Taj Mahal hotel owner: We had warning

[bemildred]

Source: CNN

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 Tata Group Chairman Ratan Tata said those measures, which were eased shortly before this week's terror attacks, could not have prevented gunmen from entering the hotel.

"If I look at what we had ... it could not have stopped what took place," Tata said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria that will air Sunday.

"It's ironic that we did have such a warning, and we did have some measures," Tata said, without elaborating on the warning or when security measures were enacted. "People couldn't park their cars in the portico, where you had to go through a metal detector."


Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/29/india.hotel/?iref=mpstoryview

[ben_meyers]

1. They had a warning and still let this happen?

Why didn't they increase security, or shut down operations or quit advertising if they knew something like this could happen. I hope the relatives of the victims sue this place out of existence!

I will never set foot in a Taj Mahal Hotel again, greedy corporate bastards.

[rwheeler31]

2. again?

[progdonkey]

3. yes, they should shut down operations...

every time any hotel gets a warning of an attack, they should completely shut down all operations.

That won't result in warnings from crackpots every week; not at all. :eyes:

Btw, they did increase security, but the guy said that it wouldn't have stopped these terrorists anyway, because it was so well-planned. Did you even read the article?

[Bobbieo]

5. The gunman came in through the back door and kitchen. I had read somewhere, today, that one of the

gummen - terrorists - was working in the hotel kitchen. Makes sense!!!

[Kalyan]

9. not correct

Tata Group is one of the oldest corporate houses in India. I work for a competitor company but have nothing but respect for all Tata Group companies. They aren't the ones who will take a short-cut to cut some costs.

And Ratan Tata and his collegues are as far-away from the definition of "greedy corporate bastards" as there can be.

[OhioChick]

12. Respect for Tata Group?

Apparently, you've never spoken with their employees regarding their opinions.

[JI7]

4. did Tata not want to pay for the security ?

[JCMach1]

6. We have a winner!

[bertman]

7. How about all the armed Police who failed to fire a single round at the attackers? What

was that all about? The photographer who took a photo of one of the terrorists said there were numerous cops who could have fired at them but never did. Cowards.

[ohio2007]

11. but ......if they shot and hit an innocent bystander..........

They would be called the crazy cops gang that couldn't shoot straight.
;)

damned if you do -

[rainbow4321]

8. Per CNN-IBN, India's home minister just handed in his resignation

Caption says "takes moral responsibility for Mumbai attack"


Live stream:
http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/video_streaming.php

Chief Minister Deshmukh may also "be asked to" resign.

[ohio2007]

10. How many warnings to they normally receive per month ?

However, Tata said the attackers did not enter through the entrance that has a metal detector. Instead, they came in a back entrance, he said. Watch Tata discuss need for better preparedness »

"They knew what they were doing, and they did not go through the front. All of our arrangements are in the front," he said.

"They planned everything," he said of the attackers. "I believe the first thing they did, they shot a sniffer dog and his handler. They went through the kitchen."



I see they didn't go into real detail on the origination of the warning. The public isn't being told the whole story but, does the public really have a need to know?

[OhioChick]

13. "We had warning."

Deja Vu, anyone?