In 2008 Mumbai Killings, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle

[Joe Shearer]

In short, the entire intelligence operation has got so large, so involved, so unwieldy that parts of it are in effect working without any effective supervision. It is possible that junior/middle level officers put together a caper without the top leadership ever getting to hear about it.

And there may be similar idiotics in play on the other side of the border.

In effect, both sides are running out of control at certain levels.

Is that correct?

 

[Solomon2]

when there is actionable intel we take action -

In the 26/11 case BBC reporters winkled out more information in the first few days than Pakistani officials were willing to admit for years, so to establish your claim as truth Pakistan has a long ways to go.

 

[SQ8]

In short, the entire intelligence operation has got so large, so involved, so unwieldy that parts of it are in effect working without any effective supervision. It is possible that junior/middle level officers put together a caper without the top leadership ever getting to hear about it.

And there may be similar idiotics in play on the other side of the border.

In effect, both sides are running out of control at certain levels.

Is that correct?

Both yes and no. Yes, as in Junior and middle level officers/operatives can put together a caper without the top honchos having a clue as to what is going on.. and in some cases a single honcho within a department can "compartmentalize" his area and carry out operations without the head honcho knowing about a thing.

Case in point, a massive honey trap effort that has now gone into a full infrastructural level tapping an existing "system". Politicians, diplomats.. all are targets of this effort. And off course, the ..uhh.. product is sufficiently "tested" both before and during usage.. the head honcho has "knowledge" that something is amiss.. but any leaks are contained and any inter agency spies are treated to the "product" so they end up keeping quiet(at least that is claim of the spy within this compartment)

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

In the 26/11 case BBC reporters winkled out more information in the first few days than Pakistani officials were willing to admit for years, so to establish your claim as truth Pakistan has a long ways to go.

humor me

 

[Solomon2]

humor me

I deliberately did NOT provide links to back up my statement to demonstrate how deep-set your thinking is and how much it has to change: had you googled it yourself to confirm my statement rather than throwing it back at me that would have been enough to disprove my "Pakistan won't look at its dirty underwear" argument.

(Was that a form of deception?)

 

[Joe Shearer]

Both yes and no. Yes, as in Junior and middle level officers/operatives can put together a caper without the top honchos having a clue as to what is going on.. and in some cases a single honcho within a department can "compartmentalize" his area and carry out operations without the head honcho knowing about a thing.

Case in point, a massive honey trap effort that has now gone into a full infrastructural level tapping an existing "system". Politicians, diplomats.. all are targets of this effort. And off course, the ..uhh.. product is sufficiently "tested" both before and during usage.. the head honcho has "knowledge" that something is amiss.. but any leaks are contained and any inter agency spies are treated to the "product" so they end up keeping quiet(at least that is claim of the spy within this compartment)

Makes a terrifying kind of sense.

 

[SQ8]

Makes a terrifying kind of sense.

Huzoor, the agency is not alone in this. CIA also has issues with compartmentalized unsanctioned operations that happen without the government having a clue on what is going on. It just depends on the level of independence the institution has in its operations.. in the case of the agency.. that independence is total. Much to the surprise(if many assume it so), even the Army Chief is suspicious and had misgivings about the agency.. and is spied upon and coaxed in certain cases.

One cannot blame the agency for what it is, as such it has really worked well in certain scenarios.. but the issue lies in a deeper sense.Based on my "research" if you may, The criteria for mid and low level staffing of the ISI and that of the supporting arms is the same., the not so very bright to the not so very dedicated.. or those whose career is determined to halted at the first star and crescent are shoved into the agency which makes up 70% of its cadre.. with 30% being genuine career officers and bright ones who either volunteered for the job or are put there to ensure that not all goes to doldrums. (take that in contrast to say the CIA or MOSSAD where usually the best are picked 70% of the time). So here you have a lot of people who really did not make in the PA out for one last hurrah(or big earning.. and there is a lot to be done as you are god in Pakistan if you with the intelligence).
So while some will acquire land to set up a petrol station from where they will create funds for both their operations and their own pockets.. some will decide to plan a daring attack across the LoC to impress themselves less than their superiors.

I deliberately did NOT provide links to back up my statement to demonstrate how deep-set your thinking is and how much it has to change: had you googled it yourself to confirm my statement rather than throwing it back at me that would have been enough to disprove my "Pakistan won't look at its dirty underwear" argument.

(Was that a form of deception?)

But that too is a reactionary argument and paints a rather hollow bias. If you truly have that proof, show it. Simply because the onus of proving it lies on the accuser and not the accused... and pointless character assassination is irrelevant.
If you have the video alleging it at hand, then show it instead of asking the ones you are accusing of doing so.. have you EVER heard that happen in court?

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

I deliberately did NOT provide links to back up my statement to demonstrate how deep-set your thinking is and how much it has to change: had you googled it yourself to confirm my statement rather than throwing it back at me that would have been enough to disprove my "Pakistan won't look at its dirty underwear" argument.

(Was that a form of deception?)

No, youre just too lazy due to the rainy cold weather in DC

 

[Not Sure]

Read my last post and understand it from a "pressure" PoV. The United States may have gotten to headly, but Kasab.. who is prime suspect remains in India... that is excuse enough for Pakistan to put pressure on the local prosecution and also keep them locked in circles.

The rest is already answered, as I have said a millionth before.. learn to be less reactionary on posts and you'll learn to read between the lines.

I tried, but I couldn't really make out the PoV you wanted me to explore. From this post of yours, it seems you are saying exactly what I wanted to say. But your first post in the thread seemed to negate all the statements and testimonies presented in the article.

Aur yar, if I try to be rational and proactive, then I would be writing elsewhere. Ractionary nahi hounga, to PDF ka masala kaise chakhunga?

Waise main to aapko bhi yahi salah dunga, unless it is your profession, try not to be as clear as you do get some times. Take life lightly, aur doosro ko bhi thoda aaram se jeene dijiye.

 

[Joe Shearer]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I think the word we are dealing with here is 'reactive', rather than the political epithet 'reactionary'.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Mon ami, in all of these.. the key idea is for the interrogated people to be allowed to be interrogated by those from the accused state. Take the recent killings of a British national by people from Pakistan, the proof was provided and the Pakistani authorities interrogated the suspects(who had fled to Pakistan) . In another case, a Pakistani admiral who was wanted for embezzlement was first interrogated within the US to ascertain his identity and culpability before being extradited to Pakistan

Apples and oranges, really!

Comparing cross-interrogation arrangement between UK/Pakistan (or even US/Pakistan) and India/Pakistan is plain wrong. Our judiciary don't share the same level of trust with you as you share with UK or US. And we are talking about a heart-wrenching massacre -- not some embezzlement!

Has India given Pakistan that same privilege with Headly, Kasab or anyone else? No. All we have are dossiers upon dossiers with this interrogation that only listed those points that implicate LeT and the alleged ISI involvement.

India herself didn't get unfettered access to HEADLEY!! Even today, I shudder to think what US was trying to hide by restricting access to Mr.HEADLEY -- forget his extradition to India. And he didn't even commit any crime in US to hold him back.

Now I have NO doubt that the LeT was involved but have little faith in the claim of the ISI being involved beyond its role of letting the LeT operating freely.

At the moment, India doesn't have a sophisticated enough intelligence machinery to prove ISI's role beyond doubt. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the culpability of ISI.

When you admit of LeT's involvement, what prevents extradition of Hafeez Saeed and Lakhvi to face trial in India?

Every time 26/11 is mentioned, you hide behind the technicalities of cross-examinations and irrefutable proofs.

But when Pakistan asked for extradition of Fazlullah from Afghanistan hours after the Peshawar massacre, did Pakistan also provide the same irrefutable proofs that it expects from India in case of 26/11 suspects? Is this not double standards?

 

[Solomon2]

But that too is a reactionary argument and paints a rather hollow bias.

Explain how you are using "reactionary".

...If you truly have that proof, show it. Simply because the onus of proving it lies on the accuser and not the accused -

The point is, if you were truly concerned about your country sponsoring terror attacks upon others you would make it your priority to uncover the truth yourself, rather than rely on others. You would want to do this because it would be important to you that your country really is a just one, rather than one that just looks that way. The former requires acts that fit the desired image. The latter requires only silence/willful ignorance, censorship, and inaction - the functional equivalent of condoning terrorism.

 

[SQ8]

Explain how you are using "reactionary".

The point is, if you were truly concerned about your country sponsoring terror attacks upon others you would make it your priority to uncover the truth yourself, rather than rely on others. You would want to do this because it would be important to you that your country really is a just one, rather than one that just looks that way. The former requires acts that fit the desired image. The latter requires only silence/willful ignorance, censorship, and inaction - the functional equivalent of condoning terrorism.

Reactionary, as in the argument should return to the usual "Admit you are horrible Pakistani" tirade. As proven by your own paragraph.

 

[Solomon2]

Reactionary, as in the argument should return to the usual "Admit you are horrible Pakistani" tirade. As proven by your own paragraph.

"Reactionary" usually is a label attached to those opposed to liberalization or reform. I don't fit the bill there, do I? Yet "reactionary" is also the sort of label attached to someone as a kind of insult to say, "no good change can possibly come from listening to this person." It's employed inappropriately when the user can offer nothing of substance to oppose the arguments of his interlocutor.

 

[Joe Shearer]

"Reactionary" usually is a label attached to those opposed to liberalization or reform. I don't fit the bill there, do I? Yet "reactionary" is also the sort of label attached to someone as a kind of insult to say, "no good change can possibly come from listening to this person." It's employed inappropriately when the user can offer nothing of substance to oppose the arguments of his interlocutor.

Reactive, reactive.