The Mumbai Trap: Pakistan and India

[BirdStrike]

So? Will Pakistan and India take the bait? By that I mean fall into the Mumbai terrorists trap? Or will cooler heads prevail?

So far it looks like some in the Indian and Pakistani governments are knee-jerking into acrimony. That is expected given their history.

But I don't think the acrimony will last, yet I've been wrong before.. just ask my ex!

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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?

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]

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

 

[BirdStrike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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.



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]

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.



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.

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

 

[WildCat]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[geni]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.