In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 1309 of 2041
- next ›
The Shootout in Mumbai
THE SHOOTOUT IN MUMBAI....After a photographer at the Mumbai Mirror expressed his dismay that police on the scene didn't immediately open a gun battle against the terrorists behind last week's attacks, it became a trope in the right blogosphere that many lives could have been saved if only the Mumbai police had been more ballsy. "This whole unwillingness to shoot business is becoming a problem," sighed Instapundit.
Today, however, Israeli defense officials had a different take in the Jerusalem Post:
"In hostage situations, the first thing the forces are supposed to do is assemble at the scene and begin collecting intelligence," said a former official in the Shin Bet's security unit. "In this case, it appears that the forces showed up at the scene and immediately began exchanging fire with the terrorists instead of first taking control of the area."
I report, you decide. But if it were me, I'd probably listen to the Shin Bet folks. Via Robert Farley.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Looks like apples and oranges to me. The photographer was talking about police response to the initial assault on the railway station; the JPost is talking about handling a relatively settled hostage situation.
That's right Kevin, don't listen to someone who was there. Listen to former Israeli security officials, pontificating about what "appears" to be the case. Good work.
Monty Python used to joke that the violence portrayed in their skits was approved by the Rhodesian police. Now they would joke it is approved by Shin Bet.
What scarpy said.
They are talking about two different situations. Instapundit was talking about gunmen who were walking around the railway station shooting people, not holding hostages. Shin bet was talking about a hostage situation.
Robert Farley ought to read more closely.
Whoops, sorry, my bad. Farley didn't say anything about Instapundit. The error was Kevin's.
It also seems the badguys were unwilling to hunker down and trade shots - they'd hit a location, and once everyone was scared, move away into the panic, leaving the cops to secure a scene with no terrorists remaining in it.
And since the cops and troops were responding to a dozen places, that meant their expertise was split as well. Even with the best choices, you're going to have differing actions at each location and trouble keeping track of what has happened.
And no, D'Sousa was talking about regular police being pinned down by guys with automatic weapons. Maybe you should look up the LA robbery and see what happens when a beat cop gets shot at with automatic weapons - the beat cop doesn't win.
However, if all responsible adults on that train platform were properly armed, the terrorists would soon have been ex-terrorists.
In the NRA fantasy world, anyhow.
Watched a couple dozen hostage standoffs on Argentine tv. Argentine police always go in, hostages always die.
A friend told me that in Mexico you can buy insurance that sends a non-state affiliated paramilitary squad to your rescue in the event that you are taken hostage. (Apparently Mexican police kill hostages just as recklessly.)
Maybe we could let the invisible hand decide?
Jack Bauer always forms a perimeter first (just ask "24" expert, Dave Barry).
I say, perimeter first, then blast away.
Based on historical performance, doing the inverse of what insti says will make one correct easily 90% of the time.
This story, about the invaders' use of technology and tactics, is pretty disturbing. Indian security was ill-equipped or prepared for what unfolded.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008462162_india03.htm...
Indian cops get revolvers if they're lucky, else single-shot bolt action rifles, else bamboo staffs. They're under-armed.