NEWS: Series Of Explosion Rocks Indian Capital New Delhi

Your missing the point here: that point being that the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ARE making efforts to combat terrorism and terrorist organizations. Do you see Syria or Iran, etc making such efforts or doing so?




seekerof

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Pakistan is ruled by a military dictator that does not sponsor and/or support terrorists organizations and/or terrorists, whereas nations that have been labeled "terrorist nations", such as Syria, Iran, etc., have leaderships that do sponsor and support terrorist organizations and/or terrorists, again, such as Syria, Iran, etc.

That is your difference and that is why the US considers Pakistan an ally in the war on terrorism.

Pakistan supported the Taliban and they even flew Pakistani fighters out of Afghanistan before the US invasion.

I think they are state sponsors of terror.

MSNBC

NEW YORK, Nov. 29, 2001 — The United States took the unprecedented step this week of demanding that foreign airlines provide information on passengers boarding planes for America. Yet in the past week, a half dozen or more Pakistani air force cargo planes landed in the Taliban-held city of Kunduz and evacuated to Pakistan hundreds of non-Afghan soldiers who fought alongside the Taliban and even al-Qaida against the United States.

I think Pakistan's links to terrorism and to 911 are stronger than those of Syria or Iran.

The same holds true for you, AceOfBase: Is not the government of Pakistan making a concerted effort to combat terrorism, terrorist organizations, and terrorists?
Are the governments of Iran and Syria doing such?


Thanks for the information though.





seekerof



[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
The same holds true for you, AceOfBase: Is not the government of Pakistan making a concerted effort to combat terrorism, terrorist organizations, and terrorists?
Are the governments of Iran and Syria doing such?


Thanks for the information though.

seekerof

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]

But why should they combat what we see as terrorists?
Why should we get to judge the actions of another?
The Western [we] world seem to stand on this perch and look down on the rest of the World, where our actions even though on a basic level are the same, are done for the right reasons. To many other people they are not and yet those people are wrong?

Wrong for having an opinion different to our Goverment?
Seekerof, I would rather live in a World where Goverment's do have a difference of opinion until we find the best system for all of us.

as posted by Odium
Seekerof, I would rather live in a World where Goverment's do have a difference of opinion until we find the best system for all of us

I thought that we currently did live in that world.
And I also thought that best system for dealing with differences was to be mediated, ultimately determined and resolved by the United Nations.
Or was that a utopian thought I or you were having?





seekerof

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Seekerof]

Seekerof, I am sure you are aware that while people hold a veto the United Nation's is as good as pointless.

If we wish to see these "terror" states work towards a better system and life for all of us, we have to give a little to get a little.

Seekerof,

No, the USA does not publicy ally itself with terrorists, it only funds small militatant groups to it's own advantage, as it does abette dictators the world over for it's own geo-political purposes. Examples are paramount, and you are well aware of them. You're simply assertion does not negate this fact, it's only fosters in us what we've grow accustomed to from you; blind patrioism.

As it were, there is no reason to believe that Iran, nor Al-Queda has anything to do with this, in fact, our fellow Indian freind here, ShakyaHeir, maybe more acknowledged of the precedence; India is suffering deep fractures in multiple aspects of society, from Sikh terrorists groups, one of who recently had a predominate figure, who also happens to be my uncle, let out on parole, and in these 27 short days, he was enspoused, of all things to do.

www.rediff.com...

it figures.....i have been telling for some time that Islamic extremists dont always target Americans or its interests but people just dont seem to listen. u dink dat people realize that Islamic extremists are just targeting Americans because of troops in the ME?

There are many Islamic militant groups whose modus operandi holds to be uncalcuable at times. This situation is no different, and untill we have concrete evidence that a certain group commited it, we should not jump to conclusions, esp those members here who have very little bearing of Indian-Pakistanian relations, not to mention the insurgency and terrorism that occured after 1947, in which all ethnic groups in India were apart of, and in which many Indians still regret, remorst, and perpetuate to this day.

So I guess "terrorist nations" are only the ones that openly sponsor terrorism. Which explains why we're still allied with Saudi Arabia...

Thank you. The United States disregards certain praticularities in Saudi Arabia due to it's massive wealth and resources; praticularities which concern human rights, state sponsered terrorism, and many other problems that are enspoused with this blatantly ruthless monarchy which still disallows women equal rights.

Your missing the point here: that point being that the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia ARE making efforts to combat terrorism and terrorist organizations. Do you see Syria or Iran, etc making such efforts or doing so?

At to what end? Exactly what are they doing that will stop the terrorism that America perpetualy and constantly fuels each and every week? Seekerof, terrorism cannot be ended with military tactics, but through socio-economic means. Terrorism is a lexicon, one which has been used by your very government for decades. The Death squads in South America are quite well funded, as was Indonesia when they commited the massive genocide against East Timor, were they not?

Are the governments of Iran and Syria doing such?

You must have been sleeping when Syria was taking in insurgents as prisoners of the west, and interogating them under thier own means.

I thought that we currently did live in that world.
And I also thought that best system for dealing with differences was to be mediated, ultimately determined and resolved by the United Nations.
Or was that a utopian thought I or you were having?

I'm sure the United States had nothing to do with the massive amounts of vetos against peacefull resolutions passed by the UN, did they?

Let's take a little peek shall we.

www.krysstal.com...

1977 Condemns the apartheid situation in South Africa.
1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.

Some of them are just mind boggling, such as Palestinian women being allowed to attent the United Nations Conference on Women.

Luxifero

Seekeroff..

Pakistan's attempts to curb terrorism as very very superficial if at all.
And that too because some of those terrorists now pose a threat to the current coup govt. itself.

Somebody above this gave the reasons behind the US obssesion with Pakistan.
That is true 100%
The US sides Pakistan purely because of its geo-political location..NOTHING else...
You think the Kashmir problem just materialised by itself??There was nothing wrong with Kasmir till 1989 in terms of militancy..
These things need money dammit!!!
And in the 80s the US pumped large amounts of sums into Pakistan to fund to afghan warriors and Pakistan convieniently diverted large amts of those sums to set up camps in kashmir.
The US knows that the WHOLE infrastrucutre of Pakistan: The army + the intelligence services(no other infrastructure exists in Pakistan ) is filled with pro-militancy ranks.. The pakistanis had to let go of the talibani infatutation because thy knew that w/o the US they are NOTHING.
They WILL NEVER let go of the kashmir infatuation and the US will convieniently turn the cold shoulder to that, even thought they know EXACTLY what is happening there.
Thats why I say the war on terror is a freakin farse..
If you go a claim that coutnries like Iraq sponsor terrorism while ignore countries like Pakistan, then well.. I rest my case..
And I think countries liek Israel have understood this hypocrcy practiced by the US. I just hope we(India) take matters into our own hands and do the "needful".
We have the capability and the ability to deal with the consequesnces of our actions..

Note: I am quite sure that these blasts were NOT targeted at any foreign entity and the death toll will show that..Maybe a move to try a avoid too much probing from the international community..

Anyways those detonators and explosive devices hold the signatures to where the bombs came from.
Lets see how the events unfold in the next fortnight..
I will do a podcast on this after the 10th.
Until then,

Daedalus3

EDIT: Luxifero I think India handled the khalistan problem very well, and as of now that movement is more or less dead, in India at least.
The movement is only acitve in countries like the UK, Canada, US etc..
We are actively trying to snuff that out to by coercing the more moderate sikhs to convince their ..umm. more passionate brethren..
Khalistan is over IMO.. On which side of the line do you stand Luxifero?


[edit on 29-10-2005 by Daedalus3]

EDIT: Luxifero I think India handled the khalistan problem very well, and as of now that movement is more or less dead, in India at least.
The movement is only acitve in countries like the UK, Canada, US etc..
We are actively trying to snuff that out to by coercing the more moderate sikhs to convince their ..umm. more passionate brethren..
Khalistan is over IMO.. On which side of the line do you stand Luxifero?

Not ony my Uncles. It was a pointless effort to facilitate the needs of a few Sikhs who believe in self-determination. It was almost pathetic. My uncle obviously has chosen the wrong path. I've never payed much mind otherwise. The numerious suicide bombings carried out by Sikh groups proved to be thier deaths.

Luxifero

Well I guess then its only because of the people like you that India was truely able to solve this problem..Kudos to you and your kind..

The same applies to kashmir, and its working.. slowly but working nonetheless
IMHO this attack was just something out of frustration for the minority who are fading away into non existence

[edit on 29-10-2005 by Daedalus3]

even if pakistan did sponser terror attacks, which we're pretty sure they dont, they would not do so after india had just made serious relief contributions following the earthquakes in pakistan.

i would guess if it was a pakistany operation, then it was not sponored by the state. i would guess that is iranian, though i wouldnt rule out syrian or al-quida

Originally posted by Daedalus3

IMHO this attack was just something out of frustration for the minority who are fading away into non existence

You might be right. The following is not proven yet, but it could be...

Originally posted by Becon of Light
even if pakistan did sponser terror attacks, which we're pretty sure they dont, they would not do so after india had just made serious relief contributions following the earthquakes in pakistan.

i would guess if it was a pakistany operation, then it was not sponored by the state. i would guess that is iranian, though i wouldnt rule out syrian or al-quida

Why on earth would Iran or Syria bomb India....Can't wait to here this one..... Jeebus....

India suspects that the attacks were by Pakistani groups.
No big surprise there.

independent.co.uk

India said it had "indications" that the Delhi bombings had been carried out by militant groups based in Pakistan and called for a clampdown by the neighbouring government.

Pakistan asked India to provide evidence that Pakistan-based militants were involved in Saturday's attacks, in which at least 61 people were killed, and promised full co-operation in the continuing investigation.

Originally posted by Becon of Light
even if pakistan did sponser terror attacks, which we're pretty sure they dont, they would not do so after india had just made serious relief contributions following the earthquakes in pakistan.

i would guess if it was a pakistany operation, then it was not sponored by the state. i would guess that is iranian, though i wouldnt rule out syrian or al-quida

Iranian??!!

and may I ask why you think pakistan didn't/doesn't sponsor terrorism?
Also this attack, synchronised as it was, would have been most definitely planned before the earthquake and the cell must have been acitve in delhi before the earthquake; since they had complete autonomy in terms of logistics i presume all they needed was the 'go-ahead'..
And if you thin kth ePak- "state" as it were, doesn't sponsor terrorism then you should read up a bit on the ISI and PAk army vis-a-vis insurgency ops post 1989..
Syria.. Iran.. try closer to home..

Originally posted by Seekerof
The same holds true for you, AceOfBase: Is not the government of Pakistan making a concerted effort to combat terrorism, terrorist organizations, and terrorists?
Are the governments of Iran and Syria doing such?

The fact is, none of those countries are making concerted efforts.

However, the biggest difference between all of them, is that Pakistani terrorism against India and Afghanistan has caused the most civilian deaths (over 60,000 since 1980 in India alone).

These are fundamental facts.

However, because of Pakistan's immediate geopolitical utility, America has been very lax and forgiving of the same.


Becon of Light,

even if pakistan did sponser terror attacks, which we're pretty sure they dont, they would not do so after india had just made serious relief contributions following the earthquakes in pakistan.

With all due respect, your understanding of the issue is incomplete.

1. America, and the entire world, is not only pretty sure they do, it is an accepted fact by all, including Pakistanis, and including the Pakistani terrorist groups themselves. This is a fact established a thousand times manifested continuously in the broad analysis of the issue in in every conceivable way possible.

2. Your conclusion that Pakistan would magically do away with the militant, radical Islamist extremism that defines its nationalism, geostrategy, and domestic and military policy on the basis of unilateral Indian aid to Pakistan is naive to say the very least and belies an ignorance of the situational realities.

And again, I do not mean to be harsh nor is it my intent, but the issues you and several others addressed simply are not arguments made by people familiar with modern and historical realities.


Re: Sikh seperatism: it is a non-issue. There are the radical lunatic fringes in any group. The issue of Khalistani seperatism never commanded the loyalty of Sikhs, nor is the issue alive today, save for the terrorists that fled to and are cared for the Pakistani government, and their supporters in a few extremist groups in exile in Canada.


======

Re: the blasts themselves.

I increasingly see this as an act of terror designed to break the peace process -- an act of terrorism that is in Pakistan's national intrests. It is in India's interests to continue on with the process, because Pak Kashmir is in anarchy, and more and more people are looking to India. That the entire media and even the Kashmiri Islamists are praising India while denouncing Pakistan is proof of this.

Musharraf is increasingly being forced by international and domestic (local Kashmiri) pressure to normalize relations with India. The more India gets involved in Kashmir, with the opening of the border, increased cultural connections, the more Pak Kashmir gets exposed to Jammu and Kashmir state, and the less and less credability Pakistan has.


3/4 of Pakistan is in open rebellion. Islamists are gaining power and calling Musharraf's pro-west bluff. The economy is in recession. Military spending shot up 50% in the last year. Aid is not coming in. It's getting harder and harder to keep the veneer of rationality as everyone increasingly knows about Paki sponsorship of terror. Musharraf's international credibility is at his lowest, especially in the lefist circles which are his biggest backers, after his pro-rape comments and cluster****ing of the earthquake. Every Pak party is now clamoring for Musharraf's head. And now -- every Pakistani's worst nightmare -- the Pak occupied Kashmiris are openly begging for Indian help....

There was never a time when Pakistan was in so much disarray.


Historically, everytime domestic pressure gets past the point that it can be tolerated, Pakistan attacked India. War temporarily unified the population and served as a vent for rabid nationalism, and boosted the credibility of the Pak dictator in the country, saving his skin.

In 1947 after Partition nearly ripped Pak to pieces and the people were nearly about to overthrow Jinnah, the Paks invaded Kashmir and go their ass kicked.

In 1965 after General Ayub Khan screwed up his country even further and the people were nearly about to overthrow him, the Paks tried to invade Kashmir and got their ass kicked.

In 1971 after the Bengali rebellion and the resulting genocide of 3 million ethnic Bengali Hindus in East Pakistan again was about to throw the nation into civil war, the Paks attacked India in Kashmir and got their ass kicked (and the E Pakistanis got liberated.)

In 1999 after the Pak Army (led by Musharraf) and the terrorist groups felt increasingly sold out by Nawaz Sharif and the India-Pak peace process, they, without Shairf's knowlege, instigated war with India, again got their asses kicked, but quelched domestic resentment and the army used the wave of popularity to state a coup and establish the military junta under Musharraf.


Through 1971, Pakistan had relative parity with India, which convinced them that their 'martial superiority' would "overwhelm" India. And the geopolitical climate allowed them to do so.

In 1999, India was the numerically superior army, but in that particular region, in the most and inaccessable remote part of the LOC, Pakistan had numerical and support superiority.


In 2005, India is by far the most numerically, technologically, better trained and superior military, both strategically and tactically. The geopolitical climate is not now where Pakistan try to instigate open war with India, nor can they win even if they do.

What they can do is provoke India with increasingly henious terrorism to attack terrorist camps in Pak Kashmir with punative air strikes or surgical special operations -- i.e. they can spin it to their people that it is India that is the aggressor.

Not only would this relieve the 'jehadi' vent that is getting more and more entrenched in Pak occupied Kashmir and demanding Mushy's head on a platter and force their opposition to another outlet but it would also solidify Pakistan's increasingly disparate populations and ethnic groups; allow for justified even more draconian security measures and the jailing of major political dissadents again; can legitimize re-militarization or earthquake hit areas and deployment of soldiers off earthquake relief; will deflect Pakistan's utter incompetance in the earthquake affair; will give Musharraf the 'moral' veneer to justify his military spending equaling >50% of their GDP (despite all economic/development/education indicators plummeting and Pak humanitarian efforts for earthquake relief being virtually nonexistant); and will give him the geopolitical 'out' to end the peace process and stop the increasing cozyness of India and Pak occipied Kashmiris.



Now, this is hardly Clancyesque armchairing by me. Pakistani and American defense publications and think tanks have openly discussed the probability of scenario since 2003 to a T. And now we are seeing it played out.

Expect increasingly provacative terrorist attacks against high-value economic and political targets in India, with the hope that domestic anger will force the Indian govt to militarily do something against Pakistan in the near future.


The Indian government must allow the peace process to continue. In 10 years, Pakistan will rip itself to civil war, and India and America will then have to go in and secure the nation (why do you think both countries are 'inter-operabiliting' in exercises like there's no friggin tomorrow). In the meantime, its the best strategy to tolerate attacks while allowing the economy to explode and building goodwill of and increasing economic and cultural dependance on the common Abdul Pakistanis.

Thankfully, the Indian populace has realized that peace is the best course, and that war will play into the hands of al Queda and the Pak military. I hope they can continue to quelch their anger and stay over the coming years...


-Raj