Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for category Kulbhusgan Jadav-Indian RAW Terror Mastermind

False Flag Operations; Paving the Way for a Nuclear War by Ishaal Zehra

False Flag Operations; Paving the Way for a Nuclear War

 

Ishaal Zehra

 

 

The attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 – designated as 26/11 – left 162 people
dead in a traumatic event that some people described as India's 9/11. Extensive
media coverage has created the impression that all the relevant facts on this
audacious operation have been reported. Unfortunately, this impression is false, says
Elias Davidsson in his book on the 2008 attacks that occurred in Mumbai, India. The
book is entitled, The Betrayal of India: Revisiting the 26/11 Evidence. “The book is
about the betrayal of the Indian nation by a corrupt, greedy and ruthless elite for
whom the lives of ordinary Indians are expendable when power and profit are at
stake,” enunciates the author.
Elias Davidsson was born in Palestine in 1941 to German-Jewish parents so there is a
slightest chance of him having any love lost for Pakistan. He has gained quite a fame
in the area of investigative journalism primarily after the publication of his books on
9/11 and the follow-up terrorist attacks that set the world on fire. “Hijacking
America’s Mind on 9/11″, followed by “Psychological Warfare and Social Denial: The
Legend of 9/11 and the Fiction of Terrorism” presented a narrative fairly different
from the official one.
The author very intriguingly uncovers the whole Mumbai attacks proceeds. He
critically evaluates the official narrative of 26/11, as reflected in court documents and
the news media, also the testimonies of those dozens of important witnesses whom
Indian courts ignored because they shed a radically different light on the events.
Besides, it also presents a detailed analysis of the benefits accrued by the powerful
constituencies of India and US from this mass murder. The conclusion of this detailed
assessment is devastating as they expose the unspoken truce between the leading
news media, the political class, the police and the judicial system to cover up the real
facts on 26/11 on the pretext of shielding the real offenders.
The Indian version of these attacks – the official story as narrated by the Indian
government – can be found at Wikipedia (which seldom strays from government
intelligence narratives) as: “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.” For the record, both
Pakistan and Lashkar-e- Taiba denied responsibility for the attacks and, Davidsson
argues, they did so for good reasons.

 

 

Source: Bestanimations.com

 

 

 

 

 

The author also made clear how easy it was to get an abundance of funds and
equipment for the Mumbai police on the basis of such a narrative and why it was
possible for India’s armed forces to get an immediate 21% hike in her military
spending with promises of continuing increases in subsequent years.
To prove this a false flag operation, Davidsson gave a jillion arguments. One of them
was the fact that the Prime Minister of India, while the attack was still in progress,
implied that the perpetrators were from a terrorist group supported by Pakistan.
Prof. Graeme McQueen of Global Research (Canadian think tank) explains that 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.
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. Likewise, 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 with no evidence at hand.
There were so many loose ends in the investigation process that leaves an inquisitive
mind in a state of total perplexity. Also, the assassination of ATS chief Hemant
Karkare makes the whole episode yet more dubious. Karkare was killed as he steered
the investigation of the 2008 Malegaon blasts and was on the verge of exposing the
BJP led Hindutva extremist forces who were fomenting terrorism in the name of
Indian Muslims. Davidsson also questions about the extreme secrecy and withholding
of basic information from the population, on the plea of national security.
The lone surviving alleged terrorist had no public trial. One lawyer who agreed to
defend the accused was removed by the court and another was assassinated. 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.
Interestingly, the public was told that there was extensive CCTV footage of the
attacks, despite the mysterious malfunctioning of the majority of CCTV cameras on
the days in question, the book reveals, but only a very small percentage of the
claimed footage was ever released and that too suffered from serious defects – two
conflicting time – stamps and signs of editing. Also, those 475 – 800 members of the elite
Indian commando unit that battled the eight terrorists were never allowed to testify
in court. Above all, 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 which could not be
confirmed.
Davidsson correspondingly cast doubt on the grotesque failure by investigating
officials to follow proper procedures. Eyewitnesses to the crime differed on the
clothing and skin color of the terrorists, and on how many of them there were. At
least one eyewitness confessed she found it hard to distinguish “friends” from
terrorists but no probe was stimulated by this odd confusion. Weird enough, of the
“hundreds of witnesses processed by the court” in relation to the attacks at the CaféLeopold, 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”, the author
observed.
The number of contradictions and miracles present in the investigation report was
more offending. One victim was apparently resurrected from the dead when his
testimony was essential to the point the finger at Pakistan. A second victim died in
two different places, while a third died in three places. No one in authority cared
enough to solve these difficulties. Moreover, the number of terrorists who
committed the deeds changed repeatedly, as did the number of terrorists who
survived.
Another surprising question was raised when the forensic study of the attack at the
Cama Hospital failed to turn up a single AK-47 bullet while the common narration of
the attack claimed that the terrorists were armed with AK-47s. In addition, the crime
scenes were violated, with bodies hauled off before they could be examined. Also,
the 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,
were instead whisked back to Israel by a Jewish organization based in Israel,
apparently for religious reasons.
The FBI showed great interest in the attacks from the outset. Interestingly, it actually
had a man on the scene during the attacks and sent an entire team directly after the
event. 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.
The New York Police Department also sent a team after the conclusion of the event,
as did Scotland Yard and Israeli police.
Taking account of all the aspects, the author concludes that, “It is highly plausible
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, but
the evidence of a deceptive investigation is even stronger.” He is convinced 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. Prof.
Graeme McQueen opines, 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.
India is in a habit of implicating Pakistan over false flag operations planned and
executed by herself. Adeela Naureen, while discussing the book by Davidsson, has
very rightly asked Pakistan to take India to ICJ for this indigenous false flag operation
conducted by RAW and western intelligence agencies. It is high time these false flags
must be exposed and ended downright. Or else the dangers of such false flag
operations in this highly nuclearized zone could develop into something beyond
the imagination of any.

Pictorials Courtesy-defence.pk

[​IMG]

Some attached the images of the document in their tweets, convinced that the document was official
[​IMG]

Abid Khan said that India was funding the Taliban to engage Pakistan in terrorism
[​IMG]
India is blamed for pursuing a policy of genocide against Muslims

, ,

No Comments

India’s bid to isolate Pakistan Asif Haroon Raja, Defence Analyst

 

India’s bid to isolate Pakistan

Asif Haroon Raja

Defence Analyst

 

 

After the false flag operation in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, India blamed Pakistan, ISI and Hafiz Saeed led Lashkar-e-Taiba for the attacks (1), and suspended composite dialogue with Pakistan that had been renewed in February 2004 as a consequence to Indo-Pakistan peace treaty and a commitment to resolve all disputes including Kashmir issue through talks. Since then, India pushed aside Kashmir dispute and made terrorism as the core issue. Without providing any proof, it forced Pakistan to arrest and punish the alleged culprits involved in Mumbai attacks. In fact, India cleverly built a narrative of terrorism against Pakistan from the time of engineered terror attack on December 13, 2001, in which the Indian Parliament in New Delhi was attacked by a handful of terrorists(1). After blaming Pakistan and Jaish-e- Muhammad, India deployed its entire military strength along its western border and remained in confrontation mode for next ten months.

Thereon, all terror attacks in India were put in the basket of Pakistan. The purpose of building this narrative was to get Pakistan declared a terrorist state and ISI a rogue outfit. Its strategic partners USA and Afghanistan substantiated Indian stance. Indian attitude became more aggressive after Narendra Modi took over power in June 2014. From August 2014 onward, the Indian military has kept the Line of Control and working boundary in Kashmir sector hot and hardly a day has passed without unprovoked firing by India. The upsurge in the uprising in IOK after the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in July 2016 was also placed at the doorsteps of Pakistan. Pakistan was blamed for the militants’ attacks in Udhampur and Pathankot airbase. The militant attack on Uri military camp in April 2016(1a) further incensed India and it started hurling threats of surgical strikes and limited war. Intruding Indian drone was shot down by Pakistan Army, while Indian submarine on a spying mission was forced to retreat by Pak Navy. 

Besides political, diplomatic and military posturing to overawe and isolate Pakistan, India has also been trying to ease out Pakistan from its membership of SAARC. The 19th SAARC summit scheduled at Islamabad in November 2016 had to be cancelled due to India refusing to attend it and Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan the following suit to boycott the summit. (2)     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After sabotaging the Summit, India also tried to halt the appointment of the New Secretary-General, Amjad Hussian B Sial. India justified its actions by stating that the nominee had to be ratified by the Council of Ministers conference in Islamabad. Something which could not take place due to the postponement of the Summit. (3)

 

Soon after the appointment of the New Secretary-General in March 2017, India hosted a meeting on March 21, 2017, of security chiefs from the seven member states of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) The meeting was a first for the BIMSTEC group, which includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Thailand.(4) This meeting focused on terrorism, cyber and maritime security challenges facing the region. It was decided at the meeting to establish a track 1.5 dialogue forum focused on security. Given the importance of cooperating on security-related matters, it was also decided to hold such meetings annually. It was no surprise that Pakistan was again left out of this meeting. (5)

 

Another meeting was held in the month of October 2017 in which India again tried to push back SAARC and attempted to boost the significance of BIMSTEC. In his remarks during the meeting, Foreign Secretary of India S. (6) In an implicit reference to Pakistan, he also said that “as one country” is not, and since the other seven-nation regional grouping BIMSTEC has members that are “broadly aligned” and “articulate similar aspirations”, and are connected to the other members of the South Asian regional bloc on the key issue of terrorism, it was unlikely that the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) could be revived.(7)

 

India has also tried to marginalize Pakistan on other forums as well. For instance, when Sushma Swaraj met SAARC foreign ministers in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September 2017, India’s disinterest in the summit was evident. This added to the downgrading of the entire organization. With India-Pakistan bilateral relations on the downturn, the domino impact on the South Asian body has only worsened. (8)

 

During her speech, Swaraj did not refer to the uncertainties surrounding the SAARC Summit but stressed the primacy given to the removal of terrorism which in implicit terms was actually taking a jab at Islamabad: “Regional prosperity, connectivity and cooperation can take place only in an atmosphere of peace and security.(9) It, however, remains at serious risk in the region. It is necessary for our region’s survival that we eliminate the scourge of terrorism in all its forms, without any discrimination, and end the ecosystem of its support.”(10)

 

On January 2, 2018, India excluded Pakistan from the list of SAARC member countries with which it will be connecting its state-of-the-art National Knowledge Network (NKN) for sharing scientific databases and remote access to advanced research facilities.(11)

 

NKN will extend global research and education networks to six SAARC member states — Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Pakistan is the only SAARC nation that has been left out of this initiative. (12)

NKN is a multi-gigabit pan-India network which facilitates the development of India’s communications infrastructure, stimulates research and creates next-generation applications and services. (13) This new initiative will enable collaboration among researchers from different educational networks such as TEIN4, GARUDA, CERN and Internet2. It also enables sharing of scientific databases and remote access to advanced research facilities.(14)

NKN will be connected from Afghanistan to Delhi or Mumbai, from Bangladesh to Kolkata or Delhi, from Bhutan to Kolkata or Delhi, from Nepal to Kolkata or Delhi, from the Maldives to Chennai or Mumbai and from Sri Lanka to Chennai or Mumbai. (15) A state-of-the-art management centre and network operations centre will also be set up to run the NKN network. The connection from Afghanistan, Maldives and Sri Lanka to India would be through a submarine cable for international connectivity. (16)

 

It is evident that it is not Pakistan that is creating hurdles in the way of successful implementation of SAARC’s agenda, but in fact, it is India which is trying to isolate Pakistan by using underhand tactics. India has used terrorism as a basis for suspension of official talks with Pakistan due to alleged terrorist attacks launched by groups from across the border. The chill in relations has spread out to other sectors such as research and scientific development as well – something, which negatively affects the entire region.

 

On the question of terrorism, it is again very clear that it is not Pakistan which is sponsoring terrorism. On the contrary, it is India funding radicalization in South Asia – especially in Pakistan. Kulbhushan Jadhav is a prime example of this.

 

India should also realize that it is not the only country in SAARC that can dominate all the other members. Instead, Delhi should remember the agenda of regional cooperation on which SAARC was formed and countries should use this forum for regional cooperation, not for a rivalry. SAARC should not be the organization to prolong the rivalry among regional states, rather it should serve for greater regional cooperation and economic integration. If the region is thrown into negativity, India will suffer along with the others as well. This is something Delhi needs to keep in mind. After all, what goes around comes around. India must also not forget that CPEC has taken off and sooner than later, SAARC members will gravitate toward this profit making project and leave India which is opposed to CPEC in a lurch.

 

  • The News, December 14, 2001

(1a)       “Uri Attack: India, Pakistan’s Kashmir Dispute Flares Again.” Time. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://time.com/4498891/kashmir-uri-attack-india-pakistan-military-conflict/

 

 (2)       Baqir Sajjad Syed | Jawed Naqvi. “SAARC summit in doldrums after India pulls out.” DAWN.COM September 28, 2016. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://www.dawn.com/news/1286609

 (3)       Kathmandu Anil Giri Hindustan. “Appointment of SAARC secretary general hit by India-Pakistan tensions.” Times. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/appointment-of-SAARC-secretary-general-hit-by-india-pakistan-tensions/story-1b1wlC1CrEbquDvQRuQZkN.html

 (4)     Gurjar, Sankalp. “Is SAARC Doomed?” The Diplomat. April 01, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://thediplomat.com/2017/04/is-SAARC-doomed/

 (5)     Ibid.

 (6)     Bagchi, Indrani. “Question mark over SAARC summit again” The Times of India. September 23, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/question-mark-over-SAARC-summit-again/articleshow/60801709.cms

 (7)     Ibid.

 (8)     Bagchi, Indrani. “Question mark over SAARC summit again .” The Times of India. September 23, 2017. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/question-mark-over-SAARC-summit-again/articleshow/60801709.cms

 (9)     Ibid.

(10)     Ibid.

 (11)       “India excludes Pakistan from SAARC initiative.” Pakistan Today. Accessed January 25, 2018.

        https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/01/03/india-excludes-pakistan-from-SAARC-initiative/

 

 (12)       “India excludes Pakistan from a SAARC initiative.” The Economic Times. January 03, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2018. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-excludes-pakistan-from-a-SAARC-initiative/articleshow/62345991.cms

 (13)       Ibid.

 (14)       Ibid.

 (15)       “India excludes Pakistan from SAARC initiative”, Pakistan Today. Accessed January 25, 2018.

        https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2018/01/03/india-excludes-pakistan-from-SAARC-initiative/

 (16)       “Modi Government excludes Pakistan from the list of SAARC nations for its State-of-the-Art National Knowledge Network Initiative.” Postcard. January 09, 2018. Accessed January 25, 2018. http://postcard.news/modi-government-excludes-pakistan-list-SAARC-nations-state-art-national-knowledge-network-initiative/

                                                                          

 

, , ,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar