Cutting through the leathery carapace of the media
Soon after Obama was elected, security experts warned that a major Al Quaeda attack was imminent. Apparently there’s a pattern where terrorist attacks happen soon after new leaders have won power. These acts proclaim the murderers are still active, and exploit the changes in government. Although Al Qaeda struck in India, it must be significant that the attacks came just three weeks after the US election.
The attacks have been called ‘India’s 9/11′. It’s certainly a catchy, media-friendly term, but it doesn’t quite fit. The most obvious difference is that 9/11 brought Islamist terrorism to the the US mainland for the first time. Mumbai by contrast has suffered terrorist attacks several times before. 257 people were killed in bomb attacks in 1993, and sporadic bombings over the 2000’s culminated in bombings in 2006 – near the Taj hotel – which killed 209 people.
The attacks on Mumbai do have a certain similarity with those on the World Trade Centre – their spectacular nature. Similar numbers of people were killed in the earlier acts of terrorism on the city, but they did not attract the same deluge of international coverage. These terrorists are canny media manipulators, and this assault marks new depths of depraved innovation.
Being caught in a bombing must be utterly terrifying, but a commando-type assault creates a different effect. Men with guns are so mobile and unpredictable, who knows where they’ll turn up next. Terrorists can also take hostages and fight the police or armed forces directly, both of which create their own unique horror. Most importantly, a gang of armed men can cause bloodshed and carnage stretching over two days, rather than one morning. The novelty and diversity of the tactics, as well as its longevity has created a perfect media terror event.
Sadly, I think these events have been receiving so much attention in the western media not simply because of the suffering and terror caused by these men, but the way they carried it out. The Head of Marketing, or is it Head of Product at Islamist Terror Inc is certainly a very canny operator. We are all looking on in shocked disbelief.
Heading for international hotels had the depressingly predictable effect of attracting the world’s media. The following day several British tabloids ran headlines with the parochial sentiment ‘Briton killed in Mumbai terror’. Perhaps the men at Lashkar-e-Taiba had seen the page in Monday’s Mirror which featured a main article on Delia’s turkey recipe that might lead to food poisoning, next to a tiny two paragraph number mentioning that 300 people had been killed in Christian/Muslim riots in Nigeria. It seems a Briton must “impale his solar topee on a tree” for a news story to penetrate the leathery carapace of the British media.
At least we are hearing about these events I suppose, but let’s call it India’s 26-28/11, or even the November, 2008 attacks on Mumbai.
Tags: British Media, Mumbai, Obama, terrorism
December 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Please, Johnathan, be more responsible and fair. By calling them Islamist Terror Inc you have already passed judgment on a religion, which, by its very nature, is a path to God.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
I don’t mean Islamic, but Islamist – as in, subscribing to a radical political form of the religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism Islamism: the term that’s replaced ‘Islamic Fundamentalism’.
I’m sure those young men had their naive faith exploited by their leaders in order to further the political aims of the Pakistani government. Also, all religions (and most political ideologies) are probably suceptible to such exploitation.
The point I was trying to make however is that to the extent that there there is a media-savvy international network who use Islam to justify violence, I think this organisation may have similarities with commercial corporations – hence ‘Inc.’
No doubt they will end up burning in the fires of Jahannam, should there be such a place. Inchallah.