Why aren’t we talking about Mumbai?

My Internet connection is currently down due to a nasty trojan virus and will only be back up for a few minutes after I restart my computer.  Hopefully, I will be able to publish this post before the virus overloads my Internet connection again and forces my WiFi card to freeze up.

Because of that, I can’t double-check, but out of the several hundred blogs that I subscribe to in my RSS reader, I can only recall very few of them even mentioning the terrorist attacks in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India.

The terrorists have killed at least 80 people and injured 900.  They specifically sought out British and American citizens living in or visiting Mumbai.  Due to their specific targets, there is little reason to doubt that these attacks were perpetrated by Muslims.

Over 100 hostages have been taken, but no demands have been made or goals made public as of the last time my Internet connection failed.

A small, little-known terror group is claiming responsibility for the attacks, but few American news analysts, and even even fewer Indians, are taking their claim seriously.  Indian security officials are saying that the attacks were too well-planned and “professional” to be the work of anyone but a seasoned terror cell.

A few news analysts have speculated that the motives of the attacks are similar enough to the platforms of Al Qaeda that the new attacks might have been perpetrated by usual gang of Islamic idiots.

But the attacks lack the usual style of the Al Qaeda network:  The bombers, as far as I know, have not been suicide bombers.  Instead of improvised explosives, pipe bombs and car bombs, the terrorists used grenades and guns.  Rather than taking a small number of hostages to decapitate on film, they took over 100 hostages.  However, the attacks were in a major world financial centre and were highly visible and designed to attract media attention and, in turn, public hysteria.  These are two of Al Qaeda’s calling cards.

Osama Bin Laden is dead.  I think it’s safe to say that now.  His was not the voice of Al Qaeda when the terrorist organisation released its latest tape:  A string of racial garbage against President-Elect Barack Obama.

What do think?  Do you think the terrorists were motivated by secular political strife in the world (global economy, Kashmir), or Islam’s hatred of the West?  Do you think it’s likely that these attacks are, indeed, the work of Al Qaeda?  If so, is this evidence that Osama Bin Laden is dead and his terror organisation is under new management?