These cowards snuffed out the lives of normal human beings, who were mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, fathers, husbands, brothers, or sons to someone beloved.

Take for instance Lo Hwei Yen, the Singaporean woman whose life was plundered by these enemies of humanity. Her life did not mean anything to these terrorists, yet they took her life in cold deliberation, with the terrorist handlers in Pakistan readily ordering her killing. Ms Lo’s life meant a lot to people who loved her and nothing to these cowards. Yet, they killed her.

Lo Hwei Yen, Singaporean woman killed by terrorists

International Herald Tribune (5 Dec 2008) Article on MUMBAI ATTACK reported:

Once the calls were finished, the attacker moved the small group of guests, who did not know what their fate would be, into a room. When the attackers became distracted by tear gas fired by the police, the hostages managed to escape.

In another instance, the gunmen forced a Singaporean hostage at the Oberoi hotel, Lo Hwei Yen, to call her husband in Singapore. She told him that the hostages were demanding that Singaporean officials tell India not to try a rescue operation. The next day, Lo was killed, the foundation’s report said.

Investigators found that after the gunmen killed her, they used the phone she had called her husband with, the report said.

“The worrying scenario is that Muzammil may have ordered her execution along with two other hostages that were found murdered in the same room,” the report said.

The phone intercepts confirm how the killings were ordered (reported in The National Post, 9 Jan 2009):

Fahad Ullah: “We have three foreigners, including women from Singapore and China.”

Caller: “Kill them.”

The dossier then notes the telephone intercept records the “voices of Fahad Ullah and Bada Abdul Rehman directing hostages to stand in a line, and telling two Muslims to stand aside. Sound of gunfire. Cheering voices in background. Kafa hands telephone to another handler, Wasi Zarar, who says, “Fahad, find the way to go downstairs.”

(No Chinese citizens were killed; A Thai woman of Chinese extract was apparently mistaken by the terrorists as “from China”.)

Other reports on the killing of Ms Low: The Straits Times (Singapore) (archive may not be accessible), Report with Pics (Wayang Party), Tranquil Singapore shaken by Mumbai killing (Telegraph, UK), Singaporeans in Europe express shock (with Pics) , Singapore women in Mumbai terror attack – New Straits Times , a forum post about the killing.

Lo Hwei Yen and Michael Puhaindran

Michael Puhaindran is Ms Lo’s bereaved husband — please wipe his tears. Here is Michael Puhaindran’s facebook page with a picture of the couple.

Let us all tell ourselves this day that some things are wrong, and some things are right. There is right and wrong, believe me. Killing of innocent people, is wrong. Whether the motive for the killing is simply to strike fear, to advance some cause, or to launch the jihadist killer into promised heaven, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is just as wrong to kill innocent people under cover of “collateral damage”. We don’t have the right to take a life when we cannot give life. And more so, human life. If your religion tells you otherwise, please do not walk away without questioning it. Let us make humanity the first basis of our religious practices, whatever our beliefs may be. Only that can bring peace on earth.

My deepest condolences reach out to all those who lost loved ones in the attack. May such events never recur.

IP Addresses

Phone Voice-over-IP records

About recovered pistol

Recovered Pistol

Satellite Phone used

One of the intercepted conversations (translated to English)

Serial number of Yamaha motor, traced to Pakistani distributor

The above snapshots are taken from the original documents (scanned into PDF) which are posted at certain websites: Evidence-1, Evidence-2, Evidence-3, Evidence-4. (Note: The PDF files are huge and the website is also very sluggish).

And then there are people who can’t use the T-word for terrorist. Terrorists are called “gunmen”, to be politically correct, it seems. Read Denis Shulz:
Mumbai Massacre: One Man’s Terrorist is Another Man’s Gunman

You may have read how Ms Arundhati Roy tried to justify the Mumbai Terror Attacks (Guardian UK, British newspaper) and, in the process, ended up exposing herself, irrecoverably, to the public ?

When Salman Rushdie was interviewed on the Mumbai attacks, he said:

… I think one of the most worrying developments… has been the willingness of a number of commentators … to place the question of roots (of the attack) in the concept of justice.

People have said that the reason for these attack was that there is injustice, that Indian Muslims are economically disadvantaged in India, that they have much lower educational qualifications, they have much higher unemployment rates and then of course there is the great injustice of Kashmir. As the argument be that while those injustices exist that is the thing from which these actions spring.

And as our colleague Arundhati Roy wrote the other night, as she ended her article, she said: You have a very simple choice: Justice or civil war — and you choose. As Suketu said, that is the entire spectrum of possibility from A to B.

[Suketu Mehta on his part agreed with what Rushdie had to say and pointed out that the attack on Parliament in 2001 for example predated the Gujarat pogroms]

Rushdie said:

…. But I do not believe that the terrorists such as these — I do not believe that their project has anything to do with justice.

… Ask yourself the question that if the Kashmir problem were resolved tomorrow, if Israel-Palestine reached a lasting peace, do we believe that al-Qaeda would disband? Do we believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad would put their guns down and beat them into plough-shears and say we would now be farmers because our job is done ?

Further, on Arundhati Roy:

The moderator: “You mentioned Arundhati Roy…. (referring to her article)… the phrase was “the Taj is not our icon” … [Arundhati Roy in her article had actually written: "We're told one of these hotels is an icon of the city of Mumbai. That's absolutely true. It's an icon of the easy, obscene injustice that ordinary Indians endure every day."--Ed ]

To which, Rushdie said:

I thought that particular remark in her piece was disgusting. The idea that the deaths of the rich don’t matter because they are rich is disgusting.

Yes indeed, Rushdie. Roy was overall nauseating. (She mentioned the media whipping up mass hysteria which I thought was a worthy observation, but after that, her own hysteria took over).

Additional Reading

1. The Algebra of Infinite Fundamentalism by Great Bong.

2. Taking on Ms Roy (from http://www.nationalinterest.in)

3. SAJA Forum debates Roy’s article

4. Booker vs Booker – Rushdie Blasts Arundhati Roy about Mumbai …

In 2006, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, a moderate Hurriyat leader of Kashmir wanted to invite China into the process of resolving the Kashmir dispute. As China holds a portion of Kashmir, it would seem logical.

It was Pakistan’s foreign office that sprang up promptly to reject and discredit the suggestion, citing certain U.N. resolutions, to the effect that there are only two parties to the Kashmir dispute. This, of course, did not mention that it was Pakistan who handed China a piece of Kashmir *after* these U.N. resolutions were passed.

Farooq would never have dreamt of such fate to his suggestion of bringing China, the the avowed “all weather” friend of Pakistan, to the table; and Pakistan, opposing it.

After having gatecrashed into someone’s home and having later invited the club-wielding deaf-and-dumb local thug to join, Pakistan still insists that the whole cake is its fair share.

We indeed have a strange party in South Asia.

References

1. D.S.Rajan’s analysis: China will predictably side with Pakistan .

2. From Rediff.com’s report China not part of Kashmir process: Pakistan

China not part of Kashmir process: Pakistan

Aslam said Farooq did not refer to the territory under Chinese control. She said his argument was that ‘China was a big player, being largest and influential country in this region. That is why it has to be associated with the peace process’.

Russia’s response to India in the wake of the Mumbai terror attacks comes across as one of substance, when contrasted with the Western world’s response. The U.S. seems too engrossed with its own Afghan objectives, and its own response leaves the phrase “war on terror” now sounding all but hollow.

The terror in Mumbai has exposed the fault-lines. The possible future directions of India’s evolving role in the region are outlined in what I would call a prescient but innocuously named article by M. K. Bhadrakumar: India, Russia regain elan of friendship. It is lengthy, but worth a read.

Appearing timely, was another article by an American journalist based in Moscow, titled That Was No Small War in Georgia, which tells us about Putin’s Russia:

… But after years in which Russia rebuilt itself … our (USA’s) advantages in global power politics have started to tilt Putin’s way. Slowly and quietly he got American forces thrown out of Uzbekistan and all but sidelined in Kyrgyzstan. And then, here in Georgia, he seized the opportunity to really hammer home his point.

With that backdrop, Bhadrakumar’s article makes more sense. If Russia is capable of a more equal relationship, why not ? Should, or shouldn’t India forget and forgive the grim days of the Rupee-Rouble trade (with terms unfair to India, see Russia’s Rouble Advantage) and reports of Russian arm-twisting ?

Will a walk with the bear take India out of the woods ?

Time will tell.

Domestic: What protection does the man-in-the-street deserve ?

Indians of every hue have reacted to the failure of the Indian government and the intelligence agencies. Lakhan Bhai, Khan Bhai, Peter Bhai, and Kuldeep Bhai have all spoken out. To this extent, the demos- part of our democracy works.

The government now appears to be trying to fix some of the institutional problems.

But, what can Lakhan Bhai, Khan Bhai, Peter Bhai, and Kuldeep Bhai expect ?

They (we) should expect the government to:
1. improve preparedness of each security/intelligence agency, and improve co-ordination between agencies (this includes stuff like getting real bullet proof vests instead of fakes).
2. verify and monitor response capability. (Use mock-attack drills, as reported to be undertaken after Mumbai attacks, in China and later in Indonesia.)
3. tighten laws as necessary (bring back POTA?)… but, at the same timem monitor that there is no abuse of draconian laws.
4. and, during the next terror attack, demonstrate rapid response.

External Impact: Intelligence and Foreign Policy

Meera Bai, Mumtaz Bai, Lily Bai and Karamjeet Kaur should also expect our government to conduct proper foreign policy to guarantee the viability and security of India as a nation, not for just the next 5 years, but beyond.

We should expect the government to:
1. Do the right thing with respect to foreign policy and international relationships with:
a) India’s self-interest as the primary and non-negotiable motive,
b) India’s enlightened self-interest as the secondary motive
c) The region‘s (including Pakistan) security and development as the third motive, and
d) The world’s security and development as the fourth motive.

To be crystal-clear:

** India should stop monopolizing the role of the “world saint” always offering the other cheek to be slapped. There are no canonizations for nations and no awards to be won for masochism.

** Nor should India try to take over the unenviable job of the “world policeman” (currently held by the USA).

That is how we may build the super-power, if ever.

Yes, Indians can run call centres for a thousand multi-national companies, Indians can work as CEOs for PepsiCo’s and CitiBanks. But these things do not make India a super-power. Only chain emails saying “Did you know ? One in every three … employees is an Indian!” proclaim otherwise.

Now, for the silver streaks on the storm cloud: many indications that India will move along a path towards enlightened self-interest, are visible in this excellent analysis by M. K. Bhadrakumar, humbly titled : India, Russia regain elan of friendship. It is a lengthy read, but highly recommended.

2. Build up strong CAC (Covert Action Capability). Today, India’s CAC is close to zero, zilch, null, nix, nothing. Whatever existed in RAW was disbanded by I.K. Gujral to win brownie points from foreign hands. (He did not win the Nobel Prize for Peace for it, unfortunately). It is a national shame that we Indians are always willing to sell the nation for a few bread crumbs. But, there are voices calling out for India to allocate 2% of our GDP to root out terror.

How should India regain / develop its CAC ?

It is fine to learn CAC tactics or strategies from any willing teacher, including Israel (as reported). But remember, I said “teacher“… not “master”!

We have to be wise about the nature of all relationships. Our CAC should never become a tool in the hands of any foreign power. Pakistan’s ISI may do CIA’s bidding, and receive protection in return, but that is Pakistan’s choice (or lack of choice). Whether that is an enviable situation to be in, or not, depends on which ISI or ex-ISI generals you ask. So:

India’s CAC capability should be built in such a way that it will only act in the sovereign interest of the country, and not become any other foreign power’s tool.

That, when the time comes for India to be a super-power, will give the world a responsible super-power.

At the U.N, India had made three previous efforts to get the Pakistan-based “charity” Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) declared a terror outfit.  All three attempts were defeated by China using its veto  power, and JuD continued operating.

Now, in December 2008, finally… China did not veto; and U.N. declared it a terrorist organization and called for freezing its assets.

But wait — that was no victory !  JuD had moved funds out of their bank accounts by then.  Finding a new name should not take the organization too long… they have been through that before !

CPI(M) is the Communist Party of India (Marxist).  If someone can be holier than the Pope, CPI(M) is more communist than China:  if China sneezes, how can CPI(M) not catch a cold ?

Sitaram Yechuri, Communist (CPI(M)) Politician

Kashmir - J&K (India), PoK (Pakistan), and CoK (China)

No wonder, CPI(M) is stressing the need for India to engage Pakistan and China:  Mount international pressure on Pakistan: CPI(M) tells Centre.  Further, “Instructions from the U.S. alone will not serve the purpose” (emphasis mine) says Sitaram Yechuri of CPI(M).

In other words, Yechuri is exhorting India to talk to the power that matters — China.  That makes ample sense, since China holds the cards (and plays them too, as in the JuD affair).

Not just cards.  China holds a nice piece of Kashmir too. It was a gift from Pakistan, if you remember.  Now you know, who first invited China to the party.
(WSJ graphic: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/P1-AN987_KASHMI_NS_20081214190816.gif)

See also If Pakistan is the arrow , China is the Bow

Ellis Washington is a professor of law and political science at Savannah State University, former editor at the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute, and author of the book “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002).

Read this from WorldNet Daily Article “Liberalism Bombs Bombay”:

“Liberalism bombs Bombay”
Posted: November 29, 2008

“ But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before
you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them
shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex
you in the land wherein ye dwell.”

~ Numbers 33:55

“The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked above all things. Who
can know it?”

~ Jeremiah 17:9

The gut-wrenching headlines told of the recent terrorist attacks in
India – “Day 3: Terror at the Taj”; “Gunmen seemed to be sure of hotel
terrain”; “Rabbi and wife killed”; “New York guards against Mumbai-like
attacks” – yet all of the liberal media outlets, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,
CNN and even Fox News seem to ask the same ignorant questions: “Who is
behind the recent terrorist attacks? What is the motive of the people
who perpetrated the bombings and kidnappings in India?”

The Prime Minister of India seems to be the only person on the planet
who realizes who perpetrated such horrid terror upon his country: “India
points the finger at Pakistan.” Yes, it is quite obvious for any person
who hasn’t been completely indoctrinated by our Stalinist public school
system that Muslim religious fanatics, perhaps trained in or facilitated
by neighboring Pakistan, are the culprits.

If one needs further assurance of who these evil men were, just ask some
of the hostages who were lucky enough to escape who said the first
question the Islamic terrorists asked the kidnapped victims was, “Who
has an American or British passport?”

The plot gets more diabolical. Now we know that perhaps the only Jews in
this city of 14 million residents were also killed. A Brooklyn rabbi and
his wife were found among the dead in a series of terrorist attacks in
India that have claimed more than 150 lives. Rabbi Gavriel Noach
Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, who ran the Chabad-Lubavitch local
headquarters in Mumbai were killed during a hostage standoff at the
center. The chances of indiscriminately killing perhaps Mumbai’s only
Jewish family? One in 14 million.

Yet the liberal media, the president, the president-elect, the
politicians on both sides of the aisle and the ubiquitous “military
experts” all seem to be dumbfounded about who caused these
well-orchestrated series of seven concurrent terrorist attacks? And more
importantly, what to do?

Who are these enemies of civilization? Yes, in India’s case, Islamic
terrorists, but it goes deeper than that.

What cultural, societal, political philosophy allows a pseudo-religion
like Islam to exist and grow in its midst? Liberalism. In my view the
political madness of liberalism is the real culprit behind the bombs of
Bombay.

How?

* Liberalism preaches a brand of egalitarianism that places all
* religions, beliefs and ideas on the same intellectual plane, but
* this contradicts the principle of rationality because all ideas
* and religions are not equal – some are evil.

* Nonetheless, under the liberal tenets existent at the founding of
* the League of Nations (President Woodrow Wilson, 1919) and United
* Nations (FDR, 1945), nations are mandated under international law
* to take the diplomatic route verses common sense tactics when
* their country suffers an unprovoked, naked act of religious-based
* terrorism.

* Therefore, liberalism prevented India from taking common sense
* action against her Muslim enemies when, in 1947, the U.N. formed
* Pakistan out of whole cloth, trying to stem the tide of Islamic
* fanaticism against the nation of India, but effectively leaving
* the country to be overrun by the more than 115 million Muslims
* living in India today.

Conservative intellectual, Ann Coulter eloquently prophesied the world’s
pathetic reaction to an international crisis:

There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats
always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases
like “diplomacy,” “détente,” “engagement,” “multilateral engagement,”
“multilateral diplomacy,” “containment” and “going to the UN.”

Instead of exporting throughout the world the elements of a
representative democracy and a republic rooted in the Judeo-Christian
traditions of intellectual thought, America has since FDR exported a
bastardized socialism – a diabolical brand of liberalism that is more
akin to Marxism and communism than it is to republicanism and freedom.

How do you “negotiate” with an enemy like radical Islam whose proponents
think they are following the will of Allah when they mercilessly murder
as many innocent men, women and children as they are able?

Liberalism seeks to “understand,” to justify, rationalize and form a
consensus with our Muslim brothers under the presumption, “Why do they
hate us?”

The madness of liberalism is that it always shifts the blame away from
the perpetrators to America. We are the only nation that has this
developed sense of self-hatred, an irrational self-loathing that borders
on the mentally insane.

Regarding the recent bombings in Bombay, liberalism says, “We can’t jump
to conclusions that these terrorists’ acts had anything to do with
Islamic radicalism. No, no, no. That would be imprudent, rash and
racist. We must dialogue with our Muslim brothers to find the real
reasons for their rage against us.”

This kind of perverse logic will cause the death of America, the West
and the entire civilized world and what I mean by ‘civilized’ here are
those nations that still believe in and practice the fundamentals of
civilization: obeying the rule of law, a Constitution rooted in liberty,
justice and equality, freedom of religion, the press, the right to
protest and freedom of assembly.

The last rudiment of civilization any nation needs to survive is to have
the courage to outlaw and destroy any philosophy, religion, ideology or
belief that doesn’t honor the aforementioned fundamentals of
civilization.

On this point I wrote an earlier article, “Is Islam compatible with a
republic?” In a word, No!

In my opinion Islam is ipso facto contrary to every vestige of liberty,
morality and truth that mankind has fostered for the past 6,000 years of
human history. Why civilized nations allow Islam to even exist in their
countries is, as evidenced by the most recent episode in India, only an
invitation to a slow and painful national genocide.

While President George Bush, the invisible President-elect Barack Obama,
the leaders of the free world, U.N. diplomats and the liberal media all
mindlessly wring their hands and fret about what to do to in response to
the recent savage acts of Islamic terrorism, Israeli commandos are
plotting lex talionis, an eye for an eye justice. Why? Because contrary
to the self-genocide of liberal egalitarianism and U.N. diplomacy, when
dealing with bloodlust savages, only a more savage nation can survive.
—-

Links to major analysis articles on Mumbai Terror 26.11.2008

The page is updated as often as I get time to !

Disclaimer: Each author may have his own favourite theory and bias, so please use your brains to filter out as best as you can.

1. It is clear that there are a lot many players and stakeholders with their hands in the game.

2. The “man in the street” (you/me) is the first casualty in terror.

3. So, ordinary men and women need to analyse the facts down to their origins and sources to make sense of all the bizarre things that are happening to us in our lives.

If misinformed, you and I, ordinary and innocent civilians, the majority, will continue to be held to ransom by terror of a few.

This collection of articles is a step to bring the analysis articles scattered over many websites and online newspapers, in one place.

So… please head over to Analysis of Mumbai Terror 26.11.2008 for the most current collection.