We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
INDIA’S SUPREME COURT confirmed today the death sentence has been handed down to Mohammed Kasab, the lone surviving gunman from the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed.
Pakistan-born Kasab, one of 10 gunmen who laid siege to India’s financial capital in attacks that lasted nearly three days, had appealed against the sentence claiming that he had not received a fair trial.
“We are left with no option but to award death penalty,” the two judges said in a court order. “The primary and foremost offence committed by Kasab is waging war against the government of India.”
Kasab, who is currently held in a maximum-security prison in Mumbai, was found guilty on charges including waging war, murder and terrorist acts, and was sentenced to death in May 2010.
After losing his Supreme Court petition, Kasab is expected to lodge a final appeal for clemency with new President Pranab Mukherjee, who has another 11 cases to consider.
Execution
Only one execution has taken place in India in 15 years; that of a former security guard hanged in 2004 for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl.
“The best possible points were put forward dispassionately on behalf of the accused,” state prosecutor Gopal Subramanium told reporters. “They have been considered and the court ultimately dismissed the appeal.”
Ujjwal Nikam, who led the case against Kasab throughout the trial process, called on the death sentence to be carried out “as soon as possible so that it gives a strong signal to terrorists.”
During the November 2008 attacks, heavily armed Islamist gunmen stormed targets in Mumbai including luxury hotels, a Jewish centre, a hospital and a bustling train station.
India blames the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant organisation for training, equipping and financing the gunmen with support from “elements” in the Pakistan military.
Kasab initially pleaded not guilty but later confessed, admitting he was one of the gunmen sent by the LeT.
Fair trial
At his trial, the prosecution produced fingerprint, DNA, eyewitness and TV footage evidence showing him opening fire and throwing grenades at Mumbai’s main railway station in the bloodiest episode of the attacks.
“I was denied a fair trial,” Kasab said in a statement when his appeal hearing began in January. “I may be guilty of killing people and carrying out a terrorist act but I am not guilty of waging war against the state.”
He said that he was denied proper legal representation and that some charges against him were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Pakistan has admitted that the attacks were planned partly on its soil, but flatly denies any official involvement. It charged seven alleged plotters behind the attacks in 2009 but insists it needs more evidence to convict them.
Speaking at a conference in Tehran, Foreign Minister SM Krishna reacted to the court’s decision by saying that he was “sure Pakistan will not fail to take note of it”.
The Mumbai attacks horrified India as each development unfolded live on television, and there have been widespread public calls for Kasab’s execution.
Previous Indian presidents have often stone-walled death penalty decisions.
The last president, Pratibha Patil, tried to clear the backlog by granting clemency in 19 cases and refusing it in two.
Police today said the Supreme Court’s decision was a vindication of their work.
“The verdict… is an important milestone in our fight against terror,” Himanshu Roy, joint commissioner of the Mumbai police, told reporters.
“To capture him alive, to investigate him… to put him on trial… we have proved before the whole world that we are fair, we are judicious, we are democratic.”
The court in New Delhi also upheld the acquittals handed out in February 2011 to Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmad, who were charged by police for helping the gunmen with logistics.
Poor lady but the officer must not blame himself. Things like this can always happen during a rescue when bullets fly
A ricochet, rather than a direct shot caused her wounds. I think you would have to be a seriously twisted individual to blame the officer in question.
Agreed.
What the Journal has chosen not to report on is the picture emerging from the inquiry is one of ineptitude by the Police command, from the negotiations, there where none, to the type of weapon and ammunition used. The Army’s elite anti terrorist unit 4RAR made a submission stating that for close quarter combat and hostage retrieval use of a large Assault rifle using 5.62 ammunition was totally inappropriate, as demonstrated by the outcome, had they been called in they would have used the smaller MP5′s using 9mm which are specifically designed for the purpose.
The surprising thing is that they decided on and held an inquest the month after this tragedy. How long would it take here?
Here it also happens immediately because these incidences are so rare. The ombudsman has already begun an investigation into the death of a man shot by armed Guards a few days ago.
He actually shot himself
Didn’t that guy shoot himself in the head?
@ Jason
He shot himself, in his own head.
Ok I wasn’t keeping up-to-date on those events so thanks for clearing that up.
It still doesn’t change the fact that he died while involved in a Garda pursuit and that the ombudsman began their investigation immediately.
Jason, are you saying, the guards actions somehow contributed to this sc*umbags death.
He was involved in an incident with the Guards and died in said incident. Of course the involvement of the Guards contributed to his death but the investigation will show to what extent.
He made a conscious decision to kill himself to avoid capture.
The end.
Yes but the guards were still involved in the situation. Is that hard to get your head around?
“to avoid capture.”
You just said it yourself. No immediate threat of capture means no suicide, ergo the Guards contributed to his death.
“No immediate threat of capture means no suicide, ergo the Guards contributed to his death.”
Can anyone decipher this utter waffle?
“Can anyone decipher this utter waffle?”
I’ll translate it for you. You denied that the Guards had any involvement either directly or indirectly and then said he killed himself to avoid capture by the Guards. I’m basically saying you’re contradicting yourself.
My comment was pretty easy to understand.
Jason, only 1 hour ago you thought he was killed by armed gardai.
You didn’t even read the story and you go as if you were an eyewitness at the scene or have inside information.
You get 1st prize for the most patronising poster on this site.
“You didn’t even read the story and you go as if you were an eyewitness at the scene or have inside information.”
By your own admission, he killed himself to avoid capture even though you said his death was in no way related to the Guards.
I could admit I was wrong, it seems you on the other hand have an issue with this and resort to insults rather than admit you’re wrong on this.
“even though you said his death was in no way related to the Guards.”
Quote the post where i said this.
“Jason, are you saying, the guards actions somehow contributed to this sc*umbags death.`
`He made a conscious decision to kill himself to avoid capture.
The end.”
What other meaning could possibly be interpreted from these two follow-on comments?
“It’s understood that the driver pointed his gun at uniformed gardaí for them to get back when he got out of the car and that they were unarmed and RETREATED.
He then walked over to a grass verge and a gunshot was heard.”
The Gardai retreated, he could have ran but he didn’t. He chose of his own free will to put a gun to his head and pull the trigger.
So no, the gardai doing their job did not in fact “contribute” to his suicide.
You make it out like the two unarmed Gardai should carry some responsibility for this mans suicide, they absolutely should not.
Jason, ignore these dopes. I understand what you mean. They are only trolling
@Jason, perhaps his own involvement contributed to his death. Perhaps if the woman he had taken hostage hadn’t run into two unarmed Gardaí she might not be alive. Perhaps if the two unarmed Gardaí hadn’t became suspicious of that woman’s injuries and investigated, she may in fact be no lying in a shallow grave in the Dublin mountains. Perhaps this man had already decided on his fate long before the Gardaí became involved. Perhaps you expect Gardaí not to do their jobs. Perhaps GSOC will find that the Gardaí did not contribute in any way to this man’s death as a result of a self inflicted gun shot and retreated to a safe distance when they, unarmed, were threatened with a gun. Perhaps you might keep up to speed and get your facts in order. Perhaps.
It is surprising and disappointing that the actions and speech by Mr. Monks did not lead to closer surveillance of him.
Sadly, once the shooting starts there is no way of preventing ricochets. That must have been part of the risk assessment.
A hostage had already been murdered. It was probably about making the least bad choice.
22 shots from an automatic is a second in time. He wasn’t gung ho..!
22 shots from all the officers weapons not just one
Police use semi auto in situations like that.
If this was in Ferguson there would be a mass riot
The guy in Ferguson wasn’t killed by a ricochet.
Some 22 shots were fired by the officers after 11 flash bangs were thrown into the room.
Well read…
Coroner “Michael Barnes” = 110 or 11 (You drop the zero and you don’t reduce a master number)
http://www.gematrix.org/?word=Michael+Barnes
Hostage “John O’Brien” = 110 or 11
Your point being…?
“Crazy “.
That’s the point I think.
Jeremy Gormly = 166 or 13
Katrina 74 or 11 Dawson = 76 or 13
Source of article “Rick Rycroft” = 146 or 11
The Guru_ Your point being…?
The encoded occult numerology in this story makes it out to be a load of cr*p (False Flag)
Frank you’re aware that the headbanger who took these people captive was a big fan of numerology.
Charles Rex_A high profile crisis actor would certainly know all about numerology.
# There is power in those numbers,
You’d be better advised to get some sleep and eat a healthy breakfast. The world must be a cauldron of deceit and suspicion to you.
I wish someone would ban Frank from the Journal. He is clearly unhinged.
Frank, there are five letters in your name – if we drop the even numbers that leaves three letters, the middle one of which is the third letter. Add the two threes and you have a six – the number of the beast. Spooky…
But there’s more – F A and K are the 6th, 1st and 11th letters of the alphabet:
6+1=7
7×11=77, the unholy number! Alarm bells now…
Take the letters we dropped, the R and the N: Counting backwards (Satan’s way) from the end of the alphabet they’re the 9th and 13 letters.
9+13=22
22+11(for the K) = 33!
3+3=6!
6+1=7!
Satan’s numbers are all over your name lad – that must make you the antichrist (or something like that)….
Kitty, he was banned already but keeps making new accounts to come back with.
No point in banning him, he is entitled to his point. However he regularly resorts to hate speech, such as the accusations of actors, in tragedies, these comments should be censored due to their effect on the families of those involved
To be fair, his accusations that the Sandy Hook massacre among many others were fake could get the Journal in trouble if the wrong person reads those opinions in an open public forum.
He hasn’t been banned for his unique outlook on life and mathematics, more that some of his comments have caused offence in the past especially when he’s been challenged on his points.
Kitty Prendergast_ Numerology can be like a red rag to a bull.
Christine Lagarde of the IMF certainly approves of it.
Did I step on your toes?
Although “anti-semitic” is definitely an overused phrase, I’d argue that the Iranian anti-semitic propaganda cartoons (that Frank loves to link to) and their portrayal of jews is eerily similar to 1930′s nazi propaganda and is a far more valid reason to be banned than numerology/false flags etc..
ps. I’m waiting to be labelled as a z1onist/NWO shill for saying that!
Jason Culligan_Banning individuals for questing obvious discrepancies in a mainstream media news stories would be known as CENSORSHIP.
I guess you approve of censorship since you openly support a government that hires terrorists to carry out its proxy wars in the middle east.
Avina Laaf_ Is another individual that throws in the antisemitic trump card when one addresses Israel’s war crimes.
Frank you are quite capable of lying to twist whatever point you are trying to prove or coming up with some new theory after your first one is proven beyond doubt
Frank, whatever way you look at it, some of the cartoons you post which portray jews as caricatured hook-nosed demons complete with horns, blood drenched fangs and claws are anti-semitic.
As I said before, they’re remarkably similar to 1930′s nazi anti-jewish cartoons, or closer to home how the Irish were portrayed in british magazines in the 1800′s.
For the record I am not, never have been and never will be jewish or Israeli.
Avina Laaf_The Sydney Morning Herald posted a cartoon with a hooked nosed Jew.
Would you consider its cartoonist “antisemitic”
http://s4.postimg.org/wezkz1jrh/smhhyp.jpg
Harretz published a very good article on the subject of cartoon hypocrisy.
Frank, any kind of stereotyping is wrong (as we should know only too well) but the kind of cartoons you sometimes post are distasteful and misguided at best, and hate-filled, racist and downright dangerous at worst.
Avina Laaf_All those cartoons that I post are in relation to political Zi0nism and its war crimes.
I guess you just do not want to see political satire exposing Israels war crimes. I bet you would have absolutely no problem with the media publishing Charlie Hebdo cartoons that would insult Islam.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too..
Frank I have no problem with political satire and I have no problem with Israeli war crimes being exposed.
Some of your cartoons are verging on incitement to race hatred though, and as we saw in the 1930′s that is a very very dangerous path to go down.
Avina Laaf_ I see that from a different angle.. The former oppressed are now fast becoming the oppressors.
This was made clear after last summer with the pure unrestrained brutality that was demonstrated to the world in GAZA and no doubt we will see more of it in the coming days after what happened in Golan. There is also an election on the horizon and unfortunately usually means bloodshed.
All I can see here is 2 cats talking to each other.
That may well all be true Frank, but that’s still no excuse to portray an entire race of people as child-eating devil’s.
Avina Laaf_ I make it clear that it is Political Zi0nism that I point the finger at..
The same engine that caused the unrelentlessness Genocide of 2100 including 500 children in GAZA last Summer. The same engine that pulls the ropes on the US Government to carry out proxy regime changing battles in the Middle east including the attempted overthrowing of the Syrian Government. (with Iran next in the crosshairs)..
You know damn well who I am pointing the finger at and don’t try to throw the antisemitic card at me.,
Well if that’s true you need to pick your cartoons more carefully Frank, as some of them have stereotyped jews as an entire race of child-eating devils – if that’s not anti-semitic you tell me what is?? That, coupled with your continued insistence that jews created and released ebola tells me all I need to know about your attitudes.
Avina Laaf_I still think you are a hypocrite. You have no problems with cartoons depicting insults to Islam through Charlie Hebdo Je Suis Charlie stuff yet you deplore cartoons that hit out at political Zi0nism. If the Cartoons is offensive to Jewish people it would be removed from the forums that they are posted in. All the cartoons that I post are aimed at exposing political Zionism which is the extreme opposite poles of a magnet to Judaism
The Numbers certainly tell us quite a lot about Ebola and HIV AIDS for that matter and where it all comes from. You trip over the number 33 in all of them. 33 is written over quite a lot of other things including ALL these recent false flags.
Frank, I’m not sure whether you’re deliberately trying to miss the point at this stage. I have no problem with any satirical cartoon, especially not with one that satirises mohammed, god, buddha, jesus or anybody else. Most of your linked cartoons fall into this category.
I have a huge problem though with propaganda cartoons that deliberately set out to portray an entire race (whoever they are) as some kind of sub-humans. Such cartoons are a clear encitement to racial hatred and history has told us that this type of stereotyping can be very, very dangerous. Iran is currently pumping out such propaganda cartoons aimed at demonising jews in this way, and you have sometimes linked to them.
I’m not even going to enter into a discussion with you about numerology – you think its an accurate predictor of world events, I think its a load of claptrap, lets just leave it at that.
The murder was witnessed by a police sharpshooter? If he had a clear line of sight and the gun man had a hostage on his knees with a shotgun to his head then surely he should have been authorized to shoot him.
It would have ended the siege immediately with no further bullets and loss of life.
I know people complain about about America all the time but if it happened there I suspect that would have been the out come and the shooting justified.
Robert you are assuming he could see both the victim and the perpetrator! You are also assuming the marksman viewed this via a rifle scope rather than other optical devices he could have been a spotter.
Perhaps he could identify a fun barrel and a victim through his scope but not get a clean shot at the shooter.
Perhaps this was not the first time in the incident this had happened??
A lot of variables in that limited info
I get what your saying but if it was a sniper team as the article suggests then there would have been both a spotter with binoculars and a marksman looking through a scope. This is how police and military sniper teams work. If he did have the shot he should have taken it.
That siege was never going to end peacefully, especially with an Islamic nut involved. Having a sniper take him out would have been the best outcome in my opinion and I’m sure the opportunity would have presented itself at some point.
Again, assuming the marksman had a clear line of site to the shooter!
Robert, the police tried to take him out with a marksman but they couldn’t achieve this. Monis had lined up hostages in the windows and rotated them on a regular basis to make sure that snipers couldn’t take him out through a window without hitting a civilian in the process.
Fair enough Jason. If it wasn’t possible then it wasn’t possible, however he did have enough of a view to see what happened despite the human shields.
Yes I am making assumptions but based on reading the article and the detail the sniper described how it transpired they are reasonable assumptions.
Thanks Lisa that’s a perfectly reasonable answer as to why a sniper couldn’t take him out. Much better than the excuses suggested by others which don’t make sense.
Namely that they didn’t have sight of him, which would be incompotent of the sniper teams or that the human shield was a barrier even though the sniper clearly described what happened.
“Man Haron Monis” = 924 (28 x 33) or 7+7+7+7 x 33
http://www.gematrix.org/?word=Man+Haron+Monis
Every word in the English language has a gematria numerical value.
This story is saturated in occult numerology when you break it down
Frank, what words in the english language are NOT associated with occult numerology? Can you provide some examples for reference?
Its the context that these encoded words are being used and more so when you trip over them in a high profile main stream media news story.
The numbers associated with Occult Numerology are 7,11,13,17 22, etc or multiples of them
Ireland = 378 or ( 3+7+8= 18 or 1+8 = 9 when reduced to a single digit)
Ireland in ordinal equals: 63 or 9 when reduced
Dublin in ordinal = 62 or 8 when reduced
http://www.gematrix.org/?word=dublin
Frank, what’s the number for tosser?
What’s the number for loser
Brian Flynn_ The English Gematria for Tosser is 576
http://www.gematrix.org/?word=+tosser
Now look up the value for Freemason…
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say