India betrayed

[Champion_Usmani]

Elias Davidsson’s book “The Betrayal of India : Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence” has raised a storm in India . Davidsson has developed his argument with detailed research and authenticated resources. Indian version of Mumbai attacks lies bare and exposed like a peeled banana.

Davidsson has concluded that Indian state’s investigation of the attacks was a big eye wash to bamboozle the state narrative and cheat Indian and international audience, just to blame Pakistan. The author blames Indian establishment and their US partners and writes, “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; evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger”.

26/11 or Mumbai attacks in November 2008 were projected as India’s 9/11,with an objective to tell US and international community that India was a victim of Pakistani State terrorism and the world needed to ostracize Pakistan. The Indian media went into frenzy, bewildering and confounding Indian, and, to some extent, Pakistani audience, some of Pakistani channels and media houses deliberately supported Indian version and strengthened Indian case. Repeated doses of Mumbai attack mantra has created intellectual dementia in Pakistan, where no strong narrative was developed to rebut Indian claims, almost accepting it like a fait accompli and grim reality.

Elias Davidsson has rebutted the Indian narrative and proved with authenticity that Indian version was totally concocted, based on deceit and outright lies, and that it was promulgated through a well thought out disinformation campaign ensconced in hyperbole. The book is based on incisive and critical analysis of the official narrative of 26/11 and the author has endeavored to go through court documents and testimonies of dozens of important witnesses and their linkages with media outbursts parroted by Indian media

Daviddson has drawn some major conclusions:

Indian courts ignored prime evidence and failed to reach at viable conclusions, doing injustice to the whole case. Powerful institutions in India and the US were the main beneficiaries of this mass-murder conducted by Indian prime Intelligence Agency, RAW and her surrogates.

There was a deliberate and tacit consensus within mainstream media, RAW, judiciary, political elite, police and investigating agencies to cover up the true facts on 26/11,it amounted to protection of the real criminals. The author exclaims, “I could discover no hint of a desire among the aforementioned parties to establish the truth on these deadly events.”

In a review on the book, published in the Global Research, Professor Graeme McQueen has carried out an in-depth analysis of Davidsson’s narrative, his conclusions raised some important questions and are being reproduced here:

Immediate finger pointing of the perpetrator is typical modus operandi in false flag operations. When officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator prior to any serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated and that strenuous efforts will soon be made to implant it in the mind of a population. Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials 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. In the Mumbai case the PM of India implied, while the attack was still in progress, that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan.

Key witnesses were not called to testify. Witnesses who said they saw the terrorists commit violence, or spoke to them, or were in the same room with them, were ignored by the court. Contradictions and miracles were not sorted out; one victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the blaming of Pakistan. A second victim died in two different places, while a third died in three places.

The number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived. Crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Claims that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s were common, yet forensic study of the attack at the Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet.

Of the “hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the Café Leopold, 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” .

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, allegedly for religious reasons .

The surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. Mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question ; but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing .

Why no one from the Indian commando battalion of 800 soldiers rushed to battle ‘eight terrorists’ was allowed to testify in court? 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.

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

I have jotted down some thoughts for Pakistan:

-What are the dangers of False Flag operations in highly nuclearized zone, should Pakistan take India to ICJ for blaming her for an indigenous false flag operation conducted by RAW and western intelligence or ask for a UNSC resolution, does the international community cover false flag operations?

-What role should have been played by Pakistani media during Mumbai attacks, and what role should be played in future to safeguard against false flag operations by Indian establishment on Indian soil or anywhere in South Asia? Should they become party to Indian narrative, have we calculated the cost of Mumbai attacks incurred by Pakistan due to the tarnished reputation of people of Pakistan and the Pakistani state?

I recommend, the case on ‘Mumbai attacks’ be taken to Supreme Court of Pakistan and all those media hoses who colluded with Indian surrogates to build a case against Pakistan be asked to justify their stance. If Davidsson’s book has proved that the Mumbai attack on 26/11 was a false flag with Indian, American, British and Israeli intelligence collaborating to malign Pakistan, who was their front organization in Pakistan, that needs to be probed and taken to task.

And finally why has the Pakistani media not discussed this book, which has badly exposed Indian sinister designs against Pakistan?

https://nation.com.pk/07-Feb-2018/india-betrayed

 

[mshan44]

https://nation.com.pk/07-Feb-2018/india-betrayed

 

[Vapnope]

Here is another article

Elias Davidsson’s Latest: The Betrayal of India
March 3, 2017
9

The Taj Hotel

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD

I have in my hand a remarkable book, hot off the press, about the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The author, Elias Davidsson, entitles it The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence. You’d have to go on vacation to study the whole tome; it’s 882 pages in the shade. But Davidsson, as a pre-eminent critic of 9-11, has an established style. He attacks terrorist incidents by digging through court testimony, police press conferences, “contradictions,” and so forth.

I ask “Is Elias quintuplets?” because I do not see how one man could pull this book off. It is complex and as in-depth as you would expect from a team of five.

For one thing, Elias must have encountered a lot of Hindi and Urdu in his research. I don’t know what fluency level he has in that area, but he runs his website, juscogens.org, in four other languages.

(No, that doesn’t include Latin! “Jus cogens” — from jus, law, and cogo, to compel – is a term in international law meaning something like “Come on everybody, we don’t have to justify these rules; every normal human would agree to them.” That more or less describes the philosophy of this human-rights scholar, Elias Davidsson.)

Who Might Have an Interest?

When we are investigating a crime we consider motive. Part 5 of this new book, The Betrayal of India, is called “Corporate and State Motives.” In other words, who would want a terrorist attack to occur in the financial capital of India?

One logical suspect is Pakistan. The other day, for the first time since 1947, I saw a book entitled “Muslims against the Partition.” (Not that I was reading books before I learned to crawl!) Isn’t it time we heard the sordid story of “****’s” — I mean pre-****’s — having to leave their beautiful home, India?

To explain what happened in Mumbai in 2008, Davidson snoops around as to the possible interest of various countries. These include Germany, Iran, China, and Australia. Of course that’s in addition to the de rigueur coverage of Britain, the US and Israel.

“Foreign Aid”

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on December 7, 2008:

“There’s no doubt” that the deadly attack on India’s financial capital last month was planned inside Pakistan…. Well, I think there’s no doubt that Pakistani territory was used by probably non-state actors. I don’t think that there is compelling evidence of involvement of Pakistani officials. But I do think that Pakistan has a responsibility to act, and it doesn’t matter that they’re non-state actors.”

However, Elias notes that a confidential US State Department cable from Islamabad dated September 2009 speaks of discussion by Ambassador Anne Patterson with the Pakistan’s Finance Minister during that period. It does not show any chatter about the US withholding aid, or threatening to.

Davidsson shows that, in the years 2006 to 2010, there was in fact a rise from $1.8 billion to $4.4 billion in “direct US overt aid appropriations, and military reimbursements to, Pakistan” — the remarks by Ms Rice notwithstanding.

(See what I mean about snooping? This book does not take potshots at the various suspects. It lines them up for inspection.)

(L) Condoleeza Rice (R) Julie Bishop

Australia

Which brings us to Australia. In Elias’view, the politicians here, and the media, showed great interest in the Mumbai events. This interest is surely not down to the fact that several Aussies died in the attacks. Davidssson notes:

“In his address to the House of Representatives, Simon Crean, Minister for Trade, speaking for the Australian government, first expressed empathy for the families and friends of the deceased … and then embarked upon the strategic opportunities opened up by the attacks:

“Australia and India are united in the fight against terrorism. We share a desire to promote regional and global security, as well as a common commitment to democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law.”

Oh, pleeze.

Elias also points to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 visit to India. Rudd and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced they had agreed on a Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation “that will further strengthen our cooperation, including counter-terrorism.”

“Hyping the threat, Julie Bishop, shadow minister for Foreign Affairs, told Australia’s Parliament that “[t]errorist attacks rock a nation to its core and India continues to struggle with the aftermath of the attacks that began on this day 12 months ago.”

Elias interjects:

“This statement was incorrect. Terrorist attacks do not “rock a nation.” A single killing spree, however ruthless, does not automatically translate into national concern. The sense of collective, national, threat can only be aroused by a massive media campaign.”

Another tidbit: U.S., British, Israeli and Australian entities were those who devoted the largest attention to these events outside India.

“Jumping to the year 2014, we observe growing ties between Australia and India. On 4 September 2013, The Australian newspaper reported on a visit to India by Tony Abbott, Australia’s prime minister. He was expected to sign a nuclear safeguards agreement with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which would allow the sale of Australian uranium to India.”

Russia

For one more example of how widely the author of this book ranges, in assessing motive, let us look at Russia and the mafia thereof. Davidsson notes that Russia neither imputed the attacks to anyone nor suggested a motive.

However, on December 18, 2008, the Times of India quoted the director of Russia’s federal anti-narcotics service, Viktor Ivanov, saying he believes that underworld don Dawood Ibrahim was directly involved in the Mumbai events, including by financing these events:

“The gathered inputs testify that regional drug baron Dawood Ibrahim had provided his logistics network for preparing and carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks.”

Davidsson comments: “He did not elaborate or cite any evidence. His view was not endorsed by the Russian government.”

Be that as it may, “the financing” of terrorist event – just think of the payment of hush money – is a too often neglected topic. By the way there’s a whole section in this book on the New York Police Department’s interest in 26/11.

Observing the Crime Scene

Elias is adept at hunting down the discrepancies in on-the-spot reporting. Here is a sample of questions he raises about just one of the many crime scenes in the Mumbai attacks – the explosions at the Oberoi Trident Hotel. (In total 162 people died in the 2008 attacks at various locations in the city. Part of the siege lasted 60 hours.)

A Canadian guest at the Trident Hotel, Jonathan Ehrlich, gave a report to CNN and later to CBC.

Asked how he escaped from his room on the 18th floor, he said:

“The first bomb went off and I got out of bed. I wasn’t really sure what was going on. So I went to the window. Just as I got to the window a great puff of smoke was coming towards me. I knew something was wrong. And I started to make my way out into the hotel floor, and another bomb went off. And at that time I knew something was really bad. I knew it was an attack. The whole hotel shook.”

Elias Davidsson continues

“Ehrlich – who said that he is Jewish – then went on, visibly prompted by CNN’s anchor, to “explain” that the attackers targeted the Jewish centre Chabad at Nariman House because they represented Islamic antisemitism.”

Everything starts to come apart when Elias poses such questions as:

— What’s the connection between Erlich and Alex Chamberlain that brought them to the hotel at the same time?

— What was the origin of the smoke that he said he saw coming “from the road”?

— What was the origin of the bombs?

— Why did people just mill around seeming not to feel threatened?

And my fave: “Why were no police or security forces visible in the basement or lobby of the hotel lobby at that time?”

In my opinion, Davidsson is the most valuable scholar out there. I can’t even name any competitors for the title “most conscientious and energetic tracker of evidence of scripted terrorism.”

Have you got a son or daughter in university? Throw the book at them – this book. They will discover how an ordinary person – Elias is a musician by profession – can master an area of knowledge to the nth degree.

I’ve done only a cursory job of reviewing here. Go read the book! At eleven dollars Australian, the price is right. An Indian publisher handled the production: pharosmedia.com. The book is well printed and aided by photos and charts, especially the charts. Note: since the whole things proceeds like a whodunit, I shan’t give way the gems in the last few chapters.

Not Your Grandfather’s War

Even if you care not one whit about India there are many treasures in this book. I particularly like the section on “the establishment of an electronic police state” (page 760ff). Recall how high-tech India is. In a 2009 article in Business Standard, paraphrased by Davidsson we find:

“The common idea of a “police state” includes images of secret agents dragging people out of their homes at night, with scenes out of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s USSR. The problem with these images is that they are horribly outdated. ‘That’s how things worked during your grandfather’s war — that is not how things work now.’ An electronic police state is quiet und discreet. The threat of losing employment or having one’s bank account confiscated is sufficient to keep most people cowed.”

I should mention that Elias Davidsson is a major spokesman for the holding of Truth Commissions, whether these be over the 26/11 event or the 9/11 event. He is utterly opposed to the sneaky moves toward fascism that are implicit in the use of fake terrorist attacks.

Thank you, Quintuplet Elias.

— Mary W Maxwell is author of Inquest: Siege in Sydney
https://gumshoenews.com/2017/03/03/elias-davidssons-latest-the-betrayal-of-india/

These days we rush from one media story to another, trying to keep up with the latest terrorist attack. Yesterday Paris; today London; tomorrow, who knows? These attacks are tragic enough when they are acts of violence by religious extremists who have outsmarted our police and intelligence agencies. But, of course, many of them are actually violent acts facilitated by our police and intelligence agencies, directly or indirectly. The tragedy in such cases lies not only in the immediate human suffering but in the way our civil society and elected representatives are betrayed, intimidated, disciplined and stripped of their power by our own security agencies. The War on Terror, which goes by different names in different countries but continues as a global framework for violent conflict, thrives on this fraud.

But if the very agencies that should be investigating and preventing these attacks are involved in perpetrating them, what is civil society to do to protect itself? Who will step in to study the evidence and sort out what really happened? And who will investigate the official investigators? Over the years, civilians from different walks of life have stepped forward–forming groups, sharing information and methods, creating a tradition of civilian investigation.

One such investigator is Elias Davidsson (image on the right). Some readers will be familiar with his meticulous book, Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11 or his more recent work, Psychologische Kriegsführung und gesellschaftliche Leugnung. Davidsson has now produced a book on the 2008 attacks that occurred in Mumbai, India. The book is entitled, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence (New Delhi: Pharos, 2017).

To remind ourselves of these attacks–that is, of the official story of these attacks as narrated by the Indian government–we can do no better than to consult Wikipedia, which seldom strays from government intelligence narratives:

“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. The attacks, which drew widespread global condemnation, began on Wednesday, 26 November and lasted until Saturday, 29 November 2008, killing 164 people and wounding at least 308.”

This description, however faulty, serves to make clear why the events were widely portrayed as a huge crime—India’s 9/11. When we bear in mind that both India and Pakistan are armed with nuclear weapons, and when we consider that these events were widely characterized in India as an act of war supported by Pakistan (Davidsson, 72-74; 511 ff.; 731 ff.), we will understand how dangerous the event was for over a billion and a half people in south Asia.

We will also understand how easy it was, on the basis of such a narrative, to get a bonanza of funds and equipment for the Mumbai police (735-736) and why it was possible, given the framing of the event as an act of war, for India’s armed forces to get an immediate 21% hike in military spending with promises of continuing increases in subsequent years (739 ff.).

Wikipedia’s paragraph tells a straightforward story, but the straightforwardness is the result of much snipping and smoothing. Both Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba denied responsibility for the attacks (65; 513) and, Davidsson argues, they did so for good reason.

In his Conclusions at the end of the book Davidsson encourages us to assess separately the actual attacks and the Indian state’s investigation of the attacks (865 ff.) It is “highly plausible,” he says, “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” (873); but the evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger:

“The first definite conclusion of this book is 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. I could discover no hint of a desire among the aforementioned parties to establish the truth on these deadly events (865).”

This distinction is useful for civil society investigators. We will frequently find it easier to prove that an investigation is deceptive, and that it is obscuring rather than illuminating the path to the perpetrators, than to directly prove the event itself to have been fraudulent. And 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. To begin by exposing the fraudulent investigation, therefore, will often be wise. When this has been done we shall often find that we can begin to discern the path to the attack itself.

Davidsson gives a wealth of evidence about both the attacks and the investigation, but for this brief review I shall focus on the investigation.

Here are three recurring themes in his study that may serve to illustrate the strength of the cover-up thesis.

(1) Immediate fingering of the perpetrator

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 and that strenuous efforts will soon be made to implant it in the mind of a population. Thus, 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. And 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–in the absence of evidence.

In the Mumbai case the Prime Minister of India implied, while the attack was still in progress, that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by, or at least tolerated by, Pakistan (65; 228; 478; 512; 731).

Likewise, immediately after the attacks Henry Kissinger attempted to implicate Pakistan. Three days prior to the attack on the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, one of the main attack sites, Kissinger had been staying in the hotel. He “sat with top executives from Goldman Sachs and India’s Tata group in the Taj to ‘chat about American politics’” (331). Kissinger’s presence on the scene with Indian elites (the Tata family is one of India’s wealthiest, and the Tata Group owns the Taj) would be peculiar enough to cause raising of the eyebrows, but when combined with his immediate fingering of Pakistan it becomes extremely suspect. As Davidsson shows, what investigation there was came much later, and even today the case against Pakistan remains full of contradictions, unsupported allegations, and absurdities.

(2) Grotesque failure by official investigators to follow proper procedures

Incompetence is a fact of life, but there are times when the incompetence theory is strained to the breaking point and it is more rational to posit deliberate deception. In the case of the Mumbai investigation, Davidsson depicts its failures as going well beyond incompetence.

• Neither the police, nor the judge charged with trying the sole surviving suspect, made public a timeline of events (188-189; 688-689). Even the most basic facts of when a given set of attacks began and when they ended were left vague.
• Key witnesses were not called to testify. Witnesses who said they saw the terrorists commit violence, or spoke to them, or were in the same room with them, were ignored by the court (e.g., 279 ff.).
• Contradictions and miracles were not sorted out. One victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the blaming of Pakistan (229-230). A second victim died in two different places (692), while a third died in three places (466). No one in authority cared enough to solve these difficulties.
• Eyewitnesses to the crime differed on the clothing and skin color of the terrorists, and on how many of them there were (328-331). No resolution was sought.
• At least one eyewitness confessed she found it hard to distinguish “friends” from terrorists (316). No probe was stimulated by this odd confusion.
• The number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived (29 ff.; 689).
• Crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined (682-683).
• Identity parades (“line-ups”) were rendered invalid by weeks of prior exposure of the witnesses to pictures of the suspect in newspapers (101; 582).
• Claims that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s were common, yet forensic study of the attack at the Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet (156).
• 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” (40).
• 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 (427), were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel, allegedly for religious reasons (453). Religious sensitivity seems to have extended to a large safe at the crime scene, which the team also transported to Israel (454).

(3) Extreme secrecy and the withholding of basic information from the population, with the excuse of “national security”

• The surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial (661).
• No transcript of his secret trial has been released (670).
• One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated (670).
• The public was told there was extensive CCTV footage of the attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question (97-98; 109 ff.; 683 ff.); but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing (111).
• Members of an elite Indian commando unit that showed up with between 475 and 800 members to battle eight terrorists (534) were not allowed to testify in court (327; 428-429).
• 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 (599 ff.; 681).
• 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 (37; 623).

It is difficult to see how the investigation described above differs from what we would expect to see in a police state. Evidently, the “world’s largest democracy” is in trouble.

Meanwhile, motives for the “highly plausible” false flag attack, Davidsson notes, are not difficult to find. The attacks not only filled the coffers of national security agencies, creating as they did the impression of a permanent threat to India, but also helped tilt India toward those countries claiming to take the lead in the War on Terror (809 ff.; 847). The FBI showed great interest in the attacks from the outset. It actually had a man on the scene during the attacks and sent an entire team directly after the event (812 ff.). 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 (651-652; 815). The New York Police Department also sent a team after the conclusion of the event (816-817), as did Scotland Yard and Israeli police (651; 851). There seems to have been something of a national security fest in relation to Mumbai as ideas of closer cooperation in matters of security were discussed (e.g., 822).

In case Israel seems too small to belong with the other players in this national security fest, Davidsson reminds us that India is Israel’s largest customer in defense sales (853).

So, what can we learn from Davidsson’s book? For patient readers, a great deal: this 900-page study is as free of filler and rhetoric as it is rich in detail. (In correspondence the author told me that he was determined to produce a work dense with primary source material so that it could be of maximum help to activists in India striving for an official inquiry.) For readers with less patience, Davidsson has provided regular summaries. And both sets of readers will find that the book discusses not only details of the Mumbai attacks, but patterns of deception common in the War on Terror.

For all these reason, this book is a highly significant achievement and is of objective importance to anyone interested in the War and Terror–the structure and motifs of its ongoing fictions and the methods through which civil society researchers can lay bare these fictions.

Dr Graeme MacQueen is the former Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University in Canada. He was an organizer of the Toronto Hearings on 9/11, is a member of the Consensus 9/11 Panel, and is a former co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

 

[Jackdaws]

LOL. I loved the part where he authoritatively says the the trial was held in secret. I can't think of a more public trial in the history of India and all court documents can be availed by any Indian citizen by paying Rs. 10 as RTI fees. The chargesheet itself ran into 11,000 pages.

And which defense lawyer was killed? Last I checked Anjali Waghmare and Abbas Kazmi were both alive - Kazmi even participated in Bigg Boss.

If you are going to make conspiracy theories, at least base them on facts.

 

[kabooter_maila]

Elias Davidsson’s book “The Betrayal of India : Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence” has raised a storm in India . Davidsson has developed his argument with detailed research and authenticated resources. Indian version of Mumbai attacks lies bare and exposed like a peeled banana.

Davidsson has concluded that Indian state’s investigation of the attacks was a big eye wash to bamboozle the state narrative and cheat Indian and international audience, just to blame Pakistan. The author blames Indian establishment and their US partners and writes, “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; evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger”.

26/11 or Mumbai attacks in November 2008 were projected as India’s 9/11,with an objective to tell US and international community that India was a victim of Pakistani State terrorism and the world needed to ostracize Pakistan. The Indian media went into frenzy, bewildering and confounding Indian, and, to some extent, Pakistani audience, some of Pakistani channels and media houses deliberately supported Indian version and strengthened Indian case. Repeated doses of Mumbai attack mantra has created intellectual dementia in Pakistan, where no strong narrative was developed to rebut Indian claims, almost accepting it like a fait accompli and grim reality.

Elias Davidsson has rebutted the Indian narrative and proved with authenticity that Indian version was totally concocted, based on deceit and outright lies, and that it was promulgated through a well thought out disinformation campaign ensconced in hyperbole. The book is based on incisive and critical analysis of the official narrative of 26/11 and the author has endeavored to go through court documents and testimonies of dozens of important witnesses and their linkages with media outbursts parroted by Indian media

Daviddson has drawn some major conclusions:

Indian courts ignored prime evidence and failed to reach at viable conclusions, doing injustice to the whole case. Powerful institutions in India and the US were the main beneficiaries of this mass-murder conducted by Indian prime Intelligence Agency, RAW and her surrogates.

There was a deliberate and tacit consensus within mainstream media, RAW, judiciary, political elite, police and investigating agencies to cover up the true facts on 26/11,it amounted to protection of the real criminals. The author exclaims, “I could discover no hint of a desire among the aforementioned parties to establish the truth on these deadly events.”

In a review on the book, published in the Global Research, Professor Graeme McQueen has carried out an in-depth analysis of Davidsson’s narrative, his conclusions raised some important questions and are being reproduced here:

Immediate finger pointing of the perpetrator is typical modus operandi in false flag operations. When officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator prior to any serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated and that strenuous efforts will soon be made to implant it in the mind of a population. Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials 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. In the Mumbai case the PM of India implied, while the attack was still in progress, that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan.

Key witnesses were not called to testify. Witnesses who said they saw the terrorists commit violence, or spoke to them, or were in the same room with them, were ignored by the court. Contradictions and miracles were not sorted out; one victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his testimony was essential to the blaming of Pakistan. A second victim died in two different places, while a third died in three places.

The number of terrorists who committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who survived. Crime scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Claims that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s were common, yet forensic study of the attack at the Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet.

Of the “hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the Café Leopold, 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” .

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, allegedly for religious reasons .

The surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. Mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question ; but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing .

Why no one from the Indian commando battalion of 800 soldiers rushed to battle ‘eight terrorists’ was allowed to testify in court? 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.

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

I have jotted down some thoughts for Pakistan:

-What are the dangers of False Flag operations in highly nuclearized zone, should Pakistan take India to ICJ for blaming her for an indigenous false flag operation conducted by RAW and western intelligence or ask for a UNSC resolution, does the international community cover false flag operations?

-What role should have been played by Pakistani media during Mumbai attacks, and what role should be played in future to safeguard against false flag operations by Indian establishment on Indian soil or anywhere in South Asia? Should they become party to Indian narrative, have we calculated the cost of Mumbai attacks incurred by Pakistan due to the tarnished reputation of people of Pakistan and the Pakistani state?

I recommend, the case on ‘Mumbai attacks’ be taken to Supreme Court of Pakistan and all those media hoses who colluded with Indian surrogates to build a case against Pakistan be asked to justify their stance. If Davidsson’s book has proved that the Mumbai attack on 26/11 was a false flag with Indian, American, British and Israeli intelligence collaborating to malign Pakistan, who was their front organization in Pakistan, that needs to be probed and taken to task.

And finally why has the Pakistani media not discussed this book, which has badly exposed Indian sinister designs against Pakistan?

https://nation.com.pk/07-Feb-2018/india-betrayed

After the 9/11 attacks in the US (that many think were staged by the elements in an evil global alliance of some intelligence agencies), the disgraced Indian RAW found the same pattern (of killing their own citizens for gaining strategic benefits) beneficial for them. Not that Indians never used such a strategy before. They in fact have had many incidents of killing innocent Indians in occupied J&K, Punjab, and elsewhere in India just to blame and blackmail Pakistan. But those operations had a tactical scope. The fake attack on Indian parliament building, I think, was the first false flag attack staged by Indian RAW by using Pakistanis/Kashmiris fighters apprehended in Afghanistan after the US occupation of that country. As planned, those fake attackers were easily gunned down by the murderers of RAW. But that attack was used to launch a sizzling campaign (at both diplomatic as well as propaganda levels) of blackmail against Pakistan. A general atmosphere prevailing then globally against the terrorism was fully exploited (with the help of global powers) to garner support/sympathy for India while portraying Pakistan as state sponsoring terrorism. Indians also amassed their forces on Pakistan borders. Due to solid Pakistani military poster, the Indian deployment was later removed after gaining limited strategic goals as face saving. The second false flag attack was then planned to teach a lesson to Pakistan after the perceived success of US occupying forces in Afghanistan. This time, Pakistan was meant to be sandwiched by hostile military forces from both the eastern and western sides. The Indian RAW arranged the attacking squad in Pakistan (probably with the help of pigs from the BlackWater who then had a really free hand in Pakistan), acquired, smuggled, and supplied Indian SIM cards to the attacking squad (in order to track and monitor their movements), and then waited for their arrival. It is then the whole operation was hijacked by someone else. The attackers turned out to be eagles rather than doves as Indians expected. Some buildings/installations in Bombay were attacked by these guests and others by the operatives of RAW itself. It was a big humiliation for all - the RAW, their global evil partners, and the Indian government. While the attacks gave India a big opportunity for diplomatic and propaganda blitz, Indians miserably failed to use the opportunity to gain their strategic goals because the attacks left many vital questions on Indian behavior and actions during and after the attacks. This book is an attempt to do postmortem of Indian actions to find out the reality, which will, I think, come out only after someone hacks into the RAW systems.

 

[Ocean]

@Reichsmarschall instead of directorate s indian should read this book

 

[UK_86]

This book is not available on Google play books.

 

[foxbat]

Yawn !!!

 

[my2cents]

what took him so long to write this book?? Too much of water has crossed that bridge. He should have concentrated more on why Pakistan is delaying their trial of Lakhvi and others who were given bail?? If there was no evidence of Pakistani involvement then it is open and shut case. Why this drama that they are serious about bringing justice to the victims of 26/11?

 

[BHarwana]

@Goku-kun this is already started thread but i will post one soon.

 

[El Sidd]

Betrayal thy name is India