if you ever accuse me of lying again in one of my posts, I'll ban you from the post.

Sorry, Dave. I acknowledge being a bit careless with my words.

A charge of mendacity requires that the accused is actually conversant with the history and social geography of India--something that was not evident in the post.

The "Mumbai-terrorists-targeting-Westerners" meme in this case is indicative of a Palin-style analysis rather than a Cheney-style analysis.

If revelations prove me to be wrong I'll acknowledge my error. I don't think we know yet.

However, I want to caution you: if you ever accuse me of lying again in one of my posts, I'll ban you from the post.

You can't conclude what you're trying to conclude from the numbers you're using, Triumph.

As the dust is settling, it appears that this canard about the Mumbai terrorists wanting to target Westerners is being revealed as shortsighted.

This isn't surprising to anyone who has experience in the country and is indicative of this false assumption held by many Westerners that the world revolves around them.

From today's NYTimes:

Contrary to earlier reports, it appeared that Westerners were not the gunmen’s main targets: they killed whomever they could. By Saturday evening, 18 of the dead were confirmed as foreigners; an additional 22 foreigners were wounded, said Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra State, where Mumbai is located.

Rattan Keswani, the president of Trident Hotels, said he had found no basis for reports that gunmen had rounded up holders of American and British passports at the Oberoi and herded them upstairs. “Nothing seems to suggest that,” he said, noting that a range of nationalities was represented among the 22 hotel guests who died, in addition to the 10 staff members, all Indian.

This was pretty clear from the earliest reports, given the geography of the attacks.

I stayed at the Taj last month, two metal detectors and bag check stations (manned by hotel staff) from the taxi queue to the lobby entrance. No armed guards, though.

Better yet, the terrorist's infiltration by sea must really sting as the largest naval base in India is only about 300 meters north of the Taj. I went on a 2 hour harbor cruise and witnessed no naval or Coast Guard patrols in the vicinity of the Naval Base or the Mumbai Oil Terminal. I think that this will change.

Many are now trying to understand why and how the attacks happened.
...
There is both practicality and symbolism in the choice of targets; modernity, plurality and the influence of the Western World were transformed from symbols of hope to symbols of horror. Mumbai is a world away, and 12 hours by air from San Francisco.

The reasons behind the attack aren't all tha hard to figure out. How many of the dead were armed to protect themselves?

Around 200 killed. Another three hundred injured. None could fire back. By definition, a soft target.

Thing is, history is loaded with examples that we should have learned this lesson from.

Just ask Virginia Tech.
Or, Columbine.
Or Israeli athletes who were at Munich.

Why were planes chosen on 9/11? Because they knew since everyone but they themselves were unarmed, nobody could resist. They were correct.

But the places where most of the killings occurred were not places with a preponderance of Westerners. Reports suggest that the largest proportion of the deaths occurred at the VT station, the Mazagon dockyard, and the domestic airport. Also, Metro Adlabs and the government-run Cama hospital and GT Hospital were targeted. These are all places where Indians VASTLY outnumber Westerners.

Metro Adlabs occasionally gets Westerners, but it is more well-known as a red-carpet theater for Bollywood premiers.

I go to Mumbai about twice a year on business and have stayed in the Oberoi. I can tell you many Westerns stay there, but the majority of guests tend to be wealthy Indians (same goes with Cafe Leopold). It is a popular place for elaborate weddings (same with the Taj)

I think Methu's analysis seemed right--these are radical conservative Kashmiri's who picked the epicenter of Indian secularism as the target.

There is little evidence--thus far--to suggest an al-Quaeda style Islam vs. the West subtext to these attacks.

On Capital's point--this is not going to have a dramatic impact on tourism. Most Westerners who go to that area of Mumbai are there on business. The city is too important for people to be scared off by this. I will anticipate more security, certainly. We are scheduled to go in January and haven't even thought about canceling the trip because of this.

You can't conclude what you're trying to conclude from the numbers you're using, Triumph. The issue isn't how many white balls were pulled out of the urn—it's now many were in the urn to begin with. I'd speculate that the attackers were trying to get a heightened level of international attention by going after targets bound to get more coverage in the international media. But it's still just a WAG.

This attack was distinctive in that Westerners seem to have been the targets.

FYI: This isn't true. Of the 195 people killed, only 9% were non-Indian [and we know for sure that some of non-Indian were non-Western so that figure is even lower].