This one is not just going away. A final death toll has not emerged at this writing, but it has reached 200. Mumbai (Bombay), a city already battered by terrorism, is slowly coming to grips with the enormity of what happened. The horrific imagery of the blast rivals that of 9/11, and the comparisons have already begun:
“Gruesome scenes from Tuesday’s attacks dominated Indian television, which began referring to the day as 7/11. Images of a middle-aged man, his body severed in two, crying for help as his fellow passengers carried him away, were broadcast repeatedly.”
If the “falling man” who jumped from the World Trade Center is the signature image of that awful day, then the broken body of that man may take on a similar grim importance in India. One suspects the Indian media will not be so shy as ours is about showing such an awful reminder as the hunt for the suspects begins.
There are two main suspects in Tuesday’s train bombing. Either way, one man will bear some responsibility for them. And it is possible the country that has harbored him will pay as well.
Lashkar-e-Taiba is a radical Muslim terror group with ties to al Qaeda. It has also received heavy funding from an Indian crime lord named Dawood Ibrahim, another suspect in the bombings and a terrorist in his own right. Ibrahim is regarded as the mastermind behind Mumbai’s 1993 bombing that killed 257. His gang, called D-Company, planned the first attack and smuggled in the RDX explosives from Pakistan. (I discussed his operations for The American Spectator online here and here.)
Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and D-Company are suspects in the 7-11 bombing as well. Ibrahim also has close al Qaeda ties, according to our Treasury Department, and it is likely no coincidence that this serial attack took place on the 11th of the month. I suspect that Osama bin Laden and the leadership levels of al Qaeda were not involved in this attack, but that it was carried out by home-grown terrorists (with Al Qaeda’s advice and approval) as occurred in London a year ago.
For the sake of peace in the region, however, it doesn’t matter which group was behind it — both are supported by Dawood Ibrahim. And Ibrahim (and possibly elements of L-e-T) are helped by Pakistan’s Intelligence Service, the ISI. Ibrahim is widely reported to live like a king in Pakistan today, controlling his criminal empire and immune from extradition to India. (Pakistan denies that he is in the country.)
At one point the ISI were staunch American allies against the Soviets. Since then, they have given us Kashmiri separatists, Dawood Ibrahim, A.Q. Khan and his nuclear network, and their attempt to create a pliable proxy state in Afghanistan: the Taliban. Elements within Pakistani intelligence have relentlessly advanced the cause of Islamic fundamentalism in the region and imperiled the world with their support for terrorists and for the distribution of nuclear technology. While they continue to assist us in capturing terrorists now and then, it is becoming more and more difficult to overlook these faults, and it will be even harder to ignore their cozy relationship with the chief suspects in the second Mumbai attacks.
That relationship hasn’t escaped one senior Indian politician, L.K. Advani, who in the wake of the bombings has called on Pakistan to surrender Ibrahim to face justice in India, noting that Ibrahim is to 7/11 as Osama was to 9/11. But Pakistan has been content to ignore such demands before.p>This time India’s demands may be more forceful. Saisuresh Sivaswamy, a columnist for India’s Rediff News , began to look around the world to formulate an appropriate response: br>
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?