In the couple of weeks before the recent Mumbai Attacks, the Maharastrian Anti-Terrorist Squad (MATS) stated that some terrorist attacks were false-flag operations carried out by Hindutva (militant nationalist Hindus). The MATS said some officers in the Indian Army supported those attacks. Ten Hindutva suspects were taken into custody by the police with more arrests planned. The prime ministerial candidate, Lal Krishna Advani, of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) that is Hindutva, accused the Congress Party that heads the government of being soft on Muslim terrorists.
Some Hindutva, such as Bal Thackeray of the Army of Shiva (Shiv Sena) want Hindus to use terrorism. He wrote the following:
The threat of Islamic terror in India is rising. It is time to counter the same with Hindu terror. Hindu suicide squads should be readied to ensure the existence of Hindu society and to protect the nation.
The MATS chief, Hemant Karkare, invoked the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act against the ten taken into custody. The first day of the Mumbai Attacks, Hemant Karare was killed. He was leading the MATS team into the Hotel Taj Kahal.
The author of the report (link below), Allen Heart, alleges that the assault was "designed to set up a gunfight ambush with anti-terror police, disguised his assassination as a terrorist rampage."
He also reports that "Unlike MATS, the police and army who had been called in to end the terrorist rampage hid and refused to use their weapons, even when the terrorists were "sitting ducks" as an angry photographer had described them. The carnage went on for 60 hours...."
Israel Mossad Connection?
Allen Heart also reports the following:
Gunfire began from terrorists at Nariman House, said to be the only building in Mumbai inhabited by Jews. Local Gujarati reported that for two years suspicious activities were going on at this house, but no one in authority took notice. Neighbors of the Nariman House had thought it strange that several men were staying at the Chabad Lubavitch center for the past two weeks. They observed men hauling in huge quantities of food, liquor and boxes that later were found to contain arms and ammunition. Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his wife, Rivka, the couple who ran the center, surely had to know about this large weapons cache. After all, 100 kg of meat and enough food for an army was ordered delivered to the Chabad Centre and shortly thereafter the ten terrorists showed up. Just coincidence?
(Source: "Mumbai False Flag Attack: Gathering Evidence," by Allen Heart. OpEdNews. December 5, 2008.)
Now that's really suspicious, because the reason for false-flag attacks is to make everyone afraid of others based upon ethnicity and religion and neocons have to have evidence of radical, militant, Islamic extremism around the world.
Allen speculates on the connection with Pakistan since certain elements in Israel and India really loathe Pakistan. Of course, the U.S. neocons are always interested in destabilizing so they may move in to provide so-called law and order that is really mostly just imperial dominance.
I don't jump to certain of Allen's conclusions, but he raises many questions that should be addressed.
One thing is that his piece doesn't do though, that maybe due to his lack of going far enough back in history, is overlook Islamic imperial expansionism into India. The 500-year-old Mosque he says the Hindus destroyed, the Hindus say was built upon a Hindu temple (to Ram if memory serves – don't hold me to that) the Muslims had destroyed after invading India.
Now, remember that I said it makes no sense that Pakistan would do the exact opposite of what it should do in the face of all the U.S., Israeli, and Indian saber rattling. If Pakistan were behind the attacks, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. They swear up and down that to be behind this would be incredibly stupid timing. Now, they are showing they would never be that stupid or they are engaged in the highest form of reverse psychology for the sake of plausible deniability. Frankly though, if they were that clever, they would also have factored in that it wouldn't make any difference – in other words, that such cleverness would be lost on the highest officials in any of the other states and Indian victims of the attacks.
I don't buy it that official Pakistan is behind the attacks. It looks like a set up – a frame job even if Allen may have stretched a little too much in being convinced of certain things being more or less hard evidence. The smell of false-flags around the planet is enough. The smell of all the lies going into Iraq is enough. There is something called the preponderance of evidence. You shall know them by their fruits.
The CIA, DIA, NSA, and all sorts of shadowy groups are all over the planet on behalf of the Empire. They spend hundreds of billions a year on their intel and ops. They have bases and embassies all over. They infiltrate and turn all sorts of NGOs. They have their counterparts in all the other worldly powers. To rule out CIA or Mossad involvement before even looking into it is the height of naivetÃ©.
The comments on the post page are interesting, a couple point here: "Mumbai 'Oddities'," by Lori Price.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)