Tweet
Originally posted by squealpiggy
View Post
The article doesn't prove anything. But it does allege that the (pakistani) group he was working for had ties to the ISI. Which is in flat contradiction to your claim that the attacks had "nothing to do with Pakistan".
He possibly cut a deal which included protection from Indian justice. Furthermore it is not unusual for a criminal to be protected from other countries by their own country of citizenship. None of this comes even remotely close to suggesting that he worked for the CIA.
I already told you I'm not playing that game. You said the attacks were nothing to do with Pakistan and posted an article to back you up that stated the attacks were to do with Pakistan. You claimed something that was in direct opposition to reality (again) and now you're changing the subject to avoid admitting it.
That doesn't say that he worked for the CIA, it implies that it might be a possibility - going far beyond the implications of the available evidence - and you have taken this and run with it further by pretending it is incontrovertible fact, just like the incontrovertible fact that Lakshir-e-Taiba has nothing to do with Pakistan
This guy is not a "random guy off the street". He is a member of a terrorist organisation, has been on numerous training camps, and was involved in planning attacks in Denmark and Pakistan as well as in India. You do this a lot, trying to diminish the attackers in these cases because you have no evidence for your own pet theories.
I'm not reaching. I am using the available information. You are reaching of course. "Man charged with terror attacks makes a plea bargain. Therefore he was a CIA agent and this meant that the CIA did the terror attacks, QED!"
Have you been to see your family doctor yet?
He possibly cut a deal which included protection from Indian justice. Furthermore it is not unusual for a criminal to be protected from other countries by their own country of citizenship. None of this comes even remotely close to suggesting that he worked for the CIA.
I already told you I'm not playing that game. You said the attacks were nothing to do with Pakistan and posted an article to back you up that stated the attacks were to do with Pakistan. You claimed something that was in direct opposition to reality (again) and now you're changing the subject to avoid admitting it.
That doesn't say that he worked for the CIA, it implies that it might be a possibility - going far beyond the implications of the available evidence - and you have taken this and run with it further by pretending it is incontrovertible fact, just like the incontrovertible fact that Lakshir-e-Taiba has nothing to do with Pakistan
This guy is not a "random guy off the street". He is a member of a terrorist organisation, has been on numerous training camps, and was involved in planning attacks in Denmark and Pakistan as well as in India. You do this a lot, trying to diminish the attackers in these cases because you have no evidence for your own pet theories.
I'm not reaching. I am using the available information. You are reaching of course. "Man charged with terror attacks makes a plea bargain. Therefore he was a CIA agent and this meant that the CIA did the terror attacks, QED!"
Have you been to see your family doctor yet?
You're so delusional.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along"......
Comment