Mumbai Attacks

[ARSENAL6]

Bismillah ir-rah-maan neera heem

The plot of Bernard Lewis' Arc of Crises, and his (re-drawn middle east/central asian map) thickens with the time passes.

To understand the drama, you must understand the events (unless you don't want to get your hands off that microscope labeled as Islamophobia).

So LeT, which was solely blamed for these attacks, right off the bat, is propogandised as multi-national entity and their connection to every event in the world has been mildly spoken by the same three Anglo-American-Israelites, who happen to have that crystal ball somehow.

Skipping the details about how LeT has been created, funded, supported and trained by Anglo-Americans through their regional assets. In 2002, the Washington Post ran a story detailing a CIA plan titled "Worldwide Attack Matrix" by George Tenet, which was "outlining a clandestine anti-terror campaign in 80 countries around the world.".

The plan entailed CIA and Special Forces "covert operations across the globe," and at "the heart of the proposal was a recommendation that the president give the CIA what Tenet labeled "exceptional authorities" to attack and destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the rest of the world."

The Worldwide Attack Matrix "described covert operations in 80 countries that were either underway or that he was now recommending. The actions ranged from routine propaganda to lethal covert action in preparation for military attacks," as well as "In some countries, CIA teams would break into facilities to obtain information.[1]

That clarifies the heinous goals of nexus of Evil operational behaviour -> "Commit terror, to incite terror… in order to react to Terror".

So the international connections make the LeT the most desirable outfit to blame for the Mumbai attacks, as its Al-Qaeda connections, international presence and historical precedents of terror attacks set it up as the perfect target.

Much like with Al-Qaeda, the LeT’s international scope could serve as a basis for taking a "war against LeT" to the steps of many countries, thus further serving the interests of the Anglo-American "War on Terror."

Now lets look at the mysterious events taking place in Mumbai attacks,

Immediately following the attacks, it was reported that, "Unprecedented intelligence cooperation involving investigating agencies and spy outfits of India, United States, United Kingdom and Israel has got underway to crack the method and motive behind the Mumbai terrorist massacre, now widely blamed on Islamist radicals who appeared to have all four countries on their hit list when they arrived on the shores of India." Specifically, "Investigators, forensic analysts, counter-terrorism experts and spymasters from agencies the four countries are converging in New Delhi and Mumbai to put their heads, resources, and skills together to understand the evolving nature of the beast."

Further, "Washington suggested sending US Special Forces for on-the-ground operations in Mumbai but New Delhi declined the offer, saying its own forces could take care of the situation." This unprecedented intelligence cooperation was based upon the understanding that, “the manner in which the terrorists who attacked Mumbai are reported to have singled out Americans and Britons, besides pointedly occupying a Jewish center, has revealed that their agenda was wider than just domestic discontent or the Kashmir issue."[2]

Shortly after the attacks began, it was reported that FBI agents were quickly flown to Mumbai to help in investigating the Mumbai attacks. Israel also offered to send in its "crack commandos to Mumbai to rescue Israeli hostages held in a Jewish centre," which was refused by India.

Now why would they'd be so anxious to get involved in investigations? to clean up any evidence of their involvement? or to forge any evidence of directing the blame to their intended target?

Moving on to mysterious live reporting throughout that saga... Hours after the attacks began on November 26, it was reported that two terrorists were killed and two others were arrested.[3]

Later on, reports surfaced in which Indian police had killed four of the Mumbai terrorists and arrested nine of them.[4]

Shortly following the outbreak of violence, Indian authorities stated that, "Seven of the Mumbai terrorists were British" and that, "two Brits had been arrested and another five suspects were from the UK." Further, Blackberry phones found on the suspects contained "a lot of content" connecting them with the UK.[5]

The Chief Minister of Mumbai had early on reported that, “two British-born Pakistanis were among eight gunmen seized by Indian commandos who stormed buildings to free hostages."[6]

On December 1, the Daily Mail reported that, “As many as seven of the terrorists may have British connections.

Interestingly, by November 29, the story had conveniently changed. All of a sudden, Mumbai cops had only "captured" one terrorist.

So where did the arrested "terrorists" go? Why the live media reports, police confirming they captured "terrorists" and making claims they are British and all, changed?

Early on, there was an incident in which a taxicab was blown up in Mumbai, with the driver and passenger killed. The taxi started moving through a red light when the car bomb exploded, which ended up saving the lives of hundreds, as opposed to if the car had moved when the light was green and intersection was full.

Why the taxi moved on red light on time to be exploded to save hundreds of lives? was taxi driver also involved? if he was, then why it didn't go to intended target and exploded in the middle?

So as mentioned, all of a sudden, Mumbai cops had only nabbed one 'terrorist', and that person, has effectively become the nail-in-the-coffin for laying the blame at Pakistan’s door.

As soon as this person was caught, he began to sing like a canary, and gave every single bit of a information, exceptionally needed in that poorly written bollywood script, that is eventually to spread the war on terrorism to those 80 countries planned out in World Attack Matrix, by creating another enemy LeT.

And these attackers, as report said, were highly trained in marine warfare, recoinnaicense, spying and formulating their attacks in an unknown location right off the boat (which they happened to better than the people owning and running the place) and all that while carrying Pakistani ID cards on them, to make sure when caught/killed, the rest of the world knows they came from Pakistan and belongs to LeT.

What objective in this do you see? who gets the benefit? to think about these questions, you must go back to CIA/MI6/Mossad's approach "Commit terror, to incite terror… in order to react to terror", and then answer.

Why is this significant? Because this closely resembles tactics used in Iraq since the Anglo-American occupation of the country, employed by both US and British intelligence and special forces in an effort to sow chaos and create civil strife and war. (You can easily research on how they did that).

So in light of this blame game and irchestrating the evidence, one must critically examine, who benefits? Who had the means? Who had to motive? In whose interest is it to destabilize the region?

It is crystal clear to me that ultimately picking LeT for its international scope could serve as a basis for taking a "war against LeT" to the steps of many countries, thus further serving the interests of the Anglo-American War on Terror and their ultimate goal of re-drawing the map of middle east and central asia.

Extending the war theater to Pakistan, defanging its military, a threat to Israel.

Hence the modus operandy of focus entirely based on Pakistan (regardless of state or stateless individuals) to label the country "axis of terrorism" and find a justification to bomb and balkanize it (which will favour Israel and India the most). In fact the break up of Pakistan, is not a far-fetched idea in terms of Anglo-American strategy.

the plan for the destabilization and ultimately, balkanization of Pakistan has originated in Anglo-American-Israeli military strategic circles. Britain has long been famous for Divide and COnquer strategy, which was inherited by U.S. and it kept on functioning in the case of Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Croatia, Africa, Middle East etc.

Ultimately, the aims of the Mumbai attacks are to target Pakistan for balkanization, in the next frame of that movie, we all are watching since few decades, called New World Order.

The Mumbai attacks do not aid India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any nation within the region. The beneficiaries of the Mumbai Massacre are in London and New York, in the boardrooms and shareholders of the largest international banks; which seek total control of the world. Having dominated North America and Europe for much of recent history, these bankers, primarily Anglo-American, but also European, seek to exert their total control over the world’s resources, currencies, and populations.

References:
[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071800702.html

[2]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/India_gets_intelligence_aid_from_US_UK/articleshow/3770950.cms

[3]http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/two-terrorists-killed-two-arrested-in-mumbai_100124003.html

[4]http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Four-terrorists-killed-nine-arrested/391103/

[5]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2008/11/29/mumbai-attacks-seven-terrorists-were-british-claims-indian-government-86908-20932992/

[6]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/3533472/Mumbai-attack-British-men-among-terrorists.html

There's something more that I need to add to this from a another point of view. Lets get back to the days when there were two super powers: The USSR and The West

So much was the conflicts and competition, we had a global arms race, many wars, the space race, cloak and dagger, fear of nuclear attack and cultures being manipulated.

Soon Soviet Union collapsed and paved way the only super power left in the world The US. During the 90s the West enjoyed being monopoly super power, dominating, showing its stance to anyone who would NOT follow their way, (their version of democracy). They had no-one to tell them, no one to challenge them both econmy and military until the next centruy.

CHINA
China was coming up in both Econmy and military and that made the Westreally worried. Now that India is coming up and that india wants to build its missle to go 8000miles - this has really got on them on red alert

The West had to move quickly, attacking india was out of the question as the Iraq and Afgan war proved to be umpopular and that their resources were tangle up in these wars.

Allying Pakikstan will only make PAkistan stronger in the region and make a stronger Islamic country that could spread to other Islamic country plus the fear of so called extremists. Likewise allying Inda would make them powerful and HELl they don;t want that.
And If they wanted to start a war between India and China , they don't want a true Islam to get a full grip in the Middleeast.



But hang on a minute aren't Pakistan and India bitter enemies ?

Why not have theses to nation attack each other start a war so they will end up looking like Dresden after ALlied bombers came during WW2 ?
- have a Nuclear waste on both side of the boarder ?
- bombed back to the stoneage to start again ?


The point is the west don't want another super power emerging and want concentrate fully on China instead of two.

If Pakistan and India were wise they wouldn't be playing thier dirty games

Its what Pashtun said The Mumbai attacks do not aid India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or any nation within that region. Only to eliminate India and Pakistan to become a super power and to establish peace in that region.

 

[roadrunner]

The Mumbai attacks have helped Indian BJP

The upcoming elections will give them more votes thanks to the hardline stance of BJP.

The groups fighting in Kashmir don't get any reputation points from this.


Pakistan has not benefitted.


The West doesn't care about India or Pakistan. China is the one they worry about.

It's not really in America's interest to see the troops diverted from the western border.

It's not impossible, but if the Americans want their pipelines active through Afghanistan and Pakistan, they need stability in those countries.

This does not mean that an independent Balochistan isn't in their interests.

 

[ARSENAL6]

ANd how would they get an indepedent Baluchastan then ?
Pakistan is MUCH more than cable than Iraq when Iraq was intact.

The West will not only face China being a super power but Russia is also making a move.
India and Pakistan are already on thier way and they want to stop it.
Who knows, in 30 years in the future we may see Brazil , Argentina and even Ghana rising to the top.

BTW The US economy has gone down along side with its military - this could have an effect on Europe as a whole.

 

[linkinpark]

PM led N-Command meeting on Saturday

25 Dec 2008, 0305 hrs IST, Rajat Pandit, TNN


NEW DELHI: The top-level security meeting held by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last Saturday was actually a meeting of Nuclear Command Authority (NCA). The meeting, kept under wraps so as not to fuel the current war hysteria between India and Pakistan, coincided with the first strong sign of Islamabad backtracking on its promise to crack down on the masterminds of 26/11.

Sources, however, denied the NCA meeting on December 20 had anything to do with the current stand-off with Pakistan in wake of the Mumbai terror strikes. They, in fact, stressed the meeting's "only intention'' was "to take decisions on the further consolidation of India's nuclear deterrence''.

The UPA government this week has tried to play down apprehensions of an imminent military conflagration, with the PM making it clear on Tuesday that "nobody wanted war''.

Cautioning against reading much into what they called "a routine meeting'', the sources pointed to the "no-first-use'' policy that underpins India's nuclear doctrine.

"Nuclear weapons are not for war-fighting or even threatening anybody. Any talk of them coming into play is totally absurd. We have a very clear self-declared no-first use policy,'' said a source.

Pakistan, in contrast, has no such policy. And when President Asif Ali Zardari indicated a willingness to take a turn away from it recently, he was publicly snubbed by the military leadership who call the shots across the border. Unlike India, where the NCA is controlled by the civilian leadership, the finger on the nuclear button in Pakistan is that of its Army chief General Pervez Kayani.

For the NCA meeting to have skipped a discussion on the tension building up in wake of Pakistan's belligerent refusal to keep its promise to act against terror groups is improbable. In fact, as reported by TOI on Sunday, the "conventional'' operational preparedness of the armed forces to tackle any eventuality did figure in the meeting.

Since then, Pakistan has shown aggressive signs of cranking up its war machinery, even as Indian forces maintain a high state of operational readiness, with armoured columns, warships and fighters ready to swing into action "in the shortest possible time'' if required.

A meeting of the NCA is held once every three-to-six months to review the further development and management of the country's nuclear arsenal. Under the existing structure, the NCA's political council led by the PM is the "sole body which can authorize the use of nuclear weapons''.

The NCA also has an executive council, headed by the national security advisor, to provide inputs and "execute the directives'' given to it by the political council.

India created the NCA and the tri-Service Strategic Forces Command (SFC) to manage the country's nuclear arsenal in January 2003 after the 10-month troop mobilisation along the Indo-Pak border under Operation Parakram in wake of the December 2001 terror strike on Parliament.

Though India's nuclear command and control structures and related tasks are on a firm footing now, the SFC still has some way to go before it becomes a full-fledged operational command.

SFC only has the nuclear-capable Prithvi (150 to 350-km range), Agni-I (700-km) and Agni-II (2,500-km) ballistic missiles under its operational control at present.

It does not have a squadron of "dedicated'' fighters tasked to deliver nuclear bombs. Instead, IAF itself maintains some "dual-tasked'' fighter-bombers for the purpose.

Similarly, the Navy has only two dual-tasked warships armed with the Dhanush (variant of Prithvi with a 330-km range) missiles, INS Subhadra and INS Suvarna, at present.

The glaring gap, of course, is the lack of nuclear-powered submarines since they constitute the most potent and least vulnerable platform to launch nuclear-tipped missiles in "a second-strike contingency''.

PM led N-Command meeting on Saturday-India-The Times of India

 

[linkinpark]

IAF conducts precision bombing practice runs
Wednesday, 24 December , 2008, 22:16

New Delhi: With the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) flying sorties over two important cities in the wake of heightened sub-continental tensions after the Mumbai carnage, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has been carrying out precision bombing practice runs to prepare itself for any eventuality, sources said on Wednesday.
With the option of carrying out precision bombings of terrorist camps in Pakistan-administered Kashmir doing the rounds, IAF sources said that its fighter jets have been carrying out practice sorties at firing ranges in the Rajasthan sector and elsewhere.

“Precision bombings are being carried out at various air-to-ground ranges like Pokhran, Jamnagar, Jodhpur, Gwalior and Halwara,” an IAF source said.

However, an IAF spokesman said: “It is a routine exercise. We carry out such practices on a regular basis.”


The sources also added that there would be no deployment of IAF fighter jets at forward air bases.

“With the coming of air-to-air refuellers, India does not need to deploy fighters at the forward bases. The aircraft can cover any distance, perform their mission and return to their respective bases,” the sources said.

Pakistan does not have air-to-air refuellers.

Tension between the two neighbours heightened after the Mumbai terror attacks, with India asking Pakistan to crack down on the terrorist camps functioning from its soil.

On Tuesday, India cautioned against “creating war hysteria” and asked Islamabad to address the real issue of “dismantling the terror machine” in that country.

Taking a long-range view, New Delhi also indicated its preference for diplomatic options by asking the international community to intensify pressure on Islamabad to comply with the UN resolutions against terrorism.

In a carefully calibrated message, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday underscored India's growing impatience with diversionary tactics adopted by Islamabad as he appealed to the international community to pressure Pakistan to honour its anti-terror commitments.

“The issue is not war, the issue is terror and territory in Pakistan being used to promote, aid and abet this terror,” Manmohan Singh told reporters outside parliament. "Nobody wants war," he stressed.

PAF jets flew a series of sorties over Lahore and Rawalpindi on Monday as part of its increased "vigilance", officials said.


Publication | Indian Publication News | Indian Publication Aggregator | Regional Publication News | Leading Publications India

 

[pkpatriotic]

Mumbai, Corporate Security and Indo-Pakistani Conflict
By Fred Burton - Stratfor
December 24, 2008

The Trident-Oberoi and Taj Mahal hotels in Mumbai reopened Dec. 21, less than one month after the Nov. 26 Mumbai attack that left more than 170 people dead. During that crisis, hotel guests and visitors became trapped after coming under attack from militants using guns, grenades and other weapons to kill indiscriminately. As the investigation into the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack continues, New Delhi has demanded that Islamabad take action to control its militant proxies and militants operating from Pakistan. Because Islamabad has not yet met New Delhi’s demands, Pakistan and India stand on the brink of military confrontation.

Prior to the attacks, India’s increasingly precarious security situation and the inability of Indian security forces to effectively address the deteriorating situation had already made the country less attractive to businesses. A series of bombing attacks throughout the country in 2008, attacks against executives and above all, the Mumbai attack, all have showcased the danger of doing business in the South Asian country at present. And if military confrontation between India and Pakistan erupts in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, multinational corporations quite possibly could face a number of new threats from militant groups in addition to more traditional security problems. Because the exact nature and locations of potential Indian military action against Pakistan are not known, the specific problems multinational corporations might face cannot fully be predicted. Regardless, corporations should be prepared to respond to a number of problems with the potential to disrupt their operations and the security of their personnel.

Facilities and Personnel Security
If conflict breaks out between India and Pakistan, corporate operations will be affected regardless of whether a particular business finds itself in the line of fire. Pakistani retaliation to an Indian strike could take the form of traditional military action, but it also could well involve asymmetric warfare. In this scenario, Pakistan would act through its militant proxies — who could well target Westerners associated with multinational corporations in a bid to damage the Indian economy.

Previous attacks throughout India have shown that numerous militant organizations can cause serious damage and high body counts. But these attacks largely focused on Indian targets — including crowded marketplaces, theaters and mosques — that would cause high casualty numbers among the local population or would damage landmarks. The attacks in Mumbai widened this target set to include foreigners and Jewish interests. While the Taj and Oberoi hotels probably were attacked in part because of their status as Mumbai landmarks, the direct targeting of foreigners indicates the hotels also were chosen in a bid to strike Westerners. (It goes without saying that the attack on Nariman House was intended to target Jews and Israeli interests.)

The Mumbai attacks showed that attacking locations where Westerners are known to congregate, rather than attacks against marketplaces or cinemas that will primary kill Indian nationals, could well be a more efficient and effective way for militants to use their limited resources. And as hotels and other traditional soft targets harden their facilities and implement new security countermeasures to prevent further Mumbai-style attacks, militants will seek less-secure venues that will achieve the same result.

Such targets could include apartment complexes or neighborhoods that primarily house Westerners — similar to the 2004 attacks on the Saudi Arabian Oil Co. residential facilities in Al Khobar, Saudi Arabia — or other soft targets such as Western-style marketplaces or restaurants. Though most multinational corporations operate in hardened facilities away from city centers, affording better access control and countersurveillance, their employees cannot remain behind walls at all times. And even within multinational corporate compounds, security cannot be fully guaranteed.

The Mumbai attack has renewed fears that insiders could be used to carry out future attacks on multinational corporate facilities. Ajmal Amir Kamil, the only Mumbai attacker taken alive, reportedly has told police that at least five people in the Mumbai area aided the attackers in their preparations for the attack. Kamil reportedly told investigators these persons provided information about various locations in the city and police stations, though they were not involved in the actual attacks. Indian media reports also note that an intern chef at the Taj may have assisted the attackers’ preparations by providing access to various parts of the hotel, though the Taj has denied the man’s involvement. Unconfirmed reports also hold that some of the attackers wore hotel uniforms, indicating possible staff collusion.

Given the high level of technical sophistication displayed in the way responsibility was claimed for the attack, and given that workers in the information technology industry were involved in previous attacks, the IT sector should be especially vigilant about the potential for militant attacks with inside assistance. While the investigation into how the attackers planned their mission is still ongoing, militants seeking to use the lessons from Mumbai might make renewed attempts to infiltrate multinational corporations to gain information that could be used to launch an attack.

Corporations should also take into account the possibility of Hindu-nationalist-led protests against the Mumbai attack long after the attack itself, which could disrupt business operations. Such a delay between a triggering event and the protests themselves has precedent in the February 2002 protests that occurred months after the December 2001 Kashmiri militant attacks on the Indian parliament. These protests continued sporadically through the summer of 2002, involving extensive violence and many casualties. Similarly, the militant group Indian Mujahideen (IM) said many of its recent attacks were in retaliation for the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat in which more that 1,000 (mostly Muslim) people were killed. Indian military action against Pakistan could be the trigger needed to incite widespread public protests against the Mumbai attacks.

Travel Security
Multinational corporations have long noted the problems of keeping track of employees traveling for either business or personal reasons. Travel during a military conflict poses special problems in this regard. The Mumbai attack showcased those problems, while also adding another layer of concern for corporate security managers. Though hotels have long been a favored target of militant attacks, the prolonged nature of the Mumbai conflict and the reports of Western hostages being held in the hotels made the situation even more problematic for those seeking to identify the people inside.

Efforts at locating employees were further complicated when Indian security forces cut off communication lines inside the hotels to isolate the attackers and prevent them from communicating with one another. Once employees were located inside, security managers also faced difficult decisions about what form of transportation to use when moving employees away from the scene of the crisis.

In the event of a military confrontation between India and Pakistan, corporations would be likely to face similar challenges in locating employees traveling in the country and in removing them from dangerous situations. In the event India chooses to carry out targeted airstrikes against Pakistan, all civilian aircraft could be grounded and Indian airspace frozen. In this scenario, executives and other travelers in India would be unable to leave the country until the ban is lifted.

In the long run, corporate travelers in India (and elsewhere) will continue to face the threat of militant targeting of hotels, especially as other militant groups observe the success of the Mumbai attackers. While the Taj and Oberoi were known as high-quality luxury hotels suitable for Western executives, a number of other similarly situated luxury hotels in the city also house high-profile guests that could make an attractive target for militants.

It is possible the Mumbai attackers chose the Taj and Oberoi because security at the two facilities was not as prominent or visible as in other hotels. In any case, that the Mumbai attackers pre-positioned explosives and other weapons for their use inside the hotel indicates they conducted extensive preoperational surveillance of the targets and likely understood the security countermeasures present in each location. Given the Mumbai attackers’ successful penetration of these hotel facilities and similar attacks in the region, corporations and travelers should be prepared for similar attacks in the future.

These problems reinforce the importance of implementing a consistent travel security plan for employees that allows personnel managers to know the full itinerary of traveling employees, allowing a more effective response to emergency situations. Ultimately, it is impossible to predict the exact location or timing of emergencies. Even so, employees should be fully briefed on contingency plans for avoiding — and escaping from — emergencies, as well as points of contact to report their status to increase the odds of surviving future Mumbais.

 

[pkpatriotic]

India's media blasted for sensational Mumbai coverage
With tensions running high between India and Pakistan, the press is being urged to quit fanning the flames.
By Daniel Pepper
from the December 24, 2008

Mumbai, India - Emerging from decades of government control and regulations, India's media are quickly evolving into a boisterous, zealous fourth estate, most observers agree. But coverage of the 67-hour Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks has caused unprecedented condemnation, especially toward 24-hour television news channels. Critics describe it as "TV terror" for showing gory scenes, being too aggressive, and often reporting incorrect information as fact.

"They don't need to apologize as much as they need to introspect – figure out how to operate in a time of crisis," says Dipankar Gupta, sociology professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

On the evening of Nov. 26, well-coordinated attacks against two five-star hotels, a hospital, a popular cafe, a railway station, and a Jewish center brought the financial capital of India to its knees, leaving at least 171 dead and more than 230 injured.

In the following days, critics say, many Indian journalists were overly dramatic, sensationalist, and quick to report live "exclusives" of unconfirmed rumors. Many say TV anchors, who are minor celebrities in India, were overwrought with emotion and were quick to blame Pakistan for the attacks.

"It's high time we realize and accept that we are at fault," said Shishir Joshi, editorial director of Mid-Day, a Mumbai newspaper. "We did well getting into the line of fire, but from an ethical point of view we screwed up big-time."

Recognizing the missteps in coverage, the recently created National Broadcaster Association revealed a new set of rules for the industry last week. The guidelines ban broadcasting of footage that could reveal security operations and live contact with hostages or attackers.

The association, which represents many of the country's top news channels, hammered out the new regulations after several meetings with government officials. At the same time, India's Parliament is considering the creation of a broadcasting regulatory agency for private news channels.

Meanwhile, the story continues to develop, as tensions run high and add urgency to calls for media regulation. On Monday, India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherje insisted that Pakistan take aggressive action against those responsible for the Mumbai attacks. The Indian government is ready to "take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation," Mr. Mukherje told a group of diplomats in Delhi.

For several weeks, India has been asking Pakistan to hand over insurgents involved with militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is suspected of masterminding the attacks. Pakistan has yet to confirm that the surviving gunman of the Mumbai attacks is Pakistani, despite reports Monday that Ajmal Amir Kasab made a statement, sent to Pakistan officials, claiming to be from Pakistan.

Television coverage of the attacks showed dead bodies and hostages trapped in rooms, revealed commando operations and positions, and reported the location of hostages at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Senior news editors are accused of playing martial music between updates and providing airtime to Bollywood actors and other members of Mumbai's chatterati. One station even aired a telephone conversation with one of the 10 gunmen.

"One of the ill effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses," said K.G. Balakrishnan, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, during a recent conference on terrorism in New Delhi.

The relatively young medium of 24-hour television news received the lion's share of criticism. "There are people on television channels who are not even familiar with the basics of coverage," says Pankaj Vohra, political editor of the Hindustan Times in New Delhi. "I think it needs to evolve itself and it will become mature as time passes."

The most maligned journalist has been Barkha Dutt, the young news talk-show host of New Delhi television. The Facebook group, "Barkha Dutt for worst journalist in the world," has attracted nearly 1,500 members since its creation following the attacks. The site accuses her of being melodramatic, arrogant, and insensitive to relatives of victims.

Ms. Dutt and other television journalists have also been criticized for focusing on the sieges at the Taj and Oberoi hotels – domains of the country's wealthy and ruling elite – while largely ignoring the train station that was littered with the bodies of migrant workers. Fifty-eight people were gunned down there.

Dutt says she finds much of the criticism to be "incorrect and mean-spirited," but concedes that there is a lesson to be learned. "If there is even a shadow of doubt of security being compromised, the industry should be willing to delay-telecast so that we can once and for all end this argument," she says.

Regulating the industry could be a joint effort between the media and government, according to critics who say the government should also share some of the fault for the sensational coverage: Journalists did not have access to secure sites and very little official information was offered.

"A media crackdown is not the answer – self-regulated media is at the core of Indian democracy," says Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Times Now television channel. "This incident should highlight the need for government and media to work together."

The media has criticized both local and federal government for failing to set up fixed police lines around hostage sites and for not providing regular press briefings.

"The [media] beast has got to be constantly fed. The information flow from government sources was terrible," said Rajdeep Sardesai, editor-in-chief of the CNN-IBN news channel.

Around Nariman House, the center for Jewish life located in a neighborhood of small, labyrinthine streets, a member of India's elite antiterrorism squad brandishing a pistol chased a dozen reporters from the roof of a building opposite the siege, from where they had been perched for 36 hours. The journalists then ran across a narrow alley into an adjacent building to angle for a better position.

"In most places the police need to be trained at crowd management. Nobody expected this kind of attack, this magnitude of the attack," says Mr. Vohra of the Hindustan Times newspaper.

India's media played a prominent role in its independence movement, and for years journalism held a respected position in society.

"It's fine to say that the media overreacted and that it has become jingoistic and nationalistic. The question is why has it become like that," says Ajit Sahi, an editor at Tehelka magazine, India's leading investigative weekly. He argues that the profit motive of the corporate media houses has forced journalists out of unions by offering them twice or three times what they previously earned, though their employment is now governed by contracts that can be terminated at any time. The problem, argues Mr. Sahi, is that the current model guarantees journalists no protection, even if they object to a story being manipulated or sensationalized.

That's the accusation levied by one of India's most famous film directors, Mahesh Bhatt, against CNN-IBN's Mr. Sardesai, one of India's most prominent TV anchors. Bhatt went a step further and charged that Sardesai and his channel encroached on Bhatt's turf – fiction – after the channel played Bollywood theme songs from movies about wars between India and Pakistan during news updates.

"It's what we do in the movies – whipping up passion – and what was at stake, but a nuclear holocaust?" argues Bhatt, referring to the nuclear weapons capabilities of both South Asian countries. "You use the same tools – you keep the audience on a continuous high."

 

[Neo]

Guys please stick to the topic ot the thread will be closed.
Dr.Rehan, please follow the forum rules, racial or religious slurs are not tollerated here.

Neo

 

[aimarraul]

Everyone know where the terrorists come from,If US army could control the terrorists in Afghanistan instead of pursuing them into Pakistan,If Indian did a better job on the national security，none of these terrorist attacks will happen, US army just make the world worse ,and India is so afraid to make a voice against US,you indian just can't wait to find a reason to start a war in order to divert your attention from your own mess,just like US did in Iraq

 

[thorosius]

India's media blasted for sensational Mumbai coverage

With tensions running high between India and Pakistan, the press is being urged to quit fanning the flames.
By Daniel Pepper | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
from the December 24, 2008 edition


Mumbai, India - Emerging from decades of government control and regulations, India's media are quickly evolving into a boisterous, zealous fourth estate, most observers agree. But coverage of the 67-hour Mumbai (Bombay) terrorist attacks has caused unprecedented condemnation, especially toward 24-hour television news channels. Critics describe it as "TV terror" for showing gory scenes, being too aggressive, and often reporting incorrect information as fact.

"They don't need to apologize as much as they need to introspect – figure out how to operate in a time of crisis," says Dipankar Gupta, sociology professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.

On the evening of Nov. 26, well-coordinated attacks against two five-star hotels, a hospital, a popular cafe, a railway station, and a Jewish center brought the financial capital of India to its knees, leaving at least 171 dead and more than 230 injured.

In the following days, critics say, many Indian journalists were overly dramatic, sensationalist, and quick to report live "exclusives" of unconfirmed rumors. Many say TV anchors, who are minor celebrities in India, were overwrought with emotion and were quick to blame Pakistan for the attacks.

"It's high time we realize and accept that we are at fault," said Shishir Joshi, editorial director of Mid-Day, a Mumbai newspaper. "We did well getting into the line of fire, but from an ethical point of view we screwed up big-time."

Recognizing the missteps in coverage, the recently created National Broadcaster Association revealed a new set of rules for the industry last week. The guidelines ban broadcasting of footage that could reveal security operations and live contact with hostages or attackers.

The association, which represents many of the country's top news channels, hammered out the new regulations after several meetings with government officials. At the same time, India's Parliament is considering the creation of a broadcasting regulatory agency for private news channels.

Meanwhile, the story continues to develop, as tensions run high and add urgency to calls for media regulation. On Monday, India's Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherje insisted that Pakistan take aggressive action against those responsible for the Mumbai attacks. The Indian government is ready to "take all measures necessary as we deem fit to deal with the situation," Mr. Mukherje told a group of diplomats in Delhi.

For several weeks, India has been asking Pakistan to hand over insurgents involved with militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is suspected of masterminding the attacks. Pakistan has yet to confirm that the surviving gunman of the Mumbai attacks is Pakistani, despite reports Monday that Ajmal Amir Kasab made a statement, sent to Pakistan officials, claiming to be from Pakistan.

Television coverage of the attacks showed dead bodies and hostages trapped in rooms, revealed commando operations and positions, and reported the location of hostages at the Taj Mahal Hotel. Senior news editors are accused of playing martial music between updates and providing airtime to Bollywood actors and other members of Mumbai's chatterati. One station even aired a telephone conversation with one of the 10 gunmen.

"One of the ill effects of unrestrained coverage is that of provoking anger amongst the masses," said K.G. Balakrishnan, the chief justice of the Supreme Court of India, during a recent conference on terrorism in New Delhi.

The relatively young medium of 24-hour television news received the lion's share of criticism. "There are people on television channels who are not even familiar with the basics of coverage," says Pankaj Vohra, political editor of the Hindustan Times in New Delhi. "I think it needs to evolve itself and it will become mature as time passes."

The most maligned journalist has been Barkha Dutt, the young news talk-show host of New Delhi television. The Facebook group, "Barkha Dutt for worst journalist in the world," has attracted nearly 1,500 members since its creation following the attacks. The site accuses her of being melodramatic, arrogant, and insensitive to relatives of victims.

Ms. Dutt and other television journalists have also been criticized for focusing on the sieges at the Taj and Oberoi hotels – domains of the country's wealthy and ruling elite – while largely ignoring the train station that was littered with the bodies of migrant workers. Fifty-eight people were gunned down there.

Dutt says she finds much of the criticism to be "incorrect and mean-spirited," but concedes that there is a lesson to be learned. "If there is even a shadow of doubt of security being compromised, the industry should be willing to delay-telecast so that we can once and for all end this argument," she says.

Regulating the industry could be a joint effort between the media and government, according to critics who say the government should also share some of the fault for the sensational coverage: Journalists did not have access to secure sites and very little official information was offered.

"A media crackdown is not the answer – self-regulated media is at the core of Indian democracy," says Arnab Goswami, editor-in-chief of Times Now television channel. "This incident should highlight the need for government and media to work together."

The media has criticized both local and federal government for failing to set up fixed police lines around hostage sites and for not providing regular press briefings.

"The [media] beast has got to be constantly fed. The information flow from government sources was terrible," said Rajdeep Sardesai, editor-in-chief of the CNN-IBN news channel.

Around Nariman House, the center for Jewish life located in a neighborhood of small, labyrinthine streets, a member of India's elite antiterrorism squad brandishing a pistol chased a dozen reporters from the roof of a building opposite the siege, from where they had been perched for 36 hours. The journalists then ran across a narrow alley into an adjacent building to angle for a better position.

"In most places the police need to be trained at crowd management. Nobody expected this kind of attack, this magnitude of the attack," says Mr. Vohra of the Hindustan Times newspaper.

India's media played a prominent role in its independence movement, and for years journalism held a respected position in society.

"It's fine to say that the media overreacted and that it has become jingoistic and nationalistic. The question is why has it become like that," says Ajit Sahi, an editor at Tehelka magazine, India's leading investigative weekly. He argues that the profit motive of the corporate media houses has forced journalists out of unions by offering them twice or three times what they previously earned, though their employment is now governed by contracts that can be terminated at any time. The problem, argues Mr. Sahi, is that the current model guarantees journalists no protection, even if they object to a story being manipulated or sensationalized.

That's the accusation levied by one of India's most famous film directors, Mahesh Bhatt, against CNN-IBN's Mr. Sardesai, one of India's most prominent TV anchors. Bhatt went a step further and charged that Sardesai and his channel encroached on Bhatt's turf – fiction – after the channel played Bollywood theme songs from movies about wars between India and Pakistan during news updates.

"It's what we do in the movies – whipping up passion – and what was at stake, but a nuclear holocaust?" argues Bhatt, referring to the nuclear weapons capabilities of both South Asian countries. "You use the same tools – you keep the audience on a continuous high."

---
India's media blasted for sensational Mumbai coverage | csmonitor.com

 

[was]

 

[Lockheed F-16]

I don't like Iran but every speech I hear from Ahmadinejad impresses me, he speaks the truth which our politicians mainly Zardari and Rehman wouldn't speak out even if they were paid

 

[Moscow]

has anyone in the forum given it a thought?
indian claims of the pakistani origin of the said terrorista can be proven with the dna samples of the captured terrorists and also the slain terrorists

collected evidence — like hair and tissues from blankets and towels on the fishing trawlwr — that india claims to have being used by the terrorists.can be matched with the captured and slain terrorists.
also indian claims of the captured terrorists origin might also be helpful

 

[linkinpark]

has anyone in the forum given it a thought?
indian claims of the pakistani origin of the said terrorista can be proven with the dna samples of the captured terrorists and also the slain terrorists

collected evidence — like hair and tissues from blankets and towels on the fishing trawlwr — that india claims to have being used by the terrorists.can be matched with the captured and slain terrorists.
also indian claims of the captured terrorists origin might also be helpful

DNA has been already collected from all the terrorists. The investigative agencies should now get hold of parents or siblings or relatives DNA and match the DNA markers with them to confirm that the terrorists were from Pakistan.

There is no need for collecting hair or tissue from boat, it will not serve any purpose.

 

[linkinpark]

Here is how it works

The key to DNA evidence lies in comparing the DNA from the scene of a crime with a suspect's DNA. To do this, investigators have to do three things:

1)Collect DNA at the crime scene and from the suspect
2)Analyze the DNA to create a DNA profile
3)Compare the profiles to each other

For complete information on DNA evidence go here

HowStuffWorks "How DNA Evidence Works"