A Case of Inter-National Terrorism
Today, Pakistans social media is full of hue that the Mumbai Attacks 26/11 were a false flag operation, having preplanned ulterior motives – is this counter-propaganda or does this popular public sentiment hold some grounds in truth?
Indeed, the elongation of the trials related to Mumbai 26/11, huge and repeated international bullying from the Indian side purporting Pakistan to be an instigator of terror, and the demeaning of the national morale of the Pakistani people lead to the desire of extensive scrutiny and counter-investigation over the case by many intellectuals, on individual and institutional basis. In this continuation, PKKH, an institution aspiring to be a leading policy-giver to the state, has most recently gathered its resources to be able to discover any possible conclusion to the demise, and perhaps bring some kind of respite to the people of Pakistan and that part of the world community which is always waiting for common-sense-conclusive truth.
In the process of our investigation, we have found that Mumbai 26/11 presents a copious exhibition of how terrorism is an inter-national phenomenon and how the theme of terror facilitates the accomplishment of goals otherwise abstract to the social status-quo. The Mumbai Case alone puts into question the involvement of at least six states in its making; Pakistan, Kashmir, Nepal, Russia, the United States and India itself.
Kassab’s claim that he was arrested 20 days prior to the attacks – Fahim Ansari providing hand-sketched maps to Shahabuddin (both in Indian jail at that time), and Sahabuddin handing the maps to Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi stationed in Paksitan via someone in Nepal – the US giving 18 warnings of an attack on Mumbai via sea, and the Indians not securing their coast – the email account from which India alleged ‘claimed responsibility’ of attacks being later disclosed by Google as located in Russia; all this clues of a game being cooked between many friends and foes. It gives an insight on how the US, wishful of the superpower status, while on the face deems it necessary to ‘pressure other countries to adopt American values and practices regarding human rights and democracy’; but in this case, it is evident that it covertly sold a false-flag option from its well-tried Chaos Theory to India.
The United States’ giving prior warnings of the attacks to India are two-faced – on one side, they show a US concerned with the greater good of humanity, and the other side shows their inability to convince a favorite ally to secure its coast of such a national calamity! How extensive was their intelligence in India, what exactly did they warn of and who were their informants, would perhaps be questions the answers of which would be the easiest way to come to quick conclusions, keeping in mind the precision of fact-finding the US is capable of – Why can’t the US be questioned? The US itself has kept David Headley for his involvement in the Mumbai Case; why has the US delayed Headley’s case for 5 years now, when he has reportedly been in the FBI and worked as an undercover agent for the CIA too; if so, they could sentence him for treason against their own state too. Above all this, the US provided the diplomatic backing required by India to voice its claims against Pakistan in the international podium. In fact, the US insisted on Pakistan to fulfill India’s demands without delay or question every time their delegates would meet. The same was repeated five years onward when Pakistan PM N. Sharif visited American President Obama last month. Why does the US not question India to make a complete, viable court case before it accuses Pakistan?
Rizwan Abbasi, defense lawyer of Zaki ur Rehman Lakhvi, in his recent press conference told journalists that the NIA (National Investigation Agency) of India had also termed the Mumbai Crime Branch investigation bogus and worthless. Rizwan further pointed out that the court case is full of discrepancies and it is difficult for Pakistan to conclude the case in a legal way due to incomplete data and unprovable allegations upon these seven men, meaning that the case can only be dismissed, not concluded.