Near simultaneous blasts kill at least 8 in Mumbai

[siddyp]

http://news.yahoo.com/three-blasts-indias-mumbai-police-135216819.html

 

[PartyJatt]

Update:
CNN: 13 reported dead and 81 injured.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/07/13/india.blasts/

 

[py335]

hard to believe that i was just there in those very places like 4 days ago. such a sad incident. indian security step up your fucking game you guys are a joke. my thoughts and prayers go out to those affected=(

 

[disharma1317]

this happened just two days after the 5th anniversary of the 7/11 attacks. it's sickening. indian security definitely needs to step it up.

 

[justAguy]

indian security definitely needs to step it up.

with respect, this is the wrong kind of sentiment to have in response. instead of thinking of this as a viable solution ... The Indian police needs to severely tone down it's violence and torture waged against innocent citizens and civilians. You must understand what terrorism and insurgency is a backlash of.
The statement you made reveres security forces as protectors, truth is that the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups ..

Think of it this way. Post 9/11 everybody's response was OH SHIT WE NEED TIGHTER AIRPORT SECURITY, ignoring the root of the problem , in reality, we shpuld have learned that the US needs to stop bombimf xountries for the theft of profitable resources..

terrorism is just a useful word deployed my governmnts to manipulate it's passive obeying citizens and 'manufacture their consent' ;D remember, regan's administration saw nelson mandela as a terrorist. osama bin laden was a hero. And look how the memories and discourse about the two have changed !! To the British, George Washington was a terrorist, but many of us see him as a hero. Sorry i'm drifting what i mean to say is .. Don't listen to media when they advocate strengthened state security as being the golden solution to terrorism

 

[J Hayer]

it's hard enough to keep cities like nyc secure, and I know that authorities are Always trying to keep up with next plot.

...mumbai with its population density; wow.

my heart goes out to the victims and their families, though. RIP

 

[Saab]

Wait for the information to come out(or not come out). Right now, just pray for the families.

 

[sargam627]

India needs to make some drastic changes or it's fucked.

 

[Vijay]

"Why does Mumbai bleed again and again?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14140991

 

[KingGeorge]

indian security definitely needs to step it up.

with respect, this is the wrong kind of sentiment to have in response. instead of thinking of this as a viable solution ... The Indian police needs to severely tone down it's violence and torture waged against innocent citizens and civilians. You must understand what terrorism and insurgency is a backlash of.
The statement you made reveres security forces as protectors, truth is that the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups ..

Think of it this way. Post 9/11 everybody's response was OH SHIT WE NEED TIGHTER AIRPORT SECURITY, ignoring the root of the problem , in reality, we shpuld have learned that the US needs to stop bombimf xountries for the theft of profitable resources..

terrorism is just a useful word deployed my governmnts to manipulate it's passive obeying citizens and 'manufacture their consent' ;D remember, regan's administration saw nelson mandela as a terrorist. osama bin laden was a hero. And look how the memories and discourse about the two have changed !! To the British, George Washington was a terrorist, but many of us see him as a hero. Sorry i'm drifting what i mean to say is .. Don't listen to media when they advocate strengthened state security as being the golden solution to terrorism

...there would be no harm in increasing ground security/tightening seawater channels. as an immediate response, i think this is a very appropriate sentiment to have considering all 3 major attacks in the last 5 years could potentially have been prevented by cracking down on just one militant terrorist group.

as a long-term (evolutionary) goal, yes, certain institutions without a doubt need to get their acts together. but in terms of today's attacks and probable groups involved, the motives and issues are much more complicated and factual than conspiracy theories that suggest that "the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups". if you look up the motives and demands of LeT, you'll realize how absurd they are.

 

[J Hayer]

...there would be no harm in increasing ground security/tightening seawater channels. as an immediate response, i think this is a very appropriate sentiment to have considering all 3 major attacks in the last 5 years could potentially have been prevented by cracking down on just one militant terrorist group.

as a long-term (evolutionary) goal, yes, certain institutions without a doubt need to get their acts together. but in terms of today's attacks and probable groups involved, the motives and issues are much more complicated and factual than conspiracy theories that suggest that "the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups". if you look up the motives and demands of LeT, you'll realize how absurd they are.

great post. in terms of retaliation/prevention, it's the short-term acts/fall backs that need to be considered over the long term modifications. Take Iraq as an example, it would do well with strong civil institutions that would provide for it a foundation to grow into a truly democratic entity, but the in present there was a need for a surge and hitting insurgents. These acts in India are no less politically-motivated and guerrilla in nature. The first step is to look at short security rather than long term policy in my opinion (and no, I don't mean this in a security vs liberty framework).

of course, lets keep waiting for more info to hopefully come in and see what's the deal...this is an unfortunate incident :/

 

[justAguy]

Well first off, the let group is not emblematic of the sentiments of all insurgency, or of all freedom struggles, so using their absurdity to invalidate freedom struggles against occupation is futile (although I know you weren't making that claim)..

Next, on the role of security ... Security won't prevent terrorism, increased security makes the state more powerful, and conditions more dangerous as it fosters further insurgency. Securityin the short term doesn't prevent terrorism but deters it. Did erecting a border STOP the flow of Latinos n Latinas into the country? No. Thinking that is nonsense. Its merely an obstacle to be overcomed, which also vindicates the sentiments of those denounced by national media. Preventing or stopping terrorism is completely different than deterring or delaying or rerouting it .. Preventing terrorism (in this ckntext specifically since we're om the subject) means the indian police state relaxes. Reducing terrorism wpuld happen by giving sovereognty to Kashmiri civillians by ending daily police torture forced on them (stopping it is a bit foolishly hopeful and would take generations of governmnt responsibility, which again won't happen so long as governments function to facilitate the interests of their respective ruling class...)

National security is one of the reasons the alleged 'terrorist groups' gain momentum. Because with security comes repression against neutral civilians. A simple search on youtuve would open a vault of video documentation, just type in Kashmir Occupation to get an idea of what happens, or for good channels for independent media which arent voiceboxes of the state, look up some survivor international or amnesty international or journeymanpixtures vids (great source of information, journeymanpics yt channel is the best source of info you'll find that isn't academic).. Tariq also has great literature on the subject..

India's security as being a dimmer of violence is a joke, not to mention india's discourse of state security is what gave rise to sedition charges against arundhati roy for making the case that all human rights activists do (actually now that i think of this, amy goodman interviewed her do a google search of 'democracy now kashmir' n it may pop up cuz she's been aired so many times... her response was inspiring)

Not to mention the indian government is routinely exposed to information indicating near future attacks and in whicj region (and the region of downtoen mumbai has become obvious) n does absolutely nothing, Bc of the usefullness of terrorist attacks and their collective mempries to governments and powerhouses and their subsequent reactions (9/11 is the landmark example but tragedies are great to governments all over and are always exploited in government interests) ...

Bottom line, we need to think critically about why terrorism happens in the first place, as opposed being nationalists and praying for our own, and hoping that government security measures are beneficial...
I rememver Tariq Ali once said something along the lines of ... If the media broadcasted the killings of civilians by state forces and state military by the US in Oraq Afghanistan n Pakistan the way they expose the few who die from terrorist attacks, it would generate much more energetic responses .. well the same happens in Kashmir and every single Indian state in the rural interiors. Nobody cares about the families who are dismembered because their siblings are kidnapped and tortured for no reason, or for those who have their lands disposessed by the government, bc the media doesn't expose what jappens to the bulk of the Indian poor and marginalized. But attacks on the financial dostrict as a response generate SO much emotion and conviction.

 

[campy614]

indian security definitely needs to step it up.

with respect, this is the wrong kind of sentiment to have in response. instead of thinking of this as a viable solution ... The Indian police needs to severely tone down it's violence and torture waged against innocent citizens and civilians. You must understand what terrorism and insurgency is a backlash of.
The statement you made reveres security forces as protectors, truth is that the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups ..

Think of it this way. Post 9/11 everybody's response was OH SHIT WE NEED TIGHTER AIRPORT SECURITY, ignoring the root of the problem , in reality, we shpuld have learned that the US needs to stop bombimf xountries for the theft of profitable resources..

terrorism is just a useful word deployed my governmnts to manipulate it's passive obeying citizens and 'manufacture their consent' ;D remember, regan's administration saw nelson mandela as a terrorist. osama bin laden was a hero. And look how the memories and discourse about the two have changed !! To the British, George Washington was a terrorist, but many of us see him as a hero. Sorry i'm drifting what i mean to say is .. Don't listen to media when they advocate strengthened state security as being the golden solution to terrorism

She's saying that tighter security could have prevented this from happening. I get your argument, and I'm not disagreeing with you-but things like this don't change over time.

If India were to take your statement and actually follow it, they would forget tighening security completely and change. But how long will that take? What's the guarantee that the police issue is the direct cause of terrorism in India (again, as per your argument)? What is the VERY DIRECT (I'm looking for the specific answer here) cause of terrorism in India? What if terrorists want something else to change? And in the process of all these changes and all of these questions being asked and then solved, and again security not being tightened-how many people have to die?

Some Indian institutions need to get their shit together. I get it. But sprucing up security could potentially save hundreds of lives in the middle.

 

[Kush]

indian security definitely needs to step it up.

with respect, this is the wrong kind of sentiment to have in response. instead of thinking of this as a viable solution ... The Indian police needs to severely tone down it's violence and torture waged against innocent citizens and civilians. You must understand what terrorism and insurgency is a backlash of.
The statement you made reveres security forces as protectors, truth is that the police and military forces of all modern states, especially super powers, are themselves highly sophisticated terrorist groups ..

Think of it this way. Post 9/11 everybody's response was OH SHIT WE NEED TIGHTER AIRPORT SECURITY, ignoring the root of the problem , in reality, we shpuld have learned that the US needs to stop bombimf xountries for the theft of profitable resources..

terrorism is just a useful word deployed my governmnts to manipulate it's passive obeying citizens and 'manufacture their consent' ;D remember, regan's administration saw nelson mandela as a terrorist. osama bin laden was a hero. And look how the memories and discourse about the two have changed !! To the British, George Washington was a terrorist, but many of us see him as a hero. Sorry i'm drifting what i mean to say is .. Don't listen to media when they advocate strengthened state security as being the golden solution to terrorism

She's saying that tighter security could have prevented this from happening. I get your argument, and I'm not disagreeing with you-but things like this don't change over time.

If India were to take your statement and actually follow it, they would forget tighening security completely and change. But how long will that take? What's the guarantee that the police issue is the direct cause of terrorism in India (again, as per your argument)? What is the VERY DIRECT (I'm looking for the specific answer here) cause of terrorism in India? What if terrorists want something else to change? And in the process of all these changes and all of these questions being asked and then solved, and again security not being tightened-how many people have to die?

Some Indian institutions need to get their shit together. I get it. But sprucing up security could potentially save hundreds of lives in the middle.

Joe i think its just a matter of a quick fix (beefing security), or fixing the root of the problem. Its not a one or the other thing, its a combination that has to take place.

 

[faizan]

verbose.

 

[faizan]

This looks like the work of the mumbai underworld, probably Dawood Ibrahim. (whom India accuses Pakistan of harboring/protecting--other sources say he's in dubai). His organization also finances bollywood (salman khan is his buddy), influences politicians, drugs, rackets, oil, import, export. India needs to reign in this guy's organization. He and his rivals have used Mumbai as their battle ground for too long. He is responsible for the blasts in '93 which killed hundreds of people. Terrorism has many causes, some come down to religion, some come down to money and some come down to oppression. In any and every form, it is ugly, and leads to terrible terrible results. The world is being held hostage by terrorism, whether it is governmental terrorism or private groups. It will only grow, and the world will continue down its path. Nothing will change, this is life now.

 

[GSingh]

There was a change in ministry in the last couple of days. I'm gonna confidently guess that it had to do something with this. Corruption's way of getting back at the government for ridding of them.

 

[campy614]

Well first off, the let group is not emblematic of the sentiments of all insurgency, or of all freedom struggles, so using their absurdity to invalidate freedom struggles against occupation is futile (although I know you weren't making that claim)..

Next, on the role of security ... Security won't prevent terrorism, increased security makes the state more powerful, and conditions more dangerous as it fosters further insurgency. Securityin the short term doesn't prevent terrorism but deters it. Did erecting a border STOP the flow of Latinos n Latinas into the country? No. Thinking that is nonsense. Its merely an obstacle to be overcomed, which also vindicates the sentiments of those denounced by national media. Preventing or stopping terrorism is completely different than deterring or delaying or rerouting it .. Preventing terrorism (in this ckntext specifically since we're om the subject) means the indian police state relaxes. Reducing terrorism wpuld happen by giving sovereognty to Kashmiri civillians by ending daily police torture forced on them (stopping it is a bit foolishly hopeful and would take generations of governmnt responsibility, which again won't happen so long as governments function to facilitate the interests of their respective ruling class...)

National security is one of the reasons the alleged 'terrorist groups' gain momentum. Because with security comes repression against neutral civilians. A simple search on youtuve would open a vault of video documentation, just type in Kashmir Occupation to get an idea of what happens, or for good channels for independent media which arent voiceboxes of the state, look up some survivor international or amnesty international or journeymanpixtures vids (great source of information, journeymanpics yt channel is the best source of info you'll find that isn't academic).. Tariq also has great literature on the subject..

India's security as being a dimmer of violence is a joke, not to mention india's discourse of state security is what gave rise to sedition charges against arundhati roy for making the case that all human rights activists do (actually now that i think of this, amy goodman interviewed her do a google search of 'democracy now kashmir' n it may pop up cuz she's been aired so many times... her response was inspiring)

Not to mention the indian government is routinely exposed to information indicating near future attacks and in whicj region (and the region of downtoen mumbai has become obvious) n does absolutely nothing, Bc of the usefullness of terrorist attacks and their collective mempries to governments and powerhouses and their subsequent reactions (9/11 is the landmark example but tragedies are great to governments all over and are always exploited in government interests) ...

Bottom line, we need to think critically about why terrorism happens in the first place, as opposed being nationalists and praying for our own, and hoping that government security measures are beneficial...
I rememver Tariq Ali once said something along the lines of ... If the media broadcasted the killings of civilians by state forces and state military by the US in Oraq Afghanistan n Pakistan the way they expose the few who die from terrorist attacks, it would generate much more energetic responses .. well the same happens in Kashmir and every single Indian state in the rural interiors. Nobody cares about the families who are dismembered because their siblings are kidnapped and tortured for no reason, or for those who have their lands disposessed by the government, bc the media doesn't expose what jappens to the bulk of the Indian poor and marginalized. But attacks on the financial dostrict as a response generate SO much emotion and conviction.

Too much going on at work for me to read and debate this.

Dude, read Aman's post. He's not disagreeing with you. He's saying that tightened security (although it "won't fix terrorism") could have potentially-and could potentially in the future-saved lives that day. That's really it.

I agree with Faizan's post. I don't want to-but this is reality now. Welcome to the 21st century.