India flooding arms into Waziristan, Balochistan: Sadiq

[Moorkh]

You have to understand a few things.

1. Like I mentioned, these people have information from within army and ISI so they're pretty credible.

2. The credible links that you're talking about are links that have their own interests. If you take some basic politics class, you'll realize that all these credible websites and media players have their own interests and they portray news accordingly. Media is basically a propaganda and public relation wing of individuals, institutations, and governments. Now many of these players appeal to the masses because of the information they give and the way they give it - it suits those masses. Fox news is no more or no less credible than CNN. They both give news that they want to give and the way they want to give. Fox is considered less credible because it appeals to less people and CNN to more.

The news given by media normally is true, unless they correct it later. I am talking about news as in facts and events, not opinions. However, news NOT being given by media does not mean it does not exist.

Just look into climategate scandal. These scientists were manipulating information to suit their own interests and values. The mass media, accordingly, reported what these scientists wanted them to report and now these scienists have been exposed, the media is quiet about it.

so 2morro if i create a blog, and claim that i have inside info that ISI is actually going to assassinate zardari, will u believe it?

what will be the difference between my blog and the ones u quoted?

how can those blogs be taken to be correct and mine to be incorrect?

given that some of the media is a propaganda machine.

but u also need to realise that credibility is the most important thing for the media. if they are caught repoting something fabricated or incorrect(incorrect to the best of their knowledge) their crediblity goes bust and they are kicked out. no reason for them to keep repoting something so wrong.

also not all sources are part of the media in a strict sense. there are academic studies which are not intended for any benefit. quote those.

 

[SMC]

Still vaguer!! How do you prove that the person in Picture is a RAW master, how do you prove that the other person is a terrorist, or working for the other person in the picture, or that they may even know each other? An Indian made weapon/ammo is a more concrete proof than a picture!!

Proving them to be RAW master is quite easy actually. If they are involved with RAW, there will be records of them in india that ISI will have. How to prove the other person is a terrorist - they have leaders which are quite well known. These are the terrorists which RAW met.

 

[SMC]

so 2morro if i create a blog, and claim that i have inside info that ISI is actually going to assassinate zardari, will u believe it?

what will be the difference between my blog and the ones u quoted?

how can those blogs be taken to be correct and mine to be incorrect?

There's a difference. These guys have been acknowledged in Pakistan for their work. A random blogger won't.

given that some of the media is a propaganda machine.

but u also need to realise that credibility is the most important thing for the media. if they are caught repoting something fabricated or incorrect(incorrect to the best of their knowledge) their crediblity goes bust and they are kicked out. no reason for them to keep repoting something so wrong.

Again, they are reporting what their governments tell them. If their government doesn't tell them something, they won't report. Just go back to 2003 and Iraq war. Everyone was reporting what was being told to them, which is iraq had WMD. Only a minority doubted them.

also not all sources are part of the media in a strict sense. there are academic studies which are not intended for any benefit. quote those.

That's in fact a myth. Academic studies are also driven by values and interests. The activity of research itself is value and interest driven, where a conclusion has been set and research is done to prove that conclusion.

 

[Bhaarat]

Proving them to RAW master is quite easy actually. If they are involved with RAW, there will be records of them in india that ISI will have. How to prove the other person is a terrorist - they have leaders which are quite well known. These are the terrorists which RAW met.

Bhai, if ISI has records that RAW has in India, then there is no reason for RAW to continue. RAW is not stupid to show there hand so easily. Most probably, its a wrong evidence either:

someone manufactured it to please their higherup in Pakistan to show that they are not sitting idle while RAW is running all over the place.

or

RAW fooled some agency by diverting them to wrong evidences.


Anyway, lets be clear that RAW is not foolish enough to get caught on camera while interacting with a known terrorist. If RAW was so inefficient than RAW could never have done what it is being accused of.

 

[Bhaarat]

That's in fact a myth. Academic studies are also driven by values and interests. The activity of research itself is value and interest driven, where a conclusion has been set and research is done to prove that conclusion.

Yaar, some of your quotes are really good, worth their weight in gold.

 

[SMC]

Bhai, if ISI has records that RAW has in India, then there is no reason for RAW to continue. RAW is not stupid to show there hand so easily. Most probably, its a wrong evidence either:

someone manufactured it to please their higherup in Pakistan to show that they are not sitting idle while RAW is running all over the place.

or

RAW fooled some agency by diverting them to wrong evidences.


Anyway, lets be clear that RAW is not foolish enough to get caught on camera while interacting with a known terrorist. If RAW was so inefficient than RAW could never have done what it is being accused of.

What works in RAW's favour is where US interests lie. So even if they get caught, US is there to protect them.

As for RAW not getting caught on camera, that's how intelligence works. There's no reason why RAW can't get caught on camera. It's not about being foolish or anything. It's just the game.

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

Yaar, some of your quotes are really good, worth their weight in gold.

Don't know if this was sarcastic or serious. But yeah, this was actually a topic in a philosophy class I took.

 

[air marshal]

India Is Behind The Fake Taliban

 

[BATMAN]

He may not show embarrassment, but I'd say 50-50 that he is! The ambassador knows that Pakistan's credibility is so low (if only because assertions of "concrete" are never followed by evidence) that such statements can only be for domestic consumption.

What is the credibility of indians who threatend to hit 5000 locations inside Pakistan. Have you heard of investigation of Karkare and followed by his murder?
You claim to know what hon. ambassador was THINKING??
FYI, Domestic people have seen the evidence and why Zardari and co. is not following it up world wide is no mystery to us.

Foreign nations look at what Pakistan does, not what it says, and see a great difference. So why should the utterings of any Pakistani official be honored and respected any more?

Foreign nations can choose how they wish to look at Pakistan but don't forget Pakistan army footsteps are bible for indian army and govt. same goes for US as far their approach is concerned in afghanistan.
It was P.Musharraf who suggested about winning hearts and minds, it was P.Musharraf who suggested multi prong approach to eliminate terrorism, it was P.Musharraf who suggested talking with locals, it was P.Musharraf who suggested to seriously solve Palestine conflict, it was P.Musharraf who suggested to send more troops in Afghanistan.
Ever wondered why his utterings become policy in US?

 

[Bhaarat]

What works in RAW's favour is where US interests lie. So even if they get caught, US is there to protect them.

As for RAW not getting caught on camera, that's how intelligence works. There's no reason why RAW can't get caught on camera. It's not about being foolish or anything. It's just the game.

No mate, any intelligence agency will not get caught so easily, generally, one gets to catch only the proxies and nothing can be proven in a neutral court. The claims of conclusive evidence are sometimes exaggerated, sometimes false, and sometimes misguided. Even without US' interests, RAW is good. Remember 71, US was on your side, still RAW did what did, and there is no way to prove conclusively anything about RAW. Thats how intelligence agencies work. Most of the reports doing the rounds in media about Indians being caught in Pakistan as RAW agents are false. RAW does not send Indians into Pakistan unlike ISI which does. RAW uses the local proxies while ISI sends pakistanis and maintains sleeper cells in India. RAW rents while ISI creates. Mostly, RAW rents those formerly trained by ISI/PA. Even the prominent members of Mukti Bahini were formerly soldiers of PA. They later deserted the PA and joined Mukiti Bahini. So, the chances of ISI getting caught are much higher than RAW. Also, ISI seems to have lost its edge and is mostly has been declared as notorious unlike RAW/CIA/MOSSAD whose hand rarely shows, atleast not until the job is done. RAW's hand was never proven in case of LTTE as well.

Don't know if this was sarcastic or serious. But yeah, this was actually a topic in a philosophy class I took.

No, sarcasm intended. I like your attitude.

 

[SMC]

I don't think any of us can claim how intelligence works. While it is true that RAW will not get caught easily, insider ISI information suggests they have been caught. Now the evidence itself has not been shown due to US pressure, and when, if ever, it comes out, we will see the authenticity of it.

 

[Bhaarat]

I don't think any of us can claim how intelligence works. While it is true that RAW will not get caught easily, insider ISI information suggests they have been caught. Now the evidence itself has not been shown due to US pressure, and when, if ever, it comes out, we will see the authenticity of it.

Well, I will not grudge your optimism.

 

[Solomon2]

What is the credibility of indians who threatend to hit 5000 locations inside Pakistan. Have you heard of investigation of Karkare and followed by his murder?

More distractions to be ignored.

You claim to know what hon. ambassador was THINKING??

No, I claim to have a good idea what the ambassador is FEELING: Shame and embarrassment. (I've seen this sort of thing from Pakistani diplomats before.)

Foreign nations can choose how they wish to look at Pakistan but don't forget Pakistan army footsteps are bible...It was P.Musharraf who suggested about winning hearts and minds -

I won't enter the argument of "who thought what first", but I'll point out that actually putting such ideas into effect is an American effort - Musharraf's efforts were just window dressing that yielded the TTP time and territory to grow.

 

[Bhaarat]

Ahsan,

heres your PM agreeing that there is no concrete proof:

To a question as if Pakistan has any evidence against India, the Prime Minister said, “I don’t say that there is evidence. But many experts have analyzed the revolt already, like American think tanks, and they mention strange involvements”.

Pakistan should not be portrayed as war zone: PM

 

[Moorkh]

Again, they are reporting what their governments tell them. If their government doesn't tell them something, they won't report. Just go back to 2003 and Iraq war. Everyone was reporting what was being told to them, which is iraq had WMD. Only a minority doubted them.

corrections.

if they only reported what the govt told them, there would be no media source bashing the govt over anything.

also it was only the US media which was reporting that the US govt was "claiming to oust saddam because he had WMDs"

they never said there were WMDs. reporting what the govt says is different from saying it themselves.

also the rest of the world media stayed away from the propaganda war too.

 

[SMC]

Ahsan,

heres your PM agreeing that there is no concrete proof:



Pakistan should not be portrayed as war zone: PM

Nothing concrete here. He is avoiding going into the topic and his choice of words (if you read it fully) show that he probably knows about existance of evidence.