DISQUS

Brainster · 1 year ago

You linked to Global Research? That's not a reasonable source; it's a 9-11 Truther site run by Michel Chossudovsky, who's Canada's answer to David Ray Griffin. The writer of that piece, Tom Burghardt, writes articles about how Bush is going to suspend the constitution and declare Martial Law. He's the kind of source that Alex Jones would use.

swaraaj · 1 year ago

The points raised in Global Research are not original. These have been widely discussed at different forums. The present report is based on excellent in-depth coverage in Asia Time Online, a well respected magazine.

It is a major story about the nexus of important countries with a mafia don. It looks strange that instead of discussing the main issue attempts should be made to trivialize the whole issue and deflect attention from the main subject.

Brainster · 1 year ago

Would you link something from Stormfront if it had been discussed elsewhere? Because Global Research has as much credibility as Stormfront.

Read Burghardt's other articles at Global Research and you'll realize that he's a thorough fruitcake. Heck, read this article and then contrast it with the Asia Times Online piece that you linked. Burghardt talks about how Dawood is a CIA asset, the Asia Times piece says nothing about him working for the CIA and notes that he's wanted by the US as a terrorist financier and drug kingpin. Indeed, the Asia Times article suggests that Pakistan should hand Dawood over to the US; if they thought he was working for the CIA, why would they suggest that?

Burghardt brings up former ISI chief Gul's involvement with the CIA back in the 1980s, he conveniently forgets that Gul (who's also a 9-11 "Truther") now hates the US and has said:

"The Muslim world must stand united to confront the U.S. in its so-called War on Terrorism, which is in reality a war against Muslims. Let's destroy America wherever its troops are trapped."

I don't have any particular trouble believing the ISI and Dawood and Gul are up to their ears in the Mumbai massacre. Where I disagree with this post is the attempt to tie this in to the CIA, which relies on ignoring what happened in the years after the Afghan war and especially after 9-11.

swaraaj · 1 year ago

Aha!!! Now I know where the shoe pinches.

So long the rogues and terrorists serve American interests it is just fine!!! It is just fine if the terrorists kill outside American soil!!!

The trouble begins when these very rogues and terrorists turn against their very handlers in America.

It was the same story with Saddam Hussein, Taliban and Al-Quaida. Now it is Pakistan's ISI. They were the pillars of strength for the USA, oblique CIA, during the Cold War.

Few realize that cohabiting with criminals always boomerangs. Ultimately, they devour their funders/handlers. Prey where the billions of American tax payers dollars going when they went unaccounted to Pakistan?

Instead of taking the path of diplomacy the US administration opted for the easier, but deadlier/dangerous, path of using/funding criminals and outlaws to meet its geopolitical/business ambitions.

The criminals were funded with American taxpayers money, and the media and a majority of people kept silent.

As to your point about a good and bad source, the entire media was fed by the Bush administration/Rumsfeld during most of his presidency. And it was considered a "good" source.

The embedded journalists in Iraq and Afghanistan had made us believe that the "war on terror' had been won. Leading think-tanks in America and elsewhere made us believe that US and CIA would rid the world of the "evil of axis".

At that time no one questioned which source was to be trusted?

Now we have reached a time when instead of talking about the "credibility of sources" we begin talking about the real/serious issues that imperil world peace as a consequences of the crazy policies during the past decade.

The hair-splitting will not help. The CIA has operated for decades through state-actors in different countries, and who ,in turn, operate through criminals (branded conveniently as terrorists).

Some people within the State-actors have developed a vested interest in the continuation of the so-called terrorism because a lot of taxpayers money can be diverted to lineup their pockets.

This is clearly emerging post-Mumbai terror attack. India has pile of evidence dating back to decades. But the Indian government has always shied away fearing the collapse of US-India relations if the shadowy story of CIA was made public.

I am afraid that the cat may be out of the bag this time because of the rich business community has been affected during the Mumbai attack.

The Indian politicians could play ball with American politicians so long ordinary people were being killed in India in terrorist attacks. It may not be possible now...