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.

[Walkin Man]

In fact, I don't think we'll publicly take sides if war breaks out.

Maybe so, but what would stop us from offering in secret, intelligence on Paki nuclear instillations and locations to India or a pre-strike launch warning? As far as the Islamic world declaring war against the US or the west in general, thats laughable. The combined might of 200 million muslims cannot and never will, IMHO, defeat tiny little Israel. That is why the islamofascist conduct terror campaigns, they know they will get their a$$es handed to them on a platter in a conventional war!

[Ender@Game.now]

What remains is that India must take action if Musharraf doesn't. If that means war against the Pak army I believe India will not wait for more attacks. They need to neutralize the threat at their border not occupy the country. You seem to be saying that India will not. As we have found out, if no action is taken the threat and reality of attacks grows.

[Dog Gone]

All I'm saying is that whatever India chooses to do, it had better be calculated to solve the problem that sparks the action.

The Indians generally are stating that Pakistan must stop terrorist infiltrators. If so, why are they rejecting Musharraf's suggestion of international monitors along the border? That seems like a positive suggestion to me.

The Indians have nearly a million men on the border right now, and apparently some terrorists are getting through, or were until very recently. I don't understand how destroying the army facing it makes that border less porous. It's a huge border, and without something like the Berlin Wall in place, I don't know how anyone can truly seal it from a determined terrorist.

I spend a lot of time on these threads talking about what India can't do or shouldn't do, but one thing I think they OUGHT to do is to accept Musharraf's offer of the international observers along the LoC. That would have the effect of internationalizing that line as a border. Maybe it would eventually result in a DMZ. In either event, it should cut down or eliminate cross-border terrorism, and it would have the psychological effect on the Pakistani public of a new and permanent border in Kashmir.

That is far better than what is essentially two armies facing each other over a border that neither officially recognizes.

[Free the USA]

Index

[socratic_t65]

yeah, who cares about the long standing tensions between india and pakistan. its all bin ladens fault. lol!

[cake_crumb]

"Hindus in India are murdering Moslems and vice versa"

Yeah, yeah. Pakistan committed the Bengali massacre and has been training and funding terrorists in Kashmir. India backed out handing anything else to Pakistan after the Indian government realized tht Pakistan's objective was to conquer India, piece by piece, and subject the people to the freedoms Islamic totalitarianism. Don't give me the "Pakistan is a progressive, pro-West" country, either, because it is not.

I am sick and tired of Muslim apologists claiming that massacres committed by Muslim terrorists are the faults of the countries those massacres happen to be committed IN, for something done to some distantly related tribe decades ago.

The terrorists in Kashmir are murdering EVERYONE who is not a Muslim. No amount of spin-laden rhetoric bytes will change what the Pakistan backed terrorists have been doing in Kashmir for the past couple of years, AND THE WORLD DOESN'T CARE ANYMORE WHO DID WHAT TO WHOM A GENERATION AGO. WE ARE TIRED OF IT.

Perhaps it IS "that simpl", after all. It's as simple as telling the difference of "THEN" (before the terrorists started trying to take over the world in earnest) and "NOW" (after they got a tad too cocky.) See, I'm not getting the feedback I need from Muslims. They're still busy saying to the US "come one, I dare ya to come kill me". Know what? It took the US way too long to realize what these people really want, but now that we know...well, let's just say the United States has already refused Pakistan's request for alliance should they start another war.

[rintense]

Well the history is there, undoubtedly. But Bin Laden's backing for radicals in Pakistan and Kashmir is also highly likely.

[ctdonath2]

I don't think they will go nuke. India will smash their military to tiny bits and declare victory.

Uh...that's EXACTLY why they will go nuke.

[CatoRenasci]

Sorry Charlie, but I'm no apologist for the Moslems, let alone for the Pakistanis. And as I said, I think the Indians are marginally less objectionable.

However, it's very hard to be sympathetic to India after the past 50 years of Indian self-righteousness and condescension towards the United States, Americans, and our values -- especially by Indian students here in the US taking advantage of the institutions produced by Americans and American values.

If you ask me, both the Indians and the Pakistanis were a whole lot better off under the Raj than they've been since 1947.

[RightWhale]

This or an incident like this might do it. When it starts for real, there won't be much news for several hours, aside from a lot of speculation and an official statement or two.

[mhking]

When it starts for real, there won't be much news for several hours

Well, they're about 11 hours ahead of US East Coast time -- what time of day does everyone think this will dust up?

[cake_crumb]

"However, it's very hard to be sympathetic to India after the past 50 years of Indian self-righteousness and condescension towards the United States, Americans, and our values -- especially by Indian students here in the US taking advantage of the institutions produced by Americans and American values."

Sorry. Wasn't YOU in particular I was going off on. Went into rant mode in general, for some reason. Perhaps because the parties change, but the message remains the same: "Get over it and start acting like ADULTS."

Neither side is innocent. That's a given. Until both sides cut the "He did it FIRST" or "THEY did it WORSE" routine, they will continue to be stuck on square one. No progress will be made. Innocent people wil continue to die.

On the one hand, it would be great for India to honor agreements and hand Kashmir over to Pakistan.

On the other, the Pakistan backed (and they ARE Pakistan backed, as well as Yasser-backed, Lebonese-backed, Saudi-backed, Egypt-backed, etc.) terrorists in Kashmir right now don't want freedom and they could care less about Kashmir. The game has changed over the years. It's Kashmir, "an independent Palestine" and "Greater Albania" today...tomorrow the WORLD.

To tell you the truth, if it comes to war again, I'm more on India's side... because in the past couple of years more Indians (Sikkes, Christians, Buddhists) have died than terrorists, because Pakistan set the Taliban up...AND because the Pakistani ambassador to the UN informed the world that Pakistan will nuke India first.

[cake_crumb]

I wrote that wrong...doing too many other things...that was meant to say

"AND because the Pakistani ambassador to the UN informed the world that Pakistan will nuke India first, even if India sticks to nothing but conventional weapons"

Their sandbox bully routine really makes me mad.

[cake_crumb]

"I think this was a UN resolution after 1947 that India never agreed to."

Yeah, me too. Actually, I think it was a resolution that India never officially agreed to. That's splitting hairs.

Since I'm already ranting about tired excuses....

WHY IS IT THAT AT THE END OF SO MUCH MODERN TERRORISM LIES A UN RESOLUTION?

Why is it the UN, who's resolutions are the excuse given for so much terrorism, is never part of any possible SOLUTIONS to terrorism...just more problems?

[CatoRenasci]

We agree, both that India is slightly less objectionable and that the Pakistanis are a little too quick to play the Moselm bully with nukes. I am extremely uncomfortable with Pakistan having nuclear weapons and would love to see the US seize control of them, political fallout or not.

That said, my historical analysis and my personal and business dealings over many years counsel me that neither the Indians nor the Pakistanis are the least bit trustworthy.

[RightWhale]

Apparently India prefers to commence military operations between midnight and 3 AM, which is a little earlier than Germany usually started its invasions in WW II, 6 AM. Germany also jumped off on Saturday morning when possible to keep the story out of the news media and to catch the enemy on the weekend. The moon is still near full, but the ultimatum will expire just a few days before the new moon. The Gulf War began about midnight near the new moon, as cover for the stealthy air operations.

[cake_crumb]

"That said, my historical analysis and my personal and business dealings over many years counsel me that neither the Indians nor the Pakistanis are the least bit trustworthy"

Also agreed. IMO, that's why the US has been watching closely, but remaining quiet. Except for the time back in November - I think - when President Bush issued a statement to both sides telling them to knock it off for a while, please...we're over there CONDUCTING A WAR, and we don't need these distractions [paraphrased]

Actually, the warning still stands. I BELIEVE both India and Pakistan still remember that warning....and fervently HOPE they're just frustratedly indulging in a nuclear-war-threat-match while they attempt to find a diplomatic solution to their problems. It's the wingnuts on both sides that worry everyone. Talk about potential loose cannons...!

[CatoRenasci]

I hope you're right, but I've seen analyses suggesting that this may be the Indians best opportunity to take the Pakistanis on without it going too nuclear (whatever that means), which is consistent with their bluster.

[mikeIII]

The difference between India and Pakistan is a tad more than India being "only slightly less objectionable". One is a vast democracy with the largest diversity of any nation and a thriving economy. It's record of killing Americans, hatred of America and complicity in terrorism with American borders is also a tad more different from that of the Paks.

Agreed, it's not rushing into our embrace nor is it submitting to our demands as Pak is. That's precisely why it's a lot more dependable and worthy of trust than Pakistan.

[CatoRenasci]

Sorry, the Indians are only a tad better than the Pakis. They cozzied up to the Russians for years and were treacherous toward the US in the cold war. And self-righteous, to boot. A democracy? sort of, a Nehru family toy for several generations (including the German wife as Evita Ghandi), a caste-ridden socialist sinkhole. The only peoples in the subcontinent I have much use for are the Ceylonese and the Nepalese.