Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2008 Mumbai attacks has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
November 29, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
March 15, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 16, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 6, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
November 18, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 26, 2008.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 26, 2009, November 26, 2011, November 26, 2013, November 26, 2014, and November 26, 2018.
Current status: Good article


Pakistani denial and condemnation in the lead[edit]

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[1]). 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]"[2]. 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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[3]. The case was long and lengthy, with Lakhvi even being granted bail at one point, but Lakhvi was finally sentenced in 2021[4] (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[5]. And of course the latest individual, Sajid Mir, was also sentenced recently by Pakistan.VR talk 19:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]

Casualties and compensation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]