The Mumbai Trap: Pakistan and India [Archive]

Eos of the Eons

29th November 2008, 10:11 AM

There's a professor here in Alberta -Sharma, saying that this in retaliation for what the US is doing to Afghanistan, and saying that the muslims that are being "picked on" in India the same way are why this is happening now. Huh? His argument seems one-sided. He was interviewed by someone at CBC radio, and there are so many Sharmas around that I'm unable to find a quote. It seems like all kinds of people want to attribute this to something only vaguely related.

Some of the gunmen are British born (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1089711/Massacre-Mumbai-Up-SEVEN-gunmen-British-came-area-7-7-bombers.html)?

The gunman have a mission no doubt, but have any of THEM given an explanation yet about what they are hoping to accomplish with this freak show? In my opinion, they are not painting a picture in my mind that fundamentalist muslims are peace loving folks.

Eos of the Eons

29th November 2008, 10:18 AM

Oh, and a question. What would be accomplished by getting India and Pakistan into a war with each other?

BirdStrike

29th November 2008, 11:39 AM

Oh, and a question. What would be accomplished by getting India and Pakistan into a war with each other?

The collapse of the Pakistani government.

My guess is they - the people who sent the terrorists - pray to their sick gods that somehow this attack will cause the downfall of the new Pakistani government, and in the chaos they - and their islamist ilk - will gain free reign in all of Pakistan - instead of just certain areas. (think strategically)

I also think that the people-who-sent-the-terrorists aren't really interested in India at all, just in using India as a front to help destroy the new Pakistani government. But that is total conjecture, my gut feeling if you will.

WildCat

29th November 2008, 11:58 AM

Oh, and a question. What would be accomplished by getting India and Pakistan into a war with each other?
If Pakistan pulls troops out of the tribal areas where they are fighting the Taliban, al Qaida, and other Islamist groups and puts them on the other side of the country in Kashmir then the extremists in the tribal areas once again have a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan.

BirdStrike

29th November 2008, 12:34 PM

If Pakistan pulls troops out of the tribal areas where they are fighting the Taliban, al Qaida, and other Islamist groups and puts them on the other side of the country in Kashmir then the extremists in the tribal areas once again have a safe haven from which to attack Afghanistan.

Whenever I played the board game Risk and I wanted to take the heat off one front I would attack my enemy from another front, drawing their forces and attention elsewhere. Same concept.

The Islamists have the Americans and Canadians breathing down their necks in Afghanistan - front #1 - and need to take the Pakistani troops off their butts in the Tribal Areas which border Afghanistan - front #2.

So why not attack India, Pakistan's old enemy. To draw attention away from the Tribal Areas, and focus Pakistans attention elsewhere. That is what I would do.

The risk the people-who-sent-the-terrorists take is that Pakistan and India don't fall into the trap, (my hope), and that Pakistan redoubles it's efforts in the Tribal Areas.

WildCat

29th November 2008, 12:44 PM

The risk the people-who-sent-the-terrorists take is that Pakistan and India don't fall into the trap, (my hope), and that Pakistan redoubles it's efforts in the Tribal Areas.
Problem is that for 60 years it has been ingrained into the Pakistani psyche that India is the biggest threat to their existence, and this persists even as Islamist groups are destroying it from within.

BirdStrike

29th November 2008, 01:25 PM

Problem is that for 60 years it has been ingrained into the Pakistani psyche that India is the biggest threat to their existence, and this persists even as Islamist groups are destroying it from within.

Exactly. So I figure the people-who-sent-the-terrorists sent their team into India. There has to be an ultimate decision maker somewhere with an operation this well-supplied and planned out.

So let's poke India in the eye and turn India and Pakistan at each other. And we'll use as many Pakistani nationals as we can find to do it just to rub it in. Then, while Pakistan and India are focused on each other, the people-who-sent-the-terrorists have a period of calm in the Tribal Areas where they can re-arm, regroup, move forces, etc.

That's my take. But I could be 100% wrong. Could simply be an unknown group of Chabad-hating disgruntled vegans, or the work of the Hotel Liberation Front. ;)

I await the answer to find out where the terrorists are from.. and who the terrorists work for.. only then will I know I was right.

Eos of the Eons

29th November 2008, 08:58 PM

Thank you. I don't feel so in the dark now. I don't feel the governments of Pakistan and India are going to fall for this ploy. What are the chances they ever would?

How can Professor Sharma be sympathetic to the extremists? It's not like they were doing any good in Afghanistan. How is killing a bunch of people going to make the population of India more sympathetic to the islamists? Won't it have the opposite effect?

BirdStrike

30th November 2008, 06:18 AM

Thank you. I don't feel so in the dark now. I don't feel the governments of Pakistan and India are going to fall for this ploy. What are the chances they ever would?

Slim I hope.

How is killing a bunch of people going to make the population of India more sympathetic to the islamists?

It seems to work pretty well for the Palestinians.

Anyways we all know that the attacks must have come about because India has been insufficiently sensitive in understanding the needs of the terrorists. So what India really needs to do first is remove all it's illegal settlements in the Kashmir area (http://pakistantimes.net/2005/04/27/kashmir2.htm). Then India needs to eliminate inequality and injustice for all non-Indians inside India.

Then, and only then will India have the moral high ground over the terrorists who are only expressing their nationalist dream by murdering tourists in Mumbai.

But what I really don't want to see is a "cycle of violence." Therefore India must not, and should not, respond to the Mumbai attack. It should turn the other cheek and not condition an end of violence in the negotiations with the terrorists.

What is needed is dialogue with the terrorists, because they obviously have valid reasons for being terrorists, see: illegal Indian settlements, inequality and injustice in India, no state for the terrorists to call their own. Those kind things.

Sound familiar? ;)

BirdStrike

30th November 2008, 07:45 AM

Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari pledged his country's full cooperation with the investigation and vowed to take "the strictest action" if it is found the terrorists were based in Pakistan.

[snip]

Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, vowed Saturday to take action against any group within its borders if it is found to be involved with the attacks.

(http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/30/india.attacks/index.html)

Well so much for staying out of the "cycle of violence." I suggest that Pakistan and India turn the other cheek, and try to understand the terrorists greivances. Only then will India and Pakistan have the moral high ground to negotiate with the terrorists in good faith.

But what do I know, I am only basing my hopes and dreams on what is asked of other countries in similar positions. ;)

Sefarst

30th November 2008, 08:52 AM

WildCat

30th November 2008, 08:55 AM

Turn the other cheek? You can't be serious.
I think your sarcasm meter is broken... either that or mine is giving false positives.

BirdStrike

30th November 2008, 10:37 AM

Turn the other cheek? You can't be serious.

Sure. Why not. We dont want India to escalate the violence do we? Why provoke the terrorists? We can't have Indian aggressions lead to a worsening of the conflict.

Any Indian response can only result in more retaliatory violent acts against India. So I say let's not feed a spiralling cycle of retribution. Let's not enter a cycle of violence.

India should turn the other cheek, for targeted killing the-folks-who-sent the Mumbai terrorists is not the answer.

dudalb

30th November 2008, 11:31 AM

geni

30th November 2008, 12:01 PM

I suppose you think that US should have "turned the other cheek" after Pearl Harbor?

The problem is who would you suggest India hit? Kashmir on it's side of the border? Its been calming down of late throwing in a bunch of troops who don't know the area and with potential itchy trigger fingers isn't exactly going to help.

Kashmir on the Pakistani side? War with Pakistan isn't exactly a great idea at this point.

Pakistani tribal regions? Again war with Pakistan and they can't really get there.

Afganistan? Well maybe but I'm not sure how popular that would be with the indian general population and there would be logistic issues. Indian troops are also not exactly the greatest at the kind of anti-insergency war we are looking to fight.

Polaris

30th November 2008, 03:25 PM

Sure. Why not. We dont want India to escalate the violence do we? Why provoke the terrorists? We can't have Indian aggressions lead to a worsening of the conflict.

Any Indian response can only result in more retaliatory violent acts against India. So I say let's not feed a spiralling cycle of retribution. Let's not enter a cycle of violence.

India should turn the other cheek, for targeted killing the-folks-who-sent the Mumbai terrorists is not the answer.

What is provoking the terrorists is the very existence of large numbers of vry different groups of people. "Turning the other cheek" in this case would mean everybody who is not salafi committing mass suicide.

Turning the other cheek in any case is a sick, insane proposition by Jesus (or so we're told) that only leads to the more violent people always getting the upper hand.

The way to prevent a cycle of violence is to find the peope who commit these acts and not negotiate, not cede anything, not try to address their grievances, but to kill every last man of them, and quickly.

CapelDodger

30th November 2008, 04:21 PM

The problem is who would you suggest India hit? Kashmir on it's side of the border? Its been calming down of late throwing in a bunch of troops who don't know the area and with potential itchy trigger fingers isn't exactly going to help.

India certainly took that bait when the ISI first launched its "deniables" into Kashmir. Atrocity sparked counter-atrocity in that well-known spiral of social polarisation. Tragic.

Kashmir on the Pakistani side? War with Pakistan isn't exactly a great idea at this point.

Probably not. Pakistan is disintegrating before our very eyes; better for India move in and mop up in a year or two, having prepared the political ground with the rational Pakistani element. IMO.

Pakistani tribal regions? Again war with Pakistan and they can't really get there.

The problem is that the Pakistani "national" authority has never got there either. The tribals didn't want Pakistan in the first place, and have never recognised its legitimacy. Pakistan was born a failed state, and it's time that mistake was rectified by dividing it between India and Afghanistan.

dudalb

30th November 2008, 04:59 PM

The problem is who would you suggest India hit? Kashmir on it's side of the border? Its been calming down of late throwing in a bunch of troops who don't know the area and with potential itchy trigger fingers isn't exactly going to help.

Kashmir on the Pakistani side? War with Pakistan isn't exactly a great idea at this point.

Pakistani tribal regions? Again war with Pakistan and they can't really get there.

Afganistan? Well maybe but I'm not sure how popular that would be with the indian general population and there would be logistic issues. Indian troops are also not exactly the greatest at the kind of anti-insergency war we are looking to fight.

I am not suggesting that India take any immediate military action. I was responding more to the foolishness of BirdStrike's statment as the general rule he seems to want to make it.

dudalb

30th November 2008, 05:05 PM

Pakistan was born a failed state, and it's time that mistake was rectified by dividing it between India and Afghanistan.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1884048ca062020e8b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13773)

That is so insane on so many levels that only a FacePalm will do.
Talk about denying reality.
What part of "Pakistan Has Nukes" don't you understand?
And that is only one reason why the idea of partitioning Pakistan is so Bat Crap Crazy that anybody suggesting it seriously can be rightly suspected of extreme ignorance or of having taken leave of their senses.

BirdStrike

30th November 2008, 05:29 PM

The tribals didn't want Pakistan in the first place, and have never recognised its legitimacy. Pakistan was born a failed state, and it's time that mistake was rectified by dividing it between India and Afghanistan.

I feel the Mumbai attacks were most likely the work of Jammu and Kashmiri terror groups. But that is just a guess, my opinion.

I don't think many people know that there are folks and terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir who have a basic national aspiration to create a Muslim state. After all, these folks are indigenous to this area, and they suffer daily humiliation under the Indian occupation in these disputed territories.

Kashmir is under siege, it's borders are blocked off, and its skies are controlled by the Indian occupational forces. Nearly 47,000 people have been killed, 20,000 of them civilians in Kashmir. (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/11/21/47_000_killed_in_Kashmir_revolt/) And IMHO after 40 years of occupation India must finally end it's state-sponsored terrorism of the Kashmiri people.

The way to prevent a cycle of violence is to find the peope who commit these acts and not negotiate, not cede anything, not try to address their grievances, but to kill every last man of them, and quickly.

Indian military attacks against the terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir will only kill more civilians, and this collective punishment of the Kashmiri people will only cause more terrorism. And the cycle of violence will continue.

No matter how difficult the problems between the Indians and the Kashmiri people are, they should not lead to people's death or the suffering of civilians. India should show restraint and address the root cause of Kashmiri terrorism. And the root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the occupation of the disputed territories by India.

Miss_Kitt

30th November 2008, 05:48 PM

I think, regardless of the group--it may be groups, by now--that are taking credit for this operation, the Indian government will assume it is backed by the government of Pakistan. That is, I'm sure, what the perpetrators are betting on. I'm equally sure that the surviving terrorist(s) will be persuaded, after a lengthy interrogation, to "confess" that they are being support/supplied/trained by Pakistan. And we'll never know that this is true, or not.

That the Indian government is NOT letting Interpol's team into the country until they've sifted through the evidence and gotten rid of / planted / altered as they deem appropriate is not a good omen.

And now Pakistan and India both have nukes.

I just don't think--and let me make it clear, I have a fairly low opinion of the Pakistani government--that Pakistan is stupid enough to do this. Provoking a war with India at a time when they have a second front on the Afghan side, and internal disarray, is just plain stupid. However, I expect that the "Blame Pakistan!" mindset of the Indian government will take over. The net result will be a cold war--or, worst case, a "hot" war--between Pakistan and India in the border region; and a collapse of the Pakistani government's efforts to deal with their other border area.

Once again, betting on stupidity works for the bad guys!

Sadly, MK

BirdStrike

30th November 2008, 06:15 PM

Once again, betting on stupidity works for the bad guys!

Sadly, MK

What I've read is that some militant groups were trained by the ISI to fuel the insurgency in Kashmir. So it is possible that someone somewhere in the ISI facillitated some element of the Mumbai operation as a favour, or as an old debt. But the origin and purpose of the Mumbai operation remains unclear at this point. I am clearly guessing.

I just hope India doesn't fall into that trap, and I hope Asif Ali Zardari is really a good guy who should know, more than any, the price of terrorism.

CapelDodger

30th November 2008, 06:32 PM

What part of "Pakistan Has Nukes" don't you understand?

What part of "failed state with nuclear weapons" doesn't demand the extinction of Pakistan?

And that is only one reason why the idea of partitioning Pakistan is so Bat Crap Crazy that anybody suggesting it seriously can be rightly suspected of extreme ignorance or of having taken leave of their senses.

The cynical partition of India in the first place created the current problem. Check that out (it's hardly ancient history, after all) and its impact on the subcontinent's history since. Pakistan used to include Bangladesh, believe it or not - it was called "East Pakistan" in those days.

Forget the Pakistani nukes. The people that control them are not going to go down in an incandescent blaze of glory for the sake of Islam or Pakistani nationalism. Mumbai is just a taste of what normal Pakistanis have been suffering for years from the wingnut element.

The nuclear armed Soviet Union went down with hardly a whimper, and so will Pakistan.

CapelDodger

30th November 2008, 07:08 PM

I feel the Mumbai attacks were most likely the work of Jammu and Kashmiri terror groups. But that is just a guess, my opinion.

I don't think many people know that there are folks and terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir who have a basic national aspiration to create a Muslim state.

Most people don't appreciate these groups didn't exist before 1989, and are creations of the Pakistani ISI. Even fewer people understand how and why Kashmir was partioned in the first place.

After all, these folks are indigenous to this area, and they suffer daily humiliation under the Indian occupation in these disputed territories.

The Indian response to the provocations launched by Pakistani "deniables" was brutish, short-sighted, and unforgivable, there's no doubt about that. The ISI pressed the button and the Indian Army fulfilled their fondest hopes. Like I say, unforgiveable.

Kashmir is under siege, it's borders are blocked off, and its skies are controlled by the Indian occupational forces. Nearly 47,000 people have been killed, 20,000 of them civilians in Kashmir. (http://article.wn.com/view/2008/11/21/47_000_killed_in_Kashmir_revolt/) And IMHO after 40 years of occupation India must finally end it's state-sponsored terrorism of the Kashmiri people.

This ignores Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which was cleansed of its Hindus by "deniables" in 1947.

Indian military attacks against the terror groups in Jammu and Kashmir will only kill more civilians, and this collective punishment of the Kashmiri people will only cause more terrorism. And the cycle of violence will continue.

Which is why it's better to take out the problem at source - the existence of Pakistan as a quasi-nation-state.

No matter how difficult the problems between the Indians and the Kashmiri people are, they should not lead to people's death or the suffering of civilians. India should show restraint and address the root cause of Kashmiri terrorism. And the root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the occupation of the disputed territories by India.

The root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the partition of India.

(I very much doubt that Kashmir has anything to do with the Mumbai outrage and the targeting of Brits, Americans, and Jews as preferred victims, but I'll wait on further evidence.)

CapelDodger

30th November 2008, 07:21 PM

I just don't think--and let me make it clear, I have a fairly low opinion of the Pakistani government--that Pakistan is stupid enough to do this.

I have a very low opinion of Pakistani governance (bordering on contempt, and from the less flattering side) so I doubt the government knows any more about it than the Indians do.

Provoking a war with India at a time when they have a second front on the Afghan side, and internal disarray, is just plain stupid.

From the Pakistani government's point of view no doubt. But what about the military's or the ISI's point of view? They are independent powers, with their own objectives.

BirdStrike

1st December 2008, 06:09 AM

Most people don't appreciate these groups didn't exist before 1989, and are creations of the Pakistani ISI.

These freedom fighters are only trying to end the cruel Indian occupation of Kashmir.

Even fewer people understand how and why Kashmir was partioned in the first place.

The partition of Kashmir is illegal, and against the will of the indigenous population.

The Indian response to the provocations launched by Pakistani "deniables" was brutish, short-sighted, and unforgivable, there's no doubt about that.

Under the illegal Indian occupation, the Kashmiri people's basic human rights continue to be violated at every level on a daily basis. India ignores all international norms, values and conventions in its treatment of the Kashmiri people.

The ISI pressed the button and the Indian Army fulfilled their fondest hopes. Like I say, unforgiveable.

Thank goodness the ISI is there to help the Kashmiri people protect Kashmir from the Indian occupation.

This ignores Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, which was cleansed of its Hindus by "deniables" in 1947.

Land won or lost in war is irrelevant. What is important is the Indian occupation, and the daily war-crimes India commits against the Kashmiri people.

Which is why it's better to take out the problem at source - the existence of Pakistan as a quasi-nation-state.

Kashmir needs Pakistan in it's resistance to the illegal Indian occupation of Kashmir. Pakistan is only helping the people of Kashmir against the Indian state sponsored terrorism.

The root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the partition of India.

(I very much doubt that Kashmir has anything to do with the Mumbai outrage and the targeting of Brits, Americans, and Jews as preferred victims, but I'll wait on further evidence.)

The root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the occupation of Kashmir by India. Not the partition of India. And the events in Mumbai may have been simply the natural response to the daily crimes and aggressions of Indian and it's occupation of Kashmir.

I call on the Security Council to exercise its authority, to condemn those Indian criminal acts, provide protection for the Kashmiri people and to quickly send international observers to the disputed territories.

Darth Rotor

1st December 2008, 06:25 AM

The root cause of Kashmiri terrorism is the occupation of Kashmir by India. Not the partition of India. And the events in Mumbai may have been simply the natural response to the daily crimes and aggressions of Indian and it's occupation of Kashmir.

I call on the Security Council to exercise its authority, to condemn those Indian criminal acts, provide protection for the Kashmiri people and to quickly send international observers to the disputed territories.
You'll need to wait for W to leave, given his "War on Terror" policy. Even then, I don't see it, sorry, you might want to ask Santa for something else for Christmas.

@ CapelDodger: count me in for two votes "yes" on Pashtuna Irridenta but I disagree on "Afghanistan" taking over Pakistan's northern portion. Afghanistan is a cobbled together mess. Let the Pashtun have their highland paradise, let the Lowland Pakistanis have theirs, draw a line, and let Afghanistan break up into two, or three, smaller Stans if need be.

The old lines on the map simply aren't cutting it. The 1973 war you mentioned that produced the terminally failed state of Bangladesh was ample evidence.

DR

varwoche

1st December 2008, 08:05 AM

Which is why it's better to take out the problem at source - the existence of Pakistan as a quasi-nation-state. How do you think this would play out? A new country or two, and the neighbors take the remainder?

dudalb

1st December 2008, 10:40 AM

ANd who would enforce the Partition of Pakistan, considering what a bloody mess it would turn out to be?
I don't think any country would want to send it's troops in.
You have a lot of people indulging in political fantasies who don't let reality and the facts on the ground interefer with their flights of fancy.
Any talk of partitioning Pakistan between India and Afghanistan is a good example of what happens when you theorize without letting reality interfere.

dudalb

1st December 2008, 10:42 AM

I call on the Security Council to exercise its authority, to condemn those Indian criminal acts, provide protection for the Kashmiri people and to quickly send international observers to the disputed territories

I think you have sort of blown any pretense you had as being an neutral on this issue with that remark and the other remarks which indicate you buy the Pakistani line on Kashmir.
I am beginning to think,with you remark about how Pakistan should support Kashmiri "Freedom Fighters" that all you pious statments about turning the other cheek is just a fig leaf to try to disguise the fact you are just another Lefty apologist for terrorism.

dudalb

1st December 2008, 10:44 AM

How do you think this would play out? A new country or two, and the neighbors take the remainder?

Capel thinks Pakistan should be divided between Afghanistan and India.
Somone here is not in touch with reality, and it ain't you and it ain't me.

varwoche

1st December 2008, 12:23 PM

Capel thinks Pakistan should be divided between Afghanistan and India.
Somone here is not in touch with reality, and it ain't you and it ain't me. Better not cut me slack so easily! ;)

There's a small handful of posters who over the years have demonstrated so much awareness of history and world affairs that I value their opinions even when unsupported by citation, CD amongst.

BirdStrike

1st December 2008, 02:28 PM

I think you have sort of blown any pretense you had as being an neutral on this issue with that remark and the other remarks which indicate you buy the Pakistani line on Kashmir.
I am beginning to think,with you remark about how Pakistan should support Kashmiri "Freedom Fighters" that all you pious statments about turning the other cheek is just a fig leaf to try to disguise the fact you are just another Lefty apologist for terrorism.

Don't sugar coat it. How do you really feel? ;)

You'll need to wait for W to leave, given his "War on Terror" policy. Even then, I don't see it, sorry, you might want to ask Santa for something else for Christmas.

DR

I don't really expect it. I am simply having some fun.

I was very interested by the attacks in Mumbai, and want to learn more from this international forum by discussing the issues of India, Pakistan and terrorism. And so I quickly scanned the net and read up on Kashmir terror groups. Then the history of Kashmir.

I read Kashmir was once a Buddhist seat of learning, then came Islam, then the British, then the partition of the British Indian Empire. Then a few ugly wars. Now it's borders are disputed and it is occupied by armies who are at war with terror groups. Body count is 47,000 dead, more than 20,000 of them civilians (http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=18534). Sound familiar?

I was simply playing with quotes off the net. And replacing Israel with India, and the Palestinian people with the Kashmiri people. It was interesting how the rhetoric is designed to vilify one side and paint the other innocent and down trodden.

Thought someone would call me on it by the 3rd or 4th post. Then finally dudalb called me a "Lefty apologist for terrorism..." :D

Anyhow nice chatting with ya.

Sefarst

1st December 2008, 03:24 PM

Capel thinks Pakistan should be divided between Afghanistan and India.
Somone here is not in touch with reality, and it ain't you and it ain't me.

Hell, at this point we might as well just let the entire Middle East divide itself into city-states and fiefdoms, seeing as how so many seem to have trouble holding loyalty to anything beyond their particular regional tribe.

BirdStrike

1st December 2008, 03:44 PM

Hell, at this point we might as well just let the entire Middle East divide itself into city-states and fiefdoms, seeing as how so many seem to have trouble holding loyalty to anything beyond their particular regional tribe.

Tribalism is very strong in that part of the world. It is quite common to see families facing families, clans facing clans, tribes facing tribes. The Indian caste system is something to behold. Maybe that is why it's so difficult to bring such a complex mix of people under one national flag.

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 03:51 PM

Hell, at this point we might as well just let the entire Middle East divide itself into city-states and fiefdoms, seeing as how so many seem to have trouble holding loyalty to anything beyond their particular regional tribe.

Absolutely. Why not go with the grain instead of imposing a Western nation-state model that has proved to be inappropriate to local conditions? Ninety years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and look at the state it's in. It's surely time to stop reinforcing failure.

geni

1st December 2008, 03:54 PM

Hell, at this point we might as well just let the entire Middle East divide itself into city-states and fiefdoms, seeing as how so many seem to have trouble holding loyalty to anything beyond their particular regional tribe.

It has been suggested. Your big problems are turkey (who will not let go of the kurdish areas) and Iran (who would then have no one to counter them).

moon1969

1st December 2008, 03:57 PM

"The Indians are bastards anyway"
-Henry Kissinger-

:D

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 04:14 PM

@ CapelDodger: count me in for two votes "yes" on Pashtuna Irridenta but I disagree on "Afghanistan"
taking over Pakistan's northern portion. Afghanistan is a cobbled together mess. Let the Pashtun have their highland paradise, let the
Lowland Pakistanis have theirs, draw a line, and let Afghanistan break up into two, or three, smaller Stans if need be.

That could work if the Pashtuns are fenced in so they can't trouble the normal world. Leave them to their preferred traditions of
goat-bothering, misogyny, and squabbling over pretty boys.

The old lines on the map simply aren't cutting it. The 1973 war you mentioned that produced the terminally failed state of
Bangladesh was ample evidence.

DR

My position is that the Lowland Pakistanis have as little in common with the Pashtuns as they did with the Bengalis. Grouping them all together as "Muslims" was crass beyond belief.

As for the failed state of Bangladesh, at least the Indians have them surrounded.

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 04:15 PM

"The Indians are bastards anyway"
-Henry Kissinger-

:D

That's Germans for you. They just can't handle spicy food.

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 04:22 PM

These freedom fighters are only trying to end the cruel Indian occupation of Kashmir.

Read up on the history of Kashmir from 1940 onwards, then get back to me. Pay particular attention to what happened to Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and intellectuals of any description in what is now Pakistani-occupied Kashmir.

BirdStrike

1st December 2008, 04:23 PM

That's Germans for you. They just can't handle spicy food.

Mmmmmm.... Chicken Bhona.. Saag Aloo.. Shrimp Masala... :D

dudalb

1st December 2008, 04:30 PM

Piece of advice BirdStrike:

The Net is a horrid place to research history. The crap sites outweigh the good sites.

dudalb

1st December 2008, 04:35 PM

Hell, at this point we might as well just let the entire Middle East divide itself into city-states and fiefdoms, seeing as how so many seem to have trouble holding loyalty to anything beyond their particular regional tribe.

The problem with Capel's solution is that the vast majority of Pakistanis,divided into tribes though they are will agree on thing.They Ain't gonna take being put under the rule of the Hindu Majority in India sitting down. And this is leaving the little fact the Pakistanis have nukes out of the question.
I am not denying that Pakistan is a incredibly screwed up country. But as far as redoing the 1948 Partition and returning Pakistan to India, that is just a crazy idea.
And who is going to force the partition on Pakistan anyway? India. I don't think they want to.
The International Community? You can them together to force a solution on Somalia, let alone Pakistan.

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 04:43 PM

ANd who would enforce the Partition of Pakistan, considering what a bloody mess it would turn out to be?

Pakistan is a bloody mess on a day-to-day basis, and has been from day one. It wouldn't be hard to recruit Pakistanis to the cause, from the educated classes at home and in the disapora, even those in the military. What has Pakistan ever done for them? Sixty years on (half or more under military rule) it's a land dominated by religious obscurantism and feudalism.

I don't think any country would want to send it's troops in.
You have a lot of people indulging in political fantasies who don't let reality and the facts on the ground interefer with their flights of fancy.
Any talk of partitioning Pakistan between India and Afghanistan is a good example of what happens when you theorize without letting reality interfere.

Yours is a doctrine of despair. "Pakistan is what it is because it always has been since 1947 and there's nothing to be done about it". It's going to expire at some point soon : economicaly, politically, and socially. Why drag the process out?

Damn' straight the Indians would like to send their army in to get it over with, and Kabul would like to send its army into the mountains. The US Army is ignoring that border already. There's a war on already, and it's madness to fight it reactively.

dudalb

1st December 2008, 04:47 PM

Capel, you seem to be attached to theories that have no chance of working in reality.

geni

1st December 2008, 04:58 PM

Capel, you seem to be attached to theories that have no chance of working in reality.

Give it time. Waziristan has never been that intigrated into Pakistan and prior to 2007 the militry certianly seemed to be ready to write it off.

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 05:03 PM

The problem with Capel's solution is that the vast majority of Pakistanis,divided into tribes though they are will agree on thing.

No they aren't. The majority of Pakistanis live in the cities on the plains, and are just like normal people everywhere.

They Ain't gonna take being put under the rule of the Hindu Majority in India sitting down.

India is a federal state, with a huge Muslim population. Unlike Pakistan it is secular. (Pakistan is an Islamic state, explicitly.) As part of India, lowland Pakistan would comprise the states of Sindh and Punjab, with considerable local autonomy. For "Hindu Majority" you might as well speak of a "Protestant Majority" in the US.

And this is leaving the little fact the Pakistanis have nukes out of the question.

Forget the nukes. Really, you should. They're a con-trick. Meaningless in military terms.

I am not denying that Pakistan is a incredibly screwed up country. But as far as redoing the 1948 Partition and returning Pakistan to India, that is just a crazy idea.

A doctrine of despair. If everybody thought like that we'd never have bombed Serbia into submission. "It's the Balkans, waddya gonna do?"

CapelDodger

1st December 2008, 05:23 PM

Give it time. Waziristan has never been that intigrated into Pakistan and prior to 2007 the militry certianly seemed to be ready to write it off.

Islamabad has never seriously tried to rule the tribal territories. In Imperial days the Brits restricted their involvement to reprisals and demonstrations. Nobody's ever ruled those people, not even Alexander.

Which is a problem in this day and age, when the likes of Al Qaeda can reach out from there across the world to (for instance) New York. It's crazy to suggest that we all simply have to put up with that because Pakistan has sovereign authority and can't (or won't) do anything about it.

gumboot

1st December 2008, 05:27 PM

Letting the area revert back to city states and tribal areas is a nice idea, but of course the reality (as history shows) is that eventually some nation will simply conquer the whole lot and establish a vast empire.

I say bring it on. The world is well over due for a good old fashioned conquering empire...

And BirdStrike, I got your point, even if no one else did. :)

Stout

1st December 2008, 06:54 PM

And BirdStrike, I got your point, even if no one else did. :)

FWIW, I did too but my lack of knowledge all things Kashmir kept me reading instead of posting.

All I've been able to figure is the area's a real mess, pretty much closed to tourism and there's so many players that I need a big freaking chart to keep tally.

There's some very valuable insights in this thread:)

WildCat

1st December 2008, 07:10 PM

As for the failed state of Bangladesh, at least the Indians have them surrounded.
Eh, if global warming comes as predicted that failed state will solve itself under several meters of ocean water.

geni

1st December 2008, 07:18 PM

India is a federal state, with a huge Muslim population. Unlike Pakistan it is secular. (Pakistan is an Islamic state, explicitly.) As part of India, lowland Pakistan would comprise the states of Sindh and Punjab, with considerable local autonomy. For "Hindu Majority" you might as well speak of a "Protestant Majority" in the US.

The problem is that there are already areas of india not exactly under state control. The most likely outcome for a pakistan breakup would be Balochistan/Sindh/Punjab or some combination of as independent nations. Union with india is not going to happen.

Forget the nukes. Really, you should. They're a con-trick. Meaningless in military terms.

They limit india's options and they are very impotant in political terms.

dudalb

2nd December 2008, 11:53 AM

Undoing the creation of Pakistan would be as easy as unscrambling eggs.

There's some very valuable insights in this thread

Mixed in with a lot of nonsense.

Darth Rotor

2nd December 2008, 12:49 PM

Islamabad has never seriously tried to rule the tribal territories. In Imperial days the Brits restricted their involvement to reprisals and demonstrations. Nobody's ever ruled those people, not even Alexander.

Which is a problem in this day and age, when the likes of Al Qaeda can reach out from there across the world to (for instance) New York. It's crazy to suggest that we all simply have to put up with that because Pakistan has sovereign authority and can't (or won't) do anything about it.
You seem to be channeling Robert Kagan (http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=322630&rc=op&p=1&all=1). Who is this we, Kemo Sabe?

The Sovereignty Dodge
"We don't think the world's great nations and countries can be held hostage by non-state actors," Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said yesterday. Fair enough. But what is the world to do when those non-state actors operate from the territory of a state and are the creation of that state's intelligence services?

--snip and cut to his UN centric, and chilling, position --

Would the U.N. Security Council authorize such action? China has been Pakistan's ally and protector, and Russia might have its own reasons for opposing a resolution. Neither likes the idea of breaking down the walls of national sovereignty -- except, in Russia's case, in Georgia -- which is why they block foreign pressure on Sudan concerning Darfur, and on Iran and other rogue states. This would be yet another test of whether China and Russia, supposed allies in the war against terrorism, are really interested in fighting terrorism outside their own borders. But if such an action were under consideration at the United Nations, that might be enough to gain Pakistan's voluntary cooperation. Either way, it would be useful for the United States, Europe and other nations to begin establishing the principle that Pakistan and other states that harbor terrorists should not take their sovereignty for granted. In the 21st century, sovereign rights need to be earned.
The way Iraq's and Afghanistan's sovereignty was earned, Bob?

Capel, your thoughts?

DR

BirdStrike

2nd December 2008, 01:44 PM

Here's a funny one.

Former President Pervez Musharraf has blamed Pakistan's current administration for the tensions in ties with India (Dec 02, 2008) (http://publication.samachar.com/pub_article.php?id=3168497&navname=General%20&moreurl=http://publication.samachar.com/theindianexpress/general/theindianexpress.php&homeurl=http://www.samachar.com&nextids=3169455|3168495|3170219|3168497|3168496&nextIndex=4)

That's certainly the pot calling the kettle black. :D

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 03:39 PM

You seem to be channeling Robert Kagan (http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/detail.jsp?key=322630&rc=op&p=1&all=1).

More akin to parallel evolution, I think. I could claim priority; I was saying just the same in 2001 when Operation Fatwa This Raghead stopped at the Pakistani border because of the "sovereignty" issue.

Who is this we, Kemo Sabe?

We modern humans :).

The way Iraq's and Afghanistan's sovereignty was earned, Bob?

Quite. What was given can (and quite often should) be taken away again.

Capel, your thoughts?

DR

All of them :eek: ? We'd be in for a long night.

Pakistan has only ever defined itself against India. It is obsessed with India. It has no other sense of identity; without India it is nothing. Even its "Strategy of Depth" in Afghanistan is all about India - it's something they can do so they make up a fantastical justification for it, vis-a-vis India.

When the British granted nationhood, did Pakistan first look to imposing itself on its own territory? Did it heck as like : it tried to take (independent) Kashmir from under India's nose. And, of course, failed. Everything it does is governed by its sense of inferiority to the successful kid in school who wouldn't give a toss about Pakistan if it didn't keep poking him.

Pakistan should have FAIL on its national flag.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 03:58 PM

The problem is that there are already areas of india not exactly under state control. The most likely outcome for a pakistan breakup would be Balochistan/Sindh/Punjab or some combination of as independent nations. Union with india is not going to happen.

And independent Baluchistan would present the same problem as we face now. Give that to Iran - which should leave them fully occupied for a while. Sindh and Punjab could perhaps be independent in a Customs Union with India (similar to the Zollverein that preceded German unification). That's workable.

Hey, we're working out a policy here :)!

They limit india's options and they are very impotant in political terms.

They don't limit India's options; if Pakistan used a nuke the whole damn' world would come down on it's arse, including China and the US. Not an option. As national willy-waving it has a limited political shelf-life - "Yes, you're hungry, diseased, and dressed in rags but your nation stands in the first rank". That gets old pretty quickly.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:05 PM

Eh, if global warming comes as predicted that failed state will solve itself under several meters of ocean water.

Much of it being under a few centimetres is enough; that's why India's building a fence around the place. But let's stick to the old rules and not complicate matters :).

geni

2nd December 2008, 04:17 PM

They don't limit India's options; if Pakistan used a nuke the whole damn' world would come down on it's arse, including China and the US.

And without them while it would be expensive India could occupy the place fairly quicky or more realisticaly do enough damage that they might as well have done so. China doesn't exactly care that much what happens to india.

Nuclear weapons are the reason why respecting Pakistan's sovereignty is less optional that some countries would like.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:19 PM

Letting the area revert back to city states and tribal areas is a nice idea, but of course the reality (as history shows) is that eventually some nation will simply conquer the whole lot and establish a vast empire.

Not if the cities pull together to prevent it. History shows that most empires are launched by cities and grow by absorbing others. The nomads only sweep in when the cities are weakened (usually by internecine conflict, but sometimes by environmental factors) and nomad empires do not last. Empire is mostly a civilised pursuit.

Nations are also built around hierarchies of cities.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:28 PM

And without them while it would be expensive India could occupy the place fairly quicky or more realisticaly do enough damage that they might as well have done so. China doesn't exactly care that much what happens to india.

Nuclear weapons are the reason why respecting Pakistan's sovereignty is less optional that some countries would like.

We disagree on the significance of anybody letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle. The US got away with it once, in exceptional circumstances. The next nation that does it will be branding "pariah" on its own forehead.

If the Chinese let Pakistan get away with it against India they face the propsect of North Korea swaggering about and making demands on them. Ain't gonna happen. The next nation (if any) to use nuclear weapons will get a concerted spanking the like of which has never been seen before.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:42 PM

geni : Thinking tactically, what we should perhaps do is start promoting Sindhi and Punjabi separatism. There's no doubt they'd be better off without the dead hand of Islamabad on their heads, and they have a much longer history than Pakistan does.

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:52 PM

Undoing the creation of Pakistan would be as easy as unscrambling eggs.

That's what they said about Yugoslavia. It wasn't pretty, but it was done. It would have been far less ugly had it been done decisively, instead of trying to maintain the fiction of a nation-state (which, like Pakistan, is all Yugoslavia ever was).

CapelDodger

2nd December 2008, 04:56 PM

gumboot

2nd December 2008, 06:35 PM

Not if the cities pull together to prevent it.

True, but that in itself is very rare. The Greek States were a rare exception, and even then many of the Greek cities joined the forces opposing them, and ultimately they were swallowed up by an empire. Ultimately, the reason you have small city states is because they don't get along - this prevents them pulling together to prevent imperial conquest.

CapelDodger

3rd December 2008, 03:19 PM

True, but that in itself is very rare. The Greek States were a rare exception, and even then many of the Greek cities joined the forces opposing them, and ultimately they were swallowed up by an empire. Ultimately, the reason you have small city states is because they don't get along - this prevents them pulling together to prevent imperial conquest.

There's a more recent example that's more relevant to modern times : the successful resistance of cities in the Netherlands to the Habsburg empire. Despite their rivalries they were able to combine against the common threat, and use their economic power to defeat a territorial power. In this, of course, they were assisted by the economic power of an allied city - London. The cities went on to great things; the Hapsburg Empire (in its various parts) went down the toilet, broken on the wheel of economic incompetence.

The days of military conquest are over in the modern world; the costs far outweigh the benefits. The future lies with a system of major cities and their hinterlands of satellite cities. Nation-states are a half-way house between empires and that future.

dudalb

3rd December 2008, 04:37 PM

The days of military conquest are over in the modern world; the costs far outweigh the benefits. The future lies with a system of major cities and their hinterlands of satellite cities. Nation-states are a half-way house between empires and that future.

Just wait until the cities start bickering among themselves. Ever hear of Athens and Sparta, guy?
Of course don't let reality intefere with your grand visions.

CapelDodger

3rd December 2008, 06:12 PM

Just wait until the cities start bickering among themselves. Ever hear of Athens and Sparta, guy?
Of course don't let reality intefere with your grand visions.

Oddly enough, I have heard of the Peloponnesian Wars. It seems we have something in common.

Once the Netherlands and London had seen off the Habsburgs they did indeed start squabbling over colonial spoils, but when Louis XIV appeared on the horizon they got back together to screw him over too. Ditto Napoleon, and (with New York as a new recruit) the Prussians.

I can't see where you're going with this, unless it's deeper into Ancient History. (Persepolis, Babylon, Ur, I've heard of them all.)

boloboffin

3rd December 2008, 10:23 PM

Darth Rotor

4th December 2008, 07:08 AM

Oh, for the good old days: BBC report from 1965 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/6/newsid_3632000/3632092.stm)

1965: Indian Army invades W Pakistan

Indian troops have invaded West Pakistan, crossing the border at three points in an attack which appears to be aimed mainly at the city of Lahore. Authorities in Delhi say their action was intended to prevent a direct attack by Pakistani forces against India.

On 25 August, Pakistani soldiers launched a covert operation across the ceasefire line, established in 1949 after the first Indo-Pakistani war, into Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir.

Since then there have been a number of clashes along the ceasefire line, but this is the first time Indian troops have crossed into West Pakistan in what is being seen as an act of war.
--
Details of today's invasion are sketchy. There have been reports of the Indian Air Force in action, striking against military targets, including an oil tanker train, a group of military vehicles, a goods train carrying supplies, an army camp and some gun positions. A spokesman for the Indian government said: "Our policy is that when Pakistan has bases from which it is mounting attacks on our territory we have to destroy those bases."
A recent article I read put the number of Indian troop in and around Kashmir as 600,000. Not sure if they are off by a zero on that one, seems rather large. Flashpoints put the figure at about 125,000, which isn't that far off from how many the US have in Iraq.

More to the point of this topic, note the following, also from Flashpoints (http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Kashmir-India_vs_Pakistan-web/Kashmir-India_vs_briefing.html):

Kashmiri militant groups include:

Hizbul Muhajideen - pro-Pakistan rebels and the oldest active group.
Lashkar-e-Toyeba - Sunni Islamists, including fighters from outside Kashmir.
Harkut-ul-Muhajideen - a coalition of factions including Kashmiris, Afghanis, and Arab fighters.
Tehreek-e-Jehad.- a new organization of uncertain origins, membership and goals.
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) - a pro-independence group of declining influence.

DR

BirdStrike

4th December 2008, 07:36 AM

A woman from Afghanistan, Vanda Feldab-Brown, was just on C-Span, talking about this. One of the results of this attack is that Pakistan is deploying along the Indian border. That means they are pulling them from the Afghanistan border. That means that it's a lot, lot easier for Taliban and Al Qaeda forces to move across that border, to train, to resupply.

Early in this thread I suggested that very scenerio using a tactic in the game of Risk as an example. Sadly the Pakistanis seem to be falling for the terrorists trap.

'Smiling' Mumbai terrorist says he was trained by ex-army officers from Pakistan (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/03/2008-12-03_smiling_mumbai_terrorist_says_he_was_tra.html)

"Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, who became a poster boy for terror after he was photographed marching through Mumbai with his gun bared, told his Indian captors he was trained by ex-Pakistani army officers.

The 21-year-old terrorist said he spent the last 18 months at training camps run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri separatist group linked to Al Qaeda that was supposed to have been mothballed by the Pakistani government."

A year and a half training? Who else was training with him? How many were training? Where are the other folks who were training with him? Who financed this training? - (see: shelter, food, equipment, armaments, transport)

CapelDodger

4th December 2008, 03:31 PM

A woman from Afghanistan, Vanda Feldab-Brown, was just on C-Span, talking about this. One of the results of this attack is that Pakistan is deploying along the Indian border. That means they are pulling them from the Afghanistan border.

I wouldn't put much faith in this. The Pakistani military have been threatening it for over a week, and it reeks of blackmail. We have to take on trust that they had 100,000 troops in the tribal territories in the first place.

That means that it's a lot, lot easier for Taliban and Al Qaeda forces to move across that border, to train, to resupply. She pointed out that it was a similar situation that allowed them to cross over in 2001 when America invaded.

Given the constant trickle of casualties coming back from Helmand Province it's passage in the opposite direction that's the problem. Passage in either direction isn't that great at this time of year anyway.

I can't say that was an intended result of LeT, but regardless of whether there is that level of coordination here or not, Al Qaeda is certainly taking advantage of it.

Personally, I doubt Al Qaeda is much of a player in this. Elements of the ISI and the Pakistani military (which only recently had to cede power, remember) probably have a lot to do with it. Lashkar-e-Toyeba is an ISI construct.

CapelDodger

4th December 2008, 03:56 PM

A recent article I read put the number of Indian troop in and around Kashmir as 600,000. Not sure if they are off by a zero on that one, seems rather large. Flashpoints put the figure at about 125,000, which isn't that far off from how many the US have in Iraq.

More to the point of this topic, note the following, also from Flashpoints (http://www.flashpoints.info/countries-conflicts/Kashmir-India_vs_Pakistan-web/Kashmir-India_vs_briefing.html):

Kashmiri militant groups include:
Hizbul Muhajideen - pro-Pakistan rebels and the oldest active group.
Lashkar-e-Toyeba - Sunni Islamists, including fighters from outside Kashmir.
Harkut-ul-Muhajideen - a coalition of factions including Kashmiris, Afghanis, and Arab fighters.
Tehreek-e-Jehad.- a new organization of uncertain origins, membership and goals.
Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) - a pro-independence group of declining influence.

DR

As I recall, the JKLF is a leftist ("Liberation Front" is a give-away) movement. It's easy to miss that religion has only become an issue relatively recently, since the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan. Prior to that it was regarded as an embarrassment. Zia ul-Haq (cursed be his tribe) had a lot to do with changing that.

CapelDodger

4th December 2008, 04:08 PM

Early in this thread I suggested that very scenerio using a tactic in the game of Risk as an example. Sadly the Pakistanis seem to be falling for the terrorists trap.

'Smiling' Mumbai terrorist says he was trained by ex-army officers from Pakistan (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/12/03/2008-12-03_smiling_mumbai_terrorist_says_he_was_tra.html)

"Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, who became a poster boy for terror after he was photographed marching through Mumbai with his gun bared, told his Indian captors he was trained by ex-Pakistani army officers.

The 21-year-old terrorist said he spent the last 18 months at training camps run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri separatist group linked to Al Qaeda that was supposed to have been mothballed by the Pakistani government."

A year and a half training? Who else was training with him? How many were training? Where are the other folks who were training with him? Who financed this training? - (see: shelter, food, equipment, armaments, transport)

Let's not jump the gun. There are at least two stories circulating about who this guy is, where he's from, and what he's said. This is just another hasty news-report founded on unspecified sources, who may well be playing their own game.

Which is not to say it doesn't sound credible, apart from the obligatory Al Qaeda reference for an American audience.

CapelDodger

8th December 2008, 08:10 AM

Pakistan 'crackdown on militants'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7770455.stm

Pakistani security forces have swooped on a camp in Pakistani-administered Kashmir used by a militant group that India links to the Mumbai attacks.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba group's operational chief, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, who is said by Delhi to have ordered the attacks, was reportedly seized.

Government and militant-related sources in the capital Islamabad and in the Kashmiri city of Muzaffarabad reported Mr Lakhvi's detention although there has been no official confirmation.

Also in the Guardian and on Reuters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/08/mumbai-terror-attacks-india

The suspected planner of last month's Mumbai terror attacks has been arrested in a raid on a militant group in Pakistan, an official close to the extremist organisation said today.

The official from Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), the charity and education arm of the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, told Reuters that Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi was among four men taken into custody after a raid yesterday on a camp outside Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani Kashmir.

Lakhvi, one of Lashkar's operations chiefs, was named as a ringleader in the Mumbai plot by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone surviving gunmen captured after the attacks, according to Indian officials

"Yes, Lakhvi is among four or five people arrested in a raid yesterday," the JuD official told Reuters.

There has been no official confirmation of the raid but Pakistani intelligence officers told Reuters six men were arrested. No names were given. The Associated Press reported that more than 12 people were arrested.

Ajmir Amir Kasab is being very cooperative, if Indian reports are anything to go by. Perhaps it's remorse? (No, I don't think so either.)

Darth Rotor

9th December 2008, 11:48 AM

Pakistan 'crackdown on militants'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7770455.stm

Ajmir Amir Kasab is being very cooperative, if Indian reports are anything to go by. Perhaps it's remorse? (No, I don't think so either.)
Went digging through some old copies of Economist this weekend. Found what I was seeking: the Jaipur attacks in India, May of this year (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7398989.stm). 60 dead, 150 wounded. Terrorist attacks, or guerilla attacks, or insurgent attacks, or 4GW, or anarchy, or whatever you'd like to characterize them as, are rather old news in India and Pakistan. Makes me appreciate how relatively peaceable my own country is.

I have cobbled together a rather random list, much of which comes from here, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents) and omits the Sikh incidents I recall from a couple of decades ago. Might have been simple insurrection, not "terrorism."
1951 October 16: Liaquat Ali Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, was assassinated by two gunshots to the chest in a public meeting of the Muslim City League at Municipal Park, Rawalpindi by Saad Akbar Babrak, an Afghan from the Zadran tribe Pacha Khan Zadran.

1955 April 11: Air India "Kashmir Princess" (Lockheed Constellation) went down on the sea near Natuna Islands, Indonesia after a bomb explosion, killing 16 people. The plane was chartered by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government for carrying an official delegation to Bandung Conference in Bandung, Indonesia. Possible suspects included a Kuomintang (Chinese Nationalist Party) secret agent who put the bomb in the aircraft during transit in Hong Kong, intending to kill PRC Prime Minister Zhou Enlai.

Air India Flight 182 is blown up by a bomb put onboard the flight from Canada to India by unknown terrorists. All 329 people on board, most of them Canadian citizens, are killed. At the time, the deadliest terrorist attack ever, and still the deadliest act of terrorism in Canadian history. A second Air India flight from Canada was targeted on the same day, but the bomb exploded at Narita Airport, in the luggage outside the aircraft, killing two baggage handlers, bringing the total death toll of the act to 331.

1984

September 5: Pan Am Flight 73, an American civilian airliner, is hijacked; 22 people die when plane is stormed in Karachi, Pakistan. A total of 359 passengers and crew survive. The attack was carried out by Muslim extremists and was possibly sponsored by Libya.

1991

May 21: Former Indian prime minister Rajiv Gandhi assassinated in a bomb blast believed to be the work of Sri Lankan Tamil terrorists belonging to the LTTE.[4] This is also the first time that the suicide vest is used by any terrorist group.

1993
March 12: Mumbai car bombings leave 257 dead with 1,400 others injured.
March 17: A bomb blast in Calcutta killed at least 50 people. Two apartment blocks came crashing down when the blast rocked central Calcutta's Bowbazar locality shortly after midnight.
March 19: A bomb exploded in Calcutta's Sealdah rail terminus, killing one person and wounding a dozen others

1995
March 8: Terrorists in Karachi, armed with automatic rifles, murdered two American consulate employees and wounded a third as they traveled in the consulate shuttle bus. See Rewards for Justice.
November 19: Bombing of Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad kills 19.

1998
India, January: Wandhama Massacre - 24 Kashmiri Pandits are massacred by Kashmiri militants in the city of Wandhama in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

India, February 14: 1998 Coimbatore bombings - Bombings by suspected Islamic Jihadi groups on an election rally in the city of Coimbatore kill about 60 people.

1999
January 3: Gunmen open fire on Shi'a Muslims worshipping in an Islamabad mosque, killing 16 people and injuring 25.
December 24: Indian Airlines Flight 814 from Kathmandu, Nepal, to Delhi is hijacked. One passenger is killed and some hostages are released. After negotiations between the Taliban and the Indian government, the last of the remaining hostages on board Flight 814 are released in exchange for release of four terrorists.

After 1999, the numbers of incidents seem to go up considerabley. It's becoming downright chic to do that terrorist thing. Monkey see monkey do. :p

DR