The shit is hitting the fan in India.

[Neon_Chaos]

Scores killed in Mumbai rampage - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/26/india.attacks/index.html)

[SirFozzie]

80 dead, and dozens more held hostage. an unknown group is claiming responsibility, but considering they were hunting those with a US or British passport, if I was a betting man, I'd at least think that Al-Qaeda were involved.

[Neon_Chaos]

80 dead, and dozens more held hostage. an unknown group is claiming responsibility, but considering they were hunting those with a US or British passport, if I was a betting man, I'd at least think that Al-Qaeda were involved.

Theyr're calling themselves the Deccan Mujahedeen.

[Izulde]

80 dead, and dozens more held hostage. an unknown group is claiming responsibility, but considering they were hunting those with a US or British passport, if I was a betting man, I'd at least think that Al-Qaeda were involved.

You do realize there's no vast Al-Qaeda network, right?

[Groundhog]

To be fair, Aussies have been targetted too, it sounds like.

[Neon_Chaos]

You do realize there's no vast Al-Qaeda network, right?

Very true. :)

But they're mostly all in the same vein. We have our own version of Muslim terrorists here in the Philippines... the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

And yes... they call themselves MILF.

[Galaxy]

And yes... they call themselves MILF.


We call MILF something else here.

[ISiddiqui]

Mujahedeen I'd Life to Fuck?

[Chief Rum]

Very true. :)

But they're mostly all in the same vein. We have our own version of Muslim terrorists here in the Philippines... the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.

And yes... they call themselves MILF.

Actually, while I don't recall if this is the particular group (is there another Filipino-Muslim terrorist group?), as that name doesn't sound familiar to me, but IIRC, after 9-11, it was known that a member of al Qaeda's inner circle was in the Phillipines and involved with the group there. So they just might be part of a vast al Qaeda network, if you can believe it.

I haven't heard anything about this group in India, though. They are a new group that no one knows much about right now.

I am mostly concerned for what's going on in Mumbai, but I will admit to being a little curious about what Pakistan's official reaction will be. Not that they are involved, but with their longstanding bitter hostility and conflict with India and the likelihood that some of these terrorists probably migrated down from the disputed areas of Jammu and Kashmir. They have to be secretly (and disgustingly) happy that this is happening, but they are publically in a critical spot and looking for more support from the U.S., who caters to India a lot for economic reasons and who would not react well if Pakistan were to not stay in step on the War on Terror or make any aggressive move toward India.

[Neon_Chaos]

Actually, while I don't recall if this is the particular group (is there another Filipino-Muslim terrorist group?), as that name doesn't sound familiar to me, but IIRC, after 9-11, it was known that a member of al Qaeda's inner circle was in the Phillipines and involved with the group there. So they just might be part of a vast al Qaeda network, if you can believe it.

Yes, this was actually big news back then. We also had this guy in custody (pre 9-11 for some other terrorist activities done here in the Philippines) until he managed to slip away. I don't doubt that al Qaeda operatives have been active in helping out most of the other islamic fundamentalist groups all around the world.

I believe, however, that these factions are all in it for their own reasons and not some underlying mission to destroy America. It just so happens that the US Government has a lot of influence in many countries, hence the targetting of Americans. Their mindset is that if they can terrorize the Americans and get away with it, they can terrorize the locals and be far more effective in pushing their agenda.

[Tigercat]

If this was an attempt to terrorize India, I could understand. (Well as much as its possible to understand an attack on innocent civilians.) But with the early reports that Americans and Britains were targeted... What a ridiculous maneuver. To attack Westerners with a massive terrorist attack in a country that is not only close to you, but one that that has emerging military power and isn't afraid to use it... (Not to mention the country with the world's largest Muslim population, even if that population is majorly disenfranchised...)

[Chief Rum]

If this was an attempt to terrorize India, I could understand. (Well as much as its possible to understand an attack on innocent civilians.) But with the early reports that Americans and Britains were targeted... What a ridiculous maneuver. To attack Westerners with a massive terrorist attack in a country that is not only close to you, but one that that has emerging military power and isn't afraid to use it... (Not to mention the country with the world's largest Muslim population, even if that population is majorly disenfranchised...)

Actually, I thought Indonesia still had the largest Muslim population, but that information may be dated. In any case, obviously, there are a ton of people in India (mostly Hindu, of course, but still...).

[EagleFan]

Wow, my last trip to India I almost stayed in that hotel for a weekend. Not that it really means anything, just makes it seem a little closer to home even though it's the other side of the world.

[Tigercat]

Actually, I thought Indonesia still had the largest Muslim population, but that information may be dated. In any case, obviously, there are a ton of people in India (mostly Hindu, of course, but still...).

I think you're right, I think India is the second largest, Indonesia slipped my mind. Sometimes its hard to remember that 200+ million people live there.

[Neon_Chaos]

Things aren't going well over there...

Fresh blast rocks Mumbai hotel as death toll climbs - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/27/india.attacks/index.html)

[Router Help]

I did stay in the hotel in the spring, and my boss was there last week. Yikes!

[Edward64]

I like to think this tragedy will make India a full, eager partner in the war. Not sure I see the rationale, why make a 'new' enemy who was sitting on the sidelines other than for the specific Pakistan/Kashmir issue?

[ISiddiqui]

Wow... there seems to be a score of hostages involved (some let go today). This was uber well planned out and unlike any other terrorism situation in India. I don't think in any other attack there were hostages taken (or even close to being taken, it was mostly just bombs going off)

[Groundhog]

I like to think this tragedy will make India a full, eager partner in the war. Not sure I see the rationale, why make a 'new' enemy who was sitting on the sidelines other than for the specific Pakistan/Kashmir issue?

Probably because these guys aren't thinking "big picture", I don't think. They have a specific beef with Westerners and India, and it sounds like they are operating separate from the usual suspects (ie. the other terrorist groups in the region - Lashkar-e-Tayyiba).

Strange, given that no one knows who these guys are.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At least three top Indian police officers - including the chief of the anti-terror squad - were among those killed

Anybody seen whether that happened during one of the hostage rescue attempts or if the head of the a-t unit was in the wrong place at the wrong time or was a target or ???

[GrantDawg]

Anybody seen whether that happened during one of the hostage rescue attempts or if the head of the a-t unit was in the wrong place at the wrong time or was a target or ???


He was killed very early on. They reported that he wasn't specifically targeted, but they hadn't that I know of given exactly what happened to him. He was a very popular figure among the people, but quite despised among the Muslim population.

[GrantDawg]

They are reporting now that there is also a Jewish center that has been taken and has hostages.

[Buccaneer]

He was a very popular figure among the people, but quite despised among the Muslim population.

And shameful acts like these will only make it worse.

[Galaxy]

If this was an attempt to terrorize India, I could understand. (Well as much as its possible to understand an attack on innocent civilians.) But with the early reports that Americans and Britains were targeted... What a ridiculous maneuver. To attack Westerners with a massive terrorist attack in a country that is not only close to you, but one that that has emerging military power and isn't afraid to use it... (Not to mention the country with the world's largest Muslim population, even if that population is majorly disenfranchised...)

It'll be interesting to see who it is exactly and what the motive is. I wonder how India will react (the acts seem to get worst and worst each time). It sounds like it a Pakistani-based group. Not just an emerging military power, but an economic one that is building a relationship to western businesses and travelers. They'll have to ensure they are able to keep them as safe as they can.

[BishopMVP]

Actually, while I don't recall if this is the particular group (is there another Filipino-Muslim terrorist group?), as that name doesn't sound familiar to me, but IIRC, after 9-11, it was known that a member of al Qaeda's inner circle was in the Phillipines and involved with the group there. So they just might be part of a vast al Qaeda network, if you can believe it.I assume you're talking about Ramzi Yousef, who like NeonChaos referred to was actually behind the 1993 WTC bombing and a 1998 plot to hijack multiple airliners out of LAX/Sydney but wasn't involved with 9/11.I haven't heard anything about this group in India, though. They are a new group that no one knows much about right now.A lot of times bigger groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba will split off a group and pretend its a different group if there is going to be significant blowback from an operation. Or just as likely, a small dedicated band of a larger group disagreed over tactics to stay local in Kashmir and split themselves off.I am mostly concerned for what's going on in Mumbai, but I will admit to being a little curious about what Pakistan's official reaction will be. Not that they are involved, but with their longstanding bitter hostility and conflict with India and the likelihood that some of these terrorists probably migrated down from the disputed areas of Jammu and Kashmir. They have to be secretly (and disgustingly) happy that this is happening, but they are publically in a critical spot and looking for more support from the U.S., who caters to India a lot for economic reasons and who would not react well if Pakistan were to not stay in step on the War on Terror or make any aggressive move toward India.I don't know if Pakistan trained or supported these specific terrorists, but you can only train and equip so many religious militants for Jammu/Kashmir before some go off and start doing this. I'm pretty sure India traced back the gunmen that attacked Parliament recently to Pakistan and the ISI.I like to think this tragedy will make India a full, eager partner in the war. Not sure I see the rationale, why make a 'new' enemy who was sitting on the sidelines other than for the specific Pakistan/Kashmir issue?How was India sitting on the sidelines? They've been "occupying" (from the Pakistani Muslim point of view) Kashmir and Jammu since 1947 and they've beaten Pakistan in 3 wars the last 50 years. These terrorists weren't part of some global al-Qaida network - at its best al-Qaida only appeared to have global reach because it would give money to local groups with their own fights and grievances. For any Pakistani/Bangladeshi, that's Kashmir. (Like I pointed out in the other thread, Kashmir's in the name.) Even if they were, the whole al-Qaida strategy centers around the entire Muslim population rising up, so India violently repressing its own Muslims or starting another war with Pakistan - even winning as long as Pakistan used an atom bomb or two - would be a victory in its eyes.

[Galaxy]

Another round of outbreaks being reported on CNN (Taj Hotel, which may be the best hotel in Mumbai). Didn't they secure it after the first round?

[GrantDawg]

Another round of outbreaks being reported on CNN (Taj Hotel, which may be the best hotel in Mumbai). Didn't they secure it after the first round?


Claimed to. Then said they had one injured guy left. They were mistaken is my guess.

[GrantDawg]

On BBC, they are sying it is just the one gunman. Some how I doubt it, unless it is Jack Bauer.


I'll take that back. They are saying gunmen. Just misread.

[GrantDawg]

The reaction and aftermath is going to be interesting. India is saying there was a definite Pakistani element to the attack. Most of the captured has been identified as Pakistani, including a British born one.

[Galaxy]

Very interesting tactic in who they are targeting and what they are targeting. I wonder how India will react as well as US and UK.

[Buccaneer]

The motivation for the attacks is clear. It was revenge for India reneging on their agreement to the UIR to stop the US forces from entering the Persian Gulf. India had chosen to ally itself with the UIR but backed out after the terrorist attack against the US and a very stern warning from the President.

[GrantDawg]

The motivation for the attacks is clear. It was revenge for India reneging on their agreement to the UIR to stop the US forces from entering the Persian Gulf. India had chosen to ally itself with the UIR but backed out after the terrorist attack against the US and a very stern warning from the President.


Excuse me, but what is UIR?

[Edward64]

Wonder what they are doing to the captured gunman right now and if the Indians debate (as the world's largest democracy) debate the pros-and-cons of torture?

[Chief Rum]

I assume you're talking about Ramzi Yousef, who like NeonChaos referred to was actually behind the 1993 WTC bombing and a 1998 plot to hijack multiple airliners out of LAX/Sydney but wasn't involved with 9/11.

Well to be fair, I never said that person was involved in 9/11. Said he had a connection to al Qaeda, and note it was also an as I recall thing, as in something I haven't thought about it years. I may have known his name once, but certainly don;t know it now, so if you say the guy above is that guy, I'll lean toward your more extensive knowledge of that.

[BishopMVP]

Well to be fair, I never said that person was involved in 9/11. Said he had a connection to al Qaeda, and note it was also an as I recall thing, as in something I haven't thought about it years. I may have known his name once, but certainly don;t know it now, so if you say the guy above is that guy, I'll lean toward your more extensive knowledge of that.No worries. Formatting aside, I wasn't trying to call you out - I also do most of my recall from memory, I just figured it might help give some more context for people.
Excuse me, but what is UIR?Shurg - a quick googling leads me into Mombai was a Mossad/CIA plot-territory, which unless Bubba Wheels hijacked Bucc's screen name, I'm sure must not be what Bucc intends by the acronym. Although the barring US from Persian Gulf thing seems unlikely - India just completed the landmark nuclear deal, if anything they've been coming closer to a US alliance, and they don't have territory bordering the Persian Gulf. Unless they somehow were arguing they would interdict ships coming up from Diego Garcia, but I don't think they even have jurisdiction - at best it would be a minor reroute.

[BishopMVP]

Dola to CR - Khalid Sheikh Mohammad also spent time in Manila with Yousef after the 1993 WTC bombing, although he escaped (iirc there was a fire during attempts to make a bomb in an apartment) and was captured eventually in Pakistan, so he might have been the other one you were thinking of. Yousef is commonly listed as the "inspiration" for 9/11, because of his 1993 WTC bombing and the first plot to hijack airliners and crash them. Mark Bowden, the author from Black Hawk Down, wrote an extensive series in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2001 (right after 9/11?) detailing Yousef, but I can't find a link to that. I did stumble across a Bowden article of the hunt for a main MILF/Abu Sayyaf leader/western hostages - http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200703/bowden-jihad - if you're interested in the Phillipine connection.

[flounder]

Shurg - a quick googling leads me into Mombai was a Mossad/CIA plot-territory, which unless Bubba Wheels hijacked Bucc's screen name, I'm sure must not be what Bucc intends by the acronym. Although the barring US from Persian Gulf thing seems unlikely - India just completed the landmark nuclear deal, if anything they've been coming closer to a US alliance, and they don't have territory bordering the Persian Gulf. Unless they somehow were arguing they would interdict ships coming up from Diego Garcia, but I don't think they even have jurisdiction - at best it would be a minor reroute.

I think he's referring to a Tom Clancy novel. UIR = United Islamic Republic.

[Klinglerware]

Very interesting tactic in who they are targeting and what they are targeting. I wonder how India will react as well as US and UK.

If Kashmir is the real issue, and if one considers a terrorist attack a method meant to destabilize a government, influencing that government to react disproportionately to the actual (weak) capabilities of the terrorist group, while generating publicity--then the targeting of foreigners could just be a means to an end. One theory is that the terrorists don't actually care about the Westerners on South Asian soil angle, but do see the media value and the perception of insecurity (and the effect that will have on foreign investment) engendered by targeting foreigners.

It seems possible that the targets were chosen, in part, so that the terrorists could get on CNN. Certainly, if the primary immediate target were Indian nationals, this thread would not exist.

[Buccaneer]

Sorry, I thought more people would remember Tom Clancy's Executive Orders.

[Fighter of Foo]

Posting this here because per usual, it's important and everyone should read it (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/12/lessons_from_mu.html):

- If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.

- Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything. Even metal detectors and threat warnings didn't do any good.

[EagleFan]

Can I get the time back which I wasted reading that? I guess if it's BLOGGED on the internet it must be true.

These high priced counter measures have snuffed out many a plot which have saved many lives. But I guess we can scrap it all and everything will be fine...

[Fighter of Foo]

These high priced counter measures have snuffed out many a plot which have saved many lives. But I guess we can scrap it all and everything will be fine...

I guess if anyone from the Government says something it must be true.

Don't want to let silly things like facts get in the way.

[molson]

Posting this here because per usual, it's important and everyone should read it (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/12/lessons_from_mu.html):

- If a bunch of men with guns and grenades is all they really need, then why isn't this sort of terrorism more common? Why not in the U.S., where it's easy to get hold of weapons? It's because terrorism is very, very rare.

- Specific countermeasures don't help against these attacks. None of the high-priced countermeasures that defend against specific tactics and specific targets made, or would have made, any difference: photo ID checks, confiscating liquids at airports, fingerprinting foreigners at the border, bag screening on public transportation, anything. Even metal detectors and threat warnings didn't do any good.

It's pretty horrifying that there's people that actually think all that.

Yes, terrorism is rare, but that's exactly why intelligence can help stop it. Ya, 18 guys can do a lot of damage. If there were 30 million terrorists in the world willing to step in, there's nothing that can be done. But terrorism is rare. So if you blow up a house with a bunch of those 18, or detain them at the airport (or gitmo), you delay or stop attacks.

Terrorism is EASY. We know terrorists exist. The only reason it hasn't happened in the US in 7 years must be that whatever we're doing is working pretty well. Does airport security make a difference? Who knows, but it's really not a large price to pay. Unless you're a dope or just trying to make a point, it takes less than 10 minutes to get through airport security almost anywhere in the US, anytime.

Anti-terrorism measures in the US have remarkably little impact on Americans' daily lives. Considering the success rate here, that's pretty amazing. People freak out about the Patriot Act and while it may be overbroad, its impact on people's life doesn't come CLOSE to matching the fear-mongering its opponents promote. It's also extremely important and we'll always have some version of it.

One of the best things about an Obama presidency is that I believe he does understand what a dangerous world it is (and he of course will have access to the real graveness of threats), and he won't be soft on terrorism, and he won't be reluctant to support the tools needed to fight it. Things won't change much on that end, but since it's Obama, more people will blindly support those tools, rather than blindly criticize them. Works for me, as long as we see more of the same.

[Fighter of Foo]

Yes, terrorism is rare, but that's exactly why intelligence can help stop it.

No argument here.

Terrorism is EASY. We know terrorists exist. The only reason it hasn't happened in the US in 7 years must be that whatever we're doing is working pretty well.

So terrorism's rare, but obviously we're stopping it. How? Maybe we're just lucky?

Does airport security make a difference? Who knows, but it's really not a large price to pay. Unless you're a dope or just trying to make a point, it takes less than 10 minutes to get through airport security almost anywhere in the US, anytime.

This doesn't mean it's effective. And time = money so ANY time spent on say, the liquid ban is money wasted.

Anti-terrorism measures in the US have remarkably little impact on Americans' daily lives. Considering the success rate here, that's pretty
amazing.

We don't know what the success rate is so none of us have any idea whether it's amazing or not. Homeland Security & Defense expenditures are the largest part of our government spending. What's the dollar amount per person that you'd consider "little impact?"

[molson]

We don't know what the success rate is so none of us have any idea whether it's amazing or not. Homeland Security & Defense expenditures are the largest part of our government spending. What's the dollar amount per person that you'd consider "little impact?"

So even though you don't know the success rate (except for the handful of quashed terrorist plots that have been revealed, and the fact that there have zero terrorist attacks in the most hated country on earth in the last 7 years while terrorism has increased everywhere else), you want to cut all Homeland Security & Defense spending?

We have no choice but to trust the president and others in the know. Do you trust Obama and his team? I feel like if Obama comes out and has the exact same policy stances on terrorism (publicly) as Bush, people will support it, and that's not a bad thing.

[Klinglerware]

you want to cut all Homeland Security & Defense spending?



I don't think he's saying that. He is however making the point that return on investment should be something we should be thinking about, even in the realm of homeland security. Folks like John McCain have railed against bloat and inefficiency in how the defense budget is allocated, so I don't see why counter-terrorism should be exempt from the same analytical exercise.

No one is saying cut the budget, people are saying spend the money efficiently: spend most of your money on programs that are proven to work, definitely do spend some money on innovation, but assess your programs fairly and cut back on programs that provide poor ROI relative to the others.

[molson]

I don't think he's saying that. He is however making the point that return on investment should be something we should be thinking about, even in the realm of homeland security. Folks like John McCain have railed against bloat and inefficiency in how the defense budget is allocated, so I don't see why counter-terrorism should be exempt from the same analytical exercise.

No one is saying cut the budget, people are saying spend the money efficiently: spend most of your money on programs that are proven to work, definitely do spend some money on innovation, but assess your programs fairly and cut back on programs that provide poor ROI relative to the others.

How do we know that's not done (other than the fact that we know Bush is bad, so his administration must not do it)? I'm sure allocation of resources is a critical consideration, as it is in any military exercise. I don't think the Fighters of Foo of the world are the most qualified to allocate terrorism resources.

Terrorism is different because the fight against is the most "hidden" part of government. Is still will be with Obama.

[lighthousekeeper]

It would be interesting to know how much US productivity is lost due to increased airport security checks that have resulted post 9-11. 700 million airline passengers per year. So each 1 extra minute waiting on line could translate into up to 12 million man-hours in lost productivity per year. I guess that would be a worse-case scenario assuming 100% workplace efficiency? I don't know, but would still be interesting to see expert analysis of these costs (in addition to HLS spending).

[gstelmack]

It would be interesting to know how much US productivity is lost due to increased airport security checks that have resulted post 9-11. 700 million airline passengers per year. So each 1 extra minute waiting on line could translate into up to 12 million man-hours in lost productivity per year. I guess that would be a worse-case scenario assuming 100% workplace efficiency? I don't know, but would still be interesting to see expert analysis of these costs (in addition to HLS spending).

Don't forget to compare it to lost productivity caused by browsing Internet message boards...

[AlexB]

Surely the point is that no single measure is wholly responsible wholly ineffective in combating terrorism: CT is a cumulative effect of all of the processes. Like a chain - it's only as strong as the weakest link. Stopping one area could open up the whole thing

Yes I thinks it's rare, but it's worth largescale investment for two reasons: one it it likely to prevent some of the attacks, and/or its got a big placebo effect - it makes people feel safer, and therefore they are.

I spent 10 days in Egypt last month, and while it's not the worst country in the world, it's had a few tourist atrocities in relatively recent times. Everywhere where tourists are there are armed police everywhere you look - you can;t go more than 100 yards without seeing one, literally.

Overkill? Possibly. Safest place I've ever been? Definitely. I'm fairly sure the two are linked, especially when I walk around in England and you have to work hard to find a copper on the streets at times.

I personally feel much much safer when I see security measures, and I'd be willing to bet that most people are the same. And that has an economic benefit that means people travel more widely, therefore spend more freely and helps repay the costs of the added security.

[Fighter of Foo]

So even though you don't know the success rate (except for the handful of quashed terrorist plots that have been revealed, and the fact that there have zero terrorist attacks in the most hated country on earth in the last 7 years while terrorism has increased everywhere else), you want to cut all Homeland Security & Defense spending?

We have no choice but to trust the president and others in the know. Do you trust Obama and his team? I feel like if Obama comes out and has the exact same policy stances on terrorism (publicly) as Bush, people will support it, and that's not a bad thing.

If the success rate is so wonderful, why aren't we hearing more about it? How many law enforcement groups have you known to downplay their successes? What about politicians declining photo ops?

I would think for all the money they've spent, they'd have a little something more than a guy with explodable shoes, a group that was going to infiltrate a military base dressed as pizza guys, a group that was going to defy physics to set a gas pipe on fire and the UK guys who were going to make a bomb in an airplane lavoratory. I understand the secrecy required for some of this but is that it? Really?

If that's all they've got (and I'm not saying it is mind you, only what I've heard/read about that comes to mind) then fuck yeah I want to slash their budget as it's not accomplishing a GD thing other than making $$$ for security vendors.

As far as trusting the Government (Bush or Obama) you've got to be out of your GD mind. All they do is lie, cheat and steal and you say we've got no choice but to trust them?

The only allocation of resources the government does is to ask how much, and then how much more. That's true for all facets of government, not just security. And maybe if enough people bitch about it, maybe, possibly some positive change can happen. I'm not holding my breath.

/End Rant:)

[Crapshoot]

The motivation for the attacks is clear. It was revenge for India reneging on their agreement to the UIR to stop the US forces from entering the Persian Gulf. India had chosen to ally itself with the UIR but backed out after the terrorist attack against the US and a very stern warning from the President.

WTF? Where do you come up with this?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

See the bottom half of the last page.

[ISiddiqui]

And today 18 are dead as a blast rips through Peshawar:

At Least 18 Dead in Pakistan Blast - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/asia/06peshawar.html?hp)

[Edward64]

Captured terrorist asking for Pakistani legal help. Wonder how come no one is complaining about the torture in India?

Mumbai suspect requests legal aid from Pakistan - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/13/india.mumbai.suspect/index.html)

NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- The only surviving suspect in last month's attacks in Mumbai has written a letter to the Pakistan High Commission, or embassy, seeking legal aid, CNN's sister network in India reported Saturday, quoting a Mumbai police official.

Investigators said that Mohammad Ajmal Kasab is from Faridkot village in the Okara district of Pakistan's Punjab province and that the other nine attackers also are from Pakistan. Pakistani officials have denied that assertion, blaming instead "stateless actors."

Rakesh Maria, Mumbai's joint police commissioner of crime, said Saturday that Kasab's three-page letter was written in Urdu. In the letter, Kasab confesses his role in the attacks, CNN-IBN said.

[SackAttack]

Probably depends on whether it was Pakistani-sponsored or somebody who stands to gain from setting Pakistan and India at one another's throats. If it's the latter, writing the letter would just serve as a link for the Indian government to seize on.

A little too overt to take seriously...unless you're looking for a scapegoat.