Blue Crab Boulevard

Train Bombings in India

As many as 100 commuters are feared to be dead following a coordinated series of seven bomb explosions on commuter trains during rush hour. More than 300 are wounded. It is too soon for any group to claim credit, but one doesn't have to be a rocket surgeon to figure this one out, either.

India's major cities were put on high alert after the blasts, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called an emergency Cabinet meeting.

Chaos engulfed the crowded rail network in India's financial capital following the blasts that ripped apart train compartments as authorities struggled to treat the wounded amid heavy monsoon downpours. Doors and windows were blown off the train cars, and luggage and debris were strewn across the tracks.

Police Chief A.N. Roy said on Indian television that an estimated 100 people were killed and more than 250 were wounded.

"We are busy in the rescue operation. Our first priority is to rescue the injured people," he said.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility in the bombings, which came in quick succession — a common tactic employed by Kashmiri militants that have repeatedly targeted India's cities.

A senior Bombay police official, P.S. Pasricha, said the explosions were part of a well-coordinated attack. Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, where Bombay is located, said bombs had caused all seven blasts.

Indian Home Minister Shivraj Patil told reporters that authorities had had some information that an attack was coming, "but place and time was not known."

The first explosion hit the train at a railway station in the northwestern suburb of Khar, said a police officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.

India's CNN-IBN television news, which had a reporter aboard one train, said a blast struck a first-class compartment as the train was moving, ripping through the compartment and killing more than a dozen people.

Some of the injured frantically dialed their cell phones.

Another CNN-IBN reporter said he had seen more than 20 bodies at one Bombay hospital.

The Press Trust of India, citing railway officials, said all the blasts had hit first-class cars.

The world is seeing an almost unprecedented amount of provocations, attacks and unrest in what increasingly looks to me to be coordinated events. The world really needs to pull together here or be ready for increasing chaos. Wake up, folks.

UPDATE: 3:42 PM. Death toll stands at 147. The Times of India is reporting:

NEW DELHI: The terror attack on Mumbai trains was carried out by Lashkar-e-Toiba and local Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) activists and was designed to trigger communal conflagration in the country’s financial capital, intelligence sources said.

While still waiting for clues to emerge, top intelligence sources in New Delhi seem pretty sure the blasts on the trains were plotted by Lashkar modules which are increasingly collaborating with activists of SIMI, which boasts of strong pockets of influence across Maharashtra.

The estimate of intelligence agencies here is derived from the scale of the attack, as well as precise information about the Lashkar’s sleeper cells that have proliferated in Maharashtra.

UPDATE: Confederate Yankee notes an unusual burst of honesty at DU.

UPDATE: I had not read this before but it is a very interesting take on the situation the world may be facing. Major H/T to The Influence Peddler for linking to that.

War, World news | Gaius July 11, 2006

By Kathy, July 11, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

The world is seeing an almost unprecedented amount of provocations, attacks and unrest in what increasingly looks to me to be coordinated events. The world really needs to pull together here or be ready for increasing chaos. Wake up, folks.

My hat is off to you, gaius. That is the finest example of chutzpah I have ever seen.
By Gaius, July 11, 2006 @ 6:44 pm

Why? Because I choose not to blame America first?
By Kathy, July 11, 2006 @ 8:08 pm

Why? Because I choose not to blame America first?

Because you choose not to blame America at all. Because you choose not to hold your government personally responsible for the “increasing chaos” you see in the world. Because you choose to blame “the world” (which, of course, implicitly excludes the United States) for the escalating levels of terrorist violence worldwide when it’s the United States that insisted on starting the war that was completely unnecessary; when it was the United States that insisted on “going it alone” when most of “the world” opposed that war; and when it was *that decision to invade a country that did not need to be invaded* that led to the “increased chaos” you describe.

You do exemplify the finest example of chutzpah I’ve ever seen when you tell “the world” it should “pull together here” and “wake up” after a war started by the U.S. and proclaimed by the U.S. as a war that would liberate Iraq, bring democracy to the entire Middle East, reduce the threat of terrorism, and make the world a safer, better place to live.

You righties are always talking about our heroic, courageous troops, and comparing them to those cowardly, craven Europeans. Well, my friend: How much courage does it take to make the mess, to refuse to “blame America first” — or second, or third, or fourth, or fifth — for the mess being there, and to blame everyone else for not being able to clean it up?
By Gaius, July 11, 2006 @ 8:35 pm

There is no evil in the world but the US to you. What a sad victim you are. The only reason you have the freedom to write what you do, to live as you do is because of this country and what is has provided you.

Winston Churchill said democracy was the worst form of government. Except for all the others. The US makes mistakes, but by and large has been the one force for objective good in this world for many years now.

Sad you can’t see that. Good that others can.
By Kathy, July 11, 2006 @ 8:40 pm

The US makes mistakes, but by and large has been the one force for objective good in this world for many years now.

The US makes mistakes, you say. Is the US responsible for the mistakes it makes, or does your belief that the US is the only force for good in the world lead you to feel that the US should get a pass for any mistakes it makes and that the rest of the world should pick up the tab?
By Gaius, July 11, 2006 @ 8:49 pm

You are starting from the assumption that the war in Iraq was illegal, therefore everything else follows.

You are wrong.

Iraq willfully and repeatedly fired on allied aircraft with missiles during the Clinton administration and the Bush administration. That is a violation of the UN ceasefire. Violation of a ceasefire has always been a reason to resume hostilities even under the most stringent interpretation of “international law”.
By Kathy, July 12, 2006 @ 6:47 pm

Come off it, Gaius. Now you are throwing out rationalizations for the invasion that had nothing to do with the decision to invade and, even more to the point, where nowhere among the reasons Bush gave the American people for why the invasion was necessary.

It’s like, you can’t argue anymore that Iraq had plotted with Al Qaeda to plan the 9/11 attacks, or that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that Iraq is now free and democratic, or that democracy has spread all over the region, so you are trying to justify the invasion after the fact by pointing to any reason you think sounds good, whether it had anything to do with Bush’s determination to invade Iraq, or not.

Your argument fails even if it were true that Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire when Clinton was President, or when Pres. Bush’s father was President. Because if the U.S. had truly started a war with Iraq because of missiles fired, before this Bush was even President, at aircraft that weren’t even capable of reaching their target, it would have been unconscionably irresponsible to start a war for that reason. Or to restart a war after a ceasefire, if that’s how you want to view it. The American people would NEVER have backed Bush on a war that had the potential to start WWIII (which it has) if the only reason to do so was pathetic Iraqi missiles that didn’t stand a chance of reaching their targets. Even Congress, as spineless and craven as they are, would have balked at destabilizing the entire Middle East, causing terrorism to skyrocket, and starting WWIII over a few missiles that couldn’t do any harm to anyone.

Therefore, Gaius, if missiles fired 10 years ago were the reason Bush invaded Iraq, then the U.S. is even MORE personally responsible for the chaos and carnage and increased terror to which the war has led. It would have been the height of irresponsibility to start a war over an irritating provocation that could do nothing to actually harm us. So if you really want to claim this as the reason for the war, or as something that justified the war, then I think it only makes sense to acknowledge that we don’t have the right to hold the world responsible for the consequences of a disastrous decision made by the U.S. for awful reasons.
By Gaius, July 12, 2006 @ 6:57 pm

Do you only know what you have heard repeated from lefty blogs? Ceasefire violations were part of the reasons for going to war.
By Gaius, July 12, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

Here you go, Kathy.

http://www.deanesmay.com/files/house_resolution.pdf
By Kathy, July 12, 2006 @ 7:57 pm

I don’t see anything about missiles firing on aircraft here. Can you tell me where it is?
By Gaius, July 12, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility
toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to
assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on
United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Page 2 of 5
By Kathy, July 12, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that your quote above refers to antiquated Iraqi aircraft firing on U.S. aircraft flying too high for their primitive equipment to reach. The language is vague and could mean just about anything, or nothing.

If it IS referring to missiles firing on aircraft (which we have to take on faith), I can’t see how that alone would have justified the invasion of and war against Iraq, with all the harm to Iraq, the region, and global security to which the war has led. There are, by my count, 23 “Whereas” paragraphs in the resolution; and assuming it’s true that “thousands” of Iraqi missiles were fired at U.S. aircraft (although not hitting or coming close to hitting a single one), then that would be the ONLY truthful claim in the resolution. All the rest have been shown to be false.

So you are really telling me that the invasion of Iraq and everything that has happened since as a result was justified because Iraqis were firing useless missiles from antiquated launchers that had no chance of hitting any of our aircraft?
By Gaius, July 12, 2006 @ 9:06 pm

You are astonishing. You apparently do not know that Iraq fired very high-tech, very deadly surface to air missiles that came very close to bringing aircraft down – repeatedly. Over and over. From the Clinton administration onwards.

Did you happen to notice the dates on many of the justifications? They were not from the Bush administration. They were from the Clinton administration.

Violation of the UN ceasefire resolution alone was adequate reason, by all rules of war, to resume hostilities. Because a ceasefire is not a peace. It is an agreement to stop hostilities for exactly as long as the terms of the ceasefire are met. It becomes null and void upon violation. Most minor infractions are ignored, firing a SAM at aircraft is not reasonably considered minor.
By Mike H., July 12, 2006 @ 11:47 pm

Kathy,
William Jefferson Clinton was the creator of the policy of regime change for Iraq. If you have a problem with the genesis of this policy, which developed over a period of twelve years, you need to go to him. He was a president of the United States, a position which gave him the authority to promulgate the aforementioned policy. You might also question the Congress of the US about why they validated that policy.
By Roland Hesz, July 13, 2006 @ 12:27 am

Ah.. I missed this post

So, all in all, it was not about bringing democracy to Iraq, but to teach them a lesson, and respond to the hostilities.

That I can accept as a reason.
You retaliated. Fair enough.

Then stop talking about “bringing peace and justice” and say “we were taking down the guy who shot at us”.

That would be more honest, and straightforward.
By Roland Hesz, July 13, 2006 @ 12:27 am

By the way, how did we get to Iraq from Mumbai?
By Gaius, July 13, 2006 @ 5:18 am

Didn’t you know? It all Iraq all the time to the left.
By Gaius, July 13, 2006 @ 5:20 am

By the way, Roland, this is not some new position for me. I’ve always helt this belief. Regardless of any other window dressing, the ceasefire violations were reason to go in. I used to be quite angry that Clinton did nothing but a nuanced lip bite whenever yet another aircraft was nearly hit.
By Kathy, July 13, 2006 @ 5:30 am

You apparently do not know that Iraq fired very high-tech, very deadly surface to air missiles that came very close to bringing aircraft down – repeatedly. Over and over. From the Clinton administration onwards.

Really. It’s astonishing to me that such high-tech, very deadly missiles did not hit even one aircraft over a period of 12 years.

Did you happen to notice the dates on many of the justifications? They were not from the Bush administration. They were from the Clinton administration.

Wait. You mean this congressional resolution you linked to is from the *Clinton* administration? It was Bill Clinton who told Congress to authorize the March 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Violation of the UN ceasefire resolution alone was adequate reason, by all rules of war, to resume hostilities.

All right. In that case, if violating the UN ceasefire was adequate reason by itself to invade Iraq, start a war against Iraq, overthrow Iraq’s leader, and initiate an indefinite military occupation, then logically you would have to agree that the U.S. is solely responsible for the consequences — which in this case is a raging insurgency, uncontrolled terror and chaos, an incipient or actual civil war, and a global terrorist ripple effect. You cannot logically or morally hold up anti-aircraft attacks that fail to hit a single aircraft over a period of TWELVE YEARS as a reason for renewed war and then ask the rest of the world to deal with the fallout. This was a choice the U.S. made, Gaius. America was not threatened. The U.S. is personally responsible for the consequences. The U.S. stood essentially alone to invade Iraq, despite global opposition; the U.S. should stand essentially alone to find the solution to the consequences.

I’m also curious to know, if firing antiaircraft missiles that were incapable of reaching their targets was by itself a reason for invading Iraq, even without all the other 22 reasons given in the resolution, then why were 22 other reasons given, and why didn’t the resolution state that any one of these reasons justify war? It strikes me that the entire reason for giving almost two dozen justifications for the invasion was because the case for invasion was very weak, and the President (through Congress) was trying to pad it. Why list 23 justifications if one sufficed?
By Gaius, July 13, 2006 @ 5:57 am

You know nothing about the subject you are trying to argue, but that does not stop you. You’re tenacious. Where I live that would be called bullheaded.

This thread has gone far enough off track as it is. The war is what it is, arguing about it’s justification now is flogging a dead horse.

By the way, I know it’s the left’s favorite way to do things, Kathy, but I promise you, more words to not make it clearer. Short and to the point is much more effective.
By Roland Hesz, July 13, 2006 @ 7:55 am

I did not say you changed your position.
It’s just I always hear the “torch of democracy bringing the light of freedom to the people of the barbaric east” – not from you! – and that is the reason I can’t accept.

That the US want to kick ass, cause he had been shot at, that is a different thing,that I can accept, as it behaves like a ocnquering, occupying force, like the Soviet’s did after WWII.
By Kathy, July 13, 2006 @ 6:52 pm

William Jefferson Clinton was the creator of the policy of regime change for Iraq. If you have a problem with the genesis of this policy, which developed over a period of twelve years, you need to go to him. He was a president of the United States, a position which gave him the authority to promulgate the aforementioned policy.

I don’t know what is more astounding: that you would write this, or that you might actually believe it. William Jefferson Clinton did not invade Iraq in March 2003. William Jefferson Clinton did not overthrow Saddam Hussein, and no amount of arguing or quoting will change the fact that William Jefferson Clinton, whatever you imagine his policies on Iraq to have been, did not hold a gun to George W. Bush’s head and force him to invade Iraq, overthrow Hussein, and install a military occupation. There is so much contradictory position-taking, muddy and delusional thinking, and just plain ignorance on the right about the war against Iraq that if it were not impossible to deny, I would simply find myself unable to believe it. You guys will say *anything,* ANYTHING, no matter how ludicrous it is, no matter how stupid it makes you look, to avoid taking personal responsibility for the consequences of the policies you support, IF those consequences are negative.

And as for how we got to Iraq from Mumbai, I can answer that question: We got to Iraq from Mumbai when Gaius wrote “The world really needs to pull together here or be ready for increasing chaos. Wake up, folks.” about the Mumbai bombings — implying that “the world” (which doesn’t include the U.S.) was responsible for solving the “increasing chaos” that is a direct result of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.

You might also question the Congress of the US about why they validated that policy.
By Kathy, July 13, 2006 @ 6:54 pm

One thing I forgot to write in my comment above:

You are 100 percent right about Congress. They’re spineless jellyfish (and yes, I know that’s redundant).
By Kathy, July 13, 2006 @ 6:56 pm

Sorry for the two-line snip from Mike’s post at the bottom of my post. I copied too far down and didn’t notice until it was posted.
By Gaius, July 13, 2006 @ 7:33 pm

I think you’re missing the point, Kathy. A lot of the policies, a lot of the rationale did not come from Bush. They came from the Clinton years. They came from a lot of Senators and Congressmen and policy wonks and even foreign governments. Also from the UN itself.

It’s so easy to say this is all Bush’s doing, but there are more hands in it than that.

And there is real evil in the world, and it is not the US.
By Kathy, July 13, 2006 @ 7:52 pm

A lot of the policies, a lot of the rationale did not come from Bush. They came from the Clinton years. They came from a lot of Senators and Congressmen and policy wonks and even foreign governments. Also from the UN itself.

Itâ€™s so easy to say this is all Bushâ€™s doing, but there are more hands in it than that.

I actually would not disagree with your last sentence, but saying that U.S. policy toward Iraq has developed over many years and has many authors is not the same thing as saying, or implying, that George W. Bush somehow “carried out” a Clinton administration policy. Bush was not a helpless puppet; he had a choice. Bush is not solely responsible for U.S. policy toward Iraq and in the Middle East (although, that said, many of the key players, like Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, have served in several administrations, and the policy has been developed by a relatively small group of people, albeit not all in GWB’s administration); however, Bush IS responsible for the decision to invade Iraq for the purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and he is responsible (along with others in his admin) for the disastrous decisions that were made in the weeks and months after the coup. These things simply *cannot* be blamed on Clinton or other past administrations. Different choices could have been made. War and regime change were not the only options. Bush is responsible for making the choices he made, and if, as a result of our involvement in Iraq, other more serious and real threats to our safety were ignored, Bush is responsible for that. It’s one thing to humbly ask for the world’s help in handling a global crisis we cannot handle all by ourselves; it’s quite another thing to BLAME the rest of the world for not being able to solve a problem that the U.S. helped to create.
By Gaius, July 13, 2006 @ 7:58 pm

What is happening right now, in Mumbai, in Israel, in much of the rest of the world’s trouble spots is not the fault of Bush. Much of it is the fault of the world not to stand united against the psychotic regimes. Whether you can see it or not, they see disarray and they take advantage. They see weakness and they take the initiative.

We either stand against this or we all fall. Permanently and with no appeal.
By Kathy, July 14, 2006 @ 5:06 am

Gaius,

“They see weakness and they take the initiative”?

That’s a very striking comment. Wasn’t the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein supposed to show the “psychotic regimes” that the U.S. was strong, not weak? That’s the Bush admin’s entire rationale for staying in Iraq: If we leave, the “terrorists will see that we are weak.”

If the “psychotic regimes” are “seeing weakness” after regime change and after three years of war and occupation, then doesn’t that indicate there is something wrong with the current policy?
By Gaius, July 14, 2006 @ 5:44 am

What they are seeing now is weakening resolve and a non-stop barrage of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Western sentiment from the US and the West. And they see weakness. Before that barrage became so loud, the Libyans gave up their WMD programs. (Which they are probably kicking themselves for now.)

They are wating for the last helicopter.
By Roland Hesz, July 14, 2006 @ 6:11 am

Also they see a largely ineffective handling of Iraq, that does not help the people.

The big peace and order the US brought to Iraq resulted in people leaving the country in a steady flow, escaping the worsening situation.

The US retaliated, put a stop to the shooting at their aircraft and destroyed a country in the process, while yelling “Mission Accomplished”.

Now, if I were a terrorist I would say: Hey, these guys are so incomepetent, we can’t loose, they piss off people enough to join us.
By Roland Hesz, July 14, 2006 @ 6:12 am

And no, I am not glad about it.
There is a need for a change.
Stop yelling “Mission Accomplished” and make a plan.
A real one.
By Kathy, July 14, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

What they are seeing now is weakening resolve and a non-stop barrage of anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Western sentiment from the US and the West. And they see weakness.

If refusing to leave Iraq despite the disastrous conditions to which the war has led shows “weakening resolve,” then we should get out. Also, if you are concerned about “weakening resolve,” then you should also be concerned about how much ever-rising casualties and war-related deaths, on both the U.S. and the Iraqi sides, is going to weaken that resolve even further. Especially when there is zero return for Americans’ sacrifices.

It doesn’t make sense to hammer on about anti-U.S. and anti-Western sentiments in the world, or about anti-war and anti-Bush sentiments among Americans and simultaneously support the policies that are fueling the growth of those sentiments. If the war were accomplishing anything positive, you might not see such growing anti-war and anti-Bush sentiment. But you cannot expect anyone to support a policy that is destroying American society and doing nothing to make Iraqis’ lives better.

I might also add that the Bush administration brought all these anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-U.S. sentiments on itself by unilaterally invading a country that was no threat to the U.S. against popular opinion here in the U.S. (before the war actually started, large percentages of Americans opposed going to war without U.N. authorization or the support of our traditional allies). You can fume all you like about people who oppose the war, the occupation, and the Bush administration’s policies, but it’s utterly unreasonable and illogical to expect the rest of the world (which includes war opponents in the U.S., like me, because I actually consider myself part of the world) to support Bush and his war when he completely ignored and rode roughshod over the world’s opposition to invading Iraq — even to the point of saying he didn’t CARE what anyone else thought. If he doesn’t what Americans think, or what his Western allies think, it’s pretty nervy of people like you to say we should fall into place and go with the program.

In other words, *what did you expect*?

As for Libya, there is very little reason to conclude that Libya gave up its WMD program because of the Iraq invasion. Libya had been involved in secret negotiations with the Clinton administration since 1999. I suggest you read this article on the Brookings Institution’s website — originally published in The Financial Times.
By Gaius, July 14, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

You know what, Kathy? This is a waste of time. You have a fixed in cement view of the world that is truely sad. You believe exactly what sources you already agree with and dismiss everything else. You don’t even notice how many times the media has gotten it wrong and had to retract stories. Your worldview is set.

You hate Bush to the point that that is all you see. Good luck with that as a strategy for living a good life.