India provides money, targets to terrorists in Pak: Terrorist claims on video

[SMC]

^^ Just more spin and denial here and age old attacks. Nothing substantial.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

One other thing with respect to Hamid Gul, even if he is guilty of cavorting with extremists, he is no longer in the military.

We cannot control what people do in their private lives, and if he has chosen to associate with shady characters, then he has done so as a Pakistani civilian, much like Baitullah Mehsud has chosen a particular path as a Pakistani civilian.

Their actions do not automatically reflect on Pakistanis as a whole nor on the institution of the military.

Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed has recently published this note during his research at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. We are grateful for his consent to publish this at the Pak Tea House. (excerpts)

On 26 November 2008, a series of terrorist attacks were launched on India’s megalopolis and financial capital, Mumbai, by suspected members of the Pakistan-based jihadist organisation, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). While earlier attacks such as the July 2006 Mumbai commuter train bombings had caused 209 deaths, the Mumbai attacks attracted greater worldwide attention. The culprits had not only placed the bombs stealthily; they also carried out their operation in a very public manner. For some 60 hours, the Indian security forces battled with the terrorists. Finally only one, Ajmal Amir Kasab, was captured alive. Indian authorities claimed to have found nine dead bodies of the alleged terrorists. The attackers had apparently come from Pakistan’s port city of Karachi, taken the sea route and landed at the Mumbai coast in boats. Indian coastal defence and intelligence apparatuses failed completely to detect them. Some writers described the Mumbai attacks as India’s 9/11 because the culprits had deliberately targeted symbols of Indian affluence and grandeur such as the Taj Mahal and Oberoi Trident hotels and places where westerners gathered such as the Leopold Café. Targeting the Jewish centre at Nariman House was certainly meant to create maximum effect and capture international attention.


Views of senior Pakistani military officers on Mumbai attacks

For analytical purposes, one can distinguish between the Sandhurst-type orientation of the erstwhile Pakistan military establishment and changes in a more populist nationalist direction that began to take place after the 1965 war with India. Later, a radical Islamist orientation also took place during Chief of Army Staff General Zia-ul-Haq’s time as president (1977-88). He made concerted efforts to foster a strong Islamist character in the military. After his death in 1988, his successors were not committed to Islamism in any strong ideological sense.

Apart from his immediate successor, General Mirza Aslam Beg, who though not an Islamist was a radical nationalist, his successors, the generals Asif Nawaz Janjua, Abdul Wahid Kakkar, Jahangir Karamat and Pervez Musharraf were middle-of-the-road army chiefs who considered Islamism at best a resource they could exploit in some situations. Ordinarily they viewed it as a liability that detracted from the high standards of a professional fighting force. Brigadier (Retd) Yasub Ali Dogar even argued that although General Zia was personally a strict Muslim, his interest in Islamism was more instrumental than ideological. At any rate, it was reported in 2002 that some 30 percent of the officers harboured Islamist sympathies.

A general who did not want to be named made a clean breast of the Pakistan military and ISI’s culpability in creating the Islamist monster that was now striking terror within Pakistan. He said, ‘The Americans wanted us to produce Islamic warriors that could be deployed in the Afghanistan jihad. We obliged without thinking out the consequences such brainwashing would carry for our own society. We trained them to become jihadists. We trained them to kill. We sent them into Afghanistan and in the Indian-administered Kashmir. Now, they have unleashed their terror on our own people. They are killing our soldiers and will stop at nothing to impose their brutal ideology on us. I recently saw a video in which the throat of a man was being split open with a long knife, while some bearded men in the background were shouting “Allah-o-Akbar”.

Lt. General (Retd) Naseer Akhtar, who as Corps Commander of Karachi in the early 1990s had considerable experience of dealing with terrorism fomented by the Mohajir Quomi Movement and Sindhi nationalists, was of the opinion that the Mumbai attacks bore the signature of Al Qaeda and that huge amounts of money from Arab patrons must have gone into its preparations. He was of the view that the Kashmir dispute needed an early resolution and converting the Line of Control into some sort of porous border was the only thing the Indians were likely to agree to. He too stressed that the Indian leadership missed a very good opportunity when General Musharraf’s overtures on Kashmir were not given a proper response.

A senior officer who until recently held key portfolios in the ISI and was directly responsible for planning national security confided in me on assurances that his identity will not be disclosed that if India had proceeded with military strikes on Pakistan it would have resulted in very extensive losses and damages. He believed that the Indians had gained a lot by behaving as a responsible regional power. He lamented that Islamism and extremism had been imposed on Pakistan because of the Afghanistan jihad. He dismissed suggestions that someone serving at present in the military or the ISI may have ordered the terrorist attacks on 26 November 2008. According to him, Pakistan did not stand to gain anything from such a misadventure. It had much to lose. India derived maximum advantage as a responsible and peace-loving state by not resorting to force while Pakistan was being demonised in the world as a rogue state. He believed that Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda had co-operated to carry out the attacks in Mumbai. He was of the view that the extremists had no problem in getting hold of funds to finance their jihad. Huge amounts of money from the drugs trade and donations from Arab patrons in Saudi Arabia furnished abundant resources and incentives to promote extremism and terrorism.

What sort of developments prompted the attacks?

The civilian, democratically-elected Pakistani government has not shown any willingness to accommodate the Islamist agenda. The Pakistan military has been fighting the Taliban in the tribal areas and Swat, the jihad in the Indian-administered Kashmir has been virtually abandoned, the United States and NATO forces have been provided facilities to conduct their war in Afghanistan, and India and Pakistan have been moving towards greater trade and people-to-people interaction. The Indians seem determined not to make any concessions on Kashmir, however. Moreover it is emerging as powerful regional power backed by the United States. The Israelis continue their ruthless suppresson of the Palestinians. All such developments hurt some interests badly.

Whose interests were served most?

The Pakistan Taliban, the LeT, its reincarnation Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, the Jaish-e-Mohammed in cooperation with Al Qaeda and international donors seem the most likely plotters of the attacks. They share a common ideology even when their operational priorities have differed in the past. Such differences can always be put aside to achieve common goals and objectives. It is possible that the attacks were plotted outside South Asia.

Why target Mumbai?

Bomb attacks within Pakistan and fighting the Pakistan and United States and NATO troops had become routine. Therefore, a target had to be found that would demonstrate dramatically the power and ability of the Islamists to strike terror wherever they chose. From an Islamist ideological point of view, undermining India as a secular-democratic state would cause widespread communal rioting between Hindus and Muslims, which if it gains momentum, could encourage separatists in the north-eastern Indian states as well as to intensify their struggle, while the Naxalites and other disgruntled elements could exploit such a situation to begin a class war. In such a situation India would disintegrate. That would be some achievement. Even if the longer term gains may not be forthcoming readily, an attack on the symbols of Indian affluence and rise as an economic power would produce maximum effect in terms of global attention. Thus the mayhem in Mumbai would serve that purpose amply. It would serve as a warning to the US and Israel and other Western detractors of Islam. This train of thinking most probably resulted in choosing Mumbai as a target.

Could some rogue elements from the Pakistan military and ISI be involved?

This is, of course, the most difficult question to answer. As argued earlier, retired Islamists who served in the military and ISI are dispersed throughout Pakistan. Some may still be serving because they were not shunted out. They maintain support networks within Pakistan as well as in the Arab world and beyond. It is possible that they too were involved in the attacks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^ Interesting analysis TS, but I am not sure what it has to do with my comments.

The article appears to substantiate Pakistani claims of 'no official involvement in terrorism in India' along with my point of most Pakistanis not celebrating the terrorism in India, in stark contrast to what you see Indians doing all over the web.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

^^^ Interesting analysis TS, but I am not sure what it has to do with my comments.

The article appears to substantiate Pakistani claims of 'no official involvement in terrorism in India' along with my point of most Pakistanis not celebrating the terrorism in India, in stark contrast to what you see Indians doing all over the web.

The analysis backs up your assessment of the non-state and non-institutional nature of the plot. However, it also casts suspicion on retired military officers - one of whom was mentioned by your 'friend' at LWJ.

Washington Post
Dec 2008

Retired Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, first surfaced in connection with the armed Islamist group Lashkar-i-Taiba over the weekend when a high-ranking Pakistani government official said India is seeking Gul's arrest along with several other Pakistanis. The Pakistani official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, said Gul was not suspected of having a direct role in the Mumbai attacks but was considered a political patron of Lashkar.

The Pakistani official acknowledged that Gul is widely viewed as the "godfather" of a Pakistani policy that used guerrilla groups such as Lashkar as proxies in the conflict with India over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir. But the official said Pakistan declined to hand over Gul because he has no role in setting the operational agenda of Lashkar or other organizations within Pakistan. Reached at his home in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi on Monday, Gul said he was aware of the allegations but dismissed them as an effort to "malign" him.

"There seems to be an orchestrated campaign to somehow get me," he said.

Gul, 71, has acknowledged that he once was a member of a group of retired ISI officers, Pakistani scientists and others that was suspected by the United States of giving material support to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Gul said the organization, Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, was formed by a group of Pakistani businessmen to aid war-ravaged industries in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Treasury Department declared Ummah Tameer-e-Nau a terrorist group after a search of the group's offices in the Afghan capital, Kabul, unearthed documents referencing plans to kidnap a U.S. diplomat and outlining basic physics related to nuclear weapons.

Gul said he had recently been informed by a senior official in Pakistan's Foreign Ministry that he had been placed on a U.S. watch list of global terrorists, along with several others. He said that he was shown a U.S. document that detailed several charges against him, including allegations that he had ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Indian and U.S. officials say Gul, who served as an army tank commander before he was named director of the ISI in 1987, has maintained strong ties to Lashkar and has played an advisory role in several recent attacks.

An Indian intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Gul, who retired after serving as head of the ISI for two years, has been placed on a U.S. terrorist watch list because of his alleged ties to Lashkar. The Indian intelligence official said Gul is a "close adviser" of the group and regularly attends Lashkar meetings. "As recent as this November, he attended their congregation at Muridke and Pattoki. He addresses their gatherings and also defends the Lashkar at every forum. He is considered a guide by Lashkar," the Indian intelligence official said.

Gul, self-confident, well educated, outspoken and always impeccably dressed, worked closely with the CIA and Saudi intelligence agencies to support and train Afghan resistance groups fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Gul eventually turned against the United States after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Gul said he believes U.S. officials are targeting him because he has publicly expressed his political support for Taliban and Afghan rebel groups who are fighting U.S.-led coalition troops in Afghanistan. He said his brief meetings with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s and his call for a reinvestigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks also have attracted attention.

"I simply fail to understand what all the hullabaloo is about. It's simply because I speak loudly about the fact that 9/11 was a bloody hoax," Gul said. "It was an inside job."

 

[Nomad]

Many members on this forum have said there is adequate proof with ISI, PA, and GOP of Indian involvement in S Waziristan, and Indian funding for the TTP. When asked for proof, the standard reply has been "The GOP is being prevented by the US in giving the proof". Apparently with this terrorist spilling the beans, how come the US is not silencing the GOP?. So as the US is no longer silencing the GOP, and while you are "giving proofs", please provide proofs of the following.

1) The dossier given to the Indian PM at Sharm al Shaik that proves Indian involvement in Balochistan through the consulates.

2)The poof that Gilani says he has.

3) The proof that Musharaff say he has provided from "top to bottom" to the US (a copy will do).

4) The proof of the arms, medicines, and literature captured in Waziristan (other than a few pictures), were provided by India.

5) The proof of Indian spies that have been captured in Pakistan.

6) While you are at it please provide the proof of the US-Mossad-India nexus too.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The analysis backs up your assessment of the non-state and non-institutional nature of the plot. However, it also casts suspicion on retired military officers - one of whom was mentioned by your 'friend' at LWJ.

Washington Post
Dec 2008

Retired Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, former director of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, first surfaced in connection with the armed Islamist group Lashkar-i-Taiba over the weekend when a high-ranking Pakistani government official said India is seeking Gul's arrest along with several other Pakistanis. The Pakistani official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities, said Gul was not suspected of having a direct role in the Mumbai attacks but was considered a political patron of Lashkar.

The Pakistani official acknowledged that Gul is widely viewed as the "godfather" of a Pakistani policy that used guerrilla groups such as Lashkar as proxies in the conflict with India over the disputed Himalayan territory of Kashmir. But the official said Pakistan declined to hand over Gul because he has no role in setting the operational agenda of Lashkar or other organizations within Pakistan. Reached at his home in the Pakistani city of Rawalpindi on Monday, Gul said he was aware of the allegations but dismissed them as an effort to "malign" him.

"There seems to be an orchestrated campaign to somehow get me," he said.

Gul, 71, has acknowledged that he once was a member of a group of retired ISI officers, Pakistani scientists and others that was suspected by the United States of giving material support to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Gul said the organization, Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, was formed by a group of Pakistani businessmen to aid war-ravaged industries in Afghanistan.

The U.S. Treasury Department declared Ummah Tameer-e-Nau a terrorist group after a search of the group's offices in the Afghan capital, Kabul, unearthed documents referencing plans to kidnap a U.S. diplomat and outlining basic physics related to nuclear weapons.

Gul said he had recently been informed by a senior official in Pakistan's Foreign Ministry that he had been placed on a U.S. watch list of global terrorists, along with several others. He said that he was shown a U.S. document that detailed several charges against him, including allegations that he had ties to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Indian and U.S. officials say Gul, who served as an army tank commander before he was named director of the ISI in 1987, has maintained strong ties to Lashkar and has played an advisory role in several recent attacks.

An Indian intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Gul, who retired after serving as head of the ISI for two years, has been placed on a U.S. terrorist watch list because of his alleged ties to Lashkar. The Indian intelligence official said Gul is a "close adviser" of the group and regularly attends Lashkar meetings. "As recent as this November, he attended their congregation at Muridke and Pattoki. He addresses their gatherings and also defends the Lashkar at every forum. He is considered a guide by Lashkar," the Indian intelligence official said.

Gul, self-confident, well educated, outspoken and always impeccably dressed, worked closely with the CIA and Saudi intelligence agencies to support and train Afghan resistance groups fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Gul eventually turned against the United States after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

Gul said he believes U.S. officials are targeting him because he has publicly expressed his political support for Taliban and Afghan rebel groups who are fighting U.S.-led coalition troops in Afghanistan. He said his brief meetings with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s and his call for a reinvestigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks also have attracted attention.

"I simply fail to understand what all the hullabaloo is about. It's simply because I speak loudly about the fact that 9/11 was a bloody hoax," Gul said. "It was an inside job."

In all of that there is 'cheer-leading by Pakistanis and retired Pakistani militarily officials for terrorism in India', akin to the depravity on display by Indians, where?

And when you say it backs up 'my assessment of the non-state and non-institutional' nature of the Mumbai plot', are you suggesting you believe differently from that assessment?

And if you believe differently, why?

 

[SMC]

GOP did not give any proofs. In addition, you're doing a spin and taking a diversion from the main topic.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Many members on this forum have said there is adequate proof with ISI, PA, and GOP of Indian involvement in S Waziristan, and Indian funding for the TTP. When asked for proof, the standard reply has been "The GOP is being prevented by the US in giving the proof". Apparently with this terrorist spilling the beans, how come the US is not silencing the GOP?. So as the US is no longer silencing the GOP, and while you are "giving proofs", please provide proofs of the following.

1) The dossier given to the Indian PM at Sharm al Shaik that proves Indian involvement in Balochistan through the consulates.

2)The poof that Gilani says he has.

3) The proof that Musharaff say he has provided from "top to bottom" to the US (a copy will do).

4) The proof of the arms, medicines, and literature captured in Waziristan (other than a few pictures), were provided by India.

5) The proof of Indian spies that have been captured in Pakistan.

6) While you are at it please provide the proof of the US-Mossad-India nexus too.

Yes we should see all of that, but at the moment the subject of this thread is this alleged video suggesting that an individual responsible for terrorism in Pakistan claims to be 'getting money and targets from Indians in Afghanistan'.

 

[Seadog1]

I just dont buy it,,,,Pakistan terrorist attack India and kill more then 100 innocent people,,,,,and for some weird paranoid reaons Pakistan keeps insisting that India is responsible for terrorist attacks on Pakistan,,,,by useing Islamist Terrorist,,,,whom are supposeing to be working with the Hindus to kill Muslims....to me this line of reasoning seems to be based either on insanity or stupidy or a lot of both.

When things dont make any sense usually they are just not true.

 

[Mujahid]

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

TalibanSwatter:

Take a stroll over to this thread as well: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ian-cautions-against-unconcealed-delight.html

It is not just me pointing out the depravity of Indians on the web in celebrating terrorism and the death of innocents in Pakistan, even some Indian commentators are sickened by the display.

You lot from the Pakistani peace brigade need to open your eyes and realize there is only a deceiving entity consumed by hatred across the border.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thanks for posting that Mujahid.

None of the other news channels or news papers have carried this story, which indicates only Aaj news obtained that video. That would seem to indicate it was not distributed by the GoP since they would have wanted it to be disseminated widely, and would have given copies to all the news channels.

The clip does not appear to be of an interrogation either.

 

[Skywalker]

Professor Ishtiaq Ahmed has recently published this note during his research at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. We are grateful for his consent to publish this at the Pak Tea House. (excerpts)

On 26 November 2008, a series of terrorist attacks were launched on India’s megalopolis and financial capital, Mumbai, by suspected members of the Pakistan-based jihadist organisation, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT). While earlier attacks such as the July 2006 Mumbai commuter train bombings had caused 209 deaths, the Mumbai attacks attracted greater worldwide attention. The culprits had not only placed the bombs stealthily; they also carried out their operation in a very public manner. For some 60 hours, the Indian security forces battled with the terrorists. Finally only one, Ajmal Amir Kasab, was captured alive. Indian authorities claimed to have found nine dead bodies of the alleged terrorists. The attackers had apparently come from Pakistan’s port city of Karachi, taken the sea route and landed at the Mumbai coast in boats. Indian coastal defence and intelligence apparatuses failed completely to detect them. Some writers described the Mumbai attacks as India’s 9/11 because the culprits had deliberately targeted symbols of Indian affluence and grandeur such as the Taj Mahal and Oberoi Trident hotels and places where westerners gathered such as the Leopold Café. Targeting the Jewish centre at Nariman House was certainly meant to create maximum effect and capture international attention.


Views of senior Pakistani military officers on Mumbai attacks

For analytical purposes, one can distinguish between the Sandhurst-type orientation of the erstwhile Pakistan military establishment and changes in a more populist nationalist direction that began to take place after the 1965 war with India. Later, a radical Islamist orientation also took place during Chief of Army Staff General Zia-ul-Haq’s time as president (1977-88). He made concerted efforts to foster a strong Islamist character in the military. After his death in 1988, his successors were not committed to Islamism in any strong ideological sense.

Apart from his immediate successor, General Mirza Aslam Beg, who though not an Islamist was a radical nationalist, his successors, the generals Asif Nawaz Janjua, Abdul Wahid Kakkar, Jahangir Karamat and Pervez Musharraf were middle-of-the-road army chiefs who considered Islamism at best a resource they could exploit in some situations. Ordinarily they viewed it as a liability that detracted from the high standards of a professional fighting force. Brigadier (Retd) Yasub Ali Dogar even argued that although General Zia was personally a strict Muslim, his interest in Islamism was more instrumental than ideological. At any rate, it was reported in 2002 that some 30 percent of the officers harboured Islamist sympathies.

A general who did not want to be named made a clean breast of the Pakistan military and ISI’s culpability in creating the Islamist monster that was now striking terror within Pakistan. He said, ‘The Americans wanted us to produce Islamic warriors that could be deployed in the Afghanistan jihad. We obliged without thinking out the consequences such brainwashing would carry for our own society. We trained them to become jihadists. We trained them to kill. We sent them into Afghanistan and in the Indian-administered Kashmir. Now, they have unleashed their terror on our own people. They are killing our soldiers and will stop at nothing to impose their brutal ideology on us. I recently saw a video in which the throat of a man was being split open with a long knife, while some bearded men in the background were shouting “Allah-o-Akbar”.

Lt. General (Retd) Naseer Akhtar, who as Corps Commander of Karachi in the early 1990s had considerable experience of dealing with terrorism fomented by the Mohajir Quomi Movement and Sindhi nationalists, was of the opinion that the Mumbai attacks bore the signature of Al Qaeda and that huge amounts of money from Arab patrons must have gone into its preparations. He was of the view that the Kashmir dispute needed an early resolution and converting the Line of Control into some sort of porous border was the only thing the Indians were likely to agree to. He too stressed that the Indian leadership missed a very good opportunity when General Musharraf’s overtures on Kashmir were not given a proper response.

A senior officer who until recently held key portfolios in the ISI and was directly responsible for planning national security confided in me on assurances that his identity will not be disclosed that if India had proceeded with military strikes on Pakistan it would have resulted in very extensive losses and damages. He believed that the Indians had gained a lot by behaving as a responsible regional power. He lamented that Islamism and extremism had been imposed on Pakistan because of the Afghanistan jihad. He dismissed suggestions that someone serving at present in the military or the ISI may have ordered the terrorist attacks on 26 November 2008. According to him, Pakistan did not stand to gain anything from such a misadventure. It had much to lose. India derived maximum advantage as a responsible and peace-loving state by not resorting to force while Pakistan was being demonised in the world as a rogue state. He believed that Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda had co-operated to carry out the attacks in Mumbai. He was of the view that the extremists had no problem in getting hold of funds to finance their jihad. Huge amounts of money from the drugs trade and donations from Arab patrons in Saudi Arabia furnished abundant resources and incentives to promote extremism and terrorism.

What sort of developments prompted the attacks?

The civilian, democratically-elected Pakistani government has not shown any willingness to accommodate the Islamist agenda. The Pakistan military has been fighting the Taliban in the tribal areas and Swat, the jihad in the Indian-administered Kashmir has been virtually abandoned, the United States and NATO forces have been provided facilities to conduct their war in Afghanistan, and India and Pakistan have been moving towards greater trade and people-to-people interaction. The Indians seem determined not to make any concessions on Kashmir, however. Moreover it is emerging as powerful regional power backed by the United States. The Israelis continue their ruthless suppresson of the Palestinians. All such developments hurt some interests badly.

Whose interests were served most?

The Pakistan Taliban, the LeT, its reincarnation Jama’at-ud-Da’wah, the Jaish-e-Mohammed in cooperation with Al Qaeda and international donors seem the most likely plotters of the attacks. They share a common ideology even when their operational priorities have differed in the past. Such differences can always be put aside to achieve common goals and objectives. It is possible that the attacks were plotted outside South Asia.

Why target Mumbai?

Bomb attacks within Pakistan and fighting the Pakistan and United States and NATO troops had become routine. Therefore, a target had to be found that would demonstrate dramatically the power and ability of the Islamists to strike terror wherever they chose. From an Islamist ideological point of view, undermining India as a secular-democratic state would cause widespread communal rioting between Hindus and Muslims, which if it gains momentum, could encourage separatists in the north-eastern Indian states as well as to intensify their struggle, while the Naxalites and other disgruntled elements could exploit such a situation to begin a class war. In such a situation India would disintegrate. That would be some achievement. Even if the longer term gains may not be forthcoming readily, an attack on the symbols of Indian affluence and rise as an economic power would produce maximum effect in terms of global attention. Thus the mayhem in Mumbai would serve that purpose amply. It would serve as a warning to the US and Israel and other Western detractors of Islam. This train of thinking most probably resulted in choosing Mumbai as a target.

Could some rogue elements from the Pakistan military and ISI be involved?

This is, of course, the most difficult question to answer. As argued earlier, retired Islamists who served in the military and ISI are dispersed throughout Pakistan. Some may still be serving because they were not shunted out. They maintain support networks within Pakistan as well as in the Arab world and beyond. It is possible that they too were involved in the attacks.

Mr. Swatter if you have already stopped swatting , can you tell me what are you trying to prove here.

 

[hembo]

I believe his comment was a response to this one from rocky2:

"So the truth people in pakistan lacks tolerance and fails to love each other"

Both comments were derogatory generalizations, you cannot ignore the Indian's negative comments and only focus on the Pakistani who responded to them.

In any case, both have been deleted.

Any further issues with moderating need to be taken up through PM, not on the forum.

You're spot on and both comments were derogatory and irrelevant. However, my point was that the guy Rocky2 is a newbee here and I haven't seen much of his posts anyway. Even if he's banned for life, I could not care any less. But on the other hand Batman bhaijaan is a much senior member with 3000+ posts and if you analyze you'll find 100s of his posts are of similar nature, hence my comment.

Anyway apology for going public with moderation issues. All similar comments will be through PMs only from now onwards.

Thanks.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Thanks for posting that Mujahid.

None of the other news channels or news papers have carried this story, which indicates only Aaj news obtained that video. That would seem to indicate it was not distributed by the GoP since they would have wanted it to be disseminated widely, and would have given copies to all the news channels.

The clip does not appear to be of an interrogation either.

Which is why I question the credibility of the video - I think its a fake.