From the Times Online:
The Indian authorities yesterday claimed to have proof that the Mumbai terrorists were receiving instructions from Pakistan and discussing tactics with their handlers during the three days of attacks in which they killed at least 195 people.
The claims threaten further to embitter relations between the two nuclear powers. Tensions have been high since confirmation that the only captured gunman was a 21-year-old Pakistani.
It has also emerged that India had been warned that terrorists were planning an attack in Mumbai.
Up to 22 foreigners were among those killed in raids by 10-15 terrorists on sites across the city, including hotels, the main railway station, a Jewish community centre and two hospitals. The last of the gunmen was killed by Indian commandos yesterday morning, ending the siege at the Taj Mahal Palace hotel. One hotel worker was found alive and 22 bodies were removed. As many as 80 bodies may still be in the building.
One Briton has been confirmed dead and last night the Foreign Office refused to say whether more UK citizens could be among the victims in the wreckage of the hotel.
RR Patil, the deputy chief minister of Mumbai’s state government, said there was “proof” that the terrorists were on the phone to someone in Pakistan during the attack.
“All phone calls made by them were tapped. They were being instructed from outside regarding their movement inside the hotel – whether to go upstairs or come down or make a move left or right,” he said.
Patil also claimed that the terrorists had intended to kill at least 5,000 people, making for a greater atrocity than 9/11.
The Pakistan government denied any involvement in the attacks but backtracked on a decision to send the chief of its spy agency to India to help the investigation. Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistan’s president, promised to take the “swiftest of action” if there was evidence the terrorists came from his country.
Yesterday the Indian authorities firmly denied reports that up to seven of the attackers were British. Intelligence sources in the UK said they were unaware of any evidence that British nationals were involved.
Police chiefs in Mumbai confirmed they had been aware as long ago as January that the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba was planning a terrorist spectacular.
The information came from Fahim Ansari, a captured operative for the group, who revealed under interrogation that he had carried out reconnaissance visits to the Taj and Oberoi hotels.
CCTV footage revealed that Ansari had visited the Oberoi. Both hotels said they had received warnings as recently as August about an attack and had stepped up security.
The Indian authorities intercepted a telephone call made from the Arabian Sea less than two weeks ago in which a terrorist suspect was heard saying “we’re coming to Mumbai”.
The Indian coastguard was alerted but Ajmal Aamer Kasav, the surviving gunman, is understood to have told his interrogators the terrorists had switched ships to evade detection. Kasav, who speaks fluent English, told investigators he and his fellow terrorists had trained at a camp at the Mangla dam between Pakistani Punjab and Pakistan-held Kashmir.
The group had travelled in pairs to Karachi where they boarded a boat. They had been told not to talk to each other on the journey.
——-
Comment: all this is bad, bad, bad. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Indians SNAFUed all the warnings about what would happen. Even worse, the Pakistani connection is becoming even more crucial. For example, if it is true that the terrorists were getting instructions by phone during the attacks, then ISI must have been fully aware of this, if not through their own capabilities, then at least via the USA. As for the decision not to send Pasha to India, here is probably what happened: President Zardari, probably horrified by the news, decided to sent Pasha as a sign of his full collaboration, only to be over-ruled by the real bosses in Pakistan: the ISI brass whose role in what happened raises all sorts of very scary questions. I wonder how much more restraint India can show towards Pakistan and I am afraid that India cannot just take one terrorist attack after the other (all with strong Pakistani connections) without some kind of retaliation.
VS, not sure if your have seen this.
“India Nails British Dope, Inc. Hand Behind Mumbai Attack”
http://larouchepac.com/news/2008/11/29/india-nails-british-dope-inc-hand-behind-mumbai-attack.html
As usual, sip it after you filter it!
~~Anonymust
I watched the whole thing from an american perspective (on Faux News and See An End) and it did not make sense at all, maybe because there was a lack of coverage, or just lies in the coverage.
The Saker,
Please, stop sounds tragic. Why?
1) British Connection
Security officials, Scotland Yard and diplomats in Britain played down reports yesterday of a British link to the terror plot. A spokesman for the Foreign Office said: “We have been speaking to the Indian authorities at a high level and they say there is no evidence that any of the attackers are British.”
British PM also covers his ass in that article.
2) Indian Did Indian policemen get that order not to shoot?
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.”
Mr D’Souza made the famous pictures of the kid-faced terrorist.
The Saker, I reported the events on my blog only once. I gave it the title A Splinter of a Larger Plan?
All we can do is to wait and meticulously collect info-crumbs unless we have private intelligence links.
I don’t think India will use the attack to resolve all or at least the major explosive political points they share with Pakistan. Only something exceptionally bigger would “unite Indian society” to a point of using preemptive nukclear strike against Pakistan. The good point of such move would be a new status quo between the two countries – Pakistan would be back in stone age and India would get Kashmir and gained peace at last for the next 100 years ahead.
I do not understand only what Pakistan wanted to achieve thru that attrocity.
I’d be gratefull for sort of enlightment. :)
Cheers to all.
More about the British link to the terrorists here:
Claims emerge of British terrorists in Mumbai
“The Foreign Office is investigating reports on the Indian channel NDTV quoting Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister of Maharashtra state, as saying there were British nationals among the militants arrested.
In a televised address yesterday, the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, said the attacks had “external links”, which was interpreted as a reference to Pakistan.
Brown said today that he would talk to Singh about the claims of British involvement. “I would not want to be drawn into early conclusions about this. There is so much information still to be discovered and made available. I have heard what prime minister Singh has said and I’ll talk to him about it this morning,” he told Sky News.
“But obviously when you have terrorists operating in one country they may be getting support from another country or coming from another country and it is very important that we strengthen the cooperation between India and Britain in dealing with these instances of terrorist attacks.”
-AA
This comment has been removed by the author.
P2O2 «Only something exceptionally bigger would “unite Indian society” to a point of using preemptive nukclear strike against Pakistan»
Normally, nuclear powers don’t nuke other nuclear powers, just in case that they don’t get nuked right back.
«The good point of such move would be a new status quo between the two countries – Pakistan would be back in stone age and India would get Kashmir and gained peace at last for the next 100 years ahead»
Sounds easy and joyful for the Indian forces. Just as easy and joyful as it sounded for the Americans when they went to Vietnam.
@alibi
From aesthetic point of view well applied nukes will bring less casualties.
You read VS comments. If there is to be a response it will inevitably lead to a major war.
There is USA outside Pakistan ready to and eager to remove “terrorist sanctuaries”, and now we have another country, albeit more responsible than US, nevertherell mulling some kind of response. There MUST be a response.
Would you like to play “war games” aka real conventional war with Pakistan? The better option would be erase Pakistani “might” in one decisive strike and once and for all.
It’d be “good” for the Russia, China, India, US, and the world.
The only sad nation left after the local Armageddon would be Saudi Arabia. Where they would find such good breeding ground for world jihad?
P.S. Read the Armageddon not as obliterating the whole Pakistani Nation. I thought about Pakistan’s nuclear and military bases.
And if there were Hindu-Muslim riots on national scale there would be a clear proof that another “Ghandi the peace-maker’s” (nationalist S.O.B. who perpetrated ethnic clensing) way of resolving religion issues should be taken under consideration.
But as I said before, there is something more ominous lurking under the aftermath hubbub. Too many mistakes on Indian side or first clues sort of secretly coordinated efforts to the attack to happen.
@alibi
One more question. Vietnam.
Too many times I read about Vietnam as a proof of something, but too many times I read about the limits applied to the US forces. Applied both by US Administration (e.g. McNamara’s computer games) and the CCCP (e.g. Haifong and Hanoi were off-limits for US bombers).
On the other side the Irak and the Vietnam Wars are excellent examples how US military power was DID NOT use to win the wars but to achive someone’s AGENDAs.
Cheers
Correction. The first sentense should go like this:
Too many times I read about Vietnam as a proof of something, but too little times I read about the limits applied to the US forces.
From the Exiled Online:
Mumbai: Exporting Pakistan’s Resources, By Gary Brecher.
Cheers
P2O2: «Would you like to play “war games” aka real conventional war with Pakistan? The better option would be erase Pakistani “might” in one decisive strike and once and for all”
Last time I checked – Pakistan had some nukes on it’s own. And the Pakistani have means to deliver them. Something like a thought of the opponent’s nuclear weapons held both the USA and the USSR from using theirs. Indians shouldn’t be more suicidal than the Americans or Russians.
«Too many times I read about Vietnam as a proof of something, but too little times I read about the limits applied to the US forces»
I wasn’t about to bring a dispute in regards of the US forces’ performance in Vietnam. I was just trying to point out that a war on a foreign territory not always depends on a might of the intruder’s army.
not always depends on a might of the intruder’s army
??????? :(
If you are allowed to use the force your statement is false. If you are constrained then talking about “using the might” is pointless.
P2O2: “If you are allowed to use the force your statement is false. If you are constrained then talking about “using the might” is pointless”
Well, unless you’re Hitler – you’re always limited. And even Hitler become limited having underestimated his enemies.
You don’t think India will have no restrictions, do you?
@alibi
The everlasting problem is not the limit(s) the invading/attacking forces are bound to but the price of their action(s).
a war on a foreign territory not always depends on a might of the intruder’s army
I still claim you are wrong. Well calculated “might”, considering limits, is no match for any opponents. Hitler made errors during operation Barbarossa and bogged down his panzer divisions in marshes and muds of Eastern Soviet Union. But if the operation was flawlessly performed (he stopped his armies for a few weeks when the ground was dry and exccelent for forward push) his might would be nearly perfect, it is, his armies would be unstoppable and invincible.
Now, back to the subject.
1) Did a Criminal Mastermind Stage the Mumbai Nightmare?
2) U.S. opposes India military response
3) Pakistan Threatens West to Rein in India
Read in this order. The real shit over shit mingled with shit. Political shit of course.
Cheers
You have to consider the fact that the present Indian govt is the most incompetent ever in a loooooong time. Neither the PM nor the Home Minister (ex and present) have the ‘balls’ to do anything other than empty rhetoric. There will be some saber rattling and it will be election time. As long as it’s not the politicians or the vote banks which have been harmed, no one cares about the common man.
Congress will not win the next election for sure. Especially after this attack. In all probability it will be the govt led by BJP which will bring back the POTA, hang Afzal Guru and get about the business as usual. The end point is life goes on. Nothing will change unless we have a really good politician who can place Indians above petty party politics. Until then even after another 10 terrorist attacks we would still be the same way.
@alibi – seriously no one needs to do anything to let Pak go under. It is already on the brink, just needs a little push and that’s it. But if that happens the first one to suffer would be India. With nukes (probably) in the hands of terrorists you can never be sure. Better with the Pak govt (even non-functional) than the terrorists. IMHO.
@alibi “I was just trying to point out that a war on a foreign territory not always depends on a might of the intruder’s army.”
foreign territory – perception i guess. not to dispute your point but Indian army might be more familiar with Pak territory than US ever was with either Vietnam or Iraq.
@everybody: I am kinda busy right now, so I cannot really join the conversation. I just wanted to share with you the following: I had a very good friend who was a Pakistani commanding officer with a lot of combat experience. I once asked him what he thought the chances of Pakistan would be in a war against India. He replied:”India will win, the best we can do is give them a bloody nose”.
My 2cts.
VS
P2O2: «Hitler made errors during operation Barbarossa and bogged down his panzer divisions in marshes and muds of Eastern Soviet Union»
We’re probably talking about different wars here. The war I was talking about never reached Eastern Soviet Union.
«But if the operation was flawlessly performed (he stopped his armies for a few weeks when the ground was dry and exccelent for forward push) his might would be nearly perfect, it is, his armies would be unstoppable and invincible»
We’re definitely talking about different wars. What few weeks you are talking about. When? In 1941? 42? 43? The whole point of Barbarossa was blitzkrieg.
And if you invade a country and have no idea that there is mud in autumn, snow and cold in winter, and again mud in spring and summer – than think about changing profession.
And BTW – somehow the Russians managed to keep their obsolete weapons operatable in these conditions and pretty effective too.
Shashank: «With nukes (probably) in the hands of terrorists you can never be sure. Better with the Pak govt (even non-functional) than the terrorists. IMHO»
I agree, and this fact will be among other restrictions for the Indians when they will be pondering about their respond to what just happened in Mumbai.
VS: «I once asked him what he thought the chances of Pakistan would be in a war against India. He replied: “India will win, the best we can do is give them a bloody nose»
I really don’t see why you would expect war between India and Pakistan. Even if India would won eventually – what would be it’s objective. To achieve what? Topple the Pak government? And then what? Occupy Pakistan? And then what? To get bloody terror war on Indian land? To get civil war in neighbouring country with nukes?
@alibi: you are absolutely correct. A war would serve no rational purpose. Alas, wars are rarely started with a rational purpose in mind and these two countries already had several wars. The risk is, I think, that pressure will mount upon the Indian government to “do something” and “doing something” is often a very dangerous proposition.
But, again, you are totally correct. A war against Pakistan cannot serve any rational purpose whatsoever and would also be very dangerous for the entire region.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shashank: “foreign territory – perception I guess. not to dispute your point but Indian army might be more familiar with Pak territory than US ever was with either Vietnam or Iraq»
I didn’t mean the landscape. I think that it will be foreign and very likely hostile territory for the Indians. To be honest I’m far from being a good expert on the Indian – Pakistani relationship but I would guess that for the Indian forces it would be more difficult to win or buy hearts of Pakistani people then it had been for the Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
@alibi
We’re probably talking about different wars here. The war I was talking about never reached Eastern Soviet Union.
You could press your brain a little harder. :) Of course I made an error. I looked at the map with my imagination and as being a Pole I saw WESTERN part of the Soviet Union in Europe as EASTERN to present Polish border. :)
We’re definitely talking about different wars. What few weeks you are talking about. When? In 1941? 42? 43? The whole point of Barbarossa was blitzkrieg.
Was but wasn’t.
There were a few unexplicable Hitler’s decisions during the WWII – e.g. stopping panzer divisions around Dunkirk
1.1 Dunkirk in World War II
For some unexplained and still unknown reason, Adolf Hitler ordered the German army to stop the attack, favouring bombardment by the Luftwaffe.,
and – NOT stopping panzer divisions during operation Barbarossa (here I’ve made an error but I am sure I read about it many years ago) – but due to supply problems:
8 Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa
This fact alone implied the failure of Operation Barbarossa, for the Germans now had to limit their operations for a month to bring up new supplies, leaving only six weeks to complete the battle before the start of the mud season, an impossible task
Cheers
@alibi, VS, et al.
…it would be more difficult to win or buy hearts of Pakistani people then it had been for the Americans in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have an impression that all the time during the discussion you look at the prospective Indian-Pakistani war in terms of “Western wars”. Forget it.
1) The only goal for the Indian Forces would be to distroy military infrastructure of Pakistani Army. No “takings of hostile territories”, or winning “hearts and minds” etc. Forget the bullshit of Western media propaganda.
2) Terrorists camps in Waziristan would be left for “processing” by US and NATO forces.
3) The side which were able to deliever a destructive blow would be victories in shorter time.
4) Any nuke attack is possible if it wipes off 99% of opponent’s capabilities as far as exchange of nuclear blows is concerned.
But let me stop here my stupid speculations on nuke war between the two countries. :)
On the other side if Pakistan broke up and her nuke sites would have to be overtaken by foreign forces or destroyed… who knows, which country would be “delegated” to do the job…
P2O2: «There were a few unexplicable Hitler’s decisions during the WWII»
Exactly – he should’ve never invaded the USSR.
It’s really the wrong post to discuss here WWII. I just want to point out that the Germans never really had a chance to win in Russia. Even if they would have captured Moscow – it would have change nothing. Russia is a really big country.
Napoleon walked in to Moscow, so what?
You probably don’t know that within first 4 months of invasion the USSR had lost about 85% of it’s industrial potential. The rest had been evacuated behind Ural Mountains and further in Siberia and Kazakhstan. And those 15% appeared to be enough for the Russians to end up in Berlin.
The Russians say that the war is not lost with a lost town even if it’s Moscow. War is not lost until there is an army.
And the Germans never could match neither human nor industrial resources of the USSR. A few weeks would have change nothing.
@p202: You could press your brain a little harder. :)
This is *exactly* the kind of comments which I don’t want on this blog, smiley or no smiley. Please remain courteous and respectful of everybody here.
Thanks!
P2O2: “1) The only goal for the Indian Forces would be to distroy military infrastructure of Pakistani Army. No “takings of hostile territories”, or winning “hearts and minds” etc. Forget the bullshit of Western media propaganda»
I don’t really think that it would be a five day task like it was in Georgia. We’re talking about a million strong military forces in Pakistan.
@everybody: my “bloody nose” comment might have been misunderstood. Giving a billion strong regional superpower like India a “bloody nose” is something which only a very powerful army could do. While my Pakistani friend had no illusions about the eventual outcome of any war, he meant to say that his army could badly hurt India.
So yes, no “Georgian army” here. The Pakistanis can give hell to anybody, Indian or American, even if they cannot prevail against India at the end of the day.
VS
India will not go into a conventional war with Pak. It is not worth the effort or the money. If we launch attacks strategically I am pretty sure US will cry foul. Mann we should have done it when we had a chance in 47, 65 and 71. We did not do it then, I am pretty sure we wont do it now.
@everybody.. some info.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081129&fname=saikat&sid=1
Hi,
I gathered a few (perhaps) interesting press tidbits on the attack in Mumbai.
Mumbai Attack in the Press
Cheers
@alibi, VS
NO smileys. OK. :)
@alibi
I’m not against Russia (then Soviet Union). WWII or Iran-Pak war are wars and discussing both perhaps you will be able to find similarities…
Your asessment of SU industrial potential didn’t take into consideration enourmous help and supply which flowed to SU from free world.
It was Germany who made the best military inventions. Someone said Germany was then the most powerful country as the whole world had to join forces to defeat it.
The 15% was too small to do that what you said (ending in Berlin). WHat about coal and gas to run the tanks or planes? But now it is only academic discussion, pure speculative one. Anyway, for me, the SU was at the brink of destruction if Hitler didn’t make those errors as he did planning attack on SU.
I only would agree to one issue – Russia is too big to be gobbled down by anyone, NOW. Only Germwny had the chance. But they failed.
P2O2: «Someone said Germany was then the most powerful country as the whole world had to join forces to defeat it»
Sure, and after the whole world had joined forces they let the USSR do all the fighting with the Germans. Only at the end, when it become obvious that Stalin wasn’t gonna just stop in Berlin but was about to have the whole Europe for himself they opened the Second front.
«Your asessment of SU industrial potential didn’t take into consideration enourmous help and supply which flowed to SU from free world»
The Russians never denied that there was a big deal of resources supplied by the USA, and yes – it helped a lot. But the Russians had to invent, manufacture and use on their own the actual weapons that actually killed the invaders.
“It was Germany who made the best military inventions”
It’s a long way from an invention to the real thing. The Germans failed to manufacture any of their “best military inventions”
«I only would agree to one issue – Russia is too big to be gobbled down by anyone, NOW. Only Germwny had the chance. But they failed»
I sense some sadness here.