What's new

Wikileaks : Secret Afghanistan War logs

it's no wonder that you like the US general and call all others as corrupted and liars only because what the larger majority reveals will not fit your arguements. And spending time and energy to convice the world is a must for pakistan or else they will be alone in the world with only one frined.And it is to be seen how far will china go to support pakistan. When chinese will get a taste of those terrorists they will also back off i guess.

Afghan Govt is proven to be currpot, incompetent & shameless it’s not me or just Pakistan saying but the rest of the world too including the frustrated Americans

Oh by the way don’t worry about China too much
Worry about Moist freedom fighters too. Don’t you see there is a consistent tendency here that so many ethnic groups want to be independent from the hegemony of India. Khasmiris & Moist are rising once again.

By the way you mentioned China, recently there were some special ops exercises together specially training to seek and destroy the so called “cultural centres” along the Afghan borders that train & supply terrorists to kill civilians in Afghanistan. The BLA terrorist leader shows off his Indian passport when he holds meetings in UAE & Kabul with the Indians.
Want to convince me that the Indian supply of weapons & money & bombs for terrorism is something a self proclaimed biggest democratic state does to its neighbours?

Come on convince me
 
Last edited:
The huge scale of Pakistan's complicity - The Globe and Mail

When 91,000 classified military documents are leaked about a continuing war, there is bound to be controversy. But as one who spent six years in Afghanistan – first as Canada's ambassador, then as deputy head of the United Nations mission there – my first reaction was how true to life it all was. Here is the hall-of-mirrors, see-saw world of counterinsurgency – in all its complexity.

But alarm bells soon started ringing for me. Intelligence sources have been named – a windfall for the Taliban that they are likely toasting. The cost of this betrayal will be measured in lives, undercutting efforts to build trust village-by-village in Kandahar, Helmand and elsewhere.

Look at the sheer scale of the WikiLeaks' material – and its lack of context. In the Afghanistan I knew, civilians were struggling to rebuild an economy and institutions. In the documents, the country is depicted as a howling, naked battlefield. It is a caricature, which will feed prevailing prejudices.

There is, however, at least one genuine insight: dozens of reports tagging the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – the branch of Pakistan's military charged with most aspects of its Afghan policy – as the main driver of the conflict. So long as cross-border interference goes unchecked, prospects for peace remain dim.

By any measure, the conflict is escalating. According to the UN, the number of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) from January to April was twice the 2009 figure. In June alone, 104 foreign soldiers were killed, including four Canadians – the highest monthly toll to date.

In Pakistan, Taliban-led suicide attacks since 2007 have killed an estimated 3,400 – mostly civilians. Thousands more have been killed in operations to root militants out of Swat, Bajaur, Kurram, South Waziristan and elsewhere.

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are now in the grip of a single escalating conflict, punching eastward from Khyber Pakhtunwa (the former Northwest Frontier Province) into Punjab's heartland, as well as westward toward Kabul, Kandahar and Kunduz.

As a direct consequence, reconciliation has failed to get off the ground: the Pakistan-based Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan – the official name for the Taliban and its allies – clearly prefer to fight.

GENERAL ASHFAQ KAYANI V. THE REST OF THE WORLD

As the War Logs make clear, the principal drivers of violence are no longer, if they ever were, inside Afghanistan.

Consider the following:

First, in February, Pakistan's security forces began arresting a dozen or so Taliban leaders – whose presence on their soil they had always noisily denied – presumably because these insurgent commanders had shown genuine, independent interest in reconciliation.

Second, the chief of Pakistan's army staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, this year once again successfully resisted U.S. pressure to launch military operations in Baluchistan and North Waziristan, where the Islamic Emirate is based.

Third, Gen. Kayani told Mr. Karzai this spring that the condition for peace in Afghanistan would be the closing of several Indian consulates, while offering to broker deals with Islamic Emirate leaders, whom he considers a “strategic asset.”

Fourth, Gen. Kayani blithely told a Washington audience that he remained wedded to “strategic depth” – that is, to making Afghanistan the kind of proprietary hinterland for Pakistan, free of Indian or other outside influence, which it was from 1992 to 2001.

This is not empty rhetoric. Gen. Kayani is saying he wants to call the shots in Kabul. To do so, he is prepared to support the principal outfit launching suicide attacks in Afghanistan's cities. He is backing the Islamic Emirate's effort to wreck an Afghan-led nation-building process.

The Pakistan army under Gen. Kayani is sponsoring a large-scale, covert guerrilla war through Afghan proxies – whose strongholds in Baluchistan and Waziristan are flourishing. Their mission in Afghanistan is to keep Pashtun nationalism down, India out and Mr. Karzai weak.

It has nothing to do with Islam, whose principles they trample; indeed, the flower of Afghanistan's ulema (religious leaders) have been among their victims.

Gen. Kayani and others will deny complicity. But as the WikiLeaks material demonstrates, their heavy-handed involvement is now obvious at all levels.

To understand the context of this fraught relationship, read a report called The Sun and the Sky: The Relationship of Pakistan's ISI to Afghan Insurgents, by Matt Waldman, a former Oxfam policy adviser now at Harvard. It is a chilling tale. When the scale of this complicity is fully exposed, it will rank high on the list of modern scandals.

FULL CIRCLE

By any measure, Afghan society has recovered smartly since 2001. The latest annual growth in gross domestic product was 22 per cent – despite the global crisis. Government revenue increased by 60 per cent in 18 months. Annual inflation has been minus 12 per cent, as domestic agriculture substituted for pricey imports.

A renaissance has continued in media and culture. Schools, clinics and new rural infrastructure have opened the door to better lives.

Despite thickets of corruption, several Afghan ministries have combined integrity with delivery.

On July 20, 60 donor nations and 12 international organizations met at Kabul to assess progress. The highlight was Hamid Karzai's speech – his best as Afghan President to date.

Leaving aside last year's controversies, he articulated priorities rooted in national consensus.

He returned to the theme of his country as a crossroads and roundabout for Asia, arguing that trade, mineral wealth and sound public finances, wisely pursued, can make Afghanistan's new institutions affordable.

The country has now come full circle – reclaiming the sense of purpose it embraced in 2002-04.

The symbol of this restored strategic impulse is Mr. Karzai's revived collaboration with his outstanding former finance minister (and 2009 presidential rival), Ashraf Ghani. Such political vision has the potential to deliver results.

But larger-scale institution-building will take years.

Afghanistan's army and police were effectively dissolved in 1992; serious efforts to restore them were launched only in 2003 and 2005 respectively.

BOTH COUNTRIES’ CITIZENS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE

Few Pakistanis rejoice in the ISI's duplicity.

Most see the ISI's strategy for the outrage it is. It has brought their military into disrepute, sullied Pakistan's good name and unleashed unprecedented strife in its streets. Pakistani influence at Kabul is at its lowest ebb since 1947.

The vast majority of Pakistanis do not equate their national interest with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Indeed, The Dawn, Pakistan's largest daily, warned in an editorial after the Kabul conference against any precipitate U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Pakistan's army's interference in Afghanistan's recovery violates a key provision of the UN Charter, on non-interference – and at its new scale, it represents a threat to international peace and security. It deserves serious discussion in multilateral forums, including the UN.

Most citizens of both countries want to see the Taliban defeated, and legitimate governments strengthened. The trade deal signed by Afghanistan and Pakistan on July 20 – the first since partition – is a good start.

A similar deal on the border would be historic.

Without Pakistani military support, all signs are the Islamic Emirate's combat units would collapse like a house of cards. Peace and reconciliation would prosper.

So long as this unholy alliance continues, Afghans will continue to succumb to the mistaken view that the U.S. and its allies are deliberately turning a blind eye to Taliban resurgence, despite our sacrifices to date.

Turning the corner on this issue will require a concerted show of will – and much tougher action in the eyes of the new storm of violence in North Waziristan and Baluchistan.

The shrine bombed in Lahore on July 1 holds Ali Bin Usman Hujwiri Ghaznavi, a saint who travelled to the Indus basin from what is now Afghanistan in the 11th century, becoming one of the anchors of Islam in South Asia.

As we begin a second decade of the second millennium, his legacy – one rooted in a rich, tolerant concept of religion; as well as strong relations then between Lahore and Ghazni (Islamabad and Kabul today) – remains worth defending.

For all the damage the WikiLeaks data dump could cause, at least they have brought our attention back to where it should be – to the real obstacles to peace.

Chris Alexander was ambassador of Canada to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009. The views expressed in this article are entirely his own. The Long Way Back – his book on Afghanistan's story since 2001 – will be published by HarperCollins in 2011.
 
And it is to be seen how far will china go to support pakistan. When chinese will get a taste of those terrorists they will also back off i guess.

All i can say here is your total lack of the Pak-China pact. Go read on what Pakistan has done for China with regards to the Uighur of Urumqi and beyond.

Read what Pakistan has done to curtail the influence of Rabia in Baltistan and the communities in Rawalpindi and Karachi. Read what Pakistan has done in terms of border control and intelligence sharing.

China has a whole news agency "Guang Ming Daily" that has three analysts and senior correspondents dedicated to Pakistan at the embassy.

During the Olympic games, it was Pakistani intelligence that helped China prepare for any untoward incident by the militant factions within the Uighur community.

Pakistan is Chinas prime ally in anti-terrorism and regional security. There is a reason China and Pakistan are so close.

First do some reading, brush up on your understanding of what China and Pakistan do together, then come back with facts.
 
@ EjazR

Few Pakistanis rejoice in the ISI's duplicity.

Most see the ISI's strategy for the outrage it is.

This is so far from the truth i don't know where to begin. Anyone from a 5 year old child to the white collar professional all know what ISI means for the state of Pakistan.

And quoting Chris Alexander's report ( a person who's perception has been forged by his contact with Afghani officials, is not anything to go by).
 
Sorry for the late reply but I don’t think I am the one who got the head buried under the sand.:disagree:

Certainly that's the case (i.e. the case that I mentioned).

Some of the intelligence report may have come from Indian and afghan informers but not all of them.

No, it is all from Afghans which are backedby indians.

I don’t argue that every body says that so it is true ‘what I say is every source confirm or indicate the same thing so it is more likely to be true.

1. Not even everybody says that it is true outside of India and perhaps Afghanistan, so that is false to begin with.
2. You're talking about media? You're saying that since every media source says it's true, it is likely to be true? What world are you living in dude? Are you REALLY suggesting something that simplistic? Do you remember Iraq war/WMDs? Media has not provided any proof and it's same old case of repeating allegations again, and again, and again, and again, to make the people believe the allegations are true.

Increased number of authorities with similar information increases the chances of it being true than false.

What authorities? Only indian and afghan authorities have similar information. On top of that, I am not going to mention the fabrication of evidence if required (ala WMDs). Again, stop living in an overly simplistic world.

Neutrality of the authority also increases the chance. (US, UK, and Pakistan presidents)

None of them are neutral. (Btw US has said nothing like what you're suggesting) All of them have interests in this war.

Now the world doesn’t need to convince Pakistan that it plays double game. It is now Pakistan’s responsibility to prove that they are not.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? What happened to all the logic and rationality talk by the indians? Now all the logic and rationality seems to be thrown out of the window since it suits you to do that. Perhaps it's time for YOU guys to start using some logic and rationality and get your head out of the sand.
Get out of your simplistic world. You're severely overestimating anti-Pakistani perception like many other indians. The 'world' that you're talking about doesn't even see us as a major player in the Afghan war.

The reason for that is the 'world' that you're talking about doesn't take what media says at face value. They are aware of past manipulation done by the media. Though one day if the state joins in on the allegation, they might start believing, but as of now, you're overestimating this to the highest order.

Look at UN’s position on Iran’s nuclear program. BANKI MOON said ‘I said clearly and directly that the burden of proof is on Iran to demonstrate that its nuclear program is for peaceful purpose ‘same can be applied to Pakistan. Even Pakistan’s new terror bill puts the burden of proof on accused.

What does Terror bill have to do with anything? And UN has said nothing about Pakistan so that reference is completely off-topic and sounds like a childish argument

Look at the amount of evidence against Pakistan. NATO chief’s revelation’s, CIA intelligence reports, headly’s revelations, kasab’s revelations, zardari’s and musharaf’s admissions about terror links of Pakistan, wikileaks. Those are elite people or agencies engaged in terror operations or captured terrorists and are in best position to know what they speak or make a claim. They are the authority.

What has NATO chief said?

What have CIA intelligence reports have said? You're confusing Afghan intelligence reports with CIA. No such CIA reports that you're talking about have been released. Moreover, I don't even need to go into CIA credibility ala WMDs.

What do Kasab revelations show?

Zardari and Musharraf have talked about the past. By your logic, since India supported terrorists in the past, it must be doing so now.

Wikileaks - that has been discussed to the core. The very post of mine that you quoted deals with the problems in wiki leaks. And yes, you do have your head buried in the sand because you choose to use wikileaks reports as your source even after it's shown to you that the reports are problematic.
It can be easily observed from all the revelation’s that in fact Pakistan is somehow involved in a double game and this opinion is likely to get some “ some ground for bias “ against Pakistan and it’s mere denial without any supporting information.

When several sources make same revelations (not just hear say or belief) Pakistan is the one who needs to convince the world that they are not supporting terrorists any more.:disagree:

It is indeed hearsey dude. What several sources btw are you talking about? LSE report- where the author admitted that the report was based on hearsey? Unnamed CIA officials? Wikileaks - the problem with that report already discussed?

If those are your sources, then you're the one needing to show some proof. You're clearly overestimating what's out there but more importantly the double standards shown regarding proof will not set a good precedent should the tables turn some time in the future due to whatever event.

You know, conspiracy theories based on little to no evidence is not something I expected from the self-confessed conspiracy-theory-aware indians. Really, this is quite the opposite of what you guys were talking about.
 
Last edited:
Worry at US withdrawal is understandable, Robert Gates admits

• Brad Norington, Washington correspondent
• From: The Australian


ROBERT Gates has conceded the Afghan and Pakistan governments would have legitimate fears about the US withdrawing its forces.

Given the US abandoned the region 21 years ago, the US Defence Secretary said yesterday he could understand Pakistan in particular had a "certain hedge" about the US commitment to stay.

But he had noticed a change in strategic thinking as Pakistan understood the two countries shared a common enemy.

"We walked out on Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1989 and left them basically holding the bag," Dr Gates said. "And there is always the fear we will do that again. And I believe that's the reason there's a certain hedge. But what I see is a change in the strategic calculus in Pakistan."

Dr Gates said Pakistan was becoming more involved as a US partner as it faced the same insurgents. Evidence of Pakistan's commitment was sending 140,000 soldiers to fight insurgents in the country's northwest.

The US Defence Secretary said he was "mortified" at the thought the leaks could put Afghan informants and US soldiers in danger, blasting the WikiLeaks website for "moral culpability".

He hosed down suggestions of a big US troop pullout from Afghanistan next July, which Barack Obama has identified as the target to start a withdrawal. "My personal opinion is that drawdowns early on will be of fairly limited numbers," he said.

When Mr Obama announced an increase of 30,000 troops for Afghanistan in December, he said his intention was to start the withdrawal in 18 months.

Dr Gates dismissed suggestions the Taliban could "run out the clock" waiting for the target date. "We will be there in the 19th month, and we will be there with a lot of troops," he said.

Pakistan's ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, dismissed claims his country would be interested in supporting the Taliban. "The Taliban are very clear we are the enemy," he said.
 
More generally, the WikiLeaks fallout brought back ugly memories, reminding Pakistanis what happens whenever we get involved with the Americans


And therefore--- : ???
 
@ EjazR



This is so far from the truth i don't know where to begin. Anyone from a 5 year old child to the white collar professional all know what ISI means for the state of Pakistan.

And quoting Chris Alexander's report ( a person who's perception has been forged by his contact with Afghani officials, is not anything to go by).

There are many things I don't agree with in this article btw. for example, the quoting of Waldman report from LSE is not at all accurate. I only quoted it here as he was heavily involved in Afghanistan as a Canadian rep. both as an ambassador and UN official.
 
Exposing a 'wicked' war

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Shamshad Ahmad

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

Whatever their intent, WikiLeaks' massive disclosure of a vast array of material, ranging from tactical reports from small-unit operations to strategic analyses of the political and military situation in Afghanistan, contains a clear indictment of how, and why, the US has been fighting this endless war.

At first glance, questions arise as to the very authenticity of these reports, which have neither been verified independently nor disowned by official circles in Washington. Those who had the time and spunk to browse through the entire data are left with the mystery of who could have access to such a vast and diverse range of intelligence with enough time and resources to collect, collate and transmit it to its unauthorised recipients without detection.

But the leaked papers shed no new light on the Afghan reality. The shocking truth was known to the world all along in excruciating detail. Who would want to detail a truth that is already known, with access to all this documentation and the ability to transmit it unimpeded? Whoever it may be has just made the most powerful case yet for an early end to the inglorious Afghan war.

Despite the enormous details, what is revealed in WikiLeaks is of little surprise. It is not much different from what most people already knew or believed about the war in Afghanistan, which everyone, even the US and its allied Nato governments and military officials, acknowledged has not been going well. WikiLeaks' portrayal of the Afghan war shows the US as being badly caught in an unwinnable war.

The leaked reports, mostly written by soldiers and petty intelligence officers, make no new revelations, as such. However, they do provide graphic accounts of hundreds of unreported incidents involving indiscriminate, at times "accidental," killings of innocent civilians by the coalition forces in Afghanistan. The reports also contain detailed descriptions of raids carried out by a secretive American "black" special operations unit called Task Force 373 against what US officials considered "high-value insurgent and terrorist" targets. Actual victims in these secret operations were invariably non-combatant civilians, including small children.

The sum total of this whole sordid narrative is a verdict on the very legality and morality of this war. It is presented as an immoral, wicked war based on lies and deceit. This assessment is not different from a clear perception all over the world that it was a wrong war to start. Waged as the global "war on terror," it has only been a "semantic, strategic and legal perversion." In the absence of a globally acceptable definition of terrorism, it is only a method of combat. One doesn't wage a war against a method of combat without an identifiable enemy to fight against.

An increasing number of security experts, politicians and policy organisations consider the war on terror a counterproductive military process which has not only alienated the US globally but is also fuelling a pro-terrorist sentiment and helping terrorist recruitment. Even the American media now feels that this decision was a big mistake. From being a righteous war when it started, the US war on terror is no longer considered moral. It is considered a war that has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation. No wonder, the message from WikiLeaks is that the Afghan war is a "wicked" problem that must come to an end as soon as possible.

According to a study by a group of academics at New York University last year, the idea of "wicked" problems first articulated as a concept in the 1970s is applicable to the Afghan conflict. This concept denotes problems characterised by social complexity, a large number and diversity of players, a high degree of fragmentation, and contested and multiple forms of causality. Different stakeholders in a conflict beset by wicked problems fail to arrive at a common definition of the problem at hand, often because they disagree on the cause of the problem.

According to this study, the ongoing forms of conflict in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan are characterised by decades of failed US policy and are classic examples of wicked problems.

The claim that fixing the security situation in South Asia is the primary need of this region for the redress of its other pressing problems is questioned by those who believe that poverty, deprivation and economic underdevelopment are the primary cause of violence, and that it these elements that need to be addressed.

In the context of South Asia, any US policies that create strategic imbalances in the region and fuel an arms race between the two nuclear-capable neighbours with an escalatory effect on their military budgets and arsenals are also no service to the peoples of the two countries. "Wicked" problems require holistic analyses that do not ignore the possible effects of changes to other elements in the system, rather than strictly linear forms of problem-solving.

Let's step back and look at the Afghan conflict dispassionately. The US forced the Taliban from power. It never defeated the Taliban, nor did it make a serious effort to do so, since that would have required massive resources that even the United States doesn't have. It enlisted its Nato allies in an international coalition to fight this war, which is in its tenth year. It has been one of the costliest wars which has lasted longer than the Second World War. No wonder people in the US and the European countries are sick of this conflict and would want their troops back without delay.

President Obama has himself been saying that the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. Asked in an interview last year with the New York Times whether the US was winning the war in Afghanistan, he replied flatly, "No." He also indicated that Washington might be opening the door for cooperation with moderate elements among the Taliban. White House officials are now talking about seeking an "acceptable end" in Afghanistan, rather than victory.

Whatever the preferred end-goals, durable peace in Afghanistan will remain elusive unless Pakistan's legitimate security concerns in the region are addressed. Pakistan has already staked everything in support of this war and is constantly paying a heavy price in terms of violence, massive displacement, trade and production slowdown, export stagnation, investor hesitation and a worsening law and order situation. America's indifference to Pakistan's legitimate interests and sensitivities is beyond comprehension.

It is important that Pakistan, as a partner and an ally, is treated with dignity and sovereign equality. A country cannot be treated both as partner in a fight against a common enemy and a target. A coercive and, at times, accusatory and slanderous approach towards Pakistan and its armed forces and security agencies is both reprehensible and counterproductive.

Instead of continuing their blame game and using Pakistan as an easy scapegoat for their own failures in this war, the US and its allies must accept the reality that Afghanistan is an area of fundamental strategic importance for Pakistan. If the Soviet presence in Cuba almost triggered a nuclear war in the early 1960s, India's continued ascendancy in Afghanistan will remain a danger of no less gravity to the already volatile security environment of this nuclearised region.



Email: shamshad1941@yahoo.com
 
Certainly that's the case (i.e. the case that I mentioned).


lets not talk more on this,Let our arguements decide that.

No, it is all from Afghans which are backedby indians.

i could't find that.plese provide me some credible source.

1. Not even everybody says that it is true outside of India and perhaps Afghanistan, so that is false to begin with.

everybody means people who are involved in this matter.

2. You're talking about media? You're saying that since every media source says it's true, it is likely to be true? What world are you living in dude? Are you REALLY suggesting something that simplistic? Do you remember Iraq war/WMDs? Media has not provided any proof and it's same old case of repeating allegations again, and again, and again, and again, to make the people believe the allegations are true.

I don’t think media is to be blamed for Iraq war rather it was US AND BUSH. And even if media played a part that doesn’t mean ‘from there own you have to disbelieve all media reports’.’ you are just taking an exceptional case and trying to generalize it’’ .and media reports combined and backed with(vice versa ) other revelations from various authorities, researches, etc will give you a near perfect impression of the fact.

What authorities? Only indian and afghan authorities have similar information. On top of that, I am not going to mention the fabrication of evidence if required (ala WMDs). Again, stop living in an overly simplistic world.

Authorities means people or org; who are qualified and in position to commend on their respected area of operations. Not only India or afghan but UN and NATO allies have similar opinion. Who is more qualified to commend on this matter?
UN Report on Pakistan | Benazir Bhutto Assassination | 26/11 Mumbai Attacks | Islamic State - Oneindia News

London School of Economics: Pakistan's ISI "is providing funding, training and sanctuary to the Taliban on scale much larger than previously thought" - Jihad Watch


None of them are neutral. (Btw US has said nothing like what you're suggesting) All of them have interests in this war.

Here you seems to taken the easiest way off denial. Accusing who ever calls you “supporter of terrorism” as biased

Guilty until proven innocent, huh? What happened to all the logic and rationality talk by the indians? Now all the logic and rationality seems to be thrown out of the window since it suits you to do that. Perhaps it's time for YOU guys to start using some logic and rationality and get your head out of the sand.

Yes guilty until proven and I think the logic is still there which I will try to explain later below. I repeat am not saying go and believe all media speculation but analyze them with supportive evidence(UN,NATO,VARIOUS RESEARCH REPORTS,INTERVIEWS OF AUTHORITYS etc. )

Get out of your simplistic world. You're severely overestimating anti-Pakistani perception like many other indians. The 'world' that you're talking about doesn't even see us as a major player in the Afghan war.

The reason for that is the 'world' that you're talking about doesn't take what media says at face value. They are aware of past manipulation done by the media. Though one day if the state joins in on the allegation, they might start believing, but as of now, you're overestimating this to the highest order.



What does Terror bill have to do with anything? And UN has said nothing about Pakistan so that reference is completely off-topic and sounds like a childish argument

I mentioned terror bill so that applying “guilty until proven innocent “logic is not alien to Pakistan. They also apply it on terror related matters.

I mentioned Iran because it is an international matter. Iran was accused of making nuclear bombs. Even though there is evidence that Iran is doing the same, it is not proven 100% to the world. But since enough intelligence reports are there from several sources, the UN took the same position “Iran has to prove the world that it is not building nuclear arms”.same can be applied here.

What has NATO chief said?

I apologies it was not NATO chief but US MILITARY CHIEF.

US military chief attacks ISI terror link - Yahoo! India News


What have CIA intelligence reports have said? You're confusing Afghan intelligence reports with CIA. No such CIA reports that you're talking about have been released. Moreover, I don't even need to go into CIA credibility ala WMDs.

In fact CIA report is there

Report: CIA cites Pakistan agency's ties to militants - World news - South and Central Asia - Pakistan - msnbc.com


What do Kasab revelations show?

There is no point in discussing KASAB point because it is Indian information which you will find biased so let's leave it or discues later.

Zardari and Musharraf have talked about the past. By your logic, since India supported terrorists in the past, it must be doing so now.

If you are mentioning LTTE, Well LTTE happened to be just on of the groups who were fighting for the rights of Tamil which we still support.india was supporting the larger AND GENUINE cause of tamils rather than LTTE. When India found that LTTE is moved away from there aim and are more interested in power and monopolistic rules rather than peace and agreements and compromises.India gradually withdraw their support. Infact India was the first country to ban LTTE. In the beginning LTTE was not terrorists’ just separatists or freedom fighters or revolutionaries (just like Bangladeshis). Later their actions and priorities changed and they lost the support of India as well as the world.

Even if LTTE were terrorists India had with drawn our support and proven it with its action. This is not happening in the case of Pakistan. Only dialogues and double games.

Wikileaks - that has been discussed to the core. The very post of mine that you quoted deals with the problems in wiki leaks. And yes, you do have your head buried in the sand because you choose to use wikileaks reports as your source even after it's shown to you that the reports are problematic.
It can be easily observed from all the revelation’s that in fact Pakistan is somehow involved in a double game and this opinion is likely to get some “ some ground for bias “ against Pakistan and it’s mere denial without any supporting information.



It is indeed hearsey dude. What several sources btw are you talking about? LSE report- where the author admitted that the report was based on hearsey? Unnamed CIA officials? Wikileaks - the problem with that report already discussed?

If those are your sources, then you're the one needing to show some proof. You're clearly overestimating what's out there but more importantly the double standards shown regarding proof will not set a good precedent should the tables turn some time in the future due to whatever event.

You know, conspiracy theories based on little to no evidence is not something I expected from the self-confessed conspiracy-theory-aware indians. Really, this is quite the opposite of what you guys were talking about.

i think my above arguements are enough to show you that when media reports combined with words and reveleations of authorities is enough proof.:sniper:
 
Last edited:
i could't find that.plese provide me some credible source.

This is well known dude. If you're asking for proof on this then it seems you don't know much about what's going on. Besides, Afghan Intelligence is heavily anti-Pakistan, so that itself raises a red-flag. And remember, no evidence has been provided by Afghans themselves.

everybody means people who are involved in this matter.

No, not even everyone who is involved in this matter says anything like this - not even close to everyone.

I don’t think media is to be blamed for Iraq war rather it was US AND BUSH. And even if media played a part that doesn’t mean ‘from there own you have to disbelieve all media reports’.’ you are just taking an exceptional case and trying to generalize it’’ .

Dude, media always gets their information from the state and/or reports. Media was heavily on to it during the Iraq war. So don't give me this crap that media cannot be blamed.

And I am trying to take an exception case and generalizing it? What? You seriously seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

Remember, media is getting their information from the state, and the state has manufactured wrong information so many times to achieve certain agenda.

and media reports combined and backed with(vice versa ) other revelations from various authorities, researches, etc will give you a near perfect impression of the fact.

Everything only contains accusations - no proof.


Authorities means people or org; who are qualified and in position to commend on their respected area of operations. Not only India or afghan but UN and NATO allies have similar opinion. Who is more qualified to commend on this matter?

UN is talking about decades old accusations.

NATO - well not too much from them.

Who is more qualified? None of them are they all have interests.


Decades old accusations. Plus indian source which has the wrong title as compared to the reality.


Been discussed before - no proof but allegations.

Here you seems to taken the easiest way off denial. Accusing who ever calls you “supporter of terrorism” as biased

Do learn the meaning of the word 'denial' before you use it. An important component of being in denial is that the opposing party has overwhelming evidence to support their claims. You have little to none.

Btw, you seem to have dodged my point completely. The individuals in question ARE NOT neutral and DO HAVE interests in the war.

Yes guilty until proven and I think the logic is still there which I will try to explain later below. I repeat am not saying go and believe all media speculation but analyze them with supportive evidence(UN,NATO,VARIOUS RESEARCH REPORTS,INTERVIEWS OF AUTHORITYS etc. )

Nah, no guilty until proven innocent. I am not going to respond to that non sense. Research reports mean **** when it comes to these matters.

Interview of authorities - well vast majority of them have been supportive of Pakistan.

I mentioned terror bill so that applying “guilty until proven innocent “logic is not alien to Pakistan. They also apply it on terror related matters.

We're talking about accusing individuals in that case, not the state. Btw, what about indians take on guilty until proven innocent? I am seriously not going to respond to this childish nonsense.

I mentioned Iran because it is an international matter. Iran was accused of making nuclear bombs. Even though there is evidence that Iran is doing the same, it is not proven 100% to the world. But since enough intelligence reports are there from several sources, the UN took the same position “Iran has to prove the world that it is not building nuclear arms”.same can be applied here.

It is US who said that, not UN. And your logic doesn't hold because nothing similar has been said about Pakistan except by you.

I apologies it was not NATO chief but US MILITARY CHIEF.

US military chief attacks ISI terror link - Yahoo! India News

Doesn't matter, he has been highly supportive of Pakistan.


CIA also manufactured evidence of Iraq's WMDs, planned Operation northwoords, carried out Operation Mockingbird, 1990 Testimony of Nayirah, etc. They have no credibility to anyone - even in the west.

If you are mentioning LTTE, Well LTTE happened to be just on of the groups who were fighting for the rights of Tamil which we still support.india was supporting the larger AND GENUINE cause of tamils rather than LTTE. When India found that LTTE is moved away from there aim and are more interested in power and monopolistic rules rather than peace and agreements and compromises.India gradually withdraw their support. Infact India was the first country to ban LTTE. In the beginning LTTE was not terrorists’ just separatists or freedom fighters or revolutionaries (just like Bangladeshis). Later their actions and priorities changed and they lost the support of India as well as the world.

Even if LTTE were terrorists India had with drawn our support and proven it with its action. This is not happening in the case of Pakistan. Only dialogues and double games.

Also talking about Mukhti Bahini. Btw LTTE was a UN listed terrorist organization so the above arguments will not hold.

i think my above arguements are enough to show you that when media reports combined with words and reveleations of authorities is enough proof.:sniper:[/COLOR]

You don't understand the meaning of proof, then, do you?
 
This is well known dude. If you're asking for proof on this then it seems you don't know much about what's going on. Besides, Afghan Intelligence is heavily anti-Pakistan, so that itself raises a red-flag. And remember, no evidence has been provided by Afghans themselves.

May be well known for you but I failed to get that information. As far as I know those are CLASSIFIED US INTELIGENCE REPORTS. While I agree that some of those can be from afghan and Indian I don’t see any reason to believe all are from them.

No, not even everyone who is involved in this matter says anything like this - not even close to everyone.

May not be everybody but the victim state and two major players have the same information and others never opposed or disagreed with their opinion or revelations. Remember the war is lead by us and they control almost everything including spy network and intelligence.

Dude, media always gets their information from the state and/or reports. Media was heavily on to it during the Iraq war. So don't give me this crap that media cannot be blamed.


And I am trying to take an exception case and generalizing it? What? You seriously seem to have no idea what you're talking about.

Remember, media is getting their information from the state, and the state has manufactured wrong information so many times to achieve certain agenda.

What I am trying to say is you are just taking out one rare incident and trying to state that media is always biased. In Iraq war there were several countries, organizations, media; even UN inspectors were not in favor of that, where as in this matter there are not many takers for Pakistan’s arguments. And media had mainly only one source of information which was US GOVERMENTR and they wrongly believed them. In this matter the information is from variety of sources and independent sources were not in favor of Pakistan.


Everything only contains accusations - no proof.



Those are enough primary evidence to put Pakistan under the shadow of doubt

UN is talking about decades old accusations.

207. The jihadi organizations are Sunni groups based largely in Punjab. Members of these groups aided the Taliban effort in Afghanistan at the behest of the ISI and later cultivated ties with Al-Qaida and Pakistani Taliban groups. The Pakistani military and ISI also used and supported some of these groups in the Kashmir insurgency after 1989. 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.

217 the ISI cultivated these relationships, initially in the context of the Cold War and the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980’s and later in support of Kashmiri insurgents. While several Pakistani current and former intelligence officials told the Commission that their agencies no longer had such ties in 2007, virtually all independent analysts provided information to the contrary and affirmed the ongoing nature of many such links.


NATO - well not too much from them.

Two major nato alies.

Who is more qualified? None of them are they all have interests.

There is no body in the world who is 100% clear and we cannot expect angels to bring evidence.

Decades old accusations. Plus indian source which has the wrong title as compared to the reality.

Ignore the Indian title I was not pointing that.

Do learn the meaning of the word 'denial' before you use it. An important component of being in denial is that the opposing party has overwhelming evidence to support their claims. You have little to none.


Btw, you seem to have dodged my point completely. The individuals in question ARE NOT neutral and DO HAVE interests in the war.

I know the meaning and there is enough primary evidence and it is pretty easy to accuse every source as biased when the information they provide does not suits you.

Nah, no guilty until proven innocent. I am not going to respond to that non sense. Research reports mean **** when it comes to these matters.

YES IN SUCH IMPORTANT AND EXCEPTIONAL CASES.NUKES AND TERROR is the greatest threat to the world and both are international issue. When those two grow out of preposition and spread out crossing boundaries of a country it becomes an international issue.AND YOU JUST TRYING TO ACCUSE EVERYBODY OF SOMETHING OR ANYTHING TO HIDE THE FACTS THEY SAID.

Interview of authorities - well vast majority of them have been supportive of Pakistan.

Give me some info?

We're talking about accusing individuals in that case, not the state. Btw, what about indians take on guilty until proven innocent? I am seriously not going to respond to this childish nonsense.

As I said ‘I just wanted to point out that in exceptional cases like terrorism such approach is not seen illogical in Pakistan’’ that’s all. And Iran issue is international one.

It is US who said that, not UN. And your logic doesn't hold because nothing similar has been said about Pakistan except by you.

In my meeting with President [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, I said clearly and directly that the burden of proof is on Iran to demonstrate that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
Press Conference by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at United Nations Headquarters


CIA also manufactured evidence of Iraq's WMDs, planned Operation northwoords, carried out Operation Mockingbird, 1990 Testimony of Nayirah, etc. They have no credibility to anyone - even in the west.

it is not only CIA.

Also talking about Mukhti Bahini. Btw LTTE was a UN listed terrorist organization so the above arguments will not hold.

I INTENDED TO SAY IT WAS NOT WHEN IT EMERGED AND HAD INDIAN SUPPORT. INDIAN WAS THE FIRSTONE TO BAN THEM.BTW UN is yet to ban them. Mukthibahini was fighting for their denied rights same as LTTE but they never diverted from their aim.

You don't understand the meaning of proof, then, do you?

I THINK I DO.:sniper:
 
Ok. From your posts, it seems you're a teenage armchair expert. Arguments such as 'the propaganda leading to Iraq war was just an exception' pretty much confirms that. And not only the argument itself, but the way you said it confirms that. I already wasted too much time answering your posts, so I won't waste any more time.
 
Last edited:
I am not a professional in any of these areas and i am just 125 posts old unlike you.but i dont see my 125th post is too illogical for you to answer.And i too feel it's a waste of time because '' YOU DON'T SEEMS TO BELIEVE ANY SOURCE UNDER THE SUN TO BE CREDIBLE OR NEUTRAL SO THERE IS NO POINT IN DEBATING.LET THE READERS DECIDE WHO IS LOGICAL AND WHO IS NOT '' Btw i learned a few things debating you.SEE YOU AROUND.
 
Last edited:
SMC,
i am no professional in any of these area and just 125 posts old.but i don't see my 125th post is too illogical for you to answer.AND I TOO FEEL THAT THERE IS NO POINT IN DEBATING BCOZ '' YOU DON'T SEEMS TO BELIEVE ANY SOURCE UNDER THE SUN TO BE CREDIBLE OR NEUTRAL ENOUGH ''. LET OUR READERS DECIDE WHO IS LOGICAL AND WHO IS NOT. See you around in other threads.
 
Back
Top Bottom