Indians and Americans Weapons Used By Tehreek-e-Taliban Terriost

[Screaming Skull]

It seems awfully weird whose words exactly are taken as truth? You seem to have problem accepting anyone born and educated in India can speak the truth about Indo-Pak Relations. Weird considering that Till date Pakistan has had atleast 2 president who were not only born and braught up in Indian but even worked here prior to Partition. Mind you, Mr. Ashley T. is not an Indian citizen, but was a student here.

Again you have no problems accepting sources like ahmed qureshi's personal blog or current affairs (dot) com which publishes fictitious news based on quotes never made using images from the internet (without even paying for royalty) and have zero accountability.

You can accept when words of Christine Fair are twisted out of context to suit a flawed design, but when the same person says that ISI and Pakistan Army is behind all the terror in Pakistan and India, that is intentionally ignored.

You are at ease with accepting news with no substantiated evidence from blogs (theCurrentNews.com is also a wordpress blog) which are delusional enough to blaming everything from Lahore attacks (all of them) to disturbance in Baluchistan on India and RAW without any confirmation from govt. sources and nil evidence with themselves.

But you have an issue with person such as Dr. Tellis an American who was partially educated in India.

To the subject matter, presence of Indian weapons is a) not substantiated b) Even if substantiated does not prove anything.

Even if Indian weapons were used so were Chinese and Russian, so are they also party to the Crime?

That s exactly the point. They ask for neutral sources but when the same neutral sources do dooms day predictions for Pakistan or comment on Pak nukes falling into wrong hands or ISI involvement in Taliban activities, they conveniently brush them aside. Makes you wonder then what exactly is the definition of a neutral source for them. Going by some of the comments that some of the members have made, it appears that anyone born in India or Pakistan doesn't qualify as a neutral source. Then may I ask, why are we discussing the original article in the first place as it happens to be from a Pakistani source like countless other articles in this forum.

Even GoP hasn't officially blamed India yet. They always seem to indicate some foreign power's involvement. But there are 202 countries in the world that are foreign to Pakistan. So until GoP comes out with an official statement blaming India, we can conveniently accept Ashley Tellis's pov.

 

[Energon]

Tellis may be born and educated in India but his comments are made in a professional capacity as an academician/policymaker which is under constant scrutiny and peer review. His credibility (and he has lots of it based on how many governments and institutions around the world contract his services) is based entirely upon the critical evaluation of his work by his peers, most of whom do not share his background.

Besides, the lack of evidence he was referring to was on the basis of three investigative reports sought through the DoD, Pentagon and the CIA; obviously he didn't do any of the actual field work.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again you have no problems accepting sources like ahmed qureshi's personal blog or current affairs (dot) com which publishes fictitious news based on quotes never made using images from the internet (without even paying for royalty) and have zero accountability.

Please, don't blatantly lie like that. IIRC, I was the one shutting down the threads based on AQ's piece on Gurkhas and uncircumcised penises, nor have I offered any opinion on any "Current Affairs' article.

Again, please don't lie so blatantly just to make a point.

 

[roadrunner]

Tellis may be born and educated in India but his comments are made in a professional capacity as an academician/policymaker which is under constant scrutiny and peer review. His credibility (and he has lots of it based on how many governments and institutions around the world contract his services) is based entirely upon the critical evaluation of his work by his peers, most of whom do not share his background.

Besides, the lack of evidence he was referring to was on the basis of three investigative reports sought through the DoD, Pentagon and the CIA; obviously he didn't do any of the actual field work.

Blah, another giberrish level post from you. Anyone who does any writing or review or even publication of scientifically validated information can skew their conclusions. Statistics themselves are a whole new world that offers you the chance to skew interpretations.

A peer reviewing an article will only object to that article if it is impossible for the interpretation to be correct. However, there's so many ways to fidget even scientific data which is supposedly the most accurate you can get, that it's very easy to bias any literature that is based on opinions and hazy facts.

 

[Stumper]

Makes you wonder then what exactly is the definition of a neutral source for them. Going by some of the comments that some of the members have made, it appears that anyone born in India or Pakistan doesn't qualify as a neutral source. Then may I ask, why are we discussing the original article in the first place as it happens to be from a Pakistani source like countless other articles in this forum.

Point here is, christine fair's comment on Indian consulates role in Afghanistan. She aint a pakistani!

Even GoP hasn't officially blamed India yet. They always seem to indicate some foreign power's involvement. But there are 202 countries in the world that are foreign to Pakistan. So until GoP comes out with an official statement blaming India, we can conveniently accept Ashley Tellis's pov.

Sir ....AM clarified that india cant be implicated just by marks on weapon!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Tellis may be born and educated in India but his comments are made in a professional capacity as an academician/policymaker which is under constant scrutiny and peer review.

His affiliation with India is clear in terms of his education, origin and the positions he has held.

Christine Fair's credibility can be validated using the same arguments presented here, and she does not have the conflict of interest that Tellis does.

As to the the US establishment not officially endorsing Indian complicity in terrorism in Pakistan, once could argue that a conflict of interest in terms of economic and strategic ties with India prevents the US from officially recognizing India's role in such activity - national interest is not based on altruism after all.

 

[Patriot]

His affiliation with India is clear in terms of his education, origin and the positions he has held.

Christine Fair's credibility can be validated using the same arguments presented here, and she does not have the conflict of interest that Tellis does.

As to the the US establishment not officially endorsing Indian complicity in terrorism in Pakistan, once could argue that a conflict of interest in terms of economic and strategic ties with India prevents the US from officially recognizing India's role in such activity - national interest is not based on altruism after all.

Absolutely..I mean we were also supporting Insurgencies in India and US completely ignored India's complaints because at that they needed more help from us.

 

[qsaark]

Christine Fair's credibility can be validated using the same arguments presented here, and she does not have the conflict of interest that Tellis does.

Agno has indeed used the correct terminology "the conflict of interest ". But Agno, please allow me to add that there are scholars like Arundhati Roy who inspite of their Indian background report unbiasedly.

Anyone who does any writing or review or even publication of scientifically validated information can skew their conclusions. Statistics themselves are a whole new world that offers you the chance to skew interpretations.

A peer reviewing an article will only object to that article if it is impossible for the interpretation to be correct. However, there's so many ways to fidget even scientific data which is supposedly the most accurate you can get, that it's very easy to bias any literature that is based on opinions and hazy facts.

I as a researcher with more than 30 research articles published in peer reviewed journals verify the points you have raised. You indeed are correct.

 

[Screaming Skull]

Point here is, christine fair's comment on Indian consulates role in Afghanistan. She aint a pakistani!

Hi,

I never denied that. Nor am I denying the possibility of Indian involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I wouldn't have have a problem, even if Christine Fair was a Pakistani. All I am saying that a persons nationality shouldn't come in the way of judging his or her rationality. My comment was based on some members comments who just brushed aside AT's remarks simply due to his country of origin. Any remark coming from a sane person on the basis of careful and comprehensive reasoning can be accepted.

Sir ....AM clarified that india cant be implicated just by marks on weapon!!

Again my post wasn't meant for any specific member. It was meant only to negate a particular line of argument started by AM first and then backed up by some other members. I am sure that they have got the message that I wanted to convey.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Absolutely..I mean we were also supporting Insurgencies in India and US completely ignored India's complaints because at that they needed more help from us.

That said, my opinion is that the US would like both countries to turn the page, if only because it allows the US to pursue economic and strategic ties with India even more strongly when the region is not in flames due to the hostility between the two.

The question is, if India is not involved in Pakistan, how does the US establish that and reassure Pakistan that it is not involved in the region merely to give India a leg-up at the expense of Pakistani national security interests?

A lot of Western (and even some Pakistani) analysts seem to think it would be through the aid package - but that does seem to be the case when you look at the opinions out of the Pakistani establishment.

On that count, Pakistan is looking more towards market access to the US and movement towards a nuclear deal similar to India's, even with certain conditions attached (commitments on non-proliferation, clamping down on militant groups, sustained efforts against groups committing acts such as Mumbai etc)- and that seems to be what Bruce Reidel is suggesting: http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/27601-pakistan-can-secure-n-deal-us-reidel.html

 

[Skeptic]

Please, don't blatantly lie like that. IIRC, I was the one shutting down the threads based on AQ's piece on Gurkhas and uncircumcised penises, nor have I offered any opinion on any "Current Affairs' article.

Again, please don't lie so blatantly just to make a point.

Accepted that you did close those thread with AQ's article and did not substantiate them. My Bad.

Christine Fair's credibility can be validated using the same arguments presented here, and she does not have the conflict of interest that Tellis does.

So do you consider her opinions truly unbiased and her analysis accurate?

 

[Energon]

Christine Fair's credibility can be validated using the same arguments presented here, and she does not have the conflict of interest that Tellis does.

She didn't have any direct input on the matter. Unlike Tellis, she wasn't contracted by the government to review its findings.

Blah, another giberrish level post from you. Anyone who does any writing or review or even publication of scientifically validated information can skew their conclusions. Statistics themselves are a whole new world that offers you the chance to skew interpretations.

A peer reviewing an article will only object to that article if it is impossible for the interpretation to be correct. However, there's so many ways to fidget even scientific data which is supposedly the most accurate you can get, that it's very easy to bias any literature that is based on opinions and hazy facts.

Your assumption here is that he's the only one making certain findings which would then allow unlimited freedom to skew the data. You're also assuming that he works single handedly on his projects, which is hardly the case. The projects he participates in has inputs from a multitude of researchers.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agno has indeed used the correct terminology "the conflict of interest ". But Agno, please allow me to add that there are scholars like Arundhati Roy who inspite of their Indian background report unbiasedly.

That is a valid point - and indeed, on the Pakistani side, authors such as Ahmed Rashid and Hussain Haqqani have been extremely critical of the Pakistani military and its involvement with militant groups, and are largely considered extremely objective and informed analysts on Pakistan.

Shuja Nawaz's work on the Pakistani Army (crossed swords) has established him as a Pakistani analyst of great repute.

Perhaps the ability to be critical of ones own nation enhances ones credibility when commenting on another ...

Perhaps a more in depth reading of Tellis's prior works on 'India vs Pakistan' is in order before passing comment on his objectivity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So do you consider her opinions truly unbiased and her analysis accurate?

I am assigning weight to her arguments here since she based them on personal experience and interactions - travel to Afghanistan and interaction with the 'players' involved, and her interactions at the Indian consulates.

If she had said, 'I believe', without the reference to her personal experience/research in arriving at the conclusions she did, I would have been more skeptical.

Obviously hers is not the final word, but it does support the arguments made by Pakistan on this issue, and she isn't a Pakistani.

If however you were merely baiting me to throw the video you posted earlier in my face, let me point out that towards the end she clarified that there was no evidence linking the Pakistani establishment with the Mumbai attacks.

 

[Energon]

Agno has indeed used the correct terminology "the conflict of interest ". But Agno, please allow me to add that there are scholars like Arundhati Roy who inspite of their Indian background report unbiasedly.

Arundhati Roy is neither a reporter nor a policy analyst. She primarily does social commentary as a celebrity literary figure turned activist.

There are others who in a professional capacity issue genuine criticism of Indian policy.