Thursday, November 27, 2008

Mumbai Attacks Blamed On Al-Qaeda As Pretext For U.S. Military Response

Despite clear and contradictory evidence to suggest otherwise, corporate media brings out the boogeyman once again as a poster child for the ailing war on terror, Pakistan link claimed

Paul Joseph Watson
November 27, 2008

The majority of the corporate media has gleefully seized upon the terror attacks in Mumbai to claim that they are the work of "Al-Qaeda," despite clear and contradictory evidence suggesting otherwise, as a pretext to increase bombing campaigns in Pakistan and beef support for the ailing war on terror in Afghanistan.

The swiftness with which the media blamed "Al-Qaeda" was staggering, especially considering the fact that the attacks had not even concluded before the boogeyman was whipped out of the closet once more to act as a poster child for the war on terror and allow the TV networks to show lots of blood, panic and authority figures pointing guns at people.

The only claim of responsibility for the attacks came from the "Deccan Mujahideen," the Deccan Plateau being an area in southern India, but the press, usually breathless to take the first obscure claim of culpability and set it in stone, are now belittling this explanation as a likely hoax in an attempt to pin the blame on the all-mighty mythical Al-Qaeda.

"Earlier eyewitness reports from the hotels suggested the attackers were singling out British and American passport holders," reports the BBC.

"If the reports are true, our security correspondent Frank Gardner says it implies an Islamist motive - attacks inspired or co-ordinated by al-Qaeda."

Really? Perhaps the BBC’s "security correspondent" should be worried about his job security, because the facts directly contradict previous alleged "Al-Qaeda" attacks.

Since when do Al-Qaeda take hostages? Since when do they hang around to be caught? Since when do Al-Qaeda use grenades rather than bombs or suicide bombs?

And if the attacks were targeted against British and American citizens then tell me why, out of at least 101 killed, was there only one British victim?

If the attacks were targeted against British and American citizens then why were the terrorists reported to be firing AK-47’s indiscriminately into crowds of (mainly Indian) people? Out of 101 victims, only six were foreigners, the rest were Indian. This was blatantly not a targeted attack against British and American citizens, but it is being spun that way by the media so as to justify a coordinated British and American military response, which will no doubt take the form of more bombing raids inside Pakistan and an increased presence in Afghanistan.

The London Times are already busy proclaiming that yesterday’s events were the work of Osama bin Goldstein, reporting, "Targeting Bombay’s most luxurious hotels and a crowded railway station had all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda operation."

But voices of skepticism have broken through the firewall of fearmongering and propaganda.

"Chrtistine Fair, senior political scientist and a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation, was careful to say that the identity of the terrorists could not yet be known. But she insisted the style of the attacks and the targets in Mumbai suggested that the militants were likely to be Indian Muslims - and not linked to Al Qaeda or the violent South Asian terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba," reports the International Herald Tribune.

"There’s absolutely nothing Al Qaeda-like about it," she said of the attack. "Did you see any suicide bombers? And there are no fingerprints of Lashkar. They don’t do hostage taking, and they don’t do grenades."

"Indians will have a strong incentive to link this to Al Qaeda. ‘Al Qaeda’s in your toilet!’ But this is a domestic issue. This is not India’s 9/11," said Fair.

Terrorism expert Professor Bruce Hoffman agreed that the assault was "not exactly Al Qaeda’s modus operandi, which is suicide attacks."

"The very name (Deccan Mujahideen) - if it is a real group - suggests a domestic agenda," adds the report, highlighting a probable link to the riots in Gujarat State near Mumbai six years ago (alluded to in the claim of responsibility), which killed 2,000 Muslims.

But that’s not how the media are portraying the event, hyping the situation beyond all proportion with a crazed obsession and linking it to Barack Obama’s mandate to carry on the endless war on terror started by George W. Bush.

As Mike Rivero over at points out, "FOX News and CNN are now both reporting that the "terrorists" who took hostages at the Oberoi hotel were specifically seeking people with US and British passports. So, regardless of whatever the "Deccan Muhajedeen" claims their objective may be, the real agenda is to provoke a British and US response."

"The timing is suspect, occurring just when Bush needs an excuse to kick off one more war of Obama to have to deal with and certainly convenient timing for Israel, which sees Obama as far less likely to engage in more wars for Israel. And, for the last several weeks Israel has been starving Gaza mercilessly, in advance of an obvious military action, and has kept reporters and even the Papel Envoy out of Gaza."

How long before the terrorist group is linked with elements of the Pakistani government, giving Obama the perfect pretext to prolong and expand bombing raids inside the country?

Indeed, the London Guardian reports today, "What is likely is that the attacks will get blamed on Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), as have previous Islamist atrocities.

US counter-terrorism officials believe some ISI members played a role in an attack this year on the Indian embassy in Afghanistan."

In our first report on the events yesterday, we predicted that a Pakistan link would eventually be claimed as a reason for Barack Obama to increase U.S. aggression inside the country as he promised to do during his election campaign.

Reports are now emerging claiming that the terrorists arrived on speedboats from Karachi in Pakistan. The claim of responsibility from the Deccan Mujahideen is being sidelined in favor of a more convenient culprit, the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Taiba militant outfit.

"Hawkish elements in Pakistan stage-managed (the) terror attacks," claims one report, citing intelligence sources.

India’s premier said those behind coordinated attacks against Mumbai were based "outside the country" and warned "neighbours" who provide a haven to anti-India militants. This is obviously a reference to Pakistan.

The Mossad media front outlet Debka File are already proclaiming that the "MV Alpha freighter (is) suspected of having sailed the terrorists to Mumbai’s shore from Karachi, Pakistan."

The media is also exploiting the attacks to throw more weight behind the annual fearmongering about Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. transport networks, a tediously regular piece of propaganda that crops up during every holiday season to remind Americans that they must submit to bag searches and other infringements on personal freedom while authority figures shove them around all in the name of keeping them safe from the terrorists.

Related articles

India, Corporate Media Moves To Frame Pakistan For Suspicious Attacks

Sophisticated Attacks, but Al Qaeda Link Disputed

Mumbai attacks: Jumble of tactics and targets seems to indicate a homegrown Indian outfit

Citizen journalists told to stop using Twitter to update on Bombay attacks

FM: No Israelis in Mumbai Hospitals


Anonymous said...

well invade pakistan soon, black ops on this one.

mr vet said...

another great post larry, lets send your weak bible thumper buddy.

bible thumper said...

nobody thumps a bible better than me. thump, thump, thump. kill them all.

Anonymous said...

great story larry, keep up the great work. well probably go into this country too. we need to start the draft again. send the people who are cowards.

Anonymous said...

you are a koook, even though you own me and my site that i had to censor everyone.

Anonymous said...

poor larry living out several identities again on his own blog... jujst between you and me Larry, I bet your daughter's real proud of her mentally ill father lol lol lol

Anonymous said...

larry i confess my pastor dad raped a 12 year old alter boy last year. im not proud of him at all.

Anonymous said...

Larry just hates pastors lol

Larry Simons (this site's operator) said...

Dear Jesus, this is Larry Simons. Why does my daughter hate me? Why don't I have any friends who come to my site? Why do I threaten others and get kicked off other people's websites? Why do I have to hate other people so much? Why do I have to bash religion when it should be fine for other people to believe in whatever they want? Who am I to judge anyone since I'm such a fucking loser douchebag living my life out vicariously though several online personas? Why don't they lock away the sasquatch that is truly responsible for 9/11 when I have so much overwhelming "proof?" Why do I stay up late at night and search the web for gay pornography? Why don't I have the guts to go to a gay bar and not be ashemed? Why do I get aroused when I see my old pastor? Why am I filled with hate and sooooo unhappy? Dear God why did you create such an insignificant scumbag loser fucktard? Just wondering, Larry.

Real Truth Online said...

well, we all know it isnt really ME, because I ONLY post under Real Truth---nice try. Here's YOUR letter to God:

Dear God, why do I go to a person's website in which I hate the views of? Why do I never refute or disprove anything, yet I condemn it? Why do I never accept an invitation to debate this guy? Why do I act as an advocate for religion, yet I use profane words like "fucking loser" and "fucktard" and talk about child porn? Why do I even think of gay bars and gay porn when Im susposed to be an advoate for religion? Why do I think about homosexuality and child porn when this site has nothing to do with those things? Why cant I get these homo thoughts out of my mind? Why am I so bothered by this guy Larry when I claim I dont believe anything he says or believes? Why am I so consumed by him that I have to keep stalking him by posting? Why do I not have the guts to say who I really am rather than to post under anonymous or others names? Why do I contradict myself by telling this guy not to judge others then continually judge him by calling him names and making up shit he believes when he's never said ONE WORD of what I accuse him of on his site? Why do I never have any answers to the questions he raises when I claim to know you, the one true God, who should lead me to these very answers he seeks? Why do I dream of this guy buttfucking me constantly since I continually stalk him on his site? Why do I call him a coward and stupid when he gives his real name for all to see and has the guts not to hide his views and when he has his own site and has written nearly 200 articles on it---none of which I have ever refuted? Why do I have nude posters of Elton John and Liberace on my bedroom walls? Please God, answer these questions. Thank you, signed, The One Who is too scared to say my real name...Anonymous

MIKE said...


Anonymous said...

good job larry, you made him look like a jackasss. you own him, hes your bitch. maybe one day hell find nessie our locate elvis. hes full of hater aid and bitterness and of course alot of cum, but none the less you made him look like the asshole he is. by the way stop raping 12 yr old alter boys.

bible thumper said...

why is that dick head talking about the lord when i thump a good bible. thump, thump, thump.

Anonymous said...

remember larry im all about the truth, even though i wont research anything and i censor everything but im all about the truth. sieg heil. call me mr gerbels. bah, bah , bah lord bush.