The only thing fantastic here is your assertion that what the Secretary of State shared with Pakistan " is largely reflective of the information in his deposition."
How would you know? Was that revealed to you by the Secretary of state or by her Pakistani interlocutors? Why does the Secretary of State have to mention the sharing of information which according to you is available in a public deposition? I suspect that you added that line to try & obfuscate the fact that your arguments in this post serve to blow monster sized holes in your earlier arguments. I'm going to continue my argument without any further reference to this particular fantastic claim.
My assertion is nothing fantastic, it is based on the comments of the SoS indicating information gained by American investigators was to be shared, and the fact that the public record around the Headley interrogations have FBI agents recollecting aspects of the interrogations.
That information has to be shared by the US at at an official level with Pakistan, and a process started under which Pakistan can ask for any additional information/clarifications it needs for any investigation it might conduct - nations do not go around scanning the public court records of other nations to conduct investigations - there is typically bilateral cooperation involved, and Pakistan's position was similar in terms of demanding India officially share information and evidence in order for it to investigate the Mumbai attacks.
You on the other hand appear to be insisting that the SoS was going to share the verbal diarrhea of 'confessions' in the Indian media abd by Indian officials, despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever that those alleged confessions even exist, and contrary to the statement of the SoS.
So it is your clams on the veracity of statements in the Indian media and by Indian officials that are suspect, not mine.
How would you know? Was that revealed to you by the Secretary of state or by her Pakistani interlocutors? Why does the Secretary of State have to mention the sharing of information which according to you is available in a public deposition? I suspect that you added that line to try & obfuscate the fact that your arguments in this post serve to blow monster sized holes in your earlier arguments. I'm going to continue my argument without any further reference to this particular fantastic claim.
My arguments have no holes, just ones you are imagining since you know Indian claims around the 'Headley confessions' are unsubstantiated and fantastic concoctions.
So, what do we know here? That Headley has told the Americans some secrets that they have felt compelled to share parts at least with the Pakistani authorities. Headley had secrets that he revealed to American investigators & seperately to Indian investigators. The information gleaned might have overlapped or been different depending on the questions asked .
So much for your insistence that Headley said nothing that was not present in the deposition.
We know that Headley provided information to the US during the course of his interrogations, and that information is being officially shared with Pakistan. The information that Headley shared with the US, including contacts with some alleged 'military officials' is part of the official deposition. Likely the US wanted Pakistan to follow up on the names of the individuals named by Headley.
On the other hand, anything Headley may or may not have told Indian investigators is a matter of complete speculation, and given the GoI's penchant for propaganda and lies to malign Pakistan and scapegoat it for all of India's ills, merely pointing to GoI statements on this count just does not cut it, and you know that, hence the verbal contortions to try and validate those fantastic confessions in the Indian media. As for the information shared with Pakistan, there is nothing to indicate that it is any more than the information provided by Headley in his deposition that is a matter of public record. If YOU have access to top secret information and can justify your argument that 'something classified was shared with Pakistan', then by all means present your evidence and sources and we shall analyze them. Till then your claim of 'secret/classified Headley confessions' are nothing but a conspiracy theory.
The link to the article it was sourced from was in my earlier post. One particular reason that this might have more credibility is that it names Stephen Kappes, the CIA’s deputy head as having confronted the ISI. It also squares with a report from that period;
.
You linked to an article based on 'sources'. You did not provide the alleged intelligence report that claimed the ISI planned and supported the Kabul embassy bombing. Most Western experts have pointed out that 180 or so intelligence reports in wikieaks related to the ISI are unverified and lack credibility. Given that much of Western reporting maligning Pakistan was based on 'anonymous sources', these kinds of spurious reports propagated by intelligence and military officials were likely behind a spate of flawed reporting maligning Pakistan in the past - so you cannot use past reporting that was based on flawed intel sources to justify the wikileaks reports that are flawed (and could have been behind the original flawed reports).
So please provide that actual intelligence report from wikileaks that is claimed to be this 'smoking gun' linking the ISI to the Kabul embassy attack.
Your job, not mine.
As for getting
"your panties into a bunch". it would be better advised to tell that to most of your countrymen on this thread and you could probably include yourself. So many people upset over supposedly ineffectual comments from an supposedly unimportant leader.
It's all cheery tonight from where I am sitting.
I see nothing wrong with his comment and interpreted it differently from you, so it is not my job to do anything. If however you want to complain about another member on something rather obtuse, etiquette would require that you at the least ask that member to clarify his comments.
'So many people'
are bashing ineffectual comments by an unimportant leader - they could have been made by the PM of Ghana, the comments would have still been bashed and refuted because they are wrong and a lie should not go unchallenged, no matter how ineffectual the purveyors of lies may be.
