Lakhvi, a free man for now

[ManavKalia]

No, just speaking reality.


lol, wikipedia is even worse. Anyone can edit wikipedia, and often is riddled with bias sources.

Anyway, I don't really care about this conversation. I have no interest to debate you, as you've shown that you have nothing worth while to say.

LOL, Sure sure, Google and Wikipedia are both worthless, and not worthy of debate..

Wonder what is tho?

 

[That Guy]

LOL, Sure sure, Google and Wikipedia are both worthless, and not worthy of debate..

Wonder what is tho?

There is a reason why colleges and universities across the world ban students from using wikipedia as a source. Google is a search engine, you can find whatever you want to find, not what you need to find. The problem with google is that it will give you exactly what you're looking for, and not opposing results. Take, for example, vaccinations: If you do a google search for vaccines cause autism, those are the main results you will get. Now, we both know that vaccines don't cause autism, but google (being a search engine) doesn't care about facts, only search results.

News articles from legitimate sources (such as bbc, AJE...etc), peer review journals, documentaries from legitimate directors, and so on. There are legitimate ways to make an argument, and than there is your way.

I hope that was educational for you.

 

[Dr Gupta]

US is going to do something in the next few months if this continues, the guy is not giving voice samples on purpose and we all know why.

US warns Pakistan over release of Lakhvi - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Now many Pakistanis will say oh who cares? but this is America who lost 6 of their own civilians so watch this space...

 

[ManavKalia]

There is a reason why colleges and universities across the world ban students from using wikipedia as a source. Google is a search engine, you can find whatever you want to find, not what you need to find. The problem with google is that it will give you exactly what you're looking for, and not opposing results. Take, for example, vaccinations: If you do a google search for vaccines cause autism, those are the main results you will get. Now, we both know that vaccines don't cause autism, but google (being a search engine) doesn't care about facts, only search results.

News articles from legitimate sources (such as bbc, AJE...etc), peer review journals, documentaries from legitimate directors, and so on. There are legitimate ways to make an argument, and than there is your way.

I hope that was educational for you.

I bet I'm much more educated than you, so go into that only if you're very certain about my academic credentials vs your own.

As my universities had also partially banned using Wikipedia as a source, I can tell you the reason you were referring to, that the universities have their own prescribed reference material, which differs from school to school, and the information in Wikipedia sometimes contradicts their own reference material.

Wikipedia takes into account respected news channels like bbc, cnn etc. Peer to peer reviews, is not relevant to historical debates. The credentials and impartiality of respected documentary makers is questioned often, as they would most times be partial to one particular side of an issue. This I'm stating from personal experience being involved in the making of documentaries.

Regarding the definition of Google as a search engine, thank you for telling me what I already knew, but Google was referred by me, regarding relevant content to filter according to your judgement, not as an independent source, which seems to be what you've surmised. LOL

Let us not get into any meaningless debate here. My original comment was about a specific issue, where you took some offence to the language used, but you didn't reply to the content. So for your benefit again in very simple and plain language, let me reiterate the relevant issue, by asking the question, which needs no lengthy answer, without quoting any questionable or sacrosanct source.

What do you think is the root cause of terrorism in Pakistan, which has led to the death of many of it's citizens for so many years?

Simple question, simple answer, let me see what you come up with to educate me.

 

[That Guy]

I bet I'm much more educated than you, so go into that only if you're very certain about my academic credentials vs your own.

I'm not comparing academics at all.

As my universities had also partially banned using Wikipedia as a source, I can tell you the reason you were referring to, that the universities have their own prescribed reference material, which differs from school to school, and the information in Wikipedia sometimes contradicts their own reference material.

That has nothing to do with the ban. The reason the ban exists is because of both plagiarism, and misinformation. Wikipedia is something literally anyone can edit, and do edit, making the articles unreliable as sources.

Wikipedia takes into account respected news channels like bbc, cnn etc. Peer to peer reviews, is not relevant to historical debates. The credentials and impartiality of respected documentary makers is questioned often, as they would most times be partial to one particular side of an issue. This I'm stating from personal experience being involved in the making of documentaries.

Wikipedia's quality control is a joke, and has been criticized as such by many places. Peer review journals are always relevant, as they check for factual inaccuracies within the studies and/or articles. While certain documentaries are skewed, I did say legitimate directors. If the documentary is endorsed by an academic institution, or a respected media source, there is a good chance it is highly accurate.

Regarding the definition of Google as a search engine, thank you for telling me what I already knew, but Google was referred by me, regarding relevant content to filter according to your judgement, not as an independent source, which seems to be what you've surmised. LOL

You simply said google it, like that's supposed to be an end all be all. Your lol is quite ironic, considering you really don't know what you're talking about.

Let us not get into any meaningless debate here. My original comment was about a specific issue, where you took some offence to the language used, but you didn't reply to the content. So for your benefit again in very simple and plain language, let me reiterate the relevant issue, by asking the question, which needs no lengthy answer, without quoting any questionable or sacrosanct source.

I don't care about your original comment. It was stupid and trollish, and deserves no answer.

What do you think is the root cause of terrorism in Pakistan, which has led to the death of many of it's citizens for so many years?

There are many reasons. This topic has been debated to death, and your comment doesn't deserve special attention just because you asked it.

Simple question, simple answer, let me see what you come up with to educate me.

If it's a simple answer, you already should know it. Again, topic has been debated to death, you're no one special that I should repeat the answers just for you.

This is my last reply to you. I don't care about your comments, nor does anyone else. It's clear to everyone what you're trying to do, and it won't work.

Good bye, and I hope you grow up.

 

[Dr Gupta]

@That Guy you know in your heart 26/11 was done by LET, most sane Pakistanis are aware of it.

Why did Saudi Araba deport one of the handlers? he is a much bigger fish than kasab and has much more info.

 

[That Guy]

@That Guy you know in your heart 26/11 was done by LET, most sane Pakistanis are aware of it.

despite your backhanded comment, yes, I do know LeT was behind it. I also think Lakhvi was most likely a planner as well. My issue is India's reaction, and the lack of cooperation that India has shown, not Lakhvi's guilt.

 

[Dr Gupta]

despite your backhanded comment, yes, I do know LeT was behind it. I also think Lakhvi was most likely a planner as well. My issue is India's reaction, and the lack of cooperation that India has shown, not Lakhvi's guilt.

how would you feel if you saw over 160 men, women and children murdered in cold blood? a Jewish pregnant woman tortured before she was killed along with her husband, and what was India's reaction?

The Muslims in India refused to bury them in their graves and people lit handles, did you see any riots? our reaction was unity but also we want justice for the victims.

I want peace between our countries I really do and we were improving ties before 26/11 happaned but now... it's like the closer we get something happens like Kargil, 26/11 and we go back to square one.

 

[That Guy]

how would you feel if you saw over 160 men, women and children murdered in cold blood? a Jewish pregnant woman tortured before she was killed along with her husband, and what was India's reaction?

The Muslims in India refused to bury them in their graves and people lit handles, did you see any riots? are reaction was unity but also we want justice for the victims.

Your comment literally has nothing to do with my comment. All you're doing is trying to shame me.

I DID say that Lakhvi is probably guilty, what more do you want?

As for peace, the lack of progress isn't just Pakistan's fault, India shares half the blame.

 

[Dr Gupta]

Evidence has been provided by interpol, USA, UK but why is Lakhvi refusing to give a voice sample? what more can India do in this matter?

Your comment literally has nothing to do with my comment. All you're doing is trying to shame me.

I DID say that Lakhvi is probably guilty, what more do you want?

I am not trying to shame you believe me, but it pisses me off when many tell me oh it was a inside job you guys did it yourself and there is no compassion. When the Peshawar massacre took place, people in India felt your pain and kids lit candles for the dead in your country also.

I am just confused as to how the courts work in Pakistan and is their a darker agenda going on? you know your country more than me.

 

[That Guy]

Evidence has been provided by interpol, USA, UK but why is Lakhvi refusing to give a voice sample? what more can India do in this matter?

First of all, do you not find it odd that third party nations have evidence that India or Pakistan do not? Next, we're talking about the India, as India claims they have undeniable proof, well show it then. It would make it easier for everyone if India provided that evidence.

I am not trying to shame you believe me, but it pisses me off when many tell me oh it was a inside job you guys did it yourself and there is no compassion. When the Peshawar massacre took place, people in India felt your pain and kids lit candles for the dead in your country also.

No one is saying that it is an inside job, but it is clear that India is not cooperating. India can do so much, such as giving Pakistani investigators access to the crime scenes, but the India side has refused to give complete access, saying that Pakistan would tamper with it. India can't have it both ways: it can't say that Pakistan needs to investigate the tragedy, and on the other hand, try and hinder Pakistan's investigation.

No one is saying this was an inside job, but India has done little to help Pakistan prosecute Lakhvi. Hell, India hung the last guy that could have 100% proven Lakhvi was involved. What India is doing sure isn't helping the investigation.

 

[Dr Gupta]

First of all, do you not find it odd that third party nations have evidence that India or Pakistan do not? Next, we're talking about the India, as India claims they have undeniable proof, well show it then. It would make it easier for everyone if India provided that evidence.


No one is saying that it is an inside job, but it is clear that India is not cooperating. India can do so much, such as giving Pakistani investigators access to the crime scenes, but the India side has refused to give complete access, saying that Pakistan would tamper with it. India can't have it both ways: it can't say that Pakistan needs to investigate the tragedy, and on the other hand, try and hinder Pakistan's investigation.

No one is saying this was an inside job, but India has done little to help Pakistan prosecute Lakhvi. Hell, India hung the last guy that could have 100% proven Lakhvi was involved. What India is doing sure isn't helping the investigation.

See the reason third parties have the evidence is that teams of interpol and other agencies were dispatched from UK, USA when the attack took place. One must remember this was a international attack where civilians of those countries were also caught up. There was a British Lord in the Taj hotel also and many international business men.

India does not have the sophisticated equipment as these foreign intelligence agencies do in ease dropping and monitoring. The FBI has a control room during the 26/11 attacks to help Indian agencies.

 

[That Guy]

I am just confused as to how the courts work in Pakistan and is their a darker agenda going on? you know your country more than me.

There is no dark agenda. Pakistani courts are literally following the law down to the last letter, so they cannot and should not be blamed for his release. The investigation is moving at a slow pace, because there is very little coordination between Indian investigators and Pakistani investigators, simply because India still thinks that Pakistan's courts haven't changed since the time of dictatorships, and can simply pass a judgement by ignoring the law and constitution. India's side simply doesn't feel the need to coordinate efforts between the two sides, because the expectation is that Pakistan should just find him guilty, as the courts would do under dictatorships, and hang or extradite him.

Pakistan feels that India is being too unrealistic in it's expectations. They feel India is looking for a quick prosecution, when in reality, these trials can go on for years. 9/11, and even Samjhota are prime examples of this. Those two cases are still in court, and are nowhere near complete, so why the expectation that Lakhvi trial is a done deal, and Pakistan is wasting time?

 

[Dr Gupta]

Emphasising the role played by FBI, Tindall, who is currently based in Hawaii as the FBI's liaison to the US Pacific Command, said the US agency had immediately deployed eight agents from Los Angeles as well as technicians who were "able to glean significant information from GPS, cellphones, satellite phones, Internet data, financial records, witnesses and boats". He said, "A lot of the information led back to Pakistan."

The FBI special agent, however, also stated that the arrest of Ajmal Kasab -- the lone surviving terrorist -- by Mumbai cops was a major turning point, terming him "an incredible source of information".

 

[That Guy]

See the reason third parties have the evidence is that teams of interpol and other agencies were dispatched from UK, USA when the attack took place. One must remember this was a international attack where civilians of those countries were also caught up. There was a British Lord in the Taj hotel also and many international business men.

India does not have the sophisticated equipment as these foreign intelligence agencies do in ease dropping and monitoring. The FBI has a control room during the 26/11 attacks to help Indian agencies.

And that's the problem, why is it that India says that it's intel agencies have 100% indisputable proof then? So far, UK, USA and interpol, as far as i'm concerned, have not provided definitive evidence. Phone records, and voice match records are not considered primary evidences, and require other evidences to help build a case.