Mehsud’s Deputy Confirms Receiving Payment From India to Kill Colonel Imam

[notsuperstitious]

So a report thats about two warring warlords and one alleges that the other took money from the common hated kafirs to kill an ISI agent????

Seriously?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Apples and jackfruits.

Person A receiving money from Person C and claiming to have so done, is called admission.

Person B claiming that Person A has receive money from Person C, is allegation, of the garden variety kind.

The difference is not that subtle. But then.....

Your argument over semantics in this case is irrelevant - the point, as far as I understood it, was that the use of the words 'confirmed' and 'alleged' in the two articles respectively, was done in the same context - that is attributing a statement to Wali-ur-Rehman.

Wali-ur-Rehman 'confirmed' or Wali-ur-Rehman 'alleged' - the veracity of the claim being made is not automatically established through the choice of words used by the author reporting the claim.

The use of the word 'confirmed' in this context would typically be by those who already strongly suspect Indian support for the TTP, and therefore for them the allegation by Hakimullah Mehsud's right hand man would be a 'confirmation', and hence the use of that word in reporting the Wali-ur-Rehman claim.

For those more skeptical about claims of Indian support for the TTP, the same claim by Wali-ur-Rehman would, understandably, be reported as 'alleged' - the choice of one word over the other in this case does not automatically indicate validation of the claim, as I pointed out, it merely serves to highlight the differences in opinion over India's alleged support to the TTP.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So a report thats about two warring warlords and one alleges that the other took money from the common hated kafirs to kill an ISI agent????

Seriously?

How many of the reports against the ISI in recent years have been based on some 'unknown anonymous Taliban commander'?

The Western media and analysts (and many of you Indians) swear by those reports, despite the rather absurd claims made in them about 'ISI officers strutting around wearing ISI uniforms and nametags', when there is no such thing as an 'ISI uniform or nametag'.

 

[notsuperstitious]

How many of the reports against the ISI in recent years have been based on some 'unknown anonymous Taliban commander'?

The Western media and analysts (and many of you Indians) swear by those reports, despite the rather absurd claims made in them about 'ISI officers strutting around wearing ISI uniforms and nametags', when there is no such thing as an 'ISI uniform or nametag'.

Those scores if not hundreds of reports have been corroberated by assessments of investigative agencies of many of your neighbors and other international powers, candid admissions by your ex presidents / army chiefs and prime ministers, first hand reporting by your own journalists and candid affidavites filed by your present govt that ISI in not in their control. Even after UN and GOP have banned JUD - a terrorists organisation, its still operating openly in pakistan and raising funds by printing ads in top selling mainstream newspapers.

You bringing all that in here fails even as a strawman.

 

[rajnikant]

So to summarize: TTP is bharati supported terrorist group. There's just too much evidence now. Now that it's clear, we should start executing RAW terrorists in Afghanistan to teach these rats a lesson.

---------- Post added at 01:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:39 AM ----------



Ok, sure. But completely irrelevant and unimportant logic. You can stick with your logic for all I care.

lol..you modify wordings of an another report and claim that you have all the evidence..BS..as if we believe the report sourced from "pakistan ka khuda hafiz"

toxic tried to make u understand but u have sweared to god that you wont take his point..well all the best and thanks..

@Agnostic: I hope this post wont fell under "bickering/off topic/troll"..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Those scores if not hundreds of reports have been corroberated by assessments of investigative agencies of many of your neighbors and other international powers, candid admissions by your ex presidents / army chiefs and prime ministers, first hand reporting by your own journalists and candid affidavites filed by your present govt that ISI in not in their control. Even after UN and GOP have banned JUD - a terrorists organisation, its still operating openly in pakistan and raising funds by printing ads in top selling mainstream newspapers.

You bringing all that in here fails even as a strawman.

I am referring specifically to the Afghan Taliban and the 'reports' in the media quoting 'anonymous Taliban commanders' as claiming ISI support and training for Afghan Taliban militants carrying out attacks in Afghanistan, given the thread focus on the Taliban.

None of that has been 'corroborated' with any credible evidence seen publicly so far.

So my point remains valid.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

lol..you modify wordings of an another report and claim that you have all the evidence..BS..as if we believe the report sourced from "pakistan ka khuda hafiz"

toxic tried to make u understand but u have sweared to god that you wont take his point..well all the best and thanks..

@Agnostic: I hope this post wont fell under "bickering/off topic/troll"..

Given the fact that you ignored the rebuttals to your and Toxic's argument by myself, yes, your post is pretty much 'trolling and bickering'.

I have pointed out pretty clearly that the central point of the PKKH report, the statement by Wali-ur-Rehman alleging/confirming Indian support for the Hakimullah Mehsud led TTP, in fact originated from Reuters.

Whether you consider Reuters report and the WR claim to be credible or not is a different issue, but your argument that the WR claim was concocted by the Pakistani media has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

 

[toxic_pus]

Your argument over semantics in this case is irrelevant - the point, as far as I understood it, was that the use of the words 'confirmed' and 'alleged' in the two articles respectively, was done in the same context - that is attributing a statement to Wali-ur-Rehman.

Wali-ur-Rehman 'confirmed' or Wali-ur-Rehman 'alleged' - the veracity of the claim being made is not automatically established through the choice of words used by the author reporting the claim.

The use of the word 'confirmed' in this context would typically be by those who already strongly suspect Indian support for the TTP, and therefore for them the allegation by Hakimullah Mehsud's right hand man would be a 'confirmation', and hence the use of that word in reporting the Wali-ur-Rehman claim.

For those more skeptical about claims of Indian support for the TTP, the same claim by Wali-ur-Rehman would, understandably, be reported as 'alleged' - the choice of one word over the other in this case does not automatically indicate validation of the claim, as I pointed out, it merely serves to highlight the differences in opinion over India's alleged support to the TTP.

It is you, as always, indulging in meaningless semantics.

What you missed is that I hadn't responded to the OP, but merely to an argument that, in a desperate attempt to score some brownie points, tried to equate a hypothetical admission of a guilt by an accused to an individual leveling an allegation against his enemy. Calling it out is not semantics.

I'm however glad that you realize that this allegation, or so called 'confirmation', is not an evidence of any relevance, except for those who are already predisposed to believe anything about Indian involvement in all things Pakistani.

 

[rajnikant]

Given the fact that you ignored the rebuttals to your and Toxic's argument by myself, yes, your post is pretty much 'trolling and bickering'.

I have pointed out pretty clearly that the central point of the PKKH report, the statement by Wali-ur-Rehman alleging/confirming Indian support for the Hakimullah Mehsud led TTP, in fact originated from Reuters.

Whether you consider Reuters report and the WR claim to be credible or not is a different issue, but your argument that the WR claim was concocted by the Pakistani media has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

well ..you chose what suits you.. regarding debunking the claim here you go, there is a lot of difference between "alleged" and "confirmed" in later case you have credible evidence (documentary proof) to show off but in the other case you are simply shooting over a hearsay or just have unconfirmed evidences and reuters never confirmed those alleged reports but on the other hand PKKH showing their credibility replaced "alleged" with "confirmed". just an example of sheer sensationalizing the news item. whether or not its concocted its upto the reader to understand so it POV will differ from one person to another.
for e.g. Saddam hussien was alleged to have WMD before USA invaded Iraq but it was confirmed later that he doesnt posses any.

 

[regular]

So the all terrorism is done within our country by RAW, MI6 and CIA nexus......

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is you, as always, indulging in meaningless semantics.

What you missed is that I hadn't responded to the OP, but merely to an argument that, in a desperate attempt to score some brownie points, tried to equate a hypothetical admission of a guilt by an accused to an individual leveling an allegation against his enemy. Calling it out is not semantics.

I'm however glad that you realize that this allegation, or so called 'confirmation', is not an evidence of any relevance, except for those who are already predisposed to believe anything about Indian involvement in all things Pakistani.

You quoted SMC's entire post in your response - the first part of his post related to the point I made in my response to you - the latter related to the argument you were making - I took your response as one addressing both arguments in SMC's post.

The veracity of the claim itself, coming from a deputy (next in line in terms of leadership of the TTP) of Hakimullah Mehsud, while certainly not conclusive evidence, IS evidence of Official Indian complicity in terrorist attacks in Pakistan, given the identity of the individual making the claims.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

well ..you chose what suits you.. regarding debunking the claim here you go, there is a lot of difference between "alleged" and "confirmed" in later case you have credible evidence (documentary proof) to show off but in the other case you are simply shooting over a hearsay or just have unconfirmed evidences and reuters never confirmed those alleged reports but on the other hand PKKH showing their credibility replaced "alleged" with "confirmed". just an example of sheer sensationalizing the news item. whether or not its concocted its upto the reader to understand so it POV will differ from one person to another.
for e.g. Saddam hussien was alleged to have WMD before USA invaded Iraq but it was confirmed later that he doesnt posses any.

I am talking about debunking the claim that 'the Pakistani media concocted the Wali-ur-Rehman allegation of Indian support for Hakimullah Mehsud' - the original report came from a Western source, not a Pakistani one - again, see my response to Toxic regarding the use of 'confirmed vs alleged' - the context in which they were used does not represent any major change or distortion in the reporting of the claim itself.

 

[SMC]

It is you, as always, indulging in meaningless semantics.

What you missed is that I hadn't responded to the OP, but merely to an argument that, in a desperate attempt to score some brownie points, tried to equate a hypothetical admission of a guilt by an accused to an individual leveling an allegation against his enemy. Calling it out is not semantics.

I'm however glad that you realize that this allegation, or so called 'confirmation', is not an evidence of any relevance, except for those who are already predisposed to believe anything about Indian involvement in all things Pakistani.

Oh puhleez, bharatis would use comparable revelations within ISI or PA as empirical proof of Pakistan's involvement.
This is really as clear a proof as it gets. We're not talking about some far away cousin of Hakimullah's claiming this. This is his right hand man. To call it out is really trying to hang by a thread and basing your whole argument on something unimportant and ultimately irrelevant.

---------- Post added at 12:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 PM ----------

As again, bharatis are trying to get the thread stuck on pointless and irrelevant technicalities. Let's move forward with the actual discussion.

 

[LaBong]

I am talking about debunking the claim that 'the Pakistani media concocted the Wali-ur-Rehman allegation of Indian support for Hakimullah Mehsud' - the original report came from a Western source, not a Pakistani one - again, see my response to Toxic regarding the use of 'confirmed vs alleged' - the context in which they were used does not represent any major change or distortion in the reporting of the claim itself.

con·firmed
(of a person) Firmly established in a particular habit, belief, or way of life and unlikely to change

al·leged
(of an incident or a person) Said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

con·firmed
(of a person) Firmly established in a particular habit, belief, or way of life and unlikely to change

al·leged
(of an incident or a person) Said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

See the context in which the two words are used:

1. Wali-ur_Rehman 'confirmed' that Hakimullah Mehsud received money from India ...

2. Wali-ur_Rehman 'alleged' that Hakimullah Mehsud received money from India ...

In both instances the author/s are recounting a claim made by Wali-ur-Rehman - the author using 'confirmed' does not suggest that WR provided evidence - his use of the word merely suggests that he/she was already pre-disposed towards believing that India was involved in providing support to the TTP, it is not a distortion of the Reuters report.

---------- Post added at 12:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 PM ----------

Let's move forward with the actual discussion.

Correct - the central point of the thread is the CLAIM by Wali-ur-Rehman, and not the language used by PKKH in its reproduction of the Reuters report.