It's really kicked off in India... Follow

I don't know.

It's not "insignificant" that they directed their actions at foreigners, but it's not that significant either. If the killers were motivated primarily by the whole Kashmir thing, then it's relatively insignificant that they targeted foreigners. It's just another prop to make their terror as widespread and mediatised as possible. It ups the ante with regards to the India/Pakistan relationship, but it's not really anything new/out of the ordinary.

If they're more closely linked to AQ, then it's a bit more significant. But even then. I don't think their operations were especially successful. They killed what, 120 people? In India, that's a normal day at a religious festival. I don't mean to diminish the horrors of a terrorist attack, but killing large numbers of people in a country like India is pretty easy. Considering the fact that they were armed to the teeth and organised, it's even more unimpressive. In terms of people killed, from their point of view, I don't think the operation was a success. From what I read, this was meant to be "India's 9/11", with thousands dying. They got 120.

From a strategic point of view, it's a mistake on their part. How many more countries does AQ want against them? I think if you're AQ, you want to get "neutrals" on your side. "Muslim neutrals" certainly, but other "neutrals" too. If AQ remains a non-governmental fringe group that's hated by everyone except fundamentalist blood-thirsty Muslim, they will eventually slip into insignificance. Indiscriminate killings of non-Western targets harms them in the long-run. It hurts their propaganda battle. Their recruitment. Their blending in with teh normal population. Most of all, it hurts the apathy of governments that might not care about them that much otherwise. The more countries decide that AQ is a real survival threat to themselves, the better it is for us. If they could target China next, that would be perfect.

What I'm getting at is this: AQ's threat is relative to the influence they can garner. AQ was arguably at its most dangerous when it was operating from within Afghanistan, with the backing of the local governemnt, the Talibans. They could become extremely dangerous if they get the tacit support of a country like Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Or if they get their hands on Pakistan. But if they don't, if they manage to alienate everyone against them, including non-Western countries, then their influence, their attack capabilities, and their potential threat is diminished. From a purely strategic, cold-hearted, cynical and Western-based point of view, the more AQ strike Muslims and non-Western countries, the better. The proof of the pudding was the Sunni Awakening in Iraq. It's not Western forces that "defeated" AQ in Iraq, it's Iraqi Sunni Muslims. The absolute horrors that AQ committed against fellow Muslims in Iraq had a huge part to play in this reversal of fortunes.

Anyway, I drifted slightly off-topic there, but I don't think that the attacks in India will change anything fundamentally. It might worsen relations between India and Pakistan, which is never good, but other than that... I can't help but see it as a poorly-planned and poorly-executed attack that didn't half as much damage as it could have, and managed to get the government of a billion people to take thems eriously as an existential threat.

No, they haven't. The group that made the call (Deccan Mujahideen) has apparently not been credited with the attacks. But since they caught one of the attackers, we should know soon enough.

If it is local, and Kashmir related, then yeah it's significant that they targetted westerns, simply because these kind of attacks were purely "local" before. It's certainly going to create tensions between India and Pakistan. But it's probably going to bring India and the West closer together, for a little while at least.

I agree it's almsot certainly not AQ directly, but I wouldn't be surprised if the guys that did it affiliated themvelves with AQ, as part of the whole "Everyone against oppressed Muslims" narrative, which would include the Kashmir problems. I also agree that it's very different from usual Kashmir-related attacks, which can mean different things: either Kashmir terrorists are getting bolder and more militant, or they're working in partnership with some AQ guys. I think the latter is quite likely though, I can't see how AQ would not have tried to grab this cause for themselves.

Yes, but then again AQ is so splintered that I don't think they can make these sort of decisions. I think the nature of terrorist groups like AQ means that funding of certain projects, or training, or aiding, can be done without an "OK" from the top. If there even is an active "top". I agree it's a mistake to think they are stupid, but their command chain is very loose. I think it's very likely that some people related to AQ had some part to play in this project, simply because of the horizontal cell-like nature of AQ. It's not a question of the top being stupid, it's a question of the top not having direct control. That's for the B)

As for the A), even if we don't make that mistake, they will be perceived that way. Practically, the effects of this terrorist attack on AQ will be almost the same whatever their level of involvment. The perception will be that of an AQ attack. It certainly fits the narrative, and the methods are eerily similar. India will certainly take the AQ threat more seriously from now on because of it. So even if we don't think they're all the same, and clearly they're not, they will get lumped in the same "hate-bag" by government of affected countries. Remember how 9/11 was a sort of awakening call for terrorist groups like ETA or the IRA, in that they had either to change, or be lumped by the US in the "terrorist" category. The same applies to these groups.

Again, I'm not saying they are the same, or that they should be considered the same. I don't think Hamas and Hezbollah are "the same" as AQ. But many consider them to be, and that only plays to their own detriment. I think the same will happen to these guys.

Yes, it makes sense, and yes, it's probably related Kashmir, though I'm still not 100% convinced that's what it's all about. I might be wrong, of course, and I sort of hope that I am.



Yeah, in India definitely. It will work, and I would be extremely surprised if there weren't repercussions against the local Muslim population in the near future. But, again, that's nothing new. Will the reprisals be on a much bigger scale then before? I'm not convinced they will be.

As for Europe, I think the only effect this will have will be a slight drop in tourism in India. But it won't go much further than this. Anti-Muslim feelings won't increase in Europe because of this. Don't know about the US, but I assume in a week people will be talking about something else, and it'll be largely forgotten in a month.



Yes and no. I think it will go both ways. It will increase the tensions between India and Pakistan. No doubt about that, and I think this will be the most significant consequence of these attacks. Whether it will fundamentally alter the relationship between Hindus and Muslims within India, I'm not completely convinced it will.

Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe I'm diminishing the significance of all this, I dunno. It's just that, to me, 120 people dying in a terrorist attack in India is relatively common. I fail to see how the fact that the targets were Westerners as opposed to Indians will radically change the internal dynamics of an already troubled situation.

I think it isn't so much as essentially changing the relationship as rallying the base to act. It's not as important for India, the US or Europe to express anti-Islamic feelings as it is important for moderates to feel the intensity that comes with persecution. When things are okay or business as usual, it doesn't seem important to act b/c most Pakistanis might not feel as if the Muslims in Kashmir are being particularly marginalized and it might not feel worthwhile to go to war to get that half of Kashmir that India currently possesses.

I bet that there are people who are frustrated in Pakistan that their leadership isn't taking a harder line about the whole Kashmir thing. It's been such a stalemate for so long. People might be trying to ramp up the intensity of the conflict.



Edited, Dec 1st 2008 12:56pm by Annabella

Oh, I don't think we'd ever have anything like 9/11 abroad and not because it was so horrible in NYC and DC, but by the fact that we haven't had a foreign invasion here since 1812 (or later if you count Pearl Harbor). We are way more freaked out by the terrorist bombing b/c of our insularity and relative safety from foreign invasion. It's a big deal when you aren't ever invaded but I think attacking the financial district sends a message about attacking India--by defining its heart as a financial center and wreaking havoc to send a message.



I don't think their message was to the world at large. Their message was to Pakistanis and kidnapping Americans and Brits is often a symbolic victory that causes international condemnation and icier relationships while also being a propaganda victory.

Edited, Dec 1st 2008 1:48pm by Annabella

This looks like the most informed analysis of the India attacks that I have read.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4082.shtml