Urgent: Kashmir militants attack Indian police

BBC News ^ | 5.30.02

[mhking]

Kashmir militants attack Indian police

Attackers believed to be Islamic separatist militants have stormed a police base in Indian-administered Kashmir, killing at least three officers.

A gun battle broke out as two of the attackers took cover in the camp in the mountainous area of Doda, about 180 kilometres (110 miles) north-east of Jammu. Others fired rockets from a nearby hilltop.

Latest reports from Kashmir say Indian security forces have now ended the battle, killing the two gunmen.

The attack came as Pakistan began moving troops from the Afghan border in the west, where they were helping United States forces in the search for al-Qaeda and Taleban fighters, to the Indian border in the east.

Tension has been increasing since two weeks ago, when three men India says were Pakistani-based Islamic militants attacked an army camp in Kashmir killing 31 soldiers and their families.

Since that attack, the two countries' armies have been trading heavy fire along the Line of Control (LoC) separating Indian- and Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

The Pakistani authorities say seven of their civilians were killed by Indian shelling on Wednesday evening.

'Lie low'

Observers in Pakistan say it is widely believed the government has told militant groups to lie low for the time being and not to attempt to cross the LoC.

The BBC's Susannah Price in Islamabad says it is thought the militants would find it difficult to go over in large groups if the Pakistani army wants to stop them.

However, the main problem for the Pakistani Government now is that some are already inside Indian-administered Kashmir and could still carry out attacks.

India and Pakistan have now amassed a million men between them along their border, backed by missile batteries, tanks and fighter planes.

The latest incident comes after the United States and Britain warned India and Pakistan of the dangers of war.

'Charged' climate

US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the Indian and Pakistani leaders could find themselves in a situation in which "irresponsible elements" could spark a conflict.

Mr Boucher warned that a conflict might start against the wishes of the national leaders in the two countries.

"The climate is very charged and a serious conflagration could ensue if events spiral out of control," he said.

He added that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf needed to take concrete steps to prevent Pakistani territory being used by terrorists for attacks.

A similar warning was sounded by British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw who ended his mission to the two countries by saying that Britain stood firmly behind India in its fight against terrorism - including cross-border terrorism.

Mr Straw said the international community expected "action, not just words" from the Pakistani leader.

Musharraf defiant

In a speech to Pakistani troops on Wednesday, General Musharraf said he would counter-attack if India started a conflict.

"The defence forces of the country are fully prepared... in case of any aggression from across the borders," General Musharraf told soldiers at an Pakistani air force base.

If war was thrust upon Pakistan, it will also be fought in the enemy's territory, he added.

"Any incursion by the Indian forces across the Line of Control even by an inch, will unleash a storm that will sweep the enemy," he said.

Indian and Pakistani troops exchanged more artillery fire across the LoC on Wednesday, with Poonch one of the areas being shelled.

India said the Pakistanis had switched from using mortars to high-calibre shells, so Indian troops had replied in kind.

[Ender@Game.now]

India accuses Pakistan of waging a proxy war for 12 years by funding, training and arming the militants and providing covering fire for them to cross the border.
Pakistan insists it only provides moral and diplomatic support for the militants, who are fighting for Indian Kashmir's independence or merger with Pakistan.

At least 60,000 people have died in the insurgency.

This is exactly what the militant Islamic virus does. It keeps populating an area and then demands independence (see Kosovo) or terrorism starts. After Kashmir the next province will be contaminated. India understands this very well after 50 years of dealing with Pakistan. Musharraf will not take decisive steps to stop the militants so India will. And should. The militants want to overthrow the government and make Pakistan more like Iran or Iraq. When the fighting starts the militants will be eradicated by India and a more sensible, civilized government will be put in control of Pakistan. Then the virus will start to grow again. Unfortunately, what the world needs is the ultimate wake-up call. When one of these militants finally uses a nuclear device there will be a call for the complete extermination of the virus. I think India has the intestinal fortitude to do it.

[Dog Gone]

When the fighting starts the militants will be eradicated by India and a more sensible, civilized government will be put in control of Pakistan.

That's where I disagree with you. I don't think India could ever eradicate the terrorists, and if they're successful in knocking Musharraf from power, his replacement is likely to be overtly pro-terrorist.

I don't think India has any intention of occupying Pakistan under any scenario, because the residents wouldn't tolerate their presence, and they all have guns. Red China would have an easier time occupying Texas.

[CatoRenasci]

That's the problem, the Pakistanis cannot defeat the Indians on the ground (despite a better air force and arguably better armor) and will respond to that defeat with nuclear weapons. The political situation is so bad for Musharref that even a plausible Indian claim of victory after a limited set of strikes a la Sharon might well trigger a Pakistani nuclear response on the 'victorious' Indians.

The more interesting question is whether the Pakistanis will use their nukes tactically on the massed Indian formations or strategically against governmental and military targets in India. If the former, just maybe, the war can be contained, if the latter, it will be the end of Pakistan.

[AppyPappy]

despite a better air force

The Indian air force is far above the Pakistanis. The best the Paks have is the F-16 and they don't have radar guided missiles for them. The Indians have several radar-guided missiles including AA-10 Alamos and Super 530's

[JohnMac]

Red China would have an easier time occupying Texas.

I wouldn't worry about that. With all the deer rifles in southern states, we'd be pickin' those chinamen off from every tree. Yee-ha!

[JohnMac]

Red China would have an easier time occupying Texas.

I wouldn't worry about that. With all the deer rifles in southern states, we'd be pickin' those chinamen off from every tree. Yee-ha! (re-post due to breach of posting protocol).

[Walkin Man]

If the islamofascists attacking India get their way and start a hot full-scale war, will the USA stand back and watch as it develops into a nuclear war, or could we possibly take out the Paki's nukes ourselves or give India the tools to do so. After all with ground-burst nuclear exchanges throwing radioactive particles into the wind, that could possibly travel around the world to be breathed into our lungs and to enter our food chain, it would be in our best interests and that of the world in general to stop it before it happens.

[cake_crumb]

"The Double Muslims, on the other hand, want to meet Allah so bad that they wanted to take you with them. Sound familiar?"

Sure does.

[swarthyguy]

Army had also joined the operation to eliminate the terrorists. "Army, police and STF personnel were on the job to kill the fidayeens. However, they had to operate very tactfully as the fidayeens were wearing police uniforms", the sources said.

Fake Uniform Ping. This was taken from the ontheground reports of the correspondent of dailyexcelsior.com.

[crystalk]

I tend to agree almost verbatim with Cato on post 3. I would only add that, I think Pakistan would use nukes sooner rather than later, almost immediately after real hostilities were to commence, in absolute disregard of human life, both that of the enemy obviously, but also of the likely result upon its own population. Being Muslims killed by non-Muslims, all of these would be martyrs, and much of Pakistan's overpopulation might be alleviated.

[kjam22]

Instead of watching....I'd rather we nuked pakistan (hoping to get OBL at the same time) and blamed it on India. :)

But the American way is to just pay India to nuke em.

[cake_crumb]

"But India crushing the Pak military is what would likely start a nuclear war. Pakistan does not have the manpower to compete with the Indian army, and to stop advancing Indian troops Pakistan would strongly consider nukes"

...It might help things if Pakistan stopped backing the terrorists in Kashmir. If a nuclear war between India and Pakistan starts, Pakistan will have started it...not only because most of the terrorists in Kashmir are there with the Pakistan government's blessing - don't forget that Pakistan set up the Taliban - but because Pakistan is already telling the UN it will nuke India first.

I don't hear about "Indian militants" machine gunning PAKISTAN'S parlaiment, or murdering thousands of civilians in Pakistan. Pakistan started this, years ago. Pakistani subterfuge already caused a war between India and Pakistan, and Pakistani subterfuge will likely cause another war.

[KirkandBurke]

There's also the Islam v Hindu thing. No love lost there.

[Dog Gone]

or could we possibly take out the Paki's nukes ourselves or give India the tools to do so

I don't think there's any chance that we would take out the Pak nukes while they are under army control, even if we are physically able to. In fact, I don't think we'll publicly take sides if war breaks out.

Part of our strategic objective is to convince arab and Islamic nations to be civilized and responsible. That holds true whether we're talking about Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Siding with India would be viewed in the Islamic world as stabbing Pakistan in the back after it had cooperated with us in the war on terrorism. It could well provoke the war by Islam against the west that bin Laden was hoping to spark.

Our official position is going to be that we don't want this war to start, but it if does, to stop it as soon as possible. Intervening, even if went nuclear, wouldn't be desirable, because after the radioactive dust had settled, we would still want to be allies with both sides. Or what is left of them....

[CatoRenasci]

It's not that simple. Hindus in India are murdering Moslems and vice versa. The Indian Hindus are pretty nationalist/racist/religiously intolerant themselves and are not too much better than the Moslems. And in Kashmir, it's the Indians who are occupying territory upon which they were supposed to permit a plebiscite but never have because the population is overwhelmingly Moslem and would go with Pakistan.

There are no good guys in this, only shades of bad. I think the Indians a little less bad, but no saints.

[milestogo]

and if they're successful in knocking Musharraf from power, his replacement is likely to be overtly pro-terrorist.

You are assuming musharraf is in complete control of his army and the ISI.

[Dog Gone]

No, I'm not. I think he has pretty good control of the army, although I'm sure he's made some enemies there. As far as the ISI, I'm convinced it's not completely loyal to him.

He's conducted some high-level purges, but there are hints that some elements in the ISI were far too friendly with the kidnappers of Daniel Pearl.

In fact, I'm not sure what your rationale for reaching that conclusion about my assumptions is.

[Ender@Game.now]

There was no mention of occupying Pakistan. India needs to eradicate the terrorist threat. They will use all force necessary to accomplish that. India believes Musharraf is not willing to use his forces to control the border so they must. You seem to agree that India will take action soon if Musharraf does not. Once it starts, the objective will be to neutralize the threat as much as possible and hopefully get a more moderate government in charge.

[Dog Gone]

How is India supposed to eradicate the terrorists by blowing up Pakistani tanks and aircraft? The only way India could eradicate the terrorists is by successfully occupying the country, something which I doubt they can do.

Assuming they do lay a whipping on the Pak Army, does that necessarily lead to a new Pakistan government which is better able to control the country (presumably without much of a remaining army)?

[Ender@Game.now]

And in Kashmir, it's the Indians who are occupying territory upon which they were supposed to permit a plebiscite but never did.

I think this was a UN resolution after 1947 that India never agreed to. It is not part of the partitioning of the region in 1947. The leader of the province at that time decided to go with India not Pakistan. The Islamists are agueng that he was coerced in making that decision. He did however, choose India.