Sachinism Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 More than a week after the Mumbai attack, sources have told NDTV that India has proof that the ISI mastermined the Mumbai attack. Sources in fact say that they are 100% certain that the attack was authorised by Pakistan's intelligence agency. They say the attack was very well organised, with sophisticated equipment and logistics. Sources say India has specific evidence on the ISI's role -- the names of the ISI trainers and the names of the places where the terrorists were trained. In fact sources say it doesn't appear that the terrorists simply took a chance and hijacked an Indian boat to come to Mumbai. There was definitely more planning than that. Sources say that given the close links between the ISI and the army, they find it hard to imagine that the army wasn't aware of this plot. But here's a crucial point. They say they don't believe President Asif Ali Zardari's civilian government is involved. In fact they described Zardari as irrelevant -- even as a power tussle takes place between him and the army-ISI combine. Sources say the Mumbai attack could have been one way of the army and the ISI reasseerting that they call the shots and that there could be a strategy by the army to take over power if tensions with India significantly rise. The other important information is that Admiral Mike Mullen, the head of the US joint chiefs of staff, has told Islamabad they have to arrest Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) chief Hafeez Sayeed. And that there is no point denying it. The Americans have evidence. Sources in fact say America has a lot of evidence on the attacks and has shared that information with India. Source: NDTV Also on NDTV they talked to some woman from Pakistan and she said, "sources are saying they will arrest Hafeez Sayeed IF there is enough evidence" Just send the damn evidence to them so we can stop hearing the same old crap
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 I was wondering: when you share the evidence automatically you share the sources through which you got them. And when the party you are sharing the evidence with is the master of the terror then it makes them wiser for the next time . Sounds like this complete evidence sharing is self-defeating in this case.
King Tendulkar Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 USA seems to know the truth after Rice came to India. As it seems yanks clearly believe paks were behind this and are putting some sort of squeeze on pak after seeing the indian evidence. Strong reports that strong evidence of ISI involvement as revealed by NDTV and proof is there and shown to USA. If so congress played it quite well. Show evidence to USA first and then it becomes concreate fact. They also let it drag for a few days so pak could humilate themselves for days by denying it and saying india was making it up and not giving proof.
King Tendulkar Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 I am sure they even let USA officials even see interregations of remaing terrorist to show validity of evidence. The USA if backing india on evidence will make life impossible for paks and their denials and spinning. World will soon fall behind Indias views of the attack and pak will look prats, although it is reasonable to say they already do. Dont think it will lead to any concreate action by paks though. Maybe an arrest or 2 leading to their quiet release in a few months. Unfortunatley pak govt has no control over army and ISI. If zadari makes the wrong move they will have him removed like they have done to other pak leaders in past. Zadari is powerless even if his intentions are noble
King Tendulkar Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 Bomb Bomb Bomb Pakistan. But govt not involved. ISI and army are. They would love a war as it sidelines the govt and strenghthens them. We should hit LET camps though if we know where they are
Lurker Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 I was wondering: when you share the evidence automatically you share the sources through which you got them. And when the party you are sharing the evidence with is the master of the terror then it makes them wiser for the next time . Not in this case. The sources become an issue when a situation is "supposed" to happen. When a situation has actually happened you get evidence right there. There are no ifs-and-buts here. People arrived in Mumbai. Check. Evidence found in boat. Check. Terrorists killed with backpacks. Check. Backpack has mobile. Check. Mobile has calling number. Check. Boat captured shows GPS map. Check. Caught terrorist is from Pakistan. Check. This has become very chequred now :giggle:
King Tendulkar Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 LET chief denies involvement. Jack ass, he sound scared to me http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_links_with_Mumbai_attacks_says_LeT_chief/articleshow/3793755.cms This statement shows BS at its highest "We didn't do it. Lashkar doesn't believe in targeting civilians."
punjabi_khota Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 Not in this case. The sources become an issue when a situation is "supposed" to happen. When a situation has actually happened you get evidence right there. There are no ifs-and-buts here. People arrived in Mumbai. Check. Evidence found in boat. Check. Terrorists killed with backpacks. Check. Backpack has mobile. Check. Mobile has calling number. Check. Boat captured shows GPS map. Check. Caught terrorist is from Pakistan. Check. This has become very chequred now :giggle: history of pakistan.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 LET chief denies involvement. Jack ass, he sound scared to me http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_links_with_Mumbai_attacks_says_LeT_chief/articleshow/3793755.cms This statement shows BS at its highest "We didn't do it. Lashkar doesn't believe in targeting civilians." their philopshy has to make sure non-muslim pay (jazya) protection money to muslim for protection from muslims.. How can they say they do not target civilians.. Seriously I have sene clowns defending Jazya saying ti was for protection from whom that part they forget to mention.. Doesn't dawood also provide protection to builders in return fo money from dawood himself.. Some peace code we have here.
Lurker Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 their philopshy has to make sure non-muslim pay (jazya) protection money to muslim for protection from muslims.. How can they say they do not target civilians.. Seriously I have sene clowns defending Jazya saying ti was for protection from whom that part they forget to mention.. Doesn't dawood also provide protection to builders in return fo money from dawood himself.. The version of Jaziya is not as cut and dry as you state. The acceptable form of jaziya, to me, is when a non-Muslim has to pay an equivalent amount of money as a Muslim pays in the form of zakat. The unacceptable form is when non-Muslims pay money to submit infront of a Muslim Govt, and often enough end up paying more than what Muslims pay in form of zakat. Unfortunately the latter seems to be the more prevalent thing in Muslim world.
Guest dada_rocks Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 The version of Jaziya is not as cut and dry as you state. The acceptable form of jaziya, to me, is when a non-Muslim has to pay an equivalent amount of money as a Muslim pays in the form of zakat. The unacceptable form is when non-Muslims pay money to submit infront of a Muslim Govt, and often enough end up paying more than what Muslims pay in form of zakat. Unfortunately the latter seems to be the more prevalent thing in Muslim world. If you read the verses where Zajya is mentioned you will come to know it comes with phrases like humilitaion yes ithey themselves call it a tol for humiliation. OTOH Zakaat promises them shabab in hereafter. Obviucly you are comapring apples and oranges.. other than money is involved in both there is hardly any similarity. Since the purpose is humilitaion kind of hafta hence it went upto 40% as opposed to 2.5% in case of zakkat. My point is the word humiliation has no place there if it was meant just as taxation on non-muslim just like zakaat on muslim. here is the actual reference doesn't sound like harmless tax to me. Quran 9:29 YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low. SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Recommended Posts