What's new

Nawaz Sharif Claims Pak Terrorists Carried Out 26/11 Mumbai Attacks

Its was planned interview and this interview was suppose to be done by indian journalist but pakistan denied visa because that journaliat was black listed and recent visit of indian offical to GEO TV Station.
 
@DESERT FIGHTER

Or how did Pak reward Capt Karnal Sher Khan? Whose body was taken from Delhi and awarded NH? And many others?

You accepted the bodies only after your lies about your soldiers involvement were exposed.

Before that you were denying your involvement and claiming it was all mujahid.

Here is the letter for your perusal.

Press Release regarding bodies of two Pakistan Army Officers



July 15, 1999
New Delhi

The Pakistan authorities have adamantly refused to acknowledge the involvement of Pakistan Army regulars in the misadventure in Kargil. The callousness and inhumanity with which they are persisting in this fiction is demonstrated in the current matter concerning the bodies of two officers of the Pakistan Army who had died in action on the Indian side of the Line of Control in Kargil. The body of Capt. Imtiaz Malik of 165 Mortar Regiment was found at Point 4875 in the Mushkoh sub-sector. The body of Capt. Karnal Sher of 12 Northern Light Infantry was found on Tiger Hill in the Dras sub-sector. The identities of these two officers were established by correspondence found on their person. Both bodies are in possession of the Indian Army authorities.

The above information was conveyed to the Pakistan government on July12. We informed the Pakistani authorities that we would like to hand over the bodies to them. We did not receive any response. Subsequently, the International committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) approached Government of India on July 13, stating that Pakistan government had requested them to contact the Government of India for handing over the bodies of the two officers about which they had heard. The Pakistani request did not specify the names and identities of the two officers, despite the information being available to them. The reason is obvious. The Pakistan authorities realised that if they conceded the identities of these two officers, it would demolish the myth that Pakistan army was not involved in Kargil. We provided ICRC with this information, along with the photographs of the bodies and copies of correspondence found on their person, which identify them as above.

The Pakistan Government conveyed through ICRC that the material we had furnished was "insufficient" to establish the identities of the officers, and that they would like the bodies to be handed over and taken to Islamabad for verification. It is clear that this was again an attempt to obscure and evade the fact that these were bodies of officers of the Pakistan Army involved in the Kargil operation. We offered to the Pakistan authorities through the ICRC that we would be ready to receive in India persons, including their family members, deputed by the Government of Pakistan to come to India and verify the identity of the officers and take over the bodies. We had pointed out that it is unprecedented and unheard of for bodies to be sent abroad in this fashion for the purpose of identification, even before their nationality and military identity are established. If Pakistan doubts them, it is for their representatives to come and see the bodies. We have not yet received a response from Pakistan through the ICRC.

It is clear that Pakistan is fully aware of the identities of these bodies but they do not wish to acknowledge this fact as it would immediately expose their army’s involvement in Kargil. Hence, their persistent and callous refusal to do so, they are doing great disservice to the families of their soldiers and to the traditions of armed forces everywhere.

The Government of India had conveyed to the ICRC that because of the weather conditions, the condition of bodies is deteriorating and the ICRC should come back with the response from Pakistan by 1100 hrs. IST on July 15. Pakistan has not conveyed their response. In view of the humanitarian nature of the problem, the Indian Army authorities will wait as long as it is possible, to get a response from Pakistan authorities through the ICRC.

https://www.indianembassy.org/archives_details.php?nid=283

 
Last edited:
Yes OBL was false flag by US, Mumbai attack was false flag by India....lol keep denying everything, i mean there is not much Pakistani can do other than denying everything.
Keep blaiming Pakistan for Hindutva nation's ills...

He was prime minister... Why didn't he say this or do something about it then?
 
Sure thing.. hand over RSS clowns to Pakistan for the killings of Pakistanis aboard Samjhuta Express Train.
The crime took place on Indian soil, not Pakistani soil. Big difference.

You missed my point as expected. I don't see anyone else in the global media hyperventilating over this. indians are the only ones. Everyone else thinks it's a case of a disgruntled convict being vengeful against the country that convicted him, nothing more. Nothing less.
Everyone else? Who except Pakistanis think so?
 
Keep blaiming Pakistan for Hindutva nation's ills...

He was prime minister... Why didn't he say this or do something about it then?

It is because your army runs the show. Not your PM.
 
Sure thing.. hand over RSS clowns to Pakistan for the killings of Pakistanis aboard Samjhuta Express Train.

The crime took place on Indian soil, not Pakistani soil. Big difference.

I agree with Desert Fighter.

Exchange of Samjhauta Express bombing suspects with Hafiz Saeed and company.

Even better, joint investigation into both incidents.
 
I agree with Desert Fighter.

Exchange of Samjhauta Express bombing suspects with Hafiz Saeed and company.

Even better, joint investigation into both incidents.

It's a free country - you can agree with whoever you like.
 
Indians believing in the man that declared the Panama Leaks to be an international conspiracy against Pakistan and Nawaz Sharif :)
 
If Nawaz Shareef admits they were sent from Pakistan, then he himself must have sent them :-) India can plan a surgical strike on Raiwind and help Pakistan's cause too.
 
4852278-Marcus-Tullius-Cicero-Quote-A-nation-can-survive-its-fools-and.jpg
 
Yes they did but then they realized that how easily they can arm twist him by blackmailing him with criminal charges of genocide... looks like they were right... he does everything america wants like an obedient poodle.


so like a true coolie he complied
 
It is more like no one in public or the establishment wants to know the truth because it would open a pandora box. They are more likely to convince themselves and others that the whole thing was a false flag conducted by India.



Very true. Nawaz was booted from power three times. Being a PM he had no power to save his own ***.
but no one can stop german Author from speaking truth or can it?
These days we rush from one media story to another, trying to keep up with the latest terrorist attack. Yesterday Paris; today London; tomorrow, who knows? These attacks are tragic enough when they are acts of violence by religious extremists who have outsmarted our police and intelligence agencies. But, of course, many of them are actually violent acts facilitated by our police and intelligence agencies, directly or indirectly. The tragedy in such cases lies not only in the immediate human suffering but in the way our civil society and elected representatives are betrayed, intimidated, disciplined and stripped of their power by our own security agencies. The War on Terror, which goes by different names in different countries but continues as a global framework for violent conflict, thrives on this fraud.

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

Related image

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

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

“The 2008 Mumbai attacks were a series of attacks that took place in November 2008, when 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic militant organization based in Pakistan, carried out a series of 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. The attacks, which drew widespread global condemnation, began on Wednesday, 26 November and lasted until Saturday, 29 November 2008, killing 164 people and wounding at least 308.”

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

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

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

In his Conclusions at the end of the book Davidsson encourages us to assess separately the actual attacks and the Indian state’s investigation of the attacks (865 ff.) It is “highly plausible,” he says, “that major institutional actors in India, the United States and possibly Israel, were complicit in conceiving, planning, directing and executing the attacks of 26/11” (873); but the evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger:

“The first definite conclusion of this book is that India’s major institutions, including the Central government, parliament, bureaucracy, armed forces, Mumbai police, intelligence services, judiciary and media, have deliberately suppressed the truth regarding 26/11 and continue to do so. I could discover no hint of a desire among the aforementioned parties to establish the truth on these deadly events (865).”

This distinction is useful for civil society investigators. We will frequently find it easier to prove that an investigation is deceptive, and that it is obscuring rather than illuminating the path to the perpetrators, than to directly prove the event itself to have been fraudulent. And there are two good reasons to pay attention to evidence of a cover-up. First, to cover up a crime is itself a crime. Second, those covering up a crime implicate themselves in the original crime. If they were not directly involved in the commission of the crime, they are at least accessories after the fact. To begin by exposing the fraudulent investigation, therefore, will often be wise. When this has been done we shall often find that we can begin to discern the path to the attack itself.

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

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

(1) Immediate fingering of the perpetrator

When officials claim to know the identity of a perpetrator (individual or group) prior to any serious investigation, this suggests that a false narrative is being initiated and that strenuous efforts will soon be made to implant it in the mind of a population. Thus, for example, Lee Harvey Oswald was identified by officials of the executive branch as the killer of President John F. Kennedy–and as a lone wolf with no associates–on the afternoon of the assassination day, long before an investigation and even before he had been charged with the crime. And we had major news media pointing with confidence, by the end of the day of September 11, 2001, to Osama bin Laden and his group–in the absence of evidence.

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

Image result for Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai

The Taj Mahal Hotel burning after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Source: Haunted India)

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

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

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

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

The surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial (661).
No transcript of his secret trial has been released (670).
One lawyer who agreed to defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated (670).
The public was told there was extensive CCTV footage of the attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on the days in question (97-98; 109 ff.; 683 ff.); but only a very small percentage of the claimed footage was ever released and it suffers from serious defects–two conflicting time-stamps and signs of editing (111).
Members of an elite Indian commando unit that showed up with between 475 and 800 members to battle eight terrorists (534) were not allowed to testify in court (327; 428-429).
The “confession” of the suspect, on which the judge leaned heavily, was given in secret. No transcript of this confession has been released to the public and the suspect later renounced the confession, saying he had been under threat from police when he gave it (599 ff.; 681).
The suspect, after being convicted and sentenced to death, was presumably executed, but the hanging was done secretly in jail and his body, like the bodies of the other dead “terrorists,” was buried in a secret place (37; 623).
It is difficult to see how the investigation described above differs from what we would expect to see in a police state. Evidently, the “world’s largest democracy” is in trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

Now don't trust the 3 time prime minister too...wow.
Guess pakistanis on this forum know much more and sharif is just a gossip monger,denial is actually hilarious.
I think he may be paid by indian/israeli/american nexus.
hey retard do you realize 3 time PM was disqualified for lying? or did you forget this obvious fact because of the group orgies you are having here
 
Back
Top Bottom