The DISINGENUOUS LYING and PROPAGANDA-PUSHING is CRIMINAL!!!!!!!
"Pakistan's ISI problem
PAKISTAN has a terrorist problem, as many of the country's leaders acknowledge. But Pakistan also has an ISI problem - the country's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency pursues its own agenda for its own reasons. And civilian leaders there have been too hesitant to challenge it.
Sound like the ZOG and CIA here in AmeriKa!
Of course, you see what happens when you do challenge it (JFK the most braxen and blatant example).
India's foreign secretary asserted last week that the Pakistani military intelligence agency was behind November's terrorist atrocities in Mumbai. "The perpetrators planned, trained, and launched their attacks from Pakistan," Shivsankar Menon said in a Paris speech, "and the organizers were and remain clients and creations of the ISI." Regardless of its motives, India is raising a question that Pakistan must address.
I'm not going to defend Pakistan because they willingly accept blame for a lie.
The ISI operates under its own definition of Pakistan's national interest - and has shown a particular obsession with India.
Our obsession is with Iran.
The agency has a history of incubating extremists, such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba gang that India accuses of murdering 164 innocent people in Mumbai. It would be best for Pakistan's relations with its neighbors and for its own internal stability if ISI gets out of the business of using fanaticized jihadists - whether Lashkar-e-Taiba or the Afghan Taliban - to advance the military's strategic aims.
Tell it to the CIA, duck-farts!
Pakistani officials have dropped hints that their own investigation will show that the Mumbai plot was hatched in Bangladesh and had Indian co-conspirators. But India has given Pakistan and the United States considerable material evidence, including intercepted phone calls and forensic DNA matching the terrorists to a boat that left from Pakistan. So any Pakistani campaign to deflect or diffuse blame is likely to make Pakistani authorities look even more irresponsible than they do now.
The chutzpah kind gets to you, doesn't it?
Over the years, the ISI has received plenty of outside help. In the 1980s, the CIA cooperated with the ISI and Saudi intelligence in funding, training, and arming Afghan and foreign guerrillas to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
Yeah, that is AL-CIA-Duh and the U.S. INTELLIGENCE ASSET OSAMA we are talking about!!!!
This proxy war was initiated by former President Jimmy Carter and expanded under Ronald Reagan. It succeeded in driving the Red Army out of Afghanistan. But it also drew in violent Islamists from many countries who coalesced in terrorist networks, the most notorious of which became Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda.
Translation: The U.S. CREATED, DIRECTED, and FUNDED "Al-CIA-Duh" -- and CONTINUES TO to THIS DAY!!
CUI BONO, America?
In the mid-1990s, the ISI sponsored the Taliban. The aim was to have an allied force in control of Afghanistan, to prevent India from extending its influence there, and to provide the ISI with training camps outside Pakistan for groups conducting operations in Indian-ruled Kashmir. Today, some of those terrorist groups are turning their fury against the established order in Pakistan.
And NOT JUST the ISI, readers (see below).
Yes, the SINS of OMISSION are ALSO LIES!!!!!
Apart from India's public attempts to hold the ISI guilty for the Mumbai crimes, Pakistan needs to recognize its own interest in remolding and redirecting the agency, so it can extinguish a terrorist fire that may otherwise consume Pakistan itself.
Pffft!
-- more--"
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh and the OSI
Prop 101: Al-CIA-Duh's Greatest Hits
Prop 101: The "Terrorism" Business
Al-CIA-Duh
Who Invented "Al-CIA-Duh?"
New York Times Admits War on Terror is U.S. Creation
Operation Mockingbird
First WTC attack
Oh, yeah, and about the TALIBAN and ISI:
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
