Characteristics of Plot Suggest Attackers Were Trained Outside India, Analysts Say

Analysts Cite Scale, Compared With Previous Onslaughts

"... The goal is to damage the symbol of India's economic renaissance, undermine investor confidence and provoke an India-Pakistani crisis." Full Story »

Posted by Kaizar Campwala
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Kaizar Campwala - Nov 28, 2008 - 8:27 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Kaizar Campwala - Nov 28, 2008 - 8:27 AM PST

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
N1812091_2834_thumb
3.6
by Derek Hawkins - Nov. 28, 2008

A good attempt by the Post to round up world leader and expert reactions to the attacks in Mumbai. With so many quotes, this is somewhat light on analysis. Sourcing isn't very deep, but the perspectives are helpful.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Fabportrait_smallsquare_180x180_thumb
3.5
by Fabrice Florin - Nov. 28, 2008

Interesting roundup of early comments by government officials and analysts about likely suspects behind the Mumbai terrorist attacks. The report cites a number or authoritative sources, though quite a few sources are anonymous. This is still largely speculative information, until more factual evidence is gathered, but it provides helpful context on this tragedy.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Member_photo_thumb
4.6
by Kaizar Campwala - Nov. 28, 2008

The best analysis of the Mumbai crisis I've yet read, albeit coming less than three days since the attacks started. Great sources, sprinkled with repeated calls not to rush to any judgment.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Dscf2146_thumb
4.2
by Glenn LaBauve - Nov. 28, 2008

Cover most sides of the attacks.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.1
by Randy Morrow - Nov. 28, 2008
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Nick_thumb
3.6
by Nicholas Bentley - Nov. 29, 2008
See Full Review » (10 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.9

Good
from 6 reviews (confidence not calculated)
Quality
3.9
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Information
4.2
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
3.8
Depth
3.3
Enterprise
3.2
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
4.2
# Reviews
3.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help