Headley: ISI had no links to 26/11

[Meengla]

So does it mean ISI as an agency is not involved..afterall how many times does head spy agency comes directly in contact with terrorists?..It is always the low level guys, who do the dirty work..but offcourse orders come from above.

Ha ha ha!!! Starting to sound desperate!

Okay, so there is a pervasive theory that an Indian army officer (Major Peruhit?) who burned down the Samjotha Express train, killing many Pakistanis.
Did that come from Manmohan Singh or the RAW chief?

 

[Respect4Respect01]

booooooooooooo raw boooooooooooooooo

 

[ares]

Ha ha ha!!! Starting to sound desperate!

Okay, so there is a pervasive theory that an Indian army officer (Major Peruhit?) who burned down the Samjotha Express train, killing many Pakistanis.
Did that come from Manmohan Singh or the RAW chief?

Could be if you can prove the Manohan Singh ordered the attack...

basic point here is that involvement of low level ISI officers but absence of ISI chief from planning stages of the attack does not prove ISI was not involved.

 

[Bang Galore]

Again referring to 'rogue', but not clarifying whether active or former.

The gist of his argument was that the ISI as an institution was not invovled, which has now been proven correct with even Headly not supporting the allegations attributed to him in the media.

ProPublica: Shame, shame , shame, shame for parroting Indian media and official statements that have turned out to be bald faced lies.

This really gives a new meaning to the term clutching at straws. The Pakistani members here seem so eager for any "good news" that they are willing to clutch at anything. The argument above is a prime example. If your dog bit anyone, you would be liable. Arguing that you didn't do the biting or that the dog did not confide in you that it was planning to bite will get you nowhere. It is your dog & you will be held responsible. The dog that bites frequently will have to be dealt with & the owner will either go to jail or make necessary compensation . If the owner refuses to take the necessary actions, he will almost certainly be held criminally liable & the dog will be dealt with by "external forces".

Pakistan & the ISI are liable for any actions of ISI agents, rogue or otherwise. Maybe a reading into the case of Pan AM Flight 103 may be in order. Even with the Libyan government admitting no complicity at the senior level, they still had to make a large compensation payout. The "rogue agents" were dealt with criminally. The same is the case with the supposed "rogue agents" here.

How has involvement of ISI agents (rogue or otherwise) been proven?

Merely stating that he met with 'Major Iqbal' or 'Col XYZ' does not make them a real 'major or colonel', and it certainly does not make them 'active ISI/PA officers'. A dismissed or retired individual might still use his 'officer title' for the sake of credibility and impressing others.

The only thing Pakistani officials have said is that the involvement of 'rogues' is a possibility, they have not made any conclusive claims that they have identified 'rogue officials' who assisted these people.

So Headley is right when he exonerates senior leaders of the ISI but wrong when he claims that "ISI officers" of a lower level were involved? This reading of law would be hilarious if it weren't downright silly. You cannot pick & choose from his testimony. If your argument is that Headley would/could not have known whether the men he dealt with were actually ISI officers (you are now of course conveniently forgetting Gen.Pasha's statement that people in his organisation were probably involved"), you cannot then claim that he has sufficient knowledge to be able to exonerate senior ISI officers. It would follow that the "ISI agents" who wouldn't even give their actual names to Headley, surely would not inform him whether or not the top brass of the ISI were involved.

Even the nature of evidences given by Headley when he indicts "officials" of the ISI & when he supposedly exonerates the top brass of the ISI are different. His indictment of the "ISI officials" comes from personal contact & knowledge because he actually dealt with them. His exoneration of the top brass could at the very best be termed as an assumption (informed or otherwise) since there was no way that he could possibly know whether or not they were involved (unless of course you argue that he had contact with senior officers of the ISI & therefore could be reasonably expected to have some knowledge). Third party hearsay or personal opinion is simply not accepted as equal in law to evidence where the party is directly involved & therefore can claim direct knowledge. Btw, Rana's defence argument against Headley is that he was trained by the "ISI" to be a good spy & is therefore an accomplished liar. That argument may or may not exonerate Rana but acceptance of either Headley's testimony or the defence put out by Rana's lawyers would in any case reflect poorly on the ISI, to say the least.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This really gives a new meaning to the term clutching at straws. The Pakistani members here seem so eager for any "good news" that they are willing to clutch at anything. The argument above is a prime example. If your dog bit anyone, you would be liable. Arguing that you didn't do the biting or that the dog did not confide in you that it was planning to bite will get you nowhere. It is your dog & you will be held responsible. The dog that bites frequently will have to be dealt with & the owner will either go to jail or make necessary compensation . If the owner refuses to take the necessary actions, he will almost certainly be held criminally liable & the dog will be dealt with by "external forces".

Pakistan & the ISI are liable for any actions of ISI agents, rogue or otherwise. Maybe a reading into the case of Pan AM Flight 103 may be in order. Even with the Libyan government admitting no complicity at the senior level, they still had to make a large compensation payout. The "rogue agents" were dealt with criminally. The same is the case with the supposed "rogue agents" here.

The only people clutching at straws and trying to save face here are the Indians and Westerners that had been parroting their lies and propaganda.

Nations are not 'dog owners', and even in the case of a 'dog bite' one has to prove which dog did the biting, and that the 'owner' is not taking the necessary measures to address the issue.

Neither point can be proved against Pakistan - the wikileaks mentioned already indicate that even US officials agreed with Pakistan that there was not enough evidence to proceed against the individuals India alleged were involved in the Mumbai attacks, so it certainly is not just Pakistan that has taken that position.

So Headley is right when he exonerates senior leaders of the ISI but wrong when he claims that "ISI officers" of a lower level were involved? This reading of law would be hilarious if it weren't downright silly. You cannot pick & choose from his testimony. If your argument is that Headley would/could not have known whether the men he dealt with were actually ISI officers (you are now of course conveniently forgetting Gen.Pasha's statement that people in his organisation were probably involved"), you cannot then claim that he has sufficient knowledge to be able to exonerate senior ISI officers. It would follow that the "ISI agents" who wouldn't even give their actual names to Headley, surely would not inform him whether or not the top brass of the ISI were involved.

Even the nature of evidences given by Headley when he indicts "officials" of the ISI & when he supposedly exonerates the top brass of the ISI are different. His indictment of the "ISI officials" comes from personal contact & knowledge because he actually dealt with them. His exoneration of the top brass could at the very best be termed as an assumption (informed or otherwise) since there was no way that he could possibly know whether or not they were involved (unless of course you argue that he had contact with senior officers of the ISI & therefore could be reasonably expected to have some knowledge). Third party hearsay or personal opinion is simply not accepted as equal in law to evidence where the party is directly involved & therefore can claim direct knowledge. Btw, Rana's defence argument against Headley is that he was trained by the "ISI" to be a good spy & is therefore an accomplished liar. That argument may or may not exonerate Rana but acceptance of either Headley's testimony or the defence put out by Rana's lawyers would in any case reflect poorly on the ISI, to say the least.

That is a complete misrepresentation of my argument, and I have already pointed that out to other posters.

My point is two fold:

(1) India, Indians and their fellow Western liars and propagandists banked on the alleged 'Headley confessions' that were trotted out on the media - whether Headley is credible or not, his statement to the court exposes India, Indians and their fellow Western Pakistan bashers for the liars they are.
I am not claiming here that Headley is credible, I am merely pointing out that his testimony exposes India as lying through its teeth about the 'Headley Confessions'.

(2) Headley's credibility. I can point out the glaring flaws in his account:
a. He claims that he was not certain that 'Major Iqbal' was the real name of the individual he dealt with. If that is the case, then how can he claim 'Major Iqbal' was even a 'Major', let alone a former or active one? And if he is not certain about Iqbal's identity, how can he speculate on whether some 'Colonel' was aware of the Mumbai plot?

Btw, Rana's defence argument against Headley is that he was trained by the "ISI" to be a good spy & is therefore an accomplished liar.

Wasn't Headley also trained by the US DEA, AQ and LeT?

Seems like he was a pretty accomplished liar and double agent before he even met 'Major Iqbal'. Rather absurd argument, that to be an 'accomplished liar' one can only have been trained by an 'intelligence agency'.

Rana's defence is to destroy Headley's credibility, his defence has yet to even come close to proving that the ISI trained Headley.

This is common sense. Your excuses to hide the fact that India, Indians and their fellow Western propagandists stand exposed with their lies are unconvincing to say the least.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Could be if you can prove the Manohan Singh ordered the attack...

basic point here is that involvement of low level ISI officers but absence of ISI chief from planning stages of the attack does not prove ISI was not involved.

Even the presence of low level ISI officers has not been proved yet. We only have statements from Pakistani officials saying that 'it could be possible that former or current officials might have been involved'.

We will have to wait and see if the prosecutors make a case about Major Iqbal's identity.

 

[GUNS-N- ROSES]

mark my words intelligence agencies are not fools. they do not leave evidences behind to be proved in court.

i doubt india can pin much hope on this case.

 

[ares]

Even the presence of low level ISI officers has not been proved yet. We only have statements from Pakistani officials saying that 'it could be possible that former or current officials might have been involved'.

We will have to wait and see if the prosecutors make a case about Major Iqbal's identity.

Well the case is only beginning.

Question is even If it is proved in the American court...that ISI was involved in these attacks ..would you guys accept it ?

 

[Bang Galore]

The only people clutching at straws and trying to save face here are the Indians and Westerners that had been parroting their lies and propaganda.

Nations are not 'dog owners', and even in the case of a 'dog bite' one has to prove which dog did the biting, and that the 'owner' is not taking the necessary measures to address the issue.

Neither point can be proved against Pakistan - the wikileaks mentioned already indicate that even US officials agreed with Pakistan that there was not enough evidence to proceed against the individuals India alleged were involved in the Mumbai attacks, so it certainly is not just Pakistan that has taken that position.

That is a complete misrepresentation of my argument, and I have already pointed that out to other posters.

My point is two fold:

(1) India, Indians and their fellow Western liars and propagandists banked on the alleged 'Headley confessions' that were trotted out on the media - whether Headley is credible or not, his statement to the court exposes India, Indians and their fellow Western Pakistan bashers for the liars they are.
I am not claiming here that Headley is credible, I am merely pointing out that his testimony exposes India as lying through its teeth about the 'Headley Confessions'.

(2) Headley's credibility. I can point out the glaring flaws in his account:
a. He claims that he was not certain that 'Major Iqbal' was the real name of the individual he dealt with. If that is the case, then how can he claim 'Major Iqbal' was even a 'Major', let alone a former or active one? And if he is not certain about Iqbal's identity, how can he speculate on whether some 'Colonel' was aware of the Mumbai plot?

Btw, Rana's defence argument against Headley is that he was trained by the "ISI" to be a good spy & is therefore an accomplished liar.

Wasn't Headley also trained by the US DEA, AQ and LeT?

Seems like he was a pretty accomplished liar and double agent before he even met 'Major Iqbal'. Rather absurd argument, that to be an 'accomplished liar' one can only have been trained by an 'intelligence agency'.

Rana's defence is to destroy Headley's credibility, his defence has yet to even come close to proving that the ISI trained Headley.

This is common sense. Your excuses to hide the fact that India, Indians and their fellow Western propagandists stand exposed with their lies are unconvincing to say the least.

Exposed? Liars? To whom? To you, someone who has blinded himself to any & all facts? A journalist was killed in Pakistan yesterday. He blamed the ISI in an email that was to be released in the event of his death. Most journalists reporting the story seem to be going along with that line. We may never have enough proof of that, anyway nothing that would satisfy the likes of you. Are you now accusing all those Pakistani journalists of being liars? Nobody is buying your story. Nobody! You can be as belligerent in your defence of the ISI as you like, there are simply no takers for that line anymore.Iif the ISI could (?) be involved in a journalist's death simply because they were not happy with what he wrote, no one is about to be convinced that the ISI would think much about killing Indians. I'm sure someone will come with the original argument that even if ISI officers were involved in the death of Syed Saleem Shahzad, they were probably retired, rogue or in case the top brass were not in the know of it. Buy it if you want to, we see the dogs which have turned rabid biting their own masters. There is no need for us to do anything more. It is your country & if you want to bury your head in the sands, so be it. Just remember the train that is coming your way is going to run you guys over whether or not you refuse to believe in the existence of the train.

 

[S.M.R]

Well the case is only beginning.

Question is even If it is proved in the American court...that ISI was involved in these attacks ..would you guys accept it ?

It is premature, dont bring the IFs and BUTs merely representing your dreams. Well, yes, the case is only beginning, and is entirely based on Headly who is Liar and cannot be entrusted. Who was even playing with his three wives, who is drug edict / smuggler, When FBI arrested him in 2009, they were worried that he is just a clever fox who can ruin the entire case in court.

 

[hembo]

Twitter updates from day 5 trial:

- After nearly five days of testimony, #Headley is off the stand #Ranatrial

-Terror trial witness says Lockheed CEO was targeted in response to drone attacks Terror trial testimony: Lockheed CEO targeted - chicagotribune.com #RanaTrial

- #Headley gets off the stand after Rana's attorneys asked him if he used Rana quite a bit over the years. Headley said he did #Ranatrial

- #Headley: Rana had access to Headley email that listed Indian Chabad houses. #Ranatrial

- #Headley said he surveilled the Germany Bakery in Pune. It was bombed while he was being interrogated #Ranatrial

- #Headley tells wife he'll be out in prison in a few years; he tells his children three months #Ranatrial

- #Headley suggested to Feds he'd embed a chip in Ilyas Kashmiri so he could be tracked and killed in a drone attack #Ranatrial

 

[AAtish]

Exposed? Liars? To whom? To you, someone who has blinded himself to any & all facts? A journalist was killed in Pakistan yesterday. He blamed the ISI in an email that was to be released in the event of his death. Most journalists reporting the story seem to be going along with that line. We may never have enough proof of that, anyway nothing that would satisfy the likes of you. Are you now accusing all those Pakistani journalists of being liars? Nobody is buying your story. Nobody! You can be as belligerent in your defence of the ISI as you like, there are simply no takers for that line anymore.Iif the ISI could (?) be involved in a journalist's death simply because they were not happy with what he wrote, no one is about to be convinced that the ISI would think much about killing Indians. I'm sure someone will come with the original argument that even if ISI officers were involved in the death of Syed Saleem Shahzad, they were probably retired, rogue or in case the top brass were not in the know of it. Buy it if you want to, we see the dogs which have turned rabid biting their own masters. There is no need for us to do anything more. It is your country & if you want to bury your head in the sands, so be it. Just remember the train that is coming your way is going to run you guys over whether or not you refuse to believe in the existence of the train.

For the BOLD part.. please refer to post # 204 of GUNS_N_ROSES.. He's an Indian Here it is for you:

mark my words intelligence agencies are not fools. they do not leave evidences behind to be proved in court.

i doubt india can pin much hope on this case.

For the rest of your post.. No base!! Nothing to reply or rather not worth replying.. just ISI bashing.. thats all

 

[somebozo]

Drug addict like headly can be made to confess and refute anything by few packets of white stuff..and premium afghani brand!

 

[S.M.R]

Drug addict like headly can be made to confess and refute anything by few packets of white stuff..and premium afghani brand!

You mean like there are plenty of Charsi gawah in city court who are ready to say anything in courts for Rs. 100?

 

[S.M.R]

Indian felt vindicated when Lashkar-e-Tayiba operative David Coleman Headley testified that the ISI had trained him in terror. But on Tuesday, Headley did a U-turn as he gave a clean chit to Pakistan's spy agency. Hoping to nail the ISI in the 26/11 case, Indian intelligence agencies say that Headley's changing versions come as no surprise to them. Vicky Nanjappa reports.

Lashkar-e-Tayiba operative David Headley has sprung yet another surprise as he testified during the ongoing trial of his co-accused Tawwahur Rana in the 26/11 case.

On Wednesday, Headley did a turn around that the India n investigating agencies were expecting. Going soft on the Inter-Services Intelligence, the self-confessed plotter said that the top brass of the spy agency has nothing to with the 26/11 attacks. Only last week he had testified that he received espionage training against India from the ISI.
Indian investigators, who will be visiting the United States in July to interrogate Rana, said that they expected Headley's testimony to be full of twists and turns. "While interrogating Headley we did realise that he was a smart operative and expected him to change versions," said an investigating official.

However, during his interrogation with both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Investigating Agency, his versions did remain intact. Sources in the NIA said that a chargesheet will be filed on the basis of Headley's confessions to them. However, the final chargesheet will corroborate both Headley and Rana's statements following which the versions would be matched.


"Headley's testimony and versions always raised suspicion and anyone who thought that he was speaking the whole truth and not trying to save his own skin is a fool," said investigators.

Sources with the Indian intelligence said it is next to impossible to believe that only a part of the ISI was in the know of the 26/11 attack. The ISI is a strong element today only because of the manner in which they perfectly follow hierarchy. There have been no defectors from the ISI till date and rebellion of any sort against the top leadership within the ISI is even remotely possible, say insiders.

If a small fry like Sabahuddin, who helped stage the attack by surveying the targets and providing information about them to Lashkar handlers, claims to have met Pakistan Army chief General Adfaq Kayani, it is unlikely that Headley and Rana had no interaction with the top brass.

Indian intelligence agencies are now banking on Rana, who they say is expected to retort, after he was let down by Headley. They agree with Rana's lawyers that Headley's version is unreliable and he had implicated Rana in the plot with a view of making a deal with the prosecutors. Moreover, Headley right from the time of his arrest was keen on playing safe and immediately entered into a plea bargain with the US authorities.

Charles Swift , Rana's attorney, said, "Headley is like a spider who spins the web so that everything works his way."

India, however, has little to worry about the flip-flops. Indian agencies are hoping to turn both Headley and Rana approvers.

Going by Headley's confession to the NIA, his case is an open and shut one. However, a big hurdle that they face is Headley's testimony giving a clean chit to the ISI leadership. It is important to establish the ISI link to the attacks to bring the real perpetrators of the 26/11 attack to justice.

"At first it appeared as though Headley would nail the top brass of the ISI, but today he has done a u-turn. We have to wait for Rana's testimony and see whether he sticks to his statements. However, we are not putting all our eggs into one basket and basing our case entirely on what happens in Chicago," said investigators.

"We have conducted an independent probe to show that even the top brass of the ISI was in the know of this attack. However, we cannot jump the gun on any of the issues since the trial is still on. We have to wait for it to conclude before we make our move," they added.

Headley's ISI flip-flops: Should India worry? - Rediff.com India News

we realized this when we saw his credentials.