ISI involved in 26/11, chief Pasha told CIA shortly after attacks: Book

[SMC]

Post #98. He was utterly sure about it as well.

As far as book is concerned, there is no other source mentioning this (and if there is, please post it). This not some small info that would be only be covered by one source.

 

[InPhilTraitor]

Bob Woodward Story Page - USATODAY.com

Here the link from USA Today.

Bob Woodward has his own set of critics and mistakes, but his access to the powerful is undeniable. Of the many stories he reported he got some wrong .. Ok may be, using that as a basis may be we have to be critical about something but denial.

Plausible Deniability .. is over used by you guys..

 

[SMC]

Fair enough as far as the link is concerned. And again, the problem with him is that he may have been right a few times, but he was also wrong a few times. Even if he was always right hypothetically, it does not exclude him from providing evidence.

And he's no authority on the matter, hence he has to prove his point. If that is not possible, then we may as well pretend that the allegation never happened.

Plausible deniability is irrelevant since there is very little proof otherwise anyway. His sources were wrong before, who says they are correct now. And yes, you might say how do I know they must be wrong. Well I don't need to show that - you need to show that they're right.

 

[Bang Galore]

Fair enough as far as the link is concerned. And again, the problem with him is that he may have been right a few times, but he was also wrong a few times. Even if he was always right hypothetically, it does not exclude him from providing evidence.

And he's no authority on the matter, hence he has to prove his point. If that is not possible, then we may as well pretend that the allegation never happened.

Plausible deniability is irrelevant since there is very little proof otherwise anyway. His sources were wrong before, who says they are correct now. And yes, you might say how do I know they must be wrong. Well I don't need to show that - you need to show that they're right.

Actually this is quite different from getting it wrong on Iraq. This is reporting purported conversations, nothing to do with intelligence analysis. all he has said is that certain individuals have made such & such remark. He has not said anything about nature of the intelligence leading to those remarks. The fact that no one in the Obama administration or from the Bush administration have contradicted his story lends some credence to his version of events.

You can argue about the reliability or otherwise of the evidence with this or the previous U.S. administration. Arguing that the events described in the book are not accurate is made more difficult in the absence of anyone quoted disclaiming it. Whether or not Pakistani officials deny the event mentioned is irrelevant in the sense that the book does not purport to be their version of events nor does it rely on their quotes. It is purely the version of the officials of the U.S. administrations that has been taken into account for this book.

 

[SMC]

Again, this is anecdotal evidence from so-called from so called logical and rational Indians. What this is, is a conspiracy theory.

"He has said this and this", and he heard that info from this and this person, who heard it from this and this person, etc. What I am talking is the reliability of these sources, who get their info from other sources, and those sources get info from other sources, etc. They were wrong before, so that throws their credibility into question. And that's besides the fact that even if they were right before, it doesn't exempt them from providing evidence.

Btw, I am sure many things have been said before by other people who no one from US administration denied.

Did they deny that CIA is supporting terrorism in Pakistan after Pasha gave them evidence that CIA was indeed supporting terrorism maybe a year or two ago? I don't think they did. I believe they never denied Iran's accusation about supporting terrorism in Iran. Did they deny the WikiLeaks leak?

If US has said already that they believe ISI was not involved, then they need to say absolutely nothing on this. The only time they may say something is when they're asked to comment on it. Same goes for Pasha. They're not going to do a press conference just on the allegations in a book, unless it's something too big. That's how its normally done.

These are just a few examples. How come you're assuming that just because no one's denying it, that it means he must be right? Where is the logic and rationality, again?



I like how you put things this way:

Arguing that the events described in the book are not accurate is made more difficult in the absence of anyone quoted disclaiming it.

So in other words, his claims must be disproven - he doesn't have to prove his claims. Kind of illogical, no?

This part of the book DOES rely on what Pasha allegedly said. And most likely, that info was passed on from several sources up to woodward, which is a clssic case of how rumours spread.