ISI used LeT for anti-India activities: UN report

[ahmed_naj]

remember the investigation was not carried out in 'forensic manner' and they didnt collect any evidence themselves.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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.

Nothing in the report supports the Indian contention that it indicts the ISI for being complicit in terrorism, so accepting the report in totality is no error. Please see my previous post about the context in which the UN commission made its comments about the ISI and LeT.

 

[prodevelopment]

remember the investigation was not carried out in 'forensic manner' and they didnt collect any evidence themselves.

I repeat. Why did your president endorse it then?

 

[ramu]

remember the investigation was not carried out in 'forensic manner' and they didnt collect any evidence themselves.

OK Mr. Sherlock Homes. If someone can teach UN how to conduct themselves, it will be very useful. It will be more useful if you can protect your leader as prevention is better than cure.

"Forensic manner "

 

[karan.1970]

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."

The line above is followed by this line (Please focus on the present tense)


The bulk of the anti-Indian activity was and still remains the work of groups such as Lashkar e Taiba, which has close ties with the ISI

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.

Your above postulation is inaccurate at best because the reference you are using from the report actually stresses that all independent analysts provided information contrary to the claims of Pakistani officials. Please understand that all of this report is based on the information collected by UN during this investigation. In that case you should anyway junk this report in totality (almost)..

I will say again. Pakistan chartered the UN to do this investigation. The links of ISI to LeT are mentioned in the threats to benazir section under Al Quida in the report on this investigation. Pakistan's president has accepted the report with satisfaction.. Make whatever you want to of that.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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

Pakistan gave the UN commission the task of investigating the BB assassination, which it accomplished without finding out who was responsible for the murder. It did however indicate that the murder was preventable and that security failed and the investigation into the murder was flawed.

The other comments it made were qualified, and are being taken completely out of context by Indians, as I pointed out in my previous two posts.

The Pakistani president did nothing wrong in accepting the report, since the report does not indict the ISI for supporting terrorism.

 

[prodevelopment]

Nothing in the report supports the Indian contention that it indicts the ISI for being complicit in terrorism, so accepting the report in totality is no error. Please see my previous post about the context in which the UN commission made its comments about the ISI and LeT.

The report blames an OFFICIAL body of Pakistan of having ties with a BANNED TERRORIST ORGANISATION (accepted by the govt of Pakistan). Make what you want to of that.

 

[SMC]

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

Because you'd expect them to do otherwise.

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

And what's the point? UN is not generally looked up to by most people who know a few things about it.

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 ?

Simply speaking, this current government is corrupt and incompetent and I doubt they even care about this section of the report. All they would be interested in is the BB part. Since PPP is against the army, I think it suits them anyhow.

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 !

You're suggesting a black and white scenario. This is not how the world works, so let's not get into that.

Report is partly right, but doesnt offer anything new that is relevant to the assassination of BB. What it says about India is mostly opinion and might I add it stated clearly that what it is mentioning is an opinion held by analysts.

 

[Old School]

The Heraldo Munoz Commission report did not elaborate the alleged ISI connection with LeT. Neither it provided substantial evidence. A UN sponsored CoI like Heraldo Munoz Commission should have been more responsible before accusing a government organization.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The line above is followed by this line (Please focus on the present tense)

The bulk of the anti-Indian activity was and still remains the work of groups such as Lashkar e Taiba, which has close ties with the ISI

yes, and the preceding line clearly establishes what the scope of this anti-Indian activity is i.e. insurgency.

Your above postulation is inaccurate at best because the reference you are using from the report actually stresses that all independent analysts provided information contrary to the claims of Pakistani officials. Please understand that all of this report is based on the information collected by UN during this investigation. In that case you should anyway junk this report in totality (almost)..

I will say again. Pakistan chartered the UN to do this investigation. The links of ISI to LeT are mentioned in the threats to benazir section under Al Quida in the report on this investigation. Pakistan's president has accepted the report with satisfaction.. Make whatever you want to of that.

The investigation into BB's assassination involved dealing with all the players involved in the event itself - government officials, law enforcement officials, security officials, military and intelligence officials etc. It also involved access to any material evidence related to the attack that had been collected so far. The investigation into the murder was therefore a far more thorough and direct investigation.

The comments related to the ISI, however are, in the commissions own report, contradicted by both current and former intelligence officials (people with direct access to what is going on), and supported by some 'analysts'. You would have expected at least former intelligence officials to confirm such a relationship (off the record) to the UN commission. An analyst is not 'evidence' in any sense of the word. An analyst offers opinion. The UN commission included that opinion in its report, and it made clear the source of that opinion, and the fact that it was not a unanimous opinion.

 

[karan.1970]

Nothing in the report supports the Indian contention that it indicts the ISI for being complicit in terrorism, so accepting the report in totality is no error. Please see my previous post about the context in which the UN commission made its comments about the ISI and LeT.

My contention goes like this..

The report states...

ISI uses LeT (which is a Terrorist Organization ) to support Insurgency in India..


and thats all..


Rest can be left to interpartation...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The report blames an OFFICIAL body of Pakistan of having ties with a BANNED TERRORIST ORGANISATION (accepted by the govt of Pakistan). Make what you want to of that.

Gen. Petraeus also admitted to the US having ties to the Taliban ..

Second, please read my previous posts on the UN report. The comments related to the ISI-LeT relationship are based on hearsay.

 

[Justin Joseph]

Another point on the report - the report investigated BB's murder. It did not investigate GoP/PA/ISI links or connections with the LeT or what have you. That would indicate that its comments on ISI links with the LeT are not a result of its investigation, but just opinion and/or some sort of background information the members of the team decided to include in the report, based on already available information about the ISI's past links with the LeT.

so are you suggesting UN should probe the links between ISI and LeT??

will govt. of pakitan will take the initiative to get a clean chit by asking UN???

 

[ahmed_naj]

OK Mr. Sherlock Homes. If someone can teach UN how to conduct themselves, it will be very useful. It will be more useful if you can protect your leader as prevention is better than cure.

"Forensic manner "

The commission makes it clear that it was not involved in a criminal investigation and only in a fact-finding mission.

as for forensics, here I quote something from wiki:

the term "forensic" is effectively a synonym for "legal" or "related to courts"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

My contention goes like this..

The report states...

ISI uses LeT (which is a Terrorist Organization ) to support Insurgency in India..


and thats all..


Rest can be left to interpartation...

The commission clearly indicates that its comments about any current relationship between the ISI and the LeT are based on the opinions of analysts, and that several current and former intelligence officials it interviewed said the opposite.

Secondly, given that the LeT is primarily a Pakistan based organization, it can only support the insurgency in Kashmir through cross-LoC infiltration. And given that cross-LoC infiltration has fallen to almost nothing, one can argue that based on the argument that the ISI supported the LeT for insurgency purposes, there is no more ISI support for the LeT, which is directly responsible for the drop in cross-LoC insurgent traffic.