Our Announcements

Not Found

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

Posts Tagged India’s Black OPS.India’s False Flage Mumbai Attacks

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

Who Arranged Mumbai Attacks? By Sajjad Shaukat

                                              

Who Arranged Mumbai Attacks

By Sajjad Shaukat

 

 

 

On November 26, 2008, several persons were killed in the simultaneous terror attacks in Mumbai. Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media had started blaming Pakistan.

 

Under the cover of the Mumbai catastrophe, India began a deliberate propaganda campaign against Pakistan and tried to isolate the latter in the comity of nations by showing that Islamabad was sponsoring terrorism in India. In this regard, Indian former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and its other high officials, while repeating old rhetoric of baseless allegations, stated that Pakistan has “epicenter of terrorism” and Islamabad should “end infrastructure of terrorism.” L.K. Advani, leader of the BJP, while accusing Pakistan as the hotbed of terror in the region, said that Pakistan’s secret agency ISI should be declared a terror outfit.

 

In this respect, Indian top officials and TV channels had remarked that Indian Mujahideen and the banned Lashkar-e-Tayba based in Pakistan and ISI were behind the Mumbai terror attacks. With the assistance of Indian secret agency RAW, Indian investigators fabricated a false story that 10 terrorists who executed Mumbai carnage came in a boat from Karachi and were in contact with the members of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba through phone calls. But a number of questions arise in relation to the so-called links, deliberately entangling Pakistan. First, how it is possible that the militants phoned 100 times inside Pakistan, but they did not call their families? Second, the lonely gunman Ajmal Kasab who was arrested, knew his address and why he did not indicate the names and home addresses of other 9 fugitives with whom he lived for a long time? Third, after the hard journey of more than 50 hours, traveling on the slow moving water, evading 20 coastal guards of Indian Navy, how they reached Mumbai? Fourth, where did they change their muddy shoes and wet dresses? Fifth, how it became possible that they immediately hired a taxi and reached their targets, without taking some rest? Sixth, why the terrorists killed only four people at the Nariman house, sparing the other six guys present there?

 

Availing the pretext of the Mumbai catastrophe, New Delhi had suspended the process of ‘composite dialogue’ in wake of its highly provocative actions like mobilization of troops. Islamabad had also taken defensive steps to meet any Indian prospective aggression or surgical strikes. But, India failed in implementing its aggressive plans, because Pakistan also possesses atomic weapons.

 

However, in the post-Mumbai terror attacks, Indian rulers had started blackmailing Islamabad that they would not resume the talks unless Islamabad takes actions against the culprits of Mumbai mayhem. New Delhi urged Islamabad to arrest the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks. Rejecting Pakistan’s stand that its government or any official agency was not involved in the Mumbai attacks, New Delhi wanted to make Islamabad accept all other Indian demands since our rulers admitted that Ajmal Kasab was Pakistani national. In fact, Islamabad’s admission which had emboldened New Delhi was forced by the US. And, Ajmal Kasab was tortured by the Indian intelligence agencies so as to endorse Indian false story against Islamabad, while giving statement in an Indian court. Suppose, even if he was Pakistani, it did not matter because he was a non-state actor, as non-state actors like smugglers and the militants are found in many countries.

 

It is of particular attention that on July 19, 2013, the Indian former home ministry and ex-investigating officer Satish Verma disclosed that terror attacks in Mumbai in November 26, 2008 and assault on Indian Parliament in January 12, 2001 were carried out by the Indian government to strengthen anti-terrorism laws.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

images-1

 

It has clearly proved that Indian secret agencies; particularly RAW arranged coordinated terror attacks in Mumbai and orchestrated that drama only to defame Pakistan in the world, but also to fulfill a number of other aims.

 

It is notable that renowned thinkers, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Morgenthau opine that sometimes, rulers act upon immoral activities like deceit, fraud and falsehood to fulfill their countries’ selfish aims. But such a sinister politics was replaced by new trends such as fair-dealings, reconciliation and economic development. Regrettably, India is still following past politics in modern era.

 

It is mentionable that during the talks between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan, at Ufa, Islamabad has conveyed to New Delhi a comprehensive agenda to discuss all outstanding issues, including Kashmir as well as terrorism. But, New Delhi’s insistence to restrict the agenda for the dialogue to terrorism or cross-border terrorism only, demonstrated India’s confused policy towards Pakistan.

 

Indian foreign secretary level talks were held in Islamabad on March 3, 2015. In this context, Indian External Affairs Secretary Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry discussed contentious issues including Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and other bilateral issues. While, last year, India postponed the Secretary level talks with Pakistan; under the pretext that during his Indian visit Sartaj Aziz met Kashmiri leaders.

 

In fact, a lack of seriousness on India’s part to settle all disputes, especially Kashmir issue has compelled New Delhi to follow a self-contradictory and confused strategy towards Islamabad.

 

Hence, New Delhi earnestly found various pretexts to cancel peace talks, while shifting the blame to Islamabad. For example, besides Mumbai attacks, in 2002, under the pretension of terrorist attack on the Indian parliament, India postponed the dialogue process.

 

Particularly, on May 27, 2014, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s meeting with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Shariff in the oath-taking ceremony proved faultless, because Modi raised baseless issues like terrorism as pre-condition to advance the Pak-Indian dialogue. He said that slow pace of trial against the terrorists of the Mumbai 26/11 terror case; being held in Pakistan is main hurdle.

 

As regards the case of cross-border terrorism, India has shown ambivalent approach which can be judged from various recent developments. In this connection, on July 27, 2015, three gunmen dressed in army uniforms killed at least seven people, including three civilians and four policemen in the Indian district of Gurdaspur, Punjab.

 

Without any investigation, Indian high officials and media started accusing Pakistan, its banned militant outfits and intelligence agencies for the Gurdaspur incident. Indian Police remarked that the attackers are from Indian-held Kashmir, and some said that they were Sikh separatists, while Indian Punjab police chief claimed that the three gunmen were Muslim, but as yet unidentified. Contradicting speculations, India’s Home Minister Rajnath Singh told parliament that the gunmen came from Pakistan.

 

Khalistan Movement Chief Manmohan Singh stated that the Gurdaspur incident is “a conspiracy of Indian secret agency RAW to defame Pakistan.”

 

Besides, in the recent past, prior to the US President Obama’s second visit to New Delhi, Indian intelligence agencies orchestrated a boat drama to defame Pakistan, allegedly reporting that a Pakistani fishing boat as a Pakistan-based outfit group Lashkar-e-Taiba was intercepted by Indian Coast Guards, off the coast of Porebandar, Gujarat. And Indian Coast Guard crew set the boat on fire and it exploded. But, its reality exposed Indian terrorism, because, some Indian high officials admitted that there was no such boat which came from Pakistan.

 

Similarly, India intends to obtain various hidden purposes by blaming Islamabad for terrorism. First of all, it wants to divert the attention of the international community from the involvement of RAW which has well-established its network in Afghanistan, and is fully assisting cross-border incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements, Jundullah and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) including their affiliated outfits. On a number of occasions, these insurgent groups claimed responsibility for their acts of sabotage.

 

It is worth-mentioning that Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff General Raheel Sharif accompanied by the DG of ISI went to Kabul on December 17, 2014. During his meeting with his Afghan counterpart, President Ashraf Ghani and the ISAF commander, he presented the evidence of linkage between the massacre of children at Peshawar school and TTP sanctuaries in Afghanistan. He also asked about action against the TTP and handing over of its chief Mullah Fazlullah to Pakistan.

 

It is regrettable that New Delhi is destabilizing the regional countries in general and Afghanistan and Pakistan in particular. In order to obtain its secret designs, aimed at augmenting Indian hegemony in the region, India is foiling the peace process between Afghanistan and Pakistan by managing terrorist attacks like the recent ones in Afghanistan which revived old blame game against Islamabad.

 

And, waging a prolonged war in Afghanistan, the US and other NATO countries have realized that after the withdrawal of foreign troops, Afghanistan would be thrown in an era of uncertainly and civil war. They recognize the fact and terrorism or stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan is interrelated. Hence, US-led developed nations which also spent billions of dollars for the development of Afghanistan have repeatedly agreed that without Islamabad’s help, stability cannot be achieved there. In this regard, a meeting was hosted by Pakistan between the Afghan officials and representatives of Tehreek-e-Taliban Afghanistan in Murree (On July 8, this year) and dialogue were conducted for an Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process, while the representatives of China and America also participated in the meeting.

 

In this backdrop of growing engagements of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and US, Indian desperation in Afghanistan is increasing. Moreover, New Delhi is trying to sabotage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Recent terror-attacks in Pakistan and Balochistan might be noted as instance. Indian RAW has also created a heavily funded China-Pakistan and Afghanistan specific desk to target growing Pak-China-Afghanistan relations.

 

Furthermore, on the direction of the Indian leader of the fundamentalist party BJP and Prime Minister Modi, Indian forces have accelerated unprovoked shelling across the Line of Control and Working Boundary, while creating war-like situation between Pakistan and India.

 

Notably, Islamabad has raised the question of Indian cross-border terrorism and RAW involvement in Pakistan at the UNO forum, with strong evidence which was also shown to the US.

 

Without any doubt, we can conclude that Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008 were arranged by Indian RAW.

 

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

 

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

 

 

 

,

No Comments


Skip to toolbar