Low level ISI personnel may have been involved in Mumbai attacks

[crankthatskunk]

what happened to Sharyar Ahmed Khan? He is an old buddy of my family. He shouldn't talk to Indians.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

At least somebody in Pakistan is not lying.

What exactly did he say?

Perhaps you should improve your English comprehension skills.

"Khan said that "low-level" ISI personnel may have been involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai"

'May have' indicates speculation, they also 'may not have', and the reference to 'low level personnel' would indicate 'rogue actors. not institutional support.

Keep clutching at straws.

 

[deckingraj]

What exactly did he say?

Perhaps you should improve your English comprehension skills.

"Khan said that "low-level" ISI personnel may have been involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai"

'May have' indicates speculation, they also 'may not have', and the reference to 'low level personnel' would indicate 'rogue actors. not institutional support.

Keep clutching at straws.

This may is very different from the earlier stand and probably that is what we should concentrate upon...He is saying that chiefs or higher level staff are not involved because it make no sense however role of low level staff cannot be ruled out....If you have seen the interview you will get the inclination that he believes that such an operation cannot be carried out if there were no involvement from official at low-levels.....Obviously he don't have proofs in hand but is very convinced about whatever is happening in Chicago court....Anyways things will come out so keep watching....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This may is very different from the earlier stand and probably that is what we should concentrate upon...He is saying that chiefs or higher level staff are not involved because it make no sense however role of low level staff cannot be ruled out....If you have seen the interview you will get the inclination that he believes that such an operation cannot be carried out if there were no involvement from official at low-levels.....Obviously he don't have proofs in hand but is very convinced about whatever is happening in Chicago court....Anyways things will come out so keep watching....

There is nothing different in what he said from what has already been said by Musharraf and Pasha (per wikileaks) - both said that it might be possible that low level ISI personnel were involved as rogue agents. Pasha reportedly said this to US intelligence officials back in 2008-09. But just because something is possible does not mean it actually happened, and it certainly does not by any means suggest institutional support from the ISI.

The PNS Mehran attack was reportedly done with 'insider help', both current and former, but that does not mean that the Pakistan Navy as an institution plotted and perpetrated the attack. If 'insiders' could attempt to assasinate Musharraf and perpetrate the GHQ and PNS mehran attacks, then why such hysteria over rogue members of the military supporting the Mumbai attacks?

 

[foxbat]

What exactly did he say?

Perhaps you should improve your English comprehension skills.

"Khan said that "low-level" ISI personnel may have been involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai"

'May have' indicates speculation, they also 'may not have', and the reference to 'low level personnel' would indicate 'rogue actors. not institutional support.

Keep clutching at straws.

I get you.. but what you have to agree to is the change of stance. In 2 years time, it has moved from No Pakistani involved to Low level Pakistani spies may have been involved. If my guess is correct this will change even further before the headly and New York trials get over.. Too soon to start cheering though at the moment

 

[foxbat]

Let me break it down for you, those who do not understand the workings of governance of Pakistan:

1. Foreign Minister of Pakistan - heads the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (for example: Shah Mahmood Qureshi)
2. Minister of State for Foreign Affairs - works under the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, & reports directly to him/her. (for example: Hina Rabbani)
3. Foreign Secretary of Pakistan - works under the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. (for example: Shehryar Khan)

Now, Shehryar Khan is three levels below the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. The Foreign Minister of Pakistan does collaborate with the Director of the ISI, but the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan does not collaborate with the Director of the ISI. In other words, the words of Shah Mahmood Qureshi about the ISI would be more believable than the words of Shehryar Khan, because Shehryar Khan works with the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, not the Director of the ISI. I hope I have cleared your misconceptions. If you still want to be misinformed, you are welcome to live in your delusions.

mate, the secretaries have much more information than the ministers. Because by the virtue of being in the bureaucracy, their position is permanent where as political ministers are not..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I get you.. but what you have to agree to is the change of stance. In 2 years time, it has moved from No Pakistani involved to Low level Pakistani spies may have been involved. If my guess is correct this will change even further before the headly and New York trials get over.. Too soon to start cheering though at the moment

Please see my response to DR above. There has been no change in position.

 

[Vinod2070]

What exactly did he say?

Perhaps you should improve your English comprehension skills.

"Khan said that "low-level" ISI personnel may have been involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai"

'May have' indicates speculation, they also 'may not have', and the reference to 'low level personnel' would indicate 'rogue actors. not institutional support.

Keep clutching at straws.

So you don't believe that LET as an organization has been actively supported and promoted by ISI as an organization?

Are there not enough Pakistanis who openly admit it, from all walks of life? So many of your own commentators, even military ones?

You really think this cloak of "plausible deniability" really works even now, when Pakistan is in real danger of falling to the jihadis due to those very same policies?

Check out the book "deadly embrace" by Bruce Riedel and you will see some of these "straws" that may just make you rethink.

 

[nForce]

What exactly did he say?

Perhaps you should improve your English comprehension skills.

"Khan said that "low-level" ISI personnel may have been involved in the terrorist attack on Mumbai"

'May have' indicates speculation, they also 'may not have', and the reference to 'low level personnel' would indicate 'rogue actors. not institutional support.

Keep clutching at straws.

do we see a scapegoat in the making??quite a possibility,to be honest.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So you don't believe that LET as an organization has been actively supported and promoted by ISI as an organization?

I certainly do not believe, nor see any evidence, that the LET was supported in any way by any Institution in Pakistan to carry out the Mumbai attacks, or any other terrorist attack anywhere.

Are there not enough Pakistanis who openly admit it, from all walks of life? So many of your own commentators, even military ones?

Opinion, speculation and conspiracy theories are no substitute for credible evidence or even credible motive. The Pakistani media, especially the English media, is full of military bashers that see the 'establishment/agencies' hand under every rock.

You really think this cloak of "plausible deniability" really works even now, when Pakistan is in real danger of falling to the jihadis due to those very same policies?

A comment that offers nothing in terms of substantiating the allegation of institutional support for the Mumbai attacks.

Check out the book "deadly embrace" by Bruce Riedel and you will see some of these "straws" that may just make you rethink.

If you have read the book, please provide the relevant excerpts detailing credible evidence supporting the allegations of institutional ISI support for the Mumbai attacks.

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:52 PM ----------

do we see a scapegoat in the making??quite a possibility,to be honest.

A 'scapegoat'? He is advancing an opinion covering all possible actors.

And again, this is not a new position as I already pointed out in a response earlier.

 

[Emmie]

I am sick of Mumbai attacks now.. Dont we have other issues to discuss?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sick of Mumbai attacks now.. Dont we have other issues to discuss?

Nothing much to discuss here.

A lot of jumping around over some speculative opinion offered by Khan.

Thread closed.