Headley: ISI had no links to 26/11
- Thread starter FreekiN
- Start date
Pioneerfirst
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 815
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Divid Headley is a person who has a DUAL past.he had worked for FBI as an agent against drugers.He is not reliable.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Do you realize how desperate your rant above is?
You are arguing that because a journalist was murdered yesterday, and media SPECULATION is that the ISI did it, therefore you will SPECULATE even more and argue that the ISI was invovled in the Mumbai attacks as an institution, despite the fact that Headley's testimony has exposed Indian lies and propaganda for what they are.
It is rather sad to see the extent of intellectual dishonesty people like you are willing to plunge to, in order to somehow justify your irrational hatred of Pakistan, despite the facts clearly contradicting your position and staring you in the face.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
You mean like there are plenty of Charsi gawah in city court who are ready to say anything in courts for Rs. 100?
The Indians are probably wondering how they can get some high quality 'Charas' into Headley's prison cell and taunt him with it in order to get him to implicate the ISI.
Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
On the contrary, Pakistan has received the benefit of the doubt for many decades. I and many other Americans put only a limited amount of faith in eyewitness testimony alone. But when it is apparently sustained by many episodes with multiple pieces of evidence then it becomes very convincing.
When we find OBL comfortably ensconced in Abbottabad, when Pakistan's own ambassador to the U.S. tells us the ISI is not to be trusted - something the ISI chief complained about in parliament last month - why in the world should anybody take any ISI investigation or statement at face value?
What do I have to cry about? This is an internal struggle of Pakistan's, more than one for the U.S. or India - but Jews were sought out to be murdered as part of that process. So the question isn't why I'm crying. The question is, why aren't you crying?
If I'm not wrong.. he says that the "Hierarchy" of ISI is not involved. Hillary Clinton also says that the "Hierarchy" of Pak officials were not aware of the OBL being present in Pakistan. These things have nothing to do with the propaganda my friend.. Can't you see that everything is going against you?
toxic_pus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,852
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Just for the record: Headley never said what is being attributed to him in the thread title.
He was asked if he believed that the upper echelon of ISI wasn't aware of this plan, to which he had replied 'Yes' and added that his only contact was 'Major Iqbal' and he believed that 'his colonel or someone in the group may have known' (I'm paraphrasing the already paraphrased tweets). That is far, far away from absolving ISI.
Anyway, even the defense wouldn't be terribly bothered to disprove ISI involvement because that will weaken their case. Also, this is not a case against ISI. It is a case against Rana and several other co-accused, including 'Major Iqbal'. Even the USDOJ indictment doesn't mention ISI once in its 57 page document. That case will be fought in NY.
Headley's witness ended yesterday. From today, the FBI will probably start providing their evidence to establish Headley's credibility, which the defense is trying to question, along with his mental health.
Much fun awaits.
He was asked if he believed that the upper echelon of ISI wasn't aware of this plan, to which he had replied 'Yes' and added that his only contact was 'Major Iqbal' and he believed that 'his colonel or someone in the group may have known' (I'm paraphrasing the already paraphrased tweets). That is far, far away from absolving ISI.
Anyway, even the defense wouldn't be terribly bothered to disprove ISI involvement because that will weaken their case. Also, this is not a case against ISI. It is a case against Rana and several other co-accused, including 'Major Iqbal'. Even the USDOJ indictment doesn't mention ISI once in its 57 page document. That case will be fought in NY.
Headley's witness ended yesterday. From today, the FBI will probably start providing their evidence to establish Headley's credibility, which the defense is trying to question, along with his mental health.
Much fun awaits.
Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
The only contradictions Sir, are in your replies. You can either accept or not Headley's testimony in toto. You cannot selectively choose parts of it in a silly attempt to buttress your failing case. In any case I have already pointed out that there was no way Headley could have known about the ISI's top brass being involved or not. Can only be guesswork while his testimony about the involvement of the ISI officers is derived from direct experience. Surely you understand the difference. An institution like the ISI would deliberately compartmentalise its operations as a matter of course. whether the officers in question operated with or without sanction from the top brass is irrelevant. The ISI as a whole bears responsibility for their actions. The fact that American prosecutors are using Headley's testimony to prosecute a terror case indicates their confidence in the veracity of the evidence provided by him.
You have also been quoting a wikileaks cable of 2009 suggesting that insufficient evidence was given to Pakistan on the Mumbai case.Again, you are being selective - either you will accept all wikileaks cables or you won't. Picking & choosing is not acceptable. In any case the cables actually mention that both India & the U.S.had sufficient evidence but that the FBI was waiting for Indian permission to release the same to Pakistan.
In any case after the Headley revelations of 2010, there remains little doubt, not just in Indian minds but also in that of the Americans that the LeT along with some members of the ISI were directly culpable in the attacks.
S.M.R
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,940
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Why he was used then by India to bash pakistan. Whenever we questioned 'sufficient proof' they turned our face to 'Chicago trials'?
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
charas would mellow him out; they would wonder how to get needles and a lot of scotch into his cell
of course they are snooping around with wagging tails and keeping their ears up waiting for ''ISI'' title to be used.....
S.M.R
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 2,940
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
No, and we dont need his clean chit.
At least that put cork on those mouths who were blabbering about ISI's involvement in 26/11.
Now they themselves are questioning his credentials
twoplustwoisfour
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,589
- Reaction score
- 0
How Do We Know Pakistan Terror Witness Is Telling the Truth?
Is David Coleman Headley telling the truth?
That question will continue to hover over a packed courtroom in Chicago this week as the 50-year-old Pakistani-American businessman resumes his testimony in a high-stakes terrorism trial involving the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The trial could have a profound impact on the troubled relationship between the United States and Pakistan because Headley has asserted that Pakistani intelligence officers played a key role [2] in the attacks.
By his own admission, Headley has credibility problems.
He is a former heroin addict and drug smuggler. He has juggled allegiances to the DEA, the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group, al-Qaida and Pakistani intelligence. He has maneuvered among overlapping relationships with three wives [3], including the mother of his four children. To save himself from the death penalty, he has pleaded guilty to doing reconnaissance for the Mumbai attacks [4] and a plot in Denmark and is now the star witness against Tahawwur Rana, his boyhood friend and accused accomplice.
When the FBI arrested Headley in 2009, investigators were stunned by his insider’s knowledge of the Mumbai plot, which killed 166 people, six of them Americans. At the same time, however, they worried that his prodigious talent for deception could result in disaster in court, so they worked around the world to confirm as much of his account as they could.
They scoured the trove of information in his computer. They analyzed his phone, travel and credit card records. They pored over the intelligence haul from at least two months they had spent shadowing him and monitoring his communications before his arrest. They compared his story to the results of investigations in India, Pakistan, Denmark, Britain and elsewhere.
As a result, the case unfolding in Chicago consists of far more than Headley’s word.
When Headley testified last week that he met a mastermind in Karachi as Lashkar prepared to deploy a maritime attack team, the prosecution produced his hotel bill from that date in Karachi. (Investigators had previously corroborated aspects of his account of the preparations in Karachi by comparing it to the confession of the surviving gunman.) When Headley described scouting targets in Denmark, prosecutors showed the jury his surveillance video of those targets. At some points, his testimony and the supporting evidence flowed together to create an almost real-time picture of his activity.
Headley’s most eagerly awaited testimony involves Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) [5] and centers on a shadowy figure known as Major Iqbal. Headley says Iqbal was the ISI handler who trained, directed and funded him, though he admits he does not know Iqbal's real name.
Pakistani officials have denied that the ISI played any role in the Mumbai attacks and that Iqbal was a serving intelligence officer. Some question whether Iqbal really exists.
But U.S. prosecutors are so convinced that Major Iqbal is real that last month they took the diplomatically explosive step of indicting [6] him. They have done their best to bring him to life in the courtroom, displaying his email exchanges with Headley and Rana. It seems clear that Iqbal was running Headley in coordination with Lashkar but at the same time was directing him to collect the kind of military intelligence that interests a spy agency, not a terrorist group. Iqbal also asked Headley to look into purchasing espionage equipment in the United States, evidence shows.
The trial has featured phone evidence, including a number Iqbal obtained with a New York area code to disguise his calls from Pakistan to India. According to intercepted phone calls and retrieved emails, Headley spent months talking with associates about Iqbal and other ISI officers. His view of his Lashkar and ISI handlers soured in the spring of 2009 when, after launching him on the plot against Denmark, they shelved the operation and he began working with al-Qaida instead.
In September 2009, Headley received a call in Chicago from his brother in Pakistan saying that Major Iqbal had come to Headley’s house in Lahore looking for him, according to evidence from a wiretap. Headley responded with an obscene insult about his former handler. In other communications, Headley complained to an al-Qaida operative that Lashkar only did the bidding of the ISI and that he should have asked his ISI contacts to help him get a long-term Pakistani visa.
Iqbal was not Headley’s only point of contact with the spy agency. Headley has described meeting several other high-ranking officers. The prosecutors have unveiled his communications with a Major Sameer Ali, whom Headley describes as an ISI officer. Emails show that Ali helped the American find out that Headley’s al-Qaida handler, who also had a relationship with the ISI, had been released after a brief detention in 2009. Investigators have determined that Major Ali worked closely with Major Iqbal, though that evidence has not yet been presented in court.
Headley remains the sole source of some information produced in the courtroom, including his account of the spy training he received at a safe house in Lahore, where he says his instructors were sergeants, corporals and other non-commissioned officers working for Major Iqbal. Experts say Headley’s tradecraft as a reconnaissance operative suggests that he did, in fact, have professional training. The meticulous advance work and tactical sophistication of the Mumbai plot far exceeded the majority of operations by al-Qaida and other groups working without state support.
When Rana’s defense attorneys continue their cross-examination of Headley this week, it’s possible that they will severely damage Headley, or that he will self-destruct on the stand. But so far the defense’s approach has tended to reinforce his credibility.
In fact, Rana’s lawyers appear to accept Headley’s claim that he worked for the ISI and even see it as a factor that mitigates Rana’s guilt. They assert that Rana, who communicated with Major Iqbal but not with the Lashkar masterminds, thought he was helping Headley conduct espionage operations for the ISI when he let him use his Chicago immigration consulting firm as a cover. The defense depicts Headley as skilled manipulator who kept his childhood friend in the dark about his terrorist activity while using him as an unwitting accomplice.
The lawyers accuse Headley of lying to implicate Rana in order to save his wife as well as his own life. Headley admitted on the stand Thursday that his wife Shazia, who has not been charged, knew of the Mumbai and Denmark plots [7]. The defense quoted a congratulatory email she sent him as the carnage in Mumbai filled television screens worldwide.
The impression Headley makes on the stand could determine whether the jury convicts Rana—and whether Americans who are following the trial believe Pakistani intelligence officers took part in a plot to kill Americans.
So far he has come off as sophisticated, tormented and intense, speaking in precise, clipped sentences with a tinge of a South Asian accent. He has veered from ruthless to sentimental, from slick to vulnerable. He justifies the killing of innocents in Mumbai as revenge for the killings of innocents in Pakistan by India in past wars. Although he dropped out of two military schools, he sees himself as an Islamic warrior and hopes that his 5-year-old son will grow up to be a commando. He recounted an anecdote in which his son, told by a soccer coach on the field to shoot, dropped into a combat stance imitating his father practicing on a target range at their house in Lahore.
But Headley’s attitude toward his murderous exploits has evolved during his testimony. At one point he said he was “pleased” in 2008 when he saw the televised news of the three-day slaughter in Mumbai. But when asked Thursday if he was still proud of his role in the attacks, he paused and said, “No."
How Do We Know Pakistan Terror Witness Is Telling the Truth? - ProPublica
Is David Coleman Headley telling the truth?
That question will continue to hover over a packed courtroom in Chicago this week as the 50-year-old Pakistani-American businessman resumes his testimony in a high-stakes terrorism trial involving the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The trial could have a profound impact on the troubled relationship between the United States and Pakistan because Headley has asserted that Pakistani intelligence officers played a key role [2] in the attacks.
By his own admission, Headley has credibility problems.
He is a former heroin addict and drug smuggler. He has juggled allegiances to the DEA, the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group, al-Qaida and Pakistani intelligence. He has maneuvered among overlapping relationships with three wives [3], including the mother of his four children. To save himself from the death penalty, he has pleaded guilty to doing reconnaissance for the Mumbai attacks [4] and a plot in Denmark and is now the star witness against Tahawwur Rana, his boyhood friend and accused accomplice.
When the FBI arrested Headley in 2009, investigators were stunned by his insider’s knowledge of the Mumbai plot, which killed 166 people, six of them Americans. At the same time, however, they worried that his prodigious talent for deception could result in disaster in court, so they worked around the world to confirm as much of his account as they could.
They scoured the trove of information in his computer. They analyzed his phone, travel and credit card records. They pored over the intelligence haul from at least two months they had spent shadowing him and monitoring his communications before his arrest. They compared his story to the results of investigations in India, Pakistan, Denmark, Britain and elsewhere.
As a result, the case unfolding in Chicago consists of far more than Headley’s word.
When Headley testified last week that he met a mastermind in Karachi as Lashkar prepared to deploy a maritime attack team, the prosecution produced his hotel bill from that date in Karachi. (Investigators had previously corroborated aspects of his account of the preparations in Karachi by comparing it to the confession of the surviving gunman.) When Headley described scouting targets in Denmark, prosecutors showed the jury his surveillance video of those targets. At some points, his testimony and the supporting evidence flowed together to create an almost real-time picture of his activity.
Headley’s most eagerly awaited testimony involves Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) [5] and centers on a shadowy figure known as Major Iqbal. Headley says Iqbal was the ISI handler who trained, directed and funded him, though he admits he does not know Iqbal's real name.
Pakistani officials have denied that the ISI played any role in the Mumbai attacks and that Iqbal was a serving intelligence officer. Some question whether Iqbal really exists.
But U.S. prosecutors are so convinced that Major Iqbal is real that last month they took the diplomatically explosive step of indicting [6] him. They have done their best to bring him to life in the courtroom, displaying his email exchanges with Headley and Rana. It seems clear that Iqbal was running Headley in coordination with Lashkar but at the same time was directing him to collect the kind of military intelligence that interests a spy agency, not a terrorist group. Iqbal also asked Headley to look into purchasing espionage equipment in the United States, evidence shows.
The trial has featured phone evidence, including a number Iqbal obtained with a New York area code to disguise his calls from Pakistan to India. According to intercepted phone calls and retrieved emails, Headley spent months talking with associates about Iqbal and other ISI officers. His view of his Lashkar and ISI handlers soured in the spring of 2009 when, after launching him on the plot against Denmark, they shelved the operation and he began working with al-Qaida instead.
In September 2009, Headley received a call in Chicago from his brother in Pakistan saying that Major Iqbal had come to Headley’s house in Lahore looking for him, according to evidence from a wiretap. Headley responded with an obscene insult about his former handler. In other communications, Headley complained to an al-Qaida operative that Lashkar only did the bidding of the ISI and that he should have asked his ISI contacts to help him get a long-term Pakistani visa.
Iqbal was not Headley’s only point of contact with the spy agency. Headley has described meeting several other high-ranking officers. The prosecutors have unveiled his communications with a Major Sameer Ali, whom Headley describes as an ISI officer. Emails show that Ali helped the American find out that Headley’s al-Qaida handler, who also had a relationship with the ISI, had been released after a brief detention in 2009. Investigators have determined that Major Ali worked closely with Major Iqbal, though that evidence has not yet been presented in court.
Headley remains the sole source of some information produced in the courtroom, including his account of the spy training he received at a safe house in Lahore, where he says his instructors were sergeants, corporals and other non-commissioned officers working for Major Iqbal. Experts say Headley’s tradecraft as a reconnaissance operative suggests that he did, in fact, have professional training. The meticulous advance work and tactical sophistication of the Mumbai plot far exceeded the majority of operations by al-Qaida and other groups working without state support.
When Rana’s defense attorneys continue their cross-examination of Headley this week, it’s possible that they will severely damage Headley, or that he will self-destruct on the stand. But so far the defense’s approach has tended to reinforce his credibility.
In fact, Rana’s lawyers appear to accept Headley’s claim that he worked for the ISI and even see it as a factor that mitigates Rana’s guilt. They assert that Rana, who communicated with Major Iqbal but not with the Lashkar masterminds, thought he was helping Headley conduct espionage operations for the ISI when he let him use his Chicago immigration consulting firm as a cover. The defense depicts Headley as skilled manipulator who kept his childhood friend in the dark about his terrorist activity while using him as an unwitting accomplice.
The lawyers accuse Headley of lying to implicate Rana in order to save his wife as well as his own life. Headley admitted on the stand Thursday that his wife Shazia, who has not been charged, knew of the Mumbai and Denmark plots [7]. The defense quoted a congratulatory email she sent him as the carnage in Mumbai filled television screens worldwide.
The impression Headley makes on the stand could determine whether the jury convicts Rana—and whether Americans who are following the trial believe Pakistani intelligence officers took part in a plot to kill Americans.
So far he has come off as sophisticated, tormented and intense, speaking in precise, clipped sentences with a tinge of a South Asian accent. He has veered from ruthless to sentimental, from slick to vulnerable. He justifies the killing of innocents in Mumbai as revenge for the killings of innocents in Pakistan by India in past wars. Although he dropped out of two military schools, he sees himself as an Islamic warrior and hopes that his 5-year-old son will grow up to be a commando. He recounted an anecdote in which his son, told by a soccer coach on the field to shoot, dropped into a combat stance imitating his father practicing on a target range at their house in Lahore.
But Headley’s attitude toward his murderous exploits has evolved during his testimony. At one point he said he was “pleased” in 2008 when he saw the televised news of the three-day slaughter in Mumbai. But when asked Thursday if he was still proud of his role in the attacks, he paused and said, “No."
How Do We Know Pakistan Terror Witness Is Telling the Truth? - ProPublica
ares
BANNED
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 5,483
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Ergo conducted a false flag attack on it own citizens..hunh!!..why am I not surprised that Pakistanis think like this.
Ok lets reverse situation
"After bring blamed by the entire for being safe haven for terrorist..Pakistan needed to prove that, it too is a victim of terror...hence ISI is behind all the attacks in Pakistan."
What do you think about this theory?
Similar threads
