Terrorism Mumbai
-
pulling onto a different track here, are we now ? .... I suppose you have now realized how your initial comments looked, especially now you're implying that you're privy and part of your country's military establishment ....
so which part of it was hubris ? .... your non-sequitur examples about India "suffering from China Aggression", or me pointing out that India got trashed by China in that conflict ? ... I believe the only undisputable truth is the latter, unless, of course, you have something different to say about that as well ? and if you are representative of the thinking of your country's defense establishment, based on your initial comments, then I loathe the idea of you guys having nuclear weapons very much indeed. Any group of people filled with too much hot air should never be allowed to.
and of course, since you cannot respond to my comments about your own comments below ...
"i agree that the position of the commando in the picture posted above is not too professional or even safe, but the focus of the training of a voluntary army and a conscript force is different."
that sounds like gibberish to me, you're saying that the "commandos" were conscripts ? ... you agree that they were NOT professional ? or that there's one way to hold a weapon for conscripts, and another way to hold a weapon for volunteers ? ... To me, and I guess to most trained soldiers, there's only a right way, or a wrong way to hold and fire a weapon ... you're saying there's an Indian army way as well ? .....
so the uncomfortable things I said were "hubris", neh ? .....
But I digress again ....
I see that some of the things I said have registered ....
I only wonder if you ever got the double and triple entendres ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
pulling onto a different track here, are we now ? .... I suppose you have now realized how your initial comments looked, especially now you're implying that you're privy and part of your country's military establishment ....
so which part of it was hubris ? .... your non-sequitur examples about India "suffering from China Aggression", or me pointing out that India got trashed by China in that conflict ? ... I believe the only undisputable truth is the latter, unless, of course, you have something different to say about that as well ? and if you are representative of the thinking of your country's defense establishment, based on your initial comments, then I loathe the idea of you guys having nuclear weapons very much indeed. Any group of people filled with too much hot air should never be allowed to.
My response - quoting from a man whom i respect
"Looking back on our humiliation at the hands of the Chinese 40 years ago, my eyes go moist, the throat goes dry and a heavy, insane rage begins to build within me against those who caused it. And it was not the chinese.
It saddens me, however, to notice the general lack of knowledge among the public, the distorted facts being presented by eminent writers and experts, and the misinformation/disinformation campaigns still being carried out by vested interests on this subject.
To begin with, there is a generally held view that in the 1962 India-China War, India's military was vanquished by the People's Liberation Army. It is not true. The nation was convulsed by fear, yes, because our top political leadership panicked, but our army was far from vanquished. Our deployed force level in 1962 against China was as follows:
-
The command centre was at the newly created HQ (headquarters) IV Corps (one corps consists of a minimum of three divisions + supporting forces + reserves) in Tezpur under Lieutenant General B M Kaul. The IV Corps had a force little less than four infantry brigades (most of them hastily collected and not in their complete form) deployed in the North-East Frontier Agency, ie just about one division looking after over 400km (30,000 square km in area) of frontier starting from Bhutan through Kameng, Subansiri, Siang and Lohit to Tirap division, which finally connects to the Burmese border and Nagaland in the absolute northeastern corner of our country.
A little more than one brigade force guarded our border against the Chinese in Ladakh, where our forces were scattered even more, and practically all the posts were in isolation of that inhospitable terrain. Thus, only 24,000 troops out of a total of the 4,00,000-strong Indian army of those days fought the Chinese in 1962. That amounts to less than 1/16th of our army's strength at that time.
Hence, even though our troops suffered a defeat, it can't be said that our army was vanquished. For that matter the entire army in the Northeast didn't suffer defeat either.
The Eastern Army HQ was at Lucknow and IV Corps, which suffered the defeat, was only one of its elements, and a weak one at that (hardly one division strong at that time). We couldn't have moved our forces from the Pakistan borders without endangering our defences there, while another division was locked against the Naga insurgency, which was also quite serious those days.
Besides, China didn't figure in the government's defence planning for the country. As per its written directive to the army, the latter's task was defence against Pakistan. In fact, the government had rebuffed the army every time this aspect was brought up for discussion.
Thus, we had no roads to take the army, its equipment, heavy guns, and supplies up to the border. There was no way we could have positioned and maintained a large army at the border in a short time.
Frankly, the 1962 war can't even be called a war in the real sense of the word, though everyone refers to it as such. It was at the most three or four battles in which we suffered a defeat in the Northeast.
A war is generally a long-drawn affair and demands almost the entire resources of a nation and commitment of most of its forces and goes far beyond a few battles. Our political leadership combined with a few inept/pliant generals of those days forced our army to conduct insane battles at ultra-high altitudes without acclimatising to the rarefied atmosphere and sub-zero temperatures.
On difficult terrain, in tactically disadvantageous battle positions, without reserves for reinforcements, under conditions such as non-existent supply lines (troops were required to be entirely air-maintained in terrain unsuitable for air-dropping), without suitable/matching arms, criminally insufficient ammunition (only 50 rounds of .303 bullets per jawan in NEFA), insufficient food and clothing.
The Chinese, to their surprise, found the going very easy and reached the foothills of Assam within a couple of days. At this stage our cowardly leadership (both political and military) denied our forces a God-given chance to redeem their honour. We could have, entirely on our own, turned the tide at the Assam foothills, where the temperatures were tolerable, and used our air force to literally massacre the Chinese.
The Chinese knew well what our forces could have done after recovering from the initial shock, and that is why they withdrew, returning all the land they had conquered (including Tawang) irrespective of their much publicised claims praised as just and fair by authors like Neville Maxwell, Dr Gregory Clark, the Communists, et al.
Cleverly and hurriedly, the Chinese returned without giving us a chance to collect our wits and hit back, before the possible and likely foreign help, mainly from the US and its anti-communist allies, arrived and, of course, before the snowbound passes closed.
The logistical lines of the Chinese were stretched beyond limits and they couldn't have sustained warfare for long so far away from their homeland. They had practically no air force and only one or two usable airfields in Tibet at that time and were not prepared for the technical problems of operating aircraft at those heights and temperatures.
The Chinese hardly had any anti-aircraft guns. Their aircraft were inferior to ours. It was their weakest point, but we did not take advantage of it.
We could have used our superior armour against the Chinese infantry, which only had limited recoilless guns. Our infantry was well poised in the foothills of Assam to use the hook tactics, which the Chinese had used with telling effect in the higher reaches. While our troops were strangers to the high altitude terrain in the Thagla ridge area, here they were somewhat on home ground and the Chinese would have found themselves in foreign surroundings. It would have been easier for us to regroup for flexibility in tactics here, while for the Chinese it would have been impossible under pressure of our attacks from all unexpected directions.
We could have prevented and/or countered their every move, especially with the benefit of constant air surveillance, an advantage they lacked. Similarly, getting reinforcements would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them on account of the distances, lack of road network, the approaching winter with the consequent closing of the snowbound passes, and, above all, our airforce causing havoc from above.
Had they not decided to withdraw, we could have caused them to suffer unacceptable casualties. Their retreat would have been uphill and we could have literally played hell into them in pursuit, especially with the IAF raining fire from the skies. We could have blown their supply lines in Tibet to smithereens as the Tibetan plateau hardly provides any cover or natural camouflage.
In fact, eyewitnesses of those days recall seeing heaps of military stores, mortars, ammunition, and other supplies lying by the roadside all along in depot-like stores in the open near the border on the Tibetan side. These would have been ready fodder for our Hunters, Mysteres, Gnats, Vampires and Toofanis for strafing runs with front gun cannons and rockets. Major enemy concentrations would have proved excellent targets for carpet-bombing by our Liberators. Our Canberras were ultra-modern bombers then and could have caused havoc.
But that was not to be. Future generations will only read about the 'crushing defeat' of the Indian Army at the hands of the Chinese forces.
The 1962 India-China conflict was, in all probability, avoidable. It came about because of many a factor. The internal factors were our lack of understanding of the concept of sovereignty, made worse by political bungling, diplomatic blunders, personal arrogance of our top leader and his short-sightedness, intelligence failure, incorrect information dissemination by the government to Parliament and the media leading to the thoughtlessly jingoistic reaction by all concerned and the demand: 'not even an inch to the enemy'.
For the ignominious defeat that we suffered, we have to add 'politicisation of the army resulting in cowardly as well as stupid generalship' to the above factors.
Yet careful analysis of the situation indicates that it was possible to have come to a mutually satisfactory understanding with China on the border adjustments, avoided active hostilities, and continued our then blossoming friendship with Beijing, which had tremendous potential for mutual benefit. That would have also discouraged the Pakistan-China friendship, which developed as an offshoot of the Sino-Indian conflict, and the eventual nuclearisation of Pakistan.
Wing Commander R V Parasnis is probably the only air force pilot to have flown extensively as well as moved on foot in the NEFA area. He particularly remembers an exercise where he marched for 24 days in the Bomdila region on a man-pack basis with General (then brigadier) K Sundarji, whose unforgettable briefings and brilliant strategic theories at night revived the bitter memories of the 1962 war among the young officers
Just one other view of it - but helps not to get carried away. I do not know enough of the war of 1962, in all honesty as i was not born then. my uncle was mobilized for that so called war and was a Lt.in the artillery, which never went into battle. it was not i but you who brought the sino indo war of 1962 into the picture. please refer to your previous posts, before i even stepped in.
-
Originally posted by Jlarikker:
Just one other view of it - but helps not to get carried away. I do not know enough of the war of 1962, in all honesty as i was not born then. my uncle was mobilized for that so called war and was a Lt.in the artillery, which never went into battle. it was not i but you who brought the sino indo war of 1962 into the picture. please refer to your previous posts, before i even stepped in.
not you but me ? ....
my dear sir ... you do have a selective memory don't you ? ....
let's look at your very first post in this thread again shall we? ..
i am Indian and i have a close understanding of the indian armed forces, which have proven time and again the ability to fight heroically and more importantly smartly with its enemies. one only has to look at the data coming out of the various exercises conducted with indian and other country armed forces, indian airforce had such a trouncing of the USAF that they indeed had to have a relook at their own capabilites and strategies (the key finding was how the pilots improvised while in combat) USAF follows rigid models. also consider data arising out of singaporean army vs indian army in its joint exercises. i am not saying one is better than the other but i am saying that the indian army is relatively respectable.
the oft repeated chinese incursion, and defeat of india at the hand of chinese, one should look at facts a bit more, china attacked india while at the same time pursuing a friendly relationship with india (i guess only chinese can do that) timed it with the cuban crisis and unilaterally declared ceasefire when the cuban crisis ended. india was caught unawares as its politicians trusted their chinese counterparts and by the time the army was mobilised from the pakistani side, the chinese declared ceasefire, and india would have had to declare war against china inorder to regain the frozen desert it lost to china. india in its history has never first attacked any country.
nevermind the first paragraph, like I said, perhaps that's only understandable, since you're an indian national .... so maybe it's not really hubris, but just pride ? ...
but of course, it appears to me that you're the one that brought in an example that really doesn't follow, as I pointed out, I have no idea why you can associate a strategic conflict with a terrorist incident, .... but since you've brought it in, you're now trying to wriggle out of it ? ...
really, it matters not a twat to me who won or who lost in that war, except the lessons for the professional men-at-arms, both are not my country, but I got a bit tickled but some of the stuff you're writing ...
let's take a look ...
Hence, even though our troops suffered a defeat, it can't be said that our army was vanquished. For that matter the entire army in the Northeast didn't suffer defeat either.
The Eastern Army HQ was at Lucknow and IV Corps, which suffered the defeat, was only one of its elements, and a weak one at that (hardly one division strong at that time).
defeated in battle but not vanquished .... hmmmm .... you're a lawyer ? ... are we playing around with the nuances of words now ? ...
so you're drawing the distinction between a military defeat, and what ? .. an unconditional surrender of the whole Indian army ? ...
It's like saying the that the french or americans were better in vietnam, but they ultimately lost because blah blah blah blah, no ? .... was the outcome any different ? ...
This, to me, is called hubris ....
but I digress again, of course ...
I quote you and myself again
"i agree that the position of the commando in the picture posted above is not too professional or even safe, but the focus of the training of a voluntary army and a conscript force is different."
that sounds like gibberish to me, you're saying that the "commandos" were conscripts ? ... you agree that they were NOT professional ? or that there's one way to hold a weapon for conscripts, and another way to hold a weapon for volunteers ? ... To me, and I guess to most trained soldiers, there's only a right way, or a wrong way to hold and fire a weapon ... you're saying there's an Indian army way as well ? .....
third time now ... and now I'm wondering if you'll catch the quadruple entendre this time ....
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
I see that you're really scratching your own balls here, but then, since you said that you're an indian national, I guess that's only understandable ? ...
"i agree that the position of the commando in the picture posted above is not too professional or even safe, but the focus of the training of a voluntary army and a conscript force is different."
that sounds like gibberish to me, you're saying that the "commandos" were conscripts ? ... you agree that they were NOT professional ? or that there's one way to hold a weapon for conscripts, and another way to hold a weapon for volunteers ? ... To me, and I guess to most trained soldiers, there's only a right way, or a wrong way to hold and fire a weapon ... you're saying there's an Indian army way as well ? .....
and in anycase, I guess the "teachers" from Israel have also been pointing fingers and wagging their heads ....
maybe it was gibberish. i am not saying coms are cons etc.
i am saying that a conscript army focuses on safety first, a commando training does not teach you safety and trigger discipline as you are expected to know. i felt that the firing we saw was an improvisation, it could be used as suppressing fire, if one ascertains that the agrresor is all thats facing the fire. both of us do not know if that information is available, if it was not, it is not professional, if it was there is nothing unprofessional about it.
The slow pace of the operations made it appear that the commandos' main goal was to stay safe, Hefetz said.
for a none too professional force, they certainly knew how to avoid getting hurt ... but perhaps that's just self-preservation instincts ?
with only two killed, I guess they have sort of achieved their aim ... surprisingly, teams of just two gunmen were able to hold an "elite, trained commando force", with huge paramilitary backups, at bay for so long .... days ! ... not hours ...at several different locations
i was not there and so were you. what do you suggest that the commandos should have stormed the hotel? i dont know of many operations where commands stormed situations with large civilian groups held hostage by small groups of gunmen and achieving positive results.
I wonder how many "commandos" it took to root out two gunman from a small place like the jewish center, nevermind a big 1000 room hotel .... how many days ? ...
it took many commandos over many days for the jewish centre. the jewish centre was one of the flats of a multi flat residential tower, nestled among multiple residential towers, if you have not noticed.
btw, that poor little 2 year old toddler was NOT even saved by the "commandos" as reported in some quarters, his nanny saved him when she happened upon the toddler crying for his mother, and she dashed out carrying him when she saw no gunmen around ... (and I guess no "commandos" either)
i never said that the poor little 2 yr old was not rescued by the nanny or that he was resuced by the soldiers.
his parents and grand parents et al were killed with their hands tied behind and mostly shot in the head or beheaded. most of the deaths have occured on the 26th or early 27th, before the soldiers arrived.
I guess we cannot blame you for thinking in your mind that your country's armed forces are the best in the world, but spare us your hubris in this thread, for it would only look empty and funny ....
ok i should not have called it hubris, but i picked it off your own writing here, and i felt you were only trying to pixx me off.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
but of course, it appears to me that you're the one that brought in an example that really doesn't follow, as I pointed out, I have no idea why you can associate a strategic conflict with a terrorist incident, .... but since you've brought it in, you're now trying to wriggle out of it ? ...
I know I know i have done this before, but sorry got confused, it was not you who brought this up. it wasnt me either.. please do look up the thread
really, it matters not a twat to me who won or who lost in that war, except the lessons for the professional men-at-arms, both are not my country, but I got a bit tickled but some of the stuff you're writing ...
let's take a look ...
Hence, even though our troops suffered a defeat, it can't be said that our army was vanquished. For that matter the entire army in the Northeast didn't suffer defeat either.
The Eastern Army HQ was at Lucknow and IV Corps, which suffered the defeat, was only one of its elements, and a weak one at that (hardly one division strong at that time).
defeated in battle but not vanquished .... hmmmm .... you're a lawyer ? ... are we playing around with the nuances of words now ? ...
what i mean is that a "war" as this were called, includes not only fighting but also intelligence, troop movements, supplies, propaganda, and other components, usually ending in a surrender of the vanquished army or its destruction. Continuous conflict is traditionally called a battle, although this terminology is not always fed to conflicts involving aircraft, missiles or bombs alone, in the absence of ground troops or naval forces. anyways this is a quote, i cant get the man to change his views
so you're drawing the distinction between a military defeat, and what ? .. an unconditional surrender of the whole Indian army ? ... HAHAHAHa - good point agreed
It's like saying the that the french or americans were better in vietnam, but they ultimately lost because blah blah blah blah, no ? .... was the outcome any different ? ...
This, to me, is called hubris ....
but I digress again, of course ...
I quote you and myself again
and now I'm wondering if you'll catch the quadruple entendre this time .... sure am bro, just too stupid, cant get the brain to work for until the 4th time.......
-
maybe it was gibberish. i am not saying coms are cons etc.
i am saying that a conscript army focuses on safety first, a commando training does not teach you safety and trigger discipline as you are expected to know. i felt that the firing we saw was an improvisation, it could be used as suppressing fire, if one ascertains that the agrresor is all thats facing the fire. both of us do not know if that information is available, if it was not, it is not professional, if it was there is nothing unprofessional about it.
so now you're saying that there's one set of safety and trigger discipline for "commados", and another set of safety and trigger discipline for non commandos in the indian army ? ... grazing fire in a hostage situation, overhead, unaimed, uncontrolled ? regardless of whether you can or cannot see the target, or more importantly, ascertain where the rest of the targets are ? would you like to think some more about those ? would you like to stand by that statement before I rip into it ? ...
i was not there and so were you. what do you suggest that the commandos should have stormed the hotel? i dont know of many operations where commands stormed situations with large civilian groups held hostage by small groups of gunmen and achieving positive results.
actually, there are quite a few around ? would you like to read up on the japanese embassy hostage rescue in peru, 1997, or the God's Army Hospital Siege in Thailand, 2000 ? ...in both cases, teams of gunmen were holed up in relatively large compounds, more than 500 hostages in the latter's case, with relatively low casualties for the rescuers and the hostages ... both operations were over quickly, not in DAYS ... thing is, both were not countries normally associated with martial valour .... unlike your illustrious army.
this, in essence, was what that Israeli chap was saying ....
let's look at this professional's statement again, his words, not mine ...
The slow pace of the operations made it appear that the commandos' main goal was to stay safe, Hefetz said.
and other choice statements ...
Security forces announced they had killed four gunmen and ended the siege at the mammoth Taj Mahal hotel on Thursday night, only to have fighting erupt there again the next day. Only on Saturday morning did they actually kill the last remaining gunmen.
At the Jewish center, commandos rappelled from a helicopter onto the roof and slowly descended the narrow, five-story building in a 10-hour shooting and grenade battle with the two gunmen inside.
From his home in Israel, Assaf Hefetz, a former Israeli police commissioner who created the country's police anti-terror unit three decades ago, watched the slow-motion operation in disbelief.
The commandos should have swarmed the building in a massive, coordinated attack that would have overwhelmed the gunmen and ended the standoff in seconds, he said.
-
All that said, and the fact proven that the trrists were pakistani nationals trained in LeT camps in pakistan, what would you suggest? a pre - emptive strike into pakistani territory?
continuous engagement of pakistan's civilian establishment aimed at cutting the umbilical chord of the T organizations
infiltration and assasination of key people in the pakistani defense establishment and ISI for supporting such organization
bombing of saudi arabia for financing such organizations
all out war with pakistan
forget about all of this and go about ones own life....
none of the above
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
so now you're saying that there's one set of safety and trigger discipline for "commados", and another set of safety and trigger discipline for non commandos in the indian army ? ... grazing fire in a hostage situation, overhead, unaimed, uncontrolled ? regardless of whether you can or cannot see the target, or more importantly, ascertain where the rest of the targets are ? would you like to think some more about those ? would you like to stand by that statement before I rip into it ? ...
i am only saying that there could have been reasons for this guy to discharge his weapon as seen, as i said in my post you have quoted - though selectively. safety and trigger discipline is fundamental.
i was not there and so were you. what do you suggest that the commandos should have stormed the hotel? i dont know of many operations where commands stormed situations with large civilian groups held hostage by small groups of gunmen and achieving positive results.
actually, there are quite a few around ? would you like to read up on the japanese embassy hostage rescue in peru, 1997, or the God's Army Hospital Siege in Thailand, 2000 ? ...in both cases, teams of gunmen were holed up in relatively large compounds, more than 500 hostages in the latter's case, with relatively low casualties for the rescuers and the hostages ... both operations were over quickly, not in DAYS ... thing is, both were not countries normally associated with martial valour .... unlike your illustrious army.
who exactly is gods army. how can one compare nearly untrained men with guns, who believed in magical powers (these Ts underwent commando training and additional amphibious assault and a few were veterans of afghanistan). the gods army demanded cessation fo violence in their province (here the fellows demanded nothing) the hostages thought very highly of their captors and called them pious young men (here they killed all civilians they met - i would wonder how they could have anyways gone to heaven if they didnt kill all they met)
sorry to say this, but you need to brush up some facts. the japanese embassy story happened actually in the ambassadors residence, most of the terrorists were released immediately and the rest were freed after 126 days (thats fast) in a military action on 22nd April 1997. there is an investigation on summary execution of the guerrillas who surrendered. exhumations confirm that 8 of the 14 were actually killed while defenseless. Hidetaka Ogura, former first secretary of the Japanese Embassy, who published a book in 2000 on the ordeal, stated that he saw one rebel, Eduardo Cruz ("Tito"), tied up in the garden shortly after the commandos stormed the building
nice examples really...
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
let's look at this professional's statement again, his words, not mine ...
The slow pace of the operations made it appear that the commandos' main goal was to stay safe, Hefetz said.
nice to know. not too revealing after all.
and other choice statements ...
Security forces announced they had killed four gunmen and ended the siege at the mammoth Taj Mahal hotel on Thursday night, only to have fighting erupt there again the next day. Only on Saturday morning did they actually kill the last remaining gunmen.
lets atleast imagine that no one knew how many terrrorists there were. even the fellow captured was feigning death, and the men noticed that he was breathing only later and moved him into casuality. (no we dont go around and stab everyone to see if they are dead)
At the Jewish center, commandos rappelled from a helicopter onto the roof and slowly descended the narrow, five-story building in a 10-hour shooting and grenade battle with the two gunmen inside.
From his home in Israel, Assaf Hefetz, a former Israeli police commissioner who created the country's police anti-terror unit three decades ago, watched the slow-motion operation in disbelief.
The commandos should have swarmed the building in a massive, coordinated attack that would have overwhelmed the gunmen and ended the standoff in seconds, he said.
i felt the same. the f'ing tv guys should have been shot. the operation looked on earlier like it would be a typical one, when men go in up the stairs, rappell and vault into windows and snipe from other building around.
i would not like to think that they were plain dumb and did not do those things. i would like to think there was a reason. i guess the reason was to avoid causing the terrorists to panic out of the house they were walled in, as the commandos may not have been able to evacuate the building or something. i dont know, but i told you what i would like to think.
-
irst, you agree that the "commando" in the pic was unprofessional ....
then you tried to defend him ...
now this ..
i am only saying that there could have been reasons for this guy to discharge his weapon as seen, as i said in my post you have quoted - though selectively. safety and trigger discipline is fundamental.
so what is your stand really ? ... have you made up your mind ? ...you're saying that while safety and trigger discipline is fundamental, it's alright for some to break them ? ... like in a hostage situation, where a mis-aimed, mis-fired, or rather, unaimed, grazing shot, fired from an overhead, unsupported, unstable position, can easily smack into a hostage or one of your own chaps, seen or unseen, nearby ? ........ ooookayyyyy ....
I wonder if anyone made sure none of the casualties, civilians or military, were from friendly fire ? .... I think you have confused conventional infantry tactics with common sense.who exactly is gods army. how can one compare nearly untrained men with guns, who believed in magical powers (these Ts underwent commando training and additional amphibious assault and a few were veterans of afghanistan). the gods army demanded cessation fo violence in their province (here the fellows demanded nothing) the hostages thought very highly of their captors and called them pious young men (here they killed all civilians they met - i would wonder how they could have anyways gone to heaven if they didnt kill all they met)
sorry to say this, but you need to brush up some facts. the japanese embassy story happened actually in the ambassadors residence, most of the terrorists were released immediately and the rest were freed after 126 days (thats fast) in a military action on 22nd April 1997. there is an investigation on summary execution of the guerrillas who surrendered. exhumations confirm that 8 of the 14 were actually killed while defenseless. Hidetaka Ogura, former first secretary of the Japanese Embassy, who published a book in 2000 on the ordeal, stated that he saw one rebel, Eduardo Cruz ("Tito"), tied up in the garden shortly after the commandos stormed the building
ah ... back to something like the sino-indian war example again I see .... so now you're saying that you guys were up against a "highly trained force" ? ... unlike what the thais were up against ? so the performance, or rather, the lack of it, was excusable, or to be expected ? ...
for someone who's able to twist subtle nuances to make a defeat in battle sound like a non-defeat, you obviously have failed to see the distinction here ... the actual hostage rescue operation was over in a matter of minutes in both cases ... NOT Hours and Days ....
I suppose if teams of just a couple of gunmen were able to hold up whatever a battle hardened, illustrious army can throw at them, and hold them up for DAYS IN A RUNNING BATTLE .........................................
the battle was so draggy, it seems, for some of the terrorists to take a break between shooting hostages and holding up the security forces to call an indian TV station to chit chat and issue their demands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhO6rynb1C8&feature=related
was it a seige then ? ... was it a hostage rescue situation ? .... was it a stalemate ? ... of course, the million dollar question would be, why did things take so long ? ... from the conduct of the battle, it's clear that things were not planned, it was a gong show, forces were thrown in piece meal ... the frightening thing was that even in a free-for-all FIBUA melee, such heavy weather were made of just a few gunmen at each of the locations ....
what could be the only possible conclusion ? ....
1. those terrorists "commandos" were supermen, an unlikely prospect, unless you've been watching too much of chuck norris or bollywood. No matter how "good" those chaps were, a couple of men IS a couple of men.
2. your "commandos" weren't
the fact remains that a small team of men, with only limited ammunition (6-7 mags, plus about 100-150 rounds more, that equals just about two contact rates worth of ammo), was able to engage in a running battle against a much much higher number of trained personnel ("elite or otherwise" ), for so long ....
let's look at another statement from the link I've posted previously
J. K. Dutt, director-general of the commando unit, defended their tactics.
"We have conducted the operation in the way we are trained and in the way we like to do it,'' he said.
I'm not gonna roll my eyes at this chap, hopefully, he's just defending his men, which is perfectly understandable ....
but if he doesn't realize that there are many lessons to be learnt from this, then I suppose what they say would be true for a long long time, that India is a soft underbelly for terrorism ...
but so you're saying, that those terrorists were better trained than your "best of the best" ? ......
-
lets atleast imagine that no one knew how many terrrorists there were. even the fellow captured was feigning death, and the men noticed that he was breathing only later and moved him into casuality. (no we dont go around and stab everyone to see if they are dead)
yes, you're right in this, no one knew how many chaps there were, nor how good and highly trained they were, just like in thailand and peru, neh ? ...
but I hardly can imagine that the "commandos" would come across a terrorist playing possum and not disarm him and take away his weapons all the same, only to have the chap fire back at them a few hours later ? .... at least ... I hope they didn't ..........................
but here's another look ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7794211.stm
granted, it's the police this time ....
A survivor who had been hiding at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel said some guests were shot and killed by the militants after police said it was safe to leave.
The senior policeman in charge of the operation in the hotel has denied the allegations against his officers.
Eventually, in the early hours of the morning, police officers made it through to where they were hiding and told people it was safe to leave the hotel because the gunmen were cornered on another floor.
Some went ahead but Dr Mangeshikar held back.
Mangeshikar held back.
"I was a little suspicious that the police were actually sending these guys down a different route where the terrorists were supposed to be," he told the BBC's Adam Mynott.
"I refused to move away and the people who ran ahead of me, about 20 or 30 of them, all of them died."
i felt the same. the f'ing tv guys should have been shot. the operation looked on earlier like it would be a typical one, when men go in up the stairs, rappell and vault into windows and snipe from other building around.
i would not like to think that they were plain dumb and did not do those things. i would like to think there was a reason. i guess the reason was to avoid causing the terrorists to panic out of the house they were walled in, as the commandos may not have been able to evacuate the building or something. i dont know, but i told you what i would like to think.
causing the terrorists to panic out of the house they were walled in ? .....
WOOTS ! ... would it be great if that happened ?!?! ... terrorists flushed into the open ! ... can there be a better scenario ? ... now think of infantry tactics now .... when are you the most vulnerable ? ... nuff said ....
and of course ... since the terrorists were so well trained, as you've implied, I don't really suppose they'd panic easily .......
I would not say it's a good try, because it very well wasn't ... you were saying you were from which academy again ? ...
-
The implicit admission so far is that the terrorists were better trained, and had better planning and intelligence than the Indian army and commandos.
The ramification for the dragged out gun battle between the Indian forces and terrorists can be dire indeed. By failing to cordon off and limit TV footages, by failing to wipe out the terrorists in a single coordinate assault, they only served to amplify the "effectiveness" of terrorist attacks.
Terrorists attacks rely on mass media to spread fear. The more air time you give them, the more effective their efforts become. They planned to hit high profile targets such as the taj mahal, and other 5 star hotels, and they obviously don't intend to live through the mission. Then the question is, why guns? Why not bombs or suicide bombings? Why target Americans, Jews and Britons if they were Pakistani in origin?
A possibility that cannot be ignored was that they wanted to media to show drawn out gun battles on tv world wide, and with multinational hostages, chances of global broadcast would be greater. Bombings might probabily get 30 secs of time on news, but an ongoing gun battle would have people's attentions for the length of time they were able to keep it up. Images of police, army and "commandos" shooting on TV, help to publicize the Indian government's inability to handle the terrorists, undermining the government's position to provide security.
By failing to clamp down on coverage, by failing to wipeout the hostage situations in a coordinated and planned fashion, the Indian government, Army, and commandos have undermined their own status, and created more possibilities of similar attacks in India given the relative "success" of the Mumbai attacks.
-
Fatum, you seem to be trying to say that the commando was unprofessional by looking at the picture. So you expected him to jump like a monkey to the hotel and shoot the bloody terrorist screaming Matrix. Or you want him to stand up the parapet wall exposing himself dangerously for the terrorist to have an easy shoot. Or you want him to stay low and shoot at the celing fan. So much of professional commentory. Just check the video you will get some idea rather than making a fool of yourself.
-
Originally posted by Bhagats:
Fatum, you seem to be trying to say that the commando was unprofessional by looking at the picture. So you expected him to jump like a monkey to the hotel and shoot the bloody terrorist screaming Matrix. Or you want him to stand up the parapet wall exposing himself dangerously for the terrorist to have an easy shoot. Or you want him to stay low and shoot at the celing fan. So much of professional commentory. Just check the video you will get some idea rather than making a fool of yourself.
It was Very unprofessional. He was not aiming at anything and he had his finger on the trigger. The video even showed him strolling n shooting, what did he hope to have hit? Seriously. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you, that if you can't see, you can't shoot. Especially in an area where so many civilians were failed to have been cordoned off.
-
The Indians are incompetent? I am shocked! How about that submarine that took a decade to refit, when the Russian yards spent a year over only? Never mind the rampant train sabotage/accidents by insurgents and the lower class frequently complained of bias in the establishment. The day India got its act together, China would have gotten there by several decades.
The tactics employed by the commandos is pathetic and shows how under equipped they are. No fiber optics, nothing! And where are the grenades?
-
Originally posted by Bhagats:
Fatum, you seem to be trying to say that the commando was unprofessional by looking at the picture. So you expected him to jump like a monkey to the hotel and shoot the bloody terrorist screaming Matrix. Or you want him to stand up the parapet wall exposing himself dangerously for the terrorist to have an easy shoot. Or you want him to stay low and shoot at the celing fan. So much of professional commentory. Just check the video you will get some idea rather than making a fool of yourself.
check out what shotgun has said ....I rest my case ....
it appears that YOU are the one that's making a fool of yourself here ....
are you a "professional soldier" like Mr Jlrrikar here ? ....
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
It was Very unprofessional. He was not aiming at anything and he had his finger on the trigger. The video even showed him strolling n shooting, what did he hope to have hit? Seriously. Anyone who has been in the military can tell you, that if you can't see, you can't shoot. Especially in an area where so many civilians were failed to have been cordoned off.
Making comments is easy.
This is the image Fatum posted with the comment Look at the finger on the trigger.
So where he expects his finger to be when he fires the gun. Up his ...
Shotgun, Whether he sees or not we cannot tell by looking at his picture. From the video it seems that it was an attempt to hit the terrorist. He cannot wait till the terrorist dies a natural death. Also there is nothing wrong in trying.
What's all the hysteria about. The hostages were rescued by the commandos.
These are images from the final assualt. It was finished by throwing a grenade in killing the terrorist.So it is incorrect to comment about the whole episode just by looking at a picture.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
check out what shotgun has said ....I rest my case ....
it appears that YOU are the one that's making a fool of yourself here ....
are you a "professional soldier" like Mr Jlrrikar here ? ....
No. Don't insult me. I am the unprofessional variety just you saw.
OOps. Let me tighten my belt.
-
Originally posted by Bhagats:
Making comments is easy.
This is the image Fatum posted with the comment Look at the finger on the trigger.
So where he expects his finger to be when he fires the gun. Up his ...
Shotgun, Whether he sees or not we cannot tell by looking at his picture. From the video it seems that it was an attempt to hit the terrorist. He cannot wait till the terrorist dies a natural death. Also there is nothing wrong in trying.
What's all the hysteria about. The hostages were rescued by the commandos.
These are images from the final assualt. It was finished by throwing a grenade in killing the terrorist.So it is incorrect to comment about the whole episode just by looking at a picture.
Idiot. It says a lot. Let's start with why the heck is he using a relatively short ranged weapon firing with only one arm? Why is he wasting ammunition? Who the hell can aim a rifle like that and hit a target 100-300 m away? Worse, this is a rifle obviously not for range since it had its barrel shortened. Why is it that it wasn't a sniper that was firing? A sniper would have guaranteed a hit!
Why no security condon? Answer that!
-
Originally posted by Bhagats:
Making comments is easy.
This is the image Fatum posted with the comment Look at the finger on the trigger.
So where he expects his finger to be when he fires the gun. Up his ...
Shotgun, Whether he sees or not we cannot tell by looking at his picture. From the video it seems that it was an attempt to hit the terrorist. He cannot wait till the terrorist dies a natural death. Also there is nothing wrong in trying.
What's all the hysteria about. The hostages were rescued by the commandos.
These are images from the final assualt. It was finished by throwing a grenade in killing the terrorist.So it is incorrect to comment about the whole episode just by looking at a picture.
thanks for the video ...... I guess I have to re-evaluate my opinion of the entire operation ..... downwards ......
This is way worse than I thought ..... I never though it's really so bad ......
Gents, check out 0.20 in the video .... classic firing stance ....
and then 0.45 onwards .... are those hostages I see, and/or ... glups ... reporters ?!?! ...note that guy in a T-shirt peering round the corner, taking pictures with a large camera ..... reporters .... during an on-going, LIVE Hostage Rescue Operation ?!?!?!?! ...
better stuff coming ...
check out 1.05 onwards, holy shit ! ... are those 84mm carl gustavs and rounds that I see ? .... is this FIBUA, or CT hostage rescue ? .....
and then 1.14 ... that chap in white ? ... hostage ? ... a garang soldier who doesn't need armour, helmet, or even a weapon ?!?!?! .... why is he just milling there ? .... and not hustled quickly to safety ? .....
and 1.58, to 2.12 again .... more classic firing stance, these "commandos" seem to prefer the "African Infantrymen" aka "Ghetto Duster" firing stance .... aimed fire seem to be a foreign concept to those supermen ....
and then 2.45 .... holee sheet ! ... is that an AGL firing ... and that black puff of smoke .... sure as hell doesn't look like a smoke or tear gas shell to me .... I guess these "commandos" have pioneered the use of anti tank weapons and AGLs in live hostage rescues ....
oh what the hell ... them terrorists are tossing grenades all over ... so why not lob a few at them too eh ? ... nevermind the hostages ..... 
then again, if those WERE indeed smoke shells (I've seen all sorts of colour smoke shells and grenades in the service before, but never black smoke shells, I have always thought frag = black smoke .... ), why are NONE of the "commandos" wearing gas masks ? .... or because these "commandos" were so powerful, they can breathe in smoke shells like I smoke marlboros ? ....
and of course ... to round up the new report, the reporter has to affirm that he's their biggest fan ....
after watching the video, "African Infantrymen" firing, reporters milling about, AGLS rampant, I really really have to wonder .... out of the 164 dead and 293 wounded, how many were really by friendly fire ? ......
but let's give credit where it's due .... and remember some of the heros of this fiasco ...
like this group of south african body guards
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7753945.stm
A team of South African bodyguards have been explaining how they led 120 hostages to safety from a hotel seized by gunmen in the Indian city, Mumbai.
The guards, armed only with knives and meat cleavers, helped other hotel guests to safety down a fire escape.
armed only with knives and meat cleavers ..... compared to ....... hmmmmmmmm
so out of the hundreds rescued ... who really rescued themselves and others ? .... like these guests, and our hero nanny ?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24776746-15084,00.html
-
Originally posted by Bhagats:
No. Don't insult me. I am the unprofessional variety just you saw.
OOps. Let me tighten my belt.
No. Don't insult me. I am the unprofessional variety just you saw.
yes, we can all see that ....
-
i guess where i went wrong is in being nice and collected and polite about the whole thing. for the aim of many other posters is not to discuss an issue on the facts but to see facts selectively so as to suit their own convoluted, solidified view on the subject.
there is no argument that the situation could have been handled better. there is no argument that the indian forces could be better equipped and trained (obviously it would only be arrogant and stupid to assume that one is the best, for one can always be better than one is now). there are only arguments on certain comments, which are inflammatory and hurting, especially given the fact that the events were tragic, misled youth trained by a countries armed forces to infiltrate another country and kill innocent civilians all for going to heaven and deflowering multiple virgins who would grow their virginity back!. Please do not keep to the stupid and closed mind argument about if the Ts are pakistanis (they are and it is proven - i dont know what it takes - inspect the guys passport??).
india has always been a country of humility and simplicity and a culture that fundamentally promotes free thinking. any situation can only be better and that would be what we as a country will strive to be; better. that said we have constraints in how we do things, some are part of our nature some are part of the design. that said have no doubt that we would win against all odds. and we are and will never be arrogant.
India in my reckoning is a new country and all we have achieved we have achieved in the last 10 years, actually the last 5-6 years. so when indians write stuff here, they do so because they are part of the achievement, and feel pride for it unlike many countries where most of their achievements were generations ago. i have myself been involved in so many infrastructure projects and acquisitions in the past few years. it is not from a haegomonic perspective (for as a culture we do not belive in imposing ours on others) but from the perspective of growing ourselves out of the troubles we are in that we feel pride.
now fatum, it does not matter what academy i am from (this is from your post above) if you are saying i am worth less and incompetant - SO BE IT.
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
who exactly is gods army. how can one compare nearly untrained men with guns, who believed in magical powers (these Ts underwent commando training and additional amphibious assault and a few were veterans of afghanistan). the gods army demanded cessation fo violence in their province (here the fellows demanded nothing) the hostages thought very highly of their captors and called them pious young men (here they killed all civilians they met - i would wonder how they could have anyways gone to heaven if they didnt kill all they met)
sorry to say this, but you need to brush up some facts. the japanese embassy story happened actually in the ambassadors residence, most of the terrorists were released immediately and the rest were freed after 126 days (thats fast) in a military action on 22nd April 1997. there is an investigation on summary execution of the guerrillas who surrendered. exhumations confirm that 8 of the 14 were actually killed while defenseless. Hidetaka Ogura, former first secretary of the Japanese Embassy, who published a book in 2000 on the ordeal, stated that he saw one rebel, Eduardo Cruz ("Tito"), tied up in the garden shortly after the commandos stormed the building
ah ... back to something like the sino-indian war example again I see .... so now you're saying that you guys were up against a "highly trained force" ? ... unlike what the thais were up against ? so the performance, or rather, the lack of it, was excusable, or to be expected ? ...
for someone who's able to twist subtle nuances to make a defeat in battle sound like a non-defeat, you obviously have failed to see the distinction here ... the actual hostage rescue operation was over in a matter of minutes in both cases ... NOT Hours and Days ....
I suppose if teams of just a couple of gunmen were able to hold up whatever a battle hardened, illustrious army can throw at them, and hold them up for DAYS IN A RUNNING BATTLE .........................................
Fatum - cant you understand at all or are you acting brain deadness, that u ask such stupid questions? the hostages were real hostages in the examples you quoted. the hostages in this case were planned to be killed. they were mostly just killed in any case and the hostage takers in both those other cases were surrendering - here they came to die.
small differences for you probably... indicates largeness of brain probably
-
Originally posted by Fatum:
lets atleast imagine that no one knew how many terrrorists there were. even the fellow captured was feigning death, and the men noticed that he was breathing only later and moved him into casuality. (no we dont go around and stab everyone to see if they are dead)
yes, you're right in this, no one knew how many chaps there were, nor how good and highly trained they were, just like in thailand and peru, neh ? ...
but I hardly can imagine that the "commandos" would come across a terrorist playing possum and not disarm him and take away his weapons all the same, only to have the chap fire back at them a few hours later ? .... at least ... I hope they didn't ..........................
another great example of brain mass deficiency syndrome - mate what i am saying is that if one plays possum, couldnt others just lie low for a while hoping to escape and then start shooting again when presented an opportuntiy.
i felt the same. the f'ing tv guys should have been shot. the operation looked on earlier like it would be a typical one, when men go in up the stairs, rappell and vault into windows and snipe from other building around.
i would not like to think that they were plain dumb and did not do those things. i would like to think there was a reason. i guess the reason was to avoid causing the terrorists to panic out of the house they were walled in, as the commandos may not have been able to evacuate the building or something. i dont know, but i told you what i would like to think.
causing the terrorists to panic out of the house they were walled in ? .....
WOOTS ! ... would it be great if that happened ?!?! ... terrorists flushed into the open ! ... can there be a better scenario ? ... now think of infantry tactics now .... when are you the most vulnerable ? ... nuff said ....
and of course ... since the terrorists were so well trained, as you've implied, I don't really suppose they'd panic easily .......
I would not say it's a good try, because it very well wasn't ... you were saying you were from which academy again ? ...
you are so small brained my pet ass, read carefully ( well you could do it if you tried hard) the jewish centre was a house in a large apartment complex. surrounded by a few other apartments. so if they got out of a house and moved into the next one or any of the others in the same floor, they could take new hostages or harm more civilians as it seems that the apartment could not be evacuated for some reason. i would think it is a successful operation when there was ZERO collateral damage as in this case.
lets say you swarm the place, the terrorists could easily start to belive that they are losing the battle very fast, as they would have been slowly running out of ammo etc, so they could turn pretty desperate and move onto other units/flats and start killing indiscriminately.
as far as i understand a small commando unit was on the floor, and were placing fire on the front door sporadically so the fellows could not come out, unless they were desperate, and there were units positioned all around on surrounding buildings trying to get their shots in.
the nanny who escaped in the morning of the 27th with the toddler told the army that no one was alive in the jewish centre. there was no point in taking unnecessary risks as some dim wits say.
-
Originally posted by Jlarikker:
i guess where i went wrong is in being nice and collected and polite about the whole thing. for the aim of many other posters is not to discuss an issue on the facts but to see facts selectively so as to suit their own convoluted, solidified view on the subject.
there is no argument that the situation could have been handled better. there is no argument that the indian forces could be better equipped and trained (obviously it would only be arrogant and stupid to assume that one is the best, for one can always be better than one is now). there are only arguments on certain comments, which are inflammatory and hurting, especially given the fact that the events were tragic, misled youth trained by a countries armed forces to infiltrate another country and kill innocent civilians all for going to heaven and deflowering multiple virgins who would grow their virginity back!. Please do not keep to the stupid and closed mind argument about if the Ts are pakistanis (they are and it is proven - i dont know what it takes - inspect the guys passport??).
india has always been a country of humility and simplicity and a culture that fundamentally promotes free thinking. any situation can only be better and that would be what we as a country will strive to be; better. that said we have constraints in how we do things, some are part of our nature some are part of the design. that said have no doubt that we would win against all odds. and we are and will never be arrogant.
India in my reckoning is a new country and all we have achieved we have achieved in the last 10 years, actually the last 5-6 years. so when indians write stuff here, they do so because they are part of the achievement, and feel pride for it unlike many countries where most of their achievements were generations ago. i have myself been involved in so many infrastructure projects and acquisitions in the past few years. it is not from a haegomonic perspective (for as a culture we do not belive in imposing ours on others) but from the perspective of growing ourselves out of the troubles we are in that we feel pride.
now fatum, it does not matter what academy i am from (this is from your post above) if you are saying i am worth less and incompetant - SO BE IT.
Oh ? ... so you're trying to justify and explain where YOUR excessive pride comes from ?
oh yes I think it matters where you are from, because I do not believe your story .... and in case you're wondering, judging from your initial posts till now ... I believe it was all out of hubris and excessive pride. Humility and simplicity ? .....Oooo, that tickles ...
so something like "IAF had such a trouncing of the USAF" and "fighting smartly and heroically against her enemies" were borne out of humility huh ? .... that doesn't really matter I suppose, you have missed all the double and triple entendres .....
and I am asking which academy you were from, because I from the very beginning have doubted your story about your background ....
do you wonder why ? ... let's take a look.
flip flopping around about shooting fundamentals - do you know the meaning of the word ? ... or you're saying that for "elite" forces, it's alright to adopt "african Infantrymen" or "ghetto duster" stance" ? ... of course, it's possible to think that, if your experience with weapons was limited only to guns made by mattel ....
if you're implying that that's doctrine for those "commandos" ... then I think there should be an inquiry about how many casualties were actually due to friendly fire ! (judging from the shooting in the videos we've seen, the 84s and the AGLs, I think there should definitely be one, 164 dead, 293 wounded )
and as for thailand and peru, it is clear that you have at least grasped the wide disparity in combat performances between the security forces of those countries and yours, else you wouldn't be so vehement in making the distinction, eh ? ... It is so easy to say in hindsight, oh, one group are a bunch of untrained wankers, the other group had no history of executing hostages ... but you see, ours are special ... we were up against the best, they came to kill, and do not planned to get away. As if anyone knew whom they were facing at any particular scenarios, were they up against punks with machine guns, or trained "commandos" ? And I do believe you have caught onto the byline of what I was saying .... that just a couple of gunmen, can hold off a "trained, elite commando" force, with all their paramilitary backups, for DAYS IN A RUNNING BATTLE .... this is the uncomfortable truth, isn't it ? .... so what you are really saying is.... 1. Those terrorists we were up against, were better trained than we were ? .... 2. Our commandos were not as good as those terrorists ?... pick one.
and of course, your last scenario about nariman house is the kicker .... I cannot believe that to be an "informed", or "trained military" opinion ....
you're saying, that those terrorists may be "spooked" and be "flushed out" into other units and apartments, if they felt they were under threat from a "swarming" attack ? .... wow ... just wow ..... my jaws dropped at this ....
then perhaps you do have an even lower estimation of your own country's security apparatus than I do ... if that is indeed the case my dear, then what the fxxx would your security forces be doing ? ... sitting around drinking chai ? ...
the surrounding residence couldn't be evacuated because ? and the terrorists were able to perhaps "run round to the next apartment and get more hostages and kill indiscriminately" because ? the "commandos" didn't know where the gunmen were in a squat 5 story building ? The security condon was not tight enough ? or because you have chaps spraying 9mm fire from MP5s held over heads as part of the security cordon, it's really not safe to evacuate the other people in the other houses ? ...
But I digrss again .... most importanly, think about this .... the operation to retake that squat, low 5 story building lasted from dawn till dusk, that's one entire DAY ....
and you, as a trained commando terrorist thought ... hmmmmm .... those wimpy fuggers are coming for me .... what should I do ? ... 1. defend myself at the current position ... 2. run round to the next apartment, perhaps there are more hostages for me to kill.... and because them commandos are just peering around corners trying not to get hurt, working their way around slowly, afraid of me .... I have an entire day to do it ... might as well brew and enjoy a nice hot cup of chai while I think about it ? ...
But if your chaps swooped in so quickly that the nutters weren't even able to react ? .... speed is the key to any hostage rescue operations, or even FIBUA operations, indeed, in almost all offensive operations .... you have not been taught that ? .... you don't have to be a genius to work it out .... but of course ... we have seen a pioneering, "slow and steady wins the race, at lowest cost to my own men, nevermind the possible hostages that's unaccounted for cos I implicitly trust the words of a nanny who spent most of her ordeal hiding in a closet that there's no one left alive in there" approach ...plenty of time to execute any hostages that those nutters have, and perhaps try to get some more while their at it ?
and of course, your last two paragraphs was even more perplexing ....now if you say that there were troops positioned around so that they would not come out, unless they were desperate .... hmmmmm aren't you slapping yourself and contradicting what you've said above ? ...
let's look at the Israeli chap's comments again ... I guess it really sums up everything ...
The slow pace of the operations made it appear that the commandos' main goal was to stay safe, Hefetz said.
you really tickles me ... go on ...