roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
The Lt Col Purohit's handlers sure benefitted.
Mumbai Attacks
- Thread starter BanglaBhoot
- Start date
- Status
RabzonKhan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
Interesting.
Antulay self-goal: sees a Malegaon mystery in Karkare Mumbai murder
Dec 18, 2008
MANOJ C G & SEEMA CHISHTI
NEW DELHI: Union Minority Affairs Minister A R Antulay today kicked up a political storm when he raised doubts over the circumstances around the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and suggested a link with the Malegaon blasts that the officer and his team were investigating.
Calling for a CBI probe into his death, Antulay said there is more than what meets the eye as Karkare was investigating cases in which there are non-Muslims also and somebody wanted Karkare killed. That somebody, Antulay claimed, sent the officer to the place where he was killed.
Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said these should be treated as Antulays personal views and the party did not agree with him.
Karkare was attacked by leaders of the BJP for his probe into the blast that killed six Muslims in Malegaon on September 29 11 suspected Hindu extremists are in jail in the case. Leader of the Opposition L K Advani had even called for a change in the investigation team.
The BJP attacked Antulay for his remarks and demanded an immediate clarification from the Prime Minister.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Antulay said: Somebody who knew both the ends sent him (Karkare) in the wrong direction otherwise why should he have gone to Cama hospital? He should have gone to Taj, Oberoi or Nariman House. He went to such a place where there was nothing compared to what was happening in these three places. He went to the Cama hospital on the basis of a phone call. Who is that person who made the phone call? This should be probed.
Karkare found that there are non-Muslims involved in acts of terrorism... Any person going to the roots of Terror has always been the target... Superficially speaking, they (the terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something, I do not know, he said.
I cant say who killed him, Antulay said. I leave it you. But you remember what all was said against the poor man. He was an upright officer. I know a bandh call was given against him before he was killed.
He said the CBI should be asked to find out who was responsible for sending him (Karkare) in the wrong direction... somebody wanted him to be killed... why all three (Karkare, Additional Commissioner Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar) went together is beyond my comprehension.
Under fire from the BJP and Shiv Sena in Lok Sabha, Antulay later said he had not talked about who killed Karkare but only about who sent him in the direction of Cama hospital.
He told The Indian Express that his questions regarding Karkares death had nothing to do with the veracity of the reports and the investigation of the Mumbai Terror attacks which have made it clear that the terrorists had come from Pakistan. There is no issue on that, that has been clearly established. Anybody interpreting my questions in any other way is doing so out of context.
On the amendments in the law to tackle terror, Antulay said that it would be better if the same stringency is exercised against major cases of rioting... communalism and terror are twin brother/sister, and if the Act covers Naxalism which is a form of extremist violence, there is no reason not to think that it should also be applicable to all forms of extremist violence which includes major communal incidents.
Any law can be misused. I cannot rule out the possibility of this law also being misused. What I am saying is that suppose if it is made applicable to cases of communal riots also, then everybody will keep quiet, he said.
Antulay self-goal: sees a Malegaon mystery in Karkare Mumbai murder
Dec 18, 2008
MANOJ C G & SEEMA CHISHTI
NEW DELHI: Union Minority Affairs Minister A R Antulay today kicked up a political storm when he raised doubts over the circumstances around the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and suggested a link with the Malegaon blasts that the officer and his team were investigating.
Calling for a CBI probe into his death, Antulay said there is more than what meets the eye as Karkare was investigating cases in which there are non-Muslims also and somebody wanted Karkare killed. That somebody, Antulay claimed, sent the officer to the place where he was killed.
Congress spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said these should be treated as Antulays personal views and the party did not agree with him.
Karkare was attacked by leaders of the BJP for his probe into the blast that killed six Muslims in Malegaon on September 29 11 suspected Hindu extremists are in jail in the case. Leader of the Opposition L K Advani had even called for a change in the investigation team.
The BJP attacked Antulay for his remarks and demanded an immediate clarification from the Prime Minister.
Speaking to The Indian Express, Antulay said: Somebody who knew both the ends sent him (Karkare) in the wrong direction otherwise why should he have gone to Cama hospital? He should have gone to Taj, Oberoi or Nariman House. He went to such a place where there was nothing compared to what was happening in these three places. He went to the Cama hospital on the basis of a phone call. Who is that person who made the phone call? This should be probed.
Karkare found that there are non-Muslims involved in acts of terrorism... Any person going to the roots of Terror has always been the target... Superficially speaking, they (the terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something, I do not know, he said.
I cant say who killed him, Antulay said. I leave it you. But you remember what all was said against the poor man. He was an upright officer. I know a bandh call was given against him before he was killed.
He said the CBI should be asked to find out who was responsible for sending him (Karkare) in the wrong direction... somebody wanted him to be killed... why all three (Karkare, Additional Commissioner Ashok Kamte and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar) went together is beyond my comprehension.
Under fire from the BJP and Shiv Sena in Lok Sabha, Antulay later said he had not talked about who killed Karkare but only about who sent him in the direction of Cama hospital.
He told The Indian Express that his questions regarding Karkares death had nothing to do with the veracity of the reports and the investigation of the Mumbai Terror attacks which have made it clear that the terrorists had come from Pakistan. There is no issue on that, that has been clearly established. Anybody interpreting my questions in any other way is doing so out of context.
On the amendments in the law to tackle terror, Antulay said that it would be better if the same stringency is exercised against major cases of rioting... communalism and terror are twin brother/sister, and if the Act covers Naxalism which is a form of extremist violence, there is no reason not to think that it should also be applicable to all forms of extremist violence which includes major communal incidents.
Any law can be misused. I cannot rule out the possibility of this law also being misused. What I am saying is that suppose if it is made applicable to cases of communal riots also, then everybody will keep quiet, he said.
By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press Writer Wed Dec 17, 2008
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan Pakistan sought to put some of the pressure over the Mumbai bloodshed on India, demanding Wednesday that its neighbor hand over "concrete evidence" against Pakistani citizens and groups allegedly involved in the terror attack.
Officials have been saying for days that they need evidence to try suspects, but there has no sign India would provide any of its findings soon.
The squabble epitomizes the distrust between the nuclear-armed countries, which have fought three wars in six decades. But leaders of both nations also have political problems from the assault that killed 164 people in India's financial capital.
Pakistan's government must maintain the support of a public easily angered by Indian complaints, yet it faces rising global concern about al-Qaida, Taliban and other Islamic militants operating on Pakistani soil. It also needs evidence to keep courts from freeing suspects.
India is trying to calm a public outraged by the Mumbai attack and alleged Pakistani complicity, and its investigators are dealing with shooting scenes scattered across the city. Officials also may worry that sharing evidence could compromise some intelligence methods.
"There's a lack of trust and confidence in each other, in spite of saying that there's a common threat that both of us face," said Indian security analyst Ashok Mehta. "There's a conspicuous lack of confidence in sharing intelligence."
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said his government hasn't seen any information on the attack except for what has been reported by news media. That isn't sufficient for Pakistan to prosecute suspects, he said.
"India needs to provide concrete evidence for these investigations to move forward," Qureshi said. "We do not share evidence through the media. There are diplomatic channels for that."
The United States and Britain have backed India's assertions that Lashkar-e-Taiba, an outlawed Pakistan-based militant group with alleged ties to Pakistani intelligence and al-Qaida, was behind the Mumbai attack. India also says the one gunman captured alive and nine who died came from Pakistan.
Besides arresting some suspects, Pakistan has shuttered offices of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, a charity that the U.N. recently branded as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba.
The crackdown, especially on the charity, has prompted public protests, including one by dozens of children Wednesday in Karachi. Jamaat-ud-Dawa is popular among many Pakistanis for its schools, medical assistance and disaster relief.
"Because the public at least doesn't know what the specific evidence was, the sympathy of the public is not necessarily with the government," said Tasnim Noorani, a former Pakistani interior secretary. "However, if they have the evidence ... the actions of the government of Pakistan would be that much more credible."
Government leaders have been reluctant to acknowledge any of the attackers were Pakistani, even though a major Pakistani newspaper carried an interview with a man in a Pakistani village who confirmed the surviving attacker was his son.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari told British Broadcasting Corp. in an interview posted online Wednesday that reports of the living gunman's background were being investigated.
"There've been disputed positions in the press," Zardari said. "So I would say the investigation is ongoing and I would not jump to a conclusion."
Pakistani officials have steadfastly ruled out handing over any suspects to India. The stance reflects the need of the civilian government to avoid offending the public by seeming to bow to India or to the U.S., which is a major source of aid but is viewed warily by many Pakistanis.
"Things have not been made easy by the Indian government the way it acted, quite in haste, going public" with accusations, Pakistani political analyst Rasul Bakhsh Rais said. "A lot of people in positions here are demanding similar kinds of noises and accusing the government of buckling under pressure and not taking a firm nationalistic posture."
A Pakistani defense analyst, Ayesha Siddiqa, said it was possible India "had no evidence" to share, but he added it was more likely that Indian officials were worried about giving away some of their methods, especially if it involved intelligence work.
The attack also gave Indian investigators a complicated case, with the deaths and destruction spread over three days.
Even Pakistan's foreign minister seemed to acknowledge those challenges.
"Obviously they have to have a watertight case," Qureshi told Dawn News television. "Obviously they are doing that and perhaps they are not ready yet."
LONDON (AFP) Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari insisted in an interview with the BBC on Wednesday that there was no firm proof linking his country to last month's attacks on India's financial centre, Mumbai.
Speaking to the British broadcaster from Islamabad, he said the investigations into the attacks were ongoing and he would "not jump to a conclusion" on who was responsible until they were complete.
New Delhi has fingered "elements" in Pakistan for the attacks that left 172 people dead, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said militants from Pakistan-based group Laskhar-e-Taiba were responsible.
"What we are saying is that we are willing to cooperate -- and you know like anybody else does, that investigation is an evolving process, it hasn't been long enough" to come to any conclusions, Zardari said.
He added: "I think we will hold our judgement till the proper investigation and conclusive evidence is shared between Pakistan and India, and we're hoping that that would happen because we've asked for a joint investigation."
Put to him that the sole surviving gunman has been identified as a Pakistan national, the president said: "No, we don't know that, we haven't investigated that, we are investigating that position.
"There have been disputed positions in the press... I would say the investigation is ongoing and I would not jump to a conclusion."
However, he said his country was prepared to act if links to Pakistan emerged.
"If that stage comes, and when it comes, I assure you that our parliament, our democracy, shall take the action properly deemed in our constitution and in our law," he said.
Goodperson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,860
- Reaction score
- 0
No the proof should not be shared with Pakistan first, India should exhaust international forum first then finally share evidence with Pakistan. It is not an aggrieved party none of its citizens were harmed in Mumbai attacks.
What ever Pakistan reaction is seen is just assumptions only for domestic consumption there are no buyers for the same outside.
India has provided details of every terrorist to the media I doubt Pakistan has even conducted their background checks and as the reaction is negative that itself shows what response would India get after sharing the whole evidence.
First time a terrorist was caught alive when so many Indians and foreigners were killed and so much of Media glare.
What ever Pakistan reaction is seen is just assumptions only for domestic consumption there are no buyers for the same outside.
India has provided details of every terrorist to the media I doubt Pakistan has even conducted their background checks and as the reaction is negative that itself shows what response would India get after sharing the whole evidence.
First time a terrorist was caught alive when so many Indians and foreigners were killed and so much of Media glare.
roadrunner
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 5,696
- Reaction score
- 0
Then there is no case against Pakistan until you provide this evidence.
I hope your truth serum worked.
I hope your truth serum worked.
You mean spread more propaganda?
Without proof you have no case, just assumptions. Only buyers are the media, not leaders.
As my FM stated, media isn't the official tool to share intelligence, there are proper channels and India hasn't used them. The ball is still in your court, rest us drama.
Lets confirm his nationality first and we'll see.
Btw the claim by Indian media that he wrote a letter to GoP has been refuted by Pak court.
PakShaheen79
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,548
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
Mumbai * Murky Piece Of A Tangled Web
Terrell E. Arnold
12-17-8
Beginning on the evening of November 26, Mumbai, India, a city of 13 million people, was disrupted by a terrorist attack that was worse than anything it had ever before experienced in a long history of exposure to violence. Ten determined terrorists, equipped only with rifles, handguns and grenades, took the lives of nearly 200 people, defaced and nearly destroyed famous Mumbai landmark hotels, and wounded over 300 more people before they were stopped. It was a well-planned and executed piece of carnage that took Indian police and counterterrorism forces nearly sixty hours to bring to an end.
Why it took so long to contain this attack of only ten shooters will remain a serious question, but the terrorists, only one of whom was taken alive, were obviously well prepared. They separated, attacked at least five separate sites, knew their way around the places they assaulted, and in some degree were aided by the early unwillingness of police to shoot back. Moreover, the terrorists apparently came prepared for the long haul with ample supplies of ammunition and bags of sliced almonds to stave off hunger. In that respect they did not behave like martyrs, although they certainly had reason to expect death. But the puzzles they left behind are certainly much larger than life.
The official Indian narrative, at least as of now, is that the terrorists were members of a Pakistani group called Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). That group is usually associated with the half-century old Indo-Pak struggle for Jammu and Kashmir, and it reportedly has a suicide group called the fidayeen. However, the principle link of the Mumbai attacks to the LeT is the confession of the surviving member of the group of ten. That statement appears to have been obtained after several hours of interrogation by Indian authorities who have no qualms about torture, and therefore the smooth and complete story that emerged could be as much if not more a matter of what he was led to say rather than what he confessed. We are unlikely to know.
Pakistani authorities have not bought the story, and they have asked for proof. Meanwhile, they have rounded up a number of LeT members, but they have refused an Indian request to extradite the Let members to India. The LeT prisoners, say Pakistani authorities, will be dealt with under Pakistani law.
There are many loose ends. The present narrative has the group arriving by a boat they seized earlier from its owner, coming ashore with all their gear in hand, and openly taking two taxis to their target destinations. That appears inconsistent with the report that they knew the sites they attacked very well and had well-planned approaches to them. Such preparation could mean either prior planning visits to the sites or the aid of people on site who provided planning information. Those preparations also plausibly suggest that the attacks were domestic.
Further inconsistencies have been introduced by police reports that one or more of the shooters had yellow wrist bands, a trademark associated with a domestic Hindu extremist group. Furthermore, so far the people arrested by Indian authorities in connection with the attacks have been Indian nationals. The inconsistencies lead knowledgeable observers of the India terrorism scene to assert that the Mumbai attacks were domestic in origin.
Domestic roots for such an attack are not improbable. Over the past decade India has lost more than 50,000 casualties to terrorist/ insurgent attacks. Although they tend to be concentrated in two main areas, Jammu/Kashmir and the northeast region including major states of West Bengal and Assam, India has almost 200 terrorist, extremist, separatist groups. Many of these groups are small and/or inactive, but as many as a dozen Jammu/Kashmir groups are active and important, while about an equal number of group are active in the northeast. Hindu extremists have led brutal attacks on Muslims.
Sticking out in this landscape is a sub-continental reality of which few outsiders may be aware. Three former British territories (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh-the former East Pakistan) share numerous trans-border population problems. To begin with, the population of Pakistan is about 105 million, of which nearly 2 million are Hindus. On the Indian side of the frontier, Hindus dominate the country's 1.3 billion population, but there are an estimated 150 million Muslims of Indian nationality. In the east, Bangladesh has a Muslim population of roughly 150 million, but its Hindu minority (about 30% of the population when the territory was formed in 1946) has been systematically expelled and probably numbers no more than a million.
Historically complicating this landscape are trans-border affiliations, loyalties, and periodic conflicts. Present states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are geographic products of the British retreat. While loyalties and tribal affiliations may extinguish or become less important in time, there are still strong Indian and Pakistani feelings about the region called the Punjab, now divided between India (roughly one third) and Pakistan. That region remains an unsettled ethnic and cultural mix as do Jammu and Kashmir, and the northeast region that mainly is defined by the Ganges River that flows through the Indian heart of it and the Brahmaputra River that flows out of the Himalayas, across India's state of Assam and through Bangladesh to the Bay of Bengal. The potential clashes in these regions are only partly about Hindu/ Muslim differences. Assamese groups, for example, want to secede from India.
One of the problems with assessing Mumbai is that there are political pros and cons with all the choices. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh probably would prefer an outsider attack, because a domestic source, whether Hindu or Muslim, has enormous political implications. If his government has to go after Hindu extremists, for example, such prosecutions could undercut Congress party political chances.
Singh probably understands the politics of the situation better than most. He was born in 1932 in the town of Gah in pre- independence Punjab in what is now Pakistan. He is the first member of the Sikh faith to become prime minister, and as a leader of India's Congress Party, he undoubtedly has struggled with the problems of minority religious affiliation that complicate Indian politics. Addressing a congress of jurists on December 13, he cited the history of deadly terrorist attacks across India in the past several years (cases of Hindu, Muslim and other domestic attacks) but said the problem needed to be approached with caution. His dilemma is that attacking Muslims on either side of the Indo/Pak frontier will unsettle communities on both sides of that frontier, and even proof of guilt-which is by no means obvious at this point-- is no defense against such consequences.
The US War on Terrorism complicates the situation as well. US raids into Pakistan have angered many Pakistanis and threatened the stability of Pakistan's newly reinstalled democratic government. A crass reality of the post Mumbai decision environment is that US justification for continuing its operations in Afghanistan and its raids into Pakistan is supported by proof of a Mumbai attack by Pakistani extremists, but an indigenous Hindu or Muslim attack would be no help in that regard. If the US and Israel encourage and support an Indian attack on reported Lashkar-e-Taiba sites in Pakistan, the situation of that government would probably deteriorate further.
The reality of the Mumbai attacks is that they were a product of enduring racial, cultural and religious differences within regional societies as well as trans-border tensions and animosities that plague the entire subcontinent. Those conditions are not new, and they are by no means close to resolution. Realistically they cannot be resolved by mere exercises of police power or a heated up war on terrorism. Should India succumb to the temptation to respond by conducting raids into Pakistan against Lashkar-e-Taiba, that will only increase tensions between two nuclear-armed countries; it will also exacerbate Hindu-Muslim tensions within India and the rest of the subcontinent.
Reportedly, Indian authorities have asked for Israeli help in mounting an attack on LeT sites in Pakistan. If the Israelis respond to this nod, they will do so only with full US awareness and blessing. Such a move fits the US and Israeli models for fighting terrorism; under those models, national borders do not matter, and civilian casualties are unimportant. The brutal fact, however, is that even if such raids succeeded in eliminating LeT as a group, nothing would improve in India, tensions would mount between the two countries, and warfare could easily result between two nuclear powers in which either side could decide the way to end it is to go nuclear. A no more cheering prospect is that in the aftermath of Indian raids the already fragmented Pakistani political system would simply collapse, creating the first situation in which the government of a nuclear power loses control of its nuclear weapons and materials. Only the terrorists and their supporters would benefit from that outcome.
Those prospects demand patience and careful action by concerned regional governments, but the situation requires total hands off by outsiders. Governance in Pakistan is fragile. It is not helped by US raids into Pakistani territory which weaken the authority of an already challenged government. An India raid could possibly cause Pakistanis to rally around their present democratic leadership, but it could as easily cause that government to disassemble.
On the Indian side, Manmohan Singh knows that if he fails to look decisive his party's political prospects are dim. However, if he were to choose to attack the Hindu right that may have arranged, sponsored, or facilitated the Mumbai attacks, his party could well be voted out in the next election. This boils down to a situation in which the least costly response may be to stand still. That choice could take the form of investigating the attacks while buying as much post attack time as possible for matters to cool. This choice would be wise, but it takes a great deal of political nerve, perhaps more than may be available.
**********
The writer is the author of the recently published work, A World Less Safe, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State whose overseas service included tours in Egypt, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Brazil. His immediate pre-retirement positions were as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College and as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counter Terrorism and Emergency Planning.
Mumbai Murky Piece Of A Tangled Web
Terrell E. Arnold
12-17-8
Beginning on the evening of November 26, Mumbai, India, a city of 13 million people, was disrupted by a terrorist attack that was worse than anything it had ever before experienced in a long history of exposure to violence. Ten determined terrorists, equipped only with rifles, handguns and grenades, took the lives of nearly 200 people, defaced and nearly destroyed famous Mumbai landmark hotels, and wounded over 300 more people before they were stopped. It was a well-planned and executed piece of carnage that took Indian police and counterterrorism forces nearly sixty hours to bring to an end.
Why it took so long to contain this attack of only ten shooters will remain a serious question, but the terrorists, only one of whom was taken alive, were obviously well prepared. They separated, attacked at least five separate sites, knew their way around the places they assaulted, and in some degree were aided by the early unwillingness of police to shoot back. Moreover, the terrorists apparently came prepared for the long haul with ample supplies of ammunition and bags of sliced almonds to stave off hunger. In that respect they did not behave like martyrs, although they certainly had reason to expect death. But the puzzles they left behind are certainly much larger than life.
The official Indian narrative, at least as of now, is that the terrorists were members of a Pakistani group called Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). That group is usually associated with the half-century old Indo-Pak struggle for Jammu and Kashmir, and it reportedly has a suicide group called the fidayeen. However, the principle link of the Mumbai attacks to the LeT is the confession of the surviving member of the group of ten. That statement appears to have been obtained after several hours of interrogation by Indian authorities who have no qualms about torture, and therefore the smooth and complete story that emerged could be as much if not more a matter of what he was led to say rather than what he confessed. We are unlikely to know.
Pakistani authorities have not bought the story, and they have asked for proof. Meanwhile, they have rounded up a number of LeT members, but they have refused an Indian request to extradite the Let members to India. The LeT prisoners, say Pakistani authorities, will be dealt with under Pakistani law.
There are many loose ends. The present narrative has the group arriving by a boat they seized earlier from its owner, coming ashore with all their gear in hand, and openly taking two taxis to their target destinations. That appears inconsistent with the report that they knew the sites they attacked very well and had well-planned approaches to them. Such preparation could mean either prior planning visits to the sites or the aid of people on site who provided planning information. Those preparations also plausibly suggest that the attacks were domestic.
Further inconsistencies have been introduced by police reports that one or more of the shooters had yellow wrist bands, a trademark associated with a domestic Hindu extremist group. Furthermore, so far the people arrested by Indian authorities in connection with the attacks have been Indian nationals. The inconsistencies lead knowledgeable observers of the India terrorism scene to assert that the Mumbai attacks were domestic in origin.
Domestic roots for such an attack are not improbable. Over the past decade India has lost more than 50,000 casualties to terrorist/ insurgent attacks. Although they tend to be concentrated in two main areas, Jammu/Kashmir and the northeast region including major states of West Bengal and Assam, India has almost 200 terrorist, extremist, separatist groups. Many of these groups are small and/or inactive, but as many as a dozen Jammu/Kashmir groups are active and important, while about an equal number of group are active in the northeast. Hindu extremists have led brutal attacks on Muslims.
Sticking out in this landscape is a sub-continental reality of which few outsiders may be aware. Three former British territories (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh-the former East Pakistan) share numerous trans-border population problems. To begin with, the population of Pakistan is about 105 million, of which nearly 2 million are Hindus. On the Indian side of the frontier, Hindus dominate the country's 1.3 billion population, but there are an estimated 150 million Muslims of Indian nationality. In the east, Bangladesh has a Muslim population of roughly 150 million, but its Hindu minority (about 30% of the population when the territory was formed in 1946) has been systematically expelled and probably numbers no more than a million.
Historically complicating this landscape are trans-border affiliations, loyalties, and periodic conflicts. Present states of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh are geographic products of the British retreat. While loyalties and tribal affiliations may extinguish or become less important in time, there are still strong Indian and Pakistani feelings about the region called the Punjab, now divided between India (roughly one third) and Pakistan. That region remains an unsettled ethnic and cultural mix as do Jammu and Kashmir, and the northeast region that mainly is defined by the Ganges River that flows through the Indian heart of it and the Brahmaputra River that flows out of the Himalayas, across India's state of Assam and through Bangladesh to the Bay of Bengal. The potential clashes in these regions are only partly about Hindu/ Muslim differences. Assamese groups, for example, want to secede from India.
One of the problems with assessing Mumbai is that there are political pros and cons with all the choices. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh probably would prefer an outsider attack, because a domestic source, whether Hindu or Muslim, has enormous political implications. If his government has to go after Hindu extremists, for example, such prosecutions could undercut Congress party political chances.
Singh probably understands the politics of the situation better than most. He was born in 1932 in the town of Gah in pre- independence Punjab in what is now Pakistan. He is the first member of the Sikh faith to become prime minister, and as a leader of India's Congress Party, he undoubtedly has struggled with the problems of minority religious affiliation that complicate Indian politics. Addressing a congress of jurists on December 13, he cited the history of deadly terrorist attacks across India in the past several years (cases of Hindu, Muslim and other domestic attacks) but said the problem needed to be approached with caution. His dilemma is that attacking Muslims on either side of the Indo/Pak frontier will unsettle communities on both sides of that frontier, and even proof of guilt-which is by no means obvious at this point-- is no defense against such consequences.
The US War on Terrorism complicates the situation as well. US raids into Pakistan have angered many Pakistanis and threatened the stability of Pakistan's newly reinstalled democratic government. A crass reality of the post Mumbai decision environment is that US justification for continuing its operations in Afghanistan and its raids into Pakistan is supported by proof of a Mumbai attack by Pakistani extremists, but an indigenous Hindu or Muslim attack would be no help in that regard. If the US and Israel encourage and support an Indian attack on reported Lashkar-e-Taiba sites in Pakistan, the situation of that government would probably deteriorate further.
The reality of the Mumbai attacks is that they were a product of enduring racial, cultural and religious differences within regional societies as well as trans-border tensions and animosities that plague the entire subcontinent. Those conditions are not new, and they are by no means close to resolution. Realistically they cannot be resolved by mere exercises of police power or a heated up war on terrorism. Should India succumb to the temptation to respond by conducting raids into Pakistan against Lashkar-e-Taiba, that will only increase tensions between two nuclear-armed countries; it will also exacerbate Hindu-Muslim tensions within India and the rest of the subcontinent.
Reportedly, Indian authorities have asked for Israeli help in mounting an attack on LeT sites in Pakistan. If the Israelis respond to this nod, they will do so only with full US awareness and blessing. Such a move fits the US and Israeli models for fighting terrorism; under those models, national borders do not matter, and civilian casualties are unimportant. The brutal fact, however, is that even if such raids succeeded in eliminating LeT as a group, nothing would improve in India, tensions would mount between the two countries, and warfare could easily result between two nuclear powers in which either side could decide the way to end it is to go nuclear. A no more cheering prospect is that in the aftermath of Indian raids the already fragmented Pakistani political system would simply collapse, creating the first situation in which the government of a nuclear power loses control of its nuclear weapons and materials. Only the terrorists and their supporters would benefit from that outcome.
Those prospects demand patience and careful action by concerned regional governments, but the situation requires total hands off by outsiders. Governance in Pakistan is fragile. It is not helped by US raids into Pakistani territory which weaken the authority of an already challenged government. An India raid could possibly cause Pakistanis to rally around their present democratic leadership, but it could as easily cause that government to disassemble.
On the Indian side, Manmohan Singh knows that if he fails to look decisive his party's political prospects are dim. However, if he were to choose to attack the Hindu right that may have arranged, sponsored, or facilitated the Mumbai attacks, his party could well be voted out in the next election. This boils down to a situation in which the least costly response may be to stand still. That choice could take the form of investigating the attacks while buying as much post attack time as possible for matters to cool. This choice would be wise, but it takes a great deal of political nerve, perhaps more than may be available.
**********
The writer is the author of the recently published work, A World Less Safe, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular columnist on rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign Service Officer of the US Department of State whose overseas service included tours in Egypt, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Brazil. His immediate pre-retirement positions were as Chairman of the Department of International Studies of the National War College and as Deputy Director of the State Office of Counter Terrorism and Emergency Planning.
Mumbai Murky Piece Of A Tangled Web
Goodperson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,860
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope because Pakistan is not a agrieved party none of its citizens got injured or killed during Mumbai attacks.
Investigations are on but still you need to act on leads. Its true with any criminal case too.
Its official tool for the public world over It has reaches inside Pakistan, Even your own media has revealed the truth.
I do not know the status of the letter or wy it was not presented to Pakistan but it seems some lawyer has taken up Ajmals case. Regarding Kasabs nationality it has been established.
dr.umer
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 0
18 Dec 2008
The FBI has cleared Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of any involvement in last month's terror attack on India's financial hub.
After interrogating the sole surviving gunman, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concluded that the ISI was cleared of any involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks on November 26, Pakistani daily The Dawn quoted diplomatic sources as saying on Thursday.
Pakistani Mohammed Ajmal Amir Qasab was among a group of 10 armed men who went on a shooting rampage in more than 10 sites, including two luxury hotels, in Mumbai.
Citing other sources, The Dawn said investigations had also revealed that the attackers had crossed the border from Pakistan, where the well-orchestrated plot was sketched by the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
The ISI was accused of being involved in the Mumbai attacks due to its past associations with the LeT, which received CIA and ISI support to fight the soviet-backed government in Afghanistan.
The CIA had built extensive bases for the LeT in Pakistan and Afghanistan to train thousands of guerrilla fighters, according to Frontline magazine.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has repeated asked India for concrete proof implicating the LeT in the attack, as tension between the two neighbors intensifies.
The nuclear-armed nations already have a history of three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.
The FBI has cleared Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) of any involvement in last month's terror attack on India's financial hub.
After interrogating the sole surviving gunman, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concluded that the ISI was cleared of any involvement in the Mumbai terror attacks on November 26, Pakistani daily The Dawn quoted diplomatic sources as saying on Thursday.
Pakistani Mohammed Ajmal Amir Qasab was among a group of 10 armed men who went on a shooting rampage in more than 10 sites, including two luxury hotels, in Mumbai.
Citing other sources, The Dawn said investigations had also revealed that the attackers had crossed the border from Pakistan, where the well-orchestrated plot was sketched by the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
The ISI was accused of being involved in the Mumbai attacks due to its past associations with the LeT, which received CIA and ISI support to fight the soviet-backed government in Afghanistan.
The CIA had built extensive bases for the LeT in Pakistan and Afghanistan to train thousands of guerrilla fighters, according to Frontline magazine.
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari has repeated asked India for concrete proof implicating the LeT in the attack, as tension between the two neighbors intensifies.
The nuclear-armed nations already have a history of three wars since independence from Britain in 1947.
dr.umer
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 0
Regarding Pakistan two questions were answered.
Question: On Pakistan. There is some concern in India that Pakistan is not taking enough action against Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which is described as the front group to Lashkar e-Tayyiba. What's your reaction to that? Do you think that they are being sincere about their reaction to Jamaat-ud-Dawa?
MR. WOOD: I think they're the Pakistani Government is being very sincere. Look, they're on the front lines of terrorism, as we've said many times before. We've learned from our own experience about how some of these charitable organizations are tied into terrorist groups. This is something that they're going to have to disentangle.
But they've given us a very solemn commitment. They've told the Indians that they're going to do everything they can to help with the investigation in terms of trying to find out who did this and to prevent future attacks from happening. So we don't have any doubt that Pakistan is committed to trying to get to the bottom of this.
QUESTION: You said the Pakistan Government is being very sincere. Do you think the Pakistan army is being sincere?
MR. WOOD: I have no reason to doubt that. I mean, the Pakistani civilian government, you know well, the Pakistani military submits to civilian government control, so we deal with the Pakistani Government. And we believe that they're, as I said, committed to trying to get to the bottom of this investigation and make sure these attacks don't happen. So I have no reason to think that the Pakistani army feels otherwise.
voiceofaa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 593
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Kisi waid (Hakim, Dr.) ko bulao gorio
Inki nabz bhi dikhao gorio
Inhain naaz hai bohot khud par
Inhain aaena dikhao gorio
MastanKhan
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 21,269
- Reaction score
- 166
- Country
- Location
Hi,
Most analysts are not taking into account the reaction by PAF if IAF struck any sites in pakistan. They have seemingly written off PAF or in their ignorance taken pakistan to be on the same level as afghanistan and india as that of the U S of A. The PAF will strike as hard or harder than the IAF in their initial response and that will automatically take the conflict to the next level. It is not a good thing to be at the next level.
I am very sure that the writer has intentionally left the resources of the PAF out of the picture and tried to show pakistan a weakling who will go nuclaer right from the gitgo.
The mumbai atacks were intentionally set up by someone to create a major rift amongst india and pakistan----was it motivated by al qaeda---let or was it the brainchild of the right wing hindu extremist. We all know the intellect of a young pakistani kid when it comes to religion----he is basically an idiot---you just have to wave the banner of islam in front of him and the kid may do the worst crimes possible in the name of islam----pakistani boys have the same mentality as that of a BULL when it looks at the RED flag in the hands of the 'matador'----you just have to recite something in 'arabic' which then is translated into killing trhe 'kafirs' and now you the recipe.
Can this 'recipe' be used by RAW or any other anti pakistan, pro india organization---absolutely---
It will be truly amazing to see the reaction when this suicide bomber or a terrorist killer goes to the other side ( dies )-----and then finds out that his or her trainer was a hindu fanatic who trained them to kill their own---what would be going through his mind----would their be enough conscience left in the killer to repent even after death---I doubt it---let me know what you think.
Most analysts are not taking into account the reaction by PAF if IAF struck any sites in pakistan. They have seemingly written off PAF or in their ignorance taken pakistan to be on the same level as afghanistan and india as that of the U S of A. The PAF will strike as hard or harder than the IAF in their initial response and that will automatically take the conflict to the next level. It is not a good thing to be at the next level.
I am very sure that the writer has intentionally left the resources of the PAF out of the picture and tried to show pakistan a weakling who will go nuclaer right from the gitgo.
The mumbai atacks were intentionally set up by someone to create a major rift amongst india and pakistan----was it motivated by al qaeda---let or was it the brainchild of the right wing hindu extremist. We all know the intellect of a young pakistani kid when it comes to religion----he is basically an idiot---you just have to wave the banner of islam in front of him and the kid may do the worst crimes possible in the name of islam----pakistani boys have the same mentality as that of a BULL when it looks at the RED flag in the hands of the 'matador'----you just have to recite something in 'arabic' which then is translated into killing trhe 'kafirs' and now you the recipe.
Can this 'recipe' be used by RAW or any other anti pakistan, pro india organization---absolutely---
It will be truly amazing to see the reaction when this suicide bomber or a terrorist killer goes to the other side ( dies )-----and then finds out that his or her trainer was a hindu fanatic who trained them to kill their own---what would be going through his mind----would their be enough conscience left in the killer to repent even after death---I doubt it---let me know what you think.
TOPGUN
PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
- Messages
- 8,689
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Stop trying to always cover up the facts and the true story! EVIDENCE first then all the 
later thats always the prob with you people ! we will and shall punish those that did this cowardly act but cant until and unless u stop this stupid blame game trying to fram Pakistan and its people and give hard hitting EVIDENCE anyone can say things just like the indian media has been bs'n and all trash so lets see wat the Indian gov provides other then that just shut it for now 
later thats always the prob with you people ! we will and shall punish those that did this cowardly act but cant until and unless u stop this stupid blame game trying to fram Pakistan and its people and give hard hitting EVIDENCE anyone can say things just like the indian media has been bs'n and all trash so lets see wat the Indian gov provides other then that just shut it for now
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
