German Bakery bomber arrested!

[JayAtl]

Listen, the only time Pakistani government has refered to these guys was when they were talking about who could support the terrorist in theory. They didn't say that they exist and so far have rejected any such allegations.

Now as far as French, Brits and the US is concerned, no they are not reputable. Far from that. If they are reputable, then you must believe that Iraq had WMDs. They have provided no proof for their allegations to begin with. More importantly, however, they rarely (if ever) allege that rogue elements in ISI are support LeT or Taliban.



How many times do I have to go over this? What you believe is not "truth". Truth is something well established with evidence, which is not true in this case.

Listen , the following example is not to re ligate the war issue but when kargil took place , you guys hollered and hooted that there was no military involvement till 10 years later when military officers were added to your matryed list on your official army site.

the US provided great intelligence to your security agencies about Musharraf being attacked for assassination plots and they turned out to be true. You can't call it good intelligence when it suits you and ignore when it's against you .

here is another example from another thread where wiki leaks showed some UAE ruling class fella saying Iran and India were suspected as a matter of " his opinion" of supporting the afghan Taliban. You were conveniently accepting of this "opinion" as factual but showed your true thoughts, when you dismissed the Iranian involvement as rubbish , but accepted Indian involvement and touted it as true, based on this leaked report. again, you can't call it good intelligence when it suits you and ignore when it's against your interest .

It well documented that the ISI is involved with these rogue terrorist outfits , even with the likes of the Haqunni ( spell incorrectly) network. I suspect nothing I will say will ever get you off your defensive stance- but let's say we agree to disagree. the truth can come slap in your face ( metaphorically speaking) and you will always choose to ignore it.

Unlike most Indians I will tell you I absolutely believe India has a military interest in Afghanistan to counter Pakistanis influence . But that makes me more of an sound thinker vs a defensive_ balls to the wind poster here.

 

[SMC]

Please, give me a break.

I do not accept Indian involvement because of Wikileaks. It is due to insider information available. And no, I am not out here to make you or any other Indian believe that India is supporting terrorism - rather just mentioning that what you said is not the case.

Now as far as US intelligence goes, where is the intelligence report that suggested that Pakistan is funding insurgents and/or Haqqani. Show me that to move forward.

Now onto the long and boring part that I have to explain each and every bharati individually because somehow they just do not seem to get it.

Just because US intelligence was correct once (in case of Musharraf), it does not mean they are always correct. Fact of the matter is that no one besides Indians trust US intelligence. Across the world (including the west) and across media, US intelligence is known to be faulty and unreliable. US intelligence is barely an authority on this matter. How correct was US intelligence in Iraq? More often than not US intelligence is incorrect - and that shows in their Iraq and Afghan Wars. Listen, by being correct once, you don't earn reliability and a good reputation. You have to be correct again and again and rarely (if ever) be incorrect.

Now the difference between the case of Musharraf and the case we're discussing here is that here Pakistan is being alleged to support extremists. No similar thing there. When you accuse someone like that, you have to provide evidence.

Overall, your argument seems to be an overly simplistic assessment. You seem to be suggesting that since US intelligence says x, x must be true. So then Iraq must have had WMDs then? Listen, if an intelligence agency is going to accuse another state, it better have some proof. Again, in the case of Musharraf, there was no accusation, hence no proof needed. The case we're discussing is different. If you don't have any evidence, there will be serious questions about the truth of the allegations. You obviously seem to not realize that in the real world, the word of an intelligence agency by itself alone is not evidence that what is alleged is true. And within your own world, your beliefs seem to be "the truth".

 

[WAR-rior]

But then, by that token, RAW also supports TTP and BLA.

shite maan.the topic says german bakery and ISI and i now discover that all that u give ur reasons is just to prove RAW hands in TTP......

gaaawwwdd !

like a sane person u can always discuss RAW hands in pakistan but how come u refusing something which is very natural with circumstantial evidences just and just to try give TIT 4 TAT !

grow up !

 

[SMC]

 

[JayAtl]

Please, give me a break.

If you don't have any evidence, there will be serious questions about the truth of the allegations. You obviously seem to not realize that in the real world, the word of an intelligence agency by itself alone is not evidence that what is alleged is true. And within your own world, your beliefs seem to be "the truth".

firstly lets not be naive in thinking American intelligence is limited to just Musharraf's plots - for if it was your govt would NOT be actively working with them and has been for decades. Much of the WMD debacle was because Saddam insisted he had it hidden and played games to make it seem like he really had it. However back to the 'show me where other govts speak of ISI involvements with supporting terrorist organizations':
Investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book exposes ISI's direct hand in Mumbai attack but Pasha told CIA only 'rogue' agents were involved.

Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Lt Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha had admitted to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that his spy agency was involved in the Mumbai terror strikes of November 26, 2008, a new book claims.

Washington-based investigative journalist Bob Woodward's book Obama Wars , which was released in the US on Monday, claims that the CIA had reliable intelligence that the ISI had a direct role in the 26/ 11 terror attack in which 166 people were killed.

According to the book, the ISI chief reportedly told the CIA less than a month after the attack that the terror strike was not an authorised operation but was carried out by "rogue elements within the ISI".



In autumn 2006, a leaked report by a British Defense Ministry think tank charged, "Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism- BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight Home | Key quotes from the document

quotes from that leaked report and several others

" The Army's dual role in combating terrorism and at the same time promoting the MMA and so indirectly supporting the Taliban (through the ISI) is coming under closer and closer international scrutiny.

Pakistan is not currently stable but on the edge of chaos.

[The West has] turned a blind eye towards existing instability and the indirect protection of Al Qaeda and promotion of terrorism.

Indirectly Pakistan (through the ISI) has been supporting terrorism and extremism - whether in London on 7/7 or in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Numerous U.S. officials have also accused the ISI of supporting terrorist groups, even as the Pakistani government seeks increased aid from Washington with assurances of fighting militants. In a May 2009 interview with CBS' 60 Minutes, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said "to a certain extent, they play both sides." Gates and others suggest the ISI maintains links with groups like the Afghan Taliban

CQ Transcript: Defense secretary Gates Interviewed on CBS' "60 Minutes" : Roll Call

These allegations surfaced yet again in July 2010 when WikiLeaks.org made public (NYT) a trove of U.S. intelligence records on the war in Afghanistan. The documents described ISI's links to militant groups fighting U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan.

Finally a damning report by the new york times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html -