US fears Pakistani role in India attacks

Check THIS out:

November 28, 2008 (LPAC)--Lyndon LaRouche emphasized today that it is absolutely clear that the British are behind the terror attack in Mumbai, India. Eary press reports originating in India and circulating globally indicated that at least two of the terrorists who have been captured alive by Indian security forces are British-born Pakistanis. Late breaking reports indicate that at least seven of the terrorists were British, the two who are under arrest and another five. LaRouche commented that this phenomenon is suggestively similar to the number of Saudis who were involved in the 9/11 attacks in the United States in 2001.

This is clearly a British imperial operation. It is the same thing as the deployments of George Soros, who is a British agent, and Lord Malloch Brown. The latter, it should be remembered is Minister of State for Asia as well as Africa and the UN. It is a global British imperial operation, as further evidenced by Soros deployments in Ibero America, Soros's call upon Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the European Union to deploy to send "one or more of its `rapid response' battlegroup units" into the Congo, etc.

George Soros himself was just recently in Pakistan, where he led a delegation of the Open Society Institute in a meeting with Pakistani President Zardari.

As LaRouche put it, contrary to the deconstructionists, we do have the evidence on the British culpability in this affair. Remember, when man engaged in astrogation, he saw the stars and was able to use his reading of their motion to navigate, even though he had not yet touched the stars. Anyone who tries to argue that we have not obtained the evidence necessary to conclude that the British are behind this attack is an idiot, in fact, a 4th class idiot, not even a first class idiot.

The British Empire is on the loose. Anyone who denies this should take his head out of his posterior. It is dark and obscure in there.

Reject deconstructionist tendencies, including on the part of some of our own backward associates, who say "Please explain that." LaRouche said he will explain: You're an idiot.

The idiots will say: I have not seen gravity moving recently. They are like the meteorologist who rather than looking at the storm pattern, interviews each drop.

You have to pay attention to dynamics.

The true fight has always been in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We Americans were just diverted (some believe sabotaged) by Bush's desire to go into Iraq. Whether or not a Pakistani group was responsible for these attacks, we should not begin this blame game of conjecture. After all, the whole country of Pakistan is not responsible for a few extremist nutjobs. The people who's job it is to know (the CIA and other intelligence organizations) probably have a good idea of who is responsible. Obama mentioned going into Pakistan if need be during the campaign. He has always supported attacking the terrorist leaders where the really are, the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I do not see his statements as anything other than what should have been done in the first place.

Both countries need Peace to start inside!!!
Listen to Luminaries!!

http://current.com/items/89573176/luminaries_video_peace_featured_on_youtube_ind...

These perps are all over the world.

Violence begets violence until it is brought to justice.

What we need is global police force that through internet sleuthing combined with wicked good undercover operations will capture these criminals. They would be tried for their crimes in an open court a la The Hague. The sick centers could be indentified and neutralized by fair open criminal trials.

Wholesome Muslim inreach and outreach is imperative to stop the spread. It could be the only thing that can enlighten and help those tempted by dark forces to kill innocent people. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was in Michigan! Should we have bombed Michigan?

Oh, but wasn't our country already "touched" on 9.11? Why aren't you then in Iraq? Afterall, you believed the lies your government told you about that, didn't you? To think governments in general are not working behind the scenes to get the desired results they seek is to be very naive in my view.

No, I'm fine. It's you and your children that they are after.

I will tell you, at least I have my facts straight. You all just run away and actually invent stupid things like if the US or that the US government was actually behind all this.

Get a Job.

Additionally, I care for my own pacific religion and I actively encourage people to turn down these activities. You all are against Governments, Religions, People, anyone else that is not you.

Surely enough, when my country get's touched. I won't be blogging.

Edit:
Why would anyone sign up for the army if a couple of months later a bunch of hippies will want to "destroy the occupation"

I'm double thinking my support for Obama. I was brain washed by a bunch of fundamentalists that would poop their pants if they would see a gun.

Petarro:

Then I hope you will be first at your local recruiting station to do so.

Stupid critics and hidden complots! This was obviously done by Militants, Muslim Extremists which need to be tackled. Stupid people in this world tend to think the other way thinking their Government is fooling them. How many people have to die so that people can stop the foolishness of protecting those you want to kill you?

Muslims Millitants need to be tackled, NOW and if they are in Pakistan, well, then Sarah Palin was quite right that we need to go into their territory and beat the fuck out of them

Why do we continue to give these thugs and retards the dignity of calling it 'terrorism' like's it's a different kind of murder. These are clearly criminal acts!! Those that murder innocents are not warriors they are criminals in the family of mankind.

Where's the f-ing Interpol? Don't we have an international police force to do this work? Does the UN just sit around and smell each other's farts in that big room in New York City?

We have to get to thinking beyond borders when it comes to mass murder. The global community needs a highly trained international police force to find these ticking time bombs of hate and protect the innocents.

Jan, you see conspiracy everywhere, don't you? And the US government is the top conspirators?

All this shows is that Obama was either naive or he lied to get elected, both of which he was accused of before the election. Either way, it's a stretch to accuse either him or Bush of orchestrating the current situation.

At some point we are going to have to face the fact that the Islamic jihadi culture is a culture of death. The overwhelming amount of violence perpetrated in the name of Allah or jihad is not aimed toward the US or its policies. The Islamic religion, in the form practiced by the jihadis or Saudi Arabia, cannot peacefully coexist with any other religion. That is the root of the violence. That is what needs to be addressed for the violence to stop.

Then the question needs to be asked: Why are there extremists and why are they going to these lengths to be heard? And I am well aware that there are those who will kill simply because they hate. They exist on all sides of this as well. They hate for a reason though, no? Is it too idealistic to try to understand why? Could our foreign policy have anything to do with it and the fact that our own government indiscriminately kills innocent people as well?

i agree that things won't "change". The blind voting for Obama nationwide showed its negative reprocussions immediately. Local elections were ruined across the states due to people voting "straight democrat", and just voting for the man out of emotion...i.e. prop 8 and many many more but.....

It does not change the fact that we are a world at war. You may not like the war ( I don't either, as I agree its a game of us meddling and egging on to make more money and gain political prowess for vested parties), but their are plain crazy people that need to be killed all over this world. If you were there in India and those gunmen walked up, you could have told them you knew it was a set-up and fuck Obama- but YOU still would have been shot and killed. Though I wouldn't doubt America enables some of these events to get into other places they want to occupy, it doesn't matter whether its Bush or Obama, extremists are extremists whether we help/helped them or not and need to be dealt with. And if we don't deal with them- India still will. This war isn't going to end sorry.

I agree with your concern about the uninformed. The miseducated have unleashed great havoc. Just look at what the willfully ignorant have done when it comes to the environment.

If I had a clearcut answer to your question I would have run for President.;-). Unfortunately, at this point I fear that we may have reached a tipping point as well regarding the hatred in this world. However, one way would be for Americans to stop relying on the MSM for their news and to actually get up and read. Obama did a real good job in his campaign of mystifying the masses with his rhetoric and fancy speeches about 'change'. And once again the majority of people were swept away in a fervor of emotional passion that brought them to the voting booth with only a slogan on their minds instead of facts, reason, and logic. So I would then say, an informed citizenry is really the best way to end this before it starts... do you think we have that now even with the election of Obama? I don't. And thanks for answering my question.

I'm happy to answer the question. I sincerely don't think I am trying to avert attention from the issue or the question itself. I see the conundrum of terrorism and specifically Pakistan as being bigger than Bush, Obama, the US, as evidenced by the history of the conflict.

Using this attack as the pretense to go into Pakistan, I would not support.

I seek an end to this conflict as you do. How do you think that could best be achieved?

And all people have to do is look at his cabinet picks to see that this country is still going to be on a war footing. And I'm personally sick of it.

Why won't you answer the question? Why does it seem like you are trying to divert from it? Again, if Obama escalates this war ********regardless of the past******** using THIS ATTACK as the pretense to go into Pakistan, will you support it?

I don't think it is a semantic issue at all. You are defining it as a cause and effect process. Given that, yours is an easy question to answer. I applaud your efforts to draw out the hypocrites.

However, the premise in your question is still wrong. Bush's preemption was an extension of an already on going war not "the policy that started it."

Well, I think it is a valid question and playing semantics with it won't change that. So to put it this way, if you protested this war under Bush ***or any other president in the history of the United States who ever existed that had a hand in the policy that started it***, will you support its escalation under Obama? I don't think that is such a hard question to answer. That is of course, unless you would say no to the former and yes to the latter.

I don't think it is the right question to ask as it rests upon the premise that the War would not be going on without the Bush doctrine. The War has preceded the Bush doctrine. Bush's doctrine changed our response to Islamic terrorism but did not create the conflict---only altered it. It's interesting to note that Jefferson responded with violence, some of which was preemptive, to the "war" that Islamic fundamentalists brought to us.

Actually samthesixth, Islamic fundamentalism and for that matter, Christian fundamentalism go back to the Crusades. However, the Bush doctrine of Preemption is Bush's doctrine, and this is what I am referring to regarding Obama's statements. And again, no one is answering the question: would they condone this war escalating under Obama under the same premise Bush used?

Yes Informed Texan, and that is the perfect scenario the warmongers running this country look for. Nothing like religious animosity to spur a fell fledged war they can then make profit from.

Pakistan and India have long been at odds - and the religious aspect of this conflict will do little to quell animosity.

Perhaps this can be an opportunity for reflection on the deeper issues. Bin Laden's fatwa against all Americans anywhere in the world was issued while Clinton was in office. It is a problem that Bush inherited as will Obama. Focusing on Bush as the root cause of the problem distracts people from understanding that Islamic fundamentalism predates the current President.

Interesting. Those who believe Obama is going to bring Peace On Earth only answer serious questions with redlights. The truth that he is subtly now saying the same things Bush did must be too much. If you cannot discuss it, it then only makes it obvious that those who rightfully railed against Bush for this illegal war would support it under Obama. Does that then not make those who would do so hypocrites? Does that not then mean you would condone the deaths of innocents under Obama?

I want this war TO END, and that does not mean taking troops from IRAQ and placing them in PAKISTAN or AFGHANISTAN or anywhere else Obama tells us we must now go. So again, if this war escalates under Obama under the same premise Bush used, will you support it?

Snippets from the article:

U.S. officials are worried about a possible surge in violence between India and Pakistan after the bloody attacks in Mumbai that killed at least 195 people, including six Americans. To ease tensions, intelligence officials are searching urgently for clues that might identify the attackers even as Indian officials claim "elements in Pakistan" were involved.

FBI agents were preparing to fly to India to investigate the bloody attacks in the Indian financial capital as the State Department warned U.S. citizens still in the city that their lives remain at risk.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said some "signatures of the attack" were consistent with the work of Pakistani militant groups known as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed that have fought Indian troops in the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir and also are reported to be linked to al-Qaida.

But the official emphasized it was premature to pinpoint who was responsible for the attacks. Another official, specializing in counterintelligence, also cautioned against rushing to judgment on the origins of the gunmen who waged a two-and-a-half-day rampage through India's leading commercial center before being killed.

The U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the situation.

snip

As U.S. officials worked to ease hard feelings between India and Pakistan, a tentative rapprochement between the two nuclear-armed rivals could hang in the balance.

Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S., Husain Haqqani, said in a statement that his country is "confronting the menace of terrorism with great vigor." Haqqani insisted "it is unfair to blame Pakistan or Pakistanis for these acts of terrorism even before an investigation is undertaken."

President George W. Bush pledged cooperation with Indian authorities and mourned the deaths of at least 195 people at the hands of gunmen.

"My administration has been working with the Indian government and the international community as Indian authorities work to ensure the safety of those still under threat," Bush said in statement Friday.

Bush was receiving regular updates, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday night. Senior administration officials were focused on ensuring that Americans were being helped in every way possible, she said.

Duguid, the State Department spokesman, cautioned that "Americans are still at risk on the ground," and repeated calls for U.S. citizens not to travel to the stricken city at least through the weekend.

Officials were working out the final details with Indian diplomats Friday for the departure of an FBI team, said U.S. authorities, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the operation. A second group of investigators was on alert to join the first team if necessary.

U.S. officials were checking with Indian authorities and hospitals to learn more about the extent of casualties.

snip

President-elect Barack Obama has spoken by telephone with Rice about the attacks and received several intelligence briefings, State Department officials said. They said Rice spoke again Friday with Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee.

"These terrorists who targeted innocent civilians will not defeat India's great democracy, nor shake the will of a global coalition to defeat them," Obama said in a statement.

[ "The United States must stand with India and all nations and people who are committed to destroying terrorist networks, and defeating their hate-filled ideology." ]
_________

And there you have it. The Bush doctrine being delivered now by a man the world "loves" instead of hates. They coudn't have set it up any better. So again I ask, if you support and voted for Obama because you railed for the last five years about how much you despise this war and want it to end, will you now support the escalation of Bush's "war on terror" under Obama?