Mumbai: city of death

[babylonsister]

Mumbai: city of death
The terrorist attacks on Mumbai finally ended yesterday, leaving at least 195 people dead. But already questions are being asked about how the attackers got through to commit mass murder


Neeta, the sister of deceased bystander Harish Gohil who was shot dead by militants, mourns over the body of her brother during a funeral possession in Mumbai on November 29, 2008.


The body fell limply from the ground-floor window of the still-burning building at about 8am yesterday. The black-clad Indian commando who had shoved it out without ceremony leant through the frame and gave a thumbs-up sign to his colleagues outside.

With the last of the terrorists who had holed up in the Taj Mahal Palace hotel confirmed dead, the 60-hour siege of Mumbai was finally complete.

“All operations are over. All the terrorists have been killed,” said Hassan Gafoor, the city’s police chief, as special-forces units emerged from the smoke-filled hotel and firefighters moved in to douse a fierce blaze. The whistles of hundreds of policemen filled the air.

The head of the National Security Guard commando unit was more circumspect as he spoke to reporters outside the hotel. “Three terrorists have been killed, but we are continuing our operations,” said JK Dutt, adding that his men would not rest until they had checked every room.

They had good cause to keep up their guard. Twice in the preceding 48 hours it had seemed that the hotel was back under the control of the Indian authorities, only for the terrorists to find another hiding place to continue their outrage.

At the end of it, 195 people were confirmed dead, with many more expected to be found in the Taj Mahal Palace, and more than 370 were injured. One Briton was among the 22 foreigners killed.


more...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5258462.ece

[MrModerate]

1. What no one is saying (at least that I've seen) . . .

Is how many terrorists just ditched their gear and melted into the crowds . . .

[babylonsister]

2. I just heard that on NBC Nightly News. Roger Cressey

thinks that's what happened, too.

[smitty]

3. I supect the same. It just seems that there was too much

shooting and too much killing for too long a period of time to be accomplished by only 10 or 12 terrorists.

It appears the terrorists were well armed, well trained and had excellent intelligence; if Pakistan was involved, this is going to get very bad.

[MrModerate]

5. Pakistan's soveriegnty is leaking away . . .

They can't control what takes place within their borders, and many in their leader class are sympathetic to terrorist aims. Keep your heads down, folks.

[jrockford]

4. "city of death"

:eyes:

[babylonsister]

6. What would call a city terrorized, with many dead and injured?

No one knows where this started or why it happened.

Would 10,000 suit 'city of death' in your eyes? More? Less? Let us know. :eyes:

[jrockford]

7. not a "city of death" - how melodramatic.

You don't walk into the city and die. It isn't a huge graveyard.

I think the city's history goes a bit deeper than the recent events, to be dubbed so melodramatically as Mumbai: city of death.

But you can defend that over-sensationalised media crap, I suppose. :eyes:

[babylonsister]

8. I didn't write it, but defend it? What upsets you about the term?

It was ugly. In Mumbai.
City of death? Ask the people touched by this travesty. They'd agree, I think.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I think the term is appropriate to the present horror.