Pakistan still has a marginally pro-US government. A bloody conflict will almost certainly lead to the creation of a nuclear armed Islamic republic.
...I am sure the good folks in Washington have it all under control.
> An American counter-terrorism official was quoted as saying that there was strong evidence that LeT had a ‘maritime capability’ and would have been able to mount the sophisticated operation in Mumbai.
Crap. Anybody who has read Frederick Forsythe’s “The Dogs of War” has a recipe book for mounting a successful small maritime raid like what happened in Mumbai.
In any war between India and Pakistan, if I were president, I would lean towards India. They are the more stable and they are a democracy.
And the UN could kiss my a$$.
“The New York Times said there was no evidence that Pakistani government had any role in the attacks.”
The NY TIMES said and still says there is NO evidence of Iraqi involvement in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
The NY TIMES said there was no involvement by anybody other than McVeigh and Nichols in the terror attacks in Oklahoma City in 1995 even though it was well documented that eight Iraqi soldier defectors were cheering for Iraq and Saddaham Hussein immediately after the explosions. In Jayna Davis’ book on the attack, she says the FBI refused to take her BOXES of depositions which showed that McVeigh and Nichols did not work alone and the evidence shows that the truck bomb in the parking lot could not have destroyed the building and killed all those people.
In 1996 overwhelming witness’ statements showed that missiles were used to shoot down TWA 800. The NTSB and NY TIMES suppressed the witnesses and concluded that a center fuel tank explosion was responsible for the “tragedy.” That hypothesis originated in the White House with Richard Clark.
Richard Clark you may recall was at the front of the 9/11 hearings that tried to blame Bush for the 9/11 failures.
Muslims in Pakistan are a peaceful group, the NY TIMES says they would never be involved with an attack like this, there is no evidence.
And history shows that if there is, they aren’t going to tell you about it.
Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties
Thursday, March 20, 2008 8:09 AM
The ties to the truth in subsequent posts tell a different story than the NY TIMES tells, are they lying or are they stupid? I vote lying but you won’t believe why they lie as they do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1175272/posts?page=251
I firmly support India they are a democracy and because Hindus, even though they have their own religious fanatics, don’t try to cram their religion down anyone else’s throats.
The group was formed after the supporters of Maulana Masood Azhar split from another Islamic militant organization, Harkut-ul-Mujahideen.
It is believed that the group gets considerable funding by Pakistani expatriates in the United Kingdom and other parts of the world. The group is regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries including India, United States and United Kingdom.[1] Jaish-e-Mohammed is viewed by some as the "deadliest" and "the principal terrorist organization in Jammu and Kashmir".[3] The group was also implicated for the kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl.[3]
I heard yesterday that the terrorist travelled via boat, landed, and fanned out through the city.
Stratfor:
RED ALERT - Possible Geopolitical Consequences of the Mumbai Attacks
Stratfor ^ | November 26, 2008
http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/238172/b1e369fcda/542002341/8a35ff2c9a/
Summary
If the Nov. 26 attacks in Mumbai were carried out by Islamist militants as it appears, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw the United States into the fray.
Analysis
At this point the situation on the ground in Mumbai remains unclear following the militant attacks of Nov. 26. But in order to understand the geopolitical significance of what is going on, it is necessary to begin looking beyond this event at what will follow. Though the situation is still in motion, the likely consequences of the attack are less murky.
We will begin by assuming that the attackers are Islamist militant groups operating in India, possibly with some level of outside support from Pakistan. We can also see quite clearly that this was a carefully planned, well-executed attack.
Given this, the Indian government has two choices. First, it can simply say that the perpetrators are a domestic group. In that case, it will be held accountable for a failure of enormous proportions in security and law enforcement. It will be charged with being unable to protect the public. On the other hand, it can link the attack to an outside power: Pakistan. In that case it can hold a nation-state responsible for the attack, and can use the crisis atmosphere to strengthen the government’s internal position by invoking nationalism. Politically this is a much preferable outcome for the Indian government, and so it is the most likely course of action. This is not to say that there are no outside powers involved simply that, regardless of the ground truth, the Indian government will claim there were.
That, in turn, will plunge India and Pakistan into the worst crisis they have had since 2002. If the Pakistanis are understood to be responsible for the attack, then the Indians must hold them responsible, and that means they will have to take action in retaliation otherwise, the Indian government’s domestic credibility will plunge. The shape of the crisis, then, will consist of demands that the Pakistanis take immediate steps to suppress Islamist radicals across the board, but particularly in Kashmir. New Delhi will demand that this action be immediate and public. This demand will come parallel to U.S. demands for the same actions, and threats by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama to force greater cooperation from Pakistan.
If that happens, Pakistan will find itself in a nutcracker. On the one side, the Indians will be threatening action deliberately vague but menacing along with the Americans. This will be even more intense if it turns out, as currently seems likely, that Americans and Europeans were being held hostage (or worse) in the two hotels that were attacked. If the attacks are traced to Pakistan, American demands will escalate well in advance of inauguration day.
There is a precedent for this. In 2002 there was an attack on the Indian parliament in Mumbai by Islamist militants linked to Pakistan. A near-nuclear confrontation took place between India and Pakistan, in which the United States brokered a stand-down in return for intensified Pakistani pressure on the Islamists. The crisis helped redefine the Pakistani position on Islamist radicals in Pakistan.
In the current iteration, the demands will be even more intense. The Indians and Americans will have a joint interest in forcing the Pakistani government to act decisively and immediately. The Pakistani government has warned that such pressure could destabilize Pakistan. The Indians will not be in a position to moderate their position, and the Americans will see the situation as an opportunity to extract major concessions. Thus the crisis will directly intersect U.S. and NATO operations in Afghanistan.
It is not clear the degree to which the Pakistani government can control the situation. But the Indians will have no choice but to be assertive, and the United States will move along the same line. Whether it is the current government in India that reacts, or one that succeeds doesn’t matter. Either way, India is under enormous pressure to respond. Therefore the events point to a serious crisis not simply between Pakistan and India, but within Pakistan as well, with the government caught between foreign powers and domestic realities. Given the circumstances, massive destabilization is possible never a good thing with a nuclear power.
This is thinking far ahead of the curve, and is based on an assumption of the truth of something we don’t know for certain yet, which is that the attackers were Muslims and that the Pakistanis will not be able to demonstrate categorically that they weren’t involved. Since we suspect they were Muslims, and since we doubt the Pakistanis can be categorical and convincing enough to thwart Indian demands, we suspect that we will be deep into a crisis within the next few days, very shortly after the situation on the ground clarifies itself.
*
Comment:
“If you look into the history of creation of Pakistan, you will find out it was formed by partitioning India when independence was won from British rule. The sole criteria for formation of Pakistan was religion of Islam. Areas which were predominantly muslim became Pakistan territory with the exception of Kashmir province whose king at the time chose to join with the new India. Pakistan has a national official religion, Islam. Pakistan and Islam are inseparable twins.”
15 posted on Thursday, November 27, 2008 10:38:30 PM by ajay_kumar http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2139364/posts?page=15#15
Why are they fearful? What did we do after the terrorists hit us on 9-1-1????? Huh???? Right, we bombed, invaded, and killed terrorists. So, India has the same right to hit back.
Watch how, in the ensuing days, India becomes the "Bad Guy" for the MSM in all this. Right now, it seems India has as much against Pakistan as America had against Afghanistan after 9/11. After all, the Taliban didn't plan or carry out the attack on the WTC, it was their "guest" Osama. Even closer ties between the Pak government (ISI) and the terrorists here.
Of course, any move against Pakistan will be opposed by the Left. What would you do in the Indians position. I know that I would retaliate against the Terror group and their "trainers".