• Monday, December 17, 2018

False Flag Operations; Paving the Way for a Nuclear War

Discussion in 'Central & South Asia' started by MBI Munshi, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. MBI Munshi


    Apr 8, 2007
    +5 / 5,389 / -0
    United Kingdom
    By Ishaal Zehra
    The attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 - designated as 26/11 - left 162 people dead in a traumatic event that some people described as India's 9/11. Extensive media coverage has created the impression that all the relevant facts on this audacious operation have been reported.

    Unfortunately, this impression is false, says Elias Davidsson in his book on the 2008 attacks that occurred in Mumbai, India. The book is entitled, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence. “ The book is about the betrayal of the Indian nation by a corrupt, greedy and ruthless elite for whom the lives of ordinary Indians are expendable when power and profit are at stake,” enunciates the author.

    Elias Davidsson was born in Palestine in 1941 to German-Jewish parents so there is a slightest chance of him having any love lost for Pakistan. He has gained quite a fame in the area of investigative journalism primarily after the publication of his books on 9/11 and the follow-up terrorist attacks that set the world on fire. “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11?, followed by “Psychological Warfare and Social Denial: The Legend of 9/11 and the Fiction of Terrorism” presented a narrative fairly different from the official one.

    The author very intriguingly uncovers the whole Mumbai attacks proceeds. He critically evaluates the official narrative of 26/11, as reflected in court documents and the news media, also the testimonies of those dozens of important witnesses whom Indian courts ignored because they shed a radically different light on the events. Besides, it also presents a detailed analysis of the benefits accrued by the powerful constituencies of India and US from this mass murder. The conclusion of this detailed assessment is devastating as they expose the unspoken truce between the leading news media, the political class, the police and the judicial system to cover up the real facts on 26/11 on the pretext of shielding the real offenders.

    The Indian version of these attacks – the official story as narrated by the Indian government – can be found at Wikipedia (which seldom strays from government intelligence narratives) as: “The 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of attacks that took place in November 2008, when 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant organization based in Pakistan, carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai.” For record, both Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba denied responsibility for the attacks and, Davidsson argues, they did so for good reasons.

    The author also made clear how easy it was to get abundance of funds and equipment for the Mumbai police on the basis of such a narrative and why it was possible for India’s armed forces to get an immediate 21% hike in her military spending with promises of continuing increases in subsequent years.

    To prove this a false flag operation, Davidsson gave a jillion arguments. One of them was the fact that the Prime Minister of India, while the attack was still in progress, implied that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan. Prof. Graeme McQueen of Global Research (Canadian think tank) explains that when officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator (individual or group) prior to any serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated.

    For example, Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials of the executive branch as the killer of President John F. Kennedy–and as a lone wolf with no associates–on the afternoon of the assassination day, long before an investigation and even before he had been charged with the crime. Likewise, we had major news media pointing with confidence, by the end of the day of September 11, 2001, to Osama bin Laden and his group with no evidence at hand.

    There were so many loose ends in the investigation process that leaves an inquisitive mind in a state of total perplexity. Also, the assassination of ATS chief Hemant Karkare makes the whole episode yet more dubious. Karkare was killed as he steered the investigation of the 2008 Malegaon blasts and was at the verge of exposing the BJP led Hindutva extremist forces who were fomenting terrorism in the name of Indian Muslims. Davidsson also questions about the extreme secrecy and withholding of basic information from the population, on the plea of national security.

    The lone surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. The confession of the suspect, on which the judge leaned heavily, was given in secret. No transcript of this confession has been released to the public and the suspect later renounced the confession, saying he had been under threat from police when he gave it.

    Interestingly, the public was told that there was extensive CCTV footage of the attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question, the book reveals, but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and that too suffered from serious defects – two conflicting time - stamps and signs of editing. Also, those 475 – 800 members of elite Indian commando unit that battled the eight terrorists were never allowed to testify in court. Above all, the suspect, after being convicted and sentenced to death, was presumably executed, but the hanging was done secretly in jail and his body, like the bodies of the other dead “terrorists,” was buried in a secret place which could not be confirmed.

    Davidsson correspondingly casted doubt on the grotesque failure by investigating officials to follow proper procedures. Eyewitnesses to the crime differed on the clothing and skin color of the terrorists, and on how many of them there were. At least one eyewitness confessed she found it hard to distinguish “friends” from terrorists but no probe was stimulated by this odd confusion. Weird enough, of the “hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the CaféLeopold, Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, Oberoi-Trident Hotel or Nariman House, “not a single one testified to having observed any of the eight accused kill anyone”, author observed.

    The number of contradictions and miracles present in the investigation report was more offending. One victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the point the finger at Pakistan. A second victim died in two different places, while a third died in three places. No one in authority cared enough to solve these difficulties. Moreover, the number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived.

    Another surprising question was raised when the forensic study of the attack at the Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet while the common narration of the attack claimed that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s. In addition, the crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Also, the Indian authorities declined to order autopsies on the dead at the targeted Jewish center in Nariman House. The dead, five out of six of whom were Israeli citizens, were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel, apparently for religious reasons.

    The FBI showed great interest in the attacks from the outset. Interestingly, it actually had a man on the scene during the attacks and sent an entire team directly after the event. The Bureau was, remarkably, given direct access to the arrested suspect and to his recorded confession (before he even had a lawyer), as well as to eyewitnesses. The New York Police Department also sent a team after the conclusion of the event, as did Scotland Yard and Israeli police.

    Taking account of all the aspects, the author concludes that, “It is highly plausible that major institutional actors in India, the United States and possibly Israel, were complicit in conceiving, planning, directing and executing the attacks of 26/11, but the evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger.” He is convinced that India’s major institutions including the Central government, parliament, bureaucracy, armed forces, Mumbai police, intelligence services, judiciary and media, have deliberately suppressed the truth regarding 26/11 and continue to do so. Prof. Graeme McQueen opines, there are two good reasons to pay attention to evidence of a cover-up. First, to cover up a crime is itself a crime. Second, those covering up a crime implicate themselves in the original crime. If they were not directly involved in the commission of the crime, they are at least accessories after the fact.

    India is in a habit of implicating Pakistan over false flag operations planned and executed by her. Adeela Naureen, while discussing the book by Davidsson, has very rightly asked Pakistan to take India to ICJ for this indigenous false flag operation conducted by RAW and western intelligence agencies. It is high time these false flags must be exposed and ended downright. Or else the dangers of such false flag operations in this highly nuclearized zone could develop into something beyond imagination of any.

    - Asian Tribune -

    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  2. mohammad45

    mohammad45 SENIOR MEMBER

    Oct 2, 2015
    +1 / 6,425 / -2
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    Iran, Islamic Republic Of
    False flags are real – US has a long history of lying to start wars
    Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance journalist. Having lived and worked in the US, Germany and Russia, she is currently based in Budapest, Hungary. Her work has been featured by Salon, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, Russia Direct, teleSUR, The BRICS Post and others. Follow her on Twitter @DanielleRyanJ, check out her Facebook page, or visit her website: danielle-ryan.com

    Published time: 16 Apr, 2018 15:49
    Get short URL
    FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell holds up a vial that he described as one that could contain anthrax © Ray Stubblebine / Reuters
    Use of the term ‘false flag’ is often met with raised eyebrows and accusations of conspiracism. But false flags are a very real and very present feature of geopolitics — and denying that is simply denying reality.
    Last week, the United States, along with the United Kingdom and France, bombed Syrian government targets, ostensibly in retaliation for an alleged chemical attack which was carried out one week before in the city of Douma.

    The story we’re told is simple: Syrian President Bashar Assad is an evil maniac who uses poison gas on his citizens for the sheer entertainment value. As neocon think tank the Atlantic Council put it last week, when Assad gasses people, he is simply “indulging an addiction” — an addiction which he seems to have only recently acquired, given the fact that before Syria’s war began, American journalists were busy praising the “educated” and “informed” Assad and marveling at the “phenomenal” levels of peace and religious diversity within Syria.

    In 2006 Diane Sawyer praised Assad during a trip to Syria for the "phenomenal" levels of religious tolerance and peace in Syria. Funny how he turned into a monster at the exact moment Washington decided it was time for regime change. https://t.co/24qy6UtFez

    — Danielle Ryan (@DanielleRyanJ) April 14, 2018
    Anyway, so intense is Assad’s newfound desire for watching Syrian babies foaming at the mouth, that he is willing to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by deciding to use these weapons despite knowing it would provoke worldwide outrage and potentially a major US military effort to oust him. So, that’s the story. Assad is a monster and the world must unite to stop him.

    There are plenty of people who are less than convinced by this narrative, however. One of them is Peter Ford, the former British ambassador to Syria. Ford told BBC Radio Scotland that “in all probability” the alleged chemical attack never happened and that the video and image evidence used as proof by the US and its allies was falsified. There are others who believe that the attack could have been real, but that the perpetrators were anti-Assad rebels trying to provoke fresh military action from the US — in other words, it was very possibly a false flag event which served its purpose perfectly.

    One of the best questions to ask when something like this happens, is: Who benefits? Very clearly in this case, Assad has not benefited at all, but the rebel groups fighting against him have.

    Whatever the truth about this alleged chemical attack, the notion of false flag events being used to prompt military action should not be met with such skepticism. The US has a long history of using lies (or ‘fake news’ you might call it) as a pretext for war. It is important to look at recent events in Syria within that context.

    Nayirah testimony
    Perhaps the most famous of all examples was the heart-wrenching testimony to Congress of a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only as Nayirah, which was used to sell the first Gulf War to the American people in October 1990. An emotional Nayirah told the Congressional Human Rights Caucus that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers taking babies out of incubators and leaving them on the floor to die.

    What Americans did not know, was that Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US and she had been coached by the American PR firm Hill and Knowlton. But before the details of the stunt and false testimony became widely known, it had already been used to sell America’s war against Iraq in 1991.

    In 1990 young Nayirah told of seeing Iraqi soldiers pull Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. Today our delivery of atrocity propaganda is more sophisticated, yet public credulity remains about the same.pic.twitter.com/l7UYmByl5D

    — U.S. Dept. of Fear (@FearDept) April 8, 2018
    Operation Northwoods
    In the 1960s, American military leaders devised plans to bomb US cities and blame Cuban leader Fidel Castro in order to manufacture public and international support for a war.

    The plan was codenamed Operation Northwoods and what it advocated was nothing short of horrendous. The American military suggested sinking boatloads of Cuban refugees, hijacking planes and bombing Miami. The goal was to convince Americans that Castro had unleashed a reign of terror upon them.

    The top brass were even willing to cause US military casualties by blowing up an American boat in Guantanamo Bay and blaming Cuba. Why? Because, as they put it, “casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation” and help manufacture support for war. The plans were quashed by President John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated one year later, leading some to speculate on a link between those events.

    Gulf of Tonkin
    Top US officials also distorted the facts in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the media dutifully reported the official narrative as absolute fact, helping launch perhaps the most disastrous war in America’s history.

    On August 2, 1964, North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack the USS ‘Maddox’ while it was on “routine patrol” in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Two days later, the US Navy reported a second “unprovoked” attack on the ‘Maddox’ and the USS ‘Turner Joy’ — a second destroyer which had been sent in after the first attack. President Lyndon B. Johnson told the American people on TV that “repeated acts of violence” against the US ships must be met with a strong response. Soon after Johnson appeared on TV, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which pre-approved any military action that he would take from that moment on.

    The only problem was, there was no second attack on the US ships at all — and the allegation that the first attack had been “unprovoked” was also a lie. In reality, the USS ‘Maddox’ had been gathering intelligence and providing it to South Vietnamese boats which were attacking North Vietnam. As for the second attack, the US boats had misinterpreted radio signals and radar images and spent two hours firing at nothing. Nonetheless, the “attack” was used to convince the American people to support war.

    3. Given the folly of the British government over Iraq and Libya, and its undoubted misleading of the public over Iraq, it is perfectly reasonable to suspect it of doing the same thing again. Some of us also do not forget the blatant lying over Suez, and indeed the Gulf of Tonkinhttps://t.co/GLzyoPWaDG

    — Peter Hitchens (@ClarkeMicah) April 12, 2018
    Soviet aircraft false flags
    Recently declassified documents show yet more American false flag plotting, this time against the Soviet Union. A three-page memo, written by members of the National Security Council, suggested that the US government should acquire Soviet aircraft which would be used to stage attacks and provide the pretext for war.

    Such aircraft, the memo said, “could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations to provide an excuse for US intervention."

    The government even considered producing the soviet planes domestically in a massive covert operation. They went so far as to acquire estimates from the Air Force on the cost and length of time such an operation would take.

    In a memo of undisclosed date, the US National Security Council suggested the government should either buy or covertly produce Soviet aircraft and use them to launch fake attacks, providing pretext for warhttps://t.co/d7fPLW6Fxwpic.twitter.com/tVnqbValPP

    — Danielle Ryan (@DanielleRyanJ) April 15, 2018
    This is by no means an exhaustive list. Is there even any need to rehash the lies which were told in the lead-up to the Iraq war? The media here again swallowed the government’s lies, one by one — and 15 years later, the region is still suffering the consequences and very few lessons appear to have been learned.

    These are not conspiracy theories. They are cold, hard evidence that the US has no qualms whatsoever about using false flag events and fake evidence to provide pretext for military action.

    Continued lack of critical inquiry from the media, given the severe potential consequences of escalating the conflict in Syria, is tantamount to a crime.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.