Indian Political Corner | All Updates & Discussions.
- Thread starter Hyde
- Start date
You think Bengal con-commie ally will have any impact on kerala? Because commies supported con even during UPA 1 didn't seem to have much effect
Marxist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
CPI(M) never shared power with congress in past ,all the time they gave external support or they were part of grand alliance by some regional party Now things are different Bengal commies want an open alliance with congis...Supporting UPA 1 or Congress- left partnership in other states were dubbed as an issue based support to keep communal forces away from Power ,and State BjP leadership failed to project this as an electoral issue .In kerala they are facing allegations helping each other in corruption cases ,sex scandals ,murders involving top leadership So an open alliance with congress in once Red fort will affect CPI(M) thats why Kerala State committee and Kerala member in PB and CC are opposing it
Echo_419
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 13,111
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Only a matter of time before we win this war
Jokes aside, Kaniya/Lenin Kumar itna gareeb hai toh shouldn't he focus on his studies instead of Student Politics ?
I agree, time has arrived to punish these traitors
Levina
BANNED
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2013
- Messages
- 15,278
- Reaction score
- 59
- Country
- Location
She's goooood.I miss smriti irani.
Journos like BD also run out of arguments when interviewing Smriti Irani.
Indian audiences witnessed a scripted drama by David Headley, a felon-turned-approver in the November 26, 2008 terror attack on multiple targets in Mumbai. The contents per se were of little significance, but as a spectacle — an oral testimony through a video link answering questions nonchalantly put to him by an Indian prosecutor — it was certainly out of the ordinary. What many, however, do not realise is that what Headley said in his deposition may not be new or original, but what he concealed was vital.
Headley confirmed to Ujjwal Nikam, the public prosecutor, almost everything that was already in the public domain, viz. that he had changed his name from Daood Gilani to David Headley in 2006 to hide his Pakistani ancestry and pass off as a Westerner, and that he held a U.S. passport; that he had close connections to, and with, the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); and that he had undergone several training courses in LeT camps and in Pakistan. He identified the three 26/11 handlers (Sajid Mir, Abu Qahafa and Abu Al Qama); and admitted to making at least eight visits to India, seven of them prior to the 26/11 attack and one thereafter.
Dissecting the deposition
Headley’s deposition also provided some verisimilitude to rumours circulating at the time that the LeT was planning another attack post-26/11. Again, in reply to a leading question from the prosecutor, Headley also identified Ishrat Jahan as a terrorist belonging to the LeT (since her death in a police encounter in Gujarat in 2004, there had been many attempts to portray her as an innocent victim). Intelligence agencies, however, were aware that she was an LeT operative, and a key figure in a carefully planned LeT operation. The operational trail went from Pakistan to Dubai, Kochi, Kashmir and finally Ahmedabad. Headley provided neither names nor any details regarding this operation. His sole reason for identifying Ishrat as an LeT operative, it would seem, was to give a propaganda advantage to the LeT. The most glaring omission in Headley’s deposition was his unwillingness to identify Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, currently languishing in an Indian prison.
The Headley deposition had little in terms of evidentiary value. It must not be equated with other ‘exposures’, such as those of Edward Snowden, the independent contractor employed by the U.S. National Security Agency. The value of Headley’s deposition lies partly in exposing to the world the extent of Pakistan’s perfidy and the workings of the Pakistani deep state but more significantly, it serves to remind us of something the world has tended to forget of late, viz. the 1980s-1990s Afghan jihad and the lasting impact it had on the spread of Islamist extremism. By attracting volunteers from around the Islamic world, it served as a take-off point for global jihad.
Reading between the lines of his testimony, Headley’s jihadi leanings are obvious. Answering one of Mr. Nikam’s questions, he identifies with jihad and the need to fight against enemies of Islam such as India. His jihadi belief was, no doubt, greatly strengthened during the years he spent in LeT and other training camps in Pakistan, but it would be a mistake to ignore the ‘Afghan effect’. Few international volunteers actually fought in Afghanistan; most worked, or remained, in Pakistan. From these volunteers have emerged several of today’s jihadis. History today is aware that among such elements was a pious young Saudi engineer, Osama bin Laden. Headley’s case is thus very instructive for us. Training camps that programmed Headley are well situated to produce many others to wage jihad against India.
Professor Christopher Andrew, who has written a landmark history of the British domestic counter-intelligence and security agency MI5, coined the term Historical Attention Span Deficit Disorder (HASDD) to describe the inability of today’s policymakers and intelligence specialists to situate any significant development within a broader historical context. He was speaking specifically about the world’s response to the emergence of transnational Islamist extremism as a security threat. In effect, what he suggested was that there is a general tendency to lose sight of what has transpired in the past. The Headley interlude is a reminder to us that we, as a nation, should not fall victim to HASDD.
A toxic triple agent
David Headley was one of an unusual and dangerous breed. At one level, he was ideological — a closet jihadi; at another, he was an agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; and at yet another level, he was working for the LeT. He was much more than the quintessential double agent, a triple agent working for several masters at one and the same time. He was thus able to pave the way and provide an opening for one of the most serious terrorist attacks in recent years.
Headley’s role can be compared only with that of some of the more dangerous U.S. spies like Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and the Walker Brothers. His actions as a triple agent demanded the strongest condemnation. The pardon by the Indian state appears highly unwarranted.
Headley is not finished yet. His plea bargain gives him an extended lease of life in the U.S. He has secured a pardon from prosecution from the Indian authorities. In return, he has neither provided any new insights nor any new leads. He has avoided mention of the many hidden moles he is certain to have left behind from his several visits to India. Identifying an already known Rahul Bhatt means little. Not an inkling has been given by him about the nature of the terrorist trail from Pakistan to Dubai to Ahmedabad and of the many links in this chain. Headley is significantly silent about the ‘Karachi Project’, by which disaffected Indian Muslims were inveigled into becoming part of the Indian Mujahideen.
Headley has, hence, covered his tracks effectively. It is thus possible that at a not-too- distant date he would be back in business — directly or by proxy. It takes several years to train an intelligence agent — especially one who can function autonomously and with proficiency in languages in use in the Islamic world. Headley fits this bill, and it is not unlikely that he may be released by U.S. authorities before his term is over, due to “reasons of state”.
Collaborative intelligence
There is meanwhile the mistaken belief that with the growth and spread of technology, all that is needed to improve intelligence is innovative application of technology. The human resource and the human agent are still the most vital ingredients of the intelligence machine. There is a great deal of solid work that has to be done, including penetration of targets and active surveillance, to succeed in an intelligence operation. The role of someone like Headley is hence crucial. In all this, technology can only be a valuable adjunct, and not a substitute for a human agent.
An inherent weakness in combating global terror at present is the absence of honest collaboration and cooperation among intelligence agencies the world over. What passes for cooperation today is an over-simplified framework of statements accompanied by limited follow-up actions. India was a victim of this kind of ‘faint-hearted’ cooperation in the case of the 26/11 attacks. The U.S., and to a lesser extent the U.K., had important information with them about a possible attack on Mumbai, having penetrated Zarar Shah’s computer. The U.S. possibly had more additional information via the Headley link, but seemed to play down his involvement with the LeT due to other ‘operational considerations’. The net result was that all the information available was not shared, and what was shared was inadequate to save the lives of over 160 people.
Terrorism is likely to be the world’s long-term intractable security problem. It is vitally important to use all the instruments available to achieve the objective of defeating terrorism. Compromising with terrorists and terror is not an option.
A final word. Between Headley and former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s admission — that the ISI had been training Jaish-e-Mohammad and LeT militants — the dividing line between state and non-state cadres in Pakistan has been fully erased.
(M.K. Narayanan is a former National Security Adviser and former Governor of West Bengal.)
Keywords: David Headley, 26/11 attack, LeT, terrorism
The things Headley left unsaid... M.K. Narayanan writes on 26/11 attack - The Hindu
Der aaye durust aaye
@Tridibans ye lo bhai proud to be mallu , mallu NSA finally spits it out when there are no maino strings pulling him from behind
Headley confirmed to Ujjwal Nikam, the public prosecutor, almost everything that was already in the public domain, viz. that he had changed his name from Daood Gilani to David Headley in 2006 to hide his Pakistani ancestry and pass off as a Westerner, and that he held a U.S. passport; that he had close connections to, and with, the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI); and that he had undergone several training courses in LeT camps and in Pakistan. He identified the three 26/11 handlers (Sajid Mir, Abu Qahafa and Abu Al Qama); and admitted to making at least eight visits to India, seven of them prior to the 26/11 attack and one thereafter.
Dissecting the deposition
Headley’s deposition also provided some verisimilitude to rumours circulating at the time that the LeT was planning another attack post-26/11. Again, in reply to a leading question from the prosecutor, Headley also identified Ishrat Jahan as a terrorist belonging to the LeT (since her death in a police encounter in Gujarat in 2004, there had been many attempts to portray her as an innocent victim). Intelligence agencies, however, were aware that she was an LeT operative, and a key figure in a carefully planned LeT operation. The operational trail went from Pakistan to Dubai, Kochi, Kashmir and finally Ahmedabad. Headley provided neither names nor any details regarding this operation. His sole reason for identifying Ishrat as an LeT operative, it would seem, was to give a propaganda advantage to the LeT. The most glaring omission in Headley’s deposition was his unwillingness to identify Sayed Zabiuddin Ansari alias Abu Jundal, currently languishing in an Indian prison.
The Headley deposition had little in terms of evidentiary value. It must not be equated with other ‘exposures’, such as those of Edward Snowden, the independent contractor employed by the U.S. National Security Agency. The value of Headley’s deposition lies partly in exposing to the world the extent of Pakistan’s perfidy and the workings of the Pakistani deep state but more significantly, it serves to remind us of something the world has tended to forget of late, viz. the 1980s-1990s Afghan jihad and the lasting impact it had on the spread of Islamist extremism. By attracting volunteers from around the Islamic world, it served as a take-off point for global jihad.
Reading between the lines of his testimony, Headley’s jihadi leanings are obvious. Answering one of Mr. Nikam’s questions, he identifies with jihad and the need to fight against enemies of Islam such as India. His jihadi belief was, no doubt, greatly strengthened during the years he spent in LeT and other training camps in Pakistan, but it would be a mistake to ignore the ‘Afghan effect’. Few international volunteers actually fought in Afghanistan; most worked, or remained, in Pakistan. From these volunteers have emerged several of today’s jihadis. History today is aware that among such elements was a pious young Saudi engineer, Osama bin Laden. Headley’s case is thus very instructive for us. Training camps that programmed Headley are well situated to produce many others to wage jihad against India.
Professor Christopher Andrew, who has written a landmark history of the British domestic counter-intelligence and security agency MI5, coined the term Historical Attention Span Deficit Disorder (HASDD) to describe the inability of today’s policymakers and intelligence specialists to situate any significant development within a broader historical context. He was speaking specifically about the world’s response to the emergence of transnational Islamist extremism as a security threat. In effect, what he suggested was that there is a general tendency to lose sight of what has transpired in the past. The Headley interlude is a reminder to us that we, as a nation, should not fall victim to HASDD.
A toxic triple agent
David Headley was one of an unusual and dangerous breed. At one level, he was ideological — a closet jihadi; at another, he was an agent for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency; and at yet another level, he was working for the LeT. He was much more than the quintessential double agent, a triple agent working for several masters at one and the same time. He was thus able to pave the way and provide an opening for one of the most serious terrorist attacks in recent years.
Headley’s role can be compared only with that of some of the more dangerous U.S. spies like Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen and the Walker Brothers. His actions as a triple agent demanded the strongest condemnation. The pardon by the Indian state appears highly unwarranted.
Headley is not finished yet. His plea bargain gives him an extended lease of life in the U.S. He has secured a pardon from prosecution from the Indian authorities. In return, he has neither provided any new insights nor any new leads. He has avoided mention of the many hidden moles he is certain to have left behind from his several visits to India. Identifying an already known Rahul Bhatt means little. Not an inkling has been given by him about the nature of the terrorist trail from Pakistan to Dubai to Ahmedabad and of the many links in this chain. Headley is significantly silent about the ‘Karachi Project’, by which disaffected Indian Muslims were inveigled into becoming part of the Indian Mujahideen.
Headley has, hence, covered his tracks effectively. It is thus possible that at a not-too- distant date he would be back in business — directly or by proxy. It takes several years to train an intelligence agent — especially one who can function autonomously and with proficiency in languages in use in the Islamic world. Headley fits this bill, and it is not unlikely that he may be released by U.S. authorities before his term is over, due to “reasons of state”.
Collaborative intelligence
There is meanwhile the mistaken belief that with the growth and spread of technology, all that is needed to improve intelligence is innovative application of technology. The human resource and the human agent are still the most vital ingredients of the intelligence machine. There is a great deal of solid work that has to be done, including penetration of targets and active surveillance, to succeed in an intelligence operation. The role of someone like Headley is hence crucial. In all this, technology can only be a valuable adjunct, and not a substitute for a human agent.
An inherent weakness in combating global terror at present is the absence of honest collaboration and cooperation among intelligence agencies the world over. What passes for cooperation today is an over-simplified framework of statements accompanied by limited follow-up actions. India was a victim of this kind of ‘faint-hearted’ cooperation in the case of the 26/11 attacks. The U.S., and to a lesser extent the U.K., had important information with them about a possible attack on Mumbai, having penetrated Zarar Shah’s computer. The U.S. possibly had more additional information via the Headley link, but seemed to play down his involvement with the LeT due to other ‘operational considerations’. The net result was that all the information available was not shared, and what was shared was inadequate to save the lives of over 160 people.
Terrorism is likely to be the world’s long-term intractable security problem. It is vitally important to use all the instruments available to achieve the objective of defeating terrorism. Compromising with terrorists and terror is not an option.
A final word. Between Headley and former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s admission — that the ISI had been training Jaish-e-Mohammad and LeT militants — the dividing line between state and non-state cadres in Pakistan has been fully erased.
(M.K. Narayanan is a former National Security Adviser and former Governor of West Bengal.)
Keywords: David Headley, 26/11 attack, LeT, terrorism
The things Headley left unsaid... M.K. Narayanan writes on 26/11 attack - The Hindu
Der aaye durust aaye
@Tridibans ye lo bhai proud to be mallu , mallu NSA finally spits it out when there are no maino strings pulling him from behind
JanjaWeed
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2010
- Messages
- 9,772
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
hehehe... libtards feel checkmated! Don't know how to react to this.Nationalists raising the stake. Would be interesting to see who opposes this move..
Jason bourne
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,771
- Reaction score
- 0
Omer khalids father was a simi chief
Lets spin some conspiracies now,
What if the lawyer who trashed Media persons and Kanhaiya were planted by congress or left to divert the attention. Lutyens didnt cover JNU anyway and now they got another topic to blabber about deviating from the actual thing.
by doing this left and the media nexus got the deviating topic and those lawyers got 2 days of fame on national media.
Win win for both.
What if the lawyer who trashed Media persons and Kanhaiya were planted by congress or left to divert the attention. Lutyens didnt cover JNU anyway and now they got another topic to blabber about deviating from the actual thing.
by doing this left and the media nexus got the deviating topic and those lawyers got 2 days of fame on national media.
Win win for both.
The masks have fallen off the likes of Rajdeep and Barkha.
Why Indian media is against Arnab but India isn’t
ndian media’s dislike for Arnab Goswami, Times Now’s thundering Editor is well known. There have been many subtle media campaigns by channels like NDTV and CNN-IBN (e.g.s sense over sensationalism) trying to counter Arnab’s style of vociferous, over the top news anchoring. The reason till now was simple: Arnab just got much better TRPs. Much, much better.
Now, Indian media-persons have found a new reason to hate Arnab, and hate him viciously: He was one of the few anchors, and thus Times Now was one of the few TV news channels, to take a strong stance against the JNU anti-nationals. Every other channel took much much softer stands against the JNU sloganeering. Their stands, were clear from their editors’ tweets:
But Arnab went the other way. Every day his panel discussion was about trashing all such arguments in favour of the slogans like “Bharat Ki Barbaadi” and “Bharat tere tukde honge”. His video which slammed Umar Khalid and gang has been viral on social media for days.
Why did he do it? Arnab Goswami is a hard character to judge.
Is he a BJP supporter? Not if you see his relentless tirade (perhaps the strongest) against Sushma Swaraj during the Lalit Modi issue.
Is he a “Right-Winger” who is not necessarily with BJP, but more with the cause? His debates questioning the practices of barring women in Hindu temples ought to suggest he is not.
Is he then a “Nationalist”, for taking up a pro-India stance in every debate which gives him a chance to do so? (e.g.s every debate with Pakistan on the other side). Probably.
One might very well argue that he is just TRP hungry and hence he chooses to be a “nationalist”, and to an extent that might be true. But studying his stances across debates, no one can say he is not a “nationalist”.
And that’s what has irked many from his fraternity. Take a look at one of the “sly” tweets by his colleague Barkha Dutt, after his anti anti-nationals stand was clear:
The likes of Barkha were shocked. They suddenly realised how Arnab had beaten them completely. What the TRP ratings had been saying for long, was now much more visible. And this was caused them to raise the pitch against Arnab.
Soon, came the utterly shameful alleged attack on journalists by the Patiala court lawyers and a BJP MLA O P Sharma. Violence against anyone can never be excused, even less so by lawmakers and law practitioners. The left liberal media was deeply uncomfortable in holding these debates over the JNU issue because they couldn’t openly slam JNU and yet they couldn’t back them fully either. These lawless lawyers provided the perfect escape route for this section of the media. Once the incident at Patiala House played out, the narrative in these channels changed from JNU sloganeering to Lawless lawyers and attack on media.
While the likes of Barkha Dutt, Nidhi Razdan, Rajdeep Sardesai changed their debate direction, Arnab held on to his old stance of anti anti-nationals. This further incensed the Left Liberal group. Eventually, Arnab even skipped the solidarity rally taken out by media persons, against the lawless lawyers. Apparently Arnab was attending to his ailing father, but such nuances are lost on “moral compass” wielding journalists:
And now, thanks to all the above escalations, things have reached to a hilarious situation where Leftist rags are suggesting people should Boycott Arnab. Of course, till a few months back boycotts were “communal” (read Boycott Dilwale).
What did this result in? A hashtag: #IndiaWithArnab, which was trending at number 1 on Twitter.
And guess who were using this hashtag? “Bhakts”, or right-wingers, who have abused Arnab in the past (and will surely abuse in the future too). In fact even as they were trending this hashtag, Arnab was reportedly bashing BJP. So what explains this?
Arnab is with India, hence India is with Arnab stupid! As I had said in a tweet earlier, the “Bhakti” of the “Bhakts” lies with India and whoever/whatever they perceive, at that moment, to be beneficial to India. And Arnab fits that criteria. He may go anti-BJP, anti-Hinduism, anti-Right Wing very soon, but the so called “Bhakts” will support him when he takes up the cause of the nation.
What should the Left Liberal media draw out of this entire episode? They have lost the pulse of the nation completely. This is reflected in multiple interactions but they just refuse to see this. Their TRPs are falling, their twitter mentions are almost always filled by abuse. Now they are getting abused by lawyers in person! Abuse is wrong (although it is covered under Freedom of Expression), but the Leftist media-persons need to introspect why are they getting this abuse.
Talk to any average India, see your whatsapp groups, most people are incensed about the anti-national slogans in JNU. On the other hand the likes of Rajdeep and Barkha have tried their best to defend the accused. And the public also knows that these defences are not from their love for free speech. Sagarika has openly batted for restrictions on free speech in the past, Barkha has sued bloggers. Most glaringly, these so called crusaders of free speech were silent when Kamlesh Tiwari was arrested and charged with NSA. These are just positions taken by these star anchors to suit their ideological biases. And now, the average Indian is slowly waking upto this.
Arnab Goswami may still be a “nationalist” by convenience, convenience which high TRPs afford him, and that mask is yet to fall, but the masks have fallen off the likes of Rajdeep and Barkha.
Why Indian media is against Arnab but India isn’t
Good very good, may this enimity become more and more personal between these media personells. This divide will make sure atleast one of them will present the facts infront of us to expose the other.
This rivalry is really good for the common public
Similar threads
