Cover-up in Mumbai – Indian View: By Sandhya Jain
Our Indian friend Sandhya Jain alleges cover-up and questions key-points of the official story: “Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness”
Cover-up in Mumbai – Indian View:
By Sandhya Jain
1 December 2008
While stock-taking has only just begun, it already appears as if some things are being covered up. Some things deserve an immediate answer – how many terrorists were there actually; how did they reach their respective destinations inland; and is it possible that “super-terrorists” simply walked out with the real survivors after having utilised the “mercenaries” to the hilt, just as they had murdered the navigators of the boats that brought them to Mumbai?
Current media reports and government sources say that the terrorists came by sea, landing near the Gateway of India or Colaba. This certainly explains the attacks on the sea front hotels like Taj, Oberoi and the Nariman House. But the question remains – how did they get to the CST station, Cama Hospital, and other places inland? Someone must have provided transport and back-up.
By no logic can anyone believe that nine separate sites in a city could be held to ransom by just 10 men. It is particularly difficult to believe that gigantic hotels like the Taj could be ruined and scores of guests killed or injured by just two men (sometimes the figure goes to six). Even two men per floor could not have caused the kind of death and destruction that did happen. A small place like Nariman House, yes, but Taj and Oberoi – I don’t believe it. And if there were six persons at Taj and at least two at Nariman House, that means only two persons destroyed the Oberoi?
Rediff.com has interviewed the doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the dead hostages and terrorists, and it is their expert opinion that a battle of attrition took place over three days at the Oberoi and Taj hotels. The mutilation of the bodies was unlike anything they had seen in their careers in forensics.
For one, the bodies of the victims bore horrible signs of torture. Now this is understandable if the victims are being tormented by half-human beasts, but it seems strange that two terrorists could simultaneously fight and keep Indian commandos at bay for 62 hours, and also have the time to torture their victims. Yet the doctors were emphatic that:
“It was apparent that most of the dead were tortured. What shocked me were the telltale signs showing clearly how the hostages were executed in cold blood.”
To my mind, it seems apparent that the terrorists who kept the NSG commandos engaged and those who tortured and killed the hotel staff and guests were two separate groups.
This suspicion is intensified by the startling revelation that the terrorists also did not meet a clean death. Doctors who conducted the post-mortem said the bodies of the terrorists – especially their faces – were beyond recognition. The security forces identified the bodies as those of terrorists [on TV they said it was because of the presence of weaponry near the bodies].
One terrorist was shot through either eye (i.e., both eyes!!!). As the NSG commandos never got to such close range with the terrorists, and nobody commits suicide by shooting both his own eyes, it follows that the killers were somebody else. Since none of the hotel guests could have the kind of weaponry used in the conflict, this suggests the presence of a mysterious third party, making the terrorists the victims of a classic double-cross – the stuff of spy thrillers. Actually, it reminds one of the convenient murder of the alleged killer of President John F. Kennedy.
Hence it would be entirely in order to closely interrogate each and every guest, especially the foreign guests, before allowing them to leave the country. Without false emotionalism, we should also fingerprint them for the future; who knows what Interpol cooperation may throw up.
Top Russian counter-terrorism expert, Vladimir Klyukin, an Afghan war veteran, opines that the Mumbai attackers were not “ordinary terrorists” and were probably trained by the special operations forces set up in Pakistan by US intelligence prior to the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. In his view, the nature of the Mumbai events suggests the signature of the ‘Green Flag’ special operations forces created by the Americans in Pakistan, just a year before the Soviet withdrawal.
Guerrilla operations of the Mumbai kind require at least two-three years of preparatory work with experienced instructors. Raw trainees cannot hold four huge complexes in a city to ransom for so long. The Russian Interfax news agency reported the former KGB veteran as surmising the involvement of at least 50 terrorists, given the geography and sheer scale of the attacks. This seems like a legitimate estimation.
What is more, the only way 9 coordinated attacks can occur simultaneously is by using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) or live maps for communication and control. These are not normally owned by private parties. Initial investigations also suggested that as many as seven terrorists included mostly British-born Pakistanis, and one does hope that these leads are not covered up. The reports also suggested some gunmen were captured, but later media reports highlighted that only one terrorists was caught alive at the railway station. So there is a lot of confusion here that needs to be cleared up.
Certainly the hints about British involvement, openly asserted by the outspoken Lyndon LaRouche, need investigation.
Media has been heavily criticized in some quarters for airing visuals of NSG commandos dropping on the hotel roofs from helicopters, and thus giving operational secrets away to the militants watching TV inside. If the criticism is to be valid, however, we will have to accept that the terrorists had more men inside who could be deployed to watch TV and give information which would enable them to react and rebuff the aerial assault. There is no way 2 to 6 terrorists could torture victims sadistically and kill them brutally, watch TV, fight and keep the security forces at bay for 62 hours, and then kill themselves or each other in impossible ways.
The death of terrorists points to a clear double-cross and also the possibility of the involvement of more than one religious denomination. That the terrorists did not prepare for death by carrying potassium cyanide is well known; nor did they simply intend to blow themselves up like the usual suicide bombers. The surviving terrorist has revealed that they were told of an escape plan – and no doubt that plan was used by those who killed their fellow terrorists and walked out free!
This writer has consistently stated that modern, late 20th-21st century jihad is qualitatively different from the medieval jihad in which Muslim armies led by generals or kings ran over much of the world in Europe, North Africa, and Asia. Contemporary jihad is a mercenary tool of Western colonialism, serving a colonial intent with devout slavishness, and this seems borne out by the events of Mumbai.
What remains to be seen, however, is whether or not the Islamic world wakes up to the reality of its own self-enslavement. India on its part has demonstrated that no matter how long it takes to get operational, no matter the cost in terms of live and property, the territory of Bharat Mata will be protected.
It is more than likely that Pakistan was rebuked by its British and American ‘friends’ (read Masters) for agreeing to send the ISI chief to assist in the investigations, and forced to backtrack on a solemn assurance. The teams from Scotland Yard and America, ostensibly coming to assist India in the probe, are more likely trying to ascertain the extent of evidence with India.
It is pertinent that the recovery of a satellite phone from the trawler abandoned with the body of the Gujarati captain revealed that the trawler had been hijacked to Karachi Port, and while there, calls were made even to Australia (where the CIA has a famous outpost!)
Interestingly, General Leonid Ivashov, who was Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the Twin Towers tragedy happened on 11 September 2001, insists that there is no such thing as international terrorism and that “the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them.” Instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce such attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens [http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html]
Globalization creates the conditions for the emergence of this terror. It seeks to design a new world geo-strategic map; appropriate the resources of the planet; erase cultural identities; and subjugate States before a global oligarchy. Thus, terrorism, according to Gen. Ivashov, is an instrument of world politics, “a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite. It is precisely this elite that constitutes the key element of world terrorism, its ideologist and its “godfather”.
Contemporary international terrorism combines the use of terror by State and non-State political structures to attain political objectives through intimidation of people, psychological and social destabilization, elimination of resistance inside power organizations, and the creation of appropriate conditions for the manipulation of the countries’ policies and the behaviour of people. Media complicity helps. But terrorism is not possible without the support of political and business circles that wield the funds to finance it – and Pakistan is notoriously bankrupt.
More pertinently, only secret services and their current or retired chiefs have the ability to plan and execute an operation of such complexity and scale. It is secret services that create, finance and control extremist organizations.
We deserve an answer; we demand to know.
The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com
and the more original source here