has anyone yet come up with a reason why the police refused to fire, even though they had open shots at the terrorists?
I’m not going to justify it —not 0.001%— but one tactical thing not really covered by the US press is that the very first attack came at Police HQ, where they killed MANY cops.
They knew sooner or later they would have to battle the cops, so they chose sooner —much sooner. The objective in this was to kill so many cops that they would be shocked an frightened.
Something they succeeded in, unfortunately.
Read a report that ‘the policemen in India are unarmed or armed with bamboo sticks’ and that ‘gun permits in India are so difficult to obtain that the security guards at the hotels were unarmed.’ I think it is the ‘British’ way they inherited/ embrace today, of having unarmed policemen.
I don’t know if this applies to the policemen at the train station, but I bet it does. Were those guns loaded?