India Under Terror Attack! At least ten people killed in Mumbai shootings: TV (now 125 +)

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by t0ken

You're country would do well to get those animals under control, and if you're army is too divided or even infiltrated by some of these extremists, then it shouldn't hurt your pride to let us in there to mop things up a bit. The US has been catching alot of hell from Pak because we use our predators to hit the guys who hit us, then run back across the border to safety. That crap has to stop. If you don't want them to taste mechanized death from above, then let us in to be more discriminate in who we waste. Your uncivilized dogs need to be beaten into submission so they stop attacking your neighbors.

-Who created these terrorists?
-Who supplied them all kinds of weapons?
-Who funded them?
-Who bought recruits for them from all over the world?

Simple aswer, 'THE US' because it wanted to get rid of the Soviets to win its Super Power Trophy.

These terrorists have been thriving for 20-25 years in those regions and the world expects pakistan to get rid of them in coupla months? pakistan is rooting them out but it will take atleast a decade or two to totally cleanse them out.

Pakistan needs some bloody time.

I would just like to make a small point to all those who look at this as an excuse generated by India to go rampaging into Pakistan:

India has the MOST to lose from ANY conflict in Pakistan .. A STABLE Pakistan is in India's best interests.. Really.. I can argue unto lengths with anyone who wants the dispute this..

There are various factors to consider..

1) Even if some other nation invades Pakistan, there's no stopping anyone inside Pakistan from chucking a nuke at India.. They can't really target anyone else due to technological limitations..

2)Obviously, If they go to war with India, they stand to nuke India first due to their overwhelming military inferiority..

3)India has a multi-ethnic, multi religious, multi cultural, multi-ideological(socialism/capitalism/communism) population unlike most nations. Engaging in open conflict with religious nation states like Pakistan (Or even doing something as simple as having friendly relations with Israel, USA,Russia, Pakistan etc.) inevitably angers some community or the other in India and that is fed back as pressure on India as a whole..
So its a very fine rope that the Indians walk every day..

4)Even if India has a resounding and complete victory over Pakistan in any conflict (with or w/o nukes) what does that leave India with?.. a broken Pakistan, a disgruntled revengeful Pakistan, a Pakistan that will seed dissent against India that blooms in a couple of generations.. And then we are back at square one..

Trust me on this one.. India does NOT want to go pick fights with Pakistan or anyone else for that matter.. India NEEDS a stable and friendly Pakistan..
But India does NOT want to be terrorized like this as well.. Indians have enough to worry about..


So as far as this going the way of a conspiracy set up by the powers that be in India.. it does NOT make sense.. India does not gain much by waging war here.. no oil, no economic benefits, no resource benefits, no strategic advantages, no scientific gains, no infrastructural gains.. NOTHING (unless there's a hidden UFO base in Pakland somewhere!!).. only the extra burden of more malcontent and dissent..


[edit on 29-11-2008 by Daedalus3]

reply to post by t0ken


I've read differently. I've read that Lashkar-e-Taiba was created to destabilize the Kashmir region, not for repelling the Soviets.
Unless we are talking about the Taliban and if that's the case disregard.

reply to post by Daedalus3


I never said that this was done for India's benefit.
Just that India and the US are going to find themselves between a rock and a hard place very soon over this.

Edit to add - The first few paragraphs in that article I linked stating that the US was behind this was reflecting the views of many Pakistanis. A lot of Pakistanis feel as if the US is emboldening the Taliban to carry out attacks within Pakistan, giving them more reason to move in, and in the long run, take away the nuclear capability of the world's only Islamic Nuclear State. The rest of the article goes on to talk about the regional implications of these attacks in Mumbai.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Daedalus3

 

That link brings me to a reply page.

Sorry aboot that !! I meant this
www.ndtv.com...

I was just curious if someone had something that links the two. It appears that Al-Qaedas no. 2 man just released some tape or something and he makes no mention of India at all. Some expert was talking about how this is pretty convincing, at least in his mind, evidence that Al-Qaeda was not involved. I was just thinking about the level of involvement between the two organizations. Because if Al-Qaeda was directly involved in planning or funding, I would expect they would know about the attack.

I agree.. Al Qaeda may not have much direct involvement in this.. but they have brought all 'groups' fighting the Infidel Indians under their umbrella and would mentor such groups..
But then again this kind of operation is far too hi-tech for even the cream of the terrorists of today.. They held off army regulars, commandos, and what nots for over 2 days..
so yes.. I agree with you on the fact that this is not run-ofthe-mill terrorism..
So that just leaves 2 options..
State-sponsored internal or state-sponsored external..

And I just cannot bring myself to look at the internal option.. I know I'm weak maybe.. V for Vendetta is one of my fav movies..

reply to post by hitmen


changed that!!
I meant this..
www.ndtv.com...

Originally posted by t0ken
-Who created these terrorists?

Rich arab, persian, and asian leaders (i.e. the House of Saud, etc) who keep people indoctrinated to the hilt and feed them NOTHING but religious propaganda that the west is evil from birth, for the sole purpose of keeping their minds from realizing those greedy men are in cahoots with the other greedy men in the west and intend to keep them poor and struggling forever.

-Who supplied them all kinds of weapons?

Last I checked, the US doesn't go handing out AK-47's and RPG's to everybody, look north for that answer. Sure, we gave the mujahadeen some stingers to take down the soviet crocodiles, and some training as well, BUT neither AQ or the Taliban even existed at that time. And we were just returning the favor to the Soviets for Vietnam.

-Who funded them?

MANY MANY different front organizations, most of them islamic charities and such, as well as private funding from the likes of Bin Laden, etc.

-Who bought recruits for them from all over the world?

The same greedy leaders who have everything to gain by keeping us all divided on the basis of religion and such. The same environment that has been intentionally created in so many muslim countries to keep the people dumbed down and hateful is where the recruits come from.

Simple aswer, 'THE US' because it wanted to get rid of the Soviets to win its Super Power Trophy.

That's EXACTLY what your greedy leaders want you to think. Everything is OUR fault, the evil west, and in order to be a good muslim, you must at the very least despise us, that's what they want you to think, and it's working.

Pakistan needs some bloody time.

That's the problem, as time goes on the terrorists become more desperate, they will get more brazen, as we're seeing. If Pakistan could use some help, you know we'd be more than willing to provide it, but of course that will piss off all the Bin Laden types there who don't want our evil, western pig boots on their soil. That's the spirit of hatred and division that will keep greedy men in power, and terrorists thriving...

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


And let me let you in on a little secret..
Have you heard of something called Osirak? If you have good if not its a quick read..

The Israelis offered to run the same op off of Indian soil(or help the Indians execute it).. You know, take care of the still premature Pak nuclear program before it bears any fruit..This was in the late 80s I think... India declined.. why? all the reasons I listed before..

reply to post by Daedalus3


I watched V just last night in fact. I love that movie. It is powerful and moving. If people only acted like that in reality this would be a much safer world...

Anyhow, back on track. Any speculation that this may be stemming from the Amarnath land-swap protests?

The reason I keep going back to Kashmir is because I was reading through the LeT's website the other night (if they are behind this, it would be wise to look at their "pet projects") and they are all about Kashmir. So, what is going on there? Could these be related?
I think that land deal was a bum deal anyhow. Very provoking.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Daedalus3


As far as Osirak from India is concerned, I have no idea why India would have declined. I mean, if they had taken out the capability, you wouldn't have the severity we are seeing today.
However, it would have surely opened the door for all sorts of conventional bombing attacks within India. So yeah, I agree with you, I suppose.


[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

t0ken.. I have taken you off my ignore list..

I have lost many people I knew over the last few days in Mumbai.. But I cannot be a part of the problem, by chucking people into ignore lists.. Ignorance is the
problem.. Both sides need to sit down and talk..at various levels..
I understand that Pakistan needs time.. What do you propose?
I'm all ears..

Was watching MSNBC a moment ago and I guess one of the terrorists was captured and interrogated recently. He said there were only 10 terrorists in all. Apparently Indian official are releasing this figure awaiting official confirmation. The TV reporter complained that this figure seemed much too low for the amount of death and destruction. Is anyone else hearing a similar figure??

reply to post by Leo Strauss


I'm still sticking to my guns on a figure of 80+ gunmen. I just don't think they could have pulled it off with less than that.

And the official numbers keep getting lower and lower. I imagine that is a flat out lie to try and dissasociate from any other nationalities that could have been involved.
Edit to add - There may have been only 10, actually... 10 Pakistanis.



[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Was watching MSNBC a moment ago and I guess one of the terrorists was captured and interrogated recently. He said there were only 10 terrorists in all.

I'd wager thats how many was in his boat/group.

He is probably not aware of the other groups totals.

All it took was 19 to kill about 3,000 people. It took 1 to kill over 200 well trained Marines. It took 2 to kill hundreds at the embassies. Total chaos, gunmen running around to kill as many people in a packed place. But then Muslims couldn't have done this, they are too stupid to commit this kind of carnage. Has to be the REAL terrorists that are smart and cold hearted.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I'm still sticking to my guns on a figure of 80+ gunmen. I just don't think they could have pulled it off with less than that.

I'd have to say around 20ish. I think 80 dudes with AK's could and would kill alot more than a couple hundred. That's 2400 rounds if they each only had one 30 round mag. Anyway, you were in the military, looking at the pic of the guy in the train station do you really think he had extensive professional training?? He seemed wide open to me, and if that situation happened here in Arizona, or there in Arkansas, at least a few probably could have been taken out by armed civilians. I just think the Indian authorities don't have the same training, and I even venture to say some of them looked bored and not all the way invested in the fight. I realize it would be an extremely anxious situation being in that hotel not knowing if they were gonna blow it, and I think the building itself is what made it seem like they were holding them off for so long as some have said. I just can't get on board with them being anything other than religious fanatics with big guns and a real desire to die fighting.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by Daedalus3

 

I watched V just last night in fact. I love that movie. It is powerful and moving. If people only acted like that in reality this would be a much safer world...

Oh!! V is a movie that can be interpreted at multiple levels.. the whole Guy Fawkes analogy is sublime.. No wonder you're all conspiratorial here
But trust me.. I don't think the Indian politicos are capable of such strategic sinister thought... Their mental ages left a lot to be desired.. really..

Anyhow, back on track. Any speculation that this may be stemming from the Amarnath land-swap protests?

As a catalyst for this op? Doesn't seem to be.. this was planned over the last 2 years if one is to believe the news that is coming across.. One of them got a job as hotel staff at the Taj 10 months back..

But yes.. There are events that spawn dissent.. dissent in communities that leads to empathy towards outsiders.. leads to easy access to infrastructure and logistics.. Nobody could have done this w/o inside help and sheltering.. no way..

There are many primers.. Babri Masjid.. Gujarat Riots .. maybe Amarnath..
who knows.. and its not just one politcal party or ideology.. everyone's contributed to this unintentionally w/o understanding the hatred they spawn..
hatred that external enemies are just waiting to tap into... its sad really..
like shooting oneself in the foot..

But the key word here is 'un-intentional'.. these politicos do not have the brain power to engineer any of this intentionally..

The reason I keep going back to Kashmir is because I was reading through the LeT's website the other night (if they are behind this, it would be wise to look at their "pet projects") and they are all about Kashmir. So, what is going on there? Could these be related?
I think that land deal was a bum deal anyhow. Very provoking.

I don't know.. Everyone has their own PoVs.. So many politcal agendas.. so many ideologies..Its so difficult here in that aspect.. Its a wonder this country holds itself together despite that..
Unity in diversity.. The true essence and beauty of India.. God bless her..

I've been reading through this Amarnath deal and IF the attacks were carried out as a false flag op, I would be willing to bet that the culpability lies here. It seems that people in the Jammu region are very, very upset about the Governments revokation of the land transfer deal. To the tune that they effectively put an economic blockade on the region and destroyed 72 muslim homes...

If it IS outside influence, the LeT is probably involved and once again, it would stand to reason that it may be because of the same ordeal or at least stems from something in that region.

[edit on 29-11-2008 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


neither do I actually .. All I can say is that it is complicated and there are just too many variables to even try to predict the fallout!!

Here’s some interesting testimony from the photographer that took the pictures we’ve seen a thousand times by now. He says the police wouldn’t shoot back for some reason.

===============================================

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

www.independent.co.uk...

==========================================================

Could the police have been ordered not to fire on the ‘terrorists’? Certainly lends credence to the idea that there may have been fewer attackers than first thought if so. If you're not going to be getting shot at, you need fewer men.