Ishrat Jahan: The inconvenient story no one wants to tell

[Crookbond]

look at the track record and you'll come to the same conclusion. :good:

Well, isn't that a fallacy? You need to look at each case individually and make a judgment. You can be a skeptic but making a foregone conclusion is being hasty.

[Clarke]

Conspiracy theorist: Why are they bringing this up right after Modi has been elevated to the highest level :hmmm:

[Sachin=GOD]

I had posted an article on Ishrat in the Politics forum and someone replied "What is got to do with Modi".

what else can you expect from Modi Bhakts..

[FischerTal]

Well' date=' isn't that a fallacy? You need to look at each case individually and make a judgment. You can be a skeptic but making a foregone conclusion is being hasty.[/quote'] im just saying zakia jafri files petition in 2006 right before 2007 elections. she had 4 years to file a petition and she could have got legal help from any of the acitvists to file case even before that. Sanjiv Bhatt decides to become patriotic after staying mum for 9 years in 2011 right before election in 2012 and now CBI does this right when Modi is elevated to national role. Call me a conspiracy theorist but something aint right

[Crookbond]

im just saying zakia jafri files petition in 2006 right before 2007 elections. she had 4 years to file a petition and she could have got legal help from any of the acitvists to file case even before that. Sanjiv Bhatt decides to become patriotic after staying mum for 9 years in 2011 right before election in 2012 and now CBI does this right when Modi is elevated to national role. Call me a conspiracy theorist but something aint right

Let me reconstruct some timelines for you. In September 2009, Metropolitan Magistrate SP Tamang (as part of a judicial probe) submitted a report and called it to be a fake encounter [0]. The Gujarat State government challenged this report saying that there wasn't enough opportunity to present "their side of the story" and hence, this case when to the Gujarat HC. Gujarat HC says that this is a matter of "national importance". An SIT investigation team was then constructed to get into the depth of the matter around August 2010. SIT said that this encounter was fake around November 2011 [1]. The CBI steps in after this and the rest is what has been posted here. Let us assume your conspiracy theory is true but here are some points you may want to take cognizance of. 1. Two reports (1 each from a metropolitan magistrate and SIT) called the encounter fake 2. The first reports of CBI in this case came before Modi was made BJP's face in the upcoming national elections Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either believe an independent investigation team or you do not. In case you do, accept that there is some problem here. If not, accept that there was some problem earlier (2002). It's up to you to maintain consistency. [0] http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/08/stories/2009090856670100.htm [1] http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/TopStories/Gujarat-cops-killed-Ishrat-Jahan-in-cold-blood-SIT/Article1-772053.aspx

[FischerTal]

Let me reconstruct some timelines for you. In September 2009' date=' Metropolitan Magistrate SP Tamang (as part of a judicial probe) submitted a report and called it to be a fake encounter [0']. The Gujarat State government challenged this report saying that there wasn't enough opportunity to present "their side of the story" and hence, this case when to the Gujarat HC. Gujarat HC says that this is a matter of "national importance". An SIT investigation team was then constructed to get into the depth of the matter around August 2010. SIT said that this encounter was fake around November 2011 [1]. The CBI steps in after this and the rest is what has been posted here. Let us assume your conspiracy theory is true but here are some points you may want to take cognizance of. 1. Two reports (1 each from a metropolitan magistrate and SIT) called the encounter fake 2. The first reports of CBI in this case came before Modi was made BJP's face in the upcoming national elections Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either believe an independent investigation team or you do not. In case you do, accept that there is some problem here. If not, accept that there was some problem earlier (2002). It's up to you to maintain consistency. [0] http://www.hindu.com/2009/09/08/stories/2009090856670100.htm [1] http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/TopStories/Gujarat-cops-killed-Ishrat-Jahan-in-cold-blood-SIT/Article1-772053.aspx

if court accepts this theory of the CBI, I have no problem with saying that it doesnt look good for Gujarat police. However, I would question what Ishrat Jahan of all people, a college student in Pune, was doing in Gujarat with two Pakistani nationals and a convert to Islam from Kerala by the name of Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai. someone posted an article by Praveen Swami in which he details that Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices were in fact in touch with a now slain LET commander from Kashmir. To say that she wasnt a terrorist, as the CBI is trying to prove, is incorrect to me.

[Crookbond]

if court accepts this theory of the CBI' date= I have no problem with saying that it doesnt look good for Gujarat police. However, I would question what Ishrat Jahan of all people, a college student in Pune, was doing in Gujarat with two Pakistani nationals and a convert to Islam from Kerala by the name of Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai. someone posted an article by Praveen Swami in which he details that Ishrat Jahan and her accomplices were in fact in touch with a now slain LET commander from Kashmir. To say that she wasnt a terrorist, as the CBI is trying to prove, is incorrect to me.

The court has already 'accepted' that the encounter was fake after listening to 2 independent sources - SIT and Metropolitan Magistrate. This is not a theory of the CBI or anyone else. CBI came in only after those charges were leveled in Gujarat HC. In fact, contrary to what you tell the Gujarat HC has wrapped CBI on the knuckles for acting 'slow'.

[FischerTal]

The court has already 'accepted' that the encounter was fake after listening to 2 independent sources - SIT and Magistrate. They have got nothing to do with the CBI. CBI came in only after those charges were leveled in Gujarat HC. In fact' date=' contrary to what you tell the Gujarat HC has wrapped CBI on the knuckles for acting 'slow'.[/quote'] then the officers involved in the fake encounter should be prosecuted. who's arguing against that? however, ishrat's family claims she is innocent and didnt come to Gujarat to kill Narendra Modi.This is the CBI's stand as well and I am arguing in regards to that. When there is evidence that says that she was a terrorist, why is the CBI not coming to that conclusion and saying that she, in fact, was a terrorist?

[Raghav_12]

I think in whole episode most crucial testimony has come from Headley who deposed infront of US investigators that Ishrat Jahan was a LeT operative. However her (and ner accomplices) being LeT operative doesn't mean that encounter can not be fake which was indeed fake. So as I understand most of the investigation reports suggested that encounter was fake without saying if killed people were terrorists or not. Now killing terrorists in fake encounter is entirely different from guning down innocents in a fake encounter, though no such difference exists in legal terms. Fake encounters are reality and have happened all over the country for long and have been effective, unfortunately. in some cases to wipe out crimes and terrorism. So if govt is so zealous about fake encounter in this case, then every single such case should be investigated with equal vigour.

[FischerTal]

I think in whole episode most crucial testimony has come from Headley who deposed infront of US investigators that Ishrat Jahan was a LeT operative. However her (and ner accomplices) being LeT operative doesn't mean that encounter can not be fake which was indeed fake. So as I understand most of the investigation reports suggested that encounter was fake without saying if killed people were terrorists or not. Now killing terrorists in fake encounter is entirely different from guning down innocents in a fake encounter, though no such difference exists in legal terms. Fake encounters are reality and have happened all over the country for long and have been effective, unfortunately. in some cases to wipe out crimes and terrorism. So if govt is so zealous about fake encounter in this case, then every single such case should be investigated with equal vigour.

if you believe the media and anti-modistas, one would only come back with that fake encounters happen in Gujarat. In reality, from the year 2002-2007 only 4 fake encounters took place in Gujarat, which is not right by any means, but the neighboring state of Maharashtra and also Andhra had much more fake encounters that have never been investigated. you wont hear these "human" rights activists do shyte there, because the ultimate target is Modi and always has been since the 2002 riots

[zumi]

Ishrat Jahan was a terrorist, so not sure what Sonia Gandhi's poodle, CBI, know what they are doing and the consequences of their hidden agenda.

[seedhi]

The court has already 'accepted' that the encounter was fake after listening to 2 independent sources - SIT and Metropolitan Magistrate. This is not a theory of the CBI or anyone else. CBI came in only after those charges were leveled in Gujarat HC. In fact' date=' contrary to what you tell the Gujarat HC has wrapped CBI on the knuckles for acting 'slow'.[/quote']Nothing has been proven in the courts. Coming to the so called independent sources, let us analyze their credibility. The Metropolitan magistrate in his report also made the astounding claim that Ishrat and co. were not terrorists and had no links to the LeT. This flies in the face of all available information and was beyond the scope of the magisterial inquiry. Now to the SIT - it consisted of an officer who was nominated by Ishrat Jahan's family. How then is it independent if it has within itself an officer nominated by one of the parties involved ? And how much credibility does the magistrate have when he can make astonishing claims which contradict the Director of IB ? And as for the CBI, we know what little credibility it has. Moreover, the officer nominated by the family of Ishrat Jahan has continued to be part of the CBI team as well. The court has also admonished the CBI for not focusing on whether the encounter was fake and turning attention to the credibility of the IB intelligence.

[Crookbond]

then the officers involved in the fake encounter should be prosecuted. who's arguing against that? however' date= ishrat's family claims she is innocent and didnt come to Gujarat to kill Narendra Modi.This is the CBI's stand as well and I am arguing in regards to that. When there is evidence that says that she was a terrorist, why is the CBI not coming to that conclusion and saying that she, in fact, was a terrorist?

From where did you get that information? National Investigation Agency (who interviewed Headley) in a letter to Gujarat HC has clearly said that Headley gave no information on Ishrat when this matter was taken up with the HC. The Metropolitan magistrate has clearly mentioned in his 243 page report that there was no evidence to link Ishrat to Lashkar-E-Taiba or to kill Narendra Modi. It also said the police officers were motivated by personal interests. SIT also submitted a report which said the same. Even reconstruction of the entire crime scene was done and they found bullets to be in their bodies later. So there you go, you have two agencies - NIA, SIT and one metropolitan magistrate clearly telling literally the same thing - "fake encounter, no connection to LeT or any motivation for treason". You can still ignore this but there is no evidence to link Ishrat as a terrorist and is backed up by three independent sources (which does not include the CBI).

[Crookbond]

I think in whole episode most crucial testimony has come from Headley who deposed infront of US investigators that Ishrat Jahan was a LeT operative. However her (and ner accomplices) being LeT operative doesn't mean that encounter can not be fake which was indeed fake. So as I understand most of the investigation reports suggested that encounter was fake without saying if killed people were terrorists or not. Now killing terrorists in fake encounter is entirely different from guning down innocents in a fake encounter, though no such difference exists in legal terms. Fake encounters are reality and have happened all over the country for long and have been effective, unfortunately. in some cases to wipe out crimes and terrorism. So if govt is so zealous about fake encounter in this case, then every single such case should be investigated with equal vigour.

The National Investigative Agency (NIA) who had access the Headley has categorically denied that claim as "heresy" in a letter written to the Gujarat HC.

[FischerTal]

From where did you get that information? National Investigation Agency (who interviewed Headley) in a letter to Gujarat HC has clearly said that Headley gave no information on Ishrat when this matter was taken up with the HC. The Metropolitan magistrate has clearly mentioned in his 243 page report that there was no evidence to link Ishrat to Lashkar-E-Taiba or to kill Narendra Modi. It also said the police officers were motivated by personal interests. SIT also submitted a report which said the same. Even reconstruction of the entire crime scene was done and they found bullets to be in their bodies later. So there you go, you have two agencies - NIA, SIT and one metropolitan magistrate clearly telling literally the same thing - "fake encounter, no connection to LeT or any motivation for treason". You can still ignore this but there is no evidence to link Ishrat as a terrorist and is backed up by three independent sources (which does not include the CBI).

please read this. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/ishrat-jahan-the-inconvenient-story-no-one-wants-to-tell-867173.html

[seedhi]

From where did you get that information? National Investigation Agency (who interviewed Headley) in a letter to Gujarat HC has clearly said that Headley gave no information on Ishrat when this matter was taken up with the HC. The Metropolitan magistrate has clearly mentioned in his 243 page report that there was no evidence to link Ishrat to Lashkar-E-Taiba or to kill Narendra Modi. It also said the police officers were motivated by personal interests. SIT also submitted a report which said the same. Even reconstruction of the entire crime scene was done and they found bullets to be in their bodies later. So there you go, you have two agencies - NIA, SIT and one metropolitan magistrate clearly telling literally the same thing - "fake encounter, no connection to LeT or any motivation for treason". You can still ignore this but there is no evidence to link Ishrat as a terrorist and is backed up by three independent sources (which does not include the CBI).

The current Director of IB, Asif Ibrahim, in his letter has stated that David Headley has told to the FBI that Ishrat was a LeT terrorist and that this information is known to the NIA. Also, now even the intercepted phone conversations are available and played on TV between the associates of Ishrat and the LeT handler. Thirdly, there is a confession of an accused in UP who said that Ishrat and Javed Pillai were together and were also looking for guns etc. And the elephant in the room - after Ishrat's death THE L-E-T ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS A JIHADI RECRUIT !!

[FischerTal]

The current Director of IB, Asif Ibrahim, in his letter has stated that David Headley has told to the FBI that Ishrat was a LeT terrorist and that this information is known to the NIA. Also, now even the intercepted phone conversations are available and played on TV between the associates of Ishrat and the LeT handler. Thirdly, there is a confession of an accused in UP who said that Ishrat and Javed Pillai were together and were also looking for guns etc. And the elephant in the room - after Ishrat's death THE L-E-T ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS A JIHADI RECRUIT !!

:icflove: thanks. and now the detractors will say even LET conspired with Gujarat police to kill Ishrat :giggle:

[Crookbond]

please read this. http://www.firstpost.com/politics/ishrat-jahan-the-inconvenient-story-no-one-wants-to-tell-867173.html

I must apprise you that Firstpost is an opinion based website with no particular affinity. On each and every topic, you will find pro/con articles. This article has missed the point that NIA (who had custody to of Headley) has written a letter to the Gujarat HC which states that Headley mentioned nothing about Ishrat being a LeT operative.

[seedhi]

The National Investigative Agency (NIA) who had access the Headley has categorically denied that claim as "heresy" in a letter written to the Gujarat HC.

Yes, it has chosen to disbelieve what David Headley said - simply because it was inconvenient to its case. The testimony of David Headley should have been presented in the court, but the NIA did not do that, it simply called it hearsay and did not present it to the court. Is this the way an investigative agency is supposed to function ? And now the Director of IB has categorically stated that David Headley has said that Ishrat was a terrorist. We now even have the intercepted conversations. The LeT admitted it. I mean what else is required ?

[FischerTal]

I must apprise you that Firstpost is an opinion based website with no particular affinity. On each and every topic' date=' you will find pro/con articles. This article has missed the point that NIA (who had custody to of Headley) has written a letter to the Gujarat HC which states that Headley mentioned nothing about Ishrat being a LeT operative.[/quote'] and tapes of LET commander speaking to the people with Ishrat and plotting Narendra Modi's murder isnt proof. they were playing it on TV as seedhi said