Afghan officials accuse Pakistan of Indian embassy attack

[Flintlock]

The bomb blasts in Pakistan were not political..none of them targeted the Afghan embassy in Islamabad for example. That would have been false flag.

What about the ones in Pakistan that attacked the Danish embassy, and some time back, the US embassy?
Were they religious attacks or political attacks?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It was wrong to attack,

And is it right to conduct the other attacks the Taliban or AQ do? What attacks are "right"?

If they are all "wrong", why the surprise and conspiracy theories about this one?

 

[roadrunner]

What about the ones in Pakistan that attacked the Danish embassy, and some time back, the US embassy?
Were they religious attacks or political attacks?

Danish embassy was definitely political over the Danish cartoons. Definitely not the GoP involved in that.

The US embassy again was probably someone looking to harm US relations, or perhaps even get US troops on the ground. Definitely no sense in GoP doing it. If they kill the ambassador, the Americans have more reason to believe in Pakistan's ineptitude and bring troops onto Pakistani soil.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Enough of accusations.

It does not solve anything.

It is time to act!

 

[roadrunner]

Enough of accusations.

It does not solve anything.

It is time to act!

it doesn't help India's political goals, if people think this true rationally I agree. Less thinking!

 

[Flintlock]

Stealth:

I would argue that the fact that it would be obvious that Pakistan would get blamed for any attack on Indian assets, given that the GoA has taken a leaf from the GoI's book and pretends that absolutely no criminal or insurgent activity is homegrown, would pretty much rule out any such operation by Pakistan.

No, no, no...that's a bit too clever of you Agno.

You are getting rid of the most obvious explanation by trying to say that its too good to be true.

Why would GoA's stand on the issue automatically absolve Pakistan of the blame? Something is not adding up here....

As RR said, what does Pakistan gain from this? The statement trotted out by the GoA and some commentators of "wishing to damage Indo-Afghan relations" is biggest load of crock I have heard. Anyone familiar with the dynamics of Indian involvement in Afghanistan and its relationship with the GoA realizes that is not going to happen with one attack on the Indian embassy.

Pakistan has been for ages, speaking out about the activities of Indian consulates in the region.

I am not going to argue for the efficacy of bomb attacks, but the same argument doesn't seem to work when the ISI sends mujahideen to carry out attacks in Indian Kashmir. i.e. what would one bomb attack do to the Indian presence in Kashmir?

And how on earth does one damage an Indian relationship with Afghans by targeting Indian assets? The relationship that is being damaged here is the Pakistani-Afghan one, as the GoA goes into overdrive to point the finger at Pakistan, and stir up resentment against it.

What he means to say, is that it seeks to damage the working relationship of India and Afghanistan by deterring Indian activities in their country.
Which is a perfectly viable explanation. Now that Indian assets and high-level officials have been attacked, Indians would tread cautiously and put their safety as the highest priority.

 

[Flintlock]

Danish embassy was definitely political over the Danish cartoons. Definitely not the GoP involved in that.

The US embassy again was probably someone looking to harm US relations, or perhaps even get US troops on the ground. Definitely no sense in GoP doing it. If they kill the ambassador, the Americans have more reason to believe in Pakistan's ineptitude and bring troops onto Pakistani soil.

Well, then I could counter that by saying that rogue elements within the ISI carried out the attacks on the embassies. These guys are pro-Taliban and anti-America. It makes perfect sense.

The large amount of literature available on these pro-Taliban and pro-Jehadist elements within the Pakistan establishment and the ISI should provide sufficient background.

 

[roadrunner]

Well, then I could counter that by saying that rogue elements within the ISI carried out the attacks on the embassies. These guys are pro-Taliban and anti-America. It makes perfect sense.

The large amount of literature available on these pro-Taliban and pro-Jehadist elements within the Pakistan establishment and the ISI should provide sufficient background.

oh that's a convenient explanation. A rogue element. One would have thought that ISI would have the intelligence to eliminate any rogue elements from within its ranks that don't follow orders. It is after all, an extremely powerful institution.

 

[Flintlock]

oh that's a convenient explanation. A rogue element. One would have thought that ISI would have the intelligence to eliminate any rogue elements from within its ranks that don't follow orders. It is after all, an extremely powerful institution.

One would think, rite.

What about the numerous books, articles and papers on the topic?

Do they count as evidence, or do they get discounted simply because of your idea of the ISI as a "powerful institution"?

 

[roadrunner]

One would think, rite.

What about the numerous books, articles and papers on the topic?

Do they count as evidence, or do they get discounted simply because of your idea of the ISI as a "powerful institution"?

Why you reading books, when we're looking at motives. This situation is of a particular character. You don't use a book as a defence to explain away a murder in a court of law, you look at motive by deduction.

 

[Flintlock]

Why you reading books, when we're looking at motives. This situation is of a particular character. You don't use a book as a defence to explain away a murder in a court of law, you look at motive by deduction.

Exactly. And that is what the numerous books and literature on the topic do....they deduce. Circumstantial evidence and precedent.

Unless you are willing to conduct your own personal investigation, I suggest we stick to what is available to us: Books and articles, and the simplest explanation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, no, no...that's a bit too clever of you Agno.

You are getting rid of the most obvious explanation by trying to say that its too good to be true.

Why would GoA's stand on the issue automatically absolve Pakistan of the blame? Something is not adding up here....

Knowing that hostility the GoA has for Pakistan, that it has made threats to attack within Pakistan, that it has blamed Pakistan for almost every single insurgent event (the prison break, recent suicide bombings, etc.) it would stand to reason that Pakistan would get blamed.

Whats not adding up here is the motive.

Pakistan has been for ages, speaking out about the activities of Indian consulates in the region.

I am not going to argue for the efficacy of bomb attacks, but the same argument doesn't seem to work when the ISI sends mujahideen to carry out attacks in Indian Kashmir. i.e. what would one bomb attack do to the Indian presence in Kashmir?

Attacks on Indian security forces would not be limited to "one bomb blast", and the aim there was to in fact increase the insurgency to a point where maintaining a presence for Indian troops would become untenable.

The past policy on Kashmir is not a good analogy with this event.

What he means to say, is that it seeks to damage the working relationship of India and Afghanistan by deterring Indian activities in their country.
Which is a perfectly viable explanation. Now that Indian assets and high-level officials have been attacked, Indians would tread cautiously and put their safety as the highest priority.

Once again, the idea that one bomb blast or even a series of bomb blasts would remove India from Afghanistan is misplaced. The relationship with the GoA goes far beyond mere building of roads, and the thinking that a bomb blast would make the Indians put a halt to that relationship is the sort that could only come from a militant group.

The Taliban have similarly attacked NATO led reconstruction activities in Afghanistan as well, and have a precedent of attacking Indian interests as pointed out.

Its a simple case of "my enemies friend is my enemy". The more high profile India's involvement becomes in Afghanistan, the more likely a target its assets are.

 

[roadrunner]

Exactly. And that is what the numerous books and literature on the topic do....they deduce. Circumstantial evidence and precedent.

Unless you are willing to conduct your own personal investigation, I suggest we stick to what is available to us: Books and articles, and the simplest explanation.

Use your head. Which book or article tells us of the most likely culprits in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan.

As for rogue elements, one could attribute anything to rogue elements. Any spy agency with an ounce of competence, and let's face it ISI are superhuman, will not have any conflict of interest within their ranks. The elite will discard those whose policy does not favour Pakistan's interests. However, even you would be hard pushed to think of a motive for rogue elements in ISI wanting to bomb the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that even rogue elements, would expect the Indians to run off from Afghanistan after having sustained 4 casualties when they've sustained 4,000 casualties in Kashmir and are still there? Use some sense at least

 

[Flintlock]

Use your head. Which book or article tells us of the most likely culprits in the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan.

As for rogue elements, one could attribute anything to rogue elements. Any spy agency with an ounce of competence, and let's face it ISI are superhuman, will not have any conflict of interest within their ranks. The elite will discard those whose policy does not favour Pakistan's interests. However, even you would be hard pushed to think of a motive for rogue elements in ISI wanting to bomb the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan. Do you honestly believe that even rogue elements, would expect the Indians to run off from Afghanistan after having sustained 4 casualties when they've sustained 4,000 casualties in Kashmir and are still there? Use some sense at least

I repeat. Circumstantial evidence and Precedent. There are rogue elements within the ISI, and they have been accused of aiding the islamists from a variety of sources.

On the other hand, there is little or no precedent or literature on India carrying out false flag operations and the like.

The aim isn't to make Indians run away, but to seriously impede their operations by making them fear for their lives a lot more. Such an outcome would definitely help Pakistan.

Again, I repeat, that why would Pakistan send mujaheddin and bomb Kashmir if it didn't expect to have any effect?

Irrespective of how effective bomb attacks are, they have been happening. That should put to rest any arguments that bomb attacks are stupid because they are ineffective, because bomb attacks have been happening, and the ISI has been doing them.

 

[Flintlock]

Knowing that hostility the GoA has for Pakistan, that it has made threats to attack within Pakistan, that it has blamed Pakistan for almost every single insurgent event (the prison break, recent suicide bombings, etc.) it would stand to reason that Pakistan would get blamed.

Whats not adding up here is the motive.

The motive is to destabilize the Karzai regime.

Doesn't it make sense for Pakistan to do so, considering the hostility between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Also, the Taliban, who usually boast of their exploits, have denied this one.

Attacks on Indian security forces would not be limited to "one bomb blast", and the aim there was to in fact increase the insurgency to a point where maintaining a presence for Indian troops would become untenable.

The past policy on Kashmir is not a good analogy with this event.

Well, this isn't the first time that Indian assets have been attacked, and it is definitely not the last.

Also, Kashmir is a perfect analogy because even there it is in Pakistan's interest to destabilize the Indian establishment and turn the locals hostile.

The Taliban have similarly attacked NATO led reconstruction activities in Afghanistan as well, and have a precedent of attacking Indian interests as pointed out.

Why would they deny this one then?