US investigating possible ISI role in Mumbai attack

[SMC]

What concrete evidence is is something that I should not need to explain to you. If you don't know what concrete evidence is then you are in no place to judge the authenticity of these documents. But whatever.

I will just give you some examples. An ISI agent getting caught, army personnel getting caught - stuff along those lines. There are lots of things that can be called concrete evidence depending on the context.

What we have here are mere accusations against ISI. And this is mentioned all across the board in all the media that have reported this (minus the indian ones perhaps).

 

[somebozo]

Pakistan it self responsible for that in past your gov funded Taliban now they are out of control.

Letest wikileaks also prove that point ...

If you want i can post some links ?????

Excuse me but your history knowledge seems to be short lived. The funding and training both were provided by CIA and ISI acted as local middle men. Mainly due to cultural and religious barrier. That time America marketed itself as the great compatriot of Muslims against evil communists.

Headley is a suspect person as he has acted as an agent of US agencies in the past. This person implicates US in Bombay events.

"Headley in 1997, was one of two men arrested for smuggling heroin into the country , from Pakistan. In exchange for information about his Pakistani drug contacts, he received a considerably lighter sentence than his co-defendant: fifteen months in jail and five years of supervised release. In November 1998, Headley was delivered to the low-security Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix. However, his supervised release period was never completed. Instead, in November 2001, an assistant U.S. attorney applied to have Headley discharged. Headley traveled to Pakistan multiple times to conduct undercover surveillance operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration."

Who knows exact status or motivations of this person. His interaction with US agencies need closer scrutiny. Most probabily he is a loose gun like OBL.

Headly may have run drug trade on his own to get rich quick. He is no different from lets say Dawood Ibrahim. Much to the Indian hype, many drug smuggles are hired as DEA under cover agents to lighten their sentences. That does not make them a loose gun.

May i say Zardari regime has already done such atrtempts!

Rehman Malik had suggested in past that he will send ISI cheif to india for interogation.
It is also quite clearly declared in KL bill which is widely accepted by both Noon league and PPP.
How much more we need to understand that Zardari regime is complicit in all the terrorism against Pakistanis and Pakistan army.
What does target killing in Karachi suggest..... followed by all other attempts of stirring ethnic violence and target killings in Quetta.

Zardari as of now seems to be locked on by ISI. He must have his own grunt against the agency for spending five years behind bars. But more than that he is just a powerless stooge.

Lets keep conspiracy theories aside for minute , lets look at it this way 5-6 gun men enters in a different country few thousand miles from their origin they have few hundred rounds and grenades and create a havoc in a mega city ........... my question is where was the big army of 1 million men ?? and my guess is all posted in Kashmir ... Indians should move some from Kashmir and secure its western borders rather than non stop rant of blaming ISI

Surprisingly, like the Indian movies their ammunition does not finish for very long. They are also able to behave like Indian hero, one man kills all the villans. All his team is killed but hero escape unharmed. Comeon, these things look good in movies only. Out of thousand bullets fired Kassab has the probablity to dodge each and every one of them. Real terrorist commit sucide rather giving themselves up. Either the Indian security really sucks with such coast guards and navy unable to protect against bunch of infiltrators or these men did a commendable job and Kassab should be appointed as an anti-terror advisor to indian navy.

I like Nixon and Kissinger.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Nixon's dislike of 'witch' Indira

this one made my day!

On the flip side, India has always backstabbed with a smiling face of "peace". They have no reason to be trusted. We have "bangladesh" as the proof of their biggest involement in terrorism against Pakistan. That should be investigated too. And then we have BLA which has many sympathizers in Indian government despite baluchistan not sharing any border with India.

And in last, just ran a quick google search and its indian media again hyper-ventilating their toxic buildup.

 

[ramu]

What concrete evidence is is something that I should not need to explain to you. If you don't know what concrete evidence is then you are in no place to judge the authenticity of these documents. But whatever.

I will just give you some examples. An ISI agent getting caught, army personnel getting caught - stuff along those lines. There are lots of things that can be called concrete evidence depending on the context.

What we have here are mere accusations against ISI. And this is mentioned all across the board in all the media that have reported this (minus the indian ones perhaps).

India if it finds an ISI agent and arrests him, it is not difficult to claim that the arrest is state misusing its power to arrest a normal citizen. How is this concrete proof ?

Youe concrete evidence fails in the first test of convincing fellow Pakistanis that the person arrested is truly an ISI agent. What stops you from saying that the Indian law agency have got hold of the wrong man? You guys dont give credit to Indian courts anyway so what stops the conspiracy theorists to come up with a new theory for the arrest.

 

[SMC]

Perhaps a better way to define concrete evidence is evidence that unambiguously and clearly proves someone to be guilty. Some also call it the smoking gun.

 

[SMC]

India if it finds an ISI agent and arrests him, it is not difficult to claim that the arrest is state misusing its power to arrest a normal citizen. How is this concrete proof ?

Youe concrete evidence fails in the first test of convincing fellow Pakistanis that the person arrested is truly an ISI agent. What stops you from saying that the Indian law agency have got hold of the wrong man? You guys dont give credit to Indian courts anyway so what stops the conspiracy theorists to come up with a new theory for the arrest.

Regardless of what the case is, I shouldn't need to explain to you what concrete evidence is. It's something that can be used court of law to unambiguously prove someone guilty. There isn't even any anecdotal or circumstantial prove against ISI, forget concrete evidence.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, remember this - it's the Indians and westerners who are making conspiracy theories at this time.

---------- Post added at 06:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

 

[ramu]

Regardless of what the case is, I shouldn't need to explain to you what concrete evidence is. It's something that can be used court of law to unambiguously prove someone guilty. There isn't even any anecdotal or circumstantial prove against ISI, forget concrete evidence.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, remember this - it's the Indians and westerners who are making conspiracy theories at this time.

Then you are bull sh!ting all these days. No evidence taken as recorded statements, incidents or admissions in the courts in India are admissible in Pakistan anyway. So your definition of concrete evidence leaves a gaping hole for disproving everything as no evidence is admissible that India provides in India, for example Ajmal Kasb's statement is admissible in Pakistan. So no point of discussing anything with you as everything that is available is not concrete. Pity you still think highly of your own logic.

you have failed to provide one incident or evidence till date that implicates RAW or ISI directly by your definition of concrete evidence.

 

[mikkix]

^^^Indians definitely requires to differentiate the word proof with information..
May be in Hindi, proof and information are used for similar meaning..

 

[SMC]

Then you are bull sh!ting all these days. No evidence taken as recorded statements, incidents or admissions in the courts in India are admissible in Pakistan anyway. So your definition of concrete evidence leaves a gaping hole for disproving everything as no evidence is admissible that India provides in India, for example Ajmal Kasb's statement is admissible in Pakistan. So no point of discussing anything with you as everything that is available is not concrete. Pity you still think highly of your own logic.

you have failed to provide one incident or evidence till date that implicates RAW or ISI directly by your definition of concrete evidence.

You're trying really hard - let me assure you by whatever way you can spin the definition of concrete evidence, what we have here is not even close to being concrete evidence. There's nothing even remotely similar to recorded statements, admissions, etc, in this case. Just mere allegations. And it's not surprising that for an Indian, allegations become concrete evidence.

You're merely going into semantics to divert from the fact that there is a lack of evidence.

I have defined what concrete evidence is btw. You choosing to discredit that definition is merely a means to divert from the fact that there's absolutely no evidence (concrete or otherwise) even after one spins the definition of concrete evidence in whatever way they want.

Tell you what. You tell me what you consider concrete evidence. And then we will see if there's any concrete evidence by your definition of concrete evidence. Nothing that we have here in this case will stand in the court of law as concrete evidence.

You also chose to not look at the other 4 points I mentioned (i.e that these reports are raw and unverified, are from afghan intelligence, etc).

 

[ramu]

You're trying really hard - let me assure you by whatever way you can spin the definition of concrete evidence, what we have here is not even close to being concrete evidence. There's nothing even remotely similar to recorded statements, admissions, etc, in this case. Just mere allegations. And it's not surprising that for an Indian, allegations become concrete evidence.

I have defined what concrete evidence is btw. You choosing to discredit that definition is merely a means to divert from the fact that there's absolutely no evidence (concrete or otherwise) even after one spins the definition of concrete evidence in whatever way they want.

Tell you what. You tell me what you consider concrete evidence. Nothing that we have here in this case will stand in the court of law as concrete evidence.

You also chose to not look at the other 4 points I mentioned (i.e that these reports are raw and unverified, are from afghan intelligence, etc).

No, SMC, I have not tried much. On the contrary you are tongue tied have fallen in the deep fallacy of your own logic.

Not just about this case but in all there is nothing under the sun that can be treated as concrete evidence as your definition of concrete evidence is so poor and under the realms of an internet discussion you are close tto calling a court hearing and nothing short... try being practical and stop circling around a logic of your that I am sure you regard very highly of but does not help yo give one example.

 

[SMC]

You should perhaps look into your own logic and knowledge if you're asking others for definition of concrete evidence.

And see, this is what I am talking about. You're taking the personal attack route when you're unable to contest my point.


1. Why don't you tell me what you consider to be concrete evidence?
2. What logical fallacy are you talking about? Do you even know the definition of logical fallacy? I gave you a definition that is unambiguous in post #38.

You're contesting on semantics, using personal attacks to divert from the fact that there's a lack of ANY kind of evidence.

You tell me what evidence is there against ISI, and then tell me your own definition of concrete evidence, and we can look into whether that evidence is concrete.

As of now, you're getting involved in the nittygritty fine details and using personal attacks to divert from your lack of evidence. It's usually done by those who are in desperate positions and are hanging by a thin thread.

 

[SMC]

One more thing.

You were talking about how the concrete evidence you mentioned (such as ISI agents, recorded statements, incidents or admissions in the courts in India) are admissible in Pakistan.

There's no evidence even remotely similar in terms of its significance available in this case.

So you are stuck on providing any evidence, but your contesting point is that you don't need to provide us any evidence as we won't accept it. So in other words, we should take your word without evidence - and essentially that you don't need to provide any evidence to show that Pakistan is supporting Taliban.

Then you say that my definition of concrete evidence is too strict (it is not). I ask you for your definition of concrete evidence - from which you evade. Your contesting point is that since my definition of concrete evidence is too strict, you are essentially exempt from providing evidence. Nowhere did you say what your definition of concrete evidence was, and moreover, there was no evidence shown that would match the definition of ANY evidence, let alone concrete evidence.

What utter brilliance.

We did accept the evidence against those who it was provided against. There's none provided against certain people that you're pointing at, hence there's not much to look at there.

But regardless of that, you have to first provide evidence and then you can laugh at us and put us down if we don't accept it.

You see, this is how you dig a hole for yourself. Your logic has fallen on itself. Your only way out was to keep one busy discussing the fine details and to personally attack me to divert from the lack of evidence.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

CONCLUSION!!! LONG STORY SHORT !!!

Ref
US Tells India Arms Sales to Pakistan Will Continue | USA | English

US Tells India Arms Sales to Pakistan Will Continue

The top U.S. military officer told Indian leaders Friday the United States will continue to sell weapons to Pakistan, and that the sales do not pose a threat to India.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen says he is confident the weapons the United States is selling to Pakistan are being used for their intended purpose - to fight al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. But he says he urged Indian leaders to continue to discuss their concerns with him and other U.S. officials .

Major Snub lol

Ya... call my 1-800 number back in washington like I give a damn about your concerns

 

[Tshering22]

Quite true.......

But a little correction....US wont do anything not because it needs us but because US know all these reports are false......

Well the same USA also talked of you fostering terrorism on their soil. Do you have words against them for that? For your convenience, US is an angel while on other threads, your country guys are hammering them for everything from bomb blasts to mismanagement in your agricultural department.

How does it matter whether US does anything anyway? Our rivalry is between us and they don't have any right to meddle. This investigation I think is because of that Shehzad thingy that happened a few months back to avoid another situation like that in American heartland.

 

[Jackdaws]

US investigating....my left foot. India should be the one investigating. Obama is not Mother Teresa...he is not going to sprinkle fairy dust and gather all world nations in a circle and make everyone sing, "hallelujah". USA will always protect its own citizens' and business interests and if 20 Bombay attacks can prevent even 1 failed Shahzad episode - they won't give it a second thought. And guess what - they are right - they have been elected by the American people to protect American interests. If Indian leadership had a backbone, they would have launched those limited strikes that I have heard about since I began reading newspapers. And of course Pakistan is not going to be cooperate fully. They are protecting their own interests. Inference - America smartly protects its own interests, Pakistan is forrest gumping its way in a haphazard manner to protect its own interests and India is the busy - err - preparing dossiers and imploring USA and Pakistan to act. They might as well go to the temple and pray - better odds of succeeding...

 

[Jackdaws]

One more thing.

You were talking about how the concrete evidence you mentioned (such as ISI agents, recorded statements, incidents or admissions in the courts in India) are admissible in Pakistan.

There's no evidence even remotely similar in terms of its significance available in this case.

So you are stuck on providing any evidence, but your contesting point is that you don't need to provide us any evidence as we won't accept it. So in other words, we should take your word without evidence - and essentially that you don't need to provide any evidence to show that Pakistan is supporting Taliban.

Then you say that my definition of concrete evidence is too strict (it is not). I ask you for your definition of concrete evidence - from which you evade. Your contesting point is that since my definition of concrete evidence is too strict, you are essentially exempt from providing evidence. Nowhere did you say what your definition of concrete evidence was, and moreover, there was no evidence shown that would match the definition of ANY evidence, let alone concrete evidence.

What utter brilliance.

We did accept the evidence against those who it was provided against. There's none provided against certain people that you're pointing at, hence there's not much to look at there.

But regardless of that, you have to first provide evidence and then you can laugh at us and put us down if we don't accept it.

You see, this is how you dig a hole for yourself. Your logic has fallen on itself. Your only way out was to keep one busy discussing the fine details and to personally attack me to divert from the lack of evidence.

Uh. Let's see. A crime is committed in Location A; the crime is planned in Location B. The investigations in Location A can only gather evidence at the crime scene but the real proof can only be garnered in Location B. So the onus of finding evidence based on information provided rests with Location B. Is that fair?

What's more - Location B - being Pakistan has a laughable track record when it comes to actually bothering to find evidence. They have even hanged their own PM - Z.A. Bhutto through their judicial process despite paucity of evidence. They regularly give up their own citizens to USA without evidence - infact without any judicial process. What evidence was needed to kill that Bugti fellow?

So Pakistan's holier-than-thou "lack of evidence" track would be funny in other circumstances. I would believe it if the USA or UK made such noises since we know that they actually have a functioning and independent judiciary. But Pakistan?? Even you can see the conundrum here.