Thoughts on Mumbai
By Thoreau
Until we know more about who’s behind it, there’s only so much analysis that can be offered. Two thoughts, however:
1) If it should turn out that Pakistan had a hand in this, in keeping with the precedents of the past several years, I think India should respond by invading Nepal and rattling the saber over rumors (real or imagined) of a nuclear program in Myanmar.
2) More serious thought: A CNN reporter was just on TV a few minutes ago, standing outside a hotel under siege. She said that in most countries, when something like this happens the authorities don’t allow anyone within sight of the building under siege, and that this was unusual. Seconds after that, there was an explosion and she got the hell away from the hotel, and I don’t blame her a bit. However, it does seem to me that in spite of the security concerns it isn’t such a bad idea to allow cameras to have a line of sight to the place where security forces are operating.
Obviously some cameras outside the hotel won’t be able to say much about what’s happening inside, but (1) I’d still rather have the press closer to the security forces rather than farther from them and (2) even an exterior camera might be able to confirm or falsify various accounts of events, e.g. if the accounts involve explosions in rooms with windows, or people on rooftops.
Comment by Fraud Guy —
November 28, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
I did see one bit on CNN, where one of the Indian security men was standing across from one of the buildings on a roof. He had raised his gun over his head and was just firing periodically at the building about 10 feet across from him.
Comment by Idi Amin's Last Meal —
November 29, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I think that Iowa minister who cited an Obama win as evidence that the Musselman’s god, & even the Hindoo’s & Jew’s god(s), should be greater than the Christian god might prove not as poorly spoken as thought. We’re on the verge of Vishnu v. Allah, if point one is correct. & Jesus, where is he? He’s just a hype-man.
Comment by albatross —
November 30, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I suspect it’s a bad idea to have live video coming from the site of a siege/police standoff, since the police would probably rather not have the folks inside the building watching their positions on TV. Otherwise, the main problem seems to be whether the authorities get held responsible for reporters or bystanders who chose to be there catching the odd stray bullet.
Comment by Bibek Paudel —
November 30, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
hellow,
what exactly do you mean by “India should respond by invading Nepal” ??
Bibek
Comment by Thoreau —
November 30, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Bibek-
It’s a swipe at the US invasion of Iraq: The US public was sold on invading Iraq as a response to 9/11, which was perpetrated by a bunch of mostly Saudi young men with sponsors in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s now something of a running joke among some anti-war folks in the US to declare that the proper response to a terrorist attack is to invade a country that had nothing to do with it.
Comment by Glaivester —
November 30, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
Why do we call it Mumbai? In English, it’s Bombay. It’s not like we call the country we fought in World War II Deutschland.
Comment by ajay —
December 1, 2008 @ 8:18 am
6: Because it renamed itself Mumbai a few years ago.
I suspect it’s a bad idea to have live video coming from the site of a siege/police standoff, since the police would probably rather not have the folks inside the building watching their positions on TV.
YES. See Operation NIMROD.