Mumbai attack – similar script to 9/11?

With almost 200 dead following the attacks in Mumbai, the death toll is obviously not on the scale of 9/11, but equally serious in many other ways.

So what makes this event "similar" to that of 9/11?

The most obvious factor seems to be the conflicting information that is being given to the public (initially) and how the details appear to develop a more "scripted" form as time goes on.

It is true that during an attack of this magnitude, some of the early information is likely to contain a few inaccuracies. However, many of the reports came from reliable (high level) sources and it would be unusual if all of these were incorrect.

As with the 9/11 attack, Al-Qaeda quickly appeared as the leading suspect, even before the terrorists were identified. Even though a group called the "Deccan Mujahideen" claimed responsibility, this idea was dismissed and replaced with an "Islamist group" called "Lashkar-e-Toiba"

The number of terrorists involved in the attacks range from 10 to 60, although approximately 25 seems to be the most frequently quoted figure. Unfortunately, the most puzzling information concerns the number captured. Some reports quote as many as 8 terrorists taken alive, yet the latest news reveals just one (a Pakistani) called Azam Amir Kasab remains.

Kasab is quoted as saying that 10 terrorists were involved in the attack, a plan that was created 6 months ago. According to Fox News, Kasab said it was hoped that 5,000 would be killed, targeting mostly "whites, preferably Americans and British"

However, according to an article on Haaretz.com "Report: Mumbai terrorist says mission specifically targeted Israelis", Kasab "told interrogators during questioning that he and his men were sent specifically to kill Israelis to avenge the "atrocities" against the Palestinians," apparently quoting a report in the Times of India on Sunday.

In the Haaretz article it was confirmed that "nine people - most Israelis, some dual citizens but all of them Jews - were killed in an attack on the Chabad house,"

Clearly, with the Jewish deaths (as important as they are) amounting to just 5% of the total lives lost, the terrorists were obviously not targeting Israelis, yet the Haaretz site appears to be trying to turn this "international" tragedy into a "Jewish" issue. Surely, this is not the time to be promoting personal interests?

The following is an extract from a BBC article:

"As few as 10 militants may have been involved in the assault which saw attacks in multiple locations including two hotels, a major railway station, a hospital and a Jewish centre.

While the vast majority of victims were Indians, at least 22 foreigners are known to have died, including victims from Israel, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, Italy, Singapore, Thailand and France. One Briton, Andreas Liveras, was also killed."

It was interesting that the Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said "Let us not fool ourselves, it is a serious situation when the people in India feel this is 9/11 for India." I´m sure the Foreign Minister was referring to the ferocity of the attack and how the Indian people must be feeling at the moment, but you can´t help thinking how this resembles the effect on the American people after the WTC attack in 2001.

Perhaps, before the anger turns into retaliation, we should consider who benefits the most from these attacks? Whilst some of the terrorists appear to have a connection with Pakistan, what would Pakistan gain from such an attack, especially as the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has been making serious efforts to improve relationships with India?

Although most of the terrorists have either been killed or have escaped, we are presented with information that does not seem to make a lot of sense. We are told that the terrorists began their killing spree at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (train station) which included the use of grenades, yet according to some accounts the terrorists arrived in rubber dinghies and a large number of grenades were found on one of these boats. If the terrorists planned to kill 5,000 people, as Azam Amir Kasab has been quoted as saying, why leave such a large quantity of grenades behind?

Can we expect a repeat of 9/11 where certain "evidence" conveniently appears soon after the attack, like a passport that appears in perfect condition from one of the hijacked planes, a list of the terrorists, or maybe a Koran left around somewhere?

There is no doubt there was a purpose to the attack and it may be no coincidence that almost all the victims were from countries that have supported the US fight against terror in the past (all Russian citizens were released unharmed in the attack).

It would also come as no surprise to hear later that Iran is blamed in some way for the Mumbai attack (supplying weapons or training?). Could it also be a coincidence that Russian intelligence has noticed a build up of US troops on the Iraq/Iran border? And that the naval presence in the Persian Gulf is at the same level seen before the Iraq invasion?

Could the Mumbai attacks be the first step in trying to gain international support for an attack on Iran soon, and will others follow? Will the warning by U.S. authorities, concerning a possible al Qaeda threat to transit systems in and around New York City, become step two?

The desire of the US and Israel to attack Iran may have taken a back seat just lately, but it certainly hasn´t gone away. But will a new war be a parting gift from Bush, or something that Obama will take on in January? Could this explain a comment made by Colin Powell in October when he said "There´s going to be a crisis come along on the 21st or 22nd of January that we don´t even know about right now."