The caller would apparently prefer to see Pakistan fighting India than Pakistan's government fighting the jihads. Hmmm. Now what group could possibly want such a thing?
"Hoax call fuels Pakistan-Indian tensions," by Munir Ahmed for AP, December 6 (thanks to Mackie):
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A man pretending to be India's foreign minister called Pakistan's president and talked in a "threatening" manner during the Mumbai terror attacks, prompting Pakistan to put its air force on high alert, a security official and a news report said Saturday.Dawn newspaper said authorities were investigating the circumstances of the hoax, which occurred as tensions spiked between the nuclear-armed neighbors during the attacks.
The atrocity, which began Nov. 26, is being blamed by India on Pakistani extremists.
Indian officials were not immediately available to comment on the telephone call.
The call by a man identifying himself as Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee was put through to President Asif Ali Zardari on Nov. 28, said the security official, who declined to be identified, citing the sensitivity of the issue.
"India through diplomatic channels has informed the Pakistani Foreign Ministry that Pranab Mukherjee made no such call," he said. "Now what still needs to be checked is who made this threatening call."
Dawn newspaper said the country's air force was put on high alert in response to the telephone call. It said it came from a New Delhi number, but that Indian officials believed the caller ID could have been manipulated.
A day after the call, two Pakistani security officials warned the government would pull its troops from the anti-terrorism fight along the border with Afghanistan in order to respond to any Indian military mobilization....
There's your best clue.
"India through diplomatic channels has informed the Pakistani Foreign Ministry that Pranab Mukherjee made no such call," he said. "Now what still needs to be checked is who made this threatening call."
I wonder who?
I suspect that the Pakistanis won't have to look far........
That is, if they have the cojones to look in those "tribal areas".
So, a nuclear Armageddon could only be a hoax phone call away!
Great!
OT -
People, a Lego "Islamic Terrorist" figure has caused "outrage" among Mohammedans, of course. There's a thread about this on Dhimmi Watch.
Anyway, I went to the website called "BrickArms" and the Islamic Terrorist figure is called "Bandit - "Mr. White." ???? Has this been a PC name-change from "Islamic Terrorist?"
Here's the figure:
http://brickarms.com/toys/Minifigs/Bandit_White.aspx
It is clear al-Zawahiri still has his phone.
it is also clear al-Zawahiri has the President of Pakistans telephone number.
if they want to find out who did that call, just look at pak's prez's speed dial.
"Hoax Jihad" -- interesting metaphor, especially when you consider the fact that Muhammad was the ultimate hoaxster of all time.
Hoaxster Muhammad and your HoaxLam religion.
"ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — A man pretending to be India's foreign minister called Pakistan's president and talked in a "threatening" manner during the Mumbai terror attacks, prompting Pakistan to put its air force on high alert, a security official and a news report said Saturday."
The call probably came from the next room.
The hoaxters were the same jokers from the Mossad and the CIA who did 911 and Mumbai. They're all trying to besmirch Islam's good name.
"good name"....LMAO!
Hoax Jihad: Prank call fuels Pakistan-India tensions
......................
And yet *India* is still being blamed for ramping up tensions. It's as though Mumbai counts for nothing, except as a test of India's being "reasonable" (i.e. not responding in any way, not even so far as to name Pakistan as the origin of the attacks).
more:
A day after the call, two Pakistani security officials warned the government would pull its troops from the anti-terrorism fight along the border with Afghanistan in order to respond to any Indian military mobilization....
.....................
Well, of course--why would they want to fight an unpopular guerrilla war with their co-religionists--which many Pakistanis actually support--when they could square off against hated India, instead?
Even though it was India that was attacked, it is Muslims--Pakistan, in this case--which is playing the victim.
Here's the related case of Muslims improbably playing the victim, in a searing piece by Mark Steyn, succinctly titled, "Jews Die, Muslims Whine" from the OC Register, about the attack on Mumbai's Chabad House, and its larger meaning:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mumbai-muslims-time-2248410-jews-muslim
Mildly reminds me of "DR Strangelove" ,the Indian version. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction..geez..
More on this from BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7769297.stm
I'm think that this might have been more than just a mere hoax call. It could have been an AlQaeda plot to start a war between India and Pakistan, as a diversion to relieve military pressure on AlQaeda. Note that the Pakistanis claim the call had ID signals that made it seem like it came from the Indian Foreign Ministry. Could AlQaeda either have infiltrated the foreign ministry office, or else simply found a way to fake the caller ID?
All that would require is the technical genius of your average 15 year-old Korean kid. Some Indian Muslim learned a trick or two from one of his more tech-savvy Hindu counterparts.
Or, it could just be the French-Canadian DJ's who punked Palin.
gravenimage
you nailed it. They engage in aggression while claiming to be - or creating the illusion that they are - the victims.
In this connection: in my study of the archives here, i came across a brilliant article from 2006, from the Times Online, in which Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali told it like it is.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/013920.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article625711.ece
Money quote:
'THE Church of England’s only Asian bishop, whose father converted from Islam, has criticised many Muslims for their “dual psychology”, in which they desire both “victimhood and domination”.
'In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands.
“Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq,” said Nazir-Ali.
“Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made.” END QUOTE
PS - Thanks for the link to the Steyn article.