India, China coming closer on world stage: China Daily

[Chinese-Dragon]

CIA has no reason to include unverified sources in their analysis.

Or are you questioning CIA's credibility ?

Maybe this Indian guy said it, but that obviously does not mean that it is true.

"...according to an Indian member of the UN delegation..."

And considering the CIA's previous activities in Tibet (with help from India), yes I would question their reliability on this particular issue.

Moot point though, since even they admit that it is hearsay.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Moot point though, since even they admit that it is hearsay.

I didn't find any such indication or hint on reading the whole paragraph.

If you questioning the integrity and credibility of that document ,i have no reason to continue arguing.
Feel free to disagree.

 

[CardSharp]

CIA has no reason to include unverified sources in their analysis.

Or are you questioning CIA's credibility ?

http://www.foia.cia.gov/CPE/POLO/polo-07.pdf

No reason at to doubt that a CIA internal report is sincere in what they present BUT this is a CIA report quoting second hand information from an Indian diplomat who has plenty of reason to be dishonest. I hope you can distinguish between the two.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

So you mean that CIA analysis was some anti-Chinese propaganda for future Indians/Tibetans masses.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Cardsharp answered the rest.

 

[CardSharp]

This is similar to what you believe about a Chinese diplomatic threat against India post 26/11, that if India retaliated that China would attack. Your sources being a former RAW agent and a retired diplomat giving an interview filmed for popular consumption.

Both are mono-sourced versions and not collaborated by further events or reports.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

No reason at to doubt that a CIA internal report is sincere in what they present BUT this is a CIA report quoting second hand information from an Indian diplomat who has plenty of reason to be dishonest. I hope you can see that.

By general reading their reports, i find them best reliable,though there is a possibility of unconscious cherry picking (they cover some parts of the document)

However not in this case ,considering that document is completely available and also,they mention in their analysis at time ,that based on the current information no conclusive judgment can/should be made.

So for these documents happen to be the most reliable and best source for me.

Anyway,i"ll ask Joe about it.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

This is similar to what you believe about a Chinese diplomatic threat against India post 26/11, that if India retaliated that China would attack. Your sources being a former RAW agent and a retired diplomat giving an interview filmed for popular consumption.
Both are mono-sourced versions and not collaborated by further events or reports.

It was actually a former aide of Rajiv Gandhi .
Of course ,i'd have more confidence if it was in a CIA doc.

 

[CardSharp]

By general reading their reports, i find them best reliable,though there is a possibility of unconscious cherry picking (they cover some parts of the document)

However not in this case ,considering that document is completely available and also,they mention in their analysis at time ,that based on the current information no conclusive judgment can/should be made.

So for these documents happen to be the most reliable and best source for me.

Anyway,i"ll ask Joe about it.

Again, the report and the source for that passage here are two different thing. The CIA report was a good piece of analysis, this means it will present what information as they have been given it, this is neither a endorsement of it veracity or a confirmation that it is absolutely 100% what they believe. In fact they attributed the information specifically as "an Indian diplomat" meaning that it is up to the reader to decide on how to process the information presented given the source.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

In fact they attributed the information specifically as "an Indian diplomat" meaning that it is up to the reader to decide on how to process the information presented given the source.

I feel that Indian diplomat might have been CIA's mole .
If you"ve noticed , most these reports always coverup the source of the statements (ex:b(3),b(4))

Anyway,its conjecture for now,and scotoma(mind sees what it wants to see) gets the best of all 3 of us here.

 

[CardSharp]

I feel that Indian diplomat might have been CIA's mole .

Why?

Anyway,its conjecture for now,and scotoma(mind sees what it wants to see) gets the best of all 3 of us here.

I've not made a positive statement on what I think happened, I am merely pointing out a pitfall in sourcing it the way you did. (again not doubting the CIA report's sincerity in presenting the facts as they saw it, just so we are clear)

Anyway I have a feeling that Joe will drop in as interlocutor pretty soon.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Why?

On second thoughts,i take back what i said,there can myriad possibilities ,why that Indian diplomat in name is not mentioned.

I've not made a positive statement on what I think happened, I am merely pointing out a pitfall in sourcing it the way you did. (again not doubting the CIA report's sincerity in presenting the facts as they saw it, just so we are clear)

For such a good analysis,its mandatory to have the analysis based on correct sources,and i'm sure CIA makes sure they have correct sources.
The quality parameter i use here is fact that CIA reports are prescient (things they have predicted about India based on India position in Korean war have come true in 1962,sameway for 1965 war)So i'm kinda stubborn in confidence for these CIA reports.

Anyway I have a feeling that Joe will drop in as interlocutor pretty soon

I"ve already sent him the message

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm sorry ,if i have offended you,i was a bit jumpy.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

I'm sorry ,if i have offended you,i was a bit jumpy.

No problem.

The CIA are obviously capable and well-resourced, but I don't hold them in such high esteem as you do.

The quality parameter i use here is fact that CIA reports are prescient (things they have predicted about India based on India position in Korean war have come true in 1962,sameway for 1965 war)So i'm kinda stubborn in confidence for these CIA reports.

Are they really "prescient"? What happened to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq then?

Anyway's it is not the CIA's credibility that is in dispute here. It is the credibility of the unnamed Indian diplomat. Hardly a "neutral" source, and where is the supporting evidence?

 

[CardSharp]

Are they really "prescient"? What happened to the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq then?

There were political forces at play in that case.

 

[muse]

I genuinely hope China and India will come closer and closer together and help Asia - not China, not India, not Pakistan, not Vietnam, but Asia, cooperate to unleash her potential.

These petty problems are absolutely meaningless when compared to the work ahead that only cooperation can ensure is completed.