Mumbai Attacks

[pkpatriotic]

Roundtable with Press

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Foreign Commonwealth Offices
London, England
December 1, 2008

SECRETARY RICE: All right. Sean, what are our ground rules?

MR. MCCORMACK: We’re on the record.

SECRETARY RICE: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: We have about half an hour. We have to see the Prime Minister.

SECRETARY RICE: Great. All right. So why don’t we just start around? Richard, do you want to start?

QUESTION: Sure. Well, I suppose the big issue that’s been occupying our minds for the last week has been, obviously, the events in Mumbai.

SECRETARY RICE: Yes.

QUESTION: And I know you’re going there on Wednesday. And I guess the big fear now is that this incident is going to spark some new tension or potential conflict between India and Pakistan. And so I suppose I would like to know what you’re planning to do to prevent that happening.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the most important thing that can happen now is to have absolute commitment on the part of everyone to investigate what happened and bring people to justice for what they did, and in doing so, perhaps, to also learn of any further activities that this group was – might have been involved in. That’s going to require great cooperation between India and those of us who have been active in the war on terror, like the United States and Great Britain.

And I know that that cooperation is going on, but it’s also going to require the cooperation of Pakistan. And the Pakistani Government has said that -- President Zardari has said rightly that extremism in any form is a threat to Pakistan, as well as to India. And I fully expect, therefore, the commitment of Pakistan to absolute transparency and wherever the leads go to completely follow them up. And that’s just going to be absolutely necessary. The United States, like Great Britain, lost citizens and so we have a special interest in this. And we’re going to pursue every avenue that we can to find out what happened here.

So that really is the issue now, and we continue to hope that the Indian and Pakistani Governments will maintain the open lines of communication that they’ve thus far had. And we will continue to impress upon them the importance of those open communications, but this is a very serious time for commitment to getting to the bottom of this.

Should we just go around, or --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. But my question wasn’t on – maybe a bit disjointed -

SECRETARY RICE: Okay. Well, do you want -- does anyone want to follow up on India?

Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Let me just follow up on Richard’s. What you’re outlining – of course, the investigation is very important, but what you’re outlining really is just a whole new strategy. Because it is – basically, people in this room are reasonably clear of what sort of results the investigation will throw up. Then the question is what kind of response from India is proportionate, possible, too dangerous. The (inaudible) is quite possible if it’s demonstrated this is done by groups, not necessarily under the control of the Pakistani Government, but operating out of Pakistan. The Indian Government cannot afford to do absolutely nothing in that direction.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let’s remember that wherever they’re operating from, they are extremists and terrorists who have – who want to destabilize not just India, but also many of them want to destabilize Pakistan. So I think a firm response by the Pakistani Government, should it be demonstrated that some of this was coming in – coming from Pakistan, will be very important.

I don’t want to jump to any conclusions about precisely how this happened. But there are two reasons to this. First, to be really transparent, to be really tough on this and very committed, number one, because people need to be brought to justice. But equally importantly, as we learned with terror incidents of this sort, there are often wider efforts or intentions to do other things, and so you really want to get to the bottom of it, both as a preventive and as a – and bringing them to justice. So I don’t think it’s a holding pattern. I think it is right now the most important thing we can do.

QUESTION: Some people are asking the question today, is it possible for the U.S. to say to India that there should be a controlled response to this, when the U.S. itself takes such a robust response to the problem of core al-Qaida in the FATA region and the tribal areas? Is there a problem? Does that sort of hamper you in some ways in making the case for a controlled response?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, what you want to do is to make a response that is going to deal with the problem, first of all, and prevent future attacks, and that is going to -- not going to have unintended consequences and, therefore, make the situation worse. And so I think when you talk about making a response, those very circumstances or those various elements have to be kept in mind.

And what the Indians have been saying, and we are in full agreement with them, is what they want most right now, what they believe is absolutely critical, is to find out, with full cooperation from Pakistan, how this happened and what these people were planning and how they carried it out. And that is what they’ve emphasized, and that is, we think, the right course. So that’s how you think about a response, is how do you deal with the circumstances at hand, but how do you also prevent attacks in the future, and how do you bring people to justice for what happened.

I think the Indians also are spending a good deal of time looking at their own capacity to prevent attack, and we will try to be helpful there. But you know, let me just say a word about prevention and warning and all of those issues having been through this. The fact is that the terrorists only have to be right once; you have to be right 100 percent of the time. And that’s a tough fight. And so I know that there will be a lot of looking at what the Indian Government might have known or should have known or could have known. But these terrorists are not easy to – they can’t be deterred and they’re not easy to preempt. And so we will help on that score as well.

QUESTION: But I mean, do you at all equate the two? I mean, it could – using the same justification that the United States has used for sanctioning cross-border attacks in Pakistan from Afghanistan, could the Indian Government launch cross-border attacks against similarly determined terrorist cells they find in Pakistan?

SECRETARY RICE: Look, I’m not going to speculate on what the Indian Government may choose to do, Anne. But the question is: How do you best deal with the fact of the attack, the consequences of it, and prevention of future attacks? And the best way to deal with that would be through cooperation between Pakistan and India, and that’s what we are encouraging. And in fact, this is a time for absolute transparency and for letting evidence lead where it may.

QUESTION: But the chances of getting full cooperation from an Indian perspective are probably quite slim, aren’t --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I don’t think so. I -- it depends on what actually did happen here. But it also is incumbent upon Pakistan to realize the seriousness of what happened here. First of all, let’s remember that this isn’t the first attack. Bad things happened in Afghanistan, to India as well. Secondly, this attack was broad and pretty brazen. And it clearly was meant to target not just – not just to terrorize, but in fact, going as it did after Mumbai, an Indian financial center, hotels that foreigners frequented, to try and shake the confidence of the international community and the safety of India.

And it also, of course, went after Americans and it went after Brits because they were Americans and Brits, and Israelis as well. So this is a qualitatively different – they’re all serious, but this is a qualitatively different set of circumstances than we have seen in the past, and it requires a qualitatively different response on the part of Pakistan.

QUESTION: The attack on the Indian parliament was followed by Indian troops going to the border. Everyone got very concerned. So do you think that – given that there is huge domestic pressure, there are elections coming in India, do you see that as a potential response? Do you think that the United States could persuade India not to do that?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, as I said, you -- I think you look at response for effectiveness, what is it going to do about the problem, and not to try to create or not to have unintended consequences in trying to deal with the problem or to create new problems in trying to deal with this one. So I am hopeful, and in conversations with Indian counterparts they are very focused on the -- getting to the bottom of this. And again, it’s not – it is getting to the bottom of it before the matter of bringing people to justice, but it’s also getting to the bottom of it to prevent further attacks. And so that is the focus now.

It is also – it has been a different relationship between India and Pakistan. The relationship has evolved a lot since 2001, and hopefully that will give some space for a joint and cooperative approach to dealing with this very serious matter. But I do not want to under – to diminish the seriousness of what has happened here, and very serious.

QUESTION: You’re going there to show solidarity to the Indians, but are you also going there to urge restraint on their part so that this doesn’t escalate into a much broader --

SECRETARY RICE: I’m going there to show solidarity, but also to talk about what can be done, and should be done, to get to the bottom of this so that this threat can be dealt with in a way that – you can never eliminate the possibility of further attacks, but that really, really begins to diminish it.

QUESTION: When you talk about absolute transparencies, doesn’t that require President Zardari to admit that he has a problem inside his own state of (inaudible)? Is that something you can really, really stick him to --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I think what it requires of Pakistan is to let the evidence fall where it falls and to react accordingly. Because the last thing that this Pakistani – new Pakistani civilian government needs is to have this continue. You know, ultimately, Pakistan needs to be seen as a place that has a handle on extremism if it is to grow and prosper and have the good relations around the world that it’s seeking. And everybody has goodwill toward this government. I was at the Friends of Pakistan meeting at the UN back in September at the UNGA. There’s a lot of goodwill toward this government because this is a new chapter in Pakistan with the civilian government there. And everyone knows that it’s difficult and everyone knows that this is the – there are historical problems that this government is trying to deal with. But that really is the task before them. Because if they can’t deal with the extremism, then Pakistan is not going to prosper.

QUESTION: Does President Zardari have enough authority over his own security agencies to guarantee the kind of cooperation and transparency that you’ve asked of him?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, he brings something to the table that hasn’t been there for a long time in Pakistan, which is the legitimacy of having been elected, and having been elected with a commitment to the rule of law and having been elected with a commitment to civilian rule and control of the security institutions. Everybody knows that one doesn’t have day one with a military government and day two with a civilian government and everything works perfectly, right? So I’m not trying to paint a picture here of the ease with which this can be done, that this can be done with ease, but 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. Defending Pakistani interest means investigating this so that further attacks can be prevented. President Zardari has said many times that Pakistan itself is suffering more and more from extremism. Well, you can’t have different colors of extremism. Extremism is extremism and they come from the same root. And therefore, this is an important time for Pakistan and all of its institutions to defend Pakistani interests.

QUESTION: Did you have any evidence that the people who perpetrated this were possibly trying to weaken the U.S.-led operations against the tribal areas in Pakistan?

SECRETARY RICE: You know, we – I can’t say that we have all that much insight into motive at this point. I suppose over time. But again, this is – we have to think of this as a whole. And extremism that has been dealing – has been the (inaudible) this region has several different faces.

Now, I want to – I’ve said a lot about Pakistan’s obligations here. India also has obligations, which I’m sure that they will exercise, to also be transparent and to work closely with the Pakistanis and with the United States and with Great Britain. And I think that they will do that. This is a time for everybody to pull together and take on this event.

MR. MCCORMACK: We have about five more minutes so if there is any other line of questioning.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah. Yes.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about Guantanamo. Do you think it should be closed down and how difficult would it be to close it?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, the President says – he said for a long time that he’d like to close Guantanamo. And I think it’s well-known that I’ve been an advocate of that. The problem is you’ve got 200-plus very dangerous people, and the question is what do you do with them. And these are people who say regularly: If I’m let out of here, I will go immediately and start killing Americans again. And so you clearly can’t simply release these people on civilian populations. And there are a number of issues with trying to put them into kind of normal prison populations, as you might imagine. So I – we’ve brought down the population of Guantanamo quite a lot by transferring people back to their homes, their countries of origin. In some circumstances we can’t do that because of fear of persecution. When we can’t, we’ve tried to find third country options for them.

But I think this speaks to a larger issue. John Bellinger, our legal counsel at State, has been doing a lot of work and traveling around a lot to try to get a conversation going about what kind of framework we really do need to deal with this particular threat, where you are having to – where the kind of traditional legal framework, particularly in the United States, in which holding someone on a basis of future threat is difficult, even though you know that this person is a future threat, we don’t really have a legal framework for that, which is why it’s been done within a war framework. But if you don’t hold a person who you know is a future threat, then you risk the deaths of thousands of innocents. So I do think that this is something for the international community to take up. And John has gotten a lot of interest from various counsels around the world about trying to look at the framework for dealing with terrorists, both in terms of detention power and in terms of how to deal with information garnered from them so that you are not compromising your ability to actually prevent attack. And I think ultimately this is going to have to require a new legal framework internationally.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, can we go back to Hillary?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: There are more and more women chosen as foreign ministers around the world. You have been working on women’s empowerment. How do you explain the fact that there are more and more women head of diplomacy? Is it that because they are more diplomats or they are more convincing or how do you explain that?

SECRETARY RICE: (Laughter.) No, it’s a really interesting question. This will be three out of four in the United States, which is pretty remarkable when you think about it. And the other was a black man, so white men are trailing pretty badly. (Laughter.)

I don’t know, Sylvie. I’ve long – I used to do work as an academic on something called the politics of elites and that was not about elite people. What it meant was looking at how people actually end up being chosen for different positions and how – what kind of funnel puts people into positions. And I think what you’re seeing is that increasingly the pool of people who might become Secretary of State is diverse in the United States. And so you had a black national security advisor, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who becomes a major figure and becomes secretary of state. Now, you probably 30 years ago would not have had that person. So Colin Powell is in the pool because he’s had these other jobs.

In the case of my own case, you know, I come out of an academic background, as does Madeleine Albright. But you know, I sign on with an unknown governor from Texas and do the campaign side and end up as national security advisor. So you have more and more women and minorities in those pools. So these things don’t come out of thin air. You know, it’s also the reason, by the way, that I think you’re starting to see and will see more women and minority candidates for president.

Where do we get our presidents? This will bore all of you, but I’m sorry for the American history lesson here. But where do we get our candidates for president? Overwhelmingly, senators and governors, the occasional general. So if you don’t have blacks and women who are senators, governors or generals, they’re not going to be president. So when you finally get that pool right, then you start to see people rising to those positions. And that’s what I really think is happening. I don’t think there’s some sort of natural selection that’s taking place for foreign minister. But I do think you’re seeing more and more people in the pool.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. We have one – we have one last question. Who hasn’t had a question here?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: I just wanted to ask about Russia. You’re going to NATO tomorrow.

SECRETARY RICE: All right?

QUESTION: You’ve already signaled that, and I think President Medvedev has welcomed the fact that Georgia and Ukraine won’t be invited to join the Membership Action Plan and that maybe there are other ways, okay. You also earlier at the press conference talked about – it sounded as though you were talking about the time being right to resume talks with Russia within NATO. And I wondered if you could explain within what framework --

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- and whether you feel that – what’s the (inaudible) of this? Is it because actually the United States has slightly revised its view of what happened in August, that there were mistakes made by President Saakashvili? Is it because there were a lot of other crises; here’s one with India and Pakistan, there’s the financial crisis? And the last thing one needs is to have a major row with Russia?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, let me just--on the question of NATO contacts with Russia, I said in principle, we don’t have any problem with it. I think the timing is really a matter of – is Russia continuing to meet its commitments to President Sarkozy and is Russia acting on its quite ill-tempered decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia? And I think those are the – for me, the touchstones of when it makes sense.

Now, let me just pick it up there. I’ll come back to Bucharest in a minute. Look, this turned out badly for Russia, very badly. Their invasion of Georgia just turned out badly. They didn’t – they did not succeed in bringing down the Georgian Government, even though Sergey Lavrov told me that that was one of their aims, they didn’t. Georgian democracy is intact. Not only that, they didn’t succeed in bringing down the Georgian economy. Georgia now has one of the largest assistance packages for a country of its size that one can remember. So if they did anything, they managed to increase international support for Georgia, not decrease it. Third, they are sitting in Abkhazia and South Ossetia with responsibility for two populations that are difficult at the very least. And finally, they recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia with the resounding support of Nicaragua and Hamas. Now, if that had happened to the Bush Administration, you would have all been writing headlines about the enormous failure of our diplomacy. So I could add to that the problems that this brought for the already weakening Russian economy given lowering oil prices and the effects of the global financial crisis.

And I think, by the way, it set everybody to questioning what is Russia, who is Russia, did Medvedev have any – was there any substance to Medvedev’s claims of wanting to reach out to the world in a different way and so forth and so on. So this turned out badly. And I hope that given that it turned out badly, that it will be a deterrent to Russia for trying anything like that ever again. Because the Soviet Union could invade Czechoslovakia, occupy its capital, overthrow its government, and not care very much, frankly, what the world thought. Well, it turns out that that’s not Russia, which leads me to the point that this is not actually a new Cold War.

Russia does not have, as the Soviet Union did, pretensions to an alternative way to organize human history. This is not an ideological conflict. And so while we have difficulties with Russia, particularly around its periphery, we have managed to continue to cooperate with the Russians on the Middle East, on North Korea, on Iran, on the global financial crisis, et cetera, et cetera. So it’s not – the key for us was to come out of this crisis in Georgia with Georgian democracy intact, with the Georgian economy intact, with Georgian territorial integrity intact. And it’s not intact, but it’s also not recognized by anybody – the secessionists are not recognized by anybody -- and to make clear to Russia that this kind of behavior was, in the 21st century, not just unacceptable, but not very fruitful. And I think we achieved all of those goals.

QUESTION: So even though they haven’t fulfilled their commitments, the time has come to resume the NATO-Russia --

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I said we should look at fulfilling the commitments. I didn’t say – I said in principle, we do not have – we don’t have a problem with it. We have resumed at lower levels. But I think you’d want to be very careful, for instance, about doing things that look military-to-military, because the Russian military is still sitting in the secessionist states.

Just to Bucharest really quickly – or Brussels. The Bucharest declaration has a very clear line: These states will become members of NATO. Now it also says we would review MAP in December. It’s our view that the question of MAP – we don’t need to review the question of MAP. We can pursue the fulfillment of Bucharest through the commissions and other – it will be a long time. I don’t think any Georgian or Ukrainian would tell you that they’re anywhere near ready for membership.

So this is all about preparation to fulfill Bucharest, and frankly, I don’t see why we’re – why there’s any tension around this at all.

MR. MCCORMACK: All right. Now we have to –

QUESTION: Just to be certain that I understand what you said about -

MR. MCCORMACK: All right. We have to – we really have to – the Secretary has to --

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah, I just said – I just said --

QUESTION: Cooperation – I mean, are you saying that – what you’re really saying is that the Europeans need to be more cautious in terms of --

SECRETARY RICE: No, I didn’t say that.

QUESTION: Well, are you saying --

SECRETARY RICE: Sue, did I say that?

QUESTION: No, I’m trying to --

SECRETARY RICE: When did I say that? I said that in principle, I have no problems with NATO-Russia Council activities. I said we should be very attentive to what the Russians are doing, and are they living up to their obligations. And I said that there are certain sorts of activities like military-to-military contacts that seem to me to be problematic when the Russian military is sitting in Georgian territory, or in the separatist states.

But I don’t want to try to make a general rule here, because frankly, I think that we’ve denied Russia – the United States and Europe together – and I want to very much emphasize that – the United States and Russia – the United States and Europe together denied Russia any strategic gain from its invasion of Georgia in August. I have to go. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

2008/T30-3
Released on December 1, 2008

 

[Al-zakir]

Monday December 01 2008 18:08:20 PM BDT


By A.H. Jaffor Ullah, USA




On Thanksgiving Day, November 27, we woke up to listen all day the terrible news of terrorists’ attacks in central business district of Mumbai. The gunmen targeted a posh hotel, an expensive restaurant, a Jewish center, and a busy train station not only to maximize the casualties, but also to capture the attention of the foreign press. The gunmen had specifically targeted the areas of Mumbai where foreign nationals gather to carry on theirs business dealings.

The siege of Mumbai for over 48 hours by the gunmen had led to the killing of 185 or more people including visiting foreigners from multiple nations. At the city’s Jewish Center, the terrorists killed an American Rabbi and his wife. Many bystanders were killed too. As per the news, the government flew an elite anti-terrorist squad from New Delhi who joined the Mumbai police to kill all the terrorists. In the end, 9 gunmen were killed; only a lone gunman by a stroke of luck survived. India’s Home minister, Mr. Shivraj Patil, tendered his resignation because he became very unpopular in the aftermath of the terrorists attack.

As the story of gunmen killing hostages in ritzy Taj Mahal hotel was unfolding, a U.S. counterintelligence expert opined that the signature marks of two known terrorist groups’ operating from Kashmir, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e Mohammed, were visible. These terrorist organizations were organized by Pakistan’s ISI to foment political trouble inside the Indian-held Kashmir.

When the lone injured gunman was taken to a hospital, the authorities found that the group of assailants had come from Pakistan by sea. The 21-year terrorist was recruited from a town near Multan, which is in southeast Punjab. Given how much negative propaganda goes on day in, day out in Pakistan against India’s control of the majority of Kashmir, it won’t be difficult to assemble a group of jihadists to carry on a terrorist attack in India. And in all likelihood, that is what has exactly happened.

As per news reports, the Pakistani gunmen had assembled in Karachi from where they took a vessel to come to the coast of Gujarat. From there, they finally arrived in Mumbai but in the process they killed an Indian coastguard personnel. In the wee small hours of the night, the gunmen came ashore by rubber dinghies when they quickly seized Taj Mahal Hotel. By now, we all know what happened.

In the Internet, a freethinker South Asian forum started in earnest an intense debate over why is it that there is no dearth of supply of jihadists from Islamic world to carry out terrorist attacks on foreign soil? One enthusiastic writer filled his blog space by penning an essay entitled “Faith’s Virus.” In it the author, Dr. Avijit Roy, claimed that jihadism is like a virus which when infects a young mind makes the victim irrational. Thus, infected with the virus, the jihadist then embarks on a journey to amend things, which his delusional mind thinks had gone awry. The behavior of a “virus-infected” terrorist could explain why Mohammad Ata, the leader of 9-11 terrorists, was able to rationalize his dastardly action even though he knew how many innocent lives will be lost because of the action taken by his group on that fateful September day.

It is about the time India should think rationally and ask a rhetorical question about why she has external enemy? India has joined two other nations, Israel and America, where terrorists from other nations have attacked killing many innocent citizens. Scores of suicide bombers both young men and women have undertaken dangerous missions deep inside Israel only to kill themselves along with a few Israelis. The Scripture is not powerful enough to convert an innocuous Arab young person to become a suicide member.

All the social injustices done to the displaced Palestinians who spent years and years of agonizing days in temporary decrepit camps have fueled the flame of hatred among Palestinians. This was a mistake on the part of Israelis. After all, to a Palestine the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza strip were theirs. They were uprooted by the influx of European Jews in the aftermath of the Second World War. In 1948, Israel was established but the Zionists did not really care about the well beings of the uprooted Palestinians.

One should do a Google search on what the Israeli PM Golda Meir or Menachem Begin had said about the plights of Palestinians to know what an utter benign neglect and so much distrust they had for Palestinian people. A grave injustice was being done by most Israeli leaderships against the Arabs who called themselves Palestinians. Is it a small wonder that the Intifada II Movement had no problem finding volunteers to carry out suicide terrorist operations deep inside Israel?

Why was America targeted by 19 or so Arab terrorists on September 11, 2001? Again, the issue in the eyes of the Mohammad Ata’s gang was the social injustice done to the Palestinian people. The Scripture alone in my view is not enough to persuade a would-be-terrorist to become a live bomber. Israel became a very powerful nation vis-à-vis militarism in the Middle East only because American taxpayers’ money had made the nation a powerful one. This has not gone unnoticed by Arabs. On top of this, the Hollywood’s domination of entertainment industries has not sit well with many people in Arab world. The invasion of airwaves allover the world by American made movies, TV programs have angered many a people allover the world who values modesty, chastity over nudity and promiscuity. All these are contributing factors when 19 angry Arab men took control of four passenger jetliners in eastern seaboard in America on September 11, 2001.

In South Asia, India is doing very well economically ever since the nation had open-heartedly embraced the mantra of globalization in the late 1980s. The mushrooming of call centers and silicon workstations in Bangalore, etc., had made India the envy of the South Asian nations. The glitz and ritz of Mumbai, New Delhi, Gurgaon, Bangalore, Hyderabad, etc, as viewed by millions in the satellite TVs in the neighboring countries had made an impression that India is an emerging economy. However, beneath the veneer of this ostensible display of new riches lies the harsh reality of political dominance over Kashmiri people and impoverishment in northeast India where cessationist movements are common occurrence. India is doing what one may call – a band aid method to squish the rebelliousness of the Kashmiri and NEI dissidents.

Come to think of it, Kashmir has always been a thorn by the side of India. In 1947 when Brits left India while dividing the nation into two separate nations, they left hundreds of principalities without assigning them to India or Pakistan based on the census data. In Kashmir, Muslims were the majority but the king was a Hindu one. When forces from Pakistan invaded the Jammu valley, the king asked India to come to his aid. The first full-scale war over Kashmir was fought during 1947-1948. A ceasefire broke out in the end while Kashmir was divided into two parts one controlled by Pakistan and the other by India. Since then, 3 more war broke out between these two countries. In 1948, the U.N. mandated that a plebiscite be given to Kashmiri people to decide whether they should join Pakistan or remain with India. This plebiscite never did take place due to the vehement opposition of Indian government. The movement to make Kashmir an independent landlocked country never gathered steam because of India’s persistent protest. In the meantime, sixty years have gone by but Kashmiri Muslims have lived under Indian rule unhappily, of course.

Because of the mass-scale discontent in Kashmir, many young Muslim Kashmiris were indoctrinated by such Islamic terrorist groups as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e Mohammed. The western counterintelligence organizations think that these two terrorist outfits were the brainchild of Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), an integral part of Pakistani military. These organizations have blasted bombs allover Kashmir and its volunteers fought pitch battle with the Indian army from time to time. In the hands of New Delhi, Kashmir has become a virtual police state where civil rights of Kashmiri Muslims are routinely violated everyday. Consequently, homegrown terrorist attacks are on the rise against Indian army.

Under this dire political backdrop, a group comprising of 10 Pakistani terrorists have come ashore on November 26, 2008 to undertake a violent attack on innocent civilians. They targeted the foreigners to attract the attention of foreign press. In the end they died; however, their actions opened the question – why is it that India attracts foreign terrorists similar to Israel and America. The answer lies in social injustice these countries have meted out to various ethnic and political groups. America’s involvement in arming Israeli army had made America a prime target for terrorist organization such as al-Qaeda. Israel has drawn ire from Palestinians and neighboring Arabs because of their scorched-earth policy against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strips.

India may deny the social injustice charge that has been leveled against them vis-à-vis their treatment to Muslim Kashmiris. But it is a bitter truth that India’s heavy-handed approach to control the dissident Kashmiris is viewed as an act of gross civil rights violation, which has fueled anti-Indian feeling among Muslims in the South Asian subcontinent. Add to this the cultural domination of neighboring nations by cheap Bollywood flicks and sexually explicit TV programs that may not sit well in Islamic nations.

India should take positive steps to find a permanent solution in Kashmir. If the division of Kashmir is anathematic to Indian politicians, then perhaps allowing the Kashmiris to make their country an independent nation is the best alternative solution. This suggestion would invariably fall on the deaf ear in New Delhi.

In summary, the Kashmir problem, which was started in 1947, is the mother of all problems that confront India. Unless this issue is resolved to the fullest satisfaction of Kashmiri Muslims, Mumbai, New Delhi, or any other big urban center may face the possibility of more terrorist attacks. This should be the take home message for Indian ruling elites from the Thanksgiving Day massacre in Mumbai.

------------------------

Dr. A.H. Jaffor Ullah, a researcher and columnist, writes from New Orleans, USA
E Mail :jhankar@bellsouth.net

 

[jeypore]

Pakistan's Task



WITH EACH passing day, suspicions of a Pakistani link to the slaughter of 174 people, including six Americans, in Mumbai grow stronger -- and more plausible. A captured terrorist has reportedly confessed to Indian officials that he received training in Pakistan from Lashkar-i-Taiba, a guerrilla organization that was nurtured by Pakistani military intelligence to fight India in the disputed Kashmir region. It has previously been linked to murderous attacks on civilians within India; Lashkar-i-Taiba was behind an assault on the Indian Parliament in 2001 that killed more than a dozen people and almost triggered all-out war on the subcontinent.

Indian security officials are being forced to resign for failing to foresee and prevent the Mumbai massacre, even as public pressure mounts for action against Pakistan. Whether or not the crime originated there, the outcry underlines some past failings of U.S. policy -- specifically, the paltry dividends from years of Bush administration cooperation with former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf. Mr. Musharraf promised strong anti-terrorism measures in return for the billions of dollars in U.S. aid he received. He even went so far as to ban Lashkar-i-Taiba and arrest suspected participants in the attack on India's parliament. This ban existed mainly on paper, however; Mr. Musharraf released the detainees, and the group, renamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa, resumed training under the cover of its charities and schools. It may actually be larger and better financed than it was seven years ago.

This is not to say that the attacks in Mumbai were Mr. Bush's fault. Nor is Pakistan's new civilian democratic government to blame. To the extent Pakistan-based terrorists still enjoy support from within Pakistani military intelligence, those connections are shadowy and perhaps beyond the civilians' ability to control. Indeed, Lashkar-i-Taiba and whatever allies it still has in Pakistan's army are trying to stir up conflict on the subcontinent so as to undermine the new government and preserve their own power.


Nevertheless, India, which has the ability to strike terrorist targets in Pakistan, is rightly demanding an end to the threat -- and it's getting harder and harder for Washington to counsel patience. One positive signal, Pakistan's promise to send its military intelligence chief to India to help the investigation, has apparently been retracted, though lower-ranking officials may yet go. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it yesterday while en route to South Asia, "this is a time for complete, absolute, total transparency and cooperation. And that's what we expect." She was, of course, being diplomatic. Pakistan holds the key to this crisis. The best way to salvage Pakistani democracy, and to prevent a slide toward war between two nuclear powers, is for Islamabad to shut down Lashkar-i-Taiba and similar organizations, swiftly, permanently and verifiably. Pakistan should enjoy U.S. support, both from this administration and the next, to the extent that it presents not only credible plans for accomplishing this goal -- but also tangible results.



Editorial -- Pakistan's Task in the Wake of the Mumbai Terrorist Attack - washingtonpost.com

 

[blain2]

Most of the analysis coming out of the US are half ***. So Pakistan is to do all the work, take on the militants who are gaining strength as wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving them the motivation to regroup and gain strength, and Pakistan is to suffer the suicide bombings and deaths of her soldiers and officers while India continues to sit on Kashmir (a disputed territory)? What about giving Pakistan an incentive by asking the Indians to come clean on Kashmir for good? How about going the way of the Israeli-Palestinian way and trying to resolve this problem for once and for all?

I am not sure if the typical solution expounded by the likes of WP is workable. Pakistan cannot afford to lose out in both Kashmir and Afghanistan. It won't happen. By cornering Pakistani state and only asking Pakistan to do it all, the policy makers and think tanks in DC are only strengthening those who are already weary of supposed American-Indian designs on Pakistan.

 

[Tornado]

India has right to protect itself: Obama


WASHINGTON: Sovereign nations have the right to protect themselves, US president-elect Barack Obama said on Monday, when asked if India could follow the same policy he advocated during his election campaign — of bombing terrorist camps in Pakistan if there was actionable evidence and Islamabad refused to act on it.
Although Obama said he did not want to comment on the specific situation involving India and Pakistan, his tacit endorsement of New Delhi adopting the same policy was circumscribed by two caveats: first, let the investigators reach definite conclusions about the Mumbai carnage, and second, see if Pakistan will follow through with its commitment to cooperate in eliminating terrorism.
''My administration will remain steadfast in support of India’s effort to catch perpetrators and bring them to justice. I expect the world community will feel the same way,'' Obama said, in one of several references to the events in Mumbai that underscored the roll-out of his national security team in Chicago on Monday.

As expected, Obama named Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and retired marine General James Jones as National Security Advisor, in addition to retaining Robert Gates as Defense Secretary, among the three principals of his administration.

The second tier of the national security team he introduced included Eric Holder as Attorney-General, Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice as the U.S ambassador to United Nations.

In fact, Obama disclosed that the Mumbai massacre topped the agenda of the new national security team at its first meeting Monday morning ahead of the public roll-out. ''This morning, we met to discuss the situation in Mumbai and some of the challenges that we face in the months and years ahead,'' he revealed, indicating that the South Asia crisis would be among the first issues to occupy his administration as it takes office.

The president-elect referred repeatedly to the tragedy at his press conference and said he had spoken to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to tell him that the United States is with India in this dark hour. ''In the world we seek, there is no place for those who kill innocent civilians to advance hateful extremism. And I am confident that India’s great democracy is more resilient than killers who would tear it down,'' he said.

Obama reiterated his stand that there was only one president at a time in the U.S as he trod a delicate line in setting any new policy. But he appreciated the actions taken by the Bush administration and keeping him informed about it. ''What I can say unequivocally is that both myself and my team are absolutely committed to eliminating terrorism,'' he said. ''We cannot tolerate attacks based on twisted ideology of hate...we will bring the full force of our military, economic and diplomatic power to defeat this. I will be monitoring the situation closely.''

India has right to protect itself: Obama-USA-World-The Times of India

 

[Ali.009]

First indians should cooperate with train bombing terrorists. We'll see the mumbai thing afterwards. Rice always speak wrong.

 

[jeypore]

Most of the analysis coming out of the US are half ***. So Pakistan is to do all the work, take on the militants who are gaining strength as wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan and giving them the motivation to regroup and gain strength, and Pakistan is to suffer the suicide bombings and deaths of her soldiers and officers while India continues to sit on Kashmir (a disputed territory)? What about giving Pakistan an incentive by asking the Indians to come clean on Kashmir for good? How about going the way of the Israeli-Palestinian way and trying to resolve this problem for once and for all?

I am not sure if the typical solution expounded by the likes of WP is workable. Pakistan cannot afford to lose out in both Kashmir and Afghanistan. It won't happen. By cornering Pakistani state and only asking Pakistan to do it all, the policy makers and think tanks in DC are only strengthening those who are already weary of supposed American-Indian designs on Pakistan.

I for one think that India put a great deterrent in Kashmire, that led to terrorist activities else where (like mumbai attacks). If India grows strong based on what it has experienced it will be very hard to break the system and it's terrotories. There is no grand scheme of things like you have sujected besides protecting it's souvern terrotories. Afaghanistan would be beneficail, based on other neighbors antagonism.

 

[Vin]

This guy is a complete idiot. I mean come'on, who's he kidding? It's people like him why Pakistan is in trouble right now on all fronts, whether they be financial, or political. Why not think about progressing your own country rather than finding about conspiracy theories against other countries. Look at your selfs, you are about to go bankrupt and don't have money to feed your people and have to constantly beg others. Grow up, and drop the hate.

God bless America!!
USA

 

[Vinod2070]

I hope the majority of Pakistanis don't believe these conspiracy theories....dear god....

I think there is a very high number who believe him. He knows to catch the pulse of his target audience, even though he so clearly avoids the truth as plague.

He mixes facts with fiction pretty well and is a good demagogue.

 

[U-571]

I think there is a very high number who believe him. He knows to catch the pulse of his target audience, even though he so clearly avoids the truth as plague.

He mixes facts with fiction pretty well and is a good demagogue.

wht good ur media does, for eg the star news, abt chacha rehman i think, lol, i thought i am watching a star plus drama!!! with all flashes, noises and colour full stuffs

though the indian news channels r banned in pakistan, but now a days many pakistani chennels r showing short clips of the indian media, "wht the drama they r doing now a days", when a pakistani journalist asked to comment abt chacha rehman to an indian journalist guest, she said ROFLMAO!!

 

[superbikez]

judge it for ur self do they look foriegn.
they look indians 1000%.

1. Strange that none of the media (TV or Print) have picked this up at all. Or have they been deliberately ignoring it?

Have a look at the above picture of one of the terrorists. [Another angle]

Notice the orange thread / band on his right hand.

Tying a red thread or cord around the wrist is a Hindu practice and it is unlikely a Muslim, especially one politicized enough to carry out an attack such as this, would observe it. I think this provides more evidence that this was a false flag operation or at least an attack by a non-Muslim group. For more information about the significance of the red thread see wikipedia and this blog post. [Thanks to Uruk]

Additionally, the terrorists inside the Nariman House Building were reported to have stocked up on supplies on Wednesday evening, buying not just food items but liquor, among other things, from a local store [Source]. Again, it is highly unlikely that a Muslim, let alone a ‘Mujahid’, and especially one politicized enough to carry out such an attack, would consume liquor in normal life, let alone hours before his inevitable ‘martyrdom’.

Don’t let them ignore it. Circulate this to as many people as you can as we strongly believe it wouldn’t have been ignored if the terrorists were carrying a copy of the Qur’an, or a taveez.

2. Indians are claiming that one of the attackers was captured and says he is from Faridkot, near Multan:
Mumbai police capture terrorist alive and claim he is from Pakistan | Mail Online

Can anyone confirm if there is a Faridkot in Pakistan?

The only Faridkot I can find is in Indian Punjab:
Faridkot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3.Clearly Jalalabad is in Afghanistan, its all part of a global conspiricy against Pakistan

4. Ahmed Quraishi.com

5. The raakhi wearing “Muhammad Ajmal Muhammad Amin Ajmal Muhammad Muhammad Kasave Ajmal Kazab Kazim Muhammad Azim Qasime Muhammad Qasam. The names change hourly depending on how well they suite with terrorist names or organisations.

6. An article by guardian: Ravinder Kaur: To call the Mumbai attacks India's 9/11 makes a false analogy with Bush's war on terror | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

7. aangirfan: Mumbai Attackers were 'Hindus' and 'White Men'

AND finally

‘Terror in Mumbay’ & Malegaon ‘Hindu Terror’, Any Connections??, Who ‘hired’ them?

1. The country was in a mood of getting real colour of terror most recentently happened, ‘hindu folks’ involvements were slowly uncovered!

2. The brave hero, ATS Chief Hemanth Karkare was intelligently uncovering the masks of real ‘terrorists’ who played recent terrors in India. He was given a threat to his life just before two days of this ‘terror in Mumbay’!

3. The 1st target of ‘Mubai terrorists’ was ATS leaders - three of ‘most wanted’ by Malegaon criminals immediately shot dead in early hours of said ‘Mumbai Terror’, including Hemanth Karkare!

4. It is true that ‘Mumbai Terrorists’ entered thru sea! but did they crossed international boarders or just took off from Gujarat or neasrby seas within Indian territtory?

5. It is well known that ‘Mumbai Terrorists’ had very good and excellenge knowledge about their targets, the most important one was the ATS leaders! They are well familiar with Taj and other o their targets!

6. The 1st 38 hours of ‘Mumbai Terror’ operation, there were no much clues were obtained nor media not much covered to link with Pakistan !

7. Unlike Leshkare Tayyeb’s jehadists with bears and turbans, this youngsters are clean shaved without having beared! are they really Jehadis? One of the terrorists media showed was wearing a yellow band on his right hand (a sanghi sign, as seen in Gujarat riot scenes - even RSS female cadres wears it)!

8. The situation changes immedately after biggest ‘Terrorist’ Gujarat hero Modi’s visits in Mumbai! Sonia, Prime Minister and LK Advani also visited Mumbai before Modi however nobody declared someone, why?

Why Modi visited Mumbai unlike other CMs of other states?

He immeditely declares the hands of Pakistan in ‘Mumbai Terror’ - how he knows it?

He immedately declares of financial aids of 1 crore to every military man killed, to Maharastra govt, all people killed?? Why? wht is the connection of Gujarat and ‘Mumbai Terror’…

What is the reason of his ‘over smartness’ of taking the media?

Why ‘Terrorist Hero Mr. Modi declares aid to people before Manmohan or Maharastra CM declares? and much bigger amounts than them?? was it from his pocket or from public money?

This should be well investigated, he may know who hired the terrorists in Mumbai who killed the ATS leaders and challegning the nation!

9. And this ‘terror’ takes place just day before assembly elections in some states!

Now you guess, has it any ‘real’ connections with ‘ Malegaon ‘ hindu terrorism??

See the image of the Gunman and decide for yourself who was the man. The man is wearing a color band on his right hand which Sangeis (Red thread) usually wear.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL @ INDIA nice Story for Bollywood not for Reality base lollll

 

[s90]

lmao yeh these indian agencies keep changing details and dont decide on one thing

 

[Imran Khan]

Can anyone confirm if there is a Faridkot in Pakistan?

there is small village near multan but they now afred from pak police and isi qes them from 5 days and they said there is no one missed here we are uneducated and there is small mosqe no any tarerrst or even an educated man there.total papulation know wery well each other names father name even grand father names

its indian fake story

 

[hasang20]

lol @ that guy i dont think "Mujahideens" are going to buy liquor

 

[Vinod2070]

AFAIK, the AQ terrorists who did 9/11 had a lap dance earlier.

Don't Muslims drink liquor? They are no Mujahideen! They are plain terrorists who give a bad name to whatever they claim to represent.