On a day marked by events like this there is nothing that I could post here. I spent the afternoon watching online news coverage from CNN's Indian partner, this experience was quite jarring because the advertising and station promos were still playing as if nothing special was going on but then coverage would show the chaos, mayhem and bloodshed in the streets again (Indian advertising is pretty fast paced, bouncy, and upbeat, from what I've seen).
In the course of my work as a recruiter I communicate with many people from the Indian subcontinent every day so this event does strike quite close to home for me. I've started to see a trend of Indians returning to the home from the US because there are more opportunities there and the softening of the US economy. I was going to try and set up a business meeting in Hyderabad in 2007 on the way back from my trip to Nepal but due to visa issues it didn't happen.
I think that the most pertinent statement on the violence was in the Guardian, a column entitled "It's that well-fed lad in the T-shirt again"; noting that that this act was carried out by young men who did not appear to come from the bottom of society... continuing a recent trend.
The events in Mumbai were a web 2.0 event, twitter was full of posts on the topic from all over the world. I'm really not sure if such instant connectedness is a good thing or not.
This guy was running a poll on his blog "Should I post images of the bodies of slain hostages?" It's all cinema verite I suppose but is this really needed? Does it make the horror of the situation real and immediate or does it just make for cheap voyeuristic thrills?
The Big Picture has images of the carnage that do convey the horror of the situation...