Mumbai Attacks

[Patriot]

West is playing huge game.They're just destabilizing Pakistan so China never gets into Super Power status and our America members thinks CIA is spreading Democracy and freedom.ISI should definitely contact China and do something kick out the AL-CIA from Tribal Areas.Well, now Indians and Americans will say Robert Gates is Jihadi
(I think this is the reason Afghanis broke the fence of border....)

 

[Energon]

As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss for the ignorant".

It sure is innit?

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

interesting....................

 

[Beskar]

Generally I wouldnt take every thing by AJ seriously, but with Robert gates sitting there one gotta wonder. just my 0.2 cents.

LOL WHAT? That's not Robert Gates! That's WEBSTER TARPLEY!

You think the secretary of defence would come give an interview on a Radio show?

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

LOL WHAT? That's not Robert Gates! That's WEBSTER TARPLEY!

You think the secretary of defence would come give an interview on a Radio show?

I just realized that too..........thanks for pointing out.

 

[Beskar]

You're welcome bro.

The title of the video is misleading, i agree, but one should remember that the Secretary of Defence of United States doesn't really have the time, or interest to go talk on the alex jones show

 

[A.Rahman]

Thats not Robert Gates, title changed

 

[Kharian_Beast]

Really worth listening to and taking special notice to geo-politics in a macro cosmic view.

 

[Black Stone]

Poll: Mumbai bombers aimed to start war

The deadly Mumbai terror attacks were aimed at pushing Pakistan and India to the brink of a war for the fourth time, a recent poll says.

Over 49 percent of some 4,018 respondents to an online Press TV poll believe the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks in November were planning to provoke a war between the two countries.

According to the survey, nearly 25 percent said the terror attacks were staged in a bid to undermine the position of Pakistan and Muslims in the Indian Subcontinent.

Only 12 percent reasoned that the attackers were planning to deal a blow to India's economy.

India alleges that Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) is the culprit behind the three-day coordinated terrorist attacks, which ripped through Mumbai on Nov. 26, and killed nearly 195 people.

The incident has heightened tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbors at a time when Islamabad and New Delhi were holding 'peace talks' to patch up past differences.

Although the Indian authorities say that New Delhi is not planning a military action against Pakistan, they urged Islamabad to crack down on militants believed to be based within its borders.

"Unless Pakistan takes action against those terrorists who are operating on their soil against India ... things will not be normal," said Indian Defense Minister, A.K. Antony, on Nov. 30.

 

[Nafees]

Source: Afp, Islamabad, The Daily Star - Details News

Pakistan rejects British request to grill Mumbai attack suspects


Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has turned down a British request to question suspects arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks, his office said Monday.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited Islamabad at the weekend in a bid to calm tensions between Pakistan and India in the wake of the attacks in the Indian metropolis that left 172 dead.

"Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that in his meeting on Sunday with the British Prime Minister, he turned down his request for Britain probing the Pakistanis detained after (the) Mumbai attacks," Gilani's office said.

Gilani was addressing the federal parliament at the beginning of a general debate on the situation arising out of the Mumbai attacks, it said.

"He said he told Gordon Brown that if there were any proofs, these persons will be prosecuted under the law of Pakistan," it said.

In his visit to Islamabad, Brown pledged to help Pakistan "break the chain of terror" after holding talks with President Asif Ali Zardari on security in the wake of the Mumbai attacks.

At least one British national died in the 60-hour rampage on India's financial centre late last month, and Brown had said he asked Zardari to allow British police to question Pakistani suspects.

Brown said Britain would work with the government in Islamabad to ensure that terrorists are denied safe haven in Pakistan, and pledged six million pounds (nine million dollars) to help it tackle militancy.

Gilani had earlier Sunday told a reporter in the eastern city of Lahore that once Pakistan had the evidence of proof of involvement of the suspects, then it would consider the request.

"We said that no proof has reached us and when proof will reach us, then (you can) talk to us," he said.

Pakistan's rejection of the British request came as US Senator John Kerry visited India and Pakistan, putting fresh pressure on Islamabad over the Mumbai attacks, saying its powerful spy agency must be brought under control.

Ahead of talks with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Kerry said Pakistan's Inter Services-Intelligence (ISI) must stop operating independently of the government and end its links with militant groups.

"We would like to see an ISI that is reforming and brought completely under civilian control," the US Democratic Party's 2004 presidential candidate told the Indian Express.

Kerry said the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group, which India accuses of planning the Mumbai attacks, was set up by the ISI to fight Indian rule in Kashmir.

After talks with Indian leaders, he said there was "strong evidence" that the Mumbai gunmen came from Pakistan and urged Islamabad to take legal action against the LeT.

"We all know it was planned. It was planned over a period of time. We all know they (attackers) came from Pakistan and we understand the training that took place in that regard. So, there is strong evidence," he said.

Kerry later arrived in Pakistan for what a US embassy spokesman in Islamabad told AFP were "scheduled talks with senior Pakistani government officials on a variety of regional issues."

On his return to Washington, Kerry is expected to brief US president-elect Barack Obama on his talks with the Indian and Pakistani leaders.

Pakistan has arrested key leaders of Lashkar-e-Taiba and shut down a charity accused of being a front for the group, freezing its assets and detaining dozens of members.

But it says it will not hand over any suspects to India, saying New Delhi has not yet provided any evidence implicating Pakistanis in the attacks

 

[dabong1]

Cover-up in Mumbai - Indian View:

By Sandhya Jain

1 December 2008



While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually;$how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that “super-terrorists” simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the “mercenaries” to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?


Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.


By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don’t believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?


Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.


For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
"It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood."


To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.


This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces - were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].



One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.


Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.


Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not "ordinary terrorists" and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the 'Green Flag' special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.


Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.


What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.



Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.



Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.


The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!


This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.


What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of live and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.


It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American ‘friends’ (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.


It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)

 

[Imran Khan]

Who benefits from Mumbai?





—Brian Cloughley


The problem for India — and for Pakistan — is that extreme Hindu nationalism has been fed mightily by the Mumbai murders. Zealots like Rajnath Singh are rubbing their hands and licking their lips because they want to get rid of decent men like Dr Singh

When notable incidents of violence occurred in the time of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, the writer, philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero embarrassed some people by asking “Cui bono?” — “who benefits?” This is a wise question, because identification of those who might benefit from acts of terrorism can be interesting.

Let’s remind ourselves of the purposes of terror. The aims of these evil operations, whether they be conducted by assassination, suicide flights of airliners into buildings or tossing bombs at marketplace crowds, are basically the same: first, they are intended to sow fear among the inhabitants of the attacked city, region or country by killing people; then there is the aim of creating distrust of the government and authorities in general by the country’s citizens. Next is the objective of encouraging overreaction on the part of government, linked with the intention of generating or increasing international suspicion and hatred.

The overall goal is to cause instability, because terrorists thrive when people are confused, frightened, and distrustful of authority. When security precautions are increased dramatically in order to supposedly counter threats, this adds only to frustration and fury on the part of ordinary citizens. But terrorists are rarely affected.

How many terrorists have been caught in the US since the preposterous ‘Patriot Act’ in the US came into force? America had perfectly adequate measures in place to deal with terrorism before 9/11: the problem was incompetence, not lack of systems. But politicians have to be seen to be taking dramatic action, no matter how ludicrous or unproductive that might be.

Confusion breeds panic, and panic plays right into the hands of terrorists. And the sowing of even more panic seems to be the speciality of many politicians and others who engage their tongues before their brains. An idiot British Home Office minister, Lord West, declared recently that “another great plot [is] building up again” because of “a huge threat” from Al Qaeda. Just what his announcement was meant to achieve is beyond understanding, because if you’ve detected a plot the last thing you want to do is publicise the fact, thus letting the plotters know that you’re on to them. No: it was just the usual flatulence from a self-important fathead who felt he had to justify his position.

But India’s prime minister, a man of urbane commonsense, has taken things in his stride. Although understandably irate, his response has been measured. Certainly he has blamed Pakistan, without naming it, because his intelligence people have assured him that the ten terrorists came from Pakistan (but not that they were in any way officially sponsored by the government).

Some of his ministers have sailed closer to the wind, but, as reported by the Press Trust of India, “Rajnath Singh, the leader of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) [the main opposition group], urged India to ‘avenge the repeated terror attacks’ by striking Pakistan, and declared that ‘There is a need to avenge the repeated assault on our people and democracy.’”

Rajnath Singh is the man who stated that the Indian police investigation of the Hindu extremists’ bombing in Malegaon in September was “a huge conspiracy” against Hindus, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the arrest of a serving army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Purohit, for involvement in planning the atrocity. Singh is also the man, according to the Indian magazine Frontline last year, who asked Indians to “give the BJP 10 years [in power]”, and declared that if this comes about, “by 2016 we’ll do away with this policy of appeasement of Muslims forever.”

So that’s the BJP agenda if they win the elections next May.

The problem for India — and for Pakistan — is that extreme Hindu nationalism has been fed mightily by the Mumbai murders. Zealots like Rajnath Singh are rubbing their hands and licking their lips because they want to get rid of decent men like Dr Singh and the equally cerebral Mr Palaniappan Chidambaram, who has just been appointed home minister in lieu of Mr Shivraj Patil, who took responsibility for the decidedly unstructured response to the attack and most honourably resigned. (British politicians please copy. Fat chance.)

Who benefits from the Mumbai slaughter? Certainly not India’s Congress-led coalition government, tottering as it is with shaky allies. Not the attackers, because all but one are dead, and he’ll never see the light of day again. And certainly not Pakistan, which has quite enough problems on its plate at the moment without getting involved in foreign forays. (According to the UN, some 1445 civilians were killed in Pakistan in the first eight months of 2008; about 800 by homegrown fanatics and the rest by illegal foreign airstrikes.)

So who, then, benefits?

One answer, unfortunately, is the BJP and its supporters in such sinister organisations as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Shiv Sena (SS). In November, the Independent reported the SS leader, Bal Thackeray, as having written that “The threat of Islamic terror in India is rising. It is time to counter the same with Hindu terror. Hindu suicide squads should be readied to ensure the existence of Hindu society and to protect the nation.”

All of these organisations looked with approval on the massacres of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and scores of Christians in Orissa this year. One fanatic of the Bajrang Dal paramilitary group involved in the Gujarat pogrom said proudly that “There was this pregnant [Muslim] woman, I killed her... They shouldn’t even be allowed to breed... Whoever they are, women, children, whoever...cut them down. Thrash them, slash them, burn them... The idea is, don’t keep them alive at all.”

These are dangerous, vicious extremists. And they all benefit from the Mumbai carnage. Which is bad news for the sub-continent.

Brian Cloughley’s book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and is distributed in Pakistan by Saeed Book Bank

 

[Neo]

Who benefits from Mumbai?​

By Brian Cloughley

The problem for India — and for Pakistan — is that extreme Hindu nationalism has been fed mightily by the Mumbai murders. Zealots like Rajnath Singh are rubbing their hands and licking their lips because they want to get rid of decent men like Dr Singh​

When notable incidents of violence occurred in the time of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago, the writer, philosopher and orator Marcus Tullius Cicero embarrassed some people by asking “Cui bono?” — “who benefits?” This is a wise question, because identification of those who might benefit from acts of terrorism can be interesting.

Let’s remind ourselves of the purposes of terror. The aims of these evil operations, whether they be conducted by assassination, suicide flights of airliners into buildings or tossing bombs at marketplace crowds, are basically the same: first, they are intended to sow fear among the inhabitants of the attacked city, region or country by killing people; then there is the aim of creating distrust of the government and authorities in general by the country’s citizens. Next is the objective of encouraging overreaction on the part of government, linked with the intention of generating or increasing international suspicion and hatred.

The overall goal is to cause instability, because terrorists thrive when people are confused, frightened, and distrustful of authority. When security precautions are increased dramatically in order to supposedly counter threats, this adds only to frustration and fury on the part of ordinary citizens. But terrorists are rarely affected.

How many terrorists have been caught in the US since the preposterous ‘Patriot Act’ in the US came into force? America had perfectly adequate measures in place to deal with terrorism before 9/11: the problem was incompetence, not lack of systems. But politicians have to be seen to be taking dramatic action, no matter how ludicrous or unproductive that might be.

Confusion breeds panic, and panic plays right into the hands of terrorists. And the sowing of even more panic seems to be the speciality of many politicians and others who engage their tongues before their brains. An idiot British Home Office minister, Lord West, declared recently that “another great plot [is] building up again” because of “a huge threat” from Al Qaeda. Just what his announcement was meant to achieve is beyond understanding, because if you’ve detected a plot the last thing you want to do is publicise the fact, thus letting the plotters know that you’re on to them. No: it was just the usual flatulence from a self-important fathead who felt he had to justify his position.

But India’s prime minister, a man of urbane commonsense, has taken things in his stride. Although understandably irate, his response has been measured. Certainly he has blamed Pakistan, without naming it, because his intelligence people have assured him that the ten terrorists came from Pakistan (but not that they were in any way officially sponsored by the government).

Some of his ministers have sailed closer to the wind, but, as reported by the Press Trust of India, “Rajnath Singh, the leader of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) [the main opposition group], urged India to ‘avenge the repeated terror attacks’ by striking Pakistan, and declared that ‘There is a need to avenge the repeated assault on our people and democracy.’”

Rajnath Singh is the man who stated that the Indian police investigation of the Hindu extremists’ bombing in Malegaon in September was “a huge conspiracy” against Hindus, in spite of, or perhaps because of, the arrest of a serving army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Purohit, for involvement in planning the atrocity. Singh is also the man, according to the Indian magazine Frontline last year, who asked Indians to “give the BJP 10 years [in power]”, and declared that if this comes about, “by 2016 we’ll do away with this policy of appeasement of Muslims forever.”

So that’s the BJP agenda if they win the elections next May.

The problem for India — and for Pakistan — is that extreme Hindu nationalism has been fed mightily by the Mumbai murders. Zealots like Rajnath Singh are rubbing their hands and licking their lips because they want to get rid of decent men like Dr Singh and the equally cerebral Mr Palaniappan Chidambaram, who has just been appointed home minister in lieu of Mr Shivraj Patil, who took responsibility for the decidedly unstructured response to the attack and most honourably resigned. (British politicians please copy. Fat chance.)

Who benefits from the Mumbai slaughter? Certainly not India’s Congress-led coalition government, tottering as it is with shaky allies. Not the attackers, because all but one are dead, and he’ll never see the light of day again. And certainly not Pakistan, which has quite enough problems on its plate at the moment without getting involved in foreign forays. (According to the UN, some 1445 civilians were killed in Pakistan in the first eight months of 2008; about 800 by homegrown fanatics and the rest by illegal foreign airstrikes.)

So who, then, benefits?

One answer, unfortunately, is the BJP and its supporters in such sinister organisations as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the Shiv Sena (SS). In November, the Independent reported the SS leader, Bal Thackeray, as having written that “The threat of Islamic terror in India is rising. It is time to counter the same with Hindu terror. Hindu suicide squads should be readied to ensure the existence of Hindu society and to protect the nation.”

All of these organisations looked with approval on the massacres of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 and scores of Christians in Orissa this year. One fanatic of the Bajrang Dal paramilitary group involved in the Gujarat pogrom said proudly that “There was this pregnant [Muslim] woman, I killed her... They shouldn’t even be allowed to breed... Whoever they are, women, children, whoever...cut them down. Thrash them, slash them, burn them... The idea is, don’t keep them alive at all.”

These are dangerous, vicious extremists. And they all benefit from the Mumbai carnage. Which is bad news for the sub-continent.

Brian Cloughley’s book about the Pakistan army, War, Coups and Terror, has just been published by Pen & Sword Books (UK) and is distributed in Pakistan by Saeed Book Bank

 

[Neo]

Excellent read!

Threads merged.

 

[nitesh]

^^

But BJP has lost in Delhi and Rajasthan which is supposed to so called to much eaten the "Hindu nationalism" so this is useless BS by this guy. The M.P.and C.G. have been won on the development flank which BJP won (also a huge credit has to be given to congress infighting).