India not planning to attack Pakistan

Damn!

I believe I read an earlier article on this site stating India had some jihadist terror-training bases in its sights for bombing campaigns, immediately following the Mumbai massacres. These would be appropriate to target in response; and then some.

Why not? Lack of response leads to further atrocities. Though I have profound differences with Mr. Bush, there is no question, taking the offensive against the jihadists on their own soil keeps the U.S. homeland more secure. This is the only thing Pakistan and other state sponsors of terrorism understand.

Don't worry, CGW. Which leader of a country is going to announce in advance that they are going to war? That would risk being pre-emptively attacked (which could happen nonetheless). US and Iraq was different, since US didn't risk a pre-emptive Iraqi attack. India doesn't have that magnitude of a superiority over Pakistan, so obviously, they can't pre-announce their intentions to the world.

I think India should threaten to bomb these targets unless Pakistan takes them out.

That's specific and with a clear condition.

Pakistan, our 'staunch ally', should have no problem fulfilling this kind of condition. Right..?

Targeting specific, well-defined goals just might be useful. Continuing to "... and then some" would serve to justify the Pakistanis into avoiding the problem. I'd consider it counterproductive.

India may not be 'planning' an attack on Pakistan, but it would be foolish not to be 'prepared' for one...

I somehow fear that the Mumbai attacks are the first of many by Islamist groups. They will no doubt continue their 'bullying' campaign of the peaceful and innocent in order to make them realise that Islam is too powerful for anyone to attack.
Agreed with Infidel Pride. India would never state it would attack Pakistan as it would be breaking many UN resolutions in the process, leaving themselves open to attack.
I do however feel that this action by Pakistan and we know that Pakistan was very much involved with the Mumbai attacks and protection of terrorists, will be the beginning of Pakistan's downfall as the smoke screen covering Pakistan's true machinations start to dissipate for the world to see Pakistan for what it truly is - a terrorist state intent on Islamising the World.

At the moment India should just prepare with fool proof plans. It must identify the "Real Enemy" first. During and before 1857 , there was no Pakistan or even an idea of that. A gamble by the then enlightened Muslims was played roping in Hindus too but benefiting only Muslims with the intention of restoring Islamic/Mughal rule in India which was overtaken by the British East India Co.(subsequently British Govt.). Muslims established Deoband (equivalent of the now ?banned Jamaat-Ud-Dawa of Pakistan established later on) seminary Darul Ulum in U.P. in mid India around that time in 1857 with covert outside help without the knowledge of British but with help and consent from Arabia(?Saudi) and Persia.

In 1947 this helped them(Muslims) get a good foothold as a new entity known as Pakistan. Rest of the world was too busy establishing 'Israel'.

So even if Pakistan goes away and vanishes , the problem of Idea of Pakistan continues to prosper covertly and more dangerously.

All these have to be factored-in before Pakistan is hit.

According to Trifkovic, abolishing Pakistan might be just what the doctor ordered.

Then Islam would no longer bind the warring remains together.

I find it fascinating a Pakistani government official threatened US supply lines to Afghanistan just before the major increase in attacks on that supply line by "non-state" actors. You have to credit them for appropriately reading non-Muslim will, critical knowledge, and ability to resist: presently at all time lows.

OT

Just posting this to highlight the mendacity of the BBC.

The Glasgow airport bombers were sentenced today, not one mention of the fact they were Muslim's.

The Headline:

'Doctor guilty of car bomb attack.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7773410.stm

We are confidently assured halfway through the article that the attacks were a political statement and not motivated by religious belief.

Britain is screwed.

India's response should be to launch attacks on some of these terrorist-training camps, either by commando raids or maybe by drone aircraft, with the aim of producing 5 to 10 times the number of casualties of the Mumbai attack.
When Pakistan complains, India should blandly explain that: Pakistan's accusations were mere allegations, without evidence; that the attacks were more likely the work of rival terrorist organizations; but that India was looking into the matter to see if there was any connection with India -- the help of Pakistani authorities was not required, thank you. If necessary, India could even trot out a couple of home-grown, India-based Moslem gangsters and find them guilty of some kind of aiding and abetting the attacks.
Then, India could quietly notify Pakistan that any future Paki terrorist attack would be met with another reprisal, at 5 to 10 times the casualty rate.

km,

Good post and true. Have a look at Melanie Phillips' post here from her blog in the Spectator and at the bottom of the page to Winston Smith's reply(December 16th, 2008 4:18pm).

The BBC is the mouthpiece of NuLabour as the Police are their right arm. Remember when Tony Blair gave that famous speech saying that Muslims terrorists are 'Not Muslims' and later on Jacqui Smith stating that there was to be a ban on the term 'Islamic Terrorism'?
This alone proves that the BBC is removing anything with the word Muslim in it. You may also be interested in knowing the George Orwell's book 1984 based the Ministry of Truth on the BBC and how true has it come to fruition?

Another interesting article on the BBC can be found here

I suggest everyone reads the above link(in the UK that is).

'but unless Pakistan shows sincerity in what they are saying......'

You mean the same 'sincerity' Pakistan showed when they said they wouldn't arrest the people, they weren't responsibly, ISI had no knowledge, the terrorist were not from Pakistan, they would turn them over, no..they won't turn them over, the list goes on and on.

Does India mean that 'sincerity'?

India will be here again and again.

Henrik

I was surprised to see Trifkovic's suggestion (much as I admire him) and disagree with it. Even if the Baluchis, Sindis and Pashtuns were to be successful, the result would be four or more Pakistans, but not no Pakistan. As long as those people are Mohammedan, there will always be a Pakistan.

A precedent for this does exist, and one can see the results today. In 1971, India fought a war with Pakistan and broke East Pakistan off Pakistan. That country, Bangladesh, was born secular, but today, it's the center of jihadi activity against India. So there is no reason to believe that an independent but Mohammedan Sind would not be India's enemy: as Mohammedans, they'd still be wanting to wage jihad against Hindus in Gujarat and Rajasthan. Trifkovic's solution would make matters worse.

Getting rid of Pakistan would require a Hindu supremacist group

1. being formed
2. coming to power in India
3. conquering Pakistan and Bangladesh and converting them all to Hinduism, or expelling them to Saudi Arabia or killing them

And while it's fine to talk about obliterating Pakistan and Bangladesh, it's still ignoring the elephant in the room: Indian Mohammedans. If we had none of them, it would not be that easy to launch terror attacks against India.

Richard the Lionheart: A question for you if you don't mind: What percentage of Brits look upon the BBC with complete or at least a fair amount of skepticism and is such skepticism growing over the years? A widely held perception of the BBC over here across the pond is that it is almost a parody of itself, sort of the way MSNBC is viewed here. Hope all is well with you.

They have a plan of attack which probably will not be executed for several reasons..not the least of which is U.S. pressure. There are lots of effective, aggressive measures that will hurt Pakistan short of "Operation Barbarosa". Having said that, India damn well better do something.

Maybe time to send the shoes of peace?

Pakistan is now pulling out all the stops, summoning all its domestic dhimmis to the frontlines:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7786495.stm

Pakistan is now pulling out all the stops, summoning all its domestic dhimmis to the frontlines:

And note how the BBC helps them with their propaganda.

Nuke the BBC!!!

Infidel Pride, I had contemplated the idea of dissovling Pakistan ever since I read a NG article describing how it's actually composed, and how it came into being. The uniting factor of that crap country is Islam, and that is a fundamental flaw. It breeds corruption, it breeds fanaticism, it breeds terrorism.

Dividing up along lines of ethnicity would make space for a very different object of identification, which would let Islam slide a bit from sight, and not least the percieved need of showing Islamic frevor.

Such mini-Pakistans would also have some intersting squabbles over food supply, battling drugs etc., which would keep people busy fighting internally. That, in turn, would discredit Islam as an 'uniting' force.

I think the idea is sound.

Hello Wellngton,

I hope you are well.
I think the general consensus here in the UK regarding the BBC is that they are not the 'Beloved' Broadcasting Corporation of the UK as they once were. A long time has passed since they were created. They are looked by many as the government's mouthpiece really, not forgetting anti jewish, pro Islamic, pro minority, anti majority and a bully. I haven't watched MSNBC as we don't get it here, but I could imagine it's very much like the Washington Post of the TV World.
There has also been so much scandal of late such as rigged phone in scams for TV shows, sacking of two thousand staff(due to costs) yet the keeping on of people such as Jonathon Ross with seven figure salaries(£6m a year). Sending more BBC staff than competitors to the Olympics in Beijing all funded by the tax payer. Their coverage of Islamic atrocities, where they don't even mention Islam.
Then again, the Left wing love the BBC as you will no doubt understand as they are their biggest propaganda machine with which to help destroy the UK and indoctrinate/brainwash the public. They are also the champions of Multiculturalism and uncontrolled immigration into the UK.

The BBC is a joke and I look forward to it's demise. You may also find this rather interesting as well, of how the BBC tried to bully people into paying for its license.

[The BBC]

They are looked by many as the government's mouthpiece really.

Why, of course!

I've been wondering just how it could become so poor with such a budget. Following the government line, attempting to make government policies look sound and reasonable, is the key. Avoiding confrontation, avoiding controversy, always giving the benefit of doubt to even the silliest of ideas.

And, in true New Labor (or, shall we say, Common Purpose?) fashion, dismantle every piece of British identity as effectively as possible.

Communism, you're *not* welcome back!

ebonystone

I like the way you think.

Your idea may be summed up as India giving Pakistan a precisely measured dose of 'Bedonebyasyoudid' (anyone who has read Charles Kingsley's 'The Water Babies' will remember the protagonist's shattering encounter with Mrs Bedonebyasyoudid).

For Henrik and Infidel Pride as well,

The issue here is not just how many states there are-I doubt an independent Sindh and Baluchistan would be anything like Pukeistan is today-but also how strong each state would be. It has been argued ad naseum whether acting on behalf of freedom for the different ethnic groups is a morally sopund and worthwhile thing to do, as with the case of Black Muslims in Darfur. No need to belabor it any further than we already have, but there are still some issues to think about.

1. Think about how pakistan depends on its subjugated provinces for resources. Anyone can see that an independent Balochistan would weaken, but it's easy to underestimate how much. pakis depend on Balochis for an endless list of natural resources, in particular at least 80 percent of their natural gas. Without Balochsitan pakistan would not even be a shell of it's former self and India could bitch slap pakistan when ever it wanted, ergo there's incentive right there to support an independent Balochistan, even if the same can't quite be said for the other groups in pakistan.

2. The comparision with Bangladesh could leave concern as to what would happen if the different ethnic groups in pakistan got their won countries. Now I'm no expert on South Asian politics, but my suspicion is that with Bangladesh the problem may have been that even post independence, they were still on under pakistani control, and only independent in an outward sense.

That would explain for instance why the razakars, and in fact I remember reading that Ziaur Rahman, who islamized bangladesh like Zia ul Haq did for paksitan, was one of the razakars, took power over banlgadesh so quickly after the assisanation of Mujib. Post war, Bangladesh was still under the influence of secualar bengalis and non muslims, despite their considerable decimation at the hands of pakis, and these people probably were working against razakar domination. The fact that razakars succeeded was probably due to the paki ISI controlling bengali populace behind the scenes, getting candidates to power who could islamize bangladesh and promote the razakar mentality, not to mention encourage saudi influence. Just like paksitan's attempts at being *democratic* are just for show with the ISI determining whose in control, the smae is true for bangladesh-it's still basically run by the ISI at the expense of the non muslim and secualr muslim half.

Basically, I suspect that the reason for jihadisation of bangladesh was due to secret ISI control and Indian neglect. They probably should have either annexed bangladesh, which I think the bengali elite who dominated bangladesh would have accepted so long as they could practice their banglai culture and language, or kept a stronger control over bangladesh and made worked agaisnt ISI influence.

The same mistake can be avoided in Balochistan and Sindh-either annexing them or working against ISI influence. Balochis and Sindhis, after their decades of paksitani abuse, would vote to live with India over pakistan in a heartbeat, and if they were independent India would have an easier time making sure the ISI didn't try to pull any shit down there. Ditto for Pusthtoons, in particular for those who vote for the secular Awami National Party, which I believe was founded by the son of Guffhar Kahn, the Pashtoon who opposed Partition of India and worked for modernization of his people.

As for the other option, the Hindu supremacist group idea, clearly we will have different ideas about the moral repurcussions and ethical aspects of such an idea not to mention whether or not having hindu supremacists giving all pakis the option of conversion or death can ever pe justified, but in practice we all know it won't happen so why not look to the next best things.

Thank you for the link, Henrick. You always have cool stuff for us.

I agree with you, IP, that Trifkovic's thesis is flawed. It may also very well happen without any intervention. Pakistan has long since run the risk of Balkanizing. I don't think that 'divide and conquer' is necessarily the best strategy with Muslims. They do that to themslves anyway if you just isolate them and the collateral damage only works to the good guys' benefit. That's the interesting thing about Pakistan. Not only does it have all the regular Islamic factions (Sunni/Shia, secular/'pious') but it has many tribes which have never gotten along, and it's not like Afghanistan where there's clearly one tribe that overpowers the rest and always will due to simple demographics. Divided or not, the tribes will always fight. Divided or not, one will always try to assume power over the others. When it's all in one pot that makes for an interesting dish, but when they're sovereign states trying to overrun one another's borders, the dhimmi free-world tendency is to pick a side and help out. Did we mess around in Afghanistan before 9/11 when it was a bunch of warring tribes? No, because it was just all one Islamic paradise and that's the natural order of things, but when in the Balkans we "had to" help out.

Where I disagree with you has to do with Indian Muslims. Pakis don't care about them and their presence will not have any effect on their dealings with India. They think that because they live in India and eat vegetables that were grown by Hindus who sacrifice to their gods that they're apostates. Severe takfir is one of the founding principles of Jamaat e Islami. Mohammedans don't care about Mohammedans. They just play that card to get jizya and guilt us into getting away with their BS. They care about Islam and jihad. People are just vehicles.

At the end of the day Pakistan will fail. Fighting a war with India might be all it takes. That it will Balkanize is a question of "when," not "if." I would like to see it happen through sheer failure. What a demoralizing blow that would be to the Muslim world: the first country created just for Muslims going under. I would love to see the fallout, too.

Ebonystone, you said it. You're absolutely right.

Richard the Lionheart: Thanks for your response. From your post it would seem that ridicule of the BBC is advancing at at steady rate. Good. Very amusing too the link you provided to the individual who told the BBC, in effect, to go to hell, that they are not needed anymore-----and they still didn't get it. The obviously false "second" signature makes one wonder just how dumb you can get and still run a TV station.

Once again, the elites, whether in politics, the media, business, academia or wherever, reveal all too obviously that they are not yet ready for prime time. Take care over there in a country which has surely seen better days. Perhaps not all hope is lost and Britain can still call upon its best to rid itself of its worst, including the wretched BBC.

Richard the Lionheart: Thanks for your response. From your post it would seem that ridicule of the BBC is advancing at a steady rate. Good. Very amusing too the link you provided to the individual who told the BBC, in effect, to go to hell, that they are not needed anymore-----and they still didn't get it. The obviously false "second" signature makes one wonder just how dumb you can get and still run a TV station.

Once again, the elites, whether in politics, the media, business, academia or wherever, reveal all too obviously that they are not yet ready for prime time. Take care over there in a country which has surely seen better days. Perhaps not all hope is lost and Britain can still call upon its best to rid itself of its worst, including the wretched BBC.

The BBC is a stupid idea. As if any government-owned news service could ever even hypothetically present the news truthfully.

In America, Public Broadcasting is owned by us and dependent on our donations. It's pretty good, too. If they offend us we can stop funding them. The whole rationale behind the BBC is absolutely Maoist. It scares me that anyone would trust them. Unfortunately, in America we have the NYT. All the TV news outfits, with the exception of FOX, rely on the NYT. If it's not in the NYT it's not on the TV news.

The Washington Times, Bill Moyers, and Fox News are the only reputable news outfits around.