The Taj Mahal hotel in Mumbai, India, temporarily increased security after being warned of a possible terrorist attack, the chairman of the company that owns the hotel said Saturday.
But I don't buy it.
A friend of mine and his colleagues narrowly escaped this brutal event. On the morning that we found out about the attacks, my friends were all concerned about him knowing that he's in India and was staying at the Taj.
And this is the explanation that we get from the hotel? "We had measures in place - we were warned - we faltered - then they acted - too bad".
Is that supposed to mean "we did our part, too bad it didn't work"? Is that supposed to mean "even if we did our part, it would not have worked anyway"?
He hints about the "woeful infrastructure" of the police and their response. But wouldn't that have been a given in the first place - wouldn't that have been something that was a consideration when the warning was received and their preparations made?
Black swans, people... Black swans.
But in this case, it is not a ebony-black swan. There was a warning, for crying out loud. There was a warning and they were complacent - they lowered their guard down.
"We've been very complacent, because we've really not had this kind of terrorism inflicted upon us," he said.And the warning was not supposed to be taken seriously?
Thomas Jefferson said, "The price of freedom is vigilance".