Isha khan’s Weblog

Mumbai Massacre Calls For A Probe Of British Role
December 30, 2008, 12:28 pm
Filed under: India

Mumbai Massacre Calls For A Probe Of British Role

By Ramtanu Maitra

The Nov 26-29 siege by terrorists of two top Mumbai hotels and the Nariman House, where a Jewish group had its residence and office, not only resulted in the deaths of more than 200 individuals, but made clear that India, like the United States, is one of the prime targets of Dope, Inc. The questions remain: Who exactly were the terrorists? What were their objectives? And, were any of their objectives attained through this dastardly act?

New Delhi must realize that if the Mumbai attack is to be the last big one, it must carry out a thorough investigation. The Mumbai terror had a very strong British link as is detailed below. On Dec. 1, the London Daily Mail reported that seven British Muslims were involved. That number dwindled to two within a couple of days. The now-deposed chief minister of the state of Maharashtra (where Mumbai is located), Vilasrao Deshmukh, announced that no British Muslims were involved. In other words, whitewashing is fully in progress.

But, it is likely that the evidence of British involvement in this terrorist act has not yet been wiped out. That is why, in the early morning of Dec. 14, Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown came pell-mell to Delhi to urge the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh to allow British intelligence, MI6, to interrogate the only surviving Mumbai terrorist, Mohammed Ajmal Amir Qasab. It is likely that the purpose of the MI6 interrogation is to direct Qasab to provide details to confuse the investigators and keep Britain out of it. The speed with which the British Embassy in Delhi set up the Brown-Singh meeting indicates that there is much at stake for Britain.

As far as the attack itself is concerned, in addition to the three structures mentioned above, the terrorists also fired random shots at the main Mumbai railway station, Victoria Terminus, Cama Hospital, and the Metro cinema. They also killed at least two top Mumbai police officers, including the head of the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) of the state of Maharashtra, Hemant Karkare. The operation surely had a strong input from local allies of the terrorists. From the outset it was evident that the former Mumbai mafioso, Dawood Ibrahim, who now lives under Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) protection in Karachi, allowed his network to set up the attack. Ibrahim, a gangster who smuggled gold from Dubai, U.A.E., a British-controlled area, and later drugs, lives under threat of extradition to India.

Dawood has no choice but to deliver information, or be sent back to India, where he would be hanged. Ibrahim also runs drugs—opium and heroin—from Afghanistan, through Dubai. This operation helps the City of London, through the offshore banks located in former British colonies, to generate some real money.

The Times of India reported on Dec. 18, that Moscow, which has been sharing intelligence with India, “believes that Dawood’s drug network, which runs through Afghanistan, was used to finance the Mumbai attack.” According to Russia’s federal anti-narcotics service director Viktor Ivanov, in an interview to the government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta, the evidence shows that “regional drug baron Ibrahim had provided his logistics network for preparing and carrying out the Mumbai terror attacks.” Ivanov added that the attacks were a vivid example of how the illegal drug trafficking networks are used to carry out terror activities.

The Anomalies Although many are trying to sidetrack the investigation of this massive terrorist act, by pushing the idea that it is yet “another clear case of Pakistani terrorism against India,” there exist a number of anomalies, which suggest a different direction. To begin with, the targets that the terrorists picked were highly visible, and the three-day siege that they carried ut provided ample opportunity to the scores of TV and other media to broadcast the carnage all over India and the rest of the world.

Mumbai is India’s commercial center, similar to what New York City represents for the United States. The attack on the top-of-the-line hotels, where businessmen and tourists stay, was clearly aimed at jeopardizing Mumbai’s commercial activities.

On the other hand, Mumbai has three major government- owned installations: First, the Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC), where fundamental nuclear research and diagnostic work is carried out, is located a few miles outside the city. There is also the Mazagaon Dock where India’s naval ships and submarines are built; and Mumbai is also the headquarters of the Western Command. The terrorists bypassed the government installations, in favor of the highly visible public targets.

The second anomaly is the killing of the ATS chief Karkare and two of his colleagues, encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar and Additional Commissioner of Police Ashok Kamte. For openers, it was noted that prior to his death, Karkare was unearthing a terror network. His investigation began by tracing the motorcycle used to plant bombs in Malegaon, a textile mill town with a heavy Muslim population, located near Mumbai, in September 2008, to a Hindu Sadhvi (a female Sadhu, or yogi), Pragyasingh Thakur. In a cellphone conversation between Thakur and Ramji, the man who planted the bombs, Thakur asked why more people had not been killed. This is the first time that the Indian state was conducting a thorough professional probe into a terror network involving Hindu extremist organizations.

In addition, the versions of the deaths of Karkare and his colleagues that have appeared in the news media kept changing. According to one reporter, as described by police constable Arun Jadhav, Karkare, Salaskar, Kamte, a driver, and four constables, including himself, were driving down the alley from Victoria Terminus to the back entrance of Cama hospital (at most, a ten-minute drive) to check on injured police officer Sadanand Date, when two gunmen emerged from behind trees by the left side of the road and sprayed the vehicle with bullets, killing all its passengers except Jadhav. No one is saying who directed Karkare and his colleagues to the site where they were killed. From the statements made by state authorities, it is evident that this second anomaly will not be investigated.

The Objectives An event as big as this often contains more than one objective, and involves many players, engaged over a long period of time. While there is no question that the terrorists who came from outside India came through Pakistan, and were residents of Pakistan, there is also no doubt that these terrorists were “ably” supported by a network that exists within India.

The objectives of the terrorists, and the timing of the attack, were predicated on the massive upheaval that has been in progress in Pakistan for years. However, the ultimate objective, because of the international nature of the terrorists, was to use the opportunity, provided by the instability in Pakistan, to undermine India.


To begin with, the Pakistani interest is an important one. This may not be in the interest of Islamabad, but is definitely in the interest of a powerful section that functions underneath Pakistan’s broken-down security network. This section consists of a faction of the ISI and some former Army officers. They had long been in league with various jihadi groups, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Muhammad, Sipahi Sahaba, et al. In fact, all these terrorist groups were armed And trained by this faction as irregular warriors against India. Since 9/11, these jihadis, and newly recruited ones, have included the United States in its pantheon of top enemies.

Over the last period, when President Pervez Musharraf was in power, this faction was gaining ground. Musharraf, balancing on a tightrope, had managed to keep both President Bush and the jihadis happy. This situation lasted much longer than it should have, but eventually Washington realized the problem and tried to bring in someone, such as Benazir Bhutto, who would fight the jihadis with the help of that faction of the Army and the ISI, who are pro-United States, and not anti-India.

Although Dope, Inc. managed to assassinate Bhutto, the power that controls things in Islamabad, at least as of Nov. 26, is such a pro-U.S., not anti-India group, led by President Zardari (the weakest link), Chief of Armed Services Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, and ISI chief Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha.

This triumvirate, in addition to saying publicly that India is not an “enemy nation,” has provided U.S. and NATO troops with qualitatively improved intelligence in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where thousands of jihadis, with opportunists of all varieties, are waging war, primarily to defeat the U.S. and NATO, but also for the purpose of breaking up Pakistan. Dope, Inc. is providing the necessary help to these militants. The improved intelligence provided by Islamabad in recent weeks has resulted in helping U.S./NATO troops to pinpoint their targets within the FATA. Because of the availability of such improved intelligence, U.S. troops have killed very few innocents (“collateral damage”) within the FATA over the last five to six weeks.

As the jihadis, and their faction within the ISI and the former Army officers, were being weakened by this development, they decided to ease pressure on the western front by creating a war-like situation against India with an extremely visible, and slow-developing attack on India’s commercial center. The criminals had two objectives: They wanted to ease pressure on the western front, in anticipation of an Indian counterattack. In fact, on Dec 2, Pakistan’s mass – circulation Urdu-language newspaper Roznama Jang reported that the Indian Air Force might be planning an attack on the town of Muridke, the headquarters of the banned militant organization LeT, believed to have provided the terrorists who attacked Mumbai. On Dec 1, Roznama Jang reported that several key Taliban commanders had offered to assist the Pakistani Army in the event of any likely Indian attack on Pakistan with 15,000 fighters. In return, Pakistani Army officials have called the Taliban commanders “Pakistani patriots.”

The second objective was to rile up India’s “Hindu fanatics” against the Muslims. According to the Islamic jihadists, and the opportunists (such as the Afghan militant Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who works hand-in-glove with the jihadists, and a number of intelligence agencies, including the ISI, MI6, and Saudi intelligence), India must identify itself as a “Hindu” nation. That would then justify the establishment of an Islamic Ummah throughout the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, Central Asia, and the Indian Subcontinent. These jihadists abhor sovereign nation-states. In their book, there exist only Christian nations, a Jewish nation, and a “Hindu” nation.

According to these foot soldiers, and their controllers, a “Hindu” India will be divided invisibly between some 850 million Hindus, who will openly undermine the rights of 160 million Muslims, creating a situation of permanent conflict. This would stymie India’s growth, weaken India’s potential, and deal a serious blow to all hopes of India emerging as a major power.

The Fallout

The fallout from Mumbai has yet to play out fully. On the other hand, New Delhi had been extra careful to avoid mobilizing troops along the Pakistan borders, or in moving inside Pakistan to knock off the terrorist camps. Although New Delhi is exerting pressure on Islamabad to respond positively, so that such a terrorist act is not repeated, it has restrained forces within from heating up the situation through jingoism.

While the jihadis, and their masters, have failed to rile up the “Hindu” faction within India, they have driven the Zardari leadership into a corner. Zardari has shown no inclination to broaden the investigation, and has reiterated, again and again, that the terrorists came from outside. He has made no effort to identify, or bring to justice, that faction that exists on the periphery of Pakistan’s powers-that-be, and continues to call the shots on Pakistan’s relations with India.

The weakening of the Zardari government has begun, and it is a only matter of time before the “advantage” that the U.S./NATO troops now enjoy will be lost. With no political base, Zardari is extremely vulnerable. Moreover, his government can easily be brought down from London, where the MI6-controlled Mohajir Qaum Movement (MQM) leader, Altaf Hussain, resides. MQM, a perennial enemy of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had thrown his support to Zardari to secure a majority in the National Assembly and form a government.. It was London that made this government, and it is London that can undo it. In the interim, the jihadis will continue to gain ground, and Pakistan’s western front will become virtually anarchic, before it breaks up.

Meanwhile, the United States has given four names of former ISI officials, including Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Hamid Gul, to the UN Security Council to be added to the list of international terrorists. Gul was director-general of the ISI from 1987 to 1989, at the end of a mujahideen war, covertly funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia, to drive the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan. Gul has called Washington’s bluff, saying he would prove his innocence before the International Court of Justice. Those who are aware of Hamid Gul’s activities over the years, know that he controls a section of the faction that ran the Mumbai operation, and they also know that Gul has dossiers on CIA and MI6 illegal drug- and gun-running operations, going back to his association with these agencies in the early 1980s. That would make it difficult for international intelligence agencies to put Gul in the dock.

Why India?

Did India provide soldiers to either Iraq or Afghanistan? No. Then, why has India become the target of the jihadis? India’s 160 million Muslims strongly oppose jihad, and have integrated with the rest of the population of various castes and creed. Then, why has India been targetted?

To find the answer to this, and prevent future attacks, New Delhi must accept the fact that there were international forces, which control and nurture the jihadis, and which have used these terrorist elements to attack India. Some of these terrorist elements, such as the Lashkar-e-Toiba, considered widely as the key group which provided the manpower in the Mumbai attack, is also used by the same Dope, Inc. against Russia in Chechnya, against China in Xinjiang, and in Somalia, to name just a few.

Besides the Pakistani jihadis, who are mere foot soldiers ready to lay down their lives for the cause of jihad, it is Britain that had, all along, been trying to break up India. Beginning in 1948, after breaking up India into two nations, the British moved in at the United Nations to undermine the acceptance letter of Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, to join the Indian Union. The objective of the British then, joined by the Americans a little later, was to have a three-way plebiscite in order to create an independent Kashmir bordering India, China, and Pakistan. Much later, a similar attempt, through an extreme level of violence, was launched from London to create an independent Khalistan in India’s Punjab, north of Delhi and adjoining the disputed Kashmir. None of these efforts bore fruit, but that does not mean the British colonial establishment (in fact, there does not exist any other establishment within Britain) will allow India to grow, prosper, and become a powerful nation. For the same reason, Britain undermines Chinese sovereignty, but because Britain held India as its colony for almost 200 years, it has enormous built-in capabilities to maintain assets that could weaken India.


In addition, there is no gainsaying that most of the mosques in Britain harbor jihadis who operated in the Balkans in the 1990s, and are now operating in this area. Volumes have been written about the British harboring of Islamic terrorists through its intelligence networks. Britain also harbors other terrorists; for example, it is a safe haven for the LTTE (the separatist Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka), which raises funds and lobbies politicians to promote and propagate LTTE terrorism.

Despite being banned in the U.K., LTTE’s former ideologue, the late Anton Balasingham, was living in London, thanks to the generosity and hospitality of successive U.K. governments. His wife, Adele, who was once the head of the Women Suicide Cadre, is still living in London, presumably influencing British politicians. Despite repeated protests from anti-LTTE organizations, among them Sinhalese, moderate Tamils, and Muslims, a newly formed front called the British Tamil Forum recently organized the Mahaveer Day (Heroes Day) with pomp and glory, and the attendance of some Labor, Liberal, and Independent Members of Parliament. The MPs who participated and spoke at the celebration of the LTTE’s brutal terrorist leader Prabhakaran’s birthday were Edward Davey (Liberal Democrat), Siobhain McDonagh (Labour), John McDonnell (Labour), Andrew Pelling (Independent), Joan Ryan (Labour), and Virendra Sharma (Labour). The British have historically played havoc with Islamic groups. To begin with, the British created Pakistan, re-drew the maps in Arabia, and through the Sykes-Picot Treaty, became the controllers of most Islamic nations.

Additionally, the Britain-headquartered Tablighi Jamaat, perhaps the largest Islamic “teaching organization,” was named for the Bali bombings in 2006. The organization—influenced by a branch of Saudi Arabian Islam known as Wahhabism—has already been linked to two of the July 7 London suicide bombers who attended a Tablighi mosque at the organization’s headquarters in Dewsbury, in northeast England. The jailed shoe-bomber Richard Reid is also known to have attended Tablighi meetings.

Take the case of the Hizbut Tahrir (HT), an extremely active and dangerous Islamic group also headquartered in Britain. HT is funded by various Saudi charities, and is most active in Central Asia. Another preachers’ group, openly promoting a worldwide Islamic Caliphate from the mosques of Britain, HT is ostensibly a non-gun-carrying group. But, at the same time, one of the most violent terrorist groups that function in Central Asia, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), recruits exclusively from the HT. HT is also active in Chechnya, although its headquarters are in Old Brompton Road in London..

On Dec.. 1, HT had a day-long event in Lahore, Pakistan. In that seminar, a British Muslim, Naveed Butt, said: “. . . The time has come that the people of power, fulfilling their responsibility, provide Nusrah [material support] to the Hizb so that Islam may be implemented and the Ummah should be unified under a single leadership.” Yes, the event took place in Pakistan, but it was run by the London-headquartered HT, funded by Saudi Arabian charities..

Although Indian authorities demur (ostensibly in order to avoid embarrassing Britain) in accusing Britain in connection with terrorist attacks, Indians in general agree that very little good has come out of Britain of late, and recognize that its “divide-and-rule” policy was the keystone in setting up its Empire.

Take, for instance, Indian Premier Singh’s demand that Britain hand over 14 terrorists, who had committed attacks in India, and were harbored in Britain. Representing a nation of 1 billion people, Singh made that demand, in person, to then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 2006. His demand was ignored, and the Indians quietly, without making a fuss, swallowed the insult.

But, the story does not end there. On Nov. 26, the very day the Mumbai attack began, the Indian Express, reported that a Briton, Mohammed Raheel Ataur Rehman Sheikh, who was accused of funding the July 11, 2006 serial explosions in a Mumbai train that claimed more than 200 lives, had been detained by the authorities in England. Raheel Sheikh was reportedly picked up by the authorities in Britain on the basis of an Interpol Red Corner Notice (RCN) issued against him. Sheikh is also an operative of the Lashkar-e-Toiba group, considered the foot soldiers in the Mumbai attack.


India News, citing a source report, said Raheel was picked up from Birmingham a few weeks before. On Nov. 10, Interpol contacted the CBI (India’s Central Bureau of Investigation) seeking details behind the Red Corner Notice against Sheikh. However, the latest reports indicate that he has been released, and remains in England.

Obstacles to a Thorough Investigation

A thorough investigation of the Mumbai massacre is the only way to prevent another such attack. But there are obstacles to carrying out such an investigation. To begin with, because of its 190-year old colonial link in India, Britain has succeeded in developing an Angophile Indian upper-income class, which would not hesitate to endanger the nation’s security to protect Britain’s “good name.” The long Cold War years allowed India’s “left-leaning” elites, to use every possible platform to attack “Anglo-American” interests. What they really meant always was American interests. In addition, many in the upper classes were educated in Britain, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh included. Many of these have also served the Anglo-Dutch Libera financial system through their tenures at the IMF (the Prime Minister included), and have become promoters of free trade (the British East India Company’s trademark lethal weapon to pauperize the colonies), and globalization. These individuals see Britain as a friend, America as a threat, and Pakistan as the real enemy.

This is what threatens the lives of India’s 1 billion people.

This article first appeared in the Executive Intelligence Review, a news weekly published from Washington DC

Isha Khan


The monster in the mirror
December 16, 2008, 7:50 am
Filed under: India

  The monster in the mirror



















The Mumbai attacks have been dubbed ‘India‘s 9/11’, and there are calls for a 9/11-style response, including an attack on Pakistan. Instead, the country must fight terrorism with justice, or face civil war

Arundhati Roy

We’ve forfeited the rights to our own tragedies. As the carnage in Mumbai raged on, day after horrible day, our 24-hour news channels informed us that we were watching “India’s 9/11”. Like actors in a Bollywood rip-off of an old Hollywood film, we’re expected to play our parts and say our lines, even though we know it’s all been said and done before.

As tension in the region builds, US Senator John McCain has warned Pakistan that if it didn’t act fast to arrest the “Bad Guys” he had personal information that India would launch air strikes on “terrorist camps” in Pakistan and that Washington could do nothing because Mumbai was India’s 9/11.

But November isn’t September, 2008 isn’t 2001, Pakistan isn’t Afghanistan and India isn’t America. So perhaps we should reclaim our tragedy and pick through the debris with our own brains and our own broken hearts so that we can arrive at our own conclusions.

It’s odd how in the last week of November thousands of people in Kashmir supervised by thousands of Indian troops lined up to cast their vote, while the richest quarters of India’s richest city ended up looking like war-torn Kupwara – one of Kashmir’s most ravaged districts.

The Mumbai attacks are only the most recent of a spate of terrorist attacks on Indian towns and cities this year. Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Guwahati, Jaipur and Malegaon have all seen serial bomb blasts in which hundreds of ordinary people have been killed and wounded. If the police are right about the people they have arrested as suspects, both Hindu and Muslim, all Indian nationals, it obviously indicates that something’s going very badly wrong in this country.

If you were watching television you may not have heard that ordinary people too died in Mumbai. They were mowed down in a busy railway station and a public hospital. The terrorists did not distinguish between poor and rich. They killed both with equal cold-bloodedness. The Indian media, however, was transfixed by the rising tide of horror that breached the glittering barricades of India Shining and spread its stench in the marbled lobbies and crystal ballrooms of two incredibly luxurious hotels and a small Jewish centre.

We’re told one of these hotels is an icon of the city of Mumbai. That’s absolutely true. It’s an icon of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure every day. On a day when the newspapers were full of moving obituaries by beautiful people about the hotel rooms they had stayed in, the gourmet restaurants they loved (ironically one was called Kandahar), and the staff who served them, a small box on the top left-hand corner in the inner pages of a national newspaper (sponsored by a pizza company I think) said “Hungry, kya?” (Hungry eh?). It then, with the best of intentions I’m sure, informed its readers that on the international hunger index, India ranked below Sudan and Somalia. But of course this isn’t that war. That one’s still being fought in the Dalit bastis of our villages, on the banks of the Narmada and the Koel Karo rivers; in the rubber estate in Chengara; in the villages of Nandigram, Singur, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, Lalgarh in West Bengal and the slums and shantytowns of our gigantic cities.

That war isn’t on TV. Yet. So maybe, like everyone else, we should deal with the one that is.

There is a fierce, unforgiving fault-line that runs through the contemporary discourse on terrorism. On one side (let’s call it Side A) are those who see terrorism, especially “Islamist” terrorism, as a hateful, insane scourge that spins on its own axis, in its own orbit and has nothing to do with the world around it, nothing to do with history, geography or economics. Therefore, Side A says, to try and place it in a political context, or even try to understand it, amounts to justifying it and is a crime in itself.

Side B believes that though nothing can ever excuse or justify terrorism, it exists in a particular time, place and political context, and to refuse to see that will only aggravate the problem and put more and more people in harm’s way. Which is a crime in itself.

The sayings of Hafiz Saeed, who founded the Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) in 1990 and who belongs to the hardline Salafi tradition of Islam, certainly bolsters the case of Side A. Hafiz Saeed approves of suicide bombing, hates Jews, Shias and Democracy and believes that jihad should be waged until Islam, his Islam, rules the world. Among the things he said are: “There cannot be any peace while India remains intact. Cut them, cut them so much that they kneel before you and ask for mercy.”

And: “India has shown us this path. We would like to give India a tit-for-tat response and reciprocate in the same way by killing the Hindus, just like it is killing the Muslims in Kashmir.”

But where would Side A accommodate the sayings of Babu Bajrangi of Ahmedabad, India, who sees himself as a democrat, not a terrorist? He was one of the major lynchpins of the 2002 Gujarat genocide and has said (on camera): “We didn’t spare a single Muslim shop, we set everything on fire … we hacked, burned, set on fire … we believe in setting them on fire because these bastards don’t want to be cremated, they’re afraid of it … I have just one last wish … let me be sentenced to death … I don’t care if I’m hanged … just give me two days before my hanging and I will go and have a field day in Juhapura where seven or eight lakhs [seven or eight hundred thousand] of these people stay … I will finish them off … let a few more of them die … at least 25,000 to 50,000 should die.”

And where, in Side A’s scheme of things, would we place the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh bible, We, or, Our Nationhood Defined by MS Golwalkar, who became head of the RSS in 1944. It says: “Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening.”

Or: “To keep up the purity of its race and culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here … a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.”

(Of course Muslims are not the only people in the gun sights of the Hindu right. Dalits have been consistently targeted. Recently in Kandhamal in Orissa, Christians were the target of two and a half months of violence which left more than 40 dead. Forty thousand people have been driven from their homes, half of who now live in refugee camps.)

All these years Hafiz Saeed has lived the life of a respectable man in Lahore as the head of the Jamaat-ud Daawa, which many believe is a front organization for the Lashkar-e-Taiba. He continues to recruit young boys for his own bigoted jehad with his twisted, fiery sermons. On December 11 the UN imposed sanctions on the Jammat-ud-Daawa. The Pakistani government succumbed to international pressure and put Hafiz Saeed under house arrest. Babu Bajrangi, however, is out on bail and lives the life of a respectable man in Gujarat. A couple of years after the genocide he left the VHP to join the Shiv Sena. Narendra Modi, Bajrangi’s former mentor, is still the chief minister of Gujarat. So the man who presided over the Gujarat genocide was re-elected twice, and is deeply respected by India’s biggest corporate houses, Reliance and Tata.

Suhel Seth, a TV impresario and corporate spokesperson, recently said: “Modi is God.” The policemen who supervised and sometimes even assisted the rampaging Hindu mobs in Gujarat have been rewarded and promoted. The RSS has 45,000 branches, its own range of charities and 7 million volunteers preaching its doctrine of hate across India. They include Narendra Modi, but also former prime minister AB Vajpayee, current leader of the opposition LK Advani, and a host of other senior politicians, bureaucrats and police and intelligence officers.

If that’s not enough to complicate our picture of secular democracy, we should place on record that there are plenty of Muslim organisations within India preaching their own narrow bigotry.

So, on balance, if I had to choose between Side A and Side B, I’d pick Side B. We need context. Always.

In this nuclear subcontinent that context is partition. The Radcliffe Line, which separated India and Pakistan and tore through states, districts, villages, fields, communities, water systems, homes and families, was drawn virtually overnight. It was Britain’s final, parting kick to us. Partition triggered the massacre of more than a million people and the largest migration of a human population in contemporary history. Eight million people, Hindus fleeing the new Pakistan, Muslims fleeing the new kind of India left their homes with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

Each of those people carries and passes down a story of unimaginable pain, hate, horror but yearning too. That wound, those torn but still unsevered muscles, that blood and those splintered bones still lock us together in a close embrace of hatred, terrifying familiarity but also love. It has left Kashmir trapped in a nightmare from which it can’t seem to emerge, a nightmare that has claimed more than 60,000 lives. Pakistan, the Land of the Pure, became an Islamic Republic, and then, very quickly a corrupt, violent military state, openly intolerant of other faiths. India on the other hand declared herself an inclusive, secular democracy. It was a magnificent undertaking, but Babu Bajrangi’s predecessors had been hard at work since the 1920s, dripping poison into India’s bloodstream, undermining that idea of India even before it was born.

By 1990 they were ready to make a bid for power. In 1992 Hindu mobs exhorted by LK Advani stormed the Babri Masjid and demolished it. By 1998 the BJP was in power at the centre. The US war on terror put the wind in their sails. It allowed them to do exactly as they pleased, even to commit genocide and then present their fascism as a legitimate form of chaotic democracy. This happened at a time when India had opened its huge market to international finance and it was in the interests of international corporations and the media houses they owned to project it as a country that could do no wrong. That gave Hindu nationalists all the impetus and the impunity they needed.

This, then, is the larger historical context of terrorism in the subcontinent and of the Mumbai attacks. It shouldn’t surprise us that Hafiz Saeed of the Lashkar-e-Taiba is from Shimla (India) and LK Advani of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh is from Sindh (Pakistan).

In much the same way as it did after the 2001 parliament attack, the 2002 burning of the Sabarmati Express and the 2007 bombing of the Samjhauta Express, the government of India announced that it has “incontrovertible” evidence that the Lashkar-e-Taiba backed by Pakistan’s ISI was behind the Mumbai strikes. The Lashkar has denied involvement, but remains the prime accused. According to the police and intelligence agencies the Lashkar operates in India through an organisation called the Indian Mujahideen. Two Indian nationals, Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmed, a Special Police Officer working for the Jammu and Kashmir police, and Tausif Rehman, a resident of Kolkata in West Bengal, have been arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks.

So already the neat accusation against Pakistan is getting a little messy. Almost always, when these stories unspool, they reveal a complicated global network of foot soldiers, trainers, recruiters, middlemen and undercover intelligence and counter-intelligence operatives working not just on both sides of the India-Pakistan border, but in several countries simultaneously. In today’s world, trying to pin down the provenance of a terrorist strike and isolate it within the borders of a single nation state is very much like trying to pin down the provenance of corporate money. It’s almost impossible.

In circumstances like these, air strikes to “take out” terrorist camps may take out the camps, but certainly will not “take out” the terrorists. Neither will war. (Also, in our bid for the moral high ground, let’s try not to forget that the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the LTTE of neighbouring Sri Lanka, one of the world’s most deadly terrorist groups, were trained by the Indian army.)

Thanks largely to the part it was forced to play as America’s ally first in its war in support of the Afghan Islamists and then in its war against them, Pakistan, whose territory is reeling under these contradictions, is careening towards civil war. As recruiting agents for America’s jihad against the Soviet Union, it was the job of the Pakistan army and the ISI to nurture and channel funds to Islamic fundamentalist organizations. Having wired up these Frankensteins and released them into the world, the US expected it could rein them in like pet mastiffs whenever it wanted to.

Certainly it did not expect them to come calling in heart of the Homeland on September 11. So once again, Afghanistan had to be violently remade. Now the debris of a re-ravaged Afghanistan has washed up on Pakistan’s borders. Nobody, least of all the Pakistan government, denies that it is presiding over a country that is threatening to implode. The terrorist training camps, the fire-breathing mullahs and the maniacs who believe that Islam will, or should, rule the world is mostly the detritus of two Afghan wars. Their ire rains down on the Pakistan government and Pakistani civilians as much, if not more than it does on India.

If at this point India decides to go to war perhaps the descent of the whole region into chaos will be complete. The debris of a bankrupt, destroyed Pakistan will wash up on India’s shores, endangering us as never before. If Pakistan collapses, we can look forward to having millions of “non-state actors” with an arsenal of nuclear weapons at their disposal as neighbours. It’s hard to understand why those who steer India’s ship are so keen to replicate Pakistan’s mistakes and call damnation upon this country by inviting the United States to further meddle clumsily and dangerously in our extremely complicated affairs. A superpower never has allies. It only has agents.

On the plus side, the advantage of going to war is that it’s the best way for India to avoid facing up to the serious trouble building on our home front. The Mumbai attacks were broadcast live (and exclusive!) on all or most of our 67 24-hour news channels and god knows how many international ones. TV anchors in their studios and journalists at “ground zero” kept up an endless stream of excited commentary. Over three days and three nights we watched in disbelief as a small group of very young men armed with guns and gadgets exposed the powerlessness of the police, the elite National Security Guard and the marine commandos of this supposedly mighty, nuclear-powered nation.

While they did this they indiscriminately massacred unarmed people, in railway stations, hospitals and luxury hotels, unmindful of their class, caste, religion or nationality. (Part of the helplessness of the security forces had to do with having to worry about hostages. In other situations, in Kashmir for example, their tactics are not so sensitive. Whole buildings are blown up. Human shields are used. The U.S and Israeli armies don’t hesitate to send cruise missiles into buildings and drop daisy cutters on wedding parties in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.) But this was different. And it was on TV.

The boy-terrorists’ nonchalant willingness to kill – and be killed – mesmerised their international audience. They delivered something different from the usual diet of suicide bombings and missile attacks that people have grown inured to on the news. Here was something new. Die Hard 25. The gruesome performance went on and on. TV ratings soared. Ask any television magnate or corporate advertiser who measures broadcast time in seconds, not minutes, what that’s worth.

Eventually the killers died and died hard, all but one. (Perhaps, in the chaos, some escaped. We may never know.) Throughout the standoff the terrorists made no demands and expressed no desire to negotiate. Their purpose was to kill people and inflict as much damage as they could before they were killed themselves. They left us completely bewildered. When we say “nothing can justify terrorism”, what most of us mean is that nothing can justify the taking of human life. We say this because we respect life, because we think it’s precious. So what are we to make of those who care nothing for life, not even their own? The truth is that we have no idea what to make of them, because we can sense that even before they’ve died, they’ve journeyed to another world where we cannot reach them.

One TV channel (India TV) broadcast a phone conversation with one of the attackers, who called himself Imran Babar. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the conversation, but the things he talked about were the things contained in the “terror emails” that were sent out before several other bomb attacks in India. Things we don’t want to talk about any more: the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, the genocidal slaughter of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, the brutal repression in Kashmir. “You’re surrounded,” the anchor told him. “You are definitely going to die. Why don’t you surrender?”

“We die every day,” he replied in a strange, mechanical way. “It’s better to live one day as a lion and then die this way.” He didn’t seem to want to change the world. He just seemed to want to take it down with him.

If the men were indeed members of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, why didn’t it matter to them that a large number of their victims were Muslim, or that their action was likely to result in a severe backlash against the Muslim community in India whose rights they claim to be fighting for? Terrorism is a heartless ideology, and like most ideologies that have their eye on the Big Picture, individuals don’t figure in their calculations except as collateral damage. It has always been a part of and often even the aim of terrorist strategy to exacerbate a bad situation in order to expose hidden faultlines. The blood of “martyrs” irrigates terrorism. Hindu terrorists need dead Hindus, Communist terrorists need dead proletarians, Islamist terrorists need dead Muslims. The dead become the demonstration, the proof of victimhood, which is central to the project. A single act of terrorism is not in itself meant to achieve military victory; at best it is meant to be a catalyst that triggers something else, something much larger than itself, a tectonic shift, a realignment. The act itself is theatre, spectacle and symbolism, and today, the stage on which it pirouettes and performs its acts of bestiality is Live TV. Even as the attack was being condemned by TV anchors, the effectiveness of the terror strikes were being magnified a thousandfold by TV broadcasts.

Through the endless hours of analysis and the endless op-ed essays, in India at least there has been very little mention of the elephants in the room: Kashmir, Gujarat and the demolition of the Babri Masjid. Instead we had retired diplomats and strategic experts debate the pros and cons of a war against Pakistan. We had the rich threatening not to pay their taxes unless their security was guaranteed (is it alright for the poor to remain unprotected?). We had people suggest that the government step down and each state in India be handed over to a separate corporation. We had the death of former prime minster VP Singh, the hero of Dalits and lower castes and villain of Upper caste Hindus pass without a mention.

We had Suketu Mehta, author of Maximum City and co-writer of the Bollywood film Mission Kashmir, give us his version of George Bush’s famous “Why they hate us” speech. His analysis of why religious bigots, both Hindu and Muslim hate Mumbai: “Perhaps because Mumbai stands for lucre, profane dreams and an indiscriminate openness.” His prescription: “The best answer to the terrorists is to dream bigger, make even more money, and visit Mumbai more than ever.” Didn’t George Bush ask Americans to go out and shop after 9/11? Ah yes. 9/11, the day we can’t seem to get away from.

Though one chapter of horror in Mumbai has ended, another might have just begun. Day after day, a powerful, vociferous section of the Indian elite, goaded by marauding TV anchors who make Fox News look almost radical and leftwing, have taken to mindlessly attacking politicians, all politicians, glorifying the police and the army and virtually asking for a police state. It isn’t surprising that those who have grown plump on the pickings of democracy (such as it is) should now be calling for a police state. The era of “pickings” is long gone. We’re now in the era of Grabbing by Force, and democracy has a terrible habit of getting in the way.

Dangerous, stupid television flashcards like the Police are Good Politicians are Bad/Chief Executives are Good Chief Ministers are Bad/Army is Good Government is Bad/ India is Good Pakistan is Bad are being bandied about by TV channels that have already whipped their viewers into a state of almost uncontrollable hysteria.

Tragically, this regression into intellectual infancy comes at a time when people in India were beginning to see that in the business of terrorism, victims and perpetrators sometimes exchange roles. It’s an understanding that the people of Kashmir, given their dreadful experiences of the last 20 years, have honed to an exquisite art. On the mainland we’re still learning. (If Kashmir won’t willingly integrate into India, it’s beginning to look as though India will integrate/disintegrate into Kashmir.)

It was after the 2001 parliament attack that the first serious questions began to be raised. A campaign by a group of lawyers and activists exposed how innocent people had been framed by the police and the press, how evidence was fabricated, how witnesses lied, how due process had been criminally violated at every stage of the investigation. Eventually the courts acquitted two out of the four accused, including SAR Geelani, the man whom the police claimed was the mastermind of the operation. A third, Showkat Guru, was acquitted of all the charges brought against him but was then convicted for a fresh, comparatively minor offence. The supreme court upheld the death sentence of another of the accused, Mohammad Afzal. In its judgment the court acknowledged there was no proof that Mohammed Afzal belonged to any terrorist group, but went on to say, quite shockingly, “The collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” Even today we don’t really know who the terrorists that attacked the Indian parliament were and who they worked for.

More recently, on September 19 this year, we had the controversial “encounter” at Batla House in Jamia Nagar, Delhi, where the Special Cell of the Delhi police gunned down two Muslim students in their rented flat under seriously questionable circumstances, claiming that they were responsible for serial bombings in Delhi, Jaipur and Ahmedabad in 2008. An assistant commissioner of Police, Mohan Chand Sharma, who played a key role in the parliament attack investigation, lost his life as well. He was one of India’s many “encounter specialists” known and rewarded for having summarily executed several “terrorists”. There was an outcry against the Special Cell from a spectrum of people, ranging from eyewitnesses in the local community to senior Congress Party leaders, students, journalists, lawyers, academics and activists all of whom demanded a judicial inquiry into the incident. In response, the BJP and LK Advani lauded Mohan Chand Sharma as a “Braveheart” and launched a concerted campaign in which they targeted those who had dared to question the integrity of the police, saying it was “suicidal” and calling them “anti-national”. Of course there has been no inquiry.

Only days after the Batla House event, another story about “terrorists” surfaced in the news. In a report submitted to a sessions court, the CBI said that a team from Delhi’s Special Cell (the same team that led the Batla House encounter, including Mohan Chand Sharma) had abducted two innocent men, Irshad Ali and Moarif Qamar, in December 2005, planted 2kg of RDX and two pistols on them and then arrested them as “terrorists” who belonged to Al Badr (which operates out of Kashmir). Ali and Qamar who have spent years in jail, are only two examples out of hundreds of Muslims who have been similarly jailed, tortured and even killed on false charges.

This pattern changed in October 2008 when Maharashtra’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) that was investigating the September 2008 Malegaon blasts arrested a Hindu preacher Sadhvi Pragya, a self-styled God man Swami Dayanand Pande and Lt Col Purohit, a serving officer of the Indian Army. All the arrested belong to Hindu Nationalist organizations including a Hindu Supremacist group called Abhinav Bharat. The Shiv Sena, the BJP and the RSS condemned the Maharashtra ATS, and vilified its chief, Hemant Karkare, claiming he was part of a political conspiracy and declaring that “Hindus could not be terrorists”. LK Advani changed his mind about his policy on the police and made rabble rousing speeches to huge gatherings in which he denounced the ATS for daring to cast aspersions on holy men and women.

On the November 25 newspapers reported that the ATS was investigating the high profile VHP Chief Pravin Togadia’s possible role in the Malegaon blasts. The next day, in an extraordinary twist of fate, Hemant Karkare was killed in the Mumbai Attacks. The chances are that the new chief whoever he is, will find it hard to withstand the political pressure that is bound to be brought on him over the Malegaon investigation.

While the Sangh Parivar does not seem to have come to a final decision over whether or not it is anti-national and suicidal to question the police, Arnab Goswami, anchorperson of Times Now television, has stepped up to the plate. He has taken to naming, demonising and openly heckling people who have dared to question the integrity of the police and armed forces. My name and the name of the well-known lawyer Prashant Bhushan have come up several times. At one point, while interviewing a former police officer, Arnab Goswami turned to camera: “Arundhati Roy and Prashant Bhushan,” he said, “I hope you are watching this. We think you are disgusting.” For a TV anchor to do this in an atmosphere as charged and as frenzied as the one that prevails today, amounts to incitement as well as threat, and would probably in different circumstances have cost a journalist his or her job.

So according to a man aspiring to be the next prime minister of India, and another who is the public face of a mainstream TV channel, citizens have no right to raise questions about the police. This in a country with a shadowy history of suspicious terror attacks, murky investigations, and fake “encounters”. This in a country that boasts of the highest number of custodial deaths in the world and yet refuses to ratify the International Covenant on Torture. A country where the ones who make it to torture chambers are the lucky ones because at least they’ve escaped being “encountered” by our Encounter Specialists. A country where the line between the Underworld and the Encounter Specialists virtually does not exist.

How should those of us whose hearts have been sickened by the knowledge of all of this view the Mumbai attacks, and what are we to do about them? There are those who point out that US strategy has been successful inasmuch as the United States has not suffered a major attack on its home ground since 9/11. However, some would say that what America is suffering now is far worse. If the idea behind the 9/11 terror attacks was to goad America into showing its true colors, what greater success could the terrorists have asked for? The US army is bogged down in two unwinnable wars, which have made the United States the most hated country in the world. Those wars have contributed greatly to the unraveling of the American economy and who knows, perhaps eventually the American empire. (Could it be that battered, bombed Afghanistan, the graveyard of the Soviet Union, will be the undoing of this one too?) Hundreds of thousands people including thousands of American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. The frequency of terrorist strikes on U.S allies/agents (including India) and U.S interests in the rest of the world has increased dramatically since 9/11. George Bush, the man who led the US response to 9/11 is a despised figure not just internationally, but also by his own people. Who can possibly claim that the United States is winning the war on terror?

Homeland Security has cost the US government billions of dollars. Few countries, certainly not India, can afford that sort of price tag. But even if we could, the fact is that this vast homeland of ours cannot be secured or policed in the way the United States has been. It’s not that kind of homeland. We have a hostile nuclear weapons state that is slowly spinning out of control as a neighbour, we have a military occupation in Kashmir and a shamefully persecuted, impoverished minority of more than 150 million Muslims who are being targeted as a community and pushed to the wall, whose young see no justice on the horizon, and who, were they to totally lose hope and radicalise, end up as a threat not just to India, but to the whole world. If ten men can hold off the NSG commandos, and the police for three days, and if it takes half a million soldiers to hold down the Kashmir valley, do the math. What kind of Homeland Security can secure India?

Nor for that matter will any other quick fix. Anti-terrorism laws are not meant for terrorists; they’re for people that governments don’t like. That’s why they have a conviction rate of less than 2%. They’re just a means of putting inconvenient people away without bail for a long time and eventually letting them go. Terrorists like those who attacked Mumbai are hardly likely to be deterred by the prospect of being refused bail or being sentenced to death. It’s what they want.

What we’re experiencing now is blowback, the cumulative result of decades of quick fixes and dirty deeds. The carpet’s squelching under our feet.

The only way to contain (it would be naïve to say end) terrorism is to look at the monster in the mirror. We’re standing at a fork in the road. One sign says Justice, the other Civil War. There’s no third sign and there’s no going back. Choose.


Isha Khan


Interview: General Hamid Gul former ISI Chief
December 14, 2008, 10:23 am
Filed under: Pakistan

Interview: General Hamid Gul former ISI Chief

Alex Jones: Well, ladies & gentlemen, out of the gates, we have Gen. Hamid Gul, and of course he was the head of Pakistani intelligence ISI back in the 1980’s, he went on CNN on Sunday night on one of their international programs and talked about the fact that he believed 9/11 was an inside job, and that the Mumbai attacks, formerly Bombay, were also an inside job.

As you know, we have detailed that that was a False Flag attack, carried out by western intelligence, clearly, in India, as a pretext to start World War III between the two nations. There were also calls, the Pakistani government said were officially made, confirmed with the phone records, from the Indian Foreign Ministry, saying “we are going to attack you”, attempting to trick the Pakistanis into launching some type of attack, and that almost happened.

So, for the next thirty minutes I’m very honored to be joined by Gen. Hamid Gul, and General, joining us from Pakistan, thank you so much for coming on with us today.

Hamid Gul: You are welcome.

Alex Jones: Uh, just out of the gates, I was told by your son that you were not happy with the CNN interview, that they edited you. So, you’ve got the floor, sir. We’re not going to edit you. You are live, so tell the world what is really going on.

Hamid Gul: Well, at the moment, we have to look at this human — great human tragedy that took place in Bombay. I sympathize with India; they’ve been rocked very badly. And their response was a bit nervous. They want to go to war with Pakistan if Pakistan does not behave or does not hand over whoever they want from us. They have given a list of people.

But I think that there has been a long record of the Indians accusing Pakistan whenever something like this happens, and in the past they have turned out to be every time wrong. Of course Pakistan is willing to cooperate. And I think that is a very good position that President Zardari has taken, that “you provide the evidence and we will try them out; we will arrest them we will put them to trial, and you can come and watch, see, and let the international cameras come and see. And there shall be a transparent, open trial, and if that does not satisfy you, then what else will?”

So, this is the situation where we stand today: there is an ominous tack from India, and America seems to be partly patting them on the back, and asking Pakistan to do whatever India is demanding. Now this is an unfair position, because India is not like America. America demanded from Pakistan back in — after 9/11 to cooperate and hand over anybody that Pakistan could lay their hands on. Seven hundred or so people were caught in Pakistan, they were sent to Guantanamo Bay, to Baghram and to Kandahar jail. And nothing came out — Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was the only one who was tried in that case: all others have been let off.

So, to get innocent people like that, just because you accuse them, and you don’t even provide the evidence, you pick them up and shove them in jails, this is not on [misses ]. I think that this belittles the values that particularly democracies uphold, and they talk so much about. And so I think that my son-in-law putted it good enough, and today Pakistan backed down on some of the defunct organizations — in fact these were banned in the year 2002, immediately after 9/11, but there could be some maverick elements among them who would still — I won’t rule out, could carry out uhhh [bumper music begins in background]— in — uh, on their own or in conjunction with some other forces [“partic”??] that kind of atrocities. But we have to wait and see, how it goes.

Alex Jones: OK, Mr. — uh, Mr. Gul, General Hamid Gul, please stay with us. We’re gonna break and come back in a long segment, uh, plenty of time for you to break down what’s going on, the serious tensions, uh being, un being risen due to what happened a few weeks ago in India. Please stay with us.

Alex Jones: Reading from Wikipedia, “General Hamid Gul, served as director general of Pakistan’s Inter Service Intelligence, ISI, during ’87-’89, mainly in the time when Benazir Bhutto was Prime Minister of Pakistan. He was instrumental in the anti-Soviet support of the mujahideen in the Afghan War, ’79 to ’89, a pivotal time during the Cold War, and the estab — ” and it goes on. And we have him on line with us. We of course yesterday played the CNN, uh, TV interview that he did. This is live, and is not edited. Going back to him in Pakistan we’ve tried three different lines, this is the best one we have, we apologize our audio is not very loud to him, not very audible, and his back to us is very, very broken up. But we nevertheless have him joining us, we’re very thankful.

Uh, sir, continuing, on the CNN program, at least what they edited you to say, you talked about 9/11, the evidence being that nine eleven was an inside job, and the attacks in Bombay, now Mumbai, of a few weeks ago, that the evidence was, it was an inside job. Can you go over the evidence that you believe that these were
False Flag events, sir, and why these False Flag events are being staged.

Hamid Gul: Are you talking about 9/11?

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: Well, I have my own reasons, you know, Rod Nordland was the CNN reporter here, I think he was based in Islamabad at that time, and he came to me immediately after 9/11, and his version that, uh, that I put out, it was given to the Newsweek, and unfortunately it was blocked, but it appeared on the internet, on the website of the Newsweek. And you can see it, I think it is dated 16th or 17th of September, 2001. [Note: the article is Prejudice In Pakistan: Why Is Islamabad Reluctant To Pressure Neighboring Afghanistan Into Turning Over Osama Bin Laden?, by Rod Nordland, dated 9/14/2001].

And in that I had said the same thing, and I still maintain that that’s my position. I have [“seven”??] reasons for it:

a. that 9/11 took place on the American soil, not a single person has been caught inside America, even though for doing such a job I think a huge amount of logistic support is required in the area where such operation is carried out.

b. Secondly, the air traffic control, when they saw the four aircraft were changing direction — going from east coast to west coast where they were headed, they started traveling in different directions. And it is quite amazing that for a very long period of time the air traffic control did not report this, nor did the US Air Force act in time. If, er, one were to calculate from the first flight, when it took off from Logan, till the first aircraft, and the solitary aircraft that took off was an F16 that took off from Langley, which is CIA headquarters, instead of one of the operational bases. So many of them are available in that area. And then a single aircraft never takes off, because we have been told that whenever the aircraft scramble they scramble in twos. And the time that it took was enormous. It took a hundred and twelve minutes! A hundred twelve minutes is a very long time in which to react. Was the US Air Force sleeping? And if it was sleeping, which heads will roll?

c. Second [NB: his third point] it was a huge intelligence failure, and no heads have been rolled, nobody has been taken to task, not a single person has resigned for this.

d. Thirdly, the air traffic control should have been rehashed, they should have been turned inside out, but nothing of the sort happened.

e. And finally, how come this is a coincidence that all transponders did not work, and it is not possible — and the direction is changed and it is not noticed?

f. Secondly, the US Air Force has the ability, because in the past whenever a plane has been hijacked, the record is that within seven minutes the US aircraft has been on the wing of the hijacked aircraft. In this case it — uh, it did not happen. The US alert system is so high, and it is so sophisticated, that if a missile were to take off from Moscow, and were to head toward New York, it takes about eighty minutes. And the US Air Force, and the missile systems, is supposed to intercept it within nine minutes — that means only Atlantic: around the Pacific it must stop that missile from coming in.

The system is in place, but it didn’t work, and nobody tried to question this.

g. Lastly, no inquiry has so far been held formally into the incident, and the whole world has been turned upside down, so many people have been killed, the American economy is going into a meltdown, and everything is gone wrong with the world, and yet no formal inquiry has been ordered by the US government. So I really don’t know. There are so many questions which hang in the balance.

h. And then to top it all, they say that [Obama Hamodu??(Hani Hanjour)] took the training by light aircraft in the army for six months, he could have maneuvered a jumbo 745 — uh, 757 from a height where it was traveling — that height was 9,000, and it came within seconds to a height of 1000, and then went straight into its target. Now this is not possible for a person who has been trained on a light aircraft to be able to do this.

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: And there is no mention of the second aircraft, and so there are a number of things which remain unanswered.

Alex Jones: Yes, sir.

Hamid Gul: Whenever the journalists come, and visit me here, and I ask them these questions, that “why haven’t you taken the answers about this?”, and they say that “Patriotic Act comes in the way”, and we are not supposed to ask that question”.

Alex Jones: General — we are talking to General Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistani ISI, during the key period of fighting the Russians, he was also, before he was the head of ISI, one of the chiefs according to our media, running operations against the Russians. And of course working with the United States closely, as well as the Saudi Arabians, and the British. Y’know, if that’s incorrect, correct me.

Uh, General Gul, what are the motives? We have the PNAC, with Dick Cheney saying we need a Pearl Harbor event, we have 44,000 US troops massing in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the days before 9/11, we have Bush on September 10, Newsweek reported ordering the launch of attacks the next week, we have, of course, the buildings being blown up with explosives, and all of the witnesses to that, now the government admits that Building 7 did fall in freefall, was not hit by a plane — specifically, sir, motives. Why would the Military Industrial Complex controlling the United States, why would they stage a 9/11 attack?

Hamid Gul: Well, I think there’s also the Cold War, when the — Reaganomics it was known as, the inflation was very high, and, domestic issues had to be addressed, but, uh, Bill Clinton, [two and hammose??] they really amassed a lot of money, American economy went booming, and he left a lot of money, and the — hard boys, Cold Warriors, when they came in they — they found that the situation was ready, they had money and they had resources, and they looked upon the conquest of the world, for which there was an opportunity window.

The Muslim world was lying prostrate, Russia was not still picking up from the — it’s foreign position, China was not ready yet, and therefore they looked upon it as an opportunity to go and do the [forming??]. And in this, I am a soldier, and I know that there has to be a single aim, but they mixed up the aims and they have botched up everything. First they said that they would go into such specific areas where there was no US presence before, as — such as the western Asia and South Asia — South Asia, where there was no American [???] present, and they wanted it there.

They had to keep the Chinese off from getting into the Middle East, they had to lay their hands on the energy tap of the world, which presently lies in the Middle East, but in future it will be in Central Asia, and so Afghanistan is the gateway to Central Asia, and finally to suppress any resistance, particularly which could threaten the state of Israel.

Now that is where they, instead of pursuing the American objectives, they started pursuing the Israeli objectives, and that is where they went wrong. You have to pick out a single aim, that is the first principle of war, and I don’t know why the generals and the politicians of America, they could be so naïve and so ignorant, that they started mixing aims, and they went into this war, without a buildup, without particular preparation, and without the American support behind them.

Because if they had gone to war, and asked for the support of the American people, they would never given them their support. So they had to create a pretext, and this was the pretext that they created.

Alex Jones: General, we’re gonna break in a second, and come back for the final segment. I’m hoping I can get you to stay a little longer, because I want you to speak unedited to the American people and the people of the world. I want to shift gears into Mumbai, what happened in India. Clearly the evidence of even the Indian intelligence chief, as you know, was saying that the Indian government was staging terror attacks on the train, an army captain was caught doing that and arrested, the chief of anti-terror was threatened, he was killed that day when it started in Mumbai, now they have caught an anti-terror police officer giving cell phones to the supposed terrorist that they’re saying came from Pakistan, we know the West is deeply in bed with some of the blocks of the former mujahideen, uh, can you speak to that?


Hamid Gul: Can you hear me — I can’t hear you properly, can you hear me all right?

Alex Jones: Yes, sir, I can hear you. When we come back, we will s­ — we will speak to what happened in India. Did you hear that?

Hamid Gul: Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Alex Jones: Good. Why they are staging terror attacks there, the evidence of False Flag/Inside Job in India. So when we return after this quick break [music begins] with the former head of Pakistani intelligence, uh, General Hamid Gul, joining us from Pakistan. I am coming to you from Austin, Texas, hence the phone troubles. We will work on those, sir, during the break. My websites of course are and

Stay with us, we’ll be right back with this exclusive interview.


[bumper music: Leonard Cohen —
Everybody knows the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows — the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
. . . .]

Alex Jones: We are back live. It is Dec. 9th, 2008. Gen. Hamid Gul, one of the most famous members of the — and commanders of Pakistani intelligence, who worked in — with the United States in the whole operation against the Russians — was the commander of those operations — is our guest, with us graciously until forty after.

Uh, General, uh, not wasting any more time, I listed earlier the fact that Indian intelligence captains in the army have been caught in India staging bombings. That’s Indian news. Uh, that Indian intelligence and police have been caught giving cell phones to the supposed shooters. The police stood down, and only the anti-terror commanders that had said that India was staging terror, they were killed in the initiation of the attacks in Mumbai. That’s some of the evidence of Mumbai being an inside job. Namely, why do you believe Mumbai is a staged event two weeks ago, (A), and (B), what is the motive?

Hamid Gul: Well, the motive is very simple, that, uh, Americans want India to come on board with them in their War Against Terror, especially when they run out of troops in Afghanistan. The NATO allies are pulling out, they are dragging their feet, they are not prepared to fight there, but they want to make it an Indian cause, and they want nearly 150,000 troops in Afghanistan.

That is one reason where there is an American motive. There is an Israeli motive, which is similar, that the Americans should not pull out of Afghanistan just because they are short of troops, so they must have more troops there. Because if they go away without denuclearizing Pakistan, the state of Israel will remain under perpetual danger. So they have an innate fear that Americans will lose heart and pull out of this region, they’re already going out of Iraq. And if they were to go out of Afghanistan, Israel — this will be an unfinished agenda, and Israel will be at the losing end.

So, the NeoCons and the Zionists, they together want to hatch a conspiracy so that Obama gets trapped into a situation where for next four years he keep on sorting out this embroglio.

As far as the ability is concerned, which is the other element, can you imagine that people traveling from Karachi in two rickety boats, they can travel all the way to Bombay and then go into action immediately and fight a battle for seventy-two hours, and there are just ten of them, and in each group there were two? This is impossible. They were carrying so much of munitions with them, and that, uh, that munition lasted till fighting withstood the — crack troops of India for so long.

And you know that in Nariman House, the five Jewish hostages, they were killed by the Indian commandos. They were not killed by these people. So why would the Indian commandos kill them? And Israelis suppressed this information. It initially came out in one of the Indian dail — eh, Israeli dailies, but then it was suppressed.

So if you go by the record of the Indian accusations against Pakistan, in the past ten years, uh, 2001 on December 13, there was an attack on the Indian Lok Sabha [lower house of Parliament], and they blamed Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba for it, but it turned out that these were Indian Kashmiris themselves, and because India is causing so much atrocities in Kashmir, therefore there’s a good reason for them that they would — carry out something like that.

Then the — again in 2006, there was the Samjhota Express case, in which 68 passengers, mostly Pakistanis were killed, and this train was stopped at an obscure railway station in Haryana, and then doors were locked and the train was set on fire, and again this was proclaimed that it was Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba, and they had done it because they wanted to derail the peace process. But, uh, Marshal Purohit, Shrikant Purohit has been caught in it, and there are other Indian officers who are, uh, or were his accomplices, and he has a big net worth — they — took the RDX from the Deolali depot, which is a military depot —

Alex Jones: the explosives —

Hamid Gul: so one can say there is a deep penetration of the militant Hindus in military and intelligence organizations in India.

So in this case, why would they not do that, because they want to again derail this process, and when Obama says that he will mediate on Kashmir, and there is a Kashmiri [music begins] political movement picking up momentum, and in this situation he says that he would, uh, send, uh, Bill Clinton as the mediator. Obviously the militants in India do not want this to happen and they had to preempt it.

So, Pakistan doesn’t gain, Pakistani ISI doesn’t gain anything from it. The next beneficiary is either the militant Hindu —

Alex Jones: Stay there, sir, we have to break.

Hamid Gul: who have their eye on the next election —

Alex Jones: we have to break —


Alex Jones: Well, ladies and gentlemen, a rare interview, extremely enlightening. We’re talking to the former head of Pakistani intelligence, the ISI. I want to thank Paul Watson, who will be on the line. He’s gonna pop in with a question or two. I want to thank, uh, Simon over in the UK for getting us this number. Thank Aaron for staying up late last night to get the producing job done to get this interview right here on the GCN Radio Network. Uh, General, continuing with motive, I have the headline here, “Pakistan Asserts ‘Hoax’ War Call Was Real — Press Minister fingers Indian High Commission as source of reports that threatening call was fake”.

As you know this was in most of the Pakistani papers. The government has the caller ID and the phone records, that the threatening call, saying that India was going to attack within minutes of the terrorist attacks beginning in Mumbai a few weeks ago, this provocative call within minutes saying India was going to attack Pakistan, attempting to get Pakistan to move troops to the border and have a conflict, and the media saying possible war between the two thermonuclear powers was narrowly averted. Can you speak to that?

Hamid Gul: Yes, indeed. I think the Americans and the Indians both have been very responsible about it, because Condoleezza Rice’s statement in America and in India when she went and visited Delhi. They were very threatening towards Pakistan, and it was sort of a dictation that “you have to satisfy India”. Now this is amazing, that Pakistan has to satisfy India. On what score? Indians have still to come out with the evidence. And as far as this one man whom they have caught, who knows that this is not a bogey, and that this man was loitering around somewhere. There’re plenty of Pakistanis who crossed the border illegally or legally, and he could have been picked up, and he’s become the front man for singing on those stories.

So one doesn’t really know. It’s too early to start threatening war against Pakistan because Pakistan is a nuclear country, and if they brandish their power, conventional power, then I can assure you that as a soldier I will say that conventional war, limited war, within the nuclear environment is not possible in the subcontinent.

And if it comes to an exchange of nuclear weapons, then this becomes a Third World War. China cannot stay out. Russia will not stay out. Russia is already showing its belligerence towards the — America and Europe. And China of course is a very major economic power. They are a nuclear power, and if this thing happens in their back yard they will not accept it.

So this is a very dangerous situation. I think it is playing with the fire. So the whole thing is getting — could get out of hand. It is again, as I told you that the part of the unfinished agenda that the NeoCons had in their mind. And they think back now, “well, we carry it out, even though the Americans wanted a change.”

But let’s look at what change means. I mean Obama has not too very clearly enunciated what change would be. But one can assume that change means focusing on the domestic issues. There is an economic meltdown, the car industry is going sick, and many other things are happening inside America, the social welfare and the Medicare extra trust.

So as in all these things, there is a need for the new administration to focus entirely on the domestic issues —

Alex Jones: well, General —

Hamid Gul: and for that it will have to disengage externally.

Alex Jones: General — as you know, in the last three months, before Obama was even elected, he said Pakistan and Afghanistan would be his main focus. The strikes inside Pakistan — it’s clear that his change means what Zbigniew Brzezinski wants, shifting — uh, what the RAND Corporation has said they want, shifting the war out of the Middle East into Central Asia.

So I believe the change is gonna be these provocations. Look at the NeoCons, with Israeli and NATO-backed forces launching the sneak attack on the Russian held South Ossetia on 8/8/8. So it appears they are trying to launch a major — uh, larger than a theater war, as the RAND Corporation said a month ago, they want a major new war.

Hamid Gul: Yes, indeed you’re right, because this is an old theory, [weet ul josaperry??] theory, first put out by MacKinder and then by Mahan, who was an admiral in the US Navy, that this is the rimland, you’ve got to first control the rimland in Asia before you can strike in the heartland of Asia. So this heartland/rimland thing, I think it tricked into the story —

Alex Jones: geopolitical

Hamid Gul: it tricked into the picture that, if they have a conflict in the rimland, and they can control it, then it becomes so much easier to go into the heartland.

This is really asking too much when America is really not in a very healthy economic condition. So I think that this is brinkmanship of the highest order, and if they enlarge the area of conflict in this war against terrorism, and if they prolong the period of conflict, then America will definitely lose.

Alex Jones: General —

Hamid Gul: Because I know that when you are fighting the [illevel of??] fighters, and then the area of conflict is enlarged, let’s say you extend it into the tribal areas of Pakistan, or it is pushed into Kashmir as well, so the [canna??] can be monitored and watched quite easily, then the area will become larger and the US simply does not have the troops. And there is not a moral cause strong enough for the American people to be mobilized behind it.

Alex Jones: So that’s why they staged

Hamid Gul: So I don’t know — this is pure madness to be thinking of such things at this time.

Alex Jones: So that’s why they need proxies like India to destabilize the region for the encirclement of Russia, and of course China, blocking those pipelines.

Now, sir, in the time we’ve got left, you worked with the United States and Saudi Arabia, with Israel, or at least Pakistan did, fighting the Russian invasion. Uh, of course, if these reports are incorrect, correct me, but you were one of the main commanders helping the mujahideen. You were the head of Pakistani intelligence right at the time you had the victory against the Russians.

It is reported here that al-Qaeda was founded by the new Secretary of Defense Gates and Zbigniew Brzezinski, uh, or, or that they were the Wahabist fighting corps, and that they are now being used to try to bring down the Pakistani government and to try to stage attacks inside India. So can you speak with your particular expertise to that, and then, also the fact that they are now trying to list you as a terrorist, and then thirdly, did you ever meet Osama bin Laden? Is Osama bin Laden dead many years ago of kidney failure, as Benazir Bhutto said?

Hamid Gul: Well, uh, I was actually in charge of operations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and the Americans were providing the logistic support, and the Saudis were sharing one half of the budget for this war. And it was a cheap war because in all — there was uh ten years that we were fighting the Russians, we spent not more than five billion dollars out of the American exchequers. So it was a very cheap war for the Americans to have defeated the Russians and rid the whole of the West of this Red Menace that they used to call.

So, at that time, Osama bin Laden and his, uh colleagues, they were admired and romanticised by the CIA operators. I had never met him then. I had nothing to do with him, because I was only busy training the Afghans. We had to win a war, we had a task on our hands, it was a very big task, and we were so occupied with the training only the Afghans. No other nation was trained by the ISI. I can vouch on that. Not a single person, not even a Pakistani was trained by them.

Osama bin Laden was — you know, I — had never met him, but to the — these people used to come and talk glowingly about him. I met Osama bin Laden after my retirement from the army, in 1993 December in Khartoum, and then again in year, uh, 1994 November when I was went — I was there invited by a Hassan bin-Turabi to an international conference, and during that conference, Osama invited us to a banquet. And it was all in an open place, and, uh, where there were many other people present. I, uh, he struck me as a pretty normal human being, not the bloodthirsty animal that he is being presented by the CIA now.

At that time no conversation between him and me took place. I don’t know whether he’s living or dead. But so far Ayman — Ayman al-Zawahiri has been given — eh, representing him in various interviews of Osama that have been put out.

So one doesn’t really know. But the last interview, which was a voice interview, in that the CIA and the other US intelligence agencies authenticated that it was Osama’s voice. So one doesn’t really know whether he is living or dead.

Alex Jones: Well, sir —

Hamid Gul: But even if he is not living, he is a symbol. Al-Qaeda is a franchise. Whoever created that, and for whatever reason they created, I think it wasn’t there until 1996 when he was lodged in Khartoum. Later on he was —

Alex Jones: General —

Hamid Gul: — invited by [later Afghan President] Burhanuddin Rabbani, who is now part of the Northern Alliance in Kabul, and he came over and he set up his headquarters in a place called Tora Bora near Jalalabad. But, uhhh, that’s where one started hearing of al-Qaeda and the activities

Alex Jones: Yes.

Hamid Gul: of Osama bin-Laden.

Alex Jones: General —

Hamid Gul: And also the fact that his commander was responsible for bringing the “Blackhawk down” in the fierce operation in Mogadishu where an American aircraft was brought down by a Stinger, which had probably been supplied in Afghanistan to Afghan mujahideen.

Alex Jones: OK, General —

Hamid Gul: Yes —

Alex Jones: General, I need to — in the time left here because we’ve only got a few minutes left with you here — uh, maybe five minutes and then we’re going to break and I don’t want to keep you any longer — we can perhaps have you back in the future.

Specifically, though, we know his CIA control name was Tim Osman, we know he was the bagman for a lot of the Saudi money and the Israeli money going in, I know that was compartmentalized and separate from Pakistani intelligence, from what I’ve read from different perspectives and US intelligence.

So — so I believe you. My whole point here is — is that al-Qaeda — al-CIAda didn’t carry out the attacks of 9/11 as you yourself have said. His first interview said that he didn’t do it. Then they produced these computer-morphed videos and fake audios that have been checked. And the Intel Center, headed up by Rumsfeld’s former lieutenant, the private group was caught putting the same video layer in with the original video. So it’s been proven that they’re creating these fake videos.

Hamid Gul: There is no doubt about it, that this video which was put out in November by George Bush and — and said this was Osama bin-Laden and was high cheekboned like the mongoloid features, he wasn’t as tall as Osama bin-Laden was. And one could clearly make out that this was doctored, and had been created on purpose to justify the attack on Afghanistan.

I think there are many things which are going wrong are being done on the behest of the government by the CIA which are not correct. The CIA used to be good when they were working with us. But I don’t know what happened thereafter. I think it was overarching ambition.

Alex Jones: Well, sir —

Hamid Gul: — or it is the fear that America will lose it’s clout. Whatever is the reason. Or perhaps it is the Israeli fear that they are surrounded by a sea of hostile enemies, who could, if the Americans don’t, uh, now at this point in time, the don’t deliver a fatal blow to all their enemies, then Israel will have a short shelf life, otherwise also because it is an artificial state, that they would, uh, probably not exist, or they would —

Alex Jones: General —

Hamid Gul: — have — fi —

Alex Jones: General: as you know, in the time we have left, they have over four hundred nukes, they have total dominance, no one could attack them with nukes, they have the anti-missile defense systems. I believe it’s a red herring that they want to start World War III, uh, for their “safety”. It’s World War III that will destroy Israel.

Hamid Gul: Yes, indeed, and I think this 2006 September experience, I think, if it is any indicator for them, when they —

Alex Jones: Hezbollah —

Hamid Gul: — went into southern Lebanon and they got such a buffeting at the hands of — of Hezbollah, I think they’ll not do something like that, because it would mean annihilation of Israel. And in any case Palestinian question is a very thorny question, and I do not know why the US administration is not addressing it differently —

Alex Jones: OK

Hamid Gul: — instead of these two different states there should be one Abrahamic state of Palestine.

Alex Jones: General!

Hamid Gul: Because all of the three religions which claim that they are divine religions they have been origined in Palestine, and I think that something new has been — has to be thought about.

Alex Jones: All right —

Hamid Gul: But unfortunately Bush administration in its very [?????????] it said that they would sort out this Palestinian issue by creating two states. After eight years we have gotten nowhere at all!

Alex Jones: All right General, we’re almost out of time, two final questions, and I’m gonna let you go, and you can — any websites, any books, any materials you’d like to point people at to see your side of the story, we’d love to see it. Two questions, let me give ’em both to you and then answer them, please:

#1 — why are they trying to, now, list you as a terrorist, (A), when they admittedly worked with you (B) why do they always betray people like Saddam who they worked with and set up.

So (A) why are they trying to set you up, and (B) do you see the West staging more terror?

Hamid Gul: Yes, of — I think they are simply afraid of me because I worked with them, I understand them, I can measure them up and I talk loudly about it, I mak — mince no words, I pil — pull no punches, and they are afraid that I preempt whatever scheming they do. And I am — loud-voiced, there is no doubt about it. And I speak the truth, they are trying to frame me, there is no truth in it. If they had anything about me when I applied for a renewal of my VISA to America why did they not give it to me? Because if they have something, they are looking around for terrorists, while this terrorist wants to come over and visit America, nab me, interrogate me, take me to bar, take me to court, do whatever you like. It only shows that they have a mala fide.

As far as Saddam is concerned, it is a habit, it is a very bad habit. They cultivate friends who become, like Pervez Musharraf, dictators, and then they make use of them, and then they turn upon them and then infect [?] the nation because of their policies.

And, what was the last part of your question?

Alex Jones: All right, I’m gonna do a s —

Hamid Gul: was it in India/Pakistan relations?

Alex Jones: Sir, hold on one moment, General. John —

Hamid Gul: Ju —

Alex Jones: Ge — hold on, General — uh, General, hold on one moment because we’ve only got a few minutes left. John, skip this network break. For stations: I’m skipping, ’cause I’me gonna let him go in three minutes. I don’t want to hold him any longer, but I’m skipping this break, because this is too newsworthy.

Yes sir, I’d like you to answer that question, uh, about what do you think, knowing them, working with the globalists, the New World Order, in the past, when it was still America, before we were totally dominated, what do you think their next moves are probably — uh, most probable, (A).

And then, finally, the attacks against the government in Pakistan, uh, using Muslim fronts. Does that appear to be the West trying to destabilize your government? They keep trying to kill the government, they killed Bhutto, they keep bombing government buildings, they keep bombing hotels, it appears the West is using false mujahideen to try to overthrow Pakistan.

Hamid Gul: No, Benazir was not killed by any of the terrorists. She was removed by the Americans, because she had violated her agreement, because they wanted to keep Pervez Musharraf there, and he slapped another [mustel???] on Pakistan. So she had become rebellious, and such a person, who is a popular leader of a third world country, the head of the largest political party, a woman whom they could not attack as fundamentalist because she was so westernized, therefore it was very important for them to remove her, because they have a mischievous plan which they want to put through.

So, they have installed instead Mr. Zardari, whom they can blackmail very easily, but they have allowed him to keep the powers of a dictator. And in fact he’s the one who’s calling all the shots in Pakistan, so as Pakistan is already completely destabilized politically.

Our po — um, uh be — judicial institution simply does not exist, because the judicial crisis recently dethroned Chief Justice of Pakistan —

Alex Jones: Yes — who is staging the terror attacks, because they’re clearly aimed at the government, or is that the government staging them as a pretext to crack down —

Hamid Gul: No, no, no — this is because it — [Lombostit???] was attacked, and I think that George Bush addressed his nation on radio immediately after that, said “this was part of our plan in War Against Terrorism”, because Pakistan army and Inter Services Intelligence were not fully cooperating, and because they did not consider it was their war, therefore they created this situation, where the terrorists out of sheer revenge — this is called Pakhtunwali. This is a tradition which has nothing to do with Islam. It is the Afghans holding to this tradition long before they became Muslim, and they are still carrying it on. When you take action against an Afghan, kill his daughter or his wife or his sister, he will take revenge no doubt what happens. He does not behave like a Muslim, or any other entity.

So this was a thing which was created. And of course Pakistan is now in a very difficult position. We only have a military which can control the institutions. And we have an ISI, but the Americans are almost every day attacking the ISI and attacking the military, saying this is not under the control of the political parties.

Alex Jones: Sir —

Hamid Gul: political powers.

Alex Jones: Sir — General —

Hamid Gul: But what is political power, when Parliament is sinecure? It does not work, it has no authority at all.

Alex Jones: General, going back to 9/11, Pakistani papers, BBC reported, New York Times reported, $100,000 was reportedly wired by Gen. Mahmood Ahmed, the head of Pakistani intelligence to the lead hijacker, who we know was a US government decoy, trained at US bases, that’s Newsweek, AP, Reuters. General Mahmood Ahmed, do you believe he was really controlled by the CIA, did he wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta?

Hamid Gul: Not at all. Mahmood is a friend of mine. I met him very recently in Lahore, and he categorically denies this. I think this is all disinformation, which has been adopted as a very sophisticated intelligence art.

Alex Jones: So, just to be clear, we’re gonna let you go, we’re very thankful and respectful of your time, uh, you believe that the bombings and shootings and terror attacks that we’ve seen in the last few months in Pakistan are because the Predator drones and helicopters are killing weddings — you always notice it’s a wedding — that’s meant to stir up the people there, because it kills whole families, it’s a huge insult, and then of course they blow up NATO cars, of course they then attack the government. Is that what you’re saying?

Hamid Gul: It is retaliatory, and they will retaliate. I can tell you that Afghanistan nation is a fact that over 5,000 years, nobody has won against them, and I think that Americans cannot win, unless American intention is to stir up a Third World War at this point I think there’s no point in staying in Afghanistan. You should negotiate with the opposition. This is a national resistance now. It is no longer Taleban. Specific, it is the Afghan nation.

I approve of their position. They are resisting ferociously.

Alex Jones: General, how long can the Mayor of Kabul stay in power, and isn’t this really just about the West controlling the opium?

Hamid Gul: Well, he’s the puppet of Kabul, and he will not stay very long. I can assure you that, eh, he’s already started showing signs of nervousness. He wants to reach out to the Taleban, but Taleban won’t — eh, even throw a crumb at him. I can assure you the Taleban, or, any other resistance fighters, they will have nothing to do with —

Alex Jones: Well, Reuters is reporting, as you know, every major city is now encircled, and only a few cities are controlled by the US force.

Hamid Gul: I — I have no idea, but I think the Right is started coming out, like Robert Kagan’s article in the Washington Post on December 2nd, it, eh, echoes what is the [CFR] World At Risk Report. Uh, it is similar. They are focusing on Pakistan, because Pakistan’s nuclear capability is undigestible by State of Israel, and by India, therefore there is —

Alex Jones: All right —

Hamid Gul: every possibility that Pakistan becomes a target.

Alex Jones: In closing — in closing, and this is it, and we appreciate all your time — this hour’s over, two minutes, sir, I know you can’t predict the future, but do you see them staging a nuke attack? Do you see them staging more terror attacks? Do you see India sneak attacking? Uh, do you see a more radical government coming in after the staged events? What do you see happening, bad case scenario?

Hamid Gul: No, Indians are not so stupid. I think they are seeing thru the game, and these far Leftist parties, that is the Left Front, they are called, the Communist party of India, are very strong. India is slowly turning t’the world of its own problems. The Shine India, Shining India, Feel-good India, this is all make believe. I can tell you that this is a propaganda hype. I can tell you that India is in a miserable state. Their economy is dwindling. And four hundred millions are living on less that one dollar a day.

And this is beginning to have an effect because last year alone 108,000 farmers in India committed suicide. And this will not go on. Out of 608 districts in India, 231 are already in turmoil, and mostly under the control of Maoists and the Bhakti-lite.

Alex Jones: So they are collapsing?

Hamid Gul: Yes. So India itself has lots of problems of their own.

Alex Jones: You’re right. The GMO cotton made ’em commit suicide, cause it destroyed their lives.

Well, General, General Hamid Gul, thank you so much for joining us. Any websites, any books, any materials you think people should read to learn more?

Hamid Gul: Thank you.

Alex Jones: Uh, any websites, any books, any materials you think people should read to learn more?

Hamid Gul: Oh, I don’t have a website, unfortunately, but I think you have a website. You can read all my talk.

Alex Jones: Absolutely. We’ll post the audio and a transcript at Let me say bye to you, as this hour ends, as we go to break, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, we’ll be back with the second hour. Again I want to thank Gen. Hamid Gul. Uh, an amazing exclusive, folks, unedited live.

Isha Khan

People in Muslim Nations Conflicted About UN
December 4, 2008, 11:33 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

People in Muslim Nations Conflicted About UN

 A poll of seven majority Muslim nations finds people conflicted about the United Nations. On one hand there is widespread support for a more active UN with much broader powers than it has today. On the other hand, there is a perception that the UN is dominated by the US and dissatisfaction with UN performance on several fronts, particularly in dealing with the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

These are the findings from a survey in Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Iran, Indonesia, the Palestinian Territories, and Azerbaijan. Muslims in Nigeria (50% of the general population) were also polled. The survey was conducted in two waves over January 12-February 18 and July 21-August 31, 2008. Margins of error range from +/-2 to 5 percent. Not all questions were asked in all countries.
“While many people in Muslim countries express disappointment with the UN, this actually masks their underlying desire for a UN that is robust and powerful,” comments Steven Kull, director of
Asked about a number of options for giving the United Nations greater powers, nearly all receive strong support. Publics in all nations polled favor the UN Security Council having its own standing peacekeeping force (on average 64%), having the authority to go into countries to investigate human rights violations (average 63%), and having the right to authorize military force to stop a country from supporting terrorist groups (average 76%), or to prevent severe human rights violations such as genocide (average 77%).

Publics in five out of the six nations asked favor giving the United Nations the power to regulate the international arms trade (average 59%) and favor the UN Security Council having the right to authorize military force to prevent a country that does not have nuclear weapons from acquiring them (average 63%), to prevent a country that does not have nuclear weapons from producing nuclear fuel (average 57%), and to restore by force a democratic government that has been overthrown (average 57%).
Further, publics in all seven nations asked endorse the controversial view that the UN has a ‘responsibility to protect’ populations from severe human rights violations, “even against the will of their own government” (on average 64%).
At the same time Muslim publics distinguish between a United Nations that they feel in principle should be a dynamic actor, and the existing UN which they tend to perceive as dominated by the United States and as achieving mixed results in its current efforts.
In all but one nation the most common view is that “the US basically controls the UN and can almost always make the UN do what the US wants” as opposed to the view that “through its veto the US can stop the UN from doing things, but the US cannot make the UN do things the US wants.” The view of the UN as controlled by the United States is endorsed by 68 percent of Egyptians, 63 percent of Palestinians, 59 percent of Jordanians, and 53 percent of Turks. In Indonesia, 43 percent agree, while 13 percent say the US can only stop the UN from doing things (44% did not answer). The only exception is Azerbaijan, where a plurality says the US can stop the UN, but cannot make it do what the US wants (49% to 36%).
Respondents were also asked to assess a variety of UN efforts, rating them on a scale with 0 meaning “not all helpful” and 10 meaning “extremely helpful.” Ratings are generally lukewarm at best.
The lowest ratings are for UN efforts in “working to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.” The mean response is 3.7 with the lowest ratings coming from Jordanians (2.5) and Palestinians (2.6). Only Azerbaijanis are above 5 (5.3). Low ratings of UN performance on the Israel-Palestinian conflict are highly correlated with the perception that the US controls the UN.
Also very low are ratings of UN efforts to “resolve the conflict in Darfur.” The mean rating is 3.8. The lowest ratings come from the Jordanians (2.6), and the highest come from Indonesians (5.3).
The most positive ratings are for the UN performance in “providing humanitarian aid.” Ratings range from 4.5 (Palestinians) to 7.8 (Indonesians), with a mean of 5.9. Nearly as high are UN efforts in “running peacekeeping operations,” with a mean of 5.3, ranging from 3.5 (Palestinians) to 7.5 (Indonesians). UN efforts to address climate change get mixed reviews with three nations above 5, three below 5 and a mean of 4.6.
The complex mix of feelings—support for a United Nations with broader powers, perceptions of US dominance and varying assessments of UN performance—appear to contribute to highly varied responses on a number of questions.
Asked about the prospect of “the UN becoming significantly more powerful in world affairs,” consistent with their support for broader UN powers, majorities say this would be mainly positive in Iran (70%), Indonesia (53%), and Azerbaijan (51%)—as does a plurality in Turkey (43 to 26%). However in the three countries close to the hotbed of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, views are mostly negative—Palestinians (64%), Jordanians (59%), and Egyptians (57%)—perhaps because this signifies to them a United Nations dominated by the US and favoring Israel.
Respondents in different nations also have highly divergent levels of agreement with the statement, “When dealing with international problems [survey country] should be more willing to make decisions within the United Nations, even if this means that [survey country] will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice.” More agree in Nigeria (60%), Egypt (57%), and Turkey (39% to 29%); while more disagree among the Palestinians (81%), Indonesians (50%), and Azerbaijanis (44% to 36%).

Washington is Fostering Political Divisions between India and Pakistan
December 4, 2008, 11:29 am
Filed under: Uncategorized
India’s 9/11. Who was Behind the Mumbai Attacks? : Washington is Fostering Political Divisions between India and Pakistan

The Mumbai terror attacks were part of a carefully planned and coordinated operation involving several teams of experienced and trained gunmen. 

The operation has the fingerprints of a paramilitary-intelligence operation. According to a Russian counter terrorist expert, the Mumbai terrorists “used the same tactics that Chechen field militants employed in the Northern Caucasus attacks where entire towns were terrorized, with homes and hospitals seized”. (Russia Today, November 27, 2008). 

The Mumbai attacks are described as ” India’s 9/11″. The attacks were carried out simultaneously in several locations, within minutes of each other. 

The first target  was in the main hall of Mumbai’s Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station (CST), where the gunmen fired indiscriminately into the crowd of passengers. The gunmen ” then ran out of the station and into neighboring buildings, including Cama Hospital

Attacks by separate groups of gunmen took place at two of Mumbai’s luxury hotels – the Oberoi-Trident and the Taj Mahal Palace, located at the heart of the tourist area, within proximity of the Gateway of India. 

The gunmen also opened fire at Café Leopold, a stylish restaurant in the tourist area. The third target was Nariman House, a business center which houses Chabad Lubavitch, Mumbai’s Jewish Center. Six hostages including the Rabbi and his wife were killed. 

The domestic airport at Santa Cruz; the Metro Adlabs multiplex and the Mazgaon Dockyard were also targeted. 

“The attacks occurred at the busiest places. Besides hotels and hospitals, terrorists struck at railway stations, Crawford Market, Wadi Bunder and on the Western Express Highway near the airport. Seven places have been attacked with automatic weapons and grenades.(Times of India, 26 November 2008),


Indian troops surrounded the hotels. Indian Special  Forces commandos were sent into the two hotels to confront the terrorists.. Witnesses at the hotels said that the gunmen were singling out people with US and British passports. 

Casualties, according to reports, are in excess of 150 killed. Most of those killed were Indian nationals, many of whom died in the attack on the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway Terminus.  At least 22 foreigners were killed in the attacks. Fourteen police officers, including the chief of the anti-terror squad, were killed in the attacks.

Who was Behind the Attacks? 

A virtually unknown group called “the Deccan Mujahideen”, has according to reports, claimed responsibility for attacks. The Deccan Plateau refers to a region of central-Southern India largely centered in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  This unknown group has already been categorized, without supporting evidence, as belonging to the Al Qaeda network of terrorist organizations. 

Police reports confirm that  nine “suspected attackers” have been arrested and three of the attackers have, according to unconfirmed police sources, confessed to belonging to Lashkar-e-Taiba [Lashkar-e-Tayyiba], a Pakistani Kasmiri separatist organization, covertly supported by Pakistani military intelligence (ISI). At least one of the arrested, according to the reports, is a British citizen of Pakistani descent.

In chorus, both the Western and Indian media are pointing fingers at Pakistan and its alleged support of Islamic terrorist organizations: 

“Strategic gurus and security analysts in the US and from across the world are examining Pakistan’s role in terrorism following yet another terror episode in India ending with fingers pointed at its widely-reviled neighbor. 

While initial reports from India suggested the Mumbai carnage was a localized attack by militant malcontents in India because of the “Deccan Mujahideen” decoy that was used to claim responsibility, evidence cited by Indian army and security experts based on phone intercepts, nature of weaponry, mode of entry by sea etc., has quickly focused the attention on Pakistan.” (Times of India, November 27, 2008)

The US media has centered its attention on the links between the Mumbai attacks and the “resurgent terrorist groups [which] enjoy havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas as well as alleged protection or support from elements of Pakistani intelligence.” (Washington Post, November 28, 2008). 

“Clash of Civilizations”

In Europe and North America, the Mumbai attacks by Islamic fundamentalists are perceived as part of the “Clash of Civilizations”. “Militant Islam is involved in a war against civilization”.

The dramatic loss of lives resulting from the attacks has indelibly contributed to reinforcing anti-Muslim sentiment throughout the Western World.  

The outlines of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, are becoming clear. The terrorists targeted India, the U.S. and Britain, and the Jewish people. (Market Watch, November 28, 2008)

According to the media, the enemy is Al Qaeda, the illusory “outside enemy ” which  has its operational bases in the tribal areas and North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Washington’s self-proclaimed holy mandate under the “Global War on Terrorism” is to take out bin Laden and extirpate Islamic fundamentalism. 

America’s right to intervene militarily inside Pakistan in violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty is therefore upheld. Bombing villages in the tribal areas of North West Pakistan is part of a “humanitarian endeavor”, in  response to the loss of life resulting from the Mumbai attacks:

“Before these awful raids, news from South Asia had been encouraging. The central problem remains pacifying Afghanistan, where U.S. and other NATO forces struggle to stamp out Taliban and al-Qaeda elements.” (Washington Post, November 28, 2008) 

“Washington, however, wants the Pakistani army’s cooperation in fighting terrorism. In recent weeks, U.S. officers in Afghanistan reported better results, crediting the Pakistanis with taking the offensive against the Taliban on Pakistani territory.”

Media Disinformation

US network TV has extensively covered the dramatic events in Mumbai. The attacks have served to trigger an atmosphere of fear and intimidation across America. 

The Mumbai attacks are said to be intimately related to 9/11. Official US statements and media reports have described the Mumbai attacks as part of a broader process, including the possibility of an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack on US soil. 

Vice President Elect Joe Biden during the election campaign had warned America with foresight that “the people who… attacked us on 9/11, — they’ve regrouped in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan and are plotting new attacks”. (emphasis added) 

These are the same people who were behind the terror attacks in Mumbai.

These are also the same people who are planning to attack America. 

Immediately following the Mumbai attacks, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg put New York City’s subway system “on high alert” based on “an unsubstantiated report of potential terrorism here in New York. This report led the New York Police Department to take precautionary steps to protect our transit system, and we will always do whatever is necessary to keep our city safe,” Bloomberg said in a statement” (McClatchy-Tribune Business News, November 28, 2008, emphasis added).

It just so happens that one day before the Mumbai attacks, “the FBI  and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had warned that there is a ‘possible but uncorroborated’ Al -Qaeda threat against the New York transportation system.” (Ibid)

“As the attacks in Mumbai were carried out, U.S. authorities issued a warning that Al-Qaeda might have recently discussed making attacks on the New York subway system. A vague warning, to be sure. ‘We have no specific details to confirm that this plot has developed beyond aspirational planning, but we are issuing this warning out of concern that such an attack could possibly be conducted during the forthcoming holiday season,’ the FBI and Department of Homeland Security said.” (Chicago Tribune, November 29, 2008)

Pakistan’s Military Intelligence is America’s Trojan Horse 

The media reports point, in chorus, to the involvement of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), without mentioning that the ISI invariably operates in close liaison with the CIA. 

The US media indelibly serves the interests of the US intelligence apparatus. What is implied by these distorted media is that: 

1. The terrorists are linked to Al Qaeda. The Mumbai attacks are a “State sponsored” operation involving Pakistan’s ISI  

2. The Mumbai gunmen have ties to terrorist groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas and North West Frontier Province.

3. The continued bombing of the tribal areas by the US Air Force in violation of Pakistan’s’ sovereignty is consequently justified as part of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

The ISI is America’s Trojan Horse, a de facto proxy of the CIA. Pakistani Intelligence has, since the early 1980s, worked in close liaison with its US and British intelligence counterparts. 

Were the ISI to have been involved in a major covert operation directed against India, the CIA would have prior knowledge regarding the precise nature and timing of the operation. The ISI does not act without the consent of its US intelligence counterpart. 

Moreover, US intelligence is known to have supported Al Qaeda from the outset of the Soviet Afghan war and throughout the post-Cold War era. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Al Qaeda and the War on Terrorism, Global Research, January 20, 2008) 

CIA sponsored guerilla training camps were established in Pakistan to train the Mujahideen. Historically, US intelligence has supported Al Qaeda, using Pakistan’s ISI as a go-between. 

“With CIA backing and the funneling of massive amounts of U.S. military aid, the Pakistani ISI had developed into a “parallel structure wielding enormous power over all aspects of government”. (Dipankar Banerjee, “Possible Connection of ISI With Drug Industry”, India Abroad, 2 December 1994). 

In the wake of 9/11, Pakistan’s ISI  played a key role in the October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, in close liaison with the US and NATO military high command. Ironically, in October 2001, both US and Indian press reports quoting FBI and intelligence sources, suggested that the ISI was providing support to the alleged 9/11 terrorists.(See Michel Chossudovsky, Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration, The Role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks, Global Research, November 2, 2001)

Pakistan’s Chief Spy Appointed by the CIA 

Historically, the CIA has played an unofficial role in the appointment of the director of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence  (ISI). In September, Washington pressured Islamabad, using the “war on terrorism” as a pretext to fire the ISI chief Lieutenant General Nadeem Taj. 

“Washington is understood to be exerting intense pressure on Pakistan to remove ISI boss Nadeem Taj and two of his deputies because of the key agency’s alleged “double-dealing” with the militants.( Daily Times, September 30, 2008

President Asif Ali Zardari had meetings in New York in late September with CIA Director Michael Hayden. (The Australian, September 29, 2008), Barely a few days later, a new US approved ISI chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha was appointed by the Chief of the Army, General Kayani, on behalf of Washington. 

In this regard, the pressures exerted by the Bush administration contributed to blocking a parliamentary initiative led by the PPP government to put the country’s intelligence services (ISI) under civilian authority, namely under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior. 

In other words, Washington exerts more control over the ISI than the duly elected civilian government of Pakistan.

Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha (right) next to Gen. Ashfaq Kayani on the USS Abraham Lincoln talking with Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The U.S. Violates Pakistan’s Territorial Sovereignty

The US is currently violating Pakistan territorial sovereignty through the routine bombing of villages in the tribal areas and the North West Frontier Province. These operations are carried out using the “war on terrorism” as a pretext.  While the Pakistani government has “officially” accused the US of waging aerial bombardments on its territory, Pakistan’s military (including the ISI)  has “unofficially” endorsed the air strikes. 

In this regard, the timely appointment of Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha to the helm of the ISI was intended to ensure continuity in US “counter-terrorism” operations in Pakistan. Prior to his appointment as ISI chief, Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha was responsible, in close consultation with the US and NATO, for carrying out targeted attacks allegedly against the Taliban and Al Qaeda by the Pakistani military in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). 

Upon his appointment, Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha implemented a major reshuffle within the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), replacing several of the ISI regional commanders. ( Daily Times, September 30, 2008). In late October, he was in Washington, at CIA headquarters at Langley and at the Pentagon, to meet his US military and intelligence counterparts:

“Pakistan is publicly complaining about U.S. air strikes. But the country’s new chief of intelligence, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, visited Washington last week for talks with America’s top military and spy chiefs, and everyone seemed to come away smiling.” (David Ignatieff, A Quiet Deal With Pakistan, Washington Post, November 4, 2008, emphasis added).   

The Timing of the Mumbai Attacks

The US air strikes on the Tribal Areas resulting in countless civilians deaths have created a wave of anti-US sentiment throughout Pakistan. At the same token, this anti-American sentiment has also served, in the months preceding the Mumbai attacks, to promote a renewed atmosphere of cooperation between India and Pakistan. 

While US-Pakistan relations are at an all time low, there were significant efforts, in recent months, by the Islamabad and Delhi governments to foster bilateral relations. Barely a week prior to the attacks, Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari “urged opening the Kashmir issue to public debate in India and Pakistan and letting the people decide the future of IHK.”  He also called for “taking bilateral relations to a new level” as well as forging an economic union between the two countries.

Divide and Rule

What interests are served by these attacks? Washington is intent on using the Mumbai attacks to:

1) Foster divisions between Pakistan and India and shunt the process of bilateral cooperation and trade between the two countries;

2) Promote internal social, ethnic and sectarian divisions in both India and Pakistan;

3) Justify US military actions inside Pakistan including the killing of civilians in violation of the country’s territorial sovereignty;  

4) Provide a justification for extending the US led “war on terrorism” into the Indian sub-continent and South East Asia.

In 2006, the Pentagon had warned that “another [major 9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets” (Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006). In the current context, the Mumbai attacks are considered “a justification” to go after “known targets” in the tribal areas of North Western Pakistan.

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stated that “external forces” forces carried the attacks, hinting to the possible role of Pakistan. The media reports also point in that direction, hinting that the Pakistani government is behind the attacks: 

US officials and lawmakers refrained from naming Pakistan, but their condemnation of “Islamist terrorism” left little doubt where their anxieties lay. 

.What has added potency to the latest charges against Islamabad is the Bush administration’s own assessment – leaked to the US media – that Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI was linked to the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul some weeks back that killed nearly 60 people including a much-admired Indian diplomat and a respected senior defense official.. (Times of India, November 27, 2008) 

The Attacks have Triggered Anti-Pakistani Sentiment in India 

The attacks have served to foster anti-Pakistani sentiment within India as well as sectarian divisions between Hindus and Muslims.  

Time Magazine has pointed in no uncertain terms to the insidious role of “the powerful Inter Services Intelligence organization — often accused of orchestrating terror attacks on India”, without acknowledging that the new head of the ISI was appointed at Washington’s behest. (Time online)

The Time report suggests, without evidence, that the most likely architects of the attacks are several Pakistani sponsored Islamic groups including Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure), “which is part of the ‘al-Qaeda compact'”, Jaish-e-Mohammed, a Kashmiri separatist organization belonging to Al Qaeda which claimed responsibility in the December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Union parliament in Delhi and The Students Islamic Movement of India, (SIMI). (Ibid)Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are known to be supported by the ISI. 

Islamabad-Delhi Shuttle Diplomacy

Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari indicated that his government would fully collaborate with the Indian authorities. Pakistan’s newly elected civilian government has been sidetracked by its own intelligence services, which remain under the jurisdiction of the military high command.   

The Pakistan’s People’s Party government under the helm of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has no control over the military and intelligence apparatus, which continues to maintain a close rapport with its US counterparts. The Pakistani civilian government, in many regards, is not in control of its foreign policy. The Pakistani Military and its powerful intelligence arm (ISI) call the shots. 

In this context, president Asif Ali Zardari seems to be playing on both sides: collusion with the Military-Intelligence apparatus, dialogue with Washington and lip service to prime minister Gilani and the National Assembly. 

On November 28, two days following the Mumbai attacks, Islamabad announced that the recently appointed ISI chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha would be dispatched to Delhi for consultations with his Indian counterparts including National Security Advisor M K Narayanan and the heads of India’s external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)  and the Intelligence Bureau, responsible for internal intelligence. RAW and Pakistan’s ISI are known to have been waging a covert war against one another for more than thirty years.

On the following day (November 29), Islamabad cancelled the visit of ISI chief Lt Gen Shuja Pasha to India, following Indian foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee’s  “very aggressive tone with Pakistani officials [in a]  telephone [conversation] after the Mumbai attacks”. (Press Trust of India, November 29, 2008 quoting Geo News Pakistan). 

Tense Situation. Deterioration of India-Pakistan Relations

The Mumbai attacks have already created an extremely tense situation, which largely serves US geopolitical interests in the region. 

Islamabad is contemplating the relocation of some 100,000 military personnel from the Pakistani-Afghan border to the Indian border, “if there is an escalation in tension with India, which has hinted at the involvement of Pakistani elements in the Mumbai carnage.” (Pakistan news source quoted by PTI, op cit).

“These sources have said NATO and the US command have been told that Pakistan would not be able to concentrate on the war on terror and against militants around the Afghanistan border as defending its borders with India was far more important,” (Ibid, Geo News quoting senior Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir). 

US Interference in the Conduct of the Indian Police Investigation

Also of significance is Washington’s outright interference in the conduct of the Indian police investigation. The Times of India points to an “unprecedented intelligence cooperation involving investigating agencies and spy outfits of India, United States, United Kingdom and Israel..” 

Both the FBI and Britain’s Secret Service MI6 have liaison offices in Delhi. The FBI has dispatched police, counter-terrorism officials and forensic scientists to Mumbai “to investigate attacks that now include American victims…”  Experts from the London’s Metropolitan Police have also been dispatched to Mumbai: 

“The U.S. government’s “working assumption” that the Pakistani militant groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed are suspects in the attacks “has held up” as Indian authorities have begun their investigation, the official said. The two Kashmiri militant groups have ties to al Qaeda.” (Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2008)

The role of the US-UK-Israeli counter terrorism and police officials, is essentially to manipulate the results of the Indian police investigation. 

It is worth noting, however, that the Delhi government turned down Israel’s request to send a special forces military unit to assist the Indian commandos in freeing Jewish hostages held inside Mumbai’s Chabad Jewish Center (PTI, November 28, 2008). 

Bali 2002 versus Mumbai 2008

The Mumbai terrorist attacks bear certain similarities to the 2002 Bali attacks. In both cases, Western tourists were targets. The tourist resort of Kuta on the island of Bali, Indonesia,  was the object of two separate attacks, which targeted mainly Australian tourists. (Ibid)

The alleged terrorists in the Bali 2002 bombings were executed, following a lengthy trial period, barely a few weeks ago, on November 9, 2008. (Michel Chossudovsky, Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings? Global Research, November 13, 2009).. The political architects of the 2002 Bali attacks were never brought to trial. 

A November 2002 report emanating from Indonesia’s top brass, pointed to the involvement of both the head of Indonesian intelligence General A. M. Hendropriyono as well as the CIA. The links of Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) to the Indonesian intelligence agency (BIN) were never raised in the official Indonesian government investigation –which was guided behind the scenes by Australian intelligence and the CIA. Moreover, shortly after the bombing, Australian Prime Minister John Howard “admitted that Australian authorities were warned about possible attacks in Bali but chose not to issue a warning.” (Christchurch Press, November 22, 2002). 

With regard to the Bali 2002 bombings, the statements of two former presidents of Indonesia were casually dismissed in the trial procedures, both of which pointed to complicity of the Indonesian military and police. In 2002, president Megawati Sukarnoputri, accused the US of involvement in the attacks. In 2005, in an October 2005 interview with Australia’s SBS TV,  former president Wahid Abdurrahman stated that the Indonesian military and police played a complicit role in the 2002 Bali bombing. (quoted in Miscarriage of Justice: Who was behind the October 2002 Bali bombings?, op cit)