good reason to be there is that it would be a good place to detonate myself. But cops don't check your bags when you hail a cab.
|12.2.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Pantera,
You are right that it is harder to shoot a hundred people than it
looks, even if they are unarmed. That said, I think the point is
that a few guys running around shooting people is pretty small
potatoes when compared to 9-11 or worse yet a bio or nuclear
attack. This was a well planned operation that probably took months
to plan. Somehow I am left with the feeling of asking "is that the
best you have got?"
|12.2.08 @ 10:58AM|#
"I wonder about that. The Jewish center they took over, and the
rabbi and his wife who were murdered, were Americans. So, was it an
anti-American thing, or an anti-Semitic thing? Or both?
The Indians are claiming these people were from a Pakistani group
that's mainly been involved in the Kashmir fight - anti-Indian
terrorists. But then, why would they target Americans and
Brits?"
Yes, why indeed ? Why would islamic terrorists target westerners
and jew's ? A real toughie.
I am going to assume it was a real question & not just
tendentious concern trolling, so watch this video.
http://www.hotklix.com/?ref=content/152704
Or google works by Hussain Haqqani, Rashid Ahmed or any number of
Pakistani experts. Short version - the ISI and/or Pakistani
islamists have promulgated and maybe even convinced themselves of
some pretty fantastic conspiracy theories which feature the West,
the jews and the indians all acting in concert to destroy Islam,
pakistan etc, etc. It's all wonderfully elaborate & would ROFL
hilarious, if it did not sometimes result in scumbags blowing shit
up.
|12.2.08 @ 11:20AM|#
They were hunting British and American citizens, J sub D,
not firing into the crowded Mumbai sidewalk. They even let Italians
go.
Uh huh.
Ten percent were "foreigners" whick I assume includes, but is not
limited to, British and Americans. Fuckiin' awesome display of
selectivity.
Other Matt|12.2.08 @ 11:25AM|#
I thought a comment page on a libertarian site would feature
more gun-knowledge. I was wrong
I have felt that exact frustration here before.
Most people don't understand what it is to take on a rifle with
their he man custom 45 at 100 yards, much less a rifle in the hands
of an individual who's had some training. While I'd prefer to be
shooting back if I have to die, even with a compact 9mm at 75 yards
if need be, it's rather unrealistic to think that you'd come out of
such an encounter unscathed.
However, I would like to think that in the US, you'd have enough
people that perhaps one in 30 may be good enough and lucky enough
to give a bit back. It is, as they say, much better to give than to
receive, quite the more so when it comes to gunfighting.
What's up with this "Alice Bowie" caps and bold stuff? Troll
battles between he/she and joe no less?
|12.2.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Well Thoreau - one can only hope the endless hours, yes days,
weeks and months, our younger generation spends on FPS games (First
Person Shooters), in the long run pays off, and those little
psychos giddily shooting and kniving their internet opponents gum
up some real courage if the time ever comes and emulate their hours
of online training to be the big fragmaster that ownz the noob
terrorist...
(Somehow after the univeristy Cho incident where I witnessed the
kevlar covered police/swat geared to the teeth cower behind trees
and armored enclosed golf cart sized assault vehicles and one
locked set of doors till all the shooting was done - makes me think
the e-bravery hopeful wish is just that. ) Sorry Joe L.
I guess the only hope is the islamowackos get ambushed in one of
their 5 daily curl up in the fetal position bows to mecca - and
then I suspect the "kind, civilized, would be westerners" will just
jump on their backside and try to wrestle them unharmed to subdue
mode.
|12.2.08 @ 11:38AM|#
Most people don't understand what it is to take on a rifle
with their he man custom 45 at 100 yards, much less a rifle in the
hands of an individual who's had some training
Precisely. Many people don't understand the power and accuracy
differences between a high-powered rifle and a pistol. The last
thing in the world you want to do is focus the attention of one or
more AK-wielding psychos on you personally by taking a potshot at
them from a distance you are almost guaranteed to miss from.
Remember also that many things you might think you can take cover
behind (like cars or non-solid walls) are like paper to rifle
fire.
This still does not excuse the cops for not firing, as they are
given the right to be armed ostensibly in order to protect. Plus,
having a bunch of people (cops) taking potshots massively decreases
the risk of doing so.
Fluffy|12.2.08 @ 11:47AM|#
In addition to the body count of the attack [which is not
insignificant - the number of terrorist operations which resulted
in 200 deaths is very small] the terrorists held the city of Mumbai
under siege for 3 days. They also demonstrated to groups of similar
size that it's possible to hold the police at bay for long
enough that your operation begins to resemble a large-unit
campaign. When you keep up a running gunfight in multiple locations
across a city for three days, you are very close to moving out of
the realm of asymmetric warfare and into the realm of "Arnhem
1944". That's a heck of a punch when you only had 10 guys.
You don't think the Palestinians watched this operation scratching
their beards? Or the Phillipine Muslims? They have to be
thinking, "Heck, we could scrape 10 guys together in a city for one
of these ops. Hell, we could probably send 25. 25 guys might hold
out for two weeks!"
The problem is the ideology bent on killing anyone who is not a
Muslim and inflicting a Islamic theocracy around the world. You
have to kill the ideology to stop the attacks. To do that, at some
point you have to overthrow or deter the governments who spread and
support that ideology.
The problem is that one part of the appeal of that ideology is a
paranoid vision of the world that claims that the US is a colonial
power that is at war with Muslims worldwide. Acting out the
delusions of the paranoid and making them true is not a good way to
undercut those delusions and convince the world that they're
false.
Vijat|12.2.08 @ 11:51AM|#
"At least the Indians have some sense of personal honor and
responsibility."
In addition to awesome cuisine!
|12.2.08 @ 12:38PM|#
"The problem is that one part of the appeal of that ideology is
a paranoid vision of the world that claims that the US is a
colonial power that is at war with Muslims worldwide."
What a steaming pile of horseshit that is Fluffy. You should be
ashamed of yourself for writing such crap. Yes, it is all about the
US. That is why they killed Indians. It had nothing to do with
Kashmir or the fact that Pakastanis and Indians have been at each
other's throats for 60 years. Yes, the Palistinians hate the Jews
and blow themselves up all becuase the US. And the wahabbists who
are trying to take over places like the Phillipenes and Thailand
are just acting because of US imperialism. Yes, the US is the root
of all evil in the world. There would be no Muslim extremists if it
wasn't for the us.
Really, if you are going to say stupid shit like that just go over
to KOS or somewhere. You are worse than Joe.
|12.2.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Episiarch,
"This still does not excuse the cops for not firing, as they are
given the right to be armed ostensibly in order to protect."
In theory, yes. In practice -
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Mumbai_cops_hadnt_fired_in_10_yrs/articleshow/3783461.cms
On the positive side, they are easy to bribe if you are DUI.
|12.2.08 @ 12:51PM|#
I guess the rule of thumb here is business as usual, and it
seems the media doesn't want that idea escaping their glory fest -
so it ends up as an afterthought.
" but Mumbai has frequently been targeted in terrorist attacks
blamed on Islamic extremists, including a series of bombings in
July 2007 that killed 187 people.
(Punit Paranjpe/Reuters) "
" the past three years, which police blame on Muslim militants
intent on destabilizing this largely Hindu country. Nearly 700
people have died. Since May a militant group calling itself the
Indian Mujahideen has taken credit for a string of blasts that
killed more than 130 people. The most recent was in September, when
a series of explosions struck a park and crowded shopping areas in
the capital, New Delhi, killing 21 people and wounding about
100.
(AP Photo) Abc news photo caption 46 of 48 - as near the end as
they could muster without being too obvious.
So I guess the news is, this one is a bit bigger than all the
others the western media didn't go into a fit over.
Which did you choose?|12.2.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Alice Bowie | December 2, 2008, 11:31am | #
I am NOT a He/She.
Alice Bowie | December 1, 2008, 10:16pm | #
Mostly hermaphrodite ...
Been mistaken for a Mexican-Mullato
Other Matt|12.2.08 @ 1:08PM|#
I am NOT a He/She.
See "Which" above. I thought I was fairly representing your
statement.
Other Matt|12.2.08 @ 1:12PM|#
You don't think the Palestinians watched this operation
scratching their beards? Or the Phillipine Muslims? They have to be
thinking, "Heck, we could scrape 10 guys together in a city for one
of these ops. Hell, we could probably send 25. 25 guys might hold
out for two weeks!"
Every terrorist act is, in addition to an act, a bench experiment
for others to learn by. This is an unfortunate truth.
What a steaming pile of horseshit that is Fluffy.
John-
I don't believe Fluffy was espousing this, more so saying that the
problem is there are people overseas who do. At least that's how I
read it, in which case you should apologize and show you, yourself,
are above joe in that regard. If I misread it and Fluffy comes back
and does espouse it, then I offer my own apology.
|12.2.08 @ 2:14PM|#
This still does not excuse the cops for not firing, as they are given the right to be armed ostensibly in order to protect. Plus, having a bunch of people (cops) taking potshots massively decreases the risk of doing so.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that even the Indian
equivalent of a SWAT cop is probably even more poorly trained than
his US counterpart.
A number of the news photos showed the Indian police carrying
Ishapore-made Enfield clones, which are a WWII design. While even
today, Enfields are extremely accurate and fire a round more
powerful than the AK-pattern rifles the terrorists were toting,
they're a poor choice for room-to-room combat in a building.
Regarding the debate as to whether or not armed civilians would
make a difference in such a situation (and putting aside the vast
cultural differences, and stringent Indian gun regulations) you can
put me in the camp of a handgun is a poor weapon to have when
you're facing multiple opponents armed with rifles. Were I to find
myself in such a situation, I'd do my best to escape and evade,
rather than try to re-enact something out of a John Woo movie.
|12.2.08 @ 2:17PM|#
For the inevitable gun nerds that are bound to show up to correct me about the Enfield design being much older than WWII, yes, I know.
Other Matt|12.2.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Were I to find myself in such a situation, I'd do my best to
escape and evade, rather than try to re-enact something out of a
John Woo movie.
Though I would presume that if it were a choice between having
nothing and having a pistol in that scenario, you'd still want the
pistol. I would agree that escape and evasion is the best course of
action.
|12.2.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Yes. I shoot pistols regularly and am proficient enough to defend myself with one. I would certainly prefer to have a pistol in that situation. I just don't hold any delusions about using a 9mm designed to be easily carried to engage multiple assailants armed with rifles.
Fluffy|12.2.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I don't believe Fluffy was espousing this, more so saying
that the problem is there are people overseas who do.
This is how I see the sequence of arguments:
1. Fluffy: Since the resources of an attack on this scale would not
have required state backing or a failed state as a base to launch,
this shows that military conquest of particular states or failed
states by the US won't stop terrorism against the US.
2. John: OK, but if we conquer those states it helps at the process
of rooting out the ideology that inspires attacks.
3. Fluffy: Not if part of that ideology is the paranoid claim that
the US is a colonial power with an itch to stomp on Muslim
states.
4. John: The Mumbai attacks have nothing to do with the US.
Leading to my response here:
Yes, John, that is true. It is reasonable to assume that the Mumbai
attacks had nothing to do with the US. I just was using the
occasion of those attacks, and the general discussion of what
countermeasures can stop terrorism, to talk about the fact that I
don't think that certain US military operations can succeed in
stopping the potential for anti-US terrorism.
I don't think I was clear enough in my earlier posts that I was
commenting on how this attack can help the US evaluate its OWN
anti-terror methods. My bad.
|12.2.08 @ 3:39PM|#
For the inevitable gun nerds that are bound to show up to correct me about the Enfield design being much older than WWII, yes, I know.
MG
Actually the rifles they had would have been chambered in 7.62
NATO. The factory at Ishapore produced them until the 70s (80s
maybe even?). Because they never got the new machine tools and
patterns to produce the WW2 version (the No 4) (the Australians
didn't either) they continued with the WW1 pattern.
You can tell the 7.62 version from a short distance by the sharp
edges on the magazine which holds 12 rounds (vs the rounded 10 rd
mag on the 303).
They've released a bunch into the US surplus market. From what I
hear they are excellent rifles. They are apparently still issued to
lower level forces like local police and game wardens and the
like.
The army and navy commandos I saw on the TV seemed to have eithe
FN-FAL variants or AKs. Though usually you don't get a clear enough
look to make a clear ID unless you're ann expert.
From what I heard the military guys did a thoroughly professional
job once they were in place but it was late and for that the
various responsible ministers and deputies are getting some well
deserved flak.
I also heard somewhere that the local police were just paralysed
because of the Indian bureaucratic propensity to do nothing until
the right orders have been received.
|12.2.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Isaac-
Years ago, I put a few rounds through one of the Ishapore Enfield
knockoffs. I was kind of annoyed when the fore end fell off of the
rifle on about the third or fourth shot.
Also, the Indian Army issues a home-grown rifle to its troops
called in INSAS. It looks like the love child resulting from a one
night stand between an AK-47 and an FN-FNC.
|12.2.08 @ 4:05PM|#
MG
They're not exactly knockoffs. During the Raj Ishapore was one of
the Imperial arsenals. The finish might be a little rough but fore
the most part the quality of Ishapore-made or rearsenaled weapons
is as good as from any of the factories that prodeced SMLEs.
You're experience is atypical, possibly from a piece that had
suffer neglect or mistreatment.
And thanks for the info on the INSAS.
|12.2.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Godammit, i know the difference between "You're" and
"Your".
I just don't tipe gud.
|12.2.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Isaac-
Glad to hear that my experience wasn't normal. They are neat guns,
and I've always had a thing for the quasi-victorian-industrial
aesthetic of the Enfield design.
|12.2.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Joe,
So these guys row up to the shore and head straight for the
Chabad-Lubavitch center hoping to find...Americans? Gavriel
Holtzberg was Israeli, anyway; he just lived in Brooklyn for a
while, as all Chabad emissaries do. I'm touched by your optimism,
but like pretty much every jihadist, these guys especially wanted
to kill Jews. Think about it: would you even begin to know where to
find a Jew in Bombay? These guys had no trouble.
|12.2.08 @ 8:25PM|#
phalkor,
Lots of reasons. Because you intend to set the thing and leave.
Because you want to do it in a crowded train, not outside the
platform. Because you might freak out and run away, or give up to
the cop. Because they might catch on and shoot or capture
you.
Seriously, you're on a terror mission, with a thing in your bag or
on your person: Do you want the cops hassling you, or do want to
make your way towards the crowd in the enclose place without
attracting attention?
|12.2.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Alice,
I wouldn't put it past them.
J sub D,
I saw those figures, and I also saw the first-hand accounts. Both
are true. They killed a lot more locals than Americans at the
embassy bombings, too.
Sean Healy,
You've got a point about finding the center. That suggests to me
more international jihadist backing and indoctrination, as opposed
to Pakistani/Kashmiri nationalist.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245