Instapundit links to this article, which quotes a lot of people who don't think so. I personally have no idea, but I'm commenting on it because it initially strikes me as an example of badly flawed argumentation.

Were foreigners really targeted by terrorists in Mumbai?

Multiple news accounts during the 60-hour siege of the coastal city quoted the same few foreign and Indian hotel guests saying terrorists were searching for U.S. and U.K. passport holders.

If so, then why did the shooters fire so indiscriminately on ordinary Indians at the train station, a popular cafe and the hotels?

Think back to previous incidents: nobody doubts, for example, that the US was the prime target of the Embassy bombings in Africa. Yet it's also true that the attacks killed far more Africans (and Muslims!) than Americans. Likewise, Jews are indeed the main targets of the Palestinian rage, but yet it's also true that Palestinian aggression frequently results in more dead Palestinians than Jews. Likewise, I suspect it can be argued that IRA did as much if not more harm to the Irish and civilians than to the British government.

Less than 30 of the 188 dead were foreigners, including at least six Americans and eight Israelis killed at a Jewish religious center that had been seized by the attackers. Many foreigners, including a large group of Russians, escaped unharmed.

The initial reports said the terrorists targeted Jews, Americans, and British, not "foreigners." And "escaped" isn't the same thing as "were intentionally released by the terrorists." These distinctions are not trivial.

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria raised a rare note of skepticism about the initial accounts. "I think one of the misconceptions we're seeing so far is the assumption that these attacks were aimed primarily at foreigners," Zakaria said.

Oh, a Newsweek editor agrees? I'm growing even more skeptical.

"Look at their targets. The two hotels they attacked--the Taj and the Oberoi--are old, iconic Indian hotels. It used to be true that these places were affordable only by Westerners. But this is no longer true, and it's one of the big changes over the last ten years in India. The five-star hotels today are filled with Indians. Businessmen, wedding receptions, parties...these are real meeting places now, and even those who cannot afford to stay there often pass through the lobby."

Zakaria said the Mumbai outposts of U.S. chains -- the Marriott, Hilton and Four Seasons -- offered better target-rich environments for the terrorists, if it was foreigners they were after. [....]

Harry B. "Skip" Brandon, a former deputy head of counterintelligence for the FBI who has frequently visited Mumbai on private business, generally agreed with Zakaria.

"I think he is correct, and besides, the real business center of Mumbai is now out by the airport and this is where the 'Western' hotels he mentions are primarily located..."

1. Recall, that the attack was launched from the sea; the terrorists arrived by boat. Note, also, that the Taj is located by the sea -- whereas the airport is located far inland.

2. The point of AQ-style terrorism is not merely to kill people, but to permanently destroy symbols which are psychologically important. The Taj is undoubtedly more conspicious, in this regard, than any random boxy business hotel near the airport. The article later admits this ("it is in many ways a national treasure and 'the place to be'") but doesn't explain why we should discount the observation.

3. From reports, it seemed the terrorists planned to blow up the Taj, not merely kill 50 people. The same account indicates that the terrorists assumed the Taj would be easier to bring down than it was -- they may have assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the Marriott et al would be better-constructed, and possibly better-protected as well, with private security services, not Indian police. (No offense to the Indian police, we're talking perceptions here, not reality.)

Am I wrong now to be also concerned that "a former deputy head of counterintelligence for the FBI" is also agreeing with Mr. Newsweek Editor, and similarly overlooking a number of seemingly obvious rebuttals?

Indeed, focusing on foreign casualties obscures the fact that the terrorists seemed indiscriminate in their killing spree, which included slitting the throat of the captain of a fishing boat they hijacked, according to news accounts.

What, we honestly expect they would have kept him alive, risking the possibility that he might call for help or alarm people as they pulled near land? What did they think the terrorists would have done, knocked him unconscious with a single blow, for a convenient amount of time, like in old Westerns and James Bond films?

Brandon, partnered with former CIA operations officer Gene M. Smith in a Washington-based business intelligence firm, counseled caution in assessing the identity of the perpetrators and their targets "until this is really unraveled by investigators."

"Of course, they obviously targeted the Jewish Center, and this is different from the sadly routine attacks in India by the Kashmiri separatists, so who knows what this whole thing was?"

And now a "CIA operations officer" jumps in to tell us we can't jump to the conclusion this was some kind of religiously-motivated Islamic terrorism. "Who knows what this whole things was", eh? Indeed! Perhaps they were really aggrieved Latvians, or crazed Rotary Club members. Perhaps they were disgruntled telephone support line workers, who were sick of saying their names were "Bill" and "John", driven to the edge by too many cranky American and British callers.

Somehow, my confidence in the FBI, CIA, and American news media isn't being bolstered by this particular chain of reasoning.