New confessions force India to reflect on anti-Muslim bias

[SMC]

I haven't made any shift at all. I was merely suggesting that the evidence that does exist doesn't suffice (either by mine or by international standards). It doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory, since the proof hasn't been presented to Pakistan nor has been any case made either by Bharat or any other country against Pakistan to show that Pakistan was involved in the incident. You can boost your ego by twisting playing around with words but the fact of the matter remains is that it is still a conspiracy theory.

I see the logic you're trying to use. Well how about this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...ts-terrorists-pak-terrorist-claims-video.html

Similar proof from what you're providing. You probably don't "accept as proof what has been provided as proof" but you'll still call it a conspiracy theory, no?

 

[toxic_pus]

I was merely suggesting that the evidence that does exist doesn't suffice (either by mine or by international standards).

Aha...some more shift of goal post. From 'no proof has been provided' to 'I don't accept proof as proof' to 'not sufficient proof has been provided'. Under the circumstances I will consider it as progress.

Btw, the 'sufficiency' gambit can be used to turn any established fact into conspiracy theory. 'Sufficiency' i.e. how much is enough, is a matter of perception and since you can't possibly quantify 'sufficiency', you can, if you want, stretch your threshold to infinity.

The 9/11 Truthers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, Flat Earthers all feed on this.

It doesn't change the fact that it's still a conspiracy theory, since the proof hasn't been presented to Pakistan nor has been any case made either by Bharat or any other country against Pakistan to show that Pakistan was involved in the incident.

Decide quickly - is it 'no proof has been presented' or 'not sufficient proof has been presented'. You seem to have an amazing knack for shifting posts.

I see the logic you're trying to use.

Finally...and you would still maintain you didn't shift poles. Wouldn't you?

Well how about this:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...ts-terrorists-pak-terrorist-claims-video.html

You probably don't "accept as proof what has been provided as proof" but you'll still call it a conspiracy theory, no?

The reason I had mentioned Daood and Ajmal and not any dime-a-dozen media reports is precisely because these two are evidences provided by GoI, officially, to GoP.

Try again.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Well the idea is that Indians are not behind at all when it comes to creating and indulging into conspiracy theories. Yes, those conspiracy theories might be slightly more popular (only slightly, not by much) but that doesn't change the fact that they're conspiracy theories. That's really the point. You can talk all about perception but the crux of what I am saying is that Indians accuse others of making conspiracy theories but then do the same themselves. What they talk about is being logical, rational, objective, having a sane head, etc. That's the talk that I hear. What you're saying flies in the face of that, because you're only caring about perception and not objectively analyzing the evidence that exists for these claims. In fact what you really said was a big diversion from that point.

So my point is, end the hypocrisy, end the double standards, etc.

i stressde on perceptions because international matters work on perceptions in a big way that reception is created gradually by information of linkage.
i can safely say that not only india but many other i mentioned is making allegations.the links which is coming out in every terror attack leads to pakistan and it's terror outfits..this certainly will not create world opinion in favour of pakistan..until that trend stops pakistan is clearly on bad light..good luck with WOT.. that's the only way out..i am out.

 

[acetophenol]

no matter whatever theories,conspiracies and all,wrong doers get their kicked in india. Hindu or muslim those who question our national
Integrity end up behind the
Bars-whether kasab or asimananda. We are being seen as a rising power and
Every average indian is enjoying a good life.

 

[Vinod2070]

All these threads on Indian Muslims.

Don't you guys really love them?

You don't need to justify Pakistan's creation every living second. It doesn't matter now.

 

[KS]

And how the title became anti-Muslim bias ??

If at all we take SMC's arguments are face value it should have been anti-Pakistan bias. No ?

 

[SMC]

Aha...some more shift of goal post. From 'no proof has been provided' to 'I don't accept proof as proof' to 'not sufficient proof has been provided'. Under the circumstances I will consider it as progress.

You're putting words into my mouth and trying to read my mind. In trying to sound smart and witty you're making a fool of yourself. Obviously when I say no proof has been presented to Pakistan, I only refer to no proof being presented to the Pakistani state the shows that ISI was involved in the attack.

When I said no sufficient proof has been provided, the evidence that I referred to is the evidence that has been presented in the media. I still referred to that evidence (i.e. the evidence presented in the media) as no evidence being presented because, extremely insufficent proof amounts to no proof. Just like bharatis say 'no shred of evidence has been presented against bharat' they only refer to sufficient proof. Proof has been presented in the form of the link I sent you as well Bharati weapons. They know that this evidence exists, but still say 'no shred of evidence exists against bharat'. They're obviously referring to sufficient proof.

Btw, the 'sufficiency' gambit can be used to turn any established fact into conspiracy theory. 'Sufficiency' i.e. how much is enough, is a matter of perception and since you can't possibly quantify 'sufficiency', you can, if you want, stretch your threshold to infinity.

The 9/11 Truthers, Moon Landing Hoaxers, Flat Earthers all feed on this.

So I assume you're going to apply the same standard to allegations against Bharat? Yes?

Fact of the matter is that the allegations against the Pakistani state is no 'established fact', and the evidence that does exist does not suffice even if we're to use the rough internationally accepted standard at the UNSC. So you can play these philosophical games while forgetting the exact same thing that you said when calling the allegations against bharat a conspiracy theory.

Decide quickly - is it 'no proof has been presented' or 'not sufficient proof has been presented'. You seem to have an amazing knack for shifting posts.

And you continue to make a fool out of yourself by misreading and misinterpreting me. I clearly said no evidence has been presented against the Pakistani state to Pakistan. And I really mean none, I am not even talking about sufficient proof. The proof that was given was not against ISI. You're hell-bent on trying to sound smart and witty but you're only doing harm to yourself.

Finally...and you would still maintain you didn't shift poles. Wouldn't you?

I would, because yet again you're jumping to conclusion about my statement. When I said 'I understand the logic you're trying to use', I was referring to your tactic of calling not accepting proof provided (i.e. the insufficient proof) as 'I don't accept as proof what has been provided as proof'. And by saying that sentence, you play around with words to make it sound as if not accepting the proof provided is some sort of denial.

The reason I had mentioned Daood and Ajmal and not any dime-a-dozen media reports is precisely because these two are evidences provided by GoI, officially, to GoP.

Try again.

No, in fact no evidence of ISI involved has been provided to GoP. At least not as far as I can remember.

Guess who needs to try again?

 

[toxic_pus]

Obviously when I say no proof has been presented to Pakistan, I only refer to no proof being presented to the Pakistani state the shows that ISI was involved in the attack.

Obviously, thats why I mentioned Daood Gilani and Ajmal Kasab - evidence presented to Pakistan, establishing the Pakistani State's connivance and complicity - thus refuting your claim that Indians spin conspiracy theory without evidence.

They know that this evidence exists, but still say 'no shred of evidence exists against bharat'. They're obviously referring to sufficient proof.

When 'bharatis' say that there is 'no shred of evidence against bharat' they mean that GoP hasn't provided any itsy bitsy piece of evidence to the international community, let alone GoI.

...the evidence that does exist does not suffice even if we're to use the rough internationally accepted standard at the UNSC.

And those 'internationally accepeted standards at UNSC' are.....?

I clearly said no evidence has been presented against the Pakistani state to Pakistan. And I really mean none, I am not even talking about sufficient proof. The proof that was given was not against ISI.

I never claimed the the proofs are all 'against ISI'. The proofs are all against State of Pakistan though.

Forget proof being furnished to GoP. Here is Musharaff admitting to creation of Kashmiri militant groups

SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?

Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir.
​

If you google, you will also dig up Benazir Bhutto's boastful admission of handing over list of Sikh insurgents trained by ISI.

Anyway, my purpose was to refute your claim the no proof was presented to GoP. Daood Gilani and Kasab clearly refute that claim. Whether you would consider that as proof or insufficient proof is irrelevant.

 

[ashok321]

I see very many Indian Muslim threads here - but yet to see Chinese Muslim thread.....

 

[SMC]

Obviously, thats why I mentioned Daood Gilani and Ajmal Kasab - evidence presented to Pakistan, establishing the Pakistani State's connivance and complicity - thus refuting your claim that Indians spin conspiracy theory without evidence.

You're obviously confusing the above with the claims that the ISI was directly involved in the attacks. That is still a conspiracy theory, along with recent allegations of ISI support for Kashmiri groups, as well as allegations that ISI supports Taliban.

In fact what was being discussed before you jumped in trying to sound smart was the following claims against Pakistan:

1. Support Afghan Taliban
2. Supporting Haqqani
3. Directly involved in Mumbai attacks
4. Involved in recent Kashmir uprising

You obviously had no idea what was being discussed. You were making irrelevant statements and then making it sound like they were relevant.

For the above claims, the evidence that does exist amounts to near non-existance. Calling it insufficient would be being too kind - it's like evidence that a car whose colour matched person A's car's colour was found at the scene of a crime, hence person A was involved in the crime. Making claims backed up by insufficient evidence like what is being done against Pakistan is still the same as making conspiracy theories.

When 'bharatis' say that there is 'no shred of evidence against bharat' they mean that GoP hasn't provided any itsy bitsy piece of evidence to the international community, let alone GoI.

No, they do not. What they say is that Pakistani government could present it in the media. Indian weapons have been presented in the media.

And those 'internationally accepeted standards at UNSC' are.....?

Obviously there is some standard used when declaring some state or group a terrorist state. The evidence that exists for now against directly support from Pakistani state for now is nearly non-existant and what does exist won't be accepted even if we look at it from the widest possible way.

Besides, if you're going into this philosophical talk, then don't call other conspiracy theorists either, because the same thing can applied to them as well.

I never claimed the the proofs are all 'against ISI'. The proofs are all against State of Pakistan though.

Forget proof being furnished to GoP. Here is Musharaff admitting to creation of Kashmiri militant groups

SPIEGEL: Why did you form militant underground groups to fight India in Kashmir?

Musharraf: They were indeed formed. The government turned a blind eye because they wanted India to discuss Kashmir.

If you google, you will also dig up Benazir Bhutto's boastful admission of handing over list of Sikh insurgents trained by ISI.
​

As discussed above, we're talking about the recent conspiracy theories against Pakistan. i.e. the following:

1. Support Afghan Taliban
2. Supporting Haqqani
3. Directly involved in Mumbai attacks
4. Involved in recent Kashmir uprising

Anyway, my purpose was to refute your claim the no proof was presented to GoP. Daood Gilani and Kasab clearly refute that claim. Whether you would consider that as proof or insufficient proof is irrelevant.

No, you really haven't. Insufficient evidence amounts to no evidence. Besides, there were multiple conspiracy theories that Indians make that I was discussing previously. The one you're putting forward - Pakistani state being indirectly involved - wasn't even part of what I was discussing. I was obviously assuming that you're talking about direct involvement of the Pakistani state which I guess was a false assumption.

 

[toxic_pus]

In fact what was being discussed before you jumped in trying to sound smart was the following claims against Pakistan:

1. Support Afghan Taliban
2. Supporting Haqqani
3. Directly involved in Mumbai attacks
4. Involved in recent Kashmir uprising

You obviously had no idea what was being discussed. You were making irrelevant statements and then making it sound like they were relevant.

For the above claims, the evidence that does exist amounts to near non-existance. Calling it insufficient would be being too kind

As discussed above, we're talking about the recent conspiracy theories against Pakistan. i.e. the following:

1. Support Afghan Taliban
2. Supporting Haqqani
3. Directly involved in Mumbai attacks
4. Involved in recent Kashmir uprising

The one you're putting forward - Pakistani state being indirectly involved - wasn't even part of what I was discussing. I was obviously assuming that you're talking about direct involvement of the Pakistani state which I guess was a false assumption.

Give it a rest. That Pakistani State is directly involved in fomenting terror in India was the core of the brief discussion. You were desperately trying to divert the discussion to another direction which you thought would place you in a comfort zone. In debating circle it is called 'raising a strawman'. Btw, Daood Gilani and Ajmal Kasab all indicate involvement of Pakistani State in Mumbai attacks.

...it's like evidence that a car whose colour matched person A's car's colour was found at the scene of a crime, hence person A was involved in the crime.

If this person A has known history of such crime, much of which is established by his own admission, then considering person A as a suspect on the basis of prima facie evidence is fair deal.

No, they do not. What they say is that Pakistani government could present it in the media. Indian weapons have been presented in the media.

I'll bite that. If you agree that weapons presented to media as Indian constitute 'sufficient' evidence, then I can present some media reports, all Western, as 'sufficient' evidence of State of Pakistan's direct involvement. The sauce is same for goose and gander. I hope you will not dismiss those media reports with a hand wave.

Obviously there is some standard used when declaring some state or group a terrorist state. The evidence that exists for now against directly support from Pakistani state for now is nearly non-existant and what does exist won't be accepted even if we look at it from the widest possible way.

If that standard is so obvious to you, it must not be that difficult for you to educate us on those standards. We await your wisdom with popcorn and a bottle of soda. Also, while at it, please explain why evidence against Pakistani State won't be accepted as such, even if one looks at it from the 'widest possible way'.

Making claims backed up by insufficient evidence like what is being done against Pakistan is still the same as making conspiracy theories.

Insufficient evidence amounts to no evidence.

'Insufficiency' is a matter of perception. But do tell what is sufficient evidence if admission of terrorists, propped by Pakistani States, doesn't qualify as sufficient.

 

[SMC]

LOL ok. You keep going on about this, I won't waste time. Those who know about these issues know that there's no evidence against the Pakistani state. That was even admitted by the member who was discussing this with me before you jumped in. You haven't shown any link that suggests that any sort of evidence exists against the Pakistani state. I repeat, the evidence presented to the Pakistan was not evidence against the Pakistani state. Bharati state didn't even attempt to provide any evidence that shows that the Pakistani state was involved in the attacks. I already said that before, but you seem to have completed diverted from that. In fact you are the only bharati I can recall on this forum who has deluded himself into believing that the evidence exists. You can delude yourself that what you have seen is evidence against the Pakistani state, but even the bharati state knows better. Hypocritical conspiracy theorist.

Btw, even the international media when referring to these accusations don't refer to them as some sort of an established fact. It says a lot.

 

[Bang Galore]

In fact you are the only bharati I can recall on this forum who has deluded himself into believing that the evidence exists. You can delude yourself that what you have seen is evidence against the Pakistani state, but even the bharati state knows better. Hypocritical conspiracy theorist.
.

Incorrect. The Indian Home Secretary & The NSA are on record saying that there was Pakistani State elements who were involved in the Mumbai attacks. There is of course now the famous case in the U.S. against the ISI. Lets wait & watch how that turns out. As for your recollection of the international media suggesting these are mere allegations & not facts, I'm afraid you are wrong. There have been a large number of articles attributing the attacks to the ISI.

 

[SMC]

But they've made no attempt to present any evidence and indict Pakistan, which is my point. I know that the bharati state has made such accusations.

Can you please tell this guy that no evidence exists? I am not sure exactly how he's deluded himself into believing this.

I don't recall any article in international that was accusing ISI of Mumbai attacks. In fact the only accusation from outside bharat I recall was from Bob Woodward, who also said that Iraq had WMDs "200%". There have been articles that accuse ISI of supporting Taliban, but they've been backed by very weak evidence. Mere articles themselves do not amount to evidence, so I am not wrong.

 

[toxic_pus]

LOL ok. You keep going on about this, I won't waste time. Those who know about these issues know that there's no evidence against the Pakistani state. That was even admitted by the member who was discussing this with me before you jumped in. You haven't shown any link that suggests that any sort of evidence exists against the Pakistani state. I repeat, the evidence presented to the Pakistan was not evidence against the Pakistani state. Bharati state didn't even attempt to provide any evidence that shows that the Pakistani state was involved in the attacks. I already said that before, but you seem to have completed diverted from that. In fact you are the only bharati I can recall on this forum who has deluded himself into believing that the evidence exists. You can delude yourself that what you have seen is evidence against the Pakistani state, but even the bharati state knows better. Hypocritical conspiracy theorist.

Btw, even the international media when referring to these accusations don't refer to them as some sort of an established fact. It says a lot.

I will quote myself, if you please.

Obviously, thats why I mentioned Daood Gilani and Ajmal Kasab - evidence presented to Pakistan, establishing the Pakistani State's connivance and complicity - thus refuting your claim that Indians spin conspiracy theory without evidence.

Which part of it did you not understand?

Dossier after dossier were sent to GoP narrating how Pakistani state agencies directly collaborated with LeT, in general and Mumbai incident, in particular, confirmed by Daood Gilani's damning admission in US, in presence of US security agencies and his own lawyer, but now, we are being told that 'bharati' State didn't even 'attempt to provide any evidence that shows that the Pakistani state was involved in the attack.'

It doesn't get any more comical than this.