Pakistan abetted the Mumbai attacks

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,152
Location
Yokohama, Japan
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/26-11-isi-helped-let-carry-out-mumbai-attacks-says-headley-107805

Chicago: The government's leading witness in a high-profile terrorism trial told jurors here on Monday that the group behind the 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, had ties to Pakistan's intelligence service.

In testimony that prosecutors said offered a "rare look" inside a major terrorist plot, David C. Headley said he had trained with the Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba between 2002 and 2005 in preparation for scouting locations to attack in India. In 2006, Mr. Headley said, he met a member of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency who offered to provide financial support for that surveillance.

In testimony so painstaking that the judge and some jurors seemed to nod off at the mundane details of a plot that left 163 people dead, Mr. Headley described how he changed his name and used his American passport to portray himself alternately as a tourist or a businessman, concealing his Muslim faith and his Pakistani roots so he could travel easily across borders. He said he provided hours of video of potential targets in Mumbai to his handlers in both ISI and Lashkar.

"I understood these groups operated under the umbrella of the ISI," he said, referring to Lashkar. "They coordinated with each other."

That would make Pakistan a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

Inconvenient.
 
I see no mention of its civilian government being involved. As far as I understand, the ISI is out of its control.
 
I see no mention of its civilian government being involved. As far as I understand, the ISI is out of its control.
It is? How is the ISI funded? How do they assert authority? How are the ISI leaders chosen?

It strains credibility that the ISI is out of the government's control.
 

It's definitely got more substance than a usual CT. Indeed wikileaks revealed that the US regard the ISI as a terrorist organisation. They've certainly been Involved in aiding both the Taliban and Kashmir groups.... and it would appear they were complicit in sheltering Osama, them turning a blind eye to the Mumbai attacks is hardly a left field notion.....
 
Last edited:
them turning a blind eye to the Mumbai attacks is hardly a left field notion.....
Not just turning a blind eye, but actively involved in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attack. That is Headley's testimony thus far.

In his testimony, Headley made several links to Pakistan's major intelligence service, Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), and the Pakistani government. He said that he believed Lashkar and ISI regularly "coordinated." He also said he attended a planning meeting for the Mumbai assault that included a "navy frogman" from the Pakistani government. He identified a co-defendant identified in the indictment only as "Major Iqbal" as a member of ISI.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-rana-terrorism-trial-0524-20110523,0,2369574.story
 
It is? How is the ISI funded? How do they assert authority? How are the ISI leaders chosen?
Lynndie England, of Abu Ghraib notoriety--how was she funded? How did she assert authority? How were military personnel like England chosen?

It strains credibility that the ISI is out of the government's control.
It strains credibility that Lynndie England was out of the government's control.
 
Lynndie England, of Abu Ghraib notoriety--how was she funded? How did she assert authority? How were military personnel like England chosen?
Lynndie England went to prison along with other Abu Ghraib asshats. Can you list the people Pakistan has arrested for the Mumbai attack? :rolleyes:

Hell, they denied the one guy captured was even a Pakistani citizen for over a month.

It strains credibility that Lynndie England was out of the government's control.
She wasn't, as her prosecution and imprisonment shows. Having control doesn't mean you have to prevent all wrongdoing by your people, but it does demand that you investigate and prosecute to the best of your abilities when it occurs.
 
It is? How is the ISI funded? How do they assert authority?

By killing people. While the Marriott Hotel bombing may nominaly have been targeted at US forces its long been rumored that the real target was pakistani leadership or at the very least it was a warning.

How are the ISI leaders chosen?

Political bunfight. Anyone who the ISI doesn't like will be labeled as the US's candidate.

It strains credibility that the ISI is out of the government's control.

You are forgetting how messed up Pakistan actualy is at this point. Quite a lot of things are out of the goverment's control.
 
Not just turning a blind eye, but actively involved in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attack. That is Headley's testimony thus far.

Well yes training islamic extremists for attacks on india has been pakistani doctrine for years. This ranges from the fairly conventional Kargil War to the less conventional 2001 Indian Parliament attack.
 
By killing people. While the Marriott Hotel bombing may nominaly have been targeted at US forces its long been rumored that the real target was pakistani leadership or at the very least it was a warning.



Political bunfight. Anyone who the ISI doesn't like will be labeled as the US's candidate.



You are forgetting how messed up Pakistan actualy is at this point. Quite a lot of things are out of the goverment's control.
Then perhaps we should recognize the ISI as Pakistan's government?
 
It strains credibility that the ISI is out of the government's control.

I really don't think it does. There is a wide range of thought that it is a imperium in imperio.

Thus, I think the OP's title is grossly unfair. If anyone has felt the brutality of Islamic extremism, it's Pakistan. It's also at the frontline of the fight against it. It seems the world's press seems to have overlooked this.
 
I really don't think it does. There is a wide range of thought that it is a imperium in imperio.

Thus, I think the OP's title is grossly unfair. If anyone has felt the brutality of Islamic extremism, it's Pakistan. It's also at the frontline of the fight against it. It seems the world's press seems to have overlooked this.
I think Pakistan's government knows exactly what the ISI is doing. And I'm pretty certain the Obama admin. is thinking the same thing, though they can't say it publicly.
 
I think Pakistan's government knows exactly what the ISI is doing. And I'm pretty certain the Obama admin. is thinking the same thing, though they can't say it publicly.

I don't think that is true.

Or if it is true then what the Hell have successive US governments been doing sending billions of dollars of military aid to the governement of Pakistan?

If the Pakistani government is deliberately allowing the ISI to run terrorist operations against India (possible, particularly in the case of Lashkar-e-Taiba) by training militants who themselves turn their own guns on Pakistani civil society and politicians (and then this would include Taliban and al-Qaeda) then part of the problem is the flow of money coming into the Pakistan from the US!

It needn't be a case of Obama saying what he is thinking but acting on what he is thinking.

But then the argument is, "Ahhh! But if the US doesn't give military aid to Pakistan's government which will then funnel it towards terrorist acts against India then the Taliban could take over Pakistan and steal the nukes."

So, the method of preventing terrorism is then the cause of the problem in the first place, no?
 
I don't think that is true.

Or if it is true then what the Hell have successive US governments been doing sending billions of dollars of military aid to the governement of Pakistan?
Hoping to bribe them to our side through diplomatic engagement. Your other options are sanctioning them, or waging war on them.

You can't wish the problem away.
 
Hoping to bribe them to our side through diplomatic engagement. Your other options are sanctioning them, or waging war on them.

You can't wish the problem away.

The problem is that Pakistan's military/ISI are concerned primarily with one foreign policy issue and that is conflict with India over Kashmir. Afghanistan is really an extension of that policy.

The money goes to Pakistan and their thought is not, "Ah! Now we'll play nice." It's "Ah! More money to fight India!" or "If being bad gets us money then we'll be bad."

If the policy really is giving money until Pakistan becomes a "nice" country then what incentive does that give Pakistan to be nice? Being nice will lose them the money they want.
 
Pakistan is NOT a strong ally, if I am an American and reviewing my allies in various parts of the world.

The biggest problem is knowing what country you are dealing with. Even Sybil only had 13 personalities.
 

Back
Top Bottom