The age of 'celebrity terrorism'
Quite apart from the scores murdered and the hundreds injured, what the Mumbai terrorists really wanted was an exaggerated - and preferably extreme - reaction on the part of governments, the media and public opinion.
In these terms, the attackers received as much attention as they could possibly have hoped for, and the Mumbai outrage can only be described as a very significant terrorist success.
The attack received saturation coverage in the world's media from the outset.
...
Unanswered questions
So the speculative - and often tendentious - questioning began.
What were the tactics of the terrorists? What weapons did they have and where could they have got them? How much planning and preparation would have been necessary for a military-style operation of this sort? Who were the terrorists - where were they from and what did they want?
Who was the mastermind behind the attacks? And did the attacks have the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda-style operation. Was it all part of the global jihad against the West?
This is precisely how terrorism is meant to work - the terrorist's action must always be complemented by the target's reaction in order to complete the scene.
How the attack is carried out, and what is done to whom, matters no more - and often rather less - than the way the attack is received, and the impact accorded to it.
The impact has indeed been instant and extensive, reaching into the worlds of politics, business and even sport, and on all levels - internationally, regionally and nationally in India.
Adding meaning
But, for all the horror of the Mumbai attack, there might have been much less to it than first met the eye, and a hasty and exaggerated response might have played more of a part, and given more meaning to the attack than it should.
Nobody appears to have heard of the Deccan Mujahideen - perhaps because they have never existed.
...
The terrorists were willing to show their faces on CCTV. Was this suicide for martyrdom - as in New York and Washington in 2001, and London in 2005 - or suicide for celebrity, as in Columbine in 1999 and Virginia Tech in 2007?
And perhaps so little is known of the terrorists' cause, because they simply did not feel the need to have one.
The attack in Mumbai was obviously planned - but "military-style planning" (whatever that means) is probably not necessary for the mass murder of unarmed and unsuspecting civilians going about their business in crowded railway stations and restaurants.
This could also have been a plan which had a large gap where mission, cause or vision statement ought to have been.
But no matter. The terrorists might have assumed, quite correctly as it happens, that the world's media and the terrorism analysis industry would very quickly fill in any gaps for them.
Source: BBC News
I find this article very intriguing.
It could be, but lets see the evidence first.
Historically, both countries have blamed the other for their woes. To such an extent that some people were even (very recently as in a few weeks ago) blaming India for the fighting between the Ex/Psuedo-Taliban and the government forces on the North West of Pakistan!
If it is as said and Pakistan is involved in some way, it may mean that the internal politics between the Military Intelligence the ISI have been resolved with the ISI coming out on top (Musharraf was MI).#
Saying that, we do not know and I would treat all allegations and counter allegations with a pinch of salt. It's an election year in India and the contestants will want to look decisive - which means firm action and a show of resolve rather than a lengthy and detailed investigation.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.