It seems Bombay has just joined Madrid and London:
Blasts rock Mumbai rail networkThere have been at least five blasts on commuter trains in the Indian financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), police say. It is not yet clear what caused the blasts and police are not confirming the location of the explosions, which occurred during evening rush hour. Police told the BBC more than 20 people were wounded in one blast. Some reports say at least one of the blasts took place near a train station.
Other sources say there were 7 bombs but this just broke so it will develop fast. Let’s hope to god this isn’t linked to a group in Pakistan. Public transportation continues to be a prime target for terrorists. Meanwhile, New Yorkers complain about bag searches. I recommend they visit Israel if they want to know what real bag searches are about. Don’t blame the government for this, blame the terrorists.
Get the RSS
Comments to this entry
Bill
July 11, 2006
2:47 pm
Pajamas Media
July 11, 2006
4:22 pm
UPDATE 9:05AM Pacific: FoxNews reports (no link yet and pending confirmation): "India Reports Arrests of Islamic Terrorists in Deadly Train Bombings" Confederate Yankee links to a "fleeting moment of honesty at DU." Captain's Quarters: "It looks ...
M Pav
July 11, 2006
4:29 pm
Lexington Green
July 11, 2006
4:45 pm
If India responds, they will be doing no less than we would do.
Vikrant
July 11, 2006
4:48 pm
Bollocks! Bombay has been target of Islamists even before 9/11. The most destructive Islamist bombings happened in 1993 when over 250 ppl were killed. Last major bombing occured in Aug 2003 claiming 53 lives.
Shloky
July 11, 2006
6:30 pm
Neither of which were targeted on critical transportation systems - which I believe was Chirol's point.
Eddie
July 11, 2006
6:31 pm
Naman Mantra
July 11, 2006
6:39 pm
Let's also not be naive. It's common sense that Pakistan is involved in some way. They've been a part of most major terrorist attack in India (even if remotely) for the last 50 years.
Chirol
July 11, 2006
6:47 pm
Naman Mantra: Of course, they probably are involved. I just meant I hope things don't get nasty. But like you, I'd put my money on them being behind it.
Shloky: exactly!
M Pav: I read an article that did mention that a few days ago but couldnt find the link agian. It may have been CS monitor.
Naman Mantra
July 11, 2006
6:47 pm
J.Kende
July 11, 2006
7:11 pm
Much better use of those officers would be as a boost to general presence patrols on the subways and in the stations. A real security plan would build off of that by returning the size of the force to the pre-911 levels (we are at 5,000 less today), dedicating a good number of that increase to mass transit duty. That would benefit not only counter-terror efforts, but would also do wonders to bring the crime rate of NYC down even further. It was after all a sharp increase in police presence and proactivity in the subways that began the historic drop in crime here in the first place.
Combine a fast-tracking of the plans to install smart video surveillance throughout the system with those increased presence patrols and NYPD efforts to engage in it's own global intelligence operations and you've got a much better plan than the flimsy bag searches we have now.
Alfred Russel Wallace
July 11, 2006
7:44 pm
shloky
July 11, 2006
8:10 pm
Kende: You are spot on at a strategic level- local troops should be empowered and trained as part of the organic reaction to the terror threat. I like your ideas on a tactical level as well.
But to make it a reality we're talking about major systemic changes (convincing an increasingly isolated government which derives its power from reacting to and waging the long war to shift its power base to local govrnments will take much more than political courage). Sadly enough I think a tipping point for this type of attack must be reached - in every relevant geospatial area - for change to be inacted. Or extraordinary individuals who understand the new wold - comng anarchy if ou will ;) - with the power to change.
J.Kende
July 11, 2006
8:25 pm
I'll hold off on getting into detailed budget wonkery for now, as I think this entry and comment space is better suited to security in general and specifics of today's events in India. But this is all inspiring a lengthy entry of my own...
Eddie
July 11, 2006
9:41 pm
Lexington Green
July 11, 2006
10:07 pm
They are already nasty.
This kind of thing is going to keep happening if the Indians don't get nasty eventually and make it stop.
bc99
July 11, 2006
11:22 pm
That being said, I kind of agree with his sentiment to a certain extent, but I am still trying to let all of this sink in (i.e. I am still kind of emotionally blown away). India has been attacked a number of times by fanatic groups based in Pakistan. While I agree with Ghandi's saying that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, I think this is India's time to really show Pakistan's ISI that they will not succeed. I really hate all of this.
Mark
July 12, 2006
12:33 am
More senseless violence.
It is quite evident we will all never get along, saddening and shameful.
Mutantfrog
July 12, 2006
2:04 am
I should point out that I must have ridden the subway a few dozen times while I was home for 3.5 months earlier this year, and never once saw any bag searches being conducted. Is this program even still going?
Curzon
July 12, 2006
2:09 am
tdaxp
July 12, 2006
3:24 am
"The Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas Barnett, Esquire, March 2003, http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm.
"LeT, SIMI hand in Mumbai blasts," The Times of India, 11 July 2006, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/...
sun bin
July 12, 2006
7:13 am
if it is totally cosmetic as kende said, (with obvious bypass to avoid it) it provides a fals sense of security, it could be worse.
OTOH, if it is truly random check, even if the sampling is extremely small, it is effectively to some extent.
Mutantfrog
July 12, 2006
7:16 am
Elizabeth
July 12, 2006
9:39 am
As for bag checks, I also believe this is a big waste of time. Have you ever heard of the police actually finding anything other than narcotics in this way? Another problem with so-called "random" searches is that they are often more biased than people imagine, thus increasing social exclusion among certain groups as well as wasting time and resources.
Giustino
July 12, 2006
2:36 pm
Naman Mantra
July 12, 2006
3:11 pm
J.Kende
July 12, 2006
8:19 pm
That is actually a very good point. But very few New Yorkers are given real peace of mind from these checks. MF describes how it works pretty accurately. I've seen the checks quite a few times, mostly at my own station up in Harlem. They really don't do much of anything to reassure New Yorkers. Maybe there is a greater impact on the many millions of visitors to NYC, and that isn't something to be shrugged off. As the drop in crime in the 90's showed there is a lot to be said for perception contributing to reality.
Still, an effective security plan would achieve both real security and the impression of security. As much credit as the NYPD and Bloomberg deserve for doing a good job on security over all, I find it deeply frustrating that they continue to stick with their "less is more" mantra when it comes to force size. As spikes of crime return throughout the nation and terror related security threats persist, there is no excuse for a force size that is 11% smaller than it was pre-911, with 1,000 of those remaining switched from general enforcement duties to counterterror, and a half million resident citywide increase since that time. Yes, we have deep longterm structural budget problems (despite a multibillion dollar surplus this year), but a 5,000 officer increase to the NYPD would cost in the neighborhood of 500million/year after the recruits reach the salary average (which takes a few years to get to anyway) and factoring in all benefits and pensions. A city with an annual budget in excess of 50billion can afford that. That's even more clear when considering how much of our economy depends on a low crime rate and robust security against terror.
J.Kende
July 12, 2006
8:29 pm
This is not true. They are random. They are based on the number of people that pass, taking aside every nth person who has a big bag. As for hightening divisions between groups, nonsense. The greatest racism I've experienced throughout my many years in NYC has consistently been from the very groups that you are suggesting are being victimized here. The extent of divisivness in the many neighborhoods of NYC is barely nudged in the least by these random half-assed searches. If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening.
Mutantfrog
July 13, 2006
12:19 am
Also, because US law (at least how they are interpreting it without forcing a lawsuit and a judicial ruling) bans involuntary searches without probable cause, if you get picked for a random search you are allowed to refuse and leave the station without penalty!
Then of course there's the issue of how even thorough bag searches aren't going to stop a suicide bomber from pulling an attack. OK, so you can't blow up the subway-big whoop. How about Times Square? Or a famous museum? Washington Square Park? Or even better- how about just blowing up the people WAITING to get searched before entering the subway! At a busy station you could probably hit just as many as if you were inside the car itself.
No, all a program like this does is take expensive and valuable police officers away from doing the real police work that can prevent and punish crime.
Joe
July 13, 2006
11:30 am
That's what you'll say in court the next morning with teeth marks from a German shepherd on your butt.
Elizabeth
July 14, 2006
7:43 am
J.K.: "This is not true. They are random."
Hm. I suppose I meant to say that they are not implemented as intended, though they ARE intended to be random. And I wasn't trying to imply discrimination against any group in particular, at least not in the United States, because I have only seen bag searches in other countries and at our borders (which is of course 100% bag searches). People whom the police avoid: big fat ladies talking in loud voices; men in suits who might be in a position of power so that they could complain against the police to their superiors; women with children who are crying because people hate to stand around screaming children; etc. I have seen this many times in Russia: the police would be checking every other person, but if a big fat woman with a screaming baby came up, it was NEVER her turn. They just couldn't deal with that. The police might be unconsciously avoiding black people so as not to be accused of discrimination.
"As for hightening divisions between groups, nonsense. The greatest racism I've experienced throughout my many years in NYC has consistently been from the very groups that you are suggesting are being victimized here."
The very fact that you have experienced racism is a sign of heightened divisions. I didn't say this victimized blacks or anything, I said it heightens divisions.
"If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening."
I think you're missing my point. I wasn't accusing the police of brutality, rudeness, or overt racism. I was saying that there is usually unrecognized bias even in so-called randomized systems, when people are carrying out these systems on the street. I don't consider myself a big racist, but I realize that even if I was asked to randomly interview people in a crowd, I could unconsciously end up avoiding interviewing men who I thought looked threatening (I'm not talking about anti-terrorist measures here).
Geeknoob
July 14, 2006
2:53 pm
It was still in effect before the bombings in Mumbai... Though only at terminal-stations and major stations (IE, 34th & 42nd street stations).
_"If you stand there watching the police conducting these searches they are incredibly polite and nonthreatening."Â?_
What's the point of a cop being rude about a bag check? All that gets you is PO'ed people trying to get where they're going... At least if you're nice about your job, 9 out of 10 times, the person will grumble a bit, but you're not provoking outright argument. (With or without associated violence.) It's not the cop's fault he's there doing the check! (And I think most people know that...)
heirabbit
July 15, 2006
3:51 pm
But as for the the search issue, the score is effectiveness=0, public sense of security=0, bureaucrats=10. They love this safe harassment of normal citizens, all while being hailed as upholding security. They don't like those nasty criminal looking people, 'cuz confronting them would be dangerous. Better to continue being busy doing nothing. After all, what could happen? In this stage of development in American politics, if they screw up they're hailed as heroes. If the big bomb actually hit, the people would generally support more money for all gov't military and police agencies. It's win-win for them, lose-lose for the hapless, alone and informed citizen.
Unless the gov't and police will agree to legal liability for public safety, rest assured that all their programs are for show only.
Geeknoob
July 15, 2006
5:19 pm
You missed my point. Whether they're rude and displaying a machine-gun or polite and non-threatening, which makes their job easier and keeps people from getting pissy? They're going to search you, or you're going to leave. They didn't make that decision, so being rude to someone gains them nothing. Being polite makes thier job easier. Period. (Now if someone cops an attitude first, this is a different situation. I am speaking only of the normal citizen trying to get to work, etc.)
I didn't say this job was effective, I didn't say it gained anyone any sense of security, I didn't even say it was implemented well. I simply said, if they decided you were their random person to search, would you rather some cop scream and cuss you out at gun-point, or be a civil-tongued human being through the 5 minute process?
heirabbit
July 16, 2006
6:46 am
In gated communities, the security guards usually have a legally binding contract to protect the inside residents. If something happens to anyone inside (rape, robbery etc.), there's a way to sue the guards. But the street - the gov't skirts responsibility for it by saying it's "public" or "everyone's", but unless you believe communist rhetoric, you would buy that. The owner is the one who controls it, and the owner is the gov't. They put police on this property under the guise of "to serve and protect", but where's their legal responsibility? If there's robbery or rape, do they compensate for it or not? Obviously not, and therefore their reason to exist is something other than they would prefer us to presume.
Isn't this the gist of what Elizabeth is saying? If they avoid the scary people, what the hell are we "hiring" them for?
Geeknoob
July 19, 2006
5:34 pm