Mumbai attack: British men 'among the terrorists' Options

[LiZhuoShi]

British men were among the terrorists who killed 140 in the attacks in Mumbai, Indian authorities have claimed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...mbay-India.html

My question is, based on this new evidence why is India insisting on Pakistan's sole responsability, yet not a word on the British?

Intelligence precedents: british SAS forces as agent provocateurs in Basra:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/talking_point/4263092.stm

This post has been edited by LiZhuoShi: Nov 30 2008, 09:20 AM

[higginm]

British men were among the terrorists who killed 140 in the attacks in Mumbai, Indian authorities have claimed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...mbay-India.html

My question is, based on this new evidence why is India insisting on Pakistan's sole responsability, yet not a word on the British?

Intelligence precedents: british SAS forces as agent provocateurs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm

Because the "british" that carried it out would likely have been pakistani immigrants to the uk. Those "british" that carried it out bring shame on their own ethnic grouping in the uk rather than the uk itself.

This post has been edited by higginm: Nov 30 2008, 09:19 AM

[LiZhuoShi]

Hey, if you didnt quoted me I wouldnt know who you're responding to.

And READ the article, the two pakistanis were born in Britain and are citizens of Britain - so yeah, they are not "british", rather BRITISH.

This post has been edited by LiZhuoShi: Nov 30 2008, 10:04 AM

[higginm]

And READ the article, the two pakistanis were born in Britain and are citizens of Britain - so yeah, they are not "british", rather BRITISH.

I wonder whether those Pakastanis would have described themselves BRITISH as opposed to "british".....
I wonder whether the Indian government would view those Pakastanis as BRITISH as opposed to "british".....
And I wonder whether the Indian government not having complained to the UK gives us a clue as to just how British the Indian governments really feels they were....

This post has been edited by higginm: Nov 30 2008, 02:02 PM

[LiZhuoShi]

You can wonder whether the moon is made of roquefort cheese or camembert. Stop wondering and read the article - they have every qualification to be british citizens, and your wonderful imagination will not change the facts.

[higginm]

You can wonder whether the moon is made of roquefort cheese or camembert. Stop wondering and read the article - they have every qualification to be british citizens, and your wonderful imagination will not change the facts.

lol

Your question was "My question is, based on this new evidence why is India insisting on Pakistan's sole responsability, yet not a word on the British?"

That they were "British citizens of Pakistani origin" is the key to the answer. Though I have found your obtuseness very amusing! lol

This post has been edited by higginm: Nov 30 2008, 04:34 PM

[LiZhuoShi]

Heh, it is rather your denial that shows the most. They are british citizens regardless of their origin, it would be absurd to retribute all responsibility to Germany if they were british citizens of german origin, or of african origin, etc, not to mention your tone is racially exclusive and wish not recognize the nexus between these terrorists and their legal identity just because they are of Pakistani origin.

I can see the brits are all worked up and offering any intelligence assistance available, so is Pakistan yet we still see the Indian authority passing the blame on Pakistan alone.- biased much?

Let me get this straight. Some british citizens traveled half the world to kill as many wealthy people and westerners as possible when they could've done this in Britain, where snobs and rednecks never falls short.

Yeah I needed that.

This post has been edited by LiZhuoShi: Nov 30 2008, 07:06 PM

[higginm]

They were british citizens, I agree. Happy now?

But lets face it, those "british citizens of Pakistani origin" attacked India because of an identification they had with Pakistan not with the UK.

If they are of Pakistani origin, attack India because of an identification with Pakistan, and were trained in Pakistan to kill Indians, then its clear India is going to be looking to Pakistan to blame rather than the UK.

If a bunch of Mr Smiths from Surrey decide to get together with the local Cricket club, construct a training camp for armed warfare that the government decides to turn a blind eye to, and then they successfully lauch terror attacks on India. At that point the UK is going to be legitimately worried about India taking umbrage.

Until then, if some Pakistani's turn up here, don't integrate, construct unhealthy communities cut off from the rest of the UK, and then some of them produced from this terrible environment decide to sod off half way round the world to destroy the enemy of the country they first came from; then with all the will in the world the UK is in no position to stop it from happening. Why we can't is a whole new thread.

This post has been edited by higginm: Nov 30 2008, 08:36 PM

[Tenjikuronin]

One of the captured terrorists was a Pakistani national. That is part of the reason why India is blaming Pakistan. The other reason is because these militants recieved outside help in carrying out their attack....help that most likely came from Pakistan's ISI.

[Chinese DesertFo...]

One of the captured terrorists was a Pakistani national. That is part of the reason why India is blaming Pakistan. The other reason is because these militants recieved outside help in carrying out their attack....help that most likely came from Pakistan's ISI.

The ISI engages in shady deals I'm sure, but India needs to provide evidence with an accusation like that.

[LiZhuoShi]

One of the captured terrorists was a Pakistani national. That is part of the reason why India is blaming Pakistan. The other reason is because these militants recieved outside help in carrying out their attack....help that most likely came from Pakistan's ISI.

In such terms, both British nationals and Pakistani nationals were responsible for this terror attack. And I am sorry but "most likely" still equals "no proof". Whatever the beef between India and Pakistan may be, the possibility of a british involvement cannot be ignored.

[Jagger]

Both the Pakistani and British governments have said they are willing to co-operate with India in tracking down the terrorist groups responsible for this atrocity. The Pakistani government itself is currently at war with Islamist terrorists in northwest Pakistan, so I don't see why they would now all of a sudden support terrorism just because the victim was India.

Also, some of the terorists who attacked Mumbai were Indian nationals as well. Homegrown terrorism has always been a problem in India, like how the 1993 Bombay bombings (which was even deadlier) was carried out by the D-Company, a Mumbai underworld organization that apparently had links to the Bollywood film industry.

This post has been edited by Jagger: Nov 30 2008, 11:19 PM

[Tenjikuronin]

The ISI engages in shady deals I'm sure, but India needs to provide evidence with an accusation like that.

The investigation has begun, let's wait and see the results.

[Hafiz]

One of the captured terrorists was a Pakistani national. That is part of the reason why India is blaming Pakistan. The other reason is because these militants recieved outside help in carrying out their attack....help that most likely came from Pakistan's ISI.

Just because one of the captured terrorist was a Pakistani national --> India blames all of Pakistan for his action ?