"Professionalism in Political Assassination? Only an Israel writer in Israeli newspaper can boast about it." - Ghulam Muhammed

"Professionalism in Political Assassination? Only an Israel writer in Israeli newspaper can boast about it."

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

-------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150126.html

Assassinated senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.(Archive)

Last update - 10:46 16/02/2010 Dubai assassins used Mossad methods to kill Hamas leader By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent What makes the security camera shots released last night by the Dubai police interesting is the professionalism exhibited by the suspected assassins of senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. They arrived on separate flights from different destinations; one of them flew in via Munich and Qatar. They stayed in different hotels and were careful to make phone calls using international routers. They wore clothing that makes them difficult to identify. One is seen with a mustache and a hat, others wearing hats and glasses. They try, throughout, to appear to be innocent tourists or business people, there to enjoy themselves and even play some tennis. On the basis of the video clips and the information provided by Dubai police officers investigating the murder, the assassination squad involved 10 men carrying British, French, German and Irish passports. A woman carrying an Irish passport was also captured by the cameras. The Dubai authorities claim there were two teams: one carried out surveillance of the target, while the other - which appears to be a group of younger men, at least as far as the camera shots show - carried out the killing. Contrary to reports, the squad did not break into Mabhouh's hotel room, nor did they knock on the door. They entered the room using copies of keys they had somehow acquired. The Dubai police chief says it is not unlikely that the assassination teams were made up of Mossad agents. The bits of information and the camera images suggest methods used by the Mossad that Mishka Ben-David wrote about in detail in his novel "Duet in Beirut." Ben-David, who served as the intelligence officer for the Caesarea operations branch of the Mossad, insists that his novel is a work of fiction. However, it is obvious to all that the experience he accumulated in the Mossad over the years appears in his book. "Duet in Beirut" is very similar to the failed attempt in 1997 to assassinate Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal in Jordan. Ben-David describes the Mossad agents, changing hotels, changing vehicles, arriving from different destinations, and changing clothes and appearances in order to make identification difficult. Two of the suspects are seen changing clothes on the security camera footage in Dubai. The actual capture of the suspects on film may reveal their identities - and even suggest only partial success of the operation. However, it is clear that whoever they are, they knew ahead of time that in an era when terror is a global threat, security measures have also expanded considerably. Anyone embarking on an international operation of this sort takes into account that nearly every hotel, airport and basically any public building is equipped with security cameras working 24/7. Those on such a mission consider this as part of their calculated risks and do their best to distort their appearance. In any case, if the police in Dubai manage to receive the information from Interpol regarding the suspects' passports, they will reveal fictitious names and possibly forged passports. Therefore the information will do little for the investigation. The only weak point that may lead to the identification of the group behind the assassination is the arrest in Dubai of two Palestinians. According to Dubai police, the two were linked to the operation and provided logistical information. Even if they are connected to the killing, we can assume that they know very little that would help identify the perpetrators. Such operations involve stringent compartmentalization, not only among the members of the teams, but also with those assisting them and who may have provided information that allowed them to actually carry out the assassination.

Doha Debate in Delhi : 'Do Muslim get a fair deal in India'.

RE: Doha Debate in Delhi : 'Do Muslim get a fair deal in India'.

Andrew Buncombe, a British Journalist with Independant newspaper, left Doha Debate in Delhi, with the impression that the majority of the audience appears to support the the motion that Muslims do not get a fair deal in India?

 

To his utter surprise, next day he finds that audience has voted against the motion.

 

He should not be surprised. This incident itself proves how deep is the negative feeling against Muslims in India and how little sympathy they get from an elitist crowd of middle class, upper caste Hindu milieu. The worst part is that like Sachin Pilot, his own Congress Party has been guilty of gross discrimination in public affairs and horrendous violations of Human Rights of Muslim minority, though declaring their governed nation to be a model of secularism and democracy. Congress double game is the the biggest fraud that Muslims have suffered in their own country. Even with level-headed leaders like Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi, the rank and file of Congress thrives on demonising Muslims and paying only lip service to their upliftment.

The daily media chorus against Muslim seems to be a must to get a samblance of unity among the diversified pluralist society. Only Muslim bashing can give the minority of Brahmins, the bare electoral majority to rule the country. That scenerio is hard to change, given the electoral compulsion of the political class. Some drastic changes imposed on the system of governance can only do justice to 150 to 200 million Muslims of India.

 

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Siraj Wahab <sirajwahab@gmail.com>
Date: Feb 16, 2010 4:29 PM
Subject: [nrindians] Do Muslims get a fair deal in India?
To: nrindians@googlegroups.com

 

http://andrewbuncombe.independentminds.livejournal.com/16688.html 

Do Muslims get a fair deal in India?

Posted by Andrew Buncombe

• Tuesday, 16 February 2010 at 11:46 am

 Last night I was in the audience for the filming of the of the latest of the Doha Debates, the series of discussions headed by Tim Sebastian and broadcast by BBC World News. Held within the quite solace of St Stephen's College, one of the most prestigious colleges within Delhi University, the debates were breaking new ground by holding their first event in Asia.

 I had been in two minds whether to go, mainly because I thought the issue being discussed, "This house believes that Muslims are not getting a fair deal in India", seems to be so overwhelmingly obvious. Ever since the government-appointedSachar Committee reported in 2006 that Muslims in India had less access to education, government jobs and survived on lower incomes than average, it seemed the issue was settled. Of course, there are plenty of Muslims who reach the heights in India, from politicians through to Bollywood stars such as Shah Rukh Khan, but taken as a whole it would be hard to argue that Muslims did not suffer discrimination.

 
  Indeed, when the debate got started it seemed everyone taking part agreed on this issue, including the two participants challenging the motion. The veteran journalist MJ Akbar, who has spent much of his career highlighting discrimination in India, was one of the two taking on this task and even he admitted "you cannot say that Muslims get an entirely fair deal". Sachin Pilot, a young government minister, (he is also the son of a former Congress minister) and an alumni of St Stephen's, also admitted things were not perfect. Yet he argued that there were many elements within Indian society that suffered and it was not that Muslims suffered particular discrimination.

 
 Against this, Seema Mustafa, a journalist and political commentator, said the government had done little for Muslims who had been especially victimised by security forces since the 9/11 attacks. Teesta Setalvad, a prominent civil rights activist, claimed that Muslims were being excluded from the "elite political and economic leadership of India". "The Muslim today lives in a segregated class leading to ghettoisation and a consequently very dangerous situation. Above all, Muslim women are discriminated against to make sure a credible leadership does not emerge," she said.

 They also mentioned the Indian establishment's refusal to properly bring to justice those responsible for attacks on Muslims, be it the destruction of the Babri Masjid of the appalling misnamed Gujarat "riots" in which hundreds of Muslims were brutally murdered in a systematic operation assisted by elements within the local government, headed by the right-wing nationalist Narendra Modi, a man who has been tipped as a possible future leader of the country.

 In fact, so obvious to me was the outcome of the debate, that I left early. I was rather surprised therefore to wake up and discover that the vote had gone the other way. The vote by the students of the college, alumni of which account for six current government ministers, found that 63 per cent opposed the motion while only 37 agreed.

 So what to make of this? In a situation where the statistics apparently prove one thing, how could a group of such young smart people have voted the other way. Were they really taken in by Sachin Pilot's disingenuous argument that "everyone in India has an equal opportunity" or what it simply that was this was what they wanted to believe (and who would not wish for such a situation). 

I couldn't help thinking there was something of a cycle here: if the sorts of people that get to become government ministers in India are drawn from educational establishments seemingly so blind to the obvious pitfalls of their society then maybe that's why nothing get's changed. And yes, one could say the same thing about plenty of other countries all around the world.