NationStates Jolt Archive

The planning of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai may have originated in Kashmir. So far there hasn't been a direct link to Pakistan established - according to this associated press report:
Arrests over Mumbai attacks

Manik Banerjee, Mumbai
December 7, 2008
INDIAN police have arrested two men accused of providing mobile phone cards to the gunmen in the Mumbai attacks, the first known arrests since the siege that left more than 160 people dead 11 days ago.

The two men allegedly provided SIM cards to the group of 10 gunmen who staged the attacks, police official Javed Shahim said.

Mr Shahim said one of the men was from the Indian portion of Kashmir.

Indian authorities believe the banned Pakistani-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, which has links to the disputed region of Kashmir, trained the gunmen and plotted the attacks.

The Kashmiri suspect was believed to be a local police officer, according to a police official in Srinagar, Kashmir's biggest city, who declined to be named because the matter was still under investigation.

The arrests could represent further evidence of home-grown ties to the attacks, which would be a blow to Indian officials who have blamed the siege against 10 sites across Mumbai entirely on Pakistani extremists.

Earlier, Indian police said they foiled an attempt to destroy landmarks and wreak havoc in Mumbai early this year, breaking up a cell of Pakistanis and Indians in a plot that also involved Lashkar-e-Taiba.

That suggests the militant group conceived its plan long in advance, and that it has made deeper contacts with radical Indian Muslims than investigators have so far been willing to concede.

One of the men in the foiled plot, Faheem Ahmed Ansari, an Indian from Mumbai, is said to be a possible suspect. Officials said he and five men suspected as co-plotters were initially arrested in connection with an attack on a police station in northern India.

Meanwhile, a hoax phone call from someone claiming to be India's foreign minister put Pakistan on high alert last weekend as relations between the two nuclear powers deteriorated, a Pakistani news report said yesterday.

The caller told Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari that India would take military action if Islamabad did not hand over the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks.

AP, NEW YORK TIMES

The AP is part of a concerted attempt to paint this issue as 'home-grown' instead of what it is - a brazen attack by Pakistanis from Pakistan for Pakistan's interests.

what the fuck is a "the first known arrests since the siege" ? One of the attackers himself has been captured. Why is there no highlighting of that terrorist and his origins in the AP report?

A BBC urdu report on a BBC reporter visiting the killer's hometown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/12/081205_faridkot_village_visited.shtml

English report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/mumbai-terrorism-india-pakistan

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pakistan_to_take_action_against_LeT_Report/articleshow/3802793.cms
Pak agrees to 48-hour timetable for action against LeT: Report


Of course, this is homegrown. That's why Pakistanis are so squirming.

Give me a fucking break.:rolleyes:

Oh let the sun beat down upon my face, stars to fill my dream
I am a traveler of both time and space, to be where I have been
To sit with elders of the gentle race, this world has seldom seen
They talk of days for which they sit and wait and all will be revealed

Talk and song from tongues of lilting grace, whose sounds caress my ear
But not a word I heard could I relate, the story was quite clear
Oh, oh.

Oh, I been flying... mama, there aint no denyin
Ive been flying, aint no denyin, no denyin

All I see turns to brown, as the sun burns the ground
And my eyes fill with sand, as I scan this wasted land
Trying to find, trying to find where Ive been.

Oh, pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, like thoughts inside a dream
Heed the path that led me to that place, yellow desert stream
My shangri-la beneath the summer moon, I will return again
Sure as the dust that floats high and true, when movin through kashmir.

Oh, father of the four winds, fill my sails, across the sea of years
With no provision but an open face, along the straits of fear
Ohh.

When Im on, when Im on my way, yeah
When I see, when I see the way, you stay-yeah

Ooh, yeah-yeah, ooh, yeah-yeah, when Im down...
Ooh, yeah-yeah, ooh, yeah-yeah, well Im down, so down
Ooh, my baby, oooh, my baby, let me take you there


Oh, that wasn't what you were talking about when you said "Kashmir", was it?

what the fuck is a "the first known arrests since the siege" ? One of the attackers himself has been captured. Why is there no highlighting of that terrorist and his origins in the AP report?

A BBC urdu report on a BBC reporter visiting the killer's hometown.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/12/081205_faridkot_village_visited.shtml

English report
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/mumbai-terrorism-india-pakistan

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pakistan_to_take_action_against_LeT_Report/articleshow/3802793.cms
Pak agrees to 48-hour timetable for making a plan of action against LeT: Report


Of course, this is homegrown. That's why Pakistanis are so squirming.

Give me a fucking break.:rolleyes:

Fixed.

Seriously now. No invading Pakistan. Wars started over accustations of terrorism don't turn out well.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp996.htm
Treasury Targets LET Leadership

Washington - The U.S. Department of the Treasury today designated four individuals that hold leadership positions in Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LET), a Pakistan-based terrorist group with links to Usama bin Ladin and the al Qaida network.

Yes yes, the LeT is "home-grown"...with their home in Pakistan.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/57251.html
Pakistani villagers confirm it's the home of Mumbai killer

FARIDKOT, near Depalpur, Pakistan — The lone gunman captured alive by Indian police during last week's terrorist attack on Mumbai comes from a dirt-poor village in Pakistan's southern Punjab region where a banned Islamist group has been actively recruiting young men for "jihad," according to residents of the village and official records seen by McClatchy Newspapers.

Ajmal Ameer Kasab, the dark haired 21-year-old man arrested by Indian authorities in the first hours of the assault -- in which over 170 people died -- left the village four years ago, several residents said. He would return once a year to see small family home and one villager recalled him talking about freeing the Muslim-dominated region of Kashmir from India.

..

Hafiz Saeed, founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba, had visited the nearby town of Depalpur to give speeches, where there were "hundreds" of supporters, locals said. There was a Lashkar-e-Taiba office in Depalpur but that was hurriedly closed in the last few days, they said.

Clearly home-grown. Well proved Collectivity. Keep it up.

http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp996.htm
Yes yes, the LeT is "home-grown"...with their home in Pakistan



On a side note why is the Treasury dealing with foreign terrorism. Surely it has enough financial problems to deal with?

Fixed.

Seriously now. No invading Pakistan. Wars started over accustations of terrorism don't turn out well.

That is a decision we Indians have to make. Not you.

Fixed.

Seriously now. No invading Pakistan. Wars started over accustations of terrorism don't turn out well.

like anyone ever learns from others mistakes

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Pakistan_link_to_Mumbai_attacks_evident_Obamas_adviser/rssarticleshow/3798295.cms
..That the LeT was behind the Mumbai attack is now virtually beyond doubt. Just this week, US director of national intelligence Mike McConnell blamed LeT for the attack, the first time a US official publicly blamed the group...

Clearly a liar this Mike McConnell.

AL: quote from same report
Echoing him, Riedel said, "This is a group that was founded in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the assistance of the ISI and with the assistance of Osama bin Laden, who was an important early fundraiser for the group. Osama's then spiritual mentor, a Palestinian named Abdullah Azam, was one of the charter members in the creation of the LeT. It was formally announced as an organization in Afghanistan's Kunar province, long a stronghold of Al Qaeda."

He added, "This was an extraordinary radical movement to begin with, and, over the last decade, it has become increasingly radical. It does not seek simply the end of the Indian occupation of Kashmir or to create an Islamic state in Muslim majority parts of South Asia, rather it seeks the creation of a caliphate to dominate all of South Asia well into Central Asia, something akin in its mind to a recreation of the Mughal Empire."


Bruce Reidel too...liars all of them. Poor Pakistan. So innocent. Bad India. Bad bad India trying to accuse Pakistan.

Ugh. I dislike this war at all costs mentality. Especially when BOTH SIDES have nukes.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/06mumterror-us-says-if-pakistan-does-not-act-it-will-act.htm

Condi Rice being a liar here.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/06mumterror-european-parliament-slams-pakistan.htm

In a stinging indictment of Pakistan, European Parliament has said there is 'confirmed evidence' about the country hosting several terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and criminal mastermind Dawood Ibrahim [Images] and using them as an instrument of terrorism against India.

Against the backdrop of the Mumbai attacks, the Parliament of the 27-nation grouping asked Pakistan to take urgent action to 'transform its polity to prevent the continuing calls for violent jihad against its neighbours and its partners'.

The Parliament, in a declaration adopted in Brussels on Friday, said, "Despite a democratic government in Pakistan, there is confirmed evidence of Pakistan hosting several terrorist groups and using them as an instrument of terrorism, particularly against India."

It further said, "Despite Pakistan's claim of participating in the war against terror, it continues to host terrorist leaders of the Khalistani Movement, Hizb-uld Mujahideen [Images], Lashkar-e-Taiba and criminal masterminds like Dawood Ibrahim, who live and operate freely."

The European parliament too...but we all know they are liars too...bent upon maligning the good name of "land of pure" (Pakistan) and its cuddly, warm and fuzzy folks of "army of the pious" (LeT). I mean, the last time a nation wanted to be "pure"..it turned out to be so great for its neighbors..I do not understand what's the fuzz all about.

So, Aryavartha, does this mean you have given up wanting to see targeted assassinations against individuals in the Pak government in order to effect regime change and moved on to advocating all-out war without any further investigation or fact-finding?

I ask, because in the other thread on this topic, you sort of left it at the murders-for-politics level, and the last thing I said to you was that could have a negative impact on India, but then that discussion dropped from the front pages. So can I take it you are no longer interested in establishing a better civilian government in Pakistan, and now you just want to comply with the wishes of the terrorists and start a war?

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/06mumterror-us-says-if-pakistan-does-not-act-it-will-act.htm

Condi Rice being a liar here.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/dec/06mumterror-european-parliament-slams-pakistan.htm



The European parliament too...but we all know they are liars too...bent upon maligning the good name of "land of pure" (Pakistan) and its cuddly, warm and fuzzy folks of "army of the pious" (LeT). I mean, the last time a nation wanted to be "pure"..it turned out to be so great for its neighbors..I do not understand what's the fuzz all about.

Wait... what? What's your point here? Pakistan is harbouring terrorists? Pakistan's government is weak and ineffectual? Indian-Pakistani relations are near rock bottom? I cannot comprehend your poorly directed ramblings.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/07/stories/2008120757500100.htm
ISLAMABAD: United States Senator John McCain has said there is enough evidence of the involvement of former Inter-Services Intelligence officers in the planning and execution of the Mumbai attacks.

If Pakistan did not act swiftly to arrest the people involved, the Senator said, India would be left with no option but to conduct aerial operations against select targets in Pakistan.

McCain too..goddamn it..but we all know he is a an old fool.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/12/07/stories/2008120757500100.htm


McCain too..goddamn it..but we all know he is a an old fool.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? Which of the claims in your source are you disagreeing with and do you have other sources to support this?

Wait... what? What's your point here? Pakistan is harbouring terrorists? Pakistan's government is weak and ineffectual? Indian-Pakistani relations are near rock bottom? I cannot comprehend your poorly directed ramblings.

I am sorry...I cannot come up with well thought out and well reasoned arguments like "Wars started over accustations [sic] of terrorism".

You see...you have clearly established that it is merely the Indians being their petty selves...accusing Pakistan. This is clearly a 'home-grown' issue like the AP reported.

I am sorry...I cannot come up with well thought out and well reasoned arguments like "Wars started over accustations [sic] of terrorism".

You see...you have clearly established that it is merely the Indians being their petty selves...accusing Pakistan. This is clearly a 'home-grown' issue like the AP reported.
Actually, what I think we've established is that you are completely uninterested in discussing the matter at all, and would rather just shut down all questions about it with this melodramatic playacting. It's like being at dinner with my family. :rolleyes: You are not debating or even providing information at all.

I am sorry...I cannot come up with well thought out and well reasoned arguments like "Wars started over accustations [sic] of terrorism".

You see...you have clearly established that it is merely the Indians being their petty selves...accusing Pakistan. This is clearly a 'home-grown' issue like the AP reported.

hey you leave those poor Muslims alone.

Only Christians and Jews are allowed to accuse any Muslim state or organization of sponsoring terrorism.

Actually, what I think we've established is that you are completely uninterested in discussing the matter at all, and would rather just shut down all questions about it with this melodramatic playacting. It's like being at dinner with my family. :rolleyes: You are not debating or even providing information at all.

We've also established I can't spell which is extremely relevant to the discussion.

So, Aryavartha, does this mean you have given up wanting to see targeted assassinations against individuals in the Pak government in order to effect regime change and moved on to advocating all-out war without any further investigation or fact-finding?

WHAT FACTS?

I am sick and tired of this "proving Pakistan sponsors terror".

80,000 people dead till now since 1989 and we still have to prove Pakistan sponsors terrorism.

Fuck off all of you.

and now you just want to comply with the wishes of the terrorists and start a war?

Clearly, not complying to their wishes by rolling over and dying has helped us so much. So much so that India is only next to Iraq in terrorism related deaths. I am sure the terrorists are quaking in their salwars over this resolute response by India.

We've also established I can't spell which is extremely relevant to the discussion.
It's the most important factor of the entire issue. Really quite decisive, I'd say.

Or something like that, I guess.

You are not debating or even providing information at all.

I am sorry that there are not enough information provided with this round of jihadi attacks.

Be patient sir. In a few months, there will be another attack and I will make sure I collect all information promptly. We can then analyse and do "fact-finding" all we want.

WHAT FACTS?

I am sick and tired of this "proving Pakistan sponsors terror".

80,000 people dead till now since 1989 and we still have to prove Pakistan sponsors terrorism.

Fuck off all of you.
Yeah, and verbally attacking everyone else in the world who even questions what your next step should be and whether war is the right choice or not is really making you look as if you've thought things through. Sure it is.

Hey, I know, why don't you shut us all up by calling us traitor and asking us over and over why we hate freedom? Then you can open up a extra-legal prison in Cuba and do whatever you want there with no one bothering you about it. And you can gut your own legal system to show how on top of things you are. And then you can rename some snack known as Paki Toast (or something) Freedom Toast. And then you can just start shooting anyone and everyone who gets in your way. And that'll REALLY show those bastards. Just like it showed al qaeda.

Oh, wait...

No, don't wait. You're India, after all, so when you do it, it will work! We're all just assholes trying to bust your chops because we love terror and hate freedom. Not because we're concerned for India's future or about nuclear war or proliferation. Nope, it's not that at all.

Clearly, not complying to their wishes by rolling over and dying has helped us so much. So much so that India is only next to Iraq in terrorism related deaths. I am sure the terrorists are quaking in their salwars over this resolute response by India.
In other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

In other words, you are willing to become terrorists yourselves? And how should the rest of the world respond to that, do you think?

I am sorry that there are not enough information provided with this round of jihadi attacks.

Be patient sir. In a few months, there will be another attack and I will make sure I collect all information promptly. We can then analyse and do "fact-finding" all we want.
Can you play any other notes on that sarcasm flute?

I don't get you people. When America decided to have it's adventures in the Middle East, it was based on a pack of lies. Plenty of reason to oppose it then. India on the other hand has actual, legitimate gripes and death tolls which can be attributed to Pakistan, which is at the very least, unwilling to do anything about it. Why are you all declaring that India cannot be allowed to respond equally to actual acts of war by using the example of American actions based on fabricated acts of war as a reason?

All you're arguments for inaction, since I don't see any suggestion of courses of action, amount to rolling over and hoping that the next attack won't put you in the morgue.

I don't get you people. When America decided to have it's adventures in the Middle East, it was based on a pack of lies. Plenty of reason to oppose it then. India on the other hand has actual, legitimate gripes and death tolls which can be attributed to Pakistan, which is at the very least, unwilling to do anything about it. Why are you all declaring that India cannot be allowed to respond equally to actual acts of war by using the example of American actions based on fabricated acts of war as a reason?

All you're arguments for inaction, since I don't see any suggestion of courses of action, amount to rolling over and hoping that the next attack won't put you in the morgue.
I would be very interested to see you point out one single argument for inaction proposed by anyone you are meaning to criticize on this topic. In fact, I would be very interested to see you point out a single real argument for action, too, since I have seen nothing but the Indian version of "YEAH!!! GET THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS! RAWR!!!", and on the opposite side, a bunch of "But what if 'getting' them doesn't work, then what will you do?" and "But what if it was another group of motherfuckers; how will 'getting' these motherfuckers affect those other motherfuckers?"

I don't propose a course of action because I have gone on record as saying that the India-Pakistan conflict is a very complicated problem and I do not know what would solve it. But that does not stop me from listening to the pro-war arguments and concluding that they sound like they would only cause more problems than they might solve.

It also doesn't stop me from calling Aryavartha on his/her attempts to shut down discussion rather than engage it.

I would be very interested to see you point out one single argument for inaction proposed by anyone you are meaning to criticize on this topic.

"You can't do this! It's bad!" and then saying nothing about what you can, sounds very much like an argument for inaction.


In fact, I would be very interested to see you point out a single real argument for action, too,


Since you mentioned out of thread stances, I also point you towards the out of thread (the original Mumbai bombing thread) courses of action that were covered, all of which could work, but would constitute an act of war. No courses of action were offered that did not constitute an act of war, aside from one "stay the course" suggestion.

:mad::mad:http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/hp996.htm


Yes yes, the LeT is "home-grown"...with their home in Pakistan.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/57251.html


Clearly home-grown. Well proved Collectivity. Keep it up.

Dear Aryavartha, I wasn't PROVING anything. I was merely quoting Associated Press whom I believe to be a genuine source that suggested no hard evidence to tie in Pakistan (YET) but that there was evidence to connect Kashmir. If one of the terrorists was Pakistani, then that is some evidence to suggest a connection to Pakistan BUT there is yet to be any hard evidence to connect the Pakistani government.

Gee you Hindus are hot-headed (JOKE, Aryavartha! JOKE!):p

"You can't do this! It's bad!" and then saying nothing about what you can, sounds very much like an argument for inaction.
I am not responsible for what you choose to imagine. If you have no examples of anyone saying "It would be better to do nothing," then you have no examples of an argument for inaction. What you have are calls for better action suggestions.

Or perhaps you blame some of us because we are not as cavalierly willing to say what should be done about such a dangerous and complex situation as some others are?

Since you mentioned out of thread stances, I also point you towards the out of thread (the original Mumbai bombing thread) courses of action that were covered, all of which could work, but would constitute an act of war. No courses of action were offered that did not constitute an act of war, aside from one "stay the course" suggestion.
And if you wish, in this conversation, to merge those two threads, I will remind you that I and several others disputed the assertion that such courses of action "could work" on the grounds that they've never worked before when tried by other countries (assuming "worked" means brought an end to conflict).

I fail to see how it is better to offer a plan that has proven to be ineffective or even counterproductive than to admit that one does not know what would best solve this particular situation. After all, not knowing what would work does not stop a person from knowing that something else won't work. I don't have to know how to split an atom to know I can't do it with a hammer. And I don't have to know how to resolve the India-Pakistan conflict to judge that launching a war will likely only make it worse for many, many more years.

:mad::mad:

Dear Aryavartha, I wasn't PROVING anything. I was merely quoting Associated Press whom I believe to be a genuine source that suggested no hard evidence to tie in Pakistan (YET) but that there was evidence to connect Kashmir. If one of the terrorists was Pakistani, then that is some evidence to suggest a connection to Pakistan BUT there is yet to be any hard evidence to connect the Pakistani government.

Gee you Hindus are hot-headed (JOKE, Aryavartha! JOKE!):p
A connection to Pakistan is, I think, obvious, especially since there is (as I had assumed there would be) a Kashmir connection.

But a connection to the Pakistani government and what kind of a connection are entirely different questions. I do not dispute anything Aryavartha has said about Pakistan's history of involvement terrorist actions within India as part of the ongoing dispute over Kashmir. However, I do dispute on the grounds of a lack of evidence, that terrorist actions outside of Kashmir itself are supported directly by Pakinstani government policy, rather than by rogue individuals within the government acting in concert with completely non-governmental (and not even necessarily Pakistani) jihadist groups operating with impunity throughout Pakistan. Nor am I ready to accept his apparent belief that the Pakistani government could do anything about the jihadist groups even if it wants to. I am not convinced the Pakistani government is that strong or has that much control over its country.

Also, the question of what India should do about it is another, entirely separate question, regardless of any of the above issues.

That's my view of it.

Thank you for cool and reasoned response (as usual) Muravyets. The Pakistani bomb blast that killed 17 prole (posted elsewhere) could be blamed on India - but nobody is. People assume this to be the work of Al Queda until proven otherwise. Of course, we all rely on the media that we trust for our information on this sort of thing.

Another audacious act done by..... here it says "The Taliban" in Pakistan.
Pakistan militants torch 65 NATO trucks
Posted 23 minutes ago


Taliban militants launched a pre-dawn raid on a NATO terminal in Pakistan, torching 65 trucks carrying supplies for troops in Afghanistan and killing a guard, police said.

Around 250 armed militants surrounded the terminal outside the north-western city of Peshawar and disarmed about a dozen security guards before dousing the trucks in petrol and setting them alight, they said.

"They stormed the main terminal and set ablaze each and every truck parked there," one police official said.

One of the guards was shot and killed during the incident, senior police officer Abdul Qadir Qamar said.

He said the trucks were loaded with supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The insurgents, who had stolen the petrol from a nearby gas station, fled when police arrived at the scene, Mr Qamar added.

The attack came less than a week after Taliban militants destroyed a dozen trucks in Peshawar containing supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan, killing two people in the process.

I am not responsible for what you choose to imagine. If you have no examples of anyone saying "It would be better to do nothing," then you have no examples of an argument for inaction. What you have are calls for better action suggestions.

There weren't calls for better suggestion either, if you want to get down to specifics. Only criticisms of existing suggestions.


And if you wish, in this conversation, to merge those two threads, I will remind you that I and several others disputed the assertion that such courses of action "could work" on the grounds that they've never worked before when tried by other countries (assuming "worked" means brought an end to conflict).

Are you seriously trying to say that all such conflicts have the same underpinnings and same resistances to methods of stopping it?

In either case, blockades have not been tried before for such scenarios, the least directly bloody method that was proposed. Cessation of military and financial imports have not been tried either. Specific assassinations on the other hand, have had mixed results in the history of conflict.


I fail to see how it is better to offer a plan that has proven to be ineffective or even counterproductive than to admit that one does not know what would best solve this particular situation.

Because if a square peg fails to fit in a round hole, it will never fit in any sort of hole whatsoever, oh no.

You admit that the situation at hand is far more complex than you know, but at the same time, know what will not work, no matter what the circumstances are. That is odd to say the least.

Can you prove your statement that it would not work?

I understand that the question of Pakistan is not simple. I understand that there are at least three factions at play there with their own agendas (Government, ISI and Taliban). But what I do not understand is your insistence that there is no intermingling between the three factions or sharing of interests and resources when their goals coincide.

There weren't calls for better suggestion either, if you want to get down to specifics. Only criticisms of existing suggestions.
Fine, if you want it that way. However you still have no arguments for doing nothing.

Are you seriously trying to say that all such conflicts have the same underpinnings and same resistances to methods of stopping it?
That depends -- did I say that? *checks posts again* Hm, no I didn't say it. Then I guess I wasn't trying to say it, either.

In either case, blockades have not been tried before for such scenarios, the least directly bloody method that was proposed. Cessation of military and financial imports have not been tried either. Specific assassinations on the other hand, have had mixed results in the history of conflict.
A) There is a difference between an act of war and the imposition of economic and trade sanctions. It is not necessary to commit an act of war to impose sanctions. So your earlier assertion that all the proposed actions would be acts of war is not correct.

B) Neither non-act-of-war sanctions nor outright war itself have ever done a damned thing to stop illegal imports and financial dealings, so I fail to see what particular value they would have, especially since the jihadists are not actually agents of the Pakistani government and there is no evidence whatsoever that they are dependent for their financial, material or logistical support on the Pakistani government itself or even that they get most of it from within Pakistan even now.

C) Even if a blockade would be effective, how do you propose for India to blockade the uncontrolled/uncontrollable mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan? (Btw, is "blockade" the right word for the shutting down of a land border?) India can impose all the sanctions it wants and clamp down on Pakistani trade all it wants -- there is nothing to stop or even slow down a steady flow of arms, fighters and money in and out of Pakistan across those mountains. I challenge you to show even one example from any point in history of anyone succeeding in "blockading" that region. Ask the British, ask the Russians, ask the fucking Pentagon, how doable that is.

D) Targeted assassinations only work if you kill the right people. Based on what I have seen of the situation, I see nothing that convinces me that regime change in Pakistan is going to make any difference at all to anti-India terrorism coming out of that country at the present time.


Because if a square peg fails to fit in a round hole, it will never fit in any sort of hole whatsoever, oh no.
You have yet to persuade me it will fit into THIS hole.

You admit that the situation at hand is far more complex than you know, but at the same time, know what will not work, no matter what the circumstances are. That is odd to say the least.

Can you prove your statement that it would not work?
Can I prove something will happen in the future? No, and neither can you.

But can I compare current conditions to the past performance of the suggested course of action under other similar conditions and, based on that, make a judgment that I do not think the suggested course will work this time either? Yes, I can do that.

I understand that the question of Pakistan is not simple. I understand that there are at least three factions at play there with their own agendas (Government, ISI and Taliban). But what I do not understand is your insistence that there is no intermingling between the three factions or sharing of interests and resources when their goals coincide.
What I don't understand is how you find the thread of any conversation out of the mishmash of statements and arguments you only imagine other people make. I never said anything even remotely resembling what you outline above.

Yeah, and verbally attacking everyone else in the world who even questions what your next step should be and whether war is the right choice or not is really making you look as if you've thought things through. Sure it is.

Hey, I know, why don't you shut us all up by calling us traitor and asking us over and over why we hate freedom? Then you can open up a extra-legal prison in Cuba and do whatever you want there with no one bothering you about it. And you can gut your own legal system to show how on top of things you are. And then you can rename some snack known as Paki Toast (or something) Freedom Toast. And then you can just start shooting anyone and everyone who gets in your way. And that'll REALLY show those bastards. Just like it showed al qaeda.

Oh, wait...

No, don't wait. You're India, after all, so when you do it, it will work! We're all just assholes trying to bust your chops because we love terror and hate freedom. Not because we're concerned for India's future or about nuclear war or proliferation. Nope, it's not that at all.


In other words, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

In other words, you are willing to become terrorists yourselves? And how should the rest of the world respond to that, do you think?


Hey, if he wants India to invade Pakistan, what the fuck ever. As long as the US doesnt get involved. I dont give a fuck.

If India wants to ignore everything else that comes their way in favor of attacking Pakistan, well, their irrationality is not my problem.

Its funny, youd imagine India might take the US's word on this. Having very recent first hand experiance of what happens when you let your government attack a country on very flimsy pretext.

Of course, Pakistan has nukes. And an army that wont just roll over and take it.

Hey, if he wants India to invade Pakistan, what the fuck ever. As long as the US doesnt get involved. I dont give a fuck.

If India wants to ignore everything else that comes their way in favor of attacking Pakistan, well, their irrationality is not my problem.
It kinda is if we're talking about to nuclear-armed states in an already distable region of the world. It's not as if the effects of any major conflict between India and Pakistan would be confined to their borders.

It kinda is if we're talking about to nuclear-armed states in an already distable region of the world. It's not as if the effects of any major conflict between India and Pakistan would be confined to their borders.

Provided its convetionally armed, it would be. Chances are other countries would be involved in the negotiation process.

Both governments are too rational to launch nukes.

What side would the Taliban back?

Provided its convetionally armed, it would be. Chances are other countries would be involved in the negotiation process.

Both governments are too rational to launch nukes.
I agree with Chumbly. The two governments are not the only two factions involved, and none of the others have shown themselves to be rational at all, nor do they confine their activities to those two places. The world does have a stake in trying to prevent all-out war there, imo.

Both governments are too rational to launch nukes.
They were damn close a few years back.

They were damn close a few years back.

I recall they won the IgNobel peace prize for it.