Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

AlbertPinto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Nov 2008 00:37

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby AlbertPinto » 02 Dec 2008 08:39

Exploring "Cui Bono"

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8709051198

Tehran and New Delhi are have also expressed commitment to continue talks on the huge 2,775-kilometer pipeline project that will transfer 60 million cubic meters of natural gas per day from Iran to Pakistan and India.

This is while some media outlets had speculated that New Delhi is being influenced by US pressure to quit the project. According to the speculations, the country is not willing to carry out the gas pipeline project, as New Delhi is now a nuclear nation.

The Indian Ambassador to Iran rejected the speculations, and said, "India is a big energy consumer and we are interested to see the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline built."

Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee had said earlier in November that the US-Indo nuclear deal would have no impact on energy ties with Iran.

Nuclear power "is one source of energy, the other important source is the IPI gas pipeline. One is not exclusive to the other," Mukherjee said.

Iran and Pakistan initiated a Gas Sales Purchase Agreement earlier this year while Indian and Pakistani officials announced they had resolved almost all bilateral issues, including transit fee which saw New Delhi boycotting IPI pipeline talks for about a year.

India has more or less agreed to give Pakistan a transit fee of $200 million per year, which is equivalent to $0.60 per million British thermal unit for allowing passage of the pipeline through that country.

India and Pakistan finally agreed in February 2007 to pay Iran $4.93 per million British thermal units ($4.67/GJ) but some details relating to price adjustment remained open to further negotiation. There was a breakthrough in the talks in April 2008 when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Pakistan and India.


If Indo-Pak relation detoriorates then the Indo-Iran pipeline deal can be sabotaged. Who benefits from Iran not getting more revenue from its gas reserve? Yup... you guessed it right again... UNKIL. And who benefits if India's energy independence plan can be curtailed? Yup... you guessed it right... UNKIL. Now who created the Taliban, the HuM, the Let etc etc? Yup... you are brilliant... guessed it right again... UNKIL. And we'r being told this one is perpetrated by the LeT pigs. Hmmmm... so could it be... hmmmm... could it be

And a friend of mine from Bengal told me that 20 Sep edition of Bartaman Patrika (the 2nd largest circulating Bong daily in WB) reported that one David Kelly of UNKIL's consulate at Calcutta held a secret meeting with 4 top leaders of the banned SIMI inside the consulate just 18 days before the DELHI serial blasts (keeping the WB govt in the dark). The commie govt of WB was very suspicious about this but couldn't investigate this behaviour of UNKIL's consulate in absence of adequate jurisdiction. Couldn't access the daily's archive page. So waiting for a scanned copy of the newspaper report. Will post it once I receive it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Dear Rahul M ji, sorry to have increased your workload again. But while most are discussing about "what" and "how", by also analysing the possible "why"s we may be in a better position to prevent such atrocities in the future.



Read my post 3rd one after this one.
heed its advice. your posting habit is getting increasingly disruptive.
Rahul.
Last edited by Rahul M on 02 Dec 2008 08:48, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: added comment.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2008 08:41

sunilUpa wrote:
Austin wrote:Guys I am perhaps asking the same question again , instead of fighting terrorist in close combat and loosing life and limb , why dont we develop some kind of Chemical Gas , which can immediately either make them faint or just disorient them for some time ( russian showed that such a chemical weapon is possible )

Now the chances that the terrorist may have a gas mask is always there , but it will also hamper them if they use it .

We do have DRDO facility at Gwalior which has expertise in C&BW , its good to catch them alive than kill them to get intel from them

Any one who can agree here , can we discuss the pro and cons of such weapon ?


Austin,
What you want is the proverbial magic bullet, the madical community has been searching for ages. Let try to simplify the problem.
1. Every drug (which is a chemical) has a minimum level below which it won't act (MEC) and a maximum level above which it is toxic (=MTD), the differece b/w these two level is Therapeutic window, i,e region where drug acts and is safe.
2. To act fast it should be absorbed in to the body fast (in this case instantaneous, through lungs), should be potent (low MEC) and low toxicity (High MTD).
3. Now fast acting, potent drugs have narrow Therapeutic window. In this case they will affect Central nervous system, the subject will loose consciousness, will continue to breathe the drug. Very soon the blood level of the drug will cross MTD and unfortunately in these class of drugs will cause death. That's what the Russians found out. That's what will happen with most of the anesthetics if dose is not controlled.
4. If one can find a way to regulate the dose, you have the 'Ramban".

Sorry if I confused you further.

another problem will be that the aforementioned doses will differ from person to person, depending on age, sex and health.

what may be minimum dosage for a full grown male might be lethal for a sick toddler.

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 681
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rishi » 02 Dec 2008 08:44

ajay pratap wrote:
Rahul M wrote:jagan, any idea which gun ?


Three not three, of course.


Carbine = Sterling Gun (Aka the Sten Gun)

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2008 08:46

And a friend of mine from Bengal told me that 20 Sep edition of Bartaman Patrika (the 2nd largest circulating Bong daily in WB) reported that one David Kelly of UNKIL's consulate at Calcutta held a secret meeting with 4 top leaders of the banned SIMI inside the consulate just 18 days before the DELHI serial blasts (keeping the WB govt in the dark). The commie govt of WB was very suspicious about this but couldn't investigate this behaviour of UNKIL's consulate in absence of adequate jurisdiction. Couldn't access the daily's archive page. So waiting for a scanned copy of the newspaper report. Will post it once I receive it.


that bit of news has been already translated and posted here, right on the day it appeared. (by me in fact)

FYI, as of last heard, the undersea pipeline by-passing pak is more economically viable.

moreover, the nudge nudge posts are not welcome here at the moment.
if more credible information comes we might look at them. at the moment it is empty theorising.

Duangkomon
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 84
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:12

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Duangkomon » 02 Dec 2008 08:47

sunilUpa wrote:A story of survival, sacrifice and heroism from the heart...some of our 'friends' perhaps could learn bit of humility from this gentleman.

Heroes At The Taj

Michael Pollack, 12.01.08, 07:40 PM EST
After a terrifying day, one eyewitness thanks his saviors.


This video is another story of sacrifice and heroism.
Black Cat Commando's Mumbai Story

In this video Sunil Kumar from his hospital bed tells about how a hotel employee acted as their guide and helped them open the rooms with a master key. He was later gunned down. Sunil Kumar received shots to his back while dragging the hotel employee away from gun fire.

I wonder what his name was and what happened to him. Sunil says he was gunned down. Did he die of his wounds?? The special sense of duty and a rare stoic courage displayed by the Taj employees is quite awe-inspiring at the same time makes their loss even more heart wrenching. We have to put names to these people instead of just referring them as "hotel employee", "bar maid", "manager", etc.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Jagan » 02 Dec 2008 08:47

Rishi wrote:
ajay pratap wrote:
Rahul M wrote:jagan, any idea which gun ?


Three not three, of course.


Carbine = Sterling Gun (Aka the Sten Gun)


yeah mistakenly referred to as sten gun quite often, but not quite. Sterling is right.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2008 08:49

called the haati in police parlance.

what do you guys think, is the sterling good enough ?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3037
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Jagan » 02 Dec 2008 08:50

Duangkomon wrote:
I wonder what his name was and what happened to him. Sunil says he was gunned down. Did he die of his wounds?? The special sense of duty and a rare stoic courage displayed by the Taj employees is quite awe-inspiring at the same time makes their loss even more heart wrenching. We have to put names to these people instead of just referring them as "hotel employee", "bar maid", "manager", etc.


Can he be Marcos (beard?) or do the NSG also sport one nowadays?

I wonder how many of the Marcos / NSG were wounded - this is the third or fourth such interview we have read recently.

anishns
BRFite
Posts: 1232
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Location: being victim onlee...

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby anishns » 02 Dec 2008 08:52

Maybe if they had put a BPJ on the hotel employee - a brave man!
Unfortunately, in the heat of the moment it was overlooked :cry:

I hope such heroes are identified, do not want them to go into oblivion without a name


Duangkomon wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:A story of survival, sacrifice and heroism from the heart...some of our 'friends' perhaps could learn bit of humility from this gentleman.

Heroes At The Taj

Michael Pollack, 12.01.08, 07:40 PM EST
After a terrifying day, one eyewitness thanks his saviors.


This video is another story of sacrifice and heroism.
Black Cat Commando's Mumbai Story

In this video Sunil Kumar from his hospital bed tells about how a hotel employee acted as their guide and helped them open the rooms with a master key. He was later gunned down. Sunil Kumar received shots to his back while dragging the hotel employee away from gun fire.

I wonder what his name was and what happened to him. Sunil says he was gunned down. Did he die of his wounds?? The special sense of duty and a rare stoic courage displayed by the Taj employees is quite awe-inspiring at the same time makes their loss even more heart wrenching. We have to put names to these people instead of just referring them as "hotel employee", "bar maid", "manager", etc.

nkumar
BRFite
Posts: 233
Joined: 06 Jul 2007 02:14

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby nkumar » 02 Dec 2008 08:58

Duangkomon wrote:
sunilUpa wrote:A story of survival, sacrifice and heroism from the heart...some of our 'friends' perhaps could learn bit of humility from this gentleman.

Heroes At The Taj

Michael Pollack, 12.01.08, 07:40 PM EST
After a terrifying day, one eyewitness thanks his saviors.


This video is another story of sacrifice and heroism.
Black Cat Commando's Mumbai Story

In this video Sunil Kumar from his hospital bed tells about how a hotel employee acted as their guide and helped them open the rooms with a master key. He was later gunned down. Sunil Kumar received shots to his back while dragging the hotel employee away from gun fire.

I wonder what his name was and what happened to him. Sunil says he was gunned down. Did he die of his wounds?? The special sense of duty and a rare stoic courage displayed by the Taj employees is quite awe-inspiring at the same time makes their loss even more heart wrenching. We have to put names to these people instead of just referring them as "hotel employee", "bar maid", "manager", etc.


It would be great if Taj management could name some of their conference rooms/chambers/halls in the name of staff members who sacrificed their lives.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10625
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Dec 2008 08:59

Unbelievable $#@$!

This link was posted earlier, about Muslims refusing to have the terrorists buried in their cemetary.
http://www.juancole.com/2008/12/indian- ... l#comments

Then look at the comments:

Comment 1:
This is an emotional reaction like the Muslims earlier this year in Philly that refused to bury a Muslim when he was killed after shooting a police officer during a bank robbery.

The vast consensus of jurists would take issue with this per the Prophet Muhammad himself prayed over criminals including the chief hypocrite of Madinah named Abdullah bin Ubay.

The funeral prayers should be offered except if the person is a "murtad", which then he/she should be buried according to their own new religious beliefs.

I don't like this reactionary stuff at all.


Comment 2:
I agree that this is an emotional reaction from Muslims and has nothing to do with the Islamic law. An act of murder, whether it involves 1 or 100, does not make a Muslim a non-Muslim. It is through the act of renouncing the faith through tongue and actions that takes a person out of Islam. Except for the murtad, even for the worst criminal, the funeral prayers are offered and his forgiveness is asked for. As you have correctly said, the Sunni tradition strongly frowns the takfiri practices.


and so on. I'm too disgusted to post in full. I wrote a comment saying I'm petitioning the Indian government that all terrorists should be EDITED ; but I don't think the moderator will let it through.
Last edited by Jagan on 02 Dec 2008 09:03, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: edited

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10625
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby A_Gupta » 02 Dec 2008 09:01

Re: Taj employees - though it was a commercial establishment, in the final call they upheld the ancient dharma Athithi devo bhava.

Salutations to them!

vkthakur
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 01 Dec 2008 20:35

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby vkthakur » 02 Dec 2008 09:09

Suraj wrote:
vkthakur wrote:If you really mean that please restore my post without the blog url. (I explained the reason for putting by blog url but you seem to have missed it.)

This is not a venue to cut and paste your blog or website contents, with or without a link.
vkthakur wrote:Can you quote the text where I call members names?

If you have a problem with whatever was stated about your website, find the specific post(s) and use the report post function. Don't just broadly accuse people without any supportive information, or cast aspersions on the alleged places of employment of members; whether they are from DRDO is irrelevant, and any issues you have with DRDO are your problem.

Posting here is a privilege, and a new poster is obliged not to be disruptive. In your posts so far, you've posted flamebait, contravened forum guidelines and generally been abrasive. There's no point in claiming to speak the truth if you lack the skills to be a contributor on a large forum like this, unlike on a personal blog, where you post and people just comment.


Where is the answer to my question? You first make an accusation and when challenged for evidence to support it resort to BS.

In this very thread a jerk has challenged by 20 years association with the Air Force as a fighter pilot and you sir did not moderate his post.

Funny?

{Suraj, and Rahul, I am going to do the honors here. This has got very tiresome, and has gone on long enough.

Dear Mr. Thakur, several people have tried reasoning with you, but it is clear that your intent is to whine and moan and disrupt. This is not a DayCare Center, please find one where they have more patience for your grievances. Your reference to an armed services wing are particularly inappropriate - people here don't give a damn whether you are a General or a high-schooler. I am sure the IAF doesn't deserve the humiliation of being associated with such juvenile tantrums as you have been throwing here. Air Force pilots are cool and calm professionals. If you were formerly associated with that service, I am glad to note that the standards have improved a great deal since then.

You will have some time to cool down and maybe grow up before you feel compelled to post here again.}
Last edited by enqyoob on 02 Dec 2008 09:40, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: End whining.

lakshmikanth
BRFite
Posts: 723
Joined: 27 Oct 2008 10:07
Location: Bee for Baakistan

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby lakshmikanth » 02 Dec 2008 09:09

Unrelated but i think important:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Three_killed_60_injured_in_Assam_train_blast/articleshow/3782797.cms?TOI_latestnews

Is this some sort of shock and awe, or bleeding India by a thousand cuts??


Waiting for opinion from the Gurus!

BTW: I guess I found a perfect investment opportunity: Poppy farming in Afghanistan!!!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby svinayak » 02 Dec 2008 09:14

http://juancole.com/


Pakistani Reaganism Must End: The New Government must take on the Lashkar


Leaks to the Indian press by security officials in charge of interrogating the captured terrorist, Ajmal Amir Kamal (or Qasab?) are fleshing out the background of the attack on Mumbai and clarifying the evidence that it was an operation of the Lashkar-e Tayiba [the "Army of the Good"].

The Indian counterpart of the CIA, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), intercepted a cell phone call on November 18 to a number in Lahore, Pakistan, known to be that of a Lashkar-i Tayiba handler, saying that the caller was heading to Mumbai. They later found the phone itself on a hijacked Indian fishing boat, which the attackers had taken over to camouflage their approach to the port.

The sole captured LeT operative, Kamal, is said by the Indian press to be from Faridkot village near Dipalpur Tahsil in Okara District of Pakistani Punjab, southwest of Lahore [I saw one article, which I can no longer retrieve, in which the Indian press mispelled the tahsil or county as Gipalpur]). This is such a remote and little-known place that even Pakistani newspapers were having difficulty tracking it down).

Kamal is said to be telling Indian security that he and the others trained in camps in Pakistani Kashmir. (The original princely state of Kashmir, largely Muslim, is divided, with one third in Pakistani hands and two-thirds in Indian; India joined its portion to largely Hindu Jammu to create the province of Jammu and Kashmir.)

The Kashmir police have gotten good enough at counter-terrorism measures that elements of the LeT may have decided to go after a soft target such as Mumbai instead.

The story begins with the 1977 coup of Gen. Zia ul-Haqq, a Muslim fundamentalist who hanged his boss, PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after overthrowing him. Zia favored Sunni fundamentalists and introduced discriminatory policies against Pakistani Shiites, secularists, etc.

Then in 1979 the Soviet Red Army came into Afghanistan to prop up a shaky Communist junta. Gen. Zia was suddenly America's man at the front lines of fighting the Soviets, and his Inter-Services Intelligence helped organize Afghan refugees in Pakistan to fight the Soviets. The ISI favored the most radical fundamentalists among the Mujahideen, such as Gulbadin Hikmatyar, who led the Hizb-i Islami. This model, of using private armies funded by black money (generated by illegal arms or drug sales) to "roll back" leftists, was being applied by Reagan in Nicaragua at the same time.

The military dictatorship was taking a lion's share of the Pakistani budget, and to whip up popular passions and make itself popular, it promoted the liberation of the rest of Muslim Kashmir from Hindu India as another major project alongside getting the Soviets out of Afghanistan. (This is the language of the military; actually India is a secular multicultural state, not a formally Hindu one; and in opinion polls Kashmiris do not say they want to join Pakistan, though they would like independence).

A lot of Pakistanis probably did not care so much about Kashmir, having other problems in life (and already worried about having to adopt 3 million Afghan refugees). But the military in Pakistan constantly played on the public's emotions on the issue, as a way of justifying military perquisites. (When British India was partitioned into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India in 1947, Kashmir was the only Muslim-majority province to be successfully grabbed by India; Pakistan insisted it should have gone to the Muslim state; the UN insisted on a referendum, which was never held.)

The model that the Reagan administration pressed on the Pakistani military, of funding rightwing "Islamic" militias to kill Soviets, gradually became standard operating procedure. But then the Pakistani Religious Right began adopting the model for themselves. If it is all right to mobilize death squads in one righteous cause, why not in others?

Emboldened, lower middle class Sunni hate groups grew up in rural areas such as Jhang Siyal, where Shiite Sufi leaders had been given big estates by premodern rulers and so were big landlords. The Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), formed in 1985, was one such organization. It turned to violence, killing Shiites. Revivalist Deobandi clergy were important in its leadership. I don't think Zia much cared if they killed Shiites.

Others, including elements in the Pakistani military began wondering why they should not apply the Reagan Jihad model to Kashmir. And they did. In the late 1980s, Hafiz Muhammad Said (once a professor of engineering at Punjab University) set up the Center for Mission and Guidance (Markaz al-Da'wa wa al-Irshad) in a huge compound at Muridke outside Lahore. The Center soon established the Lashkar-e Tayiba as its paramilitary. With the behind the scenes encouragement of elements in the Pakistani military, the LeT sent guerrillas into Indian Kashmir to attack Indian troops and facilities. The Lashkar prided itself on not killing civilians, on not targeting Shiites, and on keeping its focus on what they thought of as the Indian occupation forces. But they fought alongside Sipah-e Sahaba elements that also took off time from murdering Shiites to infiltrate into Indian Kashmir and stage attacks.

I saw this militarization of Pakistani civil society with my own eyes. I first went to the country in 1981 before you could just buy a Kalashnikov in the bazaar. When I was doing research there in 1988 and then again in 1990, the situation was completely different. Pakistan had never had a drug problem but now there were a million addicts (the US encouraged the Afghan mujahidin to grow poppies for heroin to finance the anti-Soviet struggle, and the drugs spilled into Pakistan). Weapons were freely available. Karachi was having a kind of civil war. I remember that fanatics from the religious right attacked an art exhibition in Lahore, a city of the arts (graven images not allowed & etc.) Political figures were accused of cynically creating Islamic movements for personal and political gain. This deterioration of Pakistan was, in some important part, a direct result of Reagan-Bush policies. They used Pakistan, corrupted it with all those drugs, arms, and radical Muslim militias that they called 'freedom fighters,' and then threw it away when they did not need it any more. Reagan and the Saudis funneled billions to the Pakistani military. What did ordinary Pakistanis have to show for it?

When the Soviets withdrew in 1988-1989 from Afghanistan and the Mujahideen took over, the Pakistani military lost control of its northern neighbor. It therefore funded and promoted the Taliban (expatriate Afghan young men who had been through Deobandi seminaries in northern Pakistan) from 1994, enabling them to take over Afghanistan. The Taliban ran terrorist training camps, at which the Sipah-e Sahaba and the Lashkar-e Tayiba trained for missions in Kashmir. Afghanistan in essence was the boot camp for Pakistani Reaganism.

The SSP and the Lashkar-e Tayiba was joined by other Sunni militias, including the Movement of the Holy Warriors (Harakat ul Mujahidin). In 2000, Mawlana Massoud Azhar broke off from the latter to form the Jaish-e Muhammad or Army of Muhammad, a particularly violent group focusing on Kashmir. All these Pakistani organizations trained their fighters in the Taliban camps, some of which were actually run by al-Qaeda once Bin Laden allied with the latter in 1996. (It is said that the Inter-Services Intelligence made the introduction).

High Dudgeon of Americans directed at the Pakistani military for this activity is the height of hypocrisy. The Reagan administration actively encouraged Islamabad to mount precisely such activities against the leftist government of Afghanistan (which, while dictatorial and brutally oppressive, was busily educating girls, admitting women to professions, spreading literacy, working against the vestiges of landlord feudalism, etc.) From a Pakistani point of view, Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and Indian-occupied Kashmir were morally equivalent.

In 2002, under pressure from Washington, military dictator Pervez Musharraf dissolved the Lashkar-e Tayiba and other similar groups and initially arrested many members. They were later released by the Pakistani courts on the grounds that they hadn't broken any Pakistani laws. The dissolution was a bit of a farce, since the groups just took other names. Someone who now has a prominent official position in the Pakistani government once wryly observed to me that the Musharraf government couldn't seem to find the Lashkar-e Tayib headquarters at Muridke just outside Lahore, even though it was huge and a well known landmark at which thousands gathered. And, Lashkar went on raising money, supposedly for civilian relief works in Kashmir.

The Pakistani military is itself now suffering blowback for its past policies. Its name is mud in Pakistan. A Pakistani Taliban has emerged that often declines to be its puppet, and which has killed hundreds of Pakistani troops. The Marriott in Islamabad was blown up by the Pakistani Taliban.

The cell that hit Mumbai was probably a rogue splinter group. They completely disregarded the old Lashkar-e Tayiba concentration on hitting only Indian troops in Kashmir, targeting civilians instead. It is very unlikely that anyone in the Pakistani military put them up specifically to this Mumbai operation. This attack was much more likely to be blowback, when a covert operation produces unexpected consequences or agents that were previously reliable go rogue.

The Mumbai attacks were not the first of this scale on an Indian target by the LeT.

If the Pakistani government does not give up this covert terrorist campaign in Kashmir and does not stop coddling the radical vigilantes who go off to fight there, South Asian terrorism will grow as a problem and very possibly provoke the world's first nuclear war (possible death toll: 20 million).

The civilian government that has recently taken over Pakistan is weak. If it puts too much pressure on the military too quickly, it risks another coup and destabilization. But the training camps in Azad Kashmir must be closed.

India, Pakistan, and the Obama administration need to do some serious diplomacy on Kashmir, and try to settle this major global fault line before the 10.0 earthquake finally hits.

posted by Juan Cole @ 12/01/2008 12:30:00 AM 21 comments |


Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2008 09:16

vkthakur wrote:
Suraj wrote:
vkthakur wrote:If you really mean that please restore my post without the blog url. (I explained the reason for putting by blog url but you seem to have missed it.)

This is not a venue to cut and paste your blog or website contents, with or without a link.
vkthakur wrote:Can you quote the text where I call members names?

If you have a problem with whatever was stated about your website, find the specific post(s) and use the report post function. Don't just broadly accuse people without any supportive information, or cast aspersions on the alleged places of employment of members; whether they are from DRDO is irrelevant, and any issues you have with DRDO are your problem.

Posting here is a privilege, and a new poster is obliged not to be disruptive. In your posts so far, you've posted flamebait, contravened forum guidelines and generally been abrasive. There's no point in claiming to speak the truth if you lack the skills to be a contributor on a large forum like this, unlike on a personal blog, where you post and people just comment.

Where is the answer to my question? You first make an accusation and when challenged for evidence to support it resort to BS.

In this very thread a jerk has challenged by 20 years association with the Air Force as a fighter pilot and you sir did not moderate his post.

Funny?


vkthakur, you too haven't answered ANY of the questions asked of you, other than taking umbrage on reactions to your blog post, your contributions have been nil.

It is certainly NOT funny.

Raju

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Raju » 02 Dec 2008 09:18

Jagan wrote:
Duangkomon wrote:
I wonder what his name was and what happened to him. Sunil says he was gunned down. Did he die of his wounds?? The special sense of duty and a rare stoic courage displayed by the Taj employees is quite awe-inspiring at the same time makes their loss even more heart wrenching. We have to put names to these people instead of just referring them as "hotel employee", "bar maid", "manager", etc.


Can he be Marcos (beard?) or do the NSG also sport one nowadays?

I wonder how many of the Marcos / NSG were wounded - this is the third or fourth such interview we have read recently.


that is the wounded Marcose in hospital.

AlbertPinto
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 12
Joined: 28 Nov 2008 00:37

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby AlbertPinto » 02 Dec 2008 09:21

Rahul M wrote:
...
moreover, the nudge nudge posts are not welcome here at the moment.
if more credible information comes we might look at them. at the moment it is empty theorising.


Sirjee, my apologies again. Since anomalies interest me I get tempted to share. Will take a hiatus from posting and get back to my passive reader status (and not bother anymore unless I have something conforming to contribute). Please keep up the good work at BR. I am a regular reader of the BR forum since I don't know when and actually this BR forum (especially Mr N^3 and KK) is the culprit :lol: that somehow taught me to be curious and look for the picture within the picture.

Cheers.

R Vaidya
BRFite
Posts: 128
Joined: 04 Feb 2003 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby R Vaidya » 02 Dec 2008 09:25

Terror attacks -- Dealing with TSP

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1210789

rvaidya

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16451
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Rahul M » 02 Dec 2008 09:27

R Vaidya wrote:Terror attacks -- Dealing with TSP

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1210789

rvaidya

kudos sir.
well written.

Johann
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2075
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Johann » 02 Dec 2008 09:32

In account after account, the sheer heroism and sense of quiet personal responsibility of the Taj staff shines through in a way that overwhelms me. These men and women were not armed or armoured, and had no expectation that they would face bullets in the course of their job.

I am sure that the Taj/Tata group will look after the wounded and killed, but I would very much like to see both the Indian government, and the governments of countries whose citizens were in the Taj award the highest awards for civilian valour to the Taj staff.

N,

There are inconsistancies in what has been reported of the captured terrorist's self-portrayal.

Some of that may be the press, but the jihadis have since 2002 increasingly developed the equivalent of a "resistance to interrogation" training module, a lot of it based on what filtered back from jihadis released from places like Guantanomo Bay. Disinformation is a major part of it.

My understanding is that the UK has photographs of the dead terrorists and has not found any matches to the several thousand radicalised British Pakistanis they have identified and whom they have files on. The biggest worry in London is not just that some of these guys will turn out to be British passport holders, but they are not on file at MI5 at all - which would be a most worrying intelligence lapse.

enqyoob
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2658
Joined: 06 Jul 2008 20:25

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby enqyoob » 02 Dec 2008 09:41

Albert Pinto:

I'll have u know that I peddle NOTHING BUT THE BEST in rumors and conspiracy theories. :P

samuel
BRFite
Posts: 818
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:52

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby samuel » 02 Dec 2008 09:42

I'll second that. I have heard a personal story through the chairman of a Bank who was eventually rescued tell us of the bravery of two staff members at Taj, who did their utmost in the most selfless way possible. They shielded his escape and paid with their lives. More keep pouring in.

When we heard the Holtzberg baby boy cry Ima, it was too much for my wife and me. Our own son is about as old.

The silence from New Delhi is deafening.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23133
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby SSridhar » 02 Dec 2008 09:44

Stratfor's Take

Last Wednesday evening, a group of Islamist operatives carried out a complex terror operation in the Indian city of Mumbai. The attack was not complex because of the weapons used or its size, but in the apparent training, multiple methods of approaching the city and excellent operational security and discipline in the final phases of the operation, when the last remaining attackers held out in the Taj Mahal hotel for several days. The operational goal of the attack clearly was to cause as many casualties as possible, particularly among Jews and well-to-do guests of five-star hotels. But attacks on various other targets, from railroad stations to hospitals, indicate that the more general purpose was to spread terror in a major Indian city.

While it is not clear precisely who carried out the Mumbai attack, two separate units apparently were involved. One group, possibly consisting of Indian Muslims, was established in Mumbai ahead of the attacks. The second group appears to have just arrived. It traveled via ship from Karachi, Pakistan, later hijacked a small Indian vessel to get past Indian coastal patrols, and ultimately landed near Mumbai.

Extensive preparations apparently had been made, including surveillance of the targets. So while the precise number of attackers remains unclear, the attack clearly was well-planned and well-executed.

Evidence and logic suggest that radical Pakistani Islamists carried out the attack. These groups have a highly complex and deliberately amorphous structure. Rather than being centrally controlled, ad hoc teams are created with links to one or more groups. Conceivably, they might have lacked links to any group, but this is hard to believe. Too much planning and training were involved in this attack for it to have been conceived by a bunch of guys in a garage. While precisely which radical Pakistani Islamist group or groups were involved is unknown, the Mumbai attack appears to have originated in Pakistan. It could have been linked to al Qaeda prime or its various franchises and/or to Kashmiri insurgents.

More important than the question of the exact group that carried out the attack, however, is the attackers’ strategic end. There is a tendency to regard terror attacks as ends in themselves, carried out simply for the sake of spreading terror. In the highly politicized atmosphere of Pakistan’s radical Islamist factions, however, terror frequently has a more sophisticated and strategic purpose. Whoever invested the time and took the risk in organizing this attack had a reason to do so. Let’s work backward to that reason by examining the logical outcomes following this attack.

An End to New Delhi’s Restraint

The most striking aspect of the Mumbai attack is the challenge it presents to the Indian government — a challenge almost impossible for New Delhi to ignore. A December 2001 Islamist attack on the Indian parliament triggered an intense confrontation between India and Pakistan. Since then, New Delhi has not responded in a dramatic fashion to numerous Islamist attacks against India that were traceable to Pakistan. The Mumbai attack, by contrast, aimed to force a response from New Delhi by being so grievous that any Indian government showing only a muted reaction to it would fall.

India’s restrained response to Islamist attacks (even those originating in Pakistan) in recent years has come about because New Delhi has understood that, for a host of reasons, Islamabad has been unable to control radical Pakistani Islamist groups. India did not want war with Pakistan; it felt it had more important issues to deal with. New Delhi therefore accepted Islamabad’s assurances that Pakistan would do its best to curb terror attacks, and after suitable posturing, allowed tensions originating from Islamist attacks to pass.

This time, however, the attackers struck in such a way that New Delhi couldn’t allow the incident to pass. As one might expect, public opinion in India is shifting from stunned to furious. India’s Congress party-led government is politically weak and nearing the end of its life span. It lacks the political power to ignore the attack, even if it were inclined to do so. If it ignored the attack, it would fall, and a more intensely nationalist government would take its place. It is therefore very difficult to imagine circumstances under which the Indians could respond to this attack in the same manner they have to recent Islamist attacks.

What the Indians actually will do is not clear. In 2001-2002, New Delhi responded to the attack on the Indian parliament by moving forces close to the Pakistani border and the Line of Control that separates Indian- and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir, engaging in artillery duels along the front, and bringing its nuclear forces to a high level of alert. The Pakistanis made a similar response. Whether India ever actually intended to attack Pakistan remains unclear, but either way, New Delhi created an intense crisis in Pakistan.

The U.S. and the Indo-Pakistani Crisis

The United States used this crisis for its own ends. Having just completed the first phase of its campaign in Afghanistan, Washington was intensely pressuring Pakistan’s then-Musharraf government to expand cooperation with the United States; purge its intelligence organization, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), of radical Islamists; and crack down on al Qaeda and the Taliban in the Afghan-Pakistani border region. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had been reluctant to cooperate with Washington, as doing so inevitably would spark a massive domestic backlash against his government.

The crisis with India produced an opening for the United States. Eager to get India to stand down from the crisis, the Pakistanis looked to the Americans to mediate. And the price for U.S. mediation was increased cooperation from Pakistan with the United States. The Indians, not eager for war, backed down from the crisis after guarantees that Islamabad would impose stronger controls on Islamist groups in Kashmir.

In 2001-2002, the Indo-Pakistani crisis played into American hands. In 2008, the new Indo-Pakistani crisis might play differently. The United States recently has demanded increased Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border. Meanwhile, President-elect Barack Obama has stated his intention to focus on Afghanistan and pressure the Pakistanis.

Therefore, one of Islamabad’s first responses to the new Indo-Pakistani crisis was to announce that if the Indians increased their forces along Pakistan’s eastern border, Pakistan would be forced to withdraw 100,000 troops from its western border with Afghanistan. In other words, threats from India would cause Pakistan to dramatically reduce its cooperation with the United States in the Afghan war. The Indian foreign minister is flying to the United States to meet with Obama; obviously, this matter will be discussed among others.

We expect the United States to pressure India not to create a crisis, in order to avoid this outcome. As we have said, the problem is that it is unclear whether politically the Indians can afford restraint. At the very least, New Delhi must demand that the Pakistani government take steps to make the ISI and Pakistan’s other internal security apparatus more effective. Even if the Indians concede that there was no ISI involvement in the attack, they will argue that the ISI is incapable of stopping such attacks. They will demand a purge and reform of the ISI as a sign of Pakistani commitment. Barring that, New Delhi will move troops to the Indo-Pakistani frontier to intimidate Pakistan and placate Indian public opinion.
Dilemmas for Islamabad, New Delhi and Washington

At that point, Islamabad will have a serious problem. The Pakistani government is even weaker than the Indian government. Pakistan’s civilian regime does not control the Pakistani military, and therefore does not control the ISI. The civilians can’t decide to transform Pakistani security, and the military is not inclined to make this transformation. (Pakistan’s military has had ample opportunity to do so if it wished.)

Pakistan faces the challenge, just one among many, that its civilian and even military leadership lack the ability to reach deep into the ISI and security services to transform them. In some ways, these agencies operate under their own rules. Add to this the reality that the ISI and security forces — even if they are acting more assertively, as Islamabad claims — are demonstrably incapable of controlling radical Islamists in Pakistan. If they were capable, the attack on Mumbai would have been thwarted in Pakistan. The simple reality is that in Pakistan’s case, the will to make this transformation does not seem to be present, and even if it were, the ability to suppress terror attacks isn’t there.

The United States might well want to limit New Delhi’s response. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is on her way to India to discuss just this. But the politics of India’s situation make it unlikely that the Indians can do anything more than listen. It is more than simply a political issue for New Delhi; the Indians have no reason to believe that the Mumbai operation was one of a kind. Further operations like the Mumbai attack might well be planned. Unless the Pakistanis shift their posture inside Pakistan, India has no way of knowing whether other such attacks can be stymied. The Indians will be sympathetic to Washington’s plight in Afghanistan and the need to keep Pakistani troops at the Afghan border. But New Delhi will need something that the Americans — and in fact the Pakistanis — can’t deliver: a guarantee that there will be no more attacks like this one.

The Indian government cannot chance inaction. It probably would fall if it did. Moreover, in the event of inactivity and another attack, Indian public opinion probably will swing to an uncontrollable extreme. If an attack takes place but India has moved toward crisis posture with Pakistan, at least no one can argue that the Indian government remained passive in the face of threats to national security. Therefore, India is likely to refuse American requests for restraint.

It is possible that New Delhi will make a radical proposal to Rice, however. Given that the Pakistani government is incapable of exercising control in its own country, and given that Pakistan now represents a threat to both U.S. and Indian national security, the Indians might suggest a joint operation with the Americans against Pakistan.

What that joint operation might entail is uncertain, but regardless, this is something that Rice would reject out of hand and that Obama would reject in January 2009. Pakistan has a huge population and nuclear weapons, and the last thing Bush or Obama wants is to practice nation-building in Pakistan. The Indians, of course, will anticipate this response. The truth is that New Delhi itself does not want to engage deep in Pakistan to strike at militant training camps and other Islamist sites. That would be a nightmare. But if Rice shows up with a request for Indian restraint and no concrete proposal — or willingness to entertain a proposal — for solving the Pakistani problem, India will be able to refuse on the grounds that the Americans are asking India to absorb a risk (more Mumbai-style attacks) without the United States’ willingness to share in the risk.

Setting the Stage for a New Indo-Pakistani Confrontation


That will set the stage for another Indo-Pakistani confrontation. India will push forces forward all along the Indo-Pakistani frontier, move its nuclear forces to an alert level, begin shelling Pakistan, and perhaps — given the seriousness of the situation — attack short distances into Pakistan and even carry out airstrikes deep in Pakistan. India will demand greater transparency for New Delhi in Pakistani intelligence operations. The Indians will not want to occupy Pakistan; they will want to occupy Pakistan’s security apparatus.

Naturally, the Pakistanis will refuse that. There is no way they can give India, their main adversary, insight into Pakistani intelligence operations. But without that access, India has no reason to trust Pakistan. This will leave the Indians in an odd position: They will be in a near-war posture, but will have made no demands of Pakistan that Islamabad can reasonably deliver and that would benefit India. In one sense, India will be gesturing. In another sense, India will be trapped by making a gesture on which Pakistan cannot deliver. The situation thus could get out of hand.

In the meantime, the Pakistanis certainly will withdraw forces from western Pakistan and deploy them in eastern Pakistan. That will mean that one leg of the Petraeus and Obama plans would collapse. Washington’s expectation of greater Pakistani cooperation along the Afghan border will disappear along with the troops. This will free the Taliban from whatever limits the Pakistani army had placed on it. The Taliban’s ability to fight would increase, while the motivation for any of the Taliban to enter talks — as Afghan President Hamid Karzai has suggested — would decline. U.S. forces, already stretched to the limit, would face an increasingly difficult situation, while pressure on al Qaeda in the tribal areas would decrease.

Now, step back and consider the situation the Mumbai attackers have created. First, the Indian government faces an internal political crisis driving it toward a confrontation it didn’t plan on. Second, the minimum Pakistani response to a renewed Indo-Pakistani crisis will be withdrawing forces from western Pakistan, thereby strengthening the Taliban and securing al Qaeda. Third, sufficient pressure on Pakistan’s civilian government could cause it to collapse, opening the door to a military-Islamist government — or it could see Pakistan collapse into chaos, giving Islamists security in various regions and an opportunity to reshape Pakistan. Finally, the United States’ situation in Afghanistan has now become enormously more complex.

By staging an attack the Indian government can’t ignore, the Mumbai attackers have set in motion an existential crisis for Pakistan. The reality of Pakistan cannot be transformed, trapped as the country is between the United States and India. Almost every evolution from this point forward benefits Islamists. Strategically, the attack on Mumbai was a precise blow struck to achieve uncertain but favorable political outcomes for the Islamists.

Rice’s trip to India now becomes the crucial next step. She wants Indian restraint. She does not want the western Pakistani border to collapse. But she cannot guarantee what India must have: assurance of no further terror attacks on India originating in Pakistan. Without that, India must do something. No Indian government could survive without some kind of action. So it is up to Rice, in one of her last acts as secretary of state, to come up with a miraculous solution to head off a final, catastrophic crisis for the Bush administration — and a defining first crisis for the new Obama administration. Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once said that the enemy gets a vote. The Islamists cast their ballot in Mumbai.



This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1228
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Sumeet » 02 Dec 2008 09:45

BBC flayed for not terming Mumbai gunmen as 'terrorists'


LONDON: A group of legislators of Labour party has criticised the BBC for not referring to the Mumbai attackers as "terrorists" in its news bulletins but the UK-based news organisation has defended the practice.

The BBC chooses to call such attackers as "militants" or "bombers".


Criticising the news channel, Stephen Pound, chairman of the Labour Friends of India, said: "This is the worst sort of mealy mouthed posturing. It is desperation to avoid causing offence which ultimately causes more offence to everyone. The terrorist term is universal.

"The result is innocent victims slaughtered in restaurants by men brandishing machine guns. They are terrorists and the BBC should call them that," Stephen said describing the attacks in Mumbai where around 200 people, including foreigners, were killed last week.

However, a BBC spokesman said: "This is nothing to do with political correctness. We are not calling them freedom fighters. We are calling them 'bombers' or 'militants'.

"The fact is terrorist does not have a universal meaning. It translates as freedom fighters in certain languages. We are not alone in not calling them terrorists."


"The word 'terrorist' is not banned from the BBC. BBC editorial guidelines are advisory but editors will exercise their own judgement on a case by case basis. The guidelines are aimed to support the BBC's journalism not only in the UK but around the world and to cover a wide spectrum of global and political scenarios.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63599
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Singha » 02 Dec 2008 09:51

I want to see a million jihadis running amuck in Lahore and black paktaleeb flags on all military cantonments.

true peace and justice can only be delivered by the faithful and not american controlled dogs.

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby parsuram » 02 Dec 2008 09:51

I have spent quite a bit of time reveiwing, listning, reading, watching the collection of media reports spread across the US at this time regarding this event. This (presidential transition) time may have some small glimer of optimism for India, otherwise, we should look forward to pitch black for the forseeable future. Condi Rice is already on mission to bludgeon Indian response. Obama is likely to follow through. More than this specific incident I see large dark clouds of equal equal indiapakistan, indiapakistan,indiapakistan,indiapakistan, equal equal returning with a vengence. There are two specific possibilities which could head that off. One, Dill stiffens up to Condi & who ever follows. Insist on reactivation of LOC ("cease fire" is a farse) for hot pursuit, if necessary, Insist on LeT principals , big D, etc. returned to India. Allow Indian intelligence operatives to monitor conditions in POK, [no war in POK, no first strike on pakis is offered on mutual basis). Full satellite survelence with ground corraboration. Uncle/Auntie can monitor, if they like. My second point is much more iffy, speculative or by way of wishfull thinking. This is no ordinary man. His mother had a unhealthy, pathalogical attraction for the Muslim male. Barak senior was followed by an Indonesian Muslim male, followed, after a short return home, going off to Paki stan in connection with some UN clerical job. Barrack Jr (by then in college) visited his mom in Karachi (circumstances can be surmized), then went on to travel in rural Pakjab. Knowing the intense racial stereotyping/denigrating that goes on all the time against dark complexioned pakjabis (oi habshee oi!, oi chittay itthey aa! etc) those visits have left some stromg impressions on the president elect. One way this may work out for India is that he allows India the same latitude in retaliating against the pakis as Israel gets, for instance (no racial bias). Ultimately, it is important to get to him early to get his gears moving in the right combination & ratios. Arrange an early state visit, WOW, double, tripple WOW Michelle Obama & the girls,then get to civilizational synthesis philosophy as backdrop to all kinds of wild west wheeling dealing, cut loose capitalism. This is very vague, unfocused but trust me, there is some "there" that is worth folloing up . Good things will come, so sending emissaries early at this time as GoI is doing has to be encouraged. Truman, Kennidy, Bush43 - 3 clear administrations that did not buy that equal equal indiapakistan,indiapakistan,indiapakistan,indiapakistan,indiapakistan, equal equal bs. Obama has a chance. Let us have him make the best of it.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby a_kumar » 02 Dec 2008 09:51

From Jon Stewart show tonight.. test for my transcription skills!!

********************

Jon Stewart (JS) : .. Big news of past week were the events in Mumbai India. Nearly 200 were killed in a co-ordinated terror attack, that appears to have been perperated by a radical Ismalic group.. for more John Oliver joins us.. John, this is a horrible event. Do we have any sense of who did this, yet?
Jon Oliver (JO): "Details sketchy. We don't know their specific name.. one thing perfectly clear is it appears to be work of a group of unbelievable Mofos, working in tandem with giant ass****

JS : Interesting that you say that. That is is exactly I was yelling at the telivision screen when I first heard it.
JO : There you go.. Your first instinct was right.

JS : These groups.. Jon.. al qaeda and mfs like that.. what is their goal.
JO : To transform entire world into ismalic kalifat.

JS : And their means jon to do that is..
JO : Randomly kill as many innocent people as possible without any remorse, compassion or regard for human lives.

JS: How does is that help them attain this goal of kalifat.
JO : There it is John, you have pinpointed the almst imperceptible flaw in the their logic in this industrial strength douchebags.

"We hate and kill everything u stand for.... Join Us!!"

JS : Jon, That does seem incredibly stupid.
JO : It is stupid, stupid is what it is. Infact, stupid is least negative of their many character flaws. They apparently felt there is not a single problem that cant be addressed by inflicting mass suffering on innocient civilians.

JS : So, what is then the answer to what they believe is "United States Imperialism.
JO : That would be, Shoot up a hotel.

JS : Poverty
JO : They feel that that is best addressed by blowing up a soccer stadium. Now, they do have a plan for eradicating worldwide Diptheria apedemic.

JS : What would that be.. .
JO : Driving a bus into a circus... I am not saying it makes sense.. But when your bankrupt ideology pursues a bancrupt strategy, only move you got is dickwad.

JS : One final question.. when will these mofos go away..
JO : They probably won't john.. they "were" always mofos, there "will" always be mofos.. but we can't do is let them control our mofo lives.

One more thing John.. f*** these f***ers John, f*** them, f*** f*** f***

kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby kmkraoind » 02 Dec 2008 09:55

Sonia’s presence in Delhi is costing India dearly

In 1898, the French writer Emile Zola wrote an open letter to the then French president in the newspaper L’Aurore, titled j’accuse (‘I accuse’), where he accused the French government of anti- Semitism towards Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer unfairly condemned for treason.


Now it is time for the people of India to say openly that which many, including within the Congress, think secretly and may utter in the privacy of their chambers.

It is not about Manmohan Singh, it is not even about Shivraj Patil, the fall guy; it is about that one person, the Eminence Grise of India. She who pulls all the strings, She whose shadow looms menacingly over so many, She who holds no portfolio, is just a simple elected MP, like 540 others, but rules like an empress.

Sometimes, one’s very physical presence at the top is enough to move things, to influence the course of events. One word from Her, a glance, a frown, are enough to put the whole heavy, inert, unwilling machinery of India’s bureaucracy and political system in full motion. Sometimes She need not say anything: in the true tradition of Bhakti, Her ministers, Her secretaries, interpret Her silences and rush to cater to Her western and Christian identity.

Nevertheless, she has said and acted enough so that one day she may stand accused on the pages of History for what she must have done to India.

I’accuse Sonia Gandhi as being responsible for the tragedy of Mumbai, having emasculated India’s intelligence agencies by stopping them from investigating terror attacks in the last four years, including the Mumbai train blasts. She has also neutralised the ATS by ordering them at all costs to ferret out ‘Hindu terrorism’, which if it exists, has wrought minuscule damage compared to what Islamic terror has done since 2004. Did the US send a warning to India that there may be an attack on Mumbai and that the Taj would be one of the targets? Were these ignored because the ATS was too busy chasing Hindu ‘terrorists’ on Sonia’s orders? I accuse Sonia and her government of having made the NSG the laughing stock of the world. How many times did the NSG (who took ten hours to reach Mumbai) claim that it had “sanitised the Taj and that the operation was over” and how many times did a bomb go off immediately after? For the last 20 years, the NSG has guarded VIPs and has become soft. See the comments of Israeli terror specialists, who said the NSG should have first sanitised the immediate surroundings of the places of conflict, kept the bystanders and press (who gave terrorists watching TV in the Taj rooms a perfect report of the security forces’ whereabouts) out of the place, gathered enough information about the position of the terrorists and hostages before taking action, instead of immediately engaging the terrorists, and ensuring the deaths of so many hostages.

I accuse Sonia of having let her Christian and Western background, in four years, divide India on religious and caste lines in a cynical and methodical manner.

I accuse Sonia of weakening India’s spirit of sacrifice and courage, so that 20 terrorists (or less) held at ransom the financial capital of India for more than three days.

I accuse Sonia Gandhi of always pointing the finger at Pakistan, when terrorism in India is now mostly homegrown, even if it takes help, training, refuge and arms from Pakistan; of not warning Indians of the grave dangers of Islamic terror for cynical election purposes.

I accuse Sonia of being an enemy of the Hindus, who always gave refuge to persecuted minorities, and who are the only people in the world to accept that God may manifest under different names, in different epochs, using different scriptures.

I accuse Sonia Gandhi of taking advantage of India’s respect for women, its undue fascination with the Gandhi name, and its stupid mania for White Skin.

I’accuse Sonia of exploiting the Indian Press’ obsession with her. She hardly ever gave interview in 20 years, except scripted ones to NDTV, yet the Press always protects her, never blames her and keeps silent over her covert role.

I’accuse Sonia and her government of trying to make heroes of subservient and inefficient men to hide the humiliation of Mumbai 26/11. Before going to his death, Hemant Karkare, the ATS chief, was shown on television clumsily handling his helmet, as someone who uses it very rarely. Why did he die of bullet wounds in the chest when he was wearing a bullet-proof vest? Either Indian vests are inferior quality or he was not wearing one.

How did the terrorists who killed him and his fellow officer escape in the same vehicle used by the ATS chief ? Why did he and his officers go into Cama Hospital without ascertaining where the terrorists were? We honour his death, but these facts say a lot about the ATS’ battle-readiness.

Will someone in the Congress, someone who feels more Indian than faithful to Sonia, stand up and speak the truth? Who said, “Go after Hindu terrorists”? Who insisted on putting pressure on BJP governments in Karnataka or Orissa for so-called persecution of Christians, when Christians have always practised their faith in total freedom here, while their missionaries are converting hundreds of thousands of innocent tribals and Dalits with the billions of dollars given by gullible westerners? Who said, “Go soft on Islamic terrorism”? Who wants to do away with India’s nuclear deterrence in the face of Pakistani and Chinese nuclear threats, by pushing at all costs the one sided Indo-US nuclear deal, which makes no secret of its intention to denuclearise India militarily? I am sure Sonia Gandhi has good qualities: she probably was a good wife to Rajiv, a good daughter in law to Indira and by all accounts, she is a good mother to her children. One also hears first-hand reports about her concern for smaller people, her dignity in the suffering that befell her when her husband was blown to pieces, and her courtesy with visitors.

Nevertheless, she is a danger to India.

Her very presence, both physical and occult, open the doors to forces inimical to India. Even Indian Christians should understand that she is not a gift to them: her presence at the top has emboldened fanatics like John Dayal or Valson Thampu, who practise an orthodox Christianity prevalent in the West in the early 20th century, but no longer, to radicalise their flock. Indian Christians should recognise that they have a much better deal here than Christians or Hindus have in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Saudi Arabia.

Under Sonia’s rule, Indian Muslims, too, have been used as electoral pawns. They have been encouraged to shun the Sufi streak, a blend of the best of Islam and Vedanta, for a hard-line Sunni brand imported from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For the good of India, her civilisation, her immense spirituality and culture, Sonia Gandhi has to go and a government that thinks Indian, breathes nationalism and will protect its citizens must be voted to power.

fgautier@auroville.org.in

(Admins if you feel the post is too offensive politically or if it is inappropraite in this thread, please take appropriate action.)
Last edited by kmkraoind on 02 Dec 2008 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23133
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby SSridhar » 02 Dec 2008 09:59

R Vaidya wrote:Terror attacks -- Dealing with TSP

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1210789

rvaidya


R Vaidya, appreciate the article. Well written indeed.

Excerpt
There are three groups in India, who are obsessed with friendship with Pakistan. One is the oldies born in that part before partition and who are nostalgic about the Lahore havelis, halwas and mujras. The second is the Bollywood and other assorted groups, who look at it as a big market. The Dawood gang has financed enough of these useful idiots. The third is the candle light holding bleeding heart liberals (BHLs) who cannot imagine India doing well without its younger brother taken care. All three have been proved wrong hundreds of times, but they are also opinion makers. Shun them, avoid them and ridicule them.

Sachin
Webmaster BR
Posts: 7225
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Undisclosed

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Sachin » 02 Dec 2008 10:00

ramana wrote:One yumpee from Kerala called Krishanadas. Don't know who the other was.

The other one was from MP or Haryana. Krishnadas in an interview had said that he was actually waiting at the Taj area for this second MLA to turn up.

Shreeman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3764
Joined: 17 Jan 2007 15:31
Location: bositiveneuj.blogspot.com
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Shreeman » 02 Dec 2008 10:01

samuel wrote:I'll second that. I have heard a personal story through the chairman of a Bank who was eventually rescued tell us of the bravery of two staff members at Taj, who did their utmost in the most selfless way possible. They shielded his escape and paid with their lives. More keep pouring in.

When we heard the Holtzberg baby boy cry Ima, it was too much for my wife and me. Our own son is about as old.

The silence from New Delhi is deafening.


PS: Have nothing to do with Bombay, and very little with anything in India any more. In person and through acquaintances, have come across multiple stories - of both death and heroism. A guest watching TV even recognized someone they knew - in the middle of the tragedy. A friend lost a distant relative at one of the hotels. Thousands of people were directly affected, and by direct association - perhaps millions. And yet, sigh!

Grrrr. To be so helpless.

Raju

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Raju » 02 Dec 2008 10:04

J. N. Dixit (salaam sir) when he was alive had said on the occassion of M. K. Narayanan's promotion to NSA that M.K.N was the kind of chap given to intrigues and not really fit for a post of such strategic importance.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2924
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby vera_k » 02 Dec 2008 10:05

parsuram wrote:His mother had a unhealthy, pathalogical attraction for the Muslim male.


Is this perhaps not limited to this one woman, but white and Indian women in general? Robin Raphael displayed the same tendency, the NYTimes editorial board has another white woman writing confused pro-terrorist editorials, our own Barkha...remains to be seen if Clinton follows suit.

Praveen
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 63
Joined: 22 Apr 2005 11:29
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Praveen » 02 Dec 2008 10:24

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/79529/watch-2611-terrorist-caught-on-csts-cctv-camera.html

In the above video one of the pig can be clearly seen gesturing something(ok? bye? takecare? kind of gesture) to someone not in the video. That means some other person helped them get there. It appears around 13 - 15 sec into the video.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby svinayak » 02 Dec 2008 10:26

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX-R4XKLDcc

The Mumbai attacks have brought relations between India and Pakistan to new lows, fuelling distrust and suspicion between both neighbouring countries.

Al Jazeera's Imran Khan reports from Mumbai where many are suspecting Pakistan's involvement as investigators confirm those behind the coordinated attacks.
Last edited by svinayak on 02 Dec 2008 10:32, edited 2 times in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63599
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Singha » 02 Dec 2008 10:26

but white and Indian women in general?

no idea about whites but among indian women, restricted to only those in bollywood, media & academia.

a_kumar
BRFite
Posts: 481
Joined: 18 Jun 2008 23:53
Location: what about it?

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby a_kumar » 02 Dec 2008 10:28

Hope Admins give some leeway!!

vkthakur wrote:I made the post regarding dangerous Times Now reporting because an earlier post touched on the subject, not because I wanted to promote my blog.


I see your anguish, but if you think about it.

You have come on BRF to share your anguish
* NOT after bomb blasts
* Not after Rajdeep kept insulting the intelligence of common man
* Not when Barkha was goading everyone for hostage negotiation .. (her claim to fame?)..
* These jokers said "We believe you" to the condescending bas**** that was going around the country dissing us.
* They go ahead and suck up to him anyway.. instead of chasing him for lack of respect for the lost lives.

Not a peep in your conscience, but you come out when there is one guy that says the way it is and everyone goes.. "thats what I am talking about..". Infact, if Arnab keeps doing it for years, then it will probably restore some balance to the media circus filled with bozos..

Arnab will probably overdo it sometime and I am sure he will get his due for that, but for now.. enjoy the party!!

I wish admins let your post be for everybody!!

From your deleted post, you were of view that Arnab or TimesNow were responsible for creating the situation with Major. Unnikrishnan's dad and CM. I am not sure what you are complaining about... the political gods deserve treatment like that. They are drunk with power/chamchas and feel that everybody should bow down and fete them. Folks like this CM come prancing around for media and lights, when they have created the chaos that took the major's life.

Hyderabad and Kerala and ticking timebombs!

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3728
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby sanjaykumar » 02 Dec 2008 10:29

Only those who recognise Hindu/Indian values and principles of duty, especially as they are codified with respect to guests, can understand the meaning of those hotel employees duty to care.

Very sad.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Terror Attacks in Mumbai - III

Postby Philip » 02 Dec 2008 10:31

The US only wants its won agenda in the region to prevail.That means no conflict between India and Pak,by keeping India castrated every time Pak strikes at us.The USN moves are to prevent India from any naval action,especially to break any attempt at a naval blockade.We can clearly see Uncle sam's duplicity at work here.

Therefore,Condy Rice,who is a lame duck Sec. of State,must be told in no uncertain terms,that unless the US stops all military and economic aid to Pak,hand over all wanted terrorists like Dawood,mujahids,place all military men and the ISI rogues on trial at the Hague,and defang Pak's nukes,India will cut off all military cooperation with it,all intel,exercises,all patrolling of the Malacca Straits-protecting Uncle Sam's backside and kick the "Kicklighter" agreement into the Indian Ocean.I doubt if our lame duck PM also has the essential equipment in his dhoti to do so,but the people of India must take up cudgels against the US if they do not bring Pak to book.We must remember that Hillary Clinton is now taking over and her husband Bill was bankrolled by the Chinese military,most unlikely to take any stern action against pak,even though the memory of Daniel Pearl's kidnapping and death has remained unpunished,because it was a CIA pampered outfit that did him in.

We can expect precious little from the US other than Coke,Pepsi and sympathy.It will never give up its illicit sodomite relationship with Pak,as it loves so dearly its favourite "rent boy".See how this is unfolding.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... india.html

Mumbai attacks: West tries to prevent breakdown in Pakistan-India relations
Western governments are trying to prevent a breakdown in relations between Asia's two nuclear powers after India accused Pakistan of allowing terrorists to mount the attacks on Mumbai.

By Damien McElroy and Rahul Bedi in Mumbai and David Blair, Diplomatic Editor

: A mourner whose son was shot and killed by terrorists is comforted by friends Photo: AP
Photo: AP
India summoned its neighbour's High Commissioner to hear a strongly worded protest, stating that all 10 of the terrorists who killed at least 188 people in Mumbai came from Pakistan.

In the past, terrorist attacks in India have brought the two countries to the brink of war. The chances of this happening again are low. Instead, the key danger is that both neighbours engage in a lengthy round of sabre-rattling, involving a military build-up on their common border, thereby relieving pressure on the terrorist groups based in the Tribal Areas lining Pakistan's north-west frontier.

The foreign ministry in New Delhi said that Pakistan's representative had been "informed that the recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was carried out by elements from Pakistan".

India expected that "strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage". Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, faces an election next year and must be seen to take a tough line against his neighbour.

Four years ago, Pakistan promised to prevent any terrorists based inside its territory from striking India. This pledge was made during a thaw in relations between the two countries when they began negotiations covering the full range of issues dividing them, including the bitterly disputed territory of Kashmir.

But India has formally given warning that it will "freeze" all bilateral ties unless Pakistan keeps its promise to avert terrorist attacks.

India has not directly accused Pakistan's new civilian government under President Asif Ali Zardari of organising the strike. Instead, the central allegation is that its neighbour has committed a sin by omission by failing to prevent terrorists on its territory from organising attacks.

But Mr Zardari has always made clear that he wants better relations with India. At the very least, the attack on Bombay has probably prevented any further easing of the two countries' rivalry. "It happened at a time when a new civilian government in Pakistan was not just reaching out to India, it was undertaking some very meaningful steps," said Samina Ahmed, South Asia project director for the International Crisis Group (ICG). "For the jihadi groups and their backers in Pakistan this was probably a make or break moment."

Both countries have denied massing troops along their common border. But their respective armed forces have issued "warning orders" placing their troops on higher alert.

India claims all of the nine terrorists who were killed in Bombay belong to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist group based near the Pakistani city of Lahore. One, Azam Amir Qasab, survived the attack and is now in hospital. He told police that he comes from the village of Faridkot in Pakistan's Punjab province and that he was paid £2000 to join the attack team. Qasab's evidence also appears to implicate senior figures from Lashkar-e-Taiba.

But Indian investigators believe that following up the leads requires Pakistan's cooperation. "Little or no progress can be made in the investigations unless Pakistan arrests key suspects based in their country," said one senior officer.

Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, said that Pakistan had an "absolute" obligation to "cooperate" with this investigation, even if the evidence that emerges points in uncomfortable directions. Speaking during a visit to London, she said: "What it requires of Pakistan is to let the evidence fall where it falls and to react accordingly. The last thing this new civilian government needs is to have this terrorism continue. Ultimately, Pakistan has to be seen as a place which has a handle on extremism."

Miss Rice added: "This is a critical moment for Pakistan to bring all of its institutions into a common strategy to defend Pakistan. And defending Pakistan means rooting out extremism, defending Pakistani interests means cooperating fully in this investigation."

Miss Rice said that it was "incumbent upon Pakistan to realise the seriousness of what has happened". If it was established that the Bombay attack was planned by terrorists based in the country, then a "firm response" from Mr Zardari's goverment would be "very important".


Return to “Terrorism Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest