Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism : US Intelligence Report

[Daredevil]

US National Intelligence Council in its report "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds" has labelled Pakistan (and Iran) as state supporter of terrorism. "Many states might continue to use terrorist groups: states choose to exploit terrorist movements out of a strong sense of insecurity. States such as Pakistan and Iran feel threatened by what they perceive as stronger, threatening powers in their regions or globally. Therefore, they seek asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack; using terrorist groups as proxies and pursuing nuclear weapons are two such asymmetric tools." says the report

Pakistan, a state supporter of terrorism: US Intelligence

 

[W.G.Ewald]

See if you can find that information here on the website if the US Department of State..

Pakistan

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

US National Intelligence Council in its report "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds" has labelled Pakistan (and Iran) as state supporter of terrorism. "Many states might continue to use terrorist groups: states choose to exploit terrorist movements out of a strong sense of insecurity. States such as Pakistan and Iran feel threatened by what they perceive as stronger, threatening powers in their regions or globally. Therefore, they seek asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack; using terrorist groups as proxies and pursuing nuclear weapons are two such asymmetric tools." says the report

Pakistan, a state supporter of terrorism: US Intelligence

The language is not really clear enough, in the case of either Iran or Pakistan, to support the title of the article/thread.

Consider the following excerpt and its dissection:

"Many states might continue to use terrorist groups: states choose to exploit terrorist movements out of a strong sense of insecurity."​

OK, fair enough, a general statement referring to 'many states', lets continue to the next sentence:

"States such as Pakistan and Iran feel threatened by what they perceive as stronger, threatening powers in their regions or globally. Therefore, they seek asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack;" ​

The author identifies two specific States here, Pakistan and Iran, as perceiving threats from stronger regional or global entities, and subsequently resorting to 'asymmetric option'. Fair enough again, I have no argument with the analysis here, however, understand that at this point the author has only argued that Pakistan and Iran are two states that seek 'asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack' without actually specifying what those options are and which State uses what option. So, on we go to the concluding part of the excerpt:

using terrorist groups as proxies and pursuing nuclear weapons are two such asymmetric tools."​

So there he author points out 'two such asymmetric tools', but which State uses one or the other, or both?

Perhaps some more details from the report would help.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

National Intelligence Council - Global Trends

Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds

 

[roma]

See if you can find that information here on the website if the US Department of State.
Pakistan

exactly ! we have heard that quote ( about state sponsorship ) a number of times but then overlaid by continued albeit more cautious usa-pak cooperative events and military exercises
so the date of the article and the date of when the statement was made is of importance

the reference given in the lead article goes back to dfi and not to a US gov website

 

[The Fox]

Not just US Intelligence any man with Average Intelligence can confirm the same after so many years of fighting them....................

US National Intelligence Council in its report "Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds" has labelled Pakistan (and Iran) as state supporter of terrorism. "Many states might continue to use terrorist groups: states choose to exploit terrorist movements out of a strong sense of insecurity. States such as Pakistan and Iran feel threatened by what they perceive as stronger, threatening powers in their regions or globally. Therefore, they seek asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack; using terrorist groups as proxies and pursuing nuclear weapons are two such asymmetric tools." says the report

Pakistan, a state supporter of terrorism: US Intelligence

 

[Yusuf]

The language is not really clear enough, in the case of either Iran or Pakistan, to support the title of the article/thread.

Consider the following excerpt and its dissection:

"Many states might continue to use terrorist groups: states choose to exploit terrorist movements out of a strong sense of insecurity."​

OK, fair enough, a general statement referring to 'many states', lets continue to the next sentence:

"States such as Pakistan and Iran feel threatened by what they perceive as stronger, threatening powers in their regions or globally. Therefore, they seek asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack;" ​

The author identifies two specific States here, Pakistan and Iran, as perceiving threats from stronger regional or global entities, and subsequently resorting to 'asymmetric option'. Fair enough again, I have no argument with the analysis here, however, understand that at this point the author has only argued that Pakistan and Iran are two states that seek 'asymmetric options to assert power and deter attack' without actually specifying what those options are and which State uses what option. So, on we go to the concluding part of the excerpt:

using terrorist groups as proxies and pursuing nuclear weapons are two such asymmetric tools."​

So there he author points out 'two such asymmetric tools', but which State uses one or the other, or both?

Perhaps some more details from the report would help.

Missing the woods for the trees. The more your nation lives in denial about terror the worse it will get.
It's like no evidence is good enough as you say to stand a court of law. In spite of brazenness of everything. Just like you can't prove in a court of law how a son of a politician killed or raped someone in the subcontinent. Well in India at least.

It's good if you feel there is no terror coming from Pakistan.
Like I keep saying, India should make taller wider stronger fences.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Missing the woods for the trees. The more your nation lives in denial about terror the worse it will get.
It's like no evidence is good enough as you say to stand a court of law. In spite of brazenness of everything. Just like you can't prove in a court of law how a son of a politician killed or raped someone in the subcontinent. Well in India at least.

It's good if you feel there is no terror coming from Pakistan.
Like I keep saying, India should make taller wider stronger fences.

Perhaps, but don't you agree that the analysis is rather self-serving, given that the US/NATO have, and are, supported 'terrorist/insurgent groups to further their geo-political interests', as seen most recently in Libya and Syria?

So if you are adamant on using the rationale presented in this 'US National Intelligence Council' analysis as justification for implicating Pakistan in terrorism, you must also accept that the US/NATO itself qualifies for the same, based on the rational in this report.