Next 48 hours are very important, India threatens Pakistan of dire consequences...

Daily Regional Times ^

[maquiladora]

RT Monitoring Desk ISLAMABAD: India has threatened of dire consequences to Pakistan after Mumbai terror attacks and the coming 48 hours are very important, military sources said on Saturday.

According to the ARY report the war can not benefit any side but if India imposed war Pakistan will go to the last limit for its defence, the sources said.

In case of war no weakness will be shown at the western border, the sources added.

On the other hand President Asif Ali Zardari warned India Saturday against any ‘over-reaction’ after the militant attacks in Mumbai and vowed the ‘strictest’ action if Pakistani involvement was proved.

“Whoever is responsible for the brutal and crude act against the Indian people and India are looking for reaction,” Zardari said in an interview with Indian CNN-IBN television.

“We have to rise above them and make sure ourselves, yourself and world community guard against over-reaction,” he said according to an interview transcript issued by the Press Trust of India. The Indian government has blamed “elements in Pakistan” for the attack by Islamist militants against multiple targets in Mumbai that left nearly 200 people dead.

Zardari promised that he would take immediate and strong measures if proof was provided of Pakistani involvement.

“Let me assure you that if any evidence points to any individual or any group in this part of the world, I shall take the strictest of action in the light of this evidence and in front of the world,” he said.

[wtc911]

If I were george bush, I’d use this as an excuse to go in and confiscate all weapons grade nuclear fuel in BOTH countries...pakistan AND india. According to UN law, they are both in violation by merely possessing these things. That would send a VERY CLEAR message to iran, would it not? What’s wrong with my idea?

______________________________________________________

Pakistan has a 520K Army with 500k in reserve. They have 2300 tanks, 1500 pieces of towable arty and 1400 SAMS.

India has a million man Army with 800K in reserve. They have 63 armored regiments.

They both have multiple usable nukes.

How exactly do you expect us to 'go in and confiscate' anything?

[Joe Boucher]

Come on bert, the “magic negro” is going to throw that little with us or against us out the window.
You think he is against the terrorists?
I think he is against Israel.

[Jack Black]

Oh, and just to answer your other comment on my earlier posting: ...faster than what? Terrorists can murder hostages before word gets out that terrorists are in their positions. in general I agree. The context of the message from which you excerpted this was me suggesting that the Indian Spec-Ops guys had a very large, difficult job and seemed to take care of it well. None the less, like every terrorist incident it will be studied by the good guys and tactics adjusted according to what is learned. That will include both military and police organizations, for the reasons I explained in my posting above.

[Admin Moderator]

Knock it off.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Some of the best army units on our planet are in India--various units sincerely respected by soldiers in the West (including Americans) for their great training and courage.

Well said!

During the course of my life it has been my lot to spend quite a bit of time with Indians, particularly Sikhs. Indeed I am fortunate to have one on my Guardian Angels team. (Naturally, he wears a red turban rather than a red beret.)

Sikhs are an amazing bunch: they are a religion of Warriors. Their history is fascinating. And their courage in the profession of Arms is well-known and their reputation well-earned.

Have a read of this: Battle of Saragarhi

Yup, you read that right: 21 Sikhs against 10,000 Afghans. Fought them to the last man -- sorta like Thermopylae.

In light of this I think it is deeply offensive for anyone to make a blanket statement that "Indians are cowards." It just ain't so. It certainly hasn't been my experience.

[familyop]

"In America we face up to our problems, and solve them, not spend time saving face, and sweeping the problem under the rug."

...while our socialist dictator constituents behind our primping politicians allow Iran and Syria to mount nukes and fund China's manufacturing, naval and nuclear buildup.

We should be putting Pakistan down, after we do Iran. The consequence of hiding behind silly hordes of diplomats will eventually be enormous civilian casualties right here in our cities.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> This may be one of those times where you just have to ask- who would benefit from this?

(grin!) “Cui Bono?” is always a great question to ask.

China? Russia? Iran? Those three spring to my mind. How about you?

[Joe Boucher]

You mean the , “magic negro”?
You be smoking something man?

[mamelukesabre]

Really? THEn why shouldn’t iran have nukes? Only the permanent members of the UN are legally allowed to have “weapons of mass destruction”. That’s the law bud. Either the UN means something or it don’t. You just said it don’t. So why the F* are we giving money to the UN if its pointless?

No country has the right to posess nukes except the permanent members of the UN. That’s the facts...facts that you are obviously ignorant of.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> which is the worst performance by a security force in recent memory, and the failure of India to recognize it.

...says you. Waco was worse. 51 days.

You weren’t in Bombay to show the Indian security forces how to do it properly, so you couldn’t possibly know whether it was a good, bad, or indifferent performance.

I have seen no indication from anybody that it could/should have been done better — aside from you asserting that it could.

[Jack Black]

Yes. It's impossible to stop guerrilla campaigns by way of police work at assassination destinations. We must invade and occupy terrorist nations in order to stop such attacks from happening in the future. If nukes fly, so be it. There'll be more nukes later, if we wait.

There are more 'terrorist nations' than there are people to invade and occupy them, unfortunately. The USA is pretty much fully deployed taking care of only two: Iraq and Afghanistan. That leaves Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Yemen, Indonesia, North Korea, etc.

At this point I would study how the Brits maintained their empire for several hundred years. It's a combination of co-opting the local leadership, setting strict limits on behavior of the subject peoples, massive retaliation when the subjects of the Crown are messed with, etc.

Rather than attack Pakistan, I would suggest using (forcing!) Pakistani forces to go destroy the villages and mosques where these terrorists came from. If we need to replace governments there again to make that happen we should.

The merchant interests nagging and paying politicians to delay such fighting wars are the cowards. IMO, let's stop worrying about oil production for cheap freight fuel and put the enemy down.

Who are the enemy? The kid in the pic looked like a college kid till he pulled out his subgun and started killing people in the train station. Who *exactly* do you suggest we declare war on now. Recall that even when we have declared war (ie: Iraq) it wasn't on the people of Iraq, only a subset. Initially Saddam and his military, later jihadis, militia forces that were against us, terrorists. It's been a long and grueling campaign and we are not done yet.

[familyop]

"In the USA, were this to happen, it would be SWAT teams that would respond first."

...to arrest civilian criminals.

"A classic military response to a hostile force in a solid building like the hotel in India would be to fall back and hit it with artillery. Nobody has suggested that should have been done."

That's not how we were trained to handle those situations. The Army is quite good at clearing buildings--even while distinguishing between enemy and hostages.

"Prior to the Patriot Act it was not even legal to use the military inside the USA. That’s loosened that up a bit now."

That's an interesting comment. It seemed legal enough for me and my unit to offload armed at a potential riot a long time ago, even though the rioters were only a large cluster of drunken, drugged ragbags.

"We have mall shootings and school shootings all the time. Occasionally, as at Columbine, by more than one person."

"Have you ever seen the US Army show up at these? I have not. The Army did deploy on 9/11 in some places, but not until days after the event."

The murderers at those events were untrained civilians--not well trained guerrilla soldiers.

[wtc911]

US troops in India already?

Source please.

[Tammy8]

I would think that would be a large gamble. The opposite might well happen- with Al-Q being eliminated from Pakistan with or without the cooperation of the Pakistan government. I know right now I firmly believe it is time to clean out that viper nest once and for all and I am sure I am not alone in the world.

[familyop]

"Who are the enemy? The kid in the pic looked like a college kid till he pulled out his subgun and started killing people in the train station."

The enemy are his family and friends back home, in his country of cultural origin. :-)

[familyop]

Agreed on Sikh soldiers. Their military bearing and calm are impressive. I would love to see them in field training.

[wtc911]

I can’t recall an attack like this in the US.

_____________________________________________

Columbine. The cops did nothing.

[DieHard the Hunter]

> Columbine. The cops did nothing.

You’re right. And Columbine was two armed felons — untrained kids no less.