« Home | weekend rundown » | More on Drug Addiction » | Empirics of a Mushroom Trip » | Point by Point to Eapen on Mumbai » | Terrorism in India, and why Jack's wrong » | On the Topics of: Gambling, Drugs and Why Bo Is Wr... » | This debate, posted on Slate, features Jason Furma... » | Black People Love Jeff Smith » | Open Thread: Treasury Terror Transaction Tracking » | Granting Amnesty to Iraqi Insurgents »


First, condolences to Mr. Goldstein on the untimely death of his cousin two days ago.

Second, I think that all the evidence points to Jack being wrong about the motivation behind the Mumbai bombings. While he's right about certain aspects of the timeframe, etc, I think these are purely concidental, and anyone familiar with the history of Kashmiri-rebel terrrorism in India recognizes that this attack is very very similar to previous attacks, right down to the type of explosive used.

Additionally, I don't think that any indication links this to the geopolitical repositioning that occured vis-a-vis this nuclear pact. I think that at least in the immediate past such a deal provides far too nebulous a strategic shift to warrant retaliation, especially since this deal functionally meant nothing in terms of Quaeda survival.

Similarity to London and Madrid means nothing; as I noted earlier, there exists great similarity to previous attacks in India. What is most likely true is that these groups are at least partially funded and trained by the Pakistani government, or factions within; and at the point that this relationship means that Kashmiri rebels come in contact with Quaeda operatives, the debate over motivation becomes indeterminate.

Two comments as I prepare for work.
First, did anyone hear about the war games we had with the Indians a while back? They kicked our ass! USAF was totally embarrassed.

Second, without having delved into a comprehensive study of this particular history, do you think that the social conservative model of marriage is anything but traditional? Do you think that Vedran Vuk, from the Mises Institute, is right about the existence of the welfare state and traditional modes of marriage being antithetical?