NationStates Jolt Archive

IISc stands for Indian Institute of Science. It is the premier institute in post-graduate science studies (IITs excel only in under-graduate). The deceased Professor (RIP) was an ex IIT prof.

Looks like the attack was timed to target the scientists and other acedemics who were attending a conference. Luckily the timing went bad and only one professor was killed.

I am suspecting Pakis since LeT has IISC included in its hitlist. This IIRC is the first terror attack in Bangalore.

Terror hits Bangalore, target is IISc (http://www.indianexpress.com/print.php?content_id=84846)ATTACK Gunman fires from AK-47 at campus, escapes; ex-IIT prof killed, Simputer inventor hurt

JOHNSON T A

At the IISc campus after the shootout.Bangalore, December 28 Terror struck an international conference at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) campus on Wednesday night killing a retired Mathematics professor from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, M.C. Puri, and seriously injuring four others including one of the inventors of the Simputer, Prof Vijay Chandru from IISc.

The attack was, according to eyewitness accounts, carried out by a lone gunman who wielded an AK-47 and threw hand grenades. The attacker was driven away in a white Ambassador car immediately after the attack, eyewitnesses said.

All major cities in south India have been put on high alert after the incident.

The other injured persons have been identified as Dr Pankaj Gupta from Delhi, P Patel, a lab assistant at the Cadila Lab in the IISc campus, and a woman identified only as Sonia, an assistant professor at IIM, Lucknow.

‘‘All the injured have been ruled to be out of danger,’’ Additional Commissioner of Police H C Kishore Chandra said.

Delegates at the International Conference on Operations Research Applications in Infrastructure Development and the 38th Annual convention of Operation Research Society of India (ORSI) were proceeding from IISc’s National Science Seminar Complex to the Satish Dhawan auditorium for an AGM of the ORSI at around 7:30 p.m. when the attack took place.

‘‘We had finished the final programme for the day, a felicitation, and a few of us were walking to the next building when we heard sounds like the heavy use of firecrackers. Some one was throwing crude bombs and shooting randomly in the walkway between the buildings,’’ said Prof S Sadagopan, director of the IIIT, Bangalore and one of the local organizers of the event.

‘‘I was one of the first to reach the Satish Dhawan auditorium after the felicitation. I was going through some papers when I thought I heard firecrackers. I came out to find delegates who were walking towards the hall running helter-skelter,’’ said M Nagaraj Rao, chairman of the organizing committee for the conference.

The attacker dumped his weapon in the campus before fleeing from the campus. Prof Puri was declared dead at the M S Ramaiah Hospital here. Prof Vijay Chandru has taken three bullet hits, hospital officials said.

The conference with over 300 delegates, including 36 foreigners, in attendance was into its third day. The conference brought together operations research/management science practitioners, scientists, engineers, academicians and policy-makers in the government.

While the Union Home Secretary convened a emergency meeting at North Block, internal security agencies said that they had warned the government about possible attacks in Bangalore.

‘‘We don’t know who is responsible for the attack. We have ruled out any link between the attack and Abu Salem’s presence in Bangalore,’’ DGP B S Sial said.

Following the attack, the Bangalore police imposed a nakabandhi in the city and were screening all vehicles.

‘‘There were no security alerts issued to us. In the past when we have received alerts. We have intensified security on the campus,’’ said IISc director Prof P Balaram.

Could this have something to do with Bangalore's leadership in the Indian (and world) IT industry? Perhaps some group of terrorists sees their technological emergence as a threat to their religion, or perhaps the heavy influence of Western companies might be rankling some group to attack high-profile Indian scientists?

http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon13.gif

Could this have something to do with Bangalore's leadership in the Indian (and world) IT industry?

It has everything to do with it.

The fact that India has progressed economically due to development from the south despite the constant Paki sponsored terror attacks in the north, bugs the Paki terrorist establishment to no end.

This is to show that the south is not safe and that India has to give concessions (read territory for free) in the ongoing "peace process".

This is blackmail. Pure and simple.

I am suspecting Pakistanis since LeT has IISC included in its hitlist.


Sorry, I had to fix that...because it may not be an insult where you live, but it is a racial slur here, and it made me wince.

In any case...ouch. As will all terror attacks, this is horrible.

It has everything to do with it.

The fact that India has progressed economically due to development from the south despite the constant Paki sponsored terror attacks in the north, bugs the Paki terrorist establishment to no end.

This is to show that the south is not safe and that India has to give concessions (read territory for free) in the ongoing "peace process".

This is blackmail. Pure and simple.

It's horrible. That region is a path to an unprecedented level of economic and social growth in India, and these bastards will murder people and attempt to derail that opportunity just to get some land. Terrorism, especially against things that do huge amounts of good for a country, sickens me to no end.

It has everything to do with it.

The fact that India has progressed economically due to development from the south despite the constant Paki sponsored terror attacks in the north, bugs the Paki terrorist establishment to no end.

This is to show that the south is not safe and that India has to give concessions (read territory for free) in the ongoing "peace process".

This is blackmail. Pure and simple.

Reading the thread with interest, hope to see more :) Dunno who you are or where you're from mate, but can I ask you a favour? leave off the 'paki'-word, huh? You don't need it to make your point, and it just leaves a nasty taste in the mouth :)

Sorry, I had to fix that...because it may not be an insult where you live, but it is a racial slur here, and it made me wince.
He knows. I have explained the point several times. He is quite unrepentant. :rolleyes:

He knows. I have explained the point several times. He is quite unrepentant. :rolleyes:
Really? Ouch. This is the first time I've seen him use that term. What is most ironic is that the term 'paki' is generally used to include East Indians as well (out of sheer ignorance)...and I doubt he'd appreciate the implied relationship.

Good thing there weren't many casualties, India has been pounded with attacks this year.

Let me clarify why I use the term Paki.

A person from Tajikistani is called Tajiki. He does not complain. Uzbekistanis are called Uzbekis, they don't complain. Bangladeshis are called Bengalis, they don't complain. Afghanistanis are called Afghani, they don't mind. Kazhakstanis are called Kazhaks, they don't mind either.

Explain to me why the hell is paki a racist term. Is that not the logical short hand of Pakistani?

When I say Paki, I do not and cannot be racist, because they are my race..brown race..and I too am a "Paki" so to speak.

Like how blacks can use the term n***er without being racist, I too can use the term Paki without being racist.

I have a heck a lot of reasons to bash Pakis without being racist. I don't have to resort to cheap racist insults like that...it is not in me to do that.

What is most ironic is that the term 'paki' is generally used to include East Indians as well (out of sheer ignorance)...and I doubt he'd appreciate the implied relationship.

Yes I know that and I think the term "Paki" is a non-PC word only in UK and maybe Canada...primarily because of them being a PITA wherever they go.

Pakis try to hide under the umbrella of "South Asian" / "Asian" to avoid the stigma of the label "Paki".

Explain to me why the hell is paki a racist term. Is that not the logical short hand of Pakistani?
.

Mate... it's common courtesy. Regardless of the word's _derivation_, it's _become_ a derogatory, dehumanising, stereotype-enforcing term. And so, out of common courtesy, it's very impolite to use it.

I was wondering when the lovefest between India and Pakistan would end. Don't get me wrong, I think the dispute over Kashmir is stupid and dangerous, and I'd love to see it end. But this level of cooperation after such brinkmanship is probably unsustainable. I know India gets attacks like these all the time, but this targets a sensititve area, and will really rankle New Delhi. Expect to see more posturing from both sides, and if this continues, we may even see an Indian nuke tested. As a spectator, it'd be nice. I haven't seen a good nuclear explosion in a long time.

I was wondering when the lovefest between India and Pakistan would end....
I had that discussion with Aryavartha before...regardless of how much of a dick Musharraf is, regardless of how many people get killed in terrorist bombings like this - the status quo is still better than a war.

I had that discussion with Aryavartha before...regardless of how much of a dick Musharraf is, regardless of how many people get killed in terrorist bombings like this - the status quo is still better than a war.
Of course it is. But it's unlikely to remain calm forever. My bet is that we will enter a period of heavy brinkmanship, but hardly a war. At most, we will see a few small skirmishes.

There is already a war going on.

I call it an invasion when a country sends in armed men to another country to kill.

regardless of how many people get killed in terrorist bombings like this - the status quo is still better than a war.

~ 50,000 have died in jihadi war.

Less than 10,000 died on both sides in all 3 and half wars (47, 65, 71 and 99) put together. (Not counting the ~ 3 million Bangladeshis killed by the Pakistani army in 71)

I call it an invasion when a country sends in armed men to another country to kill.
I'd almost think that that sentence started WWI...

~ 50,000 have died in jihadi war.

Less than 10,000 died on both sides in all 3 and half wars (47, 65, 71 and 99) put together. (Not counting the ~ 3 million Bangladeshis killed by the Pakistani army in 71)
What you would be asking for, I take it, is a full-scale invasion, regime change and just general occupation, correct?
Rest assured that that will kill more than 50,000 people. In a short time.
And it will do nothing to actually end Islamist extremism, because these guys actually quite enjoy being turned into martyrs.

What you would be asking for, I take it, is a full-scale invasion, regime change and just general occupation, correct?
Rest assured that that will kill more than 50,000 people. In a short time.
And it will do nothing to actually end Islamist extremism, because these guys actually quite enjoy being turned into martyrs.

No.

Bomb the training camps starting with the LeT headquarters at Muridke.

Regime change is upto the Pakistanis to decide.

No occupation. That country is armed to the teeth. It will be Iraq x 1000.

I somehow think that by not responding/retaliating, we are setting the bar lower.

Let me recall. Our Parliament got attacked. No retaliation. Our state assembly got attacked. No retaliation. Ayodhya temple got attacked. No retaliation. The capital was attacked on Diwali. No retaliation. A premier institute in Bangalore (the engine of growth) got attacked. No retaliation.

That will teach them jihadis.

That will teach them jihadis.
It's hardly an effective policy, we've seen that.
But Musharraf doesn't want to depend on fanatics either - why not work together with him to take his country back? If you need to bomb a training camp (or better still, raid it and put those inside in jail), then do so - but don't risk war over it.

We're on the same side on this, and I would dare say that Musharraf as a person is too.

It's hardly an effective policy, we've seen that.

Seen where? In Iraq?

You know that I am very critical of the Iraq war.

Would you say the same about Afghanistan? Were not the destruction of the taliban training camps effective?

But Musharraf doesn't want to depend on fanatics either

Sez who? Musharraf? Then it must be true right?:rolleyes:

Let me give you the background of Musharraf.

The guy was the blue eyed boy of Zia-ul-Huq who was the architect behind the jihad factory. Under Zia's tutelage, Musharraf even took the help of Osama's arab militias to put down the shia revolt in the 80s (because the Northern light infantry will not do the job, them being raised from that areas and them having significant shia presence and all).

It was this very same Musharraf who used the very same jihadi orgs of LeT and JeM to infiltrate kargil. This very same Musharraf continued the policy of supporting taliban when it was in power in AFG.

Are you saying that he had a honest to God change of heart because Bush told him "you are with us or against us". Of course he will play according to the new rules, but to think that he has changed is stupid.

Whatever happened to "Trust but verify".

Verify what has happened in the four years since 9/11 and you will see why I do not trust that two-faced bastard.

Nothing big has happened other than a few arabs and pashtun goat herds being caught and sent to Gitmo. No less than five #3s have been caught, but nobody of real significance have been caught...which should tell you what sort of game is being played.

I will trust Musharraf when he marches his army into the LeT HQ and puts Prof. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed in jail.

He cannot. Because his own intelligence org, the ISI, is running the show. LeT is not just spawned by ISI. LeT *is* ISI.

- why not work together with him to take his country back? If you need to bomb a training camp (or better still, raid it and put those inside in jail), then do so - but don't risk war over it.

We're on the same side on this, and I would dare say that Musharraf as a person is too.

After all these years, if there is one thing I have realised, it is this.

There is no we. This includes so called "natural ally" and sister democracy, the USA.

Seen where? In Iraq?

You know that I am very critical of the Iraq war.

Would you say the same about Afghanistan? Were not the destruction of the taliban training camps effective?
Oh, I was talking about the current policy of not doing anything. Sorry.
As for the Afghani camps...well, they were just rebuilt in other parts of the world.

I will trust Musharraf when he marches his army into the LeT HQ and puts Prof. Hafiz Mohammed Saeed in jail.

He cannot. Because his own intelligence org, the ISI, is running the show. LeT is not just spawned by ISI. LeT *is* ISI.
Well, that may be a bit too far, but the point is that Pakistan needs a secular leadership to deal with this issue.
Musharraf is as secular as the world can hope for right now, so it would be in "our" interest to support him against this establishment that he cannot or does not want to deal with at this point in time. That does not mean trust, but it does mean that India, the US and anyone else would do best to work with him, rather than against him - it just has to be made clear what the goal is. He couldn't refuse if the question was put before him in any serious manner.
The alternative is likely to be a lot worse.

After all these years, if there is one thing I have realised, it is this.

There is no we. This includes so called "natural ally" and sister democracy, the USA.
That's a rather gloomy outlook, one that I cannot share yet. But we shall see what the future holds for me.

As for the Afghani camps...well, they were just rebuilt in other parts of the world.

Not quite. In the mid nineties there was a heavy influx of well-trained jihadis into Kashmir and they were trained in the Afghanistan camps. Although many some of the camps were relocated in Pakistan after the US bombing, I would say that the destruction of the Afghani camps did bring down the output a bit and every bit helps in this war of attrition.

The resurgence and rebuilding of the camps are mainly due to the US letting go of the cornered Paki-ban elements (Pakistani taliban) , irregulars and regulars, from Kunduz (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE6-3/bahroo.html)

More links on Kunduz airlift.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020128fa_FACT
http://www.rediff.com/us/2002/jan/24ny2.htm

So, it is not a given that camps that are destroyed would automatically and inevitably get rebuilt.

Well, that may be a bit too far, but the point is that Pakistan needs a secular leadership to deal with this issue.
Musharraf is as secular as the world can hope for right now, so it would be in "our" interest to support him against this establishment that he cannot or does not want to deal with at this point in time. That does not mean trust, but it does mean that India, the US and anyone else would do best to work with him, rather than against him - it just has to be made clear what the goal is. He couldn't refuse if the question was put before him in any serious manner.
The alternative is likely to be a lot worse.

I disagree.

I would much rather deal with an islamist directly than a two-faced congenital liar like Musharraf.

Musharraf is neither secular nor an islamist. He is an opportunist. His only way of holding power is to allow space for islamists to target India and then claim that only he is capable of controlling the islamists and the US needs to give him arms and money to help him and India needs to give concessions to help him.

Nice game he has got there. You may fall for it, but not me.

After 9/11 when he decided to join the US camp, he made a speech to the nation to announce the turnaround. What the world saw was the English speech which was all sanitised and goody-goody. He also made a speech in Urdu for domestic audience. He specifically referred to the treaty of Hudaibiya (http://www.pakistan-facts.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20021121102530158) by Mohammed as a justification for his turnaround. We all know what happened to the Jews after Mohammed gained strength.


That's a rather gloomy outlook, one that I cannot share yet. But we shall see what the future holds for me.

Oh you will see it eventually.

Despite the rhetoric and official pronouncements, the USG has no interests in countering and eliminating jihadi terrorism. Their interests are in using this for the project for new American century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). It is essential for USG to keep Musharraf in power. Who cares if a few Indians die every now and then. They got a billion people anyway..:rolleyes:

Update on the incident:

It appears that HUJI (Harkat ul jihad e Islami) has some involvement. HUJI has a Bangladeshi branch. East and south India and south east Asia comes under this branch. Role of Bangledeshis cannot be ruled out.

I won't be surprised since Bangladesh is being increasingly used as operations base and conduit for infiltrating into India.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/dec/19hyd.htm
City Police, announcing the arrest of the suspect, said that that three other accused were absconding and are believed to be in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Mohtasim Billal, who died in the attack, was a suicide bomber.

http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/12/28/d51228012919.htm
The Delhi police have arrested three persons, including a Bangladeshi, claiming yesterday that it has foiled a terror plan to kill some leading politicians and target software parks, market places and railway stations across the country.

Two of the suspects, Hilaluddin from Bangladesh and Bengal-based Nafiqul Biswas, were arrested at Murshidabad when they were exchanging weapons smuggled in from Bangladesh, Joint Commissioner (Special Cell) Karnal Singh told reporters yesterday.

http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/dec/1242316.htm
Pak terror cuts through Bengal

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1336648.cms
Bomber was a Bangladeshi

Bangladesh is now officially East Pakistan. The circle is complete. And to think that my mother gave away her ancestral jewells for the Bangladesh fund (to support a cash strapped Indian army operations in liberating Bangladesh). What a pity.

Despite the rhetoric and official pronouncements, the USG has no interests in countering and eliminating jihadi terrorism. Their interests are in using this for the project for new American century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century).
You might be on to something there- especially seeing how reluctant the US seems to deal with the issue of Iranian nukes.

Let me clarify why I use the term Paki.

A person from Tajikistani is called Tajiki. He does not complain. Uzbekistanis are called Uzbekis, they don't complain. Bangladeshis are called Bengalis, they don't complain. Afghanistanis are called Afghani, they don't mind. Kazhakstanis are called Kazhaks, they don't mind either.

Explain to me why the hell is paki a racist term. Is that not the logical short hand of Pakistani?

When I say Paki, I do not and cannot be racist, because they are my race..brown race..and I too am a "Paki" so to speak.

Like how blacks can use the term n***er without being racist, I too can use the term Paki without being racist.

I have a heck a lot of reasons to bash Pakis without being racist. I don't have to resort to cheap racist insults like that...it is not in me to do that. And that's all fine and dandy. As I mentioned...I wasn't sure it was even a slur where you are from, but it most certainly IS a slur where most of the rest of the posters on this board are from. Equivalent to the n word you tossed in as an example. So, for the sake of not inadvertently offending your readers, could you please use the full name of Pakistani instead? That's all that's being asked of you.

This thread is rather interesting...outside of some sketchy details about the Kashmir conflict, and a bit of historical background on the tensions between India and Pakistan, I am woefully ignorant of what is currently going on there.

My condolences go out to the family of the slain scientist.

May India see justice and peace soon.

Not quite. In the mid nineties there was a heavy influx of well-trained jihadis into Kashmir and they were trained in the Afghanistan camps. Although many some of the camps were relocated in Pakistan after the US bombing, I would say that the destruction of the Afghani camps did bring down the output a bit and every bit helps in this war of attrition.
I guess for Kashmir it helped somewhat, but on a global scale, camps would just have moved to Africa, South East Asia or maybe even Iraq - ultimately, if there is a will there is a way.

So, it is not a given that camps that are destroyed would automatically and inevitably get rebuilt.
But it certainly is possible that at least some would just be relocated. It might be better to get a few squads special forces and storm the camps, capturing the leadership - eventually one would think there may be success in eroding the skill base.

I would much rather deal with an islamist directly than a two-faced congenital liar like Musharraf.
Hey, I don't particularly like military dictatorships in general, and Musharraf in particular.
But surely you'd have to admit that dealing with the Islamists directly, with Musharraf no longer in power, would be a very bloody business.

Pakistan is probably the most dangerous country in the world regarding the Islamist movement. New generations of them are constantly being trained at the Madrassas (against which Musharraf also does nothing, cuz he can't afford, or doesn't want to, create a proper public school system), and much of the country is pretty firmly in the grip of extremists sentiments.
Attacking them will just give you a violent response from millions. Surely it would be better to change the sentiments, replace the preachers of hate at the top, and then hopefully watch the religious establishment in Pakistan change.

Despite the rhetoric and official pronouncements, the USG has no interests in countering and eliminating jihadi terrorism. Their interests are in using this for the project for new American century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century). It is essential for USG to keep Musharraf in power. Who cares if a few Indians die every now and then. They got a billion people anyway..:rolleyes:
You probably have a point - but I for my part am interested in ending this, but in a way that doesn't cost too many lives. Even extremists are people.

This thread is rather interesting...outside of some sketchy details about the Kashmir conflict, and a bit of historical background on the tensions between India and Pakistan, I am woefully ignorant of what is currently going on there.
It actually turns out to be one of the central issues when it comes to this global brand of Islamist Terrorism - but, no, some people had to attack Iraq. Of all places.

I guess for Kashmir it helped somewhat, but on a global scale, camps would just have moved to Africa, South East Asia or maybe even Iraq - ultimately, if there is a will there is a way.

The highlighted part is interesting because that is exactly my point.

Tell me why the USG let go of the cornered paki-bans from Kunduz?

Whose will was lacking there?

To what purpose were known terrorists and possibly (most certainly, in my view) the conspirators of 9/11 were let go when they could have been easily captured and interrogated?

But it certainly is possible that at least some would just be relocated. It might be better to get a few squads special forces and storm the camps, capturing the leadership - eventually one would think there may be success in eroding the skill base.

It is idiotic to think that Musharraf or any military man for that matter would clean up the area.

You are operating under the assumption that Musharraf wants to dismantle the jihad factory.

This assumption is flawed. Hence all your hopes based on that assumption is false hopes.

What he is trying to do is to catch only those who target the west...especially the Americans (not even UK, recall 7/7) and it appears that the US is fine with this as long as the US homeland is not attacked.

This strategy is working. USG is happy and they give toys like Naval armaments and F-16s to Musharraf (to fight Osama apparently :rolleyes: ). Musharraf is happy as long as he can keep Bush happy and get his toys. The islamist faction is happy as long as they get to run their jihad factory and are not blocked from killing Indians. Even the Indian politicians are happy. They get to visit Pakistan now and then and eat biscuits and drink tea.

Everybody is happy. Except the poor Indian civilian who gets blown off in markets and temples and universities. Who cares if a few Indians die here and there? They are statistics. After the usual "severe condemnations" from the usual quarters, they will be duly forgotten.


But surely you'd have to admit that dealing with the Islamists directly, with Musharraf no longer in power, would be a very bloody business.


It is a canard that Pakistan needs military dictatorship to keep islamists in check. There are enough capable Pakistanis who can run the nation if the military is stripped and it goes back to the barracks.

You do not know the extent to which the military occupied the country. They have this thing called Fauji foundation (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_46/b3757138.htm). It is a business enterprise run by the military. This is not like the military-industrial complex of US. This is even more. The military *owns* these companies. Apart from this they have this thing called defence complexes where the military acquires land and gives away plots to the officers. A major in Pakistan would be the richest major in any army of the world. There is a saying that captures this..I think it was Nehru who said this.."Everywhere else countries have armies, but in Pakistan army has a country".

The faster the military rule is over and a representative democracy is in powe, the better. If the elected representative is an islamist, which I doubt very much, it would still be a far better choice than a military dictator.


Attacking them will just give you a violent response from millions. Surely it would be better to change the sentiments, replace the preachers of hate at the top, and then hopefully watch the religious establishment in Pakistan change.

It has been 4 years now since Musharraf proclaimed that he is against terrorism.

What is his track record?

How many hate-preaching madrassas have been closed? Nil

How many jihadi orgs have been dismantled? Nil. He bans them and they change their name and operate.

How many jihadi leaders have been arrested and prosecuted? Nil. Apart from #3s and Pushtun goatherds, nobody of real significance have been caught.

OTOH, we have seen terrorists increading their area of operation and the sheer brazenness.

LeT's attacks since 9/11 include the attack on Indian parliament, Ayodhya temple attack, attack in New Delhi on Diwali, now this attack in Bangalore. There was an attack at Hyderabad (another IT heavyweight city) that I linked above.

Like I said, we are setting the bar lower and lower. Where is the end? What is the redline?

Will you be preaching the same "work with Musharraf" if you had ..say..militant Indonesians claiming a part of Australia and keep blowing up Australians every now and then?

You would say no now, but then you have not experienced terrorism. The day a bomb goes off in your city and the day you had to pick the smattered remains of your friend to cremate, you will say yes.

You probably have a point - but I for my part am interested in ending this, but in a way that doesn't cost too many lives. Even extremists are people.

Terrorists are not people. Note that I am not talking about native insurgencies who have purely military targets. I have no problems with LeT duelling with the army in Kashmir or elsewhere, I consider it guerilla war.

When you know that terrorism will not stop by not retaliating/responding, then it is a practical choice that you go after tham and destroy atleast their installations and training facilities, since this will atleast serve as a deterrant and a setback to further terrorist operations.

If this then escalates into a full blown war, then so be it. It is a choice that the Pakistani establishment has to make. If in that process "innocent" Pakistanis get killed, then it is of no concern to me. I have no responsibility to them.

They, by virtue of not opposing the jihadis amongst them and by funding and supporting the jihadi orgs, are culpable for their crimes.
[dated article detailing how freely jihadis operate in Pakistan and how it is now a conflict economy (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/EK27Df03.html) ..nothing has changed since..please read through that article]

If in this process more Indians will get killed, then it is a decision that we Indians have to make. We and we alone. Nobody else has the right to make our decisions.

UPDATE:

It appears that the Prof died saving his student.

http://telegraphindia.com/1051230/asp/frontpage/story_5661447.asp
Mukesh Chander Puri died trying to protect his student Lalitha from a terrorist’s bullets.

Lalitha’s narration of this final act of bravery has left the math professor’s family and friends emotionally overwhelmed.

..

Back in the house, V.K. Bhalla, Puri’s brother-in-law, related how Lalitha described his final moments.

“Lalitha, who had gone with him to Bangalore, told us that he died while trying to save her life. She was walking in front and when he saw the gunman approach, he just pushed her to the ground and took the bullets himself.

Saurav, who had gone to Bangalore to collect the body, was told that his father had taken two bullets — one just below his right collarbone and another which pierced his lungs, entered his liver and got lodged in the intestine.

Professor emeritus at Delhi IIT, Puri died at a conference he had attended every year for 30 years since it began.

Preliminary reports point to Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Clues from travel bag point to Pak link: Police (http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=84913&headline=Police~find~arms,~a~paper~napkin~with~Urdu~words:~BANGALORE)

Attack in Bangalore has roots in Bangladesh (http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=front%5Fpage&file_name=story5%2Etxt&counter_img=5?headline=Attack~in~Bangalore~has~roots~in~Bangladesh)
Mohammad Ibrahim, the Bangladeshi arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in connection with the blast in Hyderabad, had disclosed during interrogations that IT centres like Bangalore were on the hitlist of leading terror outfit Lashkar-e-Tayyeba.

I guess it all comes down now to the question "What you would do?"
I can't say anymore than that I don't like Musharraf, I don't like the dictatorship.
But a democratic government there would undoubtedly be controlled by the millions and millions of poor people who went through the Madrassa system and will therefore have tendencies towards Islamist thinking.

So what would be your course of action?

The Indian army could attack targets in Pakistan without agreement from the Pakistanis, and that would mean war. Not necessarily with the Islamists, but with an alliance between them and Musharraf's complex. The result would be many tens of thousands (probably more) people dead, on both sides.

The point is to somehow achieve that these camps and the infrastructure of LeT etc can be attacked with an agreement from the Pakistani leadership. That is a very difficult thing to manage, but shouldn't that be the target?

But a democratic government there would undoubtedly be controlled by the millions and millions of poor people who went through the Madrassa system and will therefore have tendencies towards Islamist thinking.

You are again missing the point (I hope not wilfully).

What is the worst an islamist faction in power would do?

Train militants and send them over to kill Indian civilians? Proliferate nuke tech? Mess with Afg?

Don't you realise that all these were done under the military's watch? Right under Musharraf's nose and at his bidding?


So what would be your course of action?

Simple. Give Musharraf just one ultimatum. Either you clean up or we will. No more excuses.

The last time we gave such an ultimatum (after the attack on our parliament), we were prevented from going to war by the Americans. This is what I meant in the earlier post that "it is a decision that we Indians have to make. We and we alone." Musharraf promised that he will no longer allow Pakistani soil to be used for terrorism against India. Americans vouched for Musharraf.

If we had gone in then, we had the element of surprise with us. We could have easily crashed through their defences and atleast taken care of the terror infrastructure on the border areas. Going by past precedence (93,000 of Pak army surrendered in 1971 BD war without a fight), the regime would have surrendered and there would have been atleast a chance for releasing that blighted country from the military stranglehold.

But USG had its uses for Musharraf and wanted to protect his ass. Veiled threats, travel advisories and allegedly even satellite info of Indian troop movement were given. Eventually we accepted American assurances and withdrew from the border.

We are paying the price for that with our blood. Now you know why I said that there is no "we" when it comes to dealing with the terrorism problem.

Now who will tell Prof. Puri's family that it was all a drama and that their beloved died in vain?

The result would be many tens of thousands (probably more) people dead, on both sides.

Again, it is a choice that only Pakistanis and Indians can make. If you are interested in preventing bloodshed, then impress upon the Pakistani establishment to reign in their jihadis. This cannot go on like this.

The point is to somehow achieve that these camps and the infrastructure of LeT etc can be attacked with an agreement from the Pakistani leadership. That is a very difficult thing to manage, but shouldn't that be the target?

Again, you are operating under the assumption that the Pakistani leadership wants to dismantle LeT etc.

You have no basis for that assumption other than Musharraf's words.

And Musharraf's words are not even worth for a piece of sh1t.

Like I said earlier, for all intents and purposes, the jihadi orgs, especially LeT, is not just an org spawned by ISI...it *is* ISI.

What is the worst an islamist faction in power would do?
Go to war with India, openly and with full force of millions and millions of people whipped up by religious fanaticism. Actually use the nukes.
That is worse than what Musharraf has let or realistically could let happen.

Your argument presumes that you'll easily win any war with Pakistan. I'm assuming that you wouldn't have any territorial claims (if that was your reason for all this, I'd be bitterly disappointed) - but still, you should know as well as I do that it's not going to happen.
If India attacks, and they would actually break through, they'd be stuck in an area that will give an entirely new meaning to partisan warfare.

That being said, if the international community (you won't hear me agreeing with Indian unilateral action any more than you will with American unilateral action) can get together and issue such an ultimatum, then that would be a good way of taking action.

But an actual invasion would mean that
a) You would have to destroy the leadership now - which is a deeply ingrained military complex.
b) You couldn't just leave it, because it will not solve the problems, instead you'll get a fanatical failed state just across the border.
c) Therefore you'd have to occupy and rebuild until a democratic government can take over.
Sound familiar?

Reg nukes, it is my belief that Pakistan no longer has operational nukes under sole control. What the Chinese gave, they took away. The remaining ones are under American lock and key in exchange for USG's protection of Pakistani territorial integrity and integrity of Musharraf's ass. We did call their bluff during Op. Parakram. They well and truly panicked.

I'm assuming that you wouldn't have any territorial claims (if that was your reason for all this, I'd be bitterly disappointed) - but still, you should know as well as I do that it's not going to happen.
If India attacks, and they would actually break through, they'd be stuck in an area that will give an entirely new meaning to partisan warfare.

No, no Indian in their right mind would covet any Pakistani land (barring Pakistan occupied Kashmir - which is still constitutionally Indian territory)

We don't have to get stuck. You do not know of the internal dynamics of Pakistan. The islamist inspired terrorism and this military machoism is peculiar only to the Punjab province. The only problematic factions are the sunni/wahabbi islamist Punjabi and the Punjabi dominated army.

In close to two decades of terrorism in Kashmir and elsewhere, there is no involvement of even a single Sindhi or Balochi. They do not share this Kashmir obsession and this India hatred of the Punjabis and Mohajirs (migrants from India).

If given an option both Sindh and Balochistan may go independant. There is already a widespread rebellion going on in Balochistan. There is a big military operation in Kohlu where the Pakistani army has resorted to using gunships to quell the rebellion in what is possibly the only instance in the history of an army using airpower against its own citizenry.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005/12/27/story_27-12-2005_pg1_4
Security forces on Monday destroyed a militant camp in Balochistan, killing up to 15 militants.

Troops backed by helicopter gunships attacked the camp in the Paikal near Dera Bugti and destroyed four vehicles

It's been raging on for a while now. There was an earlier rebellion in early 70s which was brutally putdown. This one will most likely be putdown with scores of Balochis indiscriminately killed. But hey, who's counting. Musharraf needs to stay in power and that is all that matters.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005/12/25/story_25-12-2005_pg7_35
The NWFP Assembly passed a joint resolution on Saturday demanding the federal government halt military operation in Balochistan

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005/12/25/story_25-12-2005_pg1_6
Fierce fighting in Bekar: ‘Several FC troops’ injured in attacks

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/dec2005-daily/25-12-2005/main/main8.htm
Several hurt as Army convoy ambushed

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005/12/23/story_23-12-2005_pg1_4
Two electricity pylons blown up, power to Kohlu suspended

A compilation of news reports from the area
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/search_news.asp?currentpage=13&date1=2000/03/11&date2=2005/12/29&keyword=balochistan#

The Sindhis are a bit more cultured. They protest against Punjabi domination by holding marches.

http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/30/top2.htm
An anti-Kalabagh dam rally here on Thursday declared the controversial project “disastrous” and warned that its construction would mark the beginning of the disintegration of the federation.

“This rally warns military rulers and their stakeholders in Punjab that the construction of the so-called Kalabagh dam would result in the federation falling apart,” a resolution unanimously adopted at the rally organized by the Awami National Party (ANP) said.

There is this other province called NWFP, the so-called lawless tribal areas and it legally belongs to Afghanistan since the Durrand treaty expired in 1995.

Pakistani occupied Kashmir is two parts - so-called Azad Kashmir (Azad = free in urdu) and the shia majority region of Gilgit and Baltistan. Azad Kashmir is one of the most virulently islamist areas of the world, while Gilgit and Baltistan , being shia majority, are not islamist.

The shias in Gilgit and Baltistan also have no love lost for the Pak-Punjabi administration. There is a agitation going on there too and a curfew was imposed for many days

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C11%5C01%5Cstory_1-11-2005_pg7_32
Gilgit curfew enters 19th day

http://www.pakistan-facts.com/article.php?story=20051121204241310
Gilgit had been under curfew since October 13 and according to the figures given by the Institute for Conflict Management in the year 2005, 81 people had lost their lives till October 28.

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2005/kashmir20051114b.html
Trouble has been brewing in this area for quite sometime but ever since March, all hell appears to have been let lose as tension between the locals and non-locals took a turn for the worse.

The non-locals being non-Kashmiri sunni Punjabis and Pushtuns settled there by the establishment to change the demographics.

So, actually, there is a way to avoid all this occupation mess, a la Iraq. Give the provinces their freedom. A cutdown to size Pakistani army and Punjabi islamists can have their land locked Punjab. Sindh will be a successfull nation due to its educated and mercantile population. Balochis never bother anybody as long as they are left alone. The Pushtuns of NWFP can join their brothers across in Afghanistan. Hey that solves another problem. Osama is in NWFP and US can operate in NWFP without hinderance.

Oh well, if wishes were horses..