"Calling Casino Attack In Mexico An ‘Act Of Terror:’ Rhetoric Or Rethinking?"

Here's a excerpt from my latest article for Homeland Security Today's Correspondents Watch:

"One of the worst mass killings in Mexico’s drug war history occurred on August 25 in the violence-plagued city of Monterrey. Around 3:00 PM, a dozen men in four cars pulled up in front of the Casino Royale casino lugging several gas cans with them. In less than three minutes, they doused the small casino with gasoline and set the building on fire, killing 52 people in the ensuing blaze. Some witnesses said the attackers - allegedly members of the brutal Los Zetas transnational criminal organization (TCO) - yelled at casino patrons to get out of the building. Sadly, though, most were unable to do so. Instead of heading for the casino’s exits, most patrons fled deeper into the casino and into bathrooms, where they died of smoke inhalation. Conflicting reports claimed the emergency exits were blocked. However, one report by CNN said several vetted witnesses heard grenades exploding in the casino and saw victims - including pregnant women - intentionally being gunned down by the attackers. One woman who escaped the fire told CNN one of the attackers told the patrons, “we’re going to kill all of you.” In the wake of the tragedy, Mexican President Felipe Calderón wasted no time publicly condemning the attack. But what especially perked the ears of many of the nation’s drug war observers - and likely not just a few members of the US government - was the wording he used. Calderón called the attack an “aberrant act of terror and barbarity.” His National Security spokesman, Alejandro Poiré, bluntly stated that “an act of terrorism has been committed.” But was the Casino Royale attack a true “act of terror”? If the Mexican government believes TCOs are committing acts of terrorism, what does that imply for its drug war strategy - and that of the US government?"

To read the full article at HSToday.us, please CLICK HERE!

Comments

[P]

Sylvia ... I notice that 5 people have now been arrested for this crime, including at least one State police officer. Further, the Zeta's have now been directly implicated, and news sources are commenting that the torching of the casino could have been tied to bribes that were not paid (to th Zeta's). None of this is surprising - I commented earlier that the scale and ruthlessness of this attack sounded like the Zeta's.

The problem is this. While observers debate the nature of the crime, and Mexico claims to be "stepping up" its response, the Zeta's have in fact achieved their primary goal. Pure raw intimidation. By showing no hesitation to burn down a profitable business in the middle of the day - with many patrons inside - the Zeta's are instilling a higher level of fear in Mexico. What business is going to say NO now - if the Zeta's demand extortion payments??

It's far from clear who's winning this battle.

P.

[ComputerJA]

I think I have to disagree on the article this time. I understand that Los Zetas were extorting the owner of the casino, and that the attack was a result of his failure to comply with the protection racket. But the real question is—was the attack a sign of terrorism? I’ll have to say it was.

Remember, Los Zetas could have found numerous ways to kill the owner (since that was their intention). And, the attack wasn't a spontaneous one. As a matter of fact, Los Zetas could’ve easily ambushed him outside his own house, they could’ve also kidnapped and tortured him to death, but they did not want to kill him that way—they wanted to leave a message to everyone out there. A clear message. And they did.

Burning down a casino in an important and busy avenue cannot get any clearer. Los Zetas wanted for people to know and “see” for themselves the consequences of refusing to pay for protection rackets. Therefore, we can argue that there can actually be a political implication behind of all this. Nevertheless, I don't claim to know the minds of the drug cartels, so this will always be up to debate. I just think it's inconclusive to completely assert a claim like this.

Now, I understand that the attack might have been out-of-hand even for them. And the article correctly pinpoints that if Los Zetas wanted to indeed massacre hundreds more, they could’ve done the attack on a busy weekend, but they didn’t. However, that does not erase the fact that the casino attack was still a terrorist one. It was more than a simple crime, and it was obviously more into it than just an attempt to put down a debtor.