ISI used LeT for anti-India activities: UN report

[SMC]

@SMC.. Your president had engaged UN for creating this report and has accepted that report with satisfaction. Any evidence that may have been required by your president to feel satisfied would have been shown to him only

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Babar satisfied over UN report, says it has given direction to investigation

What was he satisfied about? Clearly the report was more about BB's death, so he may be satisfied about that. That's what the article and other articles mentions.

And more importantly, using satisfaction of zardari and PPP as an argument? That's not a very good argument.

To date I have not seen any credible evidence of ISI involvement nor any mention of anyone giving evidence of ISI involvement to others.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@SMC.. Your president had engaged UN for creating this report and has accepted that report with satisfaction. Any evidence that may have been required by your president to feel satisfied would have been shown to him only

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Babar satisfied over UN report, says it has given direction to investigation

The President has accepted a report about the investigation into BB's assassination. The central objective of the investigation was to determine the circumstances around BB's assassination, not the ISI-LeT relationship (which in any case the report does not indicate as being one in which the ISI supported terrorism). The Pakistani President appears to believe the report is satisfactory - where does his acceptance validate Indian claims of a UN indictment of the ISI for terrorism such as the Mumbai attacks.

 

[AHMED85]

i think you don't have any work for doing but only alleged ISI

 

[ramu]

We supported insurgent groups fighting Indian occupation forces - at the moment we are not doing much of that either, given the drop in infiltration across the LoC and the ceasefire.

The 'question' already had an answer that you chose to overlook. The manner of your question was that of a troll.

About your admission about support, do you know the year /date when you stopped supporting ? The reason why I am asking this question is because, during the very same period, India engaged Pakistan in dialogue with an intent of solving Kashmir. However, the use of pressure tactics from Pakistan by using rouge elements to gain advantage back fired.

Good to know that Pakistan's ISI support has a correlation to infiltration of militants from across the border. Not many would like to admit that.

 

[karan.1970]

First, did the UN commission specifically investigate present links between the ISI and the LeT? Because as far as I know the investigation was focussed on BB's killing, not the relationship between the ISI and LeT.

If it did not investigate the current ISI-LeT relationship, then the comments are nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

Second, the LeT can have as many parts as it wishes to. It is an insurgent group after all, not bound by an laws or restrictions. It is entirely possible for a group of people from within the LeT to act contrary to agenda set by the leadership.

And the PA/ISI also has self-admitted ties to the Taliban. Gen. Petraeus himself said the US intelligence has similar ties with various insurgent and terrorist grou

'Ties' does not mean support for all or any actions of a particular group.

So I do think that you are parsing words and clutching at straws here again.

P.S: And I am not even getting into the civilians murdered, tortured and raped by the Indian Army in Kashmir here.

The clutching straws expression is being used by you as a process of clutching straws here.. You and I dont know and cant claim to know what all UN investigated as a part of this investigation. They have submitted a report which indicts ISI to have linkages with a terror outfit. And thats all there is to that.

LeT may have 100 parts for all I care. The complete entity is a terror outfit and the pakistani army is not being blamed for linkages with taliban but with LeT specifically which is a banned terrorist organization..

As I said.. Its a pakistani sponsored report.. Spin it any way you want.. Its a bit foolish though to think that a UN report into investigation of a country's biggest political leader and ex prime minister would contain unsubstantiated opinions

But what was the objective of this commission in Pakistan? Investigate BB's assassination correct? So when did it investigate ISI-LeT ties?

And what are these 'ties'? Support for insurgent operations in Kashmir? Support for charitable operations in Pakistan? Or support for terrorist attacks? You are choosing to solely focus on the last interpretation, when the UN commission nowhere makes that claim.

Word parsing and straw clutching, anyone???

 

[ramu]

i think you don't have any work for doing but only alleged ISI

Here is the perfect example of troll mod if you want one.


BTW Rizwan, it is not us saying anything about ISI. It is the UN and the president of your country has endorse the findings. Can you beat that ?

 

[SMC]

Not really straw clutching since what UN is saying are mere allegations.

 

[ahmed_naj]

ISI used LeT to foment anti-India passion in Kashmir: UN report

Thats the title of the ToI article, look at how they have manipulated the words of the report.

 

[ramu]

Thats the title of the ToI article, look at how they have manipulated the words of the report.

Do you only read the title. Forget ToI. Read the report by UN, not ToI.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Karan & ramu:

The UN commission is clear about the context in which it refers to ISI ties to the LeT with the following statement:

"The Pakistani military and ISI also used and supported some of these groups in the Kashmir insurgency after 1989."

Second, on my point about the fact that the UN commission did not do any independent investigation into current ISI-LeT ties:

"It said that while several Pakistani current and former intelligence officials told the Commission that their agencies no longer had such ties in 2007, but virtually all independent analysts provided information to the contrary and affirmed the ongoing nature of many such links. "

As I postulated earlier, the commission is basing this off the existing opinions of some 'analysts', whereas 'several Pakistani current and former intelligence officials', who would have the best insight into this relationship, said that no such relationship existed anymore.

I would say then that it is pretty clearly established that the UN commission did no offer any new information, did not indict the ISI for complicity in terrorism, and based its comments on the current nature of the ISI-LeT relationship on hearsay.

 

[SMC]

Karan & ramu:

The UN commission is clear about the context in which it refers to ISI ties to the LeT with the following statement:

"The Pakistani military and ISI also used and supported some of these groups in the Kashmir insurgency after 1989."

Second, on my point about the fact that the UN commission did not do any independent investigation into current ISI-LeT ties:

"It said that while several Pakistani current and former intelligence officials told the Commission that their agencies no longer had such ties in 2007, but virtually all independent analysts provided information to the contrary and affirmed the ongoing nature of many such links. "

As I postulated earlier, the commission is basing this off the existing opinions of some 'analysts', whereas 'several Pakistani current and former intelligence officials', who would have the best insight into this relationship, said that no such relationship existed anymore.

I would say then that it is pretty clearly established that the UN commission did no offer any new information, did not indict the ISI for complicity in terrorism, and based its comments on the current nature of the ISI-LeT relationship on hearsay.

They are merely using opinion of others and no credible evidence. If there was evidence of ISI involvement currently, it would have been shouted to us in our ears several times now.

Obviously UN is not going to produce any evidence itself as it is not the authority in the matter. Thus, UN would have to get the evidence from India or US, and none have ever mentioned any existance of credible evidence and/or presented it.

And so this remains a mere allegation as it is.

 

[ahmed_naj]

Do you only read the title. Forget ToI. Read the report by UN, not ToI.

the report accuses the ISI of backing anti - India activity, it doesnt state that the Kashmiri grievences against India are directly related to insurgent activities.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

About your admission about support, do you know the year /date when you stopped supporting ?

If the end of support for insurgent groups fighting Indian occupation in J&K coincided with the ceasefire along the LoC and the drop in infiltration, then it would be sometime in 2002-03.

The reason why I am asking this question is because, during the very same period, India engaged Pakistan in dialogue with an intent of solving Kashmir. However, the use of pressure tactics from Pakistan by using rouge elements to gain advantage back fired.

That would be a view without substantiation, since it was during this period that the backchannel dialog almost resulted in a breakthrough on Kashmir, with talks petering off, per Indian and Western sources, due to the political instability in Pakistan.

Good to know that Pakistan's ISI support has a correlation to infiltration of militants from across the border. Not many would like to admit that.

That would be the primary means through which any agency could support the Kashmir insurgency. Given tighter gun control in India (and the lack of Afghanistan as a neighbor) weapons across the LoC would be the major supporting factor for local insurgents. Other than that the ISI could only covertly offer funds to various separatist groups.

 

[prodevelopment]

The President has accepted a report about the investigation into BB's assassination. The central objective of the investigation was to determine the circumstances around BB's assassination, not the ISI-LeT relationship (which in any case the report does not indicate as being one in which the ISI supported terrorism). The Pakistani President appears to believe the report is satisfactory - where does his acceptance validate Indian claims of a UN indictment of the ISI for terrorism such as the Mumbai attacks.

The president did not accept the report in 'part'. He accepted the report in totality. If some points in the report seemed unfair, an objection could have been made.

This is a huge diplomatic failure for the Pak Govt. IMHO comparable to Indian blunder of including Balochistan in bilateral statement this year.

 

[ramu]

They are merely using opinion of others and no credible evidence. If there was evidence of ISI involvement currently, it would have been shouted to us in our ears several times now. UN would have to get the evidence from India or US, and none have ever mentioned any existance of credible evidence and/or presented it.

Why would Pakistan give the task of doing a root cause analysis to the UN who use opinion and non credible evidence?

Please not : you are talking about United nations and not SARC.

Why does your president endorse a document based on opinion in a case as serious as the murder/assassination of one of the most prominent personalities in Pakistan ?

Either
a. The report is right in all aspects and its findings and is rational or
b. The report is nonsense but your President is an idiot to accept this report and its findings !