Indian Response to Terrorism

Bade
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7212
Joined: 23 May 2002 11:31
Location: badenberg in US administered part of America

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Bade » 10 Dec 2008 08:29

Remember, Krishna waited for the 101st evil act by Sishupala (?) before severing his head with the Chakra. So, have patience folks. The thresholds are not crossed yet.

samuel.chandra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 06:11

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby samuel.chandra » 10 Dec 2008 08:56

BJP needs to make its stand against terrorism clear (its a clear win for them, if congress falters). They should come out with a clear statement that everytime there is a terror attack, India under BJP will respond with punitive military strikes and will maintain a strong anti-terror covert-ops active against pakistan. The problem with BJP is that, they think the Indian public are fools. They want to be as vague as possible so they could change their stand if needed. Indians citizens want a clear statement from BJP wrt terror. There are still 6 months to election. They need to beat the terror drums loud to make sure that even if congress acts, it looks like they did it because of BJP's pressure. They will be foolish not to exploit this situation.

Petition to force politicians to act against pakistan:
http://www.petitiononline.com/MUMx2611/petition.html


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Poll ... 815005.cms


Poll fallout: Blame game begins in BJP
10 Dec 2008, 0340 hrs IST, TNN
Print Email Discuss Share Save Comment Text:
NEW DELHI: After the poll setback in Rajasthan and Delhi, murmurs of dissent and recrimination are growing louder in BJP, as the party faces the
task of recasting its principal planks of terrorism and price rise ahead of what now looks like a very open Lok Sabha election next April.

The disappointment at failing to decisively trump Congress surfaced at the meeting of the BJP parliamentary board on Monday with party veteran Murli Manohar Joshi criticising the manner in which the campaign was run in the two states and "lack of coordination" that marred its prospects.

The rumbling over the slip-ups that led to the poll defeats was evident soon after the results began to come in. And while Joshi's comments are seen as his way of getting back at arch rival L K Advani whose projection as PM-in-waiting he has not reconciled with, the view that BJP's wounds are self-inflicted has more than a few takers.

With BJP stumbling in the "semi-finals", Joshi might be tempted to feel that the pecking order in the party can yet be reworked. He would not be only one as other leaders might also see an opportunity to assert themselves at a time when the central leadership appears a house divided. Differences have hardly been bridged with the official faction seeing the electoral jolt as an opportunity to assert its control over the party.

In Rajasthan, the meddling of central leaders and RSS lobbying is seen to have been a factor in BJP's ticket distribution being flawed. If Vasundhara Raje was seen to be a somewhat aloof chief minister, her task was not made easier with tickets being in several seats being allotted primarily out of factional considerations, often at the cost of influential local leaders. BJP spokesperson Prakash Javdekar described the inability to curb rebels as "hit wicket in Rajasthan".

BJP leader M Venkaiah Naidu was election in-charge of both Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. While he was able to oversee a smooth operation in MP, the Rajasthan situation was compounded by the assertive manner in which the state organisation and Sangh placed their demands.

The defeat in Delhi is rankling and the knives seem to be out with former minister Vijay Goel, who had felt sidelined during the campaign, saying that the party had "lost a golden opportunity and suffered a setback". He had been unhappy over the choice of candidates and opposed nominees like trader leader Praveen Khandelwal in Chandni Chowk. Naidu said, "It was time for analysis and candidate selection had caused a lot of damage."

BJP president Rajnath Singh said local issues had prevailed in the Delhi polls, and sought to brush off criticism of projecting V K Malhotra for CM by saying that voters had made up their minds long before the polls. Ravi Shankar Prasad, who was election in-charge of Chhattisgarh, said a "younger CM candidate (Malhotra is 78) may have helped." Referring to Arun Jaitley who oversaw the Delhi campaign as a "good friend", Prasad said, "Jaitley could have been a better candidate."

Though BJP was able to retain two big states like Chhattisgarh and MP, there is a strong feeling that the party blew its chances in Delhi and Rajasthan. The Capital is seen as a valuable prize and a win would have been a major morale booster as BJP which sees the city as being receptive to saffron politics since the days of Jan Sangh.

There is a realisation that the party will have to go back to the drawing board in order to make its message on terrorism much more credible. The party divisions and confused response on the Hindu radicals arrested for the Malegaon blasts as well as it last-minute bid to encash the Mumbai attacks have created a huge hole in its credentials.

GopalVaidya
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 4
Joined: 18 Nov 2008 05:03

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby GopalVaidya » 10 Dec 2008 08:58

NRao wrote:Mr. Friedman is all goofed up.

In an interview published this Sunday in The New York Times, we laid out a potential scenario for the current Indo-Pakistani crisis. We began with an Indian strike on Pakistan, precipitating a withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the Afghan border, resulting in intensified Taliban activity along the border and a deterioration in the U.S. position in Afghanistan, all culminating in an emboldened Iran. The scenario is not unlikely, assuming India chooses to strike.




What happens if India launches a strike?

Friedman is pointing at one possible scenario and not a very likely one either. There is a lot for the US to gain from a limited conflict. One conclusion that at least some US experts came to was that a golden opportunity was lost in 2002 when India mobilized its forces and US failed to exert enough pressure on Pakistan. This is the same opportunity repeated all over again and now we get to see what each party does differently this time. There appears to be a convergence of interests between US and India on the need to seize this opportunity. There may still be a divergence in the extent of retaliation if Pakistan does not do "enough" and there may also be a divergence on what "enough" is.

A limited strike by India on Pakistani soil, would have serious consequences for Pakistan. They would have to respond or loose face (a serious problem for the Islamic mindset). If they don't respond, they would feel that a significant precedent would be created and that they would be vulnerable in future. Of course, any response by Pakistan would require a proportionally greater response by India forcing Pakistan to relocate forces to the eastern border.

However, if Pakistan moves its forces to the border, it would simply make it easier for American and Afghan forces to conduct operations across the border. More importantly, it would allow the warlords in FATA and NWFP to consolidate their position and remove the last vestiges of Pakistani control. Peshawar would certainly be in serious jeopardy in this scenario. In all likelihood, the nascent democracy movement would be snuffed out (it is not real in any case). India would also have to ensure that the war/skirmishes go on just long enough so that Pakistan takes a serious hit. Hostilities would then also add to the economic leverage that the US has with Pakistan.

India has to weigh all this against the economic and social cost of the war. Pakistan would certainly resort to the use of terror against soft targets all over the country. The danger for all sides is that it could escalate to a nuclear exchange where not just India and Pakistan are affected but others like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and China are also pulled in. At this point, nobody appears to be anticipating that.

For the US it is a great opportunity because it provides tremendous leverage over Pakistan prior to the hostilities, during any hostilities and later after the hostilities. For India, it is an opportunity because it creates the possibility of real change in Pakistan (with or without war). It is also an opportunity for the Islamists to increase their power within Pakistan.

samuel.chandra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 06:11

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby samuel.chandra » 10 Dec 2008 09:10

GopalVaidya, you are spot on. US until now has been Guboing to the pakis and the pakis understand the levers it has (transportation route to afghanistan). They do not understand that by buckling under pressure, they will not gain anything from the pakis. If they join up with India, pakis will deliver everyone including Osama to save their ass. Pakis are desperate so they are trying to scare the americans... and they are falling for it. Gubo to pakis... chee.. chee.. chee.

GopalVaidya wrote:
NRao wrote:Mr. Friedman is all goofed up.

In an interview published this Sunday in The New York Times, we laid out a potential scenario for the current Indo-Pakistani crisis. We began with an Indian strike on Pakistan, precipitating a withdrawal of Pakistani troops from the Afghan border, resulting in intensified Taliban activity along the border and a deterioration in the U.S. position in Afghanistan, all culminating in an emboldened Iran. The scenario is not unlikely, assuming India chooses to strike.




What happens if India launches a strike?

Friedman is pointing at one possible scenario and not a very likely one either. There is a lot for the US to gain from a limited conflict. One conclusion that at least some US experts came to was that a golden opportunity was lost in 2002 when India mobilized its forces and US failed to exert enough pressure on Pakistan. This is the same opportunity repeated all over again and now we get to see what each party does differently this time. There appears to be a convergence of interests between US and India on the need to seize this opportunity. There may still be a divergence in the extent of retaliation if Pakistan does not do "enough" and there may also be a divergence on what "enough" is.

A limited strike by India on Pakistani soil, would have serious consequences for Pakistan. They would have to respond or loose face (a serious problem for the Islamic mindset). If they don't respond, they would feel that a significant precedent would be created and that they would be vulnerable in future. Of course, any response by Pakistan would require a proportionally greater response by India forcing Pakistan to relocate forces to the eastern border.

However, if Pakistan moves its forces to the border, it would simply make it easier for American and Afghan forces to conduct operations across the border. More importantly, it would allow the warlords in FATA and NWFP to consolidate their position and remove the last vestiges of Pakistani control. Peshawar would certainly be in serious jeopardy in this scenario. In all likelihood, the nascent democracy movement would be snuffed out (it is not real in any case). India would also have to ensure that the war/skirmishes go on just long enough so that Pakistan takes a serious hit. Hostilities would then also add to the economic leverage that the US has with Pakistan.

India has to weigh all this against the economic and social cost of the war. Pakistan would certainly resort to the use of terror against soft targets all over the country. The danger for all sides is that it could escalate to a nuclear exchange where not just India and Pakistan are affected but others like UAE, Saudi Arabia, and China are also pulled in. At this point, nobody appears to be anticipating that.

For the US it is a great opportunity because it provides tremendous leverage over Pakistan prior to the hostilities, during any hostilities and later after the hostilities. For India, it is an opportunity because it creates the possibility of real change in Pakistan (with or without war). It is also an opportunity for the Islamists to increase their power within Pakistan.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3004
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby vera_k » 10 Dec 2008 09:59

samuel.chandra wrote:BJP needs to make its stand against terrorism clear (its a clear win for them, if congress falters). They should come out with a clear statement that everytime there is a terror attack, India under BJP will respond with punitive military strikes and will maintain a strong anti-terror covert-ops active against pakistan. The problem with BJP is that, they think the Indian public are fools.


Have to disagree. People are voting on development issues now, so terrorism is a low priority. The party that comes out with a decent development manifesto will stand a chance. The terrorism issue can be a side show in such a manifesto in the form of commitment to police or legal reform.

samuel.chandra
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 29 Nov 2008 06:11

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby samuel.chandra » 10 Dec 2008 10:15

vera_k,

In my opinion, sustainable development will not come without strong security. The pakis will always try to keep us down unless we make that option very expensive for them.

vera_k wrote:
samuel.chandra wrote:BJP needs to make its stand against terrorism clear (its a clear win for them, if congress falters). They should come out with a clear statement that everytime there is a terror attack, India under BJP will respond with punitive military strikes and will maintain a strong anti-terror covert-ops active against pakistan. The problem with BJP is that, they think the Indian public are fools.


Have to disagree. People are voting on development issues now, so terrorism is a low priority. The party that comes out with a decent development manifesto will stand a chance. The terrorism issue can be a side show in such a manifesto in the form of commitment to police or legal reform.

vera_k
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3004
Joined: 20 Nov 2006 13:45

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby vera_k » 10 Dec 2008 10:31

samuel.chandra wrote:vera_k,

In my opinion, sustainable development will not come without strong security. The pakis will always try to keep us down unless we make that option very expensive for them.


I don't disagree. But by itself it will not be enough to win an election. So the response to terrorism should be disconnected from the election.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby ramana » 10 Dec 2008 10:57

Vipul wrote:Armed forces are put on war alert.

In the sort of “high alert” last seen during Operation Parakram, launched after the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament, the armed forces, especially the air force and the navy, have been kept in a state of war readiness. There has been no massive mobilisation of troops on the border, though.

While Indian Air Force (IAF) fighters have been mounted with bombs and kept in a state of readiness to take off within minutes, almost the entire western naval fleet is aggressively patrolling the Arabian Sea.

The military was moved into this state of heightened alert within 24 hours of the terror attack on Mumbai, which began on November 26. When it became clear that the terrorists were Pakistanis, the government ordered the mobilisation.

According to a source, the IAF has recalled senior officers from leave, moved some of its missile formations forward, and armed its fighters with missiles. Pilots have been put on standby in operational rooms.

To justify the state of war readiness, the government spoke of the possibility of a 911-style attack on India. At a meeting with the three service chiefs, defence minister AK Antony cautioned them to take measures to thwart such an attack. But a source said the alert was a cover to justify India’s exceptional military mobilisation.

The forces have been put on high alert to back up India’s diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to crack down on terrorists on its soil.

The IAF says it is in state of “passive air defence (PAD)”, which means it is geared to take any measure to defend the country’s assets. Under PAD, all platforms, including fighters, are kept operationally ready, armed with missiles, and pilots are prepared to fly at a moment’s notice.

During Operation Parakram, the air force was kept on “active air defence”, which means it was in a state of readiness to destroy enemy assets.

The source said the IAF has reduced the number of personnel on leave to just 10% from the average 30% of its total strength and recalled several key officers from leave. In the western and southwestern air commands, which cover the Pakistani border, all leave has been cancelled. The state of high alert extends to air stations in the South.

According to the source, besides fully arming fighters and placing pilots in operational rooms, the IAF has moved some missile units close to the Pakistan border. These are primarily surface-to-air missiles and other air-defence assets that can shoot down any incoming threat.

Meanwhile, the navy’s western command based in Mumbai has also been put on a state of high alert, with nearly two dozen warships patrolling the Arabian Sea.

A source said that drawing from the experience of Operation Parakram, it was decided not to carry out massive troop movements on the border. The mobilisation of ground forces, started after the 2001 attack, achieved little and was called off on October 16, 2002. This time the government has put in place a more “opaque” military mobilisation.



Acharya, 8)

Nrao, The iron fist has been clenched. No need to mass the troops at border for punitive strikes. I did say that there is a scenario under which TSP can be hit without crossing their redlines. And if they relatiate then it can be escalated. I think this realization led to 'protective custody for those terrorists.

Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3511
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Rudradev » 10 Dec 2008 11:27

ramana wrote:
Vipul wrote:Armed forces are put on war alert.

A source said that drawing from the experience of Operation Parakram, it was decided not to carry out massive troop movements on the border. The mobilisation of ground forces, started after the 2001 attack, achieved little and was called off on October 16, 2002. This time the government has put in place a more “opaque” military mobilisation.



Acharya, 8)

Nrao, The iron fist has been clenched. No need to mass the troops at border for punitive strikes. I did say that there is a scenario under which TSP can be hit without crossing their redlines. And if they relatiate then it can be escalated. I think this realization led to 'protective custody for those terrorists.


Sorry, I don't buy it. If these reports of Condi allowing us one parentally-supervised lick of the popsicle (one airstrike on a bunch of uninhabited mud huts in POK) are true, that's actually worse than not doing anything at all.

A symbolic rabbit-punch like that would unify the Pakis and consolidate them against the accelerating spiral of disintegration they're currently facing. And as George Friedman says in his Stratfor article, absent strategic bombing with area-effect munitions, no airstrike that the IAF is capable of carrying out would make any significant dent in the Paki terror infrastructure.

Worst of all, it would enable Maino Mohan Singh to have his "Mission Accomplished" moment in the eyes of India's justice-starved electorate... like Bush 43 on the deck of that aircraft carrier, but with even less to show for it. The airstrike may not kill anything but goats; and yet, the Italian National Congress will come out of it looking like heroes, even to the extent of possibly distracting the population from the economic disaster they've been presiding over. That would indeed be a tragedy.

Only by carrying out successful strikes against Paki Gov facilities, ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ in Islamabad could anything really be achieved. But who really believes that the fatcats of the GOI would ever make such a move, knowing that the Pakis would seek to target Lutyen's Delhi in retaliation? George Friedman believes it is unlikely that the Pakis could successfully hit Delhi, at least with the TSPAF, but I can't see our tremulous leaders being willing to chance it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53880
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby ramana » 10 Dec 2008 11:43

lets see.

I get the feeling that US is holding Paki feet to fire using Indian 'outrage' as the embers. Pak willing to ban L-e_T's new face. Wonder if they will also turn in Gul the old Hun descendant.

before folks get upset, Huns used ot have last name kul and most settled in modern day Afghanistan West Punjab a nd Gul might be a Hun derivative. Or else flower is too non-mard for a guy like him.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2008 11:47

Rudradev wrote:..........
Only by carrying out successful strikes against Paki Gov facilities, ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ in Islamabad could anything really be achieved........

precisely what I was conveying to a friend by email.

excerpt from that email :

without tangible political objectives military option is likely to be counter-productive.

hitting terror camps with missiles serves no purpose. we have to understand that LET camps in POK are not the exact equivalent of PMA kakul.
the terror infra there can only be pricked by any stand-off military force. it's like hitting muddy water with a stick to clean it, you simply can't !

the only military option that can bear results is hitting the the heart of TSPA RAPEs, i.e
military targets in rawalpindi and isloo like the army HQ.
unfortunately this will also lower the nuke threshold to dangerous levels, this being one of the reasons why I've been advocating denuking.

IOW unless pak is denuked we can't deal with them freely.

there is also a more disturbing scenario. if pak is on the verge of collapse, even if not instigated by India they will take one last parting shot at their enemy. any such attack will be with ALL they have.
that would be a nuclear catastrophy beyond our worst nightmares.

setting up a nuke in India is really not that difficult. virtually any country can smuggle in a nuke into India and explode it. the ONLY reason pak has not done so till date is fear of India's retribution leading to the demise of the pak state.
that reason won't stand if the state itself moves closer to implosion.

all bets are off on what pakistan does then.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 11:54

Rudradev wrote: Only by carrying out successful strikes against Paki Gov facilities, ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ in Islamabad could anything really be achieved. But who really believes that the fatcats of the GOI would ever make such a move, knowing that the Pakis would seek to target Lutyen's Delhi in retaliation? George Friedman believes it is unlikely that the Pakis could successfully hit Delhi, at least with the TSPAF, but I can't see our tremulous leaders being willing to chance it.


Rudradev,

A strike on ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ and hitting Islamabad would constitute crossing the so-called Paki redlines and that's likely to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Of course there are various theories of how Pak is nuke-nood or how Uncle has his hands over the button etc. However, policy can hardly be made based on assumptions. The Mumbai carnage, reprehensible as it has been, is not worth a nuclear exchange at this stage IMHO.

There are many Pakis including folks in ISI who want a Nuke exchange. They probably think that they will go straight to their 72 in heaven. No point in trying to oblige them.

The point to note is that an IAF bombing raid, even if it just kills a few goats (and makes some of the Abduls heart broken for having lost a dear one), has a very symbolic value not only for Pakistan but the rest of the world.

It shows that India, like the US can and will retaliate and thus brings a new equation into the Paki calculus of escalatory attacks on India. And such an attack will also drive the final nail into the coffin of that discredited India-Pak equal, equal theory peddled by the Brits since '47.

Another point: It also sets a precedent for Indian politicians as well. If, God forbid, a few years down the line there's another terror attack of this magnitude the public opinion pressure of punitive retaliation will be too much of the party in power to resist. So an entirely new dynamic comes into play in the Paki strategy of thousand cuts.

However, such a raid(s) has to be followed up by intense covert and overt operations not only to hurt Pakistan militarily but economically as well. Kill them economically and you kill them militarily as well. Make sure the Agricultural department of the TSPA presides over valueless land/defence colonies.

JMT

VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1781
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby VikramS » 10 Dec 2008 12:09

One specific item to note that the alert is primarily for the Navy and the Air-Force. Above all this could be a defensive posture since you never know when TSP becomes tactically brilliant.

About the red-lines: If India does not move her ground forces in an attacking posture, I am not sure an attack on the ISI HQ *should* cross any red-lines. Theoretically TSP can draw a red-line in their toilet bowl and demand that no drop fall beyond a line but the game can go on for so long.

I personally prefer the ISI HQ to the TSPA HQ. The TSPA HQ is a key element of a conventional war and its destruction could be closer to the red-line.

GOI also needs to make it clear to the TSP and its handlers in different countries that any nuke attack by the TSP will mean a response which not only removes the scrouge from the face of the earth but also pricks the enablers. And the message has to be driven by MMS. TSPians seem to have a strange admiration of Sikhs, as a group who can more than match them when it comes to combat.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 12:17

VikramS wrote: And the message has to be driven by MMS. TSPians seem to have a strange admiration of Sikhs, as a group who can more than match them when it comes to combat.



Incorrect. No Indian, far less the brave Sikhs, can match the TSPians in their downhill skiing abilities or in their ability to do the complicated wartime maneuver known to common folks as synchronized mass surrender.

Both of these wonderful capabilities, which are beyond the ability of ordinary SDRE soldiers from places as far off as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal, Maharashtra, Himachal etc, have been inherited by the TSPA from the "Martial" ancestors!

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20313
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Philip » 10 Dec 2008 12:18

There is a golden moment of opportunity for Zardari in this crisis to assert his authority without fear of a military backlash.The Paki military/ISI are in the international doghouse.The evidence of their involvement through the terror groups,operating with such open impunity in Pak/POK,evident with the ease and speed with which the LET terrorists were picked up,that the US/west now want some concrete action in defanging these groups who are also carrying out attacks against western/NATO forces in Afghanistan.The coordinated destruction of NATO logistic support vehicles at Peshawar was no coincidence and its significance has not been lost in the west.With Nawaz Sharif also openly calling for total Pak support to India at this time,Zardari must join hands with Sharif in an act that will reassure the Pak people that the evidence is accurate and India is also at war with thte same forces that have assassinated Benazir and caused mayhem at the Marriot,etc.

If the Paki military/ISI try to prevent him from assisting India ,he can call upon the international US/community to help him clean up the Paki military and arrest and hand over to the US those uniformed men who are assisting terror like Hamid Gul.The shock will be too much for the Paki military to bear as the "crore commanders" love their good life in the west,like Gen.Musharrat who was in London holidaying.If Zardari fails to crack the whip,then he will suffer the same fate as many of his predecessors did and be dumped into history's dustbin.This is also a splendid opportunity for the US to put even more pressure upon the paki military in order that they can strike even more at the badlands which is the heart of the Taliban rapidly devouring Afghanistan once more.

India should kepp up relentless pressure on Pak by truning the screw each day even tighter if no concrete cooperation comes from Pak.The calling of the "arrests" as a whitewash is an excellent response.These arrested terrorists have to be tried in courts in India or at the Hague.They have to be extratdited from Pak.

milindc
BRFite
Posts: 673
Joined: 11 Feb 2006 00:03

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby milindc » 10 Dec 2008 12:41

amit wrote:A strike on ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ and hitting Islamabad would constitute crossing the so-called Paki redlines and that's likely to escalate into a nuclear exchange.

Amit,
Lets turn assumption on its head that we will wait for Pakis to retaliate using Nukes. We destroy ISI HQ, which is a hugely symbolic message, and then state that any escalation from will be construed as Nuke attack and we have right to preempt.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 13:12

milindc wrote:
amit wrote:A strike on ISI HQ and TSPA GHQ and hitting Islamabad would constitute crossing the so-called Paki redlines and that's likely to escalate into a nuclear exchange.

Amit,
Lets turn assumption on its head that we will wait for Pakis to retaliate using Nukes. We destroy ISI HQ, which is a hugely symbolic message, and then state that any escalation from will be construed as Nuke attack and we have right to preempt.


Milind,

I'm all for it because that would solve the TSP problem for us once and for all.

And I personally believe that for all their mad cap rantings the people in power in that country are very rational players who will look after their interests and are probably more interested in enjoying the pleasures of life on earth rather than on what they may or may not get in Jannat. And they will back down at the last moment unless some rouge elements get control of the missiles.

However, getting the Indian public behind such brinkmanship will require statesmanship of the highest order. Sadly I don't see anyone one on the political landscape - of any political hue - who can do that.

MMS is personally a good man but he's IMO (and I would love to be proved wrong) is not cut out for such a role.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Chandragupta » 10 Dec 2008 13:15

The nuclear threat from Porkistan is extremely overrated. They wound'nt want to get wiped off the world map, would they?

India should launch a fierce attack on the camps in PoK & elsewhere, followed by a diplomatic blitzkrieg to cool tensions & build up an international consensus, may be even laud Pakistan for co-operating with India. :lol:

Hit them so hard & so fast that when they finally realise what has happened, everything would be finished.

Ofcourse, Pakistan WILL retaliate, a few air strikes & a lot of rhetoric, but by then, we'd have gone into defensive & there's not much they will be able to do without losing more troops & aircrafts.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2008 13:37

And I personally believe that for all their mad cap rantings the people in power in that country are very rational players who will look after their interests and are probably more interested in enjoying the pleasures of life on earth rather than on what they may or may not get in Jannat. And they will back down at the last moment unless some rouge elements control of the missiles.

the RAPEs are expected to be rational when it comes to saving their a*$e$ but you can't take a decision on attacking ISI HQ on the belief that the yahoos don't have a finger on the button.

as it is, the radicalisation of paki society means that many RAPEs may have turned pious with attendant pitfalls in logical thinking.

the paki army also tries to convey the impression that the authority to launch is vested with much lower level officers in TSPA(unlike India, where the authority comes exclusively thru' the nuclear chain of command, with the PM at the top) leading to a much lower threshold.

of course, the TSPA does this in the hope that this will prevent India from escalating, but that does not necessarily mean the threat itself is empty.

talking of playing a game of chicken in the nuclear backdrop is naive at best and suicidal at worst.

Any decision for or against military action has to be a well-informed one and in line with pre-set political objectives.

chandragupta wrote:The nuclear threat from Porkistan is extremely overrated.

and this nugget of analysis is based upon ?

They wound'nt want to get wiped off the world map, would they?

who are they ? RAPE/ISI/Fundoos ?

I dunno, may be a motivated middle ranking officer of TSPA would like nothing better than to be shaheed and take a large part of India with him.
are you ready to take the risk if the lives of your loved ones depend on it ?
should the PM ?

another problem with such a proposal is that this will reduce pak's fear of escalating.
think carefully, couldn't the pak establishment have smuggled in a full-fledged WMD in mumbai ?
the latest attacks certainly show that this was not impossible.

so why didn't they ? certainly not out of love ! we all know that they wish only the worst for India. the answer lies in the RAPE's fear of retribution.
what pin-prick strikes in POK et al will do is push the paki establishment further towards the brink. surely, many would capitulate under pressure.
but are we ready to take the chance that the extreme elements will only get more desperate and may even be able to wrest the control of the button from the RAPE officers in an increasingly incompetent TSPA?

poking a snake without killing or at least defanging it in the 'hope' that it isn't poisonous might prove to be a costly mistake.

JMT.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 14:06

Rahul,

Agree with most of what you wrote. I also think that attacking the ISI HQ will be crossing the redline.

That's why I think the way to go is covert/overt strikes on Pakistan and paying back with their own coin, that is striking at the economy. To paraphrase that brilliant general Ayub Khan, a few choice strikes on the Paki economy will be enough to set in motion a meltdown.

However, I still think a bombing raid, however symbolic in terms of damage, sets a precedent which would be a game changer both for Pakistan and the Indian leadership.

And regarding the possibility of a dirty nuke being smuggled into Mumbai or some other city. That's a real fear and I think we'll have to face such an eventuality at some point of time - and prevent it from happening - irrespective of whether we keep quiet now or not.

When the Paki end game - in terms of its existence - draws near, the tendency will be to pull India down with it. And this current tragedy and the reactions in Paki media shows that this is the desire which everyone, from sophisticated RAPES all the way to half crazy Abduls, have. That's the time when the dirty nuke terror will be set in motion.

JMT.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Singha » 10 Dec 2008 14:11

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-on-high- ... 214-3.html

New Delhi: Indian Air Force (IAF) has been put on the highest level of readiness since Operation Parakram in 2001.

The level of readiness has been raised to 'Passive Air Defence' (PAD). The high alert is in response to heightened perceptions of air attack on Indian positions.

All IAF aircraft have been armed with bombs and missiles and are ready to take off within minutes. Even the warships of the Western Naval Fleet are aggressively patrolling the Arabian Sea.

The alert has been sounded in view of intelligence reports of air strikes at Indian installations from across the border or an aerial attack by terrorists groups based in Pakistan.

However, the alert is still defensive in nature and intended to protect Indian targets.

Leave of all key personnel in the Western and South-Western Air Commands, which face Pakistan, has been cancelled.

Percentage of personnel allowed to go on leave, too, has been reduced from 30 per cent to 10 per cent.

However, there is still no mobilisation of troops on the border and Indian Army is not on the highest level of readiness.

Following the Mumbai terror attack, the defence chiefs had briefed defence Minister AK Antony about the steps being taking to beef up security at the border and to prevent a 9/11 type of terror attack involving aircrafts.

During Operation Parakram, IAF was on 'Active Air Defence”, which means aircrafts were primed to destroy enemy targets.

Chandragupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3469
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 15:26
Location: Kingdom of My Fair Lady

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Chandragupta » 10 Dec 2008 14:25

Rahul M wrote:

chandragupta wrote:The nuclear threat from Porkistan is extremely overrated.

and this nugget of analysis is based upon ?

They wound'nt want to get wiped off the world map, would they?

who are they ? RAPE/ISI/Fundoos ?

I dunno, may be a motivated middle ranking officer of TSPA would like nothing better than to be shaheed and take a large part of India with him.
are you ready to take the risk if the lives of your loved ones depend on it ?
should the PM ?

another problem with such a proposal is that this will reduce pak's fear of escalating.
think carefully, couldn't the pak establishment have smuggled in a full-fledged WMD in mumbai ?
the latest attacks certainly show that this was not impossible.

so why didn't they ? certainly not out of love ! we all know that they wish only the worst for India. the answer lies in the RAPE's fear of retribution.
what pin-prick strikes in POK et al will do is push the paki establishment further towards the brink. surely, many would capitulate under pressure.
but are we ready to take the chance that the extreme elements will only get more desperate and may even be able to wrest the control of the button from the RAPE officers in an increasingly incompetent TSPA?

poking a snake without killing or at least defanging it in the 'hope' that it isn't poisonous might prove to be a costly mistake.

JMT.


So we keep taking the blows & turn a blind eye?

I understand what you're saying, an Indian military offensive will ruffle a lot of feathers in Pakistan for sure. But sometime down the line, we WILL have to bite the bullet, why not now? A nuclear war is not a joke, when was the last nuclear weapon detonated? Pakistanis will not go nuclear unless the very existence of their country is at stake, a condition that can be avoided. Ofcourse, I'm no military expert, and this is just my opinion.

amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 14:33

Singha wrote:http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iaf-on-high-alert-cancels-leave-of-key-personnel/80214-3.html


Interestingly DNA has a slightly different take here

Specifically this:

To justify the state of war readiness, the government spoke of the possibility of a 911-style attack on India. At a meeting with the three service chiefs, defence minister AK Antony cautioned them to take measures to thwart such an attack. But a source said the alert was a cover to justify India’s exceptional military mobilisation.

The forces have been put on high alert to back up India’s diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan to crack down on terrorists on its soil.


And this:

According to the source, besides fully arming fighters and placing pilots in operational rooms, the IAF has moved some missile units close to the Pakistan border. These are primarily surface-to-air missiles and other air-defence assets that can shoot down any incoming threat.

Meanwhile, the navy’s western command based in Mumbai has also been put on a state of high alert, with nearly two dozen warships patrolling the Arabian Sea.

A source said that drawing from the experience of Operation Parakram, it was decided not to carry out massive troop movements on the border. The mobilisation of ground forces, started after the 2001 attack, achieved little and was called off on October 16, 2002. This time the government has put in place a more “opaque” military mobilisation.


Am not an expert but if this news report is to be believed it looks like setting a stage where some punitive strikes will be made and then defences for shooting down any retaliatory attacks are in place? Gurus can comment on this.

Or is this a part of some grand psy-ops to get the Mard TFTA to pee in his pants?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2008 14:51

amit wrote:That's why I think the way to go is covert/overt strikes on Pakistan and paying back with their own coin, that is striking at the economy........

of course !
only our jingo hearts won't be satisfied by such covert strikes that pass under our radar ! :P

However, I still think a bombing raid, however symbolic in terms of damage, sets a precedent which would be a game changer both for Pakistan and the Indian leadership.

you make a very good point.
it would raise the bar at least for the Indian politician.
And regarding the possibility of a dirty nuke being smuggled into Mumbai or some other city. That's a real fear and I think we'll have to face such an eventuality at some point of time - and prevent it from happening - irrespective of whether we keep quiet now or not.

I was not talking of a dirty nuke BUT a full-fledged nuclear fission device.

if anything, pakistan has shown through the mumbai attacks that this capability exists, TODAY and not tomorrow.
just think, what if the kuber carried one such device ?
how difficult would it have been to load a one tonne device onto a truck in the dead of night, drive it to nariman point and detonate it at rush hour the next day ?


it is high time we sat up and took notice of this threat. unfortunately no defensive measure will be fool-proof. only way to 'take care' of this particular threat is to take out terror central.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby Rahul M » 10 Dec 2008 14:54

Chandragupta wrote:....
So we keep taking the blows & turn a blind eye?

I understand what you're saying, an Indian military offensive will ruffle a lot of feathers in Pakistan for sure. But sometime down the line, we WILL have to bite the bullet, why not now? A nuclear war is not a joke, when was the last nuclear weapon detonated? Pakistanis will not go nuclear unless the very existence of their country is at stake, a condition that can be avoided. Ofcourse, I'm no military expert, and this is just my opinion.

no saar jee, I'm not talking about turning a blind eye and clearly you haven't caught on to what I was saying ! :wink:

I'm saying kill the snake or at least de-fang it (as an intermediate step).

just poking the snake with a stick is not prudent suggestion IMO.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 14:58

I had'nt seen this posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/opini ... c_ev=click

Op-Ed Columnist
Calling All Pakistanis
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
On Feb. 6, 2006, three Pakistanis died in Peshawar and Lahore during violent street protests against Danish cartoons that had satirized the Prophet Muhammad. More such mass protests followed weeks later. When Pakistanis and other Muslims are willing to take to the streets, even suffer death, to protest an insulting cartoon published in Denmark, is it fair to ask: Who in the Muslim world, who in Pakistan, is ready to take to the streets to protest the mass murders of real people, not cartoon characters, right next door in Mumbai?

After all, if 10 young Indians from a splinter wing of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party traveled by boat to Pakistan, shot up two hotels in Karachi and the central train station, killed at least 173 people, and then, for good measure, murdered the imam and his wife at a Saudi-financed mosque while they were cradling their 2-year-old son — purely because they were Sunni Muslims — where would we be today? The entire Muslim world would be aflame and in the streets.

So what can we expect from Pakistan and the wider Muslim world after Mumbai? India says its interrogation of the surviving terrorist indicates that all 10 men come from the Pakistani port of Karachi, and at least one, if not all 10, were Pakistani nationals.

First of all, it seems to me that the Pakistani government, which is extremely weak to begin with, has been taking this mass murder very seriously, and, for now, no official connection between the terrorists and elements of the Pakistani security services has been uncovered.

At the same time, any reading of the Pakistani English-language press reveals Pakistani voices expressing real anguish and horror over this incident. Take for instance the Inter Press Service news agency article of Nov. 29 from Karachi: “ ‘I feel a great fear that [the Mumbai violence] will adversely affect Pakistan and India relations,’ the prominent Karachi-based feminist poet and writer Attiya Dawood told I.P.S. ‘I can’t say whether Pakistan is involved or not, but whoever is involved, it is not the ordinary people of Pakistan, like myself, or my daughters. We are with our Indian brothers and sisters in their pain and sorrow.’ ”

But while the Pakistani government’s sober response is important, and the sincere expressions of outrage by individual Pakistanis are critical, I am still hoping for more. I am still hoping — just once — for that mass demonstration of “ordinary people” against the Mumbai bombers, not for my sake, not for India’s sake, but for Pakistan’s sake.

Why? Because it takes a village. The best defense against this kind of murderous violence is to limit the pool of recruits, and the only way to do that is for the home society to isolate, condemn and denounce publicly and repeatedly the murderers — and not amplify, ignore, glorify, justify or “explain” their activities.

Sure, better intelligence is important. And, yes, better SWAT teams are critical to defeating the perpetrators quickly before they can do much damage. But at the end of the day, terrorists often are just acting on what they sense the majority really wants but doesn’t dare do or say. That is why the most powerful deterrent to their behavior is when the community as a whole says: “No more. What you have done in murdering defenseless men, women and children has brought shame on us and on you.”

Why should Pakistanis do that? Because you can’t have a healthy society that tolerates in any way its own sons going into a modern city, anywhere, and just murdering everyone in sight — including some 40 other Muslims — in a suicide-murder operation, without even bothering to leave a note. Because the act was their note, and destroying just to destroy was their goal. If you do that with enemies abroad, you will do that with enemies at home and destroy your own society in the process.

“I often make the comparison to Catholics during the pedophile priest scandal,” a Muslim woman friend wrote me. “Those Catholics that left the church or spoke out against the church were not trying to prove to anyone that they are anti-pedophile. Nor were they apologizing for Catholics, or trying to make the point that this is not Catholicism to the non-Catholic world. They spoke out because they wanted to influence the church. They wanted to fix a terrible problem” in their own religious community.

We know from the Danish cartoons affair that Pakistanis and other Muslims know how to mobilize quickly to express their heartfelt feelings, not just as individuals, but as a powerful collective. That is what is needed here.

Because, I repeat, this kind of murderous violence only stops when the village — all the good people in Pakistan, including the community elders and spiritual leaders who want a decent future for their country — declares, as a collective, that those who carry out such murders are shameful unbelievers who will not dance with virgins in heaven but burn in hell. And they do it with the same vehemence with which they denounce Danish cartoons.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:02

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/world ... an.html?hp

December 11, 2008
Pakistan Tries to Curb Militant Group
By JANE PERLEZ
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Pakistani authorities have widened their efforts to curb militant groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, the one suspected of conducting the Mumbai attacks, raiding some of their properties and arresting about 20 members, according to security officials.

The Pakistani defense minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, on Tuesday told an Indian television channel, CNN-IBN, that Maulana Masood Azhar, the leader of another militant group, Jaish-e-Muhammad, had been placed under house arrest.

Bush administration officials publicly praised the steps, which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, demanded during their visits to the region last week.

“These are good and important steps and could potentially serve the cause of preventing further attacks,” a State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters in Washington. “That’s the last thing that either side needs.”

But questions remained about how far the Pakistani government would rein in the groups, which have functioned as an arm of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services for two decades. Details of exactly what the government had actually done so far remained unclear.

Pakistan said Tuesday that it had arrested Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, the operational leader of Lashkar-e-Taiba, during a raid on Sunday on a camp outside Muzaffarabad, the capital of the Pakistani-controlled region of Kashmir. Mr. Lakhvi has been described as the mastermind of the Mumbai attacks.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani confirmed the arrest of Mr. Lakhvi and another militant, Zarrar Shah, Reuters reported. “They have been detained for investigation,” he told reporters in Punjab Province.

American counterterrorism officials in Washington have struck a skeptical tone, saying that they wanted to see proof that Mr. Lakhvi was actually in custody and that the arrests and raids actually represented a firm commitment by the government to crack down on the groups. The officials spoke before the prime minister’s comments on Wednesday.

“In the past when they’ve promised to move against these guys, they’d pick up one or two of them and then several months later, they’d release them,” said a senior American official who has dealt with Pakistani authorities for several years.

“Based on past patterns, we shouldn’t expect much of this,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment publicly on the case.

Administration officials said they were watching India’s reaction to Pakistan’s words and deeds to gauge whether the raids and arrests would ease tensions between the countries.

“There’s a practical part of this — will these arrests lead to preventing further attacks and bringing people to justice,” one senior administration official said, “and there’s a political dimension — to what extent does this lower tensions between the two countries.”

Pakistani officials have indicated in the past few days that there were no plans for a large-scale crackdown on Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group founded in the 1980s by the Pakistani Army to fight a proxy war against India in Kashmir.

Such a crackdown would run counter to popular sentiment and would appear to be at the behest of India and the United States, a politically unpalatable perception for Pakistan’s government.

The Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said Tuesday that those detained so far would not be extradited to India. “They are Pakistani citizens and will be dealt with according to the law of the land,” he said.

Mr. Qureshi said Pakistan had offered India the chance to carry out a joint investigation of the terrorist attacks but had not yet received a reply.

President Asif Ali Zardari promised after the attacks that he would do what he could to stop Pakistan from being used as a launching pad by “nonstate actors,” a reference to militants.

In an Op-Ed page article in The New York Times on Tuesday, Mr. Zardari said Pakistan was committed to bringing the perpetrators to justice and denied that they had any connection to the government. “For India, Pakistan and the United States, the best response to the Mumbai carnage is to coordinate in counteracting the scourge of terrorism,” he wrote.

Under pressure from the United States, Pakistan banned Lashkar in 2002 after it was accused of orchestrating an attack against the Indian Parliament.

But the Pakistani Army and its premier spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, has kept the group alive, regarding the fighters from Lashkar as reservists who could be called on according to need, the diplomats said.

It would be difficult, they said, for the army, the most powerful institution in Pakistan, to quickly abandon its policy of nurturing militants, even after the embarrassment of the Mumbai siege.

“The agenda of the establishment is to find a way out of this morass with the least damage to the institutions of the army and the ISI,” a prominent Pakistani politician said on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter.

President Zardari, the politician said, had a different agenda of “pleasing the Americans.”

The United States has said that it cannot discern the involvement of the Pakistani military in the planning and operation of the Mumbai attacks.

Rather, it appeared that the assaults presented a predicament for Pakistan’s military because they showed that a group that had been protected had gotten out of control, said a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity according to diplomatic custom.

“Pakistan needs to make a profound change in its attitude to Lashkar-e-Taiba, and that doesn’t seem to have happened yet,” the Western diplomat said.

An important sign of whether Pakistan was serious in shutting down Lashkar would be if the group were demobilized by the government, and its fighters given alternative employment, experts on jihadist groups said.

After the ban in 2002, the United States and Britain tried to persuade Pakistan to demobilize the fighters but failed to do so, the experts said. Instead thousands of members were rounded up and then quietly released.

The groups were then offered a trade-off, the diplomats said. They were directed to slow down their militant activities against the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir but were allowed to transfer their assets to Pakistan’s tribal areas. There, some Lashkar members have worked alongside the Pakistani Taliban, the diplomats said.

Since the start of the current roundup of Lashkar members, the group’s founder, Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, has not been arrested. He remains at his headquarters in Lahore, where he gave the sermon at Friday Prayer last week.

Mr. Saeed, a firebrand speaker who laces his speeches with anti-Semitic and anti-Indian statements, now calls himself the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the charity that is Lashkar’s parent.

So far, the charity, which runs more than 100 Islamic schools and has hundreds of thousands of adherents, the experts on jihadist groups say, has remained untouched by the authorities.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:05

Either the U.S is shepherding on India's behalf or is using India to achieve her own ends.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:09

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/world ... dia&st=cse

December 10, 2008
India Wants Pakistani Group Added to U.N.’s Terrorism List
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
UNITED NATIONS — India has submitted a formal request to put the group Jamaat-ud-Dawa and its leader on the list of individuals and organizations sanctioned by the United Nations for being associated with terrorism.

The request, which was distributed to all 15 Security Council member states on Tuesday, accused the organization and its leader, Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, of being virtually interchangeable with Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group believed to have carried out the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month.

Ostensibly, Jamaat-ud-Dawa acts as a separate charitable and educational organization. But the Indian request, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, said that the close links between the organizations, as well as the 2,500 offices and 11 seminaries that Jamaat-ud-Dawa maintains in Pakistan, “are of immediate concern with regard to their efforts to mobilize and orchestrate terrorist activities.”

The Security Council held a general discussion on the global terrorist threat on Tuesday, during which E. Ahamed, India’s minister of state for external affairs, said that “Jamaat-ud-Dawa and other such organizations need to be proscribed internationally and effective sanctions imposed against them.”

“Their country of origin needs to take urgent steps to stop their functioning,” he said, in a clear but indirect reference to Pakistan.

But the note distributed by the sanctions committee to its members said that the United States, backed by Britain and France, had tried to add Mr. Saeed to the list last May but was blocked by China. A similar attempt directed against the organization in April 2006 was also blocked by China, the note said.

Nicole Deaner, a spokeswoman for the United States Mission to the United Nations, said it would not comment about its efforts with the sanctions committee. The Chinese Mission also declined to comment.

Pakistan has not officially acknowledged any role by either Jamaat-ud-Dawa or Lashkar-e-Taiba in the Mumbai attacks, saying it was waiting for India to share information. But Pakistan will not oppose United Nations sanctions against the organization or its leader as a “good-will gesture,” said a Pakistani diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

The Indian request describes Mr. Saeed as an adherent of the Hanbali school of Islam, the most puritan strain, whose most famous sect is the Wahhabi branch in Saudi Arabia.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=artslot

Biryani time, guest of the Govt of Pakistan:

Pakistan Detains Extremist Leader
U.S., India Question Effort's Seriousness

By Joby Warrick and Rama Lakshmi
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 10, 2008; A01



For the second time in a decade, suspected Pakistani terrorist leader Masood Azhar was placed under house arrest yesterday after being linked to attacks in India. His detention, announced by Pakistan's Defense Ministry, was intended to show the country's resolve in hunting for the organizers of last month's deadly rampage in Mumbai.

Yet in the U.S. and Indian capitals, the news of Azhar's arrest drew mostly scoffs. As officials in both countries noted, Pakistan never bothered to charge the Kashmiri extremist when it detained him in connection with a deadly attack on India's Parliament in December 2001. A Pakistani judge freed him 11 months later.

The Azhar saga accounts for some of the skepticism that has surrounded Pakistan's efforts to crack down on extremists in the wake of the Nov. 26 terrorist rampage in Mumbai. Promises by Pakistani leaders to roll up militant groups have been undercut by a history of "catch-and-release" in its dealings with prominent extremists, and also by its past ambivalence -- if not outright support -- for groups that openly advocate terrorism.

The emerging response is serving as a test of whether the U.S.-backed government in Pakistan is serious about taking on the armed Islamist groups it helped create, and if the country's powerful military and spy service will allow civilian officials to do so. Whether India believes Pakistan is helping in the investigation of one of the worst attacks on its soil in years could determine whether the two nuclear-armed nations continue a halting peace process or move closer to confrontation. Pakistan's reaction to the Mumbai assault could also prove pivotal as it confronts an escalating threat from groups that it once nurtured as weapons against enemies in India and Afghanistan but that have now turned their fire inward on Pakistan.

Under intense pressure from India and the Bush administration, Pakistan in recent days has staged a series of raids on training camps linked to Lashkar-i-Taiba, the Kashmiri-based group said by India to be behind the Mumbai siege. Pakistani officials detained Lashkar commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi as well as Azhar, the founder of the militant group Jaish-i-Muhammad.

Yet Pakistan has balked at turning over suspects to India and has declined to release the names of most of the 22 people it has reportedly rounded up since the raids began Sunday. Despite encouraging rhetoric from senior Pakistani leaders, U.S. officials say it is not yet clear that Pakistan's government is willing, or able, to crack down on the country's anti-India extremist groups, some of which are linked to al-Qaeda.

While U.S. officials applauded the Pakistani efforts -- especially the arrest of Lakhvi -- they have not been able to independently confirm anything about the other detainees, including "whether they are, in fact, Lashkar members," said one senior U.S. counterterrorism official who is closely monitoring Pakistan's response.

"It remains to be seen," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. "There have been instances in the past where the Pakistanis arrested extremists after terrorist attacks on India but released them several months later, after the international pressure eased up."

Also unclear, according to U.S. officials and private analysts, is whether the government of newly elected President Asif Ali Zardari can move effectively against the insurgents without the full support of the military and the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, which have undermined similar attempts in the past.

"The writ of the state is eroding," said Kamran Bokhari, director of Middle East analysis for Stratfor, a private intelligence company. "It's not just an issue of intent, but an issue of capability. Can these guys deliver?"

Zardari has described the Mumbai gunmen as "criminals, attackers and murderers," and there were signs that his administration was ready to match rhetoric with action. Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, who flew to Islamabad for high-level talks immediately after the Mumbai assault, found senior Pakistani officials sobered and awakening, perhaps for the first time, to the magnitude of the problem they face, according to sources close to the admiral. While recognizing that they have to take decisive action against extremists, sources said, the Pakistanis also realize that a domestic backlash, both politically and in terms of terrorism, is the inevitable result.

U.S. officials have been pressing Pakistan to take aggressive measures in a series of private meetings and public events. Gen. David H. Petraeus, former U.S. commander in Iraq and now head of the U.S. Central Command, said in a speech yesterday that insurgent havens in Pakistan remain a "significant concern," adding that the Mumbai siege "highlights the extent of the challenges Pakistan faces."

Pakistan and India have fought three wars since 1947, and resentments run deep, particularly in the disputed territory of Kashmir. For many Pakistanis, the prospect of turning over citizens to India to face terrorism charges is too much to stomach, some analysts said.

"Pakistan doesn't want to be seen as caving to political pressure from India," said Robert Grenier, a former CIA station chief in Islamabad and now managing director of Kroll, a risk consulting firm. Because of the torrent of rhetoric from both countries after the rampage, many old wounds have reopened, and opportunities for real cooperation have diminished, he said. "The atmosphere has been greatly complicated if not poisoned," Grenier said.

As of late yesterday, most of the 20 Pakistani nationals whom India has demanded that Pakistan arrest and turn over remained at large. Only two days before the start of Pakistan's raids on Lashkar camps, Lashkar founder Hafiz Sayeed gave a public lecture at a mosque in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore. The mosque is controlled by Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an organization described by U.S. intelligence officials as a front group for Lashkar.

On Monday, police officials in Lahore said they planned to shut down the facilities of banned militant religious groups. But the Jamaat-ud-Dawa mosque and headquarters remained open hours later, and it was unclear whether Sayeed would face arrest.

The arrests that Pakistan has made came only after the U.S. applied heavy pressure on Zardari and Pakistan's military leadership. They came nearly two weeks after the deadly assault on India's financial capital, in which 10 gunmen opened fire at a restaurant and train station and laid siege to two luxury hotels and a Jewish prayer center, killing more than 170 people, including six Americans, and wounding at least 230. Indian officials yesterday released the names of the 10 gunmen and said they were all Pakistani nationals who belonged to Lashkar.

In Mumbai, chief police investigator Rakesh Maria released what he said were the addresses of the nine gunmen killed in the attack, along with photos of eight of them. All were 20 to 28 years old, and most were from Punjab province in Pakistan's heartland, far from the North-West Frontier Province that has been the front line in Pakistan's growing insurgency. One gunman was captured.

A senior Indian official dismissed Pakistan's raids as nothing new, and far short of the "concrete action" demanded by the scale of the carnage in Mumbai. "We have been there and we have traversed that road before," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Let us wait and see if there will be a realistic change on the ground."

Lakshmi reported from New Delhi. Correspondents Candace Rondeaux in Islamabad and Emily Wax in Mumbai and staff writer Karen DeYoung and news researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

krishnan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7342
Joined: 07 Oct 2005 12:58
Location: 13° 04' N , 80° 17' E

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby krishnan » 10 Dec 2008 15:14

Find out the house and bomb it

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:16

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00502.html

India gives info tying Mumbai gunmen to Pakistan

By MUNEEZA NAQVI
The Associated Press
Wednesday, December 10, 2008; 2:49 AM



MUMBAI, India -- The United States, keeping its focus on South Asia in the wake of deadly Mumbai attacks, is sending a top diplomat to New Delhi to discuss fallout from the violence and Pakistan's response, a U.S. official said.

Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte was expected in New Delhi later this week, according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited New Delhi and Islamabad last week.

The announcement came a day after police released names and photographs of suspected Islamic militants who staged the bloody three-day siege of Mumbai and said they uncovered new details about the gunmen _ including hometowns in Pakistan.

The new information, if confirmed, would bolster India's claim that the attack was launched from Pakistan and was released Tuesday as the Pakistani government announced more arrests in raids on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group that India blames for the assault on its financial capital.

Indian officials maintained a skeptical silence about the reported crackdown and arrest of an alleged mastermind of the Mumbai assault, which killed 171 people, raised fears of war between the nuclear-armed neighbors and eroded U.S. hopes for a regional push against al-Qaida and other extremists.

Mumbai's chief police investigator, Rakesh Maria, showed photographs of eight of the nine slain attackers _ some from identity cards, but three were gruesome pictures of maimed faces. The body of the ninth was too badly burned, he said. The 10th gunman, previously identified as Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, was captured alive.

Maria said all 10 attackers were from Pakistan and between the ages of 20 and 28. He did not say how police knew their hometowns, although they have been interrogating the lone surviving gunman.

In Russia, meanwhile, the head of that country's federal anti-narcotics agency said India's most famous gangster, Dawood Ibrahim, had helped the gunmen.

"The information that has been received indicates that the well-known drug trafficker Dawood Ibrahim provided his logistics network for the preparation and implementation of the attacks," the government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta quoted Viktor Ivanov as saying.
:eek:

Ibrahim, who India says fled to Pakistan after staging a series of Mumbai bombings in 1993, has been accused by Indian police of involvement in the drug trade.

As is often the case when Russian law enforcement officials talk about terrorism, Ivanov gave no details and provided no actual evidence.

The attackers, who apparently landed by boat on the Mumbai coast the night of Nov. 26, were led by Ismail Khan, 25, Maria said, describing him as a battle-hardened Lashkar veteran. The picture released shows a broad-shouldered man with a square, determined face.

As they split up to attack different targets, Khan went with Kasab to a crowded train station where they emptied assault rifles at the helpless passengers before escaping out the back.

Khan was eventually shot dead and Kasab captured, but not before they had killed the head of Mumbai's Anti-Terror Force and several other officers.

Another picture showed Babar Imran, a gunman who has been described as "hauntingly calm" while holding six people hostage at a Jewish center run by the ultra-Orthodox Chabad-Lubavitch movement.

Imran, with his long thin face and sleepy eyes, used the alias Abu Akasha, Maria said.

During the time he held Rabbi Gavriel Noach Holtzberg; Holtzberg's wife, Rivka; and four other visitors to the center, Imran repeatedly answered Holtzberg's mobile phone, talking to representatives of the Chabad movement in New York.

Imran spoke softly, said P.V. Viswanath, who translated the phone conversations in Urdu for Chabad officials.

"I think that shows something about his state of mind, it was very calm and collected," Viswanath told the AP in New York, where he is a finance professor at Pace University.

Viswanath, who grew up in Mumbai and is an Orthodox Jew, said Imran didn't display any anger or hatred for Jews. "He didn't say anything about Israel or make any anti-Semitic comments."

Commandos who stormed the Jewish center after two days found all six hostages dead. The Holtzbergs' 2-year-old son, Moshe, survived when he was whisked out of the building by his nanny and another worker.

The youngest attacker was identified as 20-year-old Shoaib, alias Soheb. He was among those who fought off Indian commandos for three days at the luxury Taj Mahal hotel, Maria said.

Faiez Ahmad, a senior police official in Multan, Pakistan, where two of the gunmen allegedly came from, said authorities will check into the information if it is officially communicated to the Pakistani government.

With India and the U.S. pressing Pakistan to crack down on Lashkar, Pakistani authorities shut some of the group's offices and detained 20 more people Tuesday, officials said, though they ruled out extraditing any to India.

A day earlier, the Pakistani government said its troops raided a Lashkar camp in Pakistan's portion of disputed Kashmir on Sunday and arrested Zaki-ur-Lakhvi, the reputed planner of the Mumbai attack, along with 11 other suspected militants.

On Tuesday, troops raided at least five more Lashkar offices, acting on information gleaned from Lakhvi, a senior Pakistani security official said.

A Lashkar official confirmed there had been more raids on the group's offices, but declined to elaborate. Both he and the security official insisting on speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the issue.

India's Foreign Ministry again declined to comment.

___

Associated Press writers Gavin Rabinowitz and Jeremiah Marquez in New Delhi, Stephen Graham in Islamabad, Pakistan and Deepti Hajela in New York contributed to this report.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:25

Pak to proscribe JuD if UN declares it terror outfit

Agencies Posted: Dec 10, 2008 at 1219 hrs

United Nations Under extreme international pressure, Pakistan has given an undertaking to the UN Security Council that it would proscribe Jamaat-ud-Dawah, the parent body of LeT, suspected to have carried out the Mumbai terror attacks, if the Council declares it a terrorist organisation.
Islamabad has also assured the world body that all training camps of Lashkar-e-Taiba or any entity of this nature would not be allowed on its territory.

The undertaking given by Pakistan's Ambassador to UN Abdullah Hussain Haroon came after India had sent a formal request to the Council to put sanction on JUD and its leaders.

Addressing the Council during a debate on terrorism, where the Mumbai carnage was in focus, Haroon said that moves would be set into motion to freeze assets of the JUD, if the Council puts sanctions on the outfit.

"After the designation of Jamat-ud-Dawah (JuD) under (resolution) 1267, the Government on receiving communication from the Security Council shall proscribe the JUD and take other consequential actions, as required, including the freezing of assets," he said.

He told the Council that Pakistani authorities had already initiated investigations on its own pertaining to allegations of involvement of its citizens and entities in the Mumbai attacks.

A plan, Haroon said, is being prepared to ensure effective government supervision as required for various welfare organisations and an intelligence-led operation strongly supported by law enforcement agencies is already underway to arrest the individuals alleged to be involved in the Mumbai attacks.

Should the Council decide to include JUD and its leaders in the list of organisations and individuals connected with terrorism, Pakistan would be required, among other things, to freeze their assets and Haroon said it would do so.

In a request sent to all fifteen members of the Council, which has the authority to decide, India said it wants the JUD and its members to be put on the list of individuals and organisations connected to terrorism.

Jamaat-ud-Dawah, which claims to be a charity, runs more than 100 religious schools and has wide network of supporters. It is led by Hafiz Muhammed Saeed who is known for his anti-Indian rhetoric. He has not been arrested by the Pakistani authorities so far.

During a debate in the Council yesterday, Indian Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahamed had demanded that Pakistan ban JUD and other such groups and needs to take urgent action to shut down these outfits.

The 'New York Times' said the sanctions committee of the Council had circulated a note to its members that the United States, backed by Britain and France, had tried to add Saeed to the list last May, but was blocked by China.

A similar attempt directed against the organisation in April 2006 was also blocked by China, the note said.

India asks UN, int'l community to ban Jamaat-ud-Dawa

Raising the Mumbai terror attacks at the United Nations, India on Tuesday said it was sponsored from across the border and asked Pakistan to act against terrorism emanating from its soil failing which it will "do everything to protect its citizens."

New Delhi also demanded that the UN and the international community ban Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the front organisation of Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) blamed for the carnage, and other such groups and impose effective sanctions against them.

Emphasizing that the Nov 26 attacks in Mumbai that left 179 persons dead marked a "qualitatively new and dangerous escalation of terrorism," the Minister of State for External Affairs E Ahamed in a veiled reference to Pakistan said raising dust to confuse the trail so that the "merchants of terror can hide" is not acceptable.

Stressing that India has been target of terrorist attacks sponsored from across the border for the last two decades, Ahamed asserted that when terrorist groups are used to serve the political interest of States, a deadly combination emerges and a terror machine is created.

"Their (JuD) country of origin need to take urgent steps to stop their functioning," Ahamed said in an apparent reference to Pakistan while intervening in the debate on terrorism in the Security Council

India would act to "safeguard and protect" its people from such heinous attacks, howsoever long or difficult task that may be, Ahamed said.

New Delhi, he said, has acted with restraint in the face of international terrorist attacks.

But "we must do our duty by our people and take all actions as we deem fit to defend and protect them," he said.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:27

Mumbai terror cash trail leads to Karachi

This is same old boring stories.

Praveen Swami







MUMBAI: Investigators have determined that payments for a voice-over-Internet protocol service used by the terrorists who stormed this city last month were made from Karachi, Mumbai police sources told The Hindu.

The investigators have found that a still-unidentified individual using false identification papers routed $ 290 to the VOIP service Vox Phone through a Karachi office of the money-transfer giant, Western Union.

Police in Mumbai intercepted calls made by the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists, who attacked Mumbai, to two VOIP numbers from six Indian mobile phone numbers.

During the calls, Zaki-ur-Rahman Lakhvi — the top Lashkar commander reported to have been held in Pakistan in raids carried out by authorities there on Monday — gave instructions to the terrorists as their operations at the Taj Mahal Hotel and the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus unfolded. No calls were, however, intercepted in the Oberoi and Trident Hotels complex.

The investigators suspect that the individual who arranged for SIM cards, VOIP connections and satellite phones used by the terrorists was Zarar Shah, who, India’s intelligence services say, is the Lashkar communications chief. It is unclear if the name Zarar Shah is real or, as is the case with most Lashkar commanders, an operational alias.

Shah — if that is indeed his name — is also believed to have despatched an e-mail, claiming responsibility for the attack under the false flag of an organisation called the Deccan Mujahideen. The e-mail, which said the attack was intended to avenge atrocities on Muslims in India, is believed to have been generated on a Hindi language voice-recognition software. The investigators say it was sent to Indian newsrooms from a Lahore-based server.

Vox Phone, a popular VOIP service, allows users to create virtual phone numbers bearing the international dialling codes of several countries from which calls can be made and received. No physical verification of the individuals opening accounts takes place, the police sources said, a fact which facilitated the terror operation. The terrorists set up phone numbers which bore the calling codes of New Jersey in the U.S. and Vienna, Western Union’s services, which are widely used across the South Asian region to facilitate foreign currency transfers, have been misused in the past by terrorists operating against India. For example, Pakistani al-Badr operatives Mohammad Fahd and Mohammad Ali Husain, who attempted to set up a Mysore-based cell in 2006, received funds through Western Union.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16485
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby NRao » 10 Dec 2008 15:30


amit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4325
Joined: 30 Aug 2007 18:28
Location: The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby amit » 10 Dec 2008 15:49



Looks like a nice little game of smoke and mirrors being set up to trap Indians.

“We should have a joint probe team so that whatever questions Indians have in mind can be discussed and something will come out of that. But if we do not have a joint investigation team, then Pakistani officials will be grilling them and try to find out what wrong they have done,” Ahmed told the CNN-IBN news-channel.


So the SOBs will tell Indian investigators what questions can be asked and what can't be asked.

Probably the Pakis expect Indians to inquire about Lakhwi and Azhar's digestion problems and learn how too much gas production by the two resulted in a vacuum blast in Mumbai which caused the deaths of nearly 200 people?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15995
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby RajeshA » 10 Dec 2008 17:12

Rye wrote:RajeshA wrote:

This Govt. can perhaps get the UNSC to pass a Resolution saying ...
...
...
...
I believe this Government is uniquely in a position to get the international cooperation to bring about this Resolution.

After that the Government can go ride into the sunset. And BJP can go and kick some ass!


RajeshA, I agree that a UN resolution that acknowledges Pakistan is not in control of its own territory is a very good idea. OTOH, won't the UNTMCP get in India's way? What is the utility of getting the UN involved in "monitoring pakistan"? Also, don't think the BJP will to any better than the current bunch since it is not the politicians fighting the enemy directly -- still the same professionals will be doing their job.


The truth is India is not in a position to fight all the Jihadism being created in the region. We need institutional help.

I would consider the job description of UN Terrorism Monitoring Commission for Pakistan (UNTMCP) as being one of a jihadism fighting agency, an intelligence agency within Pakistan supporting the intelligence gathering by the various intelligence agencies of the world. A sort of nodal agency for bringing about a single and comprehensive view of the terrorist infrastructure existing in Pakistan. In cooperation with the intelligence agency of a targeted country, where a terrorist attack has taken place, it would try to establish the connections.

At the moment, the Pakistanis are not really forthcoming with information about their nationals or the various terrorist networks active in TSP, about the hierarchies within those networks, about the involvement of various individuals with various acts of terrorism or as logistical support to certain networks, about the sources of financing for these groups.

UNTMCP will also have full access to Pakistani Database on its nationals as well as all voter lists.

Often after terrorist attacks in India, there is a lack of information, UNTMCP can help fill these gaps.

At the moment, it is India that has to run around the world capitals, trying to convince everybody about our victimhood. Sometimes the other countries like USA, UK buy what we say and sometimes they don't depending on their national interests at the moment. This needs to change. We ought to be able to approach a single intelligence agency which can corroborate our theories. A report by UNTMCP will not run against a wall of denial and will have enhanced credibility.

UNTMCP should be able to cooperate with Interpol and can easily get a warrant against certain Pakis. Also an alert can be issued for these terrorists at airports, ports and border crossings.

There are a thousand ways in which UNTMCP can help us, and we should avail of the help.

If Pakistan is Jihad Central, then UNTMCP can become Anti-Jihad Central.

Many countries like USA, UK, EU countries would be glad to get their foot in the door in Pakistan, and not be always dependent on paid cooperation from Pakistan.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36400
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby SaiK » 10 Dec 2008 17:24

krishnan wrote:Find out the house and bomb it

aha! too late. the best place to hit is other RAPE/ISI targets. let them evaluate their price, if these targets are more valuable than these bunch of scums... if they do, then that shows to the world the whole place needs to be bombed. anyway, the world needs proof and nothing but the proof.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby RayC » 10 Dec 2008 17:30

ramana wrote:before folks get upset, Huns used ot have last name kul and most settled in modern day Afghanistan West Punjab a nd Gul might be a Hun derivative. Or else flower is too non-mard for a guy like him.


Gul in colloquial Bengali means a 'far fetched story' or lies if you wish.

Therefore, Hamid has an appropriate surname! :rotfl:

nishug
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 33
Joined: 27 Mar 2007 01:28

Re: Indian Response to Terrorism

Postby nishug » 10 Dec 2008 17:38

NRao wrote:Either the U.S is shepherding on India's behalf or is using India to achieve her own ends.


Yes , I agree with u. If we attack pakistan I think it will be more of a US agenda than INDIA's


Return to “Terrorism Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests