David Headley says he worked for ISI and LeT for Mumbai Attacks

[Dukkar]

He is surely lying .IT has to be a Christian -Zionist-hindu conspiracy . ISI is as pure as every thing religious .

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You probably shouldn't lump the ISI and LeT together in the same sentence, then.

Depends what one considers "leading", doesn't it? After decades of keeping LeT leaders alive and safe to train new cohorts despite their murderous activities it's reasonable to conclude the LeT knows what the ISI/PA considers acceptable initiative.

It's the same relationship and the same 'responsibility for murderous activities' that the US has for its relationship with murderous regimes and groups such as the Samozas in Nicaragua or Rios Montt in Guatemala or Pinochet in Argentina.

Or, closer to home, its the same responsibility that India bears for sponsoring terrorists and terrorism in Jungadh, Hyderabad, Sri Lanka (LTTE), East Pakistan (Mukti Bahini) and Balochistan.

He is surely lying .IT has to be a Christian -Zionist-hindu conspiracy . ISI is as pure as every thing religious .

Which part is he lying in - the one where he says the ISI wasn't involved in the Mumbai attacks or the part where he makes unsubstantiated claims of the ISI being involved in the Mumbai attacks?

 

[That Guy]

We will just have to wait and see wont we? First Pakistan has to do nothing for one whole year and sit on the pressure. If Sharif govt bites the bullet and takes major action of any sort, then the whole scenario changes.

But if Pakistan chooses to do nothing...with republican control of congress and quite likely a republican president wanting to take the bull by its horns and create bold policy right off the bat (to put as much distance from the status-quoesque obama admin as possible)...there definitely will be some significant pressure applied on Pakistan....and sanctions if needed.

The longer Pakistan goes on with its current strategy, the more likely with time it will happen. Once the West has absolutely nothing to lose w.r.t Pakistan economy or geopolitics (once its basically a 100% client state of China)...is when we will see the US put Pakistan on the list of state sponsored terrorism.

Those US officers who served in Afghanistan as lieutenants, captains and majors....they will be colonels and generals shortly. They will not forget what Pakistan support to the Taliban meant on the ground to the grunts under their responsibility.

Just sit back and watch. The US public is becoming increasingly anti-Pakistan (San Bernadino accelerated it significantly) especially since OBL was sheltered in Pakistan. It is only a matter of time till this blows up beyond what Pakistan is familiar with when the world media increases its portrayal of Pakistan as a state unwilling to confront its home grown terror network in any serious way.

Just watch what will happen if this guy, who is quite an outsider to Washington political niceties, becomes president and Pakistan thinks it can continue to hold onto JuD terrorist leadership:

Trump calls for Indian intervention if Pakistan becomes ‘unstable’ - The Express Tribune

India is the check to Pakistan, Donald Trump declares - Times of India

There have been calls and shots across the bow before too from others:

Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism, Chris Alexander says - Politics - CBC News

Pakistan better be pragmatic here and solve the root cause genuinely. Why continue to gamble and be a pain to the world community?

Again, your argument is nothing more than "ifs" and "buts". All you've done is repeat yourself, so my answer to you remains the same, "nothing more than rhetoric".

If the US was going to put sanctions on Pakistan, they would have done so immediately after OBL was killed, they didn't and for a very good reason as well.

Even if Trump comes to power, not a lot will change. Even if the most anti-Pakistan administration, and security establishment were to come into power, nothing short of war would change the relationship between Pakistan and the US.

You only read the first part of it and not the second. US will no longer bother about attacks emanating from inside afghanistan other than showing some lip sympathy or quid pro quid approach.

No, I read everything, and my answer remains the same. You have no idea what being the sole global super-power even means. The US will have to care, as every global conflict involves US interests. every single one. From Somalia, to Ukraine, to Columbia and Mexico. The US is involved in one way or another in every single global conflict, whether indirectly or directly.

Quite frankly, what you said is far-fetched, and unrealistic; The rise of ISIS in Asia and the middle east is going to force the US to engage positively with Pakistan, at least for the next few decades.

 

[Nilgiri]

If the US was going to put sanctions on Pakistan, they would have done so immediately after OBL was killed, they didn't and for a very good reason as well.

They were in the midst of still being heavily involved in Afghanistan with Pakistan as the major supply route. With the massive withdrawal and upcoming change in govt....this will be the impetus needed. Let us see.

Even if Trump comes to power, not a lot will change. Even if the most anti-Pakistan administration, and security establishment were to come into power, nothing short of war would change the relationship between Pakistan and the US.

Why would Pakistan be so important to the US given the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

They are not at all out war with Iran, Sudan or Syria...yet they are on the state-sponsored terrorist list.

With enough Indian and international pressure on Pakistan in light of the Headley testimony, the US may soon have to take the pragmatic decision if it is to prove its serious about building a strong security partnership with India.

I would not say its a foregone conclusion either way....but this year and the next will be an interesting one for geopolitics in the region.

 

[jetray]

Why would Pakistan be so important to the US given the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Americans are not withdrawing any time soon. Its going to become like korea. Given that china is taking over pakistan through cpec, america needs a presence. This will again lead to cat & mouse game.

 

[That Guy]

They were in the midst of still being heavily involved in Afghanistan with Pakistan as the major supply route. With the massive withdrawal and upcoming change in govt....this will be the impetus needed. Let us see.

There is nothing really to wait and see, as it's already all there. US cooperation with Pakistan has actually INCREASED over the last few years, not decreased, despite India's best efforts.

Even after a complete withdrawal (which probably won't happen for at least another decade), with the US pivot towards Asia, Pakistan has become vital once again, and we can see this with how the US is pushing towards fixing the relationship between itself and Pakistan. With constant economic and defense meetings between the two, cooperation is actually set to increase further.

Why would Pakistan be so important to the US given the withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Because Afghanistan was never the first priority between the two's relationship. The US wants to keep Pakistan in it's camp, or at least neutral, even as Pakistan gets closer with China. This is why the US continues to invest heavily into Pakistan's economy and energy sector (second only to China). Despite what Pakistanis believe, the US and Pakistan are quite close, even at the worst of times, and nothing (not even India) will be able to change that.

They are not at all out war with Iran, Sudan or Syria...yet they are on the state-sponsored terrorist list.

Who's on the state-sponsored terrorist list? I'm genuinely confused, could you clarify?

With enough Indian and international pressure on Pakistan in light of the Headley testimony, the US may soon have to take the pragmatic decision if it is to prove its serious about building a strong security partnership with India.

India and international pressure? What international pressure? The only ones to even care are India, and to a certain degree, the US. The EU has pretty much distanced itself, and is letting India and Pakistan handle it on their own, the AU doesn't care, South America doesn't care, the UN says that both sides need to sit down and talk. What international pressure? The UK? Even as they make some statements to India, the UK continues to not only cooperate, but increase investment in Pakistan, recently identifying Pakistan as one of it's biggest target markets for the next decade (especially since Pakistan is set to reenter the emerging markets index catagory).

I would not say its a foregone conclusion either way....but this year and the next will be an interesting one for geopolitics in the region.

Nothing major will change in the region in the next two years. The only thing that will happen is Pakistan and India, as well as Afghanistan and the Afghan Taliban will both start talks this year. We won't see anything major happen in the region until at the end of 2018, at least.

 

[Nilgiri]

Who's on the state-sponsored terrorist list? I'm genuinely confused, could you clarify?

Those 3 countries: Iran, Syria, Sudan.

We are going in circles now..so lets agree to disagree and watch what transpires.

This is why the US continues to invest heavily into Pakistan's economy and energy sector (second only to China).

Now from what I've seen of the latest FDI figures.

 

[That Guy]

Those 3 countries: Iran, Syria, Sudan.

We are going in circles now..so lets agree to disagree and watch what transpires.

fair enough

Now from what I've seen of the latest FDI figures.

Most US investment in Pakistan is off paper. It usually comes in the form of remittance and aid, also material support. Simple example, the US is currently supporting government efforts to build schools and roads in areas where PA has cleared of militants. No one has clear numbers, but some put it anywhere between a few hundred million dollars to as high as 1 to 10 billion dollars in a mix of grants and material aid (machinery, training, construction, medical), not just loans.

FDI is just one side of the story, and is often misleading. Did you know that despite UAE and Pakistan's currently rocky relationship, UAE's investment in Pakistan is at an all time high? You wouldn't know it, considering that the UAE is investing billions into India.

 

[my2cents]

You know, assuming he's right, what now? What is India going to do about it? Is there anything India can do about this? Support terrorism in Pakistan? Well, some would argue that India is already doing that. Try and break Pakistan? That would cause India's economy to go utterly down the drawn, trying to stabilize the region. Go to war? Again, Modi is an economy-orientated individual, he realizes that a war would damage his vision beyond repair.

What if this guy is lying? Telling the media what they want to hear, in order to try and get out of trouble? All we have are his words, and he has provided no proper identities, no specific dates (only giving a rough estimate), no locations (being very vague about this as well) to prove his claim.

No matter how you think about it, he's simply playing the media to his own tune.

Even if you were to believe everything he said, even if he were to prove his claims, it changes absolutely nothing.

Next time someone from Pakistan background goes for immigration check, don't complain if they are taking too long.

 

[That Guy]

Next time someone from Pakistan background goes for immigration check, don't complain if they are taking too long.

They already take too long, I doubt this will change anything.

 

[Nilgiri]

Americans are not withdrawing any time soon. Its going to become like korea. Given that china is taking over pakistan through cpec, america needs a presence. This will again lead to cat & mouse game.

I'm talking about the significant combat heavy forces. For all intents and purposes they are leaving only a few training personnel there and not tens of thousands like in Korea.

 

[my2cents]

How about all the World specifically your enchanted new friend USA been asking you to sit and negotiate with Pakistan all your issues and India trying to dissuade world by playing the proxy war and bombing their own embassies and Pathankot Airfield to potray Pakistan as the main source of problem, we can very very easily play the game you trying to play with us, as you are just a new entrant in this game..... remember that......

How about if we prove to UN and world that India is the main source of terrorism and afflictions in South Asia...Hwo about that.......What if we provide to UN the evidence of involvement OF RAW in Balochistan and hundreds of bombings.....?

At least you are admitting that these things are happening from your side. Admission is the first step for atonement.

 

[Nilgiri]

Most US investment in Pakistan is off paper. It usually comes in the form of remittance and aid, also material support.

Thing with remittance is that it does not agglomerate well into sustainable capital producing investment. You have to rely on the people to then invest a fraction into hard assets, and its normally spread out quite thinly...rather than focused on a new factory or other form of major greenfield investment etc.

Besides:

Pakistan pockets remittances amounting to $18.4b - The Express Tribune

The amount 2.6 billion USD from the US is not that much to begin with (certainly not from their point of view anyway).

FDI is just one side of the story, and is often misleading. Did you know that despite UAE and Pakistan's currently rocky relationship, UAE's investment in Pakistan is at an all time high? You wouldn't know it, considering that the UAE is investing billions into India.

If you are again talking about remittances, it does not interest me that much. I am looking at figures for Pakistan's overall GFCF (which would include domestic investment that comes through remittances) and they still do not impress me.

Simple example, the US is currently supporting government efforts to build schools and roads in areas where PA has cleared of militants.

I doubt the amount of money going in is anything very sizeable. What is the official development aid from the US anyway?

No one has clear numbers, but some put it anywhere between a few hundred million dollars to as high as 1 to 10 billion dollars in a mix of grants and material aid (machinery, training, construction, medical), not just loans.

Well its not clear, so I can't comment. I can only comment on what is clear and visible. These grants are spread over many years and they havent had much impact in the overall long term investment scenario of Pakistan considering total capital formation etc.

 

[my2cents]

They already take too long, I doubt this will change anything.

So you don't care what they think about your country and your countrymen.

 

[That Guy]

Thing with remittance is that it does not agglomerate well into sustainable capital producing investment. You have to rely on the people to then invest a fraction into hard assets, and its normally spread out quite thinly...rather than focused on a new factory or other form of major greenfield investment etc.

Besides:

Pakistan pockets remittances amounting to $18.4b - The Express Tribune

The amount 2.6 billion USD from the US is not that much to begin with (certainly not from their point of view anyway).

It's actually quite impressive, all you need is the proper context.

If you are again talking about remittances, it does not interest me that much. I am looking at figures for Pakistan's overall GFCF (which would include domestic investment that comes through remittances) and they still do not impress me.

Well compared to India, it's nothing, but Pakistan's GDP is only 270 billion to India's $5 trillion(?). It's all a matter of context.

Besides, I didn't mention remittance in this case, I was talking about FDI, which has little to nothing to do with remittance.

I doubt the amount of money going in is anything very sizeable. What is the official development aid from the US anyway?

Anywhere from half a billion to a billion a year, that is what I can guess. No one talks about it, as everyone seems to be focused solely on CSF for whatever reason, even though the CSF and reimbursement make up a fraction of US support to Pakistan.

Well its not clear, so I can't comment. I can only comment on what is clear and visible. These grants are spread over many years and they havent had much impact in the overall long term investment scenario of Pakistan considering total capital formation etc.

The problem isn't that they've been spread out over a long time (they haven't), the problem is that the US originally invested in the wrong areas (more on military and less on economic front), and spread out their investments over a large number of ill conceived projects; this is changing. The US has realized it's mistakes, and is looking at the Chinese model (a vast majority on economic viable projects, and less on the military front, letting Pakistan handle the military front mainly on it's own terms).