Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


2008 Mumbai attacks → 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks – I'm proposing the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the title for obvious reasons. The renaming will make it clear that although the attackers were Pakistani citizens (and backed by the Pakistani state according to some accounts), this attack has not been considered to be an attack by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Republic of India. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I support the move. Also like to mention that There are-link Wikipedia articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Support. See below. 'Question: What are the general standards for this sort of article? I notice that the september 11 attacks are at September 11 attacks and don't use the word 'terrorist'. The title of this article appears to be in line with that one and I'm wondering if there was some sort of discussion on including/excluding the word terrorist from the title. --rgpk (comment) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
There seems to have been a discussion with 5 participants on this in the archives. Of the five, two seem to support the inclusion of 'terrorist', two oppose and one gave the answer as "26/11" as the new name. Discussion. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Except for conciseness and consistency (with the 911 page) I don't see why terrorist should not be included in the title. Definitely more natural, recognizable, accurate and precise. --rgpk (comment) 16:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requesting Move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. The previous move request had very little input, and although there was opposition to moving the article back, the stronger, policy-based arguments were made for not using the label "terrorist". This is a word we try to avoid, and therefore we should only use it when we have very strong reasons, as indicated by a strong consensus. - GTBacchus(talk) 19:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks → 2008 Mumbai attacks – The article reached GA quality with that title, after a wide discussion of concensus, and while WP:CCC, it is unseemingly and unwarranted that the title, which was one of the sources of contention in this discussion, be change after a seven day period in which only 3 editors presented !v, editors which didnt actively participate in the GA process (unlike, well, myself). This article was also featured in the Annual Report of the Wikimedia Foundation using the "2008 Mumbai attacks" title. It is clear that this was done without any serious attempt, as is customary, to involve a wider discussion in particular of involved editors. --Cerejota (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


Relisted, GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I might add, WP:WTA--Cerejota (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


  • Oppose : There are-link Wikipedia articles that have words like 'bombings' not just attacks. Terrorist attacks is more clear as per me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


The September 11 attacks were much more worse than the Mumbai attacks, yet we call them September 11 attacks. We are writing an NPOV encyclopedia, in an encyclopedic tone, not a soapbox for your point of view, or an emotional, sensationalistic, account of the events. I think "attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind. IF this renaming stands, this article most likely loses GA standing, and it will be thank to people putting their emotions and beliefs before the goals of the project.--Cerejota (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
How am I soapboxing here? Compare yourself by your own standards. Besides I have given an example and presented my views. That I can have my own views on '"attacks" is something anyone can understand, and when they read the article, they get a full understanding of the events and can make their own mind' should not be also ignored. As it is, I am not sure how the article will lose its GA standards because of more accurate title. By the way I have not passed value judgements on your views, please note. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:WTA does not apply since the word terrorist is no longer contentious in regard to these attacks. It might have been contentious a decade back but events over the last decade or more clearly identify certain philosophies emanating from certain specific geographic regions as the ones adapted by terrorists. I feel this is an accurate title. I don't see any emotions involved here - it is just a dispassionate but an accurate title. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose None of the points you make in the original move proposition at the top have any substance that supports your move proposition. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose To be honest, I don't see how adding "terrorist" to the title is anything but helpful in clarifying the subject of the article, and is therefore a worthwhile change. I have to disagree with Cerejota when they say "attacks" is sufficient for anyone's understanding. "Attacks" can indeed have other implications besides that of being the result of terrorism - other than "September 11 attacks" which are so well-known worldwide as terrorist attacks (much more so than the Mumbai attacks, I believe) that nothing further is needed. Also, I hardly think adding "terrorist" to the title will effect GA status at all, nor will it effect the article's NPOV, as it was proved to be the result of terrorism! Shirtwaist ☎ 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Current title is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, and is unnecessary for disambiguation. Wikipedia does not use value-laden labels like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" in its own voice: not in its articles (as demonstrated by September 11 attacks and al-Qaeda), certainly not in its titles. Quigley (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on Quigley's grounds of neutrality. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've relisted this discussion to allow it to run for another seven days, because this discussion is still potentially active, and it would be nice to see more input on this contentious and high-profile question. I have notified WikiProjects India, Mumbai and Terrorism. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Quigley. "Terrorist" is a value-laden term. It is not needed for disambiguation and as of today both in Google and Google books there is a 10 to 1 preference for "2008 Mumbai attacks" over "2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks." That means: people understand the "2008 Mumbai attacks" mean the attacks by the dozen gunmen on 26 November that killed some 160 people, and not the petty mugging that was reported on page 6 of local paper. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Quigley's argument. warrior4321 12:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- the phrase "terrorist attacks" is not a contentious label for this attack. -- Randy2063 (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
    • "Terrorist attacks" is a very contentious label in all cases. Bruce Hoffman quoted in definitions of terrorism writes: "[T]errorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. (...) Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism." In the body of the article we can and do quote government officials that call the attacks "terrorist", but Wikipedia itself should not take a stance against the ideology of the attackers. Quigley (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Why would Wikipedia has to be the kind of view of "one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism"? It is not WP:NEUTRAL according to me, as those affected by terrorism would not appreciate it. Does Bruce Hoffman, the author himself, adhere to neutral policies of Wikipedia at all and why should it have any reflection on title itself?
There is no doubt that the attacks were terrorist in nature in the first place, and it is undue to reduce correctness by quoting those who do not adhere to policies of Wikipedia. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
The absence of "terrorist" in the title does not mean Wikipedia is judging the attack not to be a terrorist attack. The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. Quigley (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Because "The title leaves out many potential descriptors: "2008 Mumbai Islamist attacks", "2008 Mumbai Pakistani attacks", etc. ", it does not mean that the current title is not neutral in this case. There is no need to consider terrorist word as non-neutral on this topic. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 14:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)'
Lets me ask you something, how would you feel if we re-titled the 2006 Malegaon bombings to 2006 Malegaon Hindu nationalist saffron terrorist attacks? Just sayin'--Cerejota (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The term "terrorism" is biased in that it is selectively used by the respective authorities to designate what acts do, and do not constitute terrorism. For instance, terrorism implies the use of terror. As such common sense dictates that if it has to be used, then it should be so in all instances in which people are terrorized, as in spree killings, counter-insurgency campaigns, communal riots, etc. However, as we all know, this is not the case. As per WP:WTA, it is best that it's usage be avoided unless and until there is general consensus for it. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:NPOV Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, reversing the previous move which was premature. Yes, consensus can change but in this case there was insufficient evidence that it had. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - User talk:Thisthat2011 has been topic banned form all india related articles for three weeks for contentious editing. Since he commented on this RM, and on the previous one that was wrongly closed as move (lacking consensus), closing admin should take into consideration the context in which these positions are presented. --Cerejota (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"More than 10"?

Why does the lead sentence say "The 2008 Mumbai attacks (often referred to as November 26 or 26/11) were more than 10 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks across Mumbai", when the section near the bottom of the article titled "Locations" lists 11? Shouldn't the sentence simply say "11 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks"? Is there some confusion about the actual number of attacks? Shirtwaist ☎ 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeha I agree this article ha sbene turne dinto a mess by lack of vigilance, from the Good Article it was. Lesson learned - as this point was indeed fixed once in the past.--Cerejota (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mastermind of Mumbai Attack

The book `Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taleban -- beyond bin Laden and 9/11' claims the Mumbai plan was one pushed through by Ilyas Kashmiri, a key al-Qaida ally with links with the Pakistan defenceRedhanker (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/ISI-scripted-Mumbai-attack-Qaida-cleared-it-Shahzad-book/articleshow/8686112.cms?intenttarget=no ISI scripted Mumbai attack, Qaida cleared it: Shahzad book TNN | Jun 2, 2011, 01.03AM IST] Book excerpt: The 26/11 terror attacks that killed 166 people and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war was scripted by ISI officers and approved before its execution by al-Qaida commanders, according to a book just written by slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad. The 40-year-old reporter "With Ilyas Kashmiri's immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal," "Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza," the book says. "Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT. "The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri`s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war."


Excerpts from the book Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11

“With Ilyas Kashmiri’s immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the Al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal.” “Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza. Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT.” “The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri’s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai onNovember 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war (a detailed account of this is presented in the next chapters). “

New Update

There is new update of the article, A group of hackers with a 26/11 connection was arrested by the Filipino Police and the FBI. The group was allegedly behind the attacks on the US telecommunication firm AT&T. Please update this if this is familar. Regards --Katarighe (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Reactions from Indian bloggers to be added

I think this collection of blog posts reacting to the Mumbai terror attacks should be added under external links: http://www.indiblogger.in/topic.php?topic=1

Jilpaan (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wiki mentions?

Is their any reason in particular that the reliably sourced content is constantly being removed?[1] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It has been stated repeatedly in the edit summaries which you are ignoring. Mewulwe (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Which edit summaries would that be? The ones were you actually say nothing [2][3] Or the ones you call me a stalker?[4] Now when people write books and mention this fact then we ought mention it as it is notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
It isn't. Wikipedia being mentioned in some news article for doing what it always does is irrelevant. Wikipedia by its very policy is not doing original reporting, unlike the other media that are relevant to mention here because they did provide original reporting. Mewulwe (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I never said news articles, I said books. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The Telegraph is not a book. Mewulwe (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Self references should be avoided unless they are important. This doesn't seem particularly important so I'd suggest not including it. --regentspark (comment) 00:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I never said the Telegraph was a book either. I said as it has been written about in books, then it is in itself notable enough to be mentioned in this article.[5][6][7] I trust this is now clear enough for you? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Still meaningless. It's a random example of Wikipedia providing coverage of a current event, as good as any other. It's absurd to mention it back in the article that the article has been mentioned somewhere. Mewulwe (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor recently has removed from the article the fact that this attack was constantly updated during the attack. I realize of course this is quite normal for wiki, however the editing on this particular article appears to be quite notable, as such I feel it warrants a mention. We have at least three books mention it. [8][9][10] Along with some news outlets such as the Telegraph.

  • Support as nom Darkness Shines (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support mention - Although I generally oppose self-references within articles that are not directly related to the Wikimedia Foundation, we ought, I think, to defer to the sources. The cited Telegraph article (here) devotes approximately equal space to the real-time coverage of the attacks by Wikipedia, Flickr and Indian bloggers. Wikipedia's coverage of the attacks is, furthermore, mentioned as an example in Peace Journalism, War and Conflict Resolution, in a chapter titled "Social networks and the reporting of conflict".
    While I do appreciate the desire to avoid unnecessary self-references, Wikipedia is no less significant a website (in terms of visibility) than Twitter or Flickr, and we should not avoid self-references when they are appropriate and originate in reliable sources. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Support: Also mention it here. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 21:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Section on 'Training' from Ajmal Kasab

I believe that this section, with some edits to generalise the first paragraph, is far more relevant in this article than on Ajmal Kasab. Rather than make a pair of bold edits I am seeking a consensus. At present I would place it as a subheading of the Background section here (editing the first paragraph), leaving the unedited first paragraph, and only that, back in the Kasab article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done I have chosen to migrate the section as stated here. I consider Nemine Contradicet to be valid consensus and that we have has sufficient time for folk to state opposition. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

National Security Guards (NSG)

A brief section from the NSG wikipedia page is being put as they were the once who ended one of the most horrifying attacks in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.161.172 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for issue-addresse

The captain of 'Kuber', Amar Singh Solanki, had earlier been imprisoned for six months in a Pakistani jail for illegally fishing in Pakistani waters.[116] Does not belong on this page, if anything it would belong on a page about the captain. 71.113.26.190 (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent dispute about allegation

Hi, I am opening this thread to discuss whether the contents from a recent TOI report about allegations about Indian government's role in attack to be included or not. I am not in favour of inclusion as it is rather a fringe theory and allegation about an allegation. Others please give your view. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This should be added to include latest development in the contents of article. As the heading of the paragraph should be "Allegation", readers will know that it is an allegation and not the fact. Source is also included for citation.--Alitalk

It is a fringe theory, just a random allegation by a cop, who himself is not standing by his statement. No word has come on the allegation by any state government or a judiciary body. There is no need to sensationalize one statement. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 09:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is known for single source for all possible related information, Believing on that is only upto readers as Wikipedia is never considered as a legal document to be used against and in favour of anyone. This allegation is now on news in India[1][2], Pakistan[3][4], and many other countries[5][6][7][8], therefore whether a fringe theory it should be reported.--Rexel2 (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Confirmed sockpuppet of user:Ali aff Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not about the source, even one source is enough, the fact of the matter is that it is a fringe theory, even the person who has alleged the charge has not come out and claim it as his THEORY or his testimony. Its nothing but an informal fringe conspiracy theory, with no word on it from any state or judiciary or investigative body. Wikipedia is not a place to add fringe theories. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I figure we need to add a single line about this, that is about all it deserves. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
And what would that line be, that an ex cop of Gujarat police, BELIEVED that these attacks were an inside job, let me remind you again that a bureaucrat has ALLEGED that an ex cop BELIEVES that these attacks were a false flag op, the cop himself has not even come out with the allegations. Its a complete fringe theory, based on mutual hostilities between a cop and a bureaucrat. I am not at all in favour of adding this non encyclopedic material on the page. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It does not matter what you or I think, all that matters is policy and this fringe theory has been written about in a great many RS, quite simply we cannot ignore it. So I propose we add a line along the lines of "In 2013 Satish Verma made allegations that the Indian government were behind the attacks" Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I am also not in favor of adding anything from this source. no one after that single TOI report has commented or even took a notice of it. Plus Satish Verma himself is not anyway related to the Mumbai attack case.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
"no one after that single TOI report has commented or even took a notice of it" Most easily disproved statement ever. Tribune Dawn Hindustan TimesThe Hindu and plenty more. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks DS, I was aware of these sources. It is very natural for Pakistani newspapers to pick it up and the Indian newspapers only discuss it because it was reported in PK newspapers. I meant no one from Indian side/any indian politician/or someone related with the case has commented on it. So my doubt is if actually Satish Verma believed or not. It is an allegation by A that B believes. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
These sources only show the media reporting the piece in TOI. It is nothing but hearsay, with no serious response from government or even Indian media. Even the TOI piece is about what A felt and what he said to B. Nothing but a fringe theory. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The news of allegation was firstly reported on Indian newspaper TOI, and Hindustan Times and The Hindu are also from India. This disclosure is also reported in Canadian News website[9], similarly presence of this allegation must not be ignored on Wikipedia. Further neither it is the practice nor policy of Wikipedia to omit any news or contribution because of the opinion of anyone -- yours' or mine, so I strongly recommend inclusion of this update in the article. This what current consesus also shows 3 out of 5 are in favour of adding. So please add, and again it is upto reader to decide what impression he/she take from the article.--Rexel2 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Confirmed sockpuppet of user:Ali aff Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Fringe statement that should not be included. If the theory develops, either as a conspiracy theory or as a substantive one, we should then consider including something about it. Otherwise, it has no place here. --regentspark (comment) 13:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, this whole theory is nothing but what one individual felt about the attacks and even the said person has not come out and said the thing himself, it has been alleged that he felt that way. Pure case of hearsay and fringe theories. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a statement given by a responsible official in a responsible court... it should be given credence... only time will decide whether it was true or not Bilal.scientist (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the wrong way to look at it. Truth doesn't enter into the picture. Only time will decide whether it is worth including or not. Right now, it is not. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
No, one person has said that the other felt that way. The person, who has allegedly made this statement has not even owned it. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
still, that has been said in a statement in the court... that cannot be considered as "hearsay"... and the fact is that reports are circulating in the media... keeping it off of wikipedia isn't gonna do any good Bilal.scientist (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
It has not been said in court, please read the article again, the person who allegedly has made these allegations have not even owned them, then how can he say them in court? Reports are being circulating only in Pakistani media, not the global or even Indian media, it is a typical fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a place to add fringe theories. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, my bad. It was not said in court, but rather written in an official letter TheHindu Bilal.scientist (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
And what is written? That a cop feels that these attacks were carried out by government, I repeat, he feels that these attacks were carried out by government, and the same cop has not even owned the statement, he himself has refused to comment on it. Hence it is not even sure, whether he said it or not. The authenticity of the statement itself is in question, it remains a fringe conspiracy theory, nothing more. Completey non-encylopedic. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
then write what has been reported in the media and is verifiable... i could not find any "feeling" in the TOI article... maybe you can point out Bilal.scientist (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Whether it is a fringe theory or not doesn't matter. Wikipedia isn't WP:TRUTH, the only thing that matters is verifiability. The last time I checked, a lot of articles on Wikipedia do contain sections on conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact, we have entire articles here devoted to conspiracy theories. There is no good reason why this allegation shouldn't be mentioned in this article. The claim above that it is only being circulated in Pakistani media is not true, it has been picked up in tons of other WP:RS too. And to top it off, the Foreign Office of Pakistan has already taken this into notice and has asked an explanation from India regarding this issue: India should explain position on Mumbai‚ Parliament attacks (The Nation). So again, this is worthy of mentioning. Mar4d (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes conspiracy theories are normal, but in this case the man who allegedly feels that these attacks were carried out by Indian government, has not even owned the comment, it is hearsay. When there is no source of a comment or theory, how can it be attributed to anybody, and how can it mentioned? In this case, nobody has openly come out and levelled these charges on the Government of India, unlike other conspiracy theories, where at least one particular group or individual has come out and openly put his theory in front. It remains a pure case of hearsay and fringe theory. Non encyclopedic, whose source itself can not be verified. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. How does "feeling" something (if that's what the sources say) still negate the fact that an allegation has been made (and a controversial allegation, mind it)? And the issue here is not just some officer feeling and alleging stuff, it's the reactions to the allegation, the way that Indian/Pakistani/other media have picked it up, and when you have the Foreign Ministry of a country's government taking note of it, then it becomes notable. Read WP:Verifiability. We don't decide what goes into articles, reliable sources do. And I will repeat again, Wikipedia doesn't judge WP:TRUTH. Only sourced content matters. Let the sources do the talking. Mar4d (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
This is going towards a dispute Bilal.scientist (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if this is a fringe theory it fully complies with the policies and practices of Wikipedia for inclusion. Anyway this news deserve mention due to following reasons (a) It is verifiable as many references from number of newspapers / websites are provided (b) It is noticeable as numerous people are taking about it, number of articles, TV Shows and even diplomatic voices have been raised. (c) It is verifiable even if it is not true (d) It is not among any type mentioned in article “What Wikipedia is not It would be very disappointing to learn that personal biases can take precedence and abstain mentioning of facts on articles present at Wikipedia. This article falls in “Good Articles” category and it should remain unless some facts are hided or not included because of some personal feelings and tells only one sided story. Thank you very much! --Ali aff (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It has never been about the sources, it has been about the content, this is an allegation by One individual, who himself has not owned it. Satish Verma, the person who allegedly made these allegations have not come out and owned these theories, which makes it a case of hearsay, it is not even a proper allegation. Indeed it is sad, that some people coz of their personal agendas and personal bias want to publish anything on Wikipedia, irrespective of its relevance, just to give a twist to the events of a very sad incident. PISCOSOUR786 (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by no one is owning this allegation? an affidavit (a legal binding written document) was given by none other than Indian Home Secretary, Mr. R V S Mani, and this news was firstly revealed in Indian media , so this is neither a hearsay nor a baseless story. In case you want Mr. Satish Verma to admit the allegation before including this development in the article, then almost 75% of contents of the present article should also be deleted because I have found more than twenty instances in this article where no one ever comes out and owned them (as per your definition of owning), e.g. 1. Allegation on ISI and Pakistan Army, 2. Training supervision by retired personnel of Pakistan Army, 3. Allegation on LeT for perpetrating this attack, 4. Use of unnamed sources, 5. Use of untested revelations and confessions, 6. Use of believes without factual evidences, and many more. If all of such instances deserved to be in the article then there is only one reason for not including the allegation by R V S Mani and that is “taking side and hiding full information on subject” even if it breaches policies and practices of Wikipedia.--Ali aff (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to unreachbale conclusion on this topic now I have put a thread on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard [[11]] I think we should refrain from discussion over there as we have already expressed our point of view here and that place should be left for other independent users only, I hope we all agree --Ali aff (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There should not be any dispute on this, it is a fact and should be included in wikipedia. I find it really strange that inclusion of this is being hindered. Who is governing Wikipedia? (RIF

Injuries and Operation Black Tornedo

http://www.countercurrents.org/teltumbde171209.htm

The above link as well as the citiation source of the "Injuries" says about 300 people were injured and not 600 as shown here

Operation Black Tornedo

Op Black Tornedo was launched by the NSG to clear all the 3 locations i.e Taj hotel,Nariman house and Trident hotel. And not only Taj Hotel as mentioned in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.166.27 (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

NSG

Just how the Iranian Embassy Siege Wikipedia article has a short note on the Special Air Service(SAS) which undertook the resscue mission, a short note on the NSG which undertook Operation Black Tornedo can be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.168.174 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Statements on lead

It has been already discussed a few times that you cannot promote conspiracy theories like they are commonly accepted. I don't see the reason how MohitSingh was actually incorrect when he had removed the conspiracy theory and how Anupmehra was correct when he restored it.[12] Although Regentspark had removed it at the right time. I have just removed the statement of 2 individual, one was notable and already mentioned, while other one doesnt' seem to be notable enough for this sort of knowledge, finally when his statement is "David was a double agent."[13] OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Islamic militant group?

Muslims don't support these people, so why must it be called an Islamic Militant group the sentence in the header section labels all Muslims as terrorists. Please remove it. 59.95.160.212 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Islamic militant group is used for groups that aim to create islamic states. The term says nothing about whether Muslims in general support or don't support them. --regentspark (comment) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2008 Mumbai attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Negotiations with Pakistan

Hi @Auntie Agnie: and @Adamgerber80:, you both are involved in an edit war in the article. Please refrain from deleting/adding unless a consensus has been reached. You can discuss it over here and then as per the consensus can do the necessary edits. Pinging latest editors of this page - @RegentsPark:, @Abelmoschus Esculentus:, @Gilliam:and @McSly:. Please take to WP:RFC if needed. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To clarify on my part i am in favor of retaining the section in the article. It just can't be knocked off citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SPECULATION as there are sources provided in major newspapers as it is just a single line and not an whole article by itself. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lakun.patra, when this was first reported, I held off adding it since it did feel like this was a case of WP:NOTNEWS. But as the days have progressed, it seems that this is WP:DIVERSE, is WP:PERSISTENCE and is getting some WP:INDEPTH coverage. Here are some sources to back this claim. ([14],[15], [16], [17]). I agree with your view that this incident does not merit it's own article but does merit some mention on this page since this directly associated with it. Yes, we can discuss how this content should be presented to ensure that is WP:NPOV (I haven't looked at the content in depth but will do this later in the day). The other editor seems to be pushing a POV, once their edit was reverted, they should have explained it here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Nawaz Sharif simply said this, “Militant organisations are active. Call them non-state actors, should we allow them to cross the border and kill 150 people in Mumbai? Explain it to me. Why can’t we complete the trial?” in the Dawn interview. Note that the sentence ends with a question mark.
Now to claim, "In 2018, during an interview with newspaper Dawn, Pakistan's ex Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is alleged to have indirectly accepted Pakistan's involvement in not preventing the Mumbai attacks" in this article is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, WP:SYNTHESIS & WP:POV WP:SPECULATION besides falling under WP:NOTNEWS.
Now both of you have some explaining to do about such misrepresentation. Also tell us why should we include what a Pakistani politician has said - who wasn't a part of the govt when the attacks happened nor is he even a member of National Assembly now - in this article? Is NS an authority on Mumbai attacks? --Auntie Agni (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)blocked as a sockpuppet

Media

What was the role of the Indian media in this whole case? No description about them, leaves a black dot on the authenticity of this article. Indian media has been and should be criticized for their lack of common knowledge and ethics which led to the numerous deaths during the 3-day massacre. The media screened live coverage of the full episode showing army personnel's trying to find a way to enter the buildings where terrorists had entered. This should've been a black out of any video showing the reporting of the area where army was conducting an op on 26th Nov, but it wasn't which later resulted in deaths of many including senior police officers and citizens.

Even the pradhan commitee which was formed to investigate the whole matter said" Two serious unprecedented problems encountered in Mumbai were operational control of terrorist attack from abroad through cell phones and competitive visual media coverage which often helped the terrorists."

I dont say that Indian media is all shit, it is at some level and we need to rectify it. Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of democracy. Why is there no stringent policy for them, which forces them to abide by certain ethics and get common knowledge without putting out news to a billion people??? [18]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankit madan 9769 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Broken Infobox

Hi all. Not sure how to fix it, but it appears that the infobox at the start of the article has broken formatting, as it's spilled all over. Cgoecknerwald (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Cgoecknerwald:. Thanks for noticing the problem. It should be fixed now. --McSly (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversial opinion?

I want to shorten the following statement ("There were also reports of a SIM card purchased in the US state New Jersey, if this is the case, then this would go back to Iraqi Intelligence Services and Al Qaeda from 9/11 or Jemmah Ismaliyah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad through Iraqi Intelligence from Saddam Hussein's old network of militants that was never proved.") to the following:
("There were also reports of a SIM card from New Jersey found in the terrorists' possession.")

However, the current cited article link for that sentence is deprecated. There exists valid 2011 archive links for it, but there is also a still-live version of the article (at the same website) that is behind a paywall. Which is more appropriate to cite here, the archive link or the paywalled link? Keep in mind that the archive link is only page 1 of the article, and page 2 was not archived. --UltimateKuriboh (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

security concerns

This page may suffer from vandalism and hate speech. I would like the concerned authorities of wikipedia to disable editing options on this page. Mrityunjay286 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Eddiegaooooo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Pakistani denial and condemnation in the lead

REDISCOVERBHARAT I don't agree with your edits. You have twice selectively removed the Pak govt's views from the lead (your first time was under a misleading edit summary[19]). The problem with your edit is that it results in some reactions from Pakistan in the lead but removes other reactions in a POV manner. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. For example, it includes "Pakistan later confirmed that the sole surviving perpetrator of the attacks was a Pakistani citizen" but excludes "Pakistan condemned the attacks". We can't selectively quote the Pakistan government. Secondly, you added "who was earlier claimed to be dead by Pakistani[sic]"[20]. What is the source for that? You gave Times of India as a source, but that is not the most reliable as per WP:TOI. The other sources you gave are vague: which Pakistani official said he was dead in the past? When?

But the most important problem with your edits is the WP:DUE violation: the official statement of the Prime Minister of Pakistan is much more significant than statements made by lower officials. So how can you remove the PM's statements while insist on including those by unnamed officials?VR talk 21:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It was removed before too and I don't agree that it is important to mention Pakistan's condemnation. Many countries condemned it. I already provided The Wire and The Week to support the claim that Pakistan earlier said this mastermind was dead. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NPOV says we should present "all the significant views" on a topic. On the question of Pakistan's involvement there are several significant views:
  • That Pakistan was involved in the Mumbai attacks
  • That Pakistan wasn't involved in the Mumbai attacks and condemned them (view of Pakistan govt)
Presenting one view without presenting the other is a violation of NPOV.
Regarding claim that Pakistan claim the mastermind is dead, I'll ask you once again: which Pakistani official or ministry made this claim and when? If you don't know then we have to remove this claim as baseless.VR talk 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
But again, 'condemnation' seems subjective. I think it is WP:UNDUE. I would like to avoid political discussion regarding Pakistan's involvement and I don't know which Pakistani official made that claim but if this claim is actually false, like you say then there must be rejection of this claim by some Pakistani source or at least media outlet. I would like to see a source that rejects this claim before I would even think of researching which official made the claim that the mastermind in question was dead. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It is hard to reject an unfalsifiable claim. To do so, the source would need to interview thousands of Pakistani officials (tens of thousands?) and make sure none of them actually said anything like this.
And "condemnation" is not subjective, it was literally the words of the Pakistani PM at the time of Mumbai attacks and has been used by reliable sources:
  • Reuters: "Pakistan condemned the assault as a “barbaric act of terrorism” and denied any involvement by state agencies."
  • NYT: "“Our hands are clean,” the Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said at a news conference. “Any entity or group involved in the ghastly act, the Pakistan government will proceed against it.”
  • France24 "Pakistan has condemned the Mumbai attacks and denied any involvement"
  • Guardian "Pakistan has denied involvement and condemned the attacks. The country's president, Asif Ali Zardari, telephoned India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to reassure him of his support in the battle against terrorism. Zardari condemned the attacks, saying "non-state actors" were responsible.
VR talk 12:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
As long as you don't have a good rebuttal, you should really avoid doubting information from the reliable sources.
I am not saying that Pakistan didn't condemn the act, but that it is undue to mention it on lead. The first paragraph already mentions the attacks "drew widespread global condemnation". The last properly reviewed version also didn't had any mention of Pakistan condemning the attack. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Pakistan's "condemnation" is UNDUE for the lead. Talk is cheap, and Pakistan has been doing it ever since it was born. Third party sources are crystal clear about Pakistan's involvement:

Lashkar-i-Taiba was founded in the early 1990s as an armed wing of the Markaz-al-Dawa wal-Irshad. It is one of many groups that were and perhaps remain directly supported by the ISI, Pakistan's largest and most important intelligence agency, which recruited jihadi groups to infiltrate and destabilize Indian-controlled Kashmir. (Jamal, Shadow War 2009, p. 12)

LeT had carefully chosen the targets [in Mumbai] and meticulously researched them over several years. It received considerable assistance in doing so from two sources, the Pakistani intelligence service, called the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and al Qaeda. Each had its own agenda for the operation. But the targets were the same—Indians, Americans, and Jews, the targets of the global jihad started by al Qaeda in the late 1990s. Although the attack was in India, America was among the targets, and al Qaeda was a common enemy. (Riedel, Avoiding Armageddon 2013, p. 2)

During his interrogation by the Indians and in his confession, Headley said that the raid was planned with active ISI involvement at every stage and that at each of his meetings in Pakistan he met with ISI officers as well as LeT leaders. Sometimes the ISI gave him tasks separate from those assigned by LeT; for example, the ISI asked him to take photos of an Indian nuclear facility near Mumbai. ISI provided money to help him set up his cover in Mumbai, including an initial $25,000 in cash. Headley also said that the ISI provided some of the training for the attackers, including training by elite Pakistani naval commandoes. According to Headley, the ISI was especially pleased with the choice of the Chabad house as a target. (Riedel, Avoiding Armageddon 2013, pp. 7–8)

I don't mean to suggest that any such sources are needed to throw out the meaningless condemnation by Pakistan. But they expose VR's ridiculous laughable pontification over here.

As for the "dead" mastermind, a simple Google search is all it takes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The "dead mastermind" does not belong in the lead - the conviction was not for anything remotely related to 26/11 (I have a copy of the judgement). Instead, there ought be a far important line in the lead about how Pakistan had refused to prosecute anybody involved in the attacks under spurious grounds and closed all relevant investigations.
The current lead whitewashes Pakistan's active support to the terrorists, both before and after the attack. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I would respectfully, disagree, at least some of the accused were arrested and put to trial. For example, Lakhvi's trial began in the Anti Terrorism Court of Pakistan in 2009[21]. The case was long and lengthy, with Lakhvi even being granted bail at one point, but Lakhvi was finally sentenced in 2021[22] (albeit the charge was financial support to LeT, not specifically tied to a single attack). Other suspects tried include Abdul Wajid, Mazhar Iqbal, Hammad Amin Sadiq, Shahid Jameel Riaz, Jamil Ahmed, Younus Anjum and Sufyan Zafar[23]. And of course the latest individual, Sajid Mir, was also sentenced recently by Pakistan.VR talk 19:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Works by Levy, Riedel et al are not cited a single time. How is this a GA? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3:, first please be WP:CIVIL. Secondly, WP:NPOV requires us to give all viewpoints in proportion to their WP:DUE weight. Pakistan's denial and condemnation receives weight in many reliable and scholarly sources. In fact, the very book by Reidel that you quote says,

The Pakistani government has consistently denied that it or the ISI had any connection to the bombers and the attack. While some Pakistani officials quietly have admitted that the ISI had links to LeT in the past, they deny that it had any foreknowledge of or role in the Mumbai operation itself.

Other sources that point out Pakistan's condemnation and denial include the ones I've mentioned above, and here are some more:

On 27 November 2008, when the Mumbai attack was still on, President Asif Ali Zardari ...termed the killing of innocent people a 'detestable act'.Saroj Kumar Rath. The Secret History of Mumbai Terror Attacks. Taylor & Francis.

Islamabad, which had been one of the first capitals to condemn the bombings, refuted Singh's insinuation that the Mumbai bombers had received from Pakistan...Rahul Roy-Chaudhry. New Dimensions of Politics in India: The United Progressive Alliance in Power. Taylor & Francis. p. 140.

Were the supported in some fashion by other 'elements' in Pakistan? India firmly believed this, and Pakistan vociferously denied it. Source:Brian Cloughley. A History of the Pakistan Army: Wars and Insurrections.

Although Pakistan condemned the attack, government officials were less swift in admitting that the attackers had originated from Pakistan...Victoria Schofield. Kashmir in Conflict India, Pakistan and the Unending War. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 256.

The Islamabad government offered condolences and strongly condemned the terrorist acts in Mumbai.K. Alan Kronstadt, Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai, India, and Implications for U.S. Interests, p. 10

VR talk 19:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Casualties and compensation

This section in table showing 166 killed but line below in 1st para showing 175 killed, which is true? Something is missing in table? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-14/india/40569108_1_satish-verma-ips-officer-home-ministry
  2. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byybxybcaqg
  3. ^ http://dawn.com/news/1028989/indian-govt-behind-parliament-mumbai-attacks-claims-former-cbi-official
  4. ^ http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/national/14-Jul-2013/indian-govt-behind-parliament-attack-26-11-ex-indian-officer
  5. ^ http://worldnewsviews.com/2013/07/14/indian-government-orchestrates-parliament-mumbai-attacks/
  6. ^ http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=83745
  7. ^ http://www.carbonated.tv/news/indian-official-claims-india-schemed-parliament-and-mumbai-attacks-blamed-pakistan
  8. ^ http://www.globalresearch.ca/india-s-9-11-who-was-behind-the-mumbai-attacks/?print=1
  9. ^ http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/editorial/2013/07/16/6466.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_Mumbai_attacks/Archive_12&oldid=1224659749"