Al Qaeda wants the wider Islamic world to join its war.
One way to do that is to trick major nations into going to war against each other.
Won't happen. India won't be fooled by such tricks.
Posted on 07/14/2006 4:05:07 PM PDT by maxypane
By Simon Denyer
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - There were tears in his eyes as he met the victims of this week's Mumbai bomb blasts, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had steel in his voice as he talked about Pakistan's failure to tackle terrorism.
"Terror modules" in India were being instigated and supported by elements from across the border. Pakistan had not fulfilled a promise to curb extremism and the peace process between South Asia's nuclear rivals could not advance until it did, he said.
The tough talk was prompted by the killing of 179 people in bomb attacks on Mumbai's rail network on Tuesday. It could be the most serious crisis between the two countries since the peace process kicked off two-and-a-half years ago.
Influential foreign policy analyst C. Raja Mohan, an enthusiastic backer of the dialogue in the past, argued for the first time that it might be time "to dump Musharraf".
"If Musharraf is not willing or is unable to deliver and end cross-border terrorism, the government could only conclude that it is no longer possible to do business with him," he said.
Initial investigations suggest the bomb blasts may have been carried out by Indian Muslims.
But behind the scenes, officials see the hands of the Pakistani-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba or Pakistan's powerful military spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in recruiting, funding and training them.
It is a claim quickly derided by Pakistan as "propaganda or frivolous speculation", not backed by evidence.
BROADER ISLAMIC AGENDA?
But as the diplomatic fur flies, next week's meeting between the foreign secretaries of the two countries -- meant to discuss the peace process -- could well be postponed, officials say.
Lashkar was also blamed for the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that brought South Asia's nuclear rivals to the brink of war. It was blamed for bomb attacks on New Delhi markets last October that killed more than 60 people.
Lashkar made its name fighting Indian rule in Kashmir but has expanded its operations to the whole of India, recruiting disaffected and jobless Indian Muslims to its cause.
Whether or not Lashkar was indeed involved, analysts say Islamic extremists are the most likely suspects.
But the question is: are they working at the behest of the Pakistani state, or some broader Islamist agenda, inspired more by Osama bin Laden than President Pervez Musharraf?
Ajai Sahni of New Delhi's Institute for Conflict Management is among those who see the invisible hand of the ISI. Lashkar has been banned in Pakistan but continues to operate under another name, and its leaders move freely.
"It is like a state-funded, autonomous organisation," he said. "Your projects are broadly mandated by the state, which gives arms, weapons and expertise as required."
But that is not the same as saying the ISI is pulling the strings, and some say Sahni's hawkish view is out of date.
TERRITORIAL CONCESSIONS
Many analysts say that Pakistan has been reluctant to clamp down on militants fighting Indian rule in Kashmir, seeing the violence there as a way of keeping pressure on India to engage seriously in the peace process.
That strategy stems partly from impatience with India and its unwillingness to consider territorial concessions over Kashmir.
Musharraf's hand may also have been stayed because he has needed Islamist parties to prop up his military regime.
"The government has turned a blind eye partly because it hasn't quite given up the jihadi option in Kashmir, and partly because it has religious allies who have links to these groups," said Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group.
Peter Lehr of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at Britain's St. Andrew's University said that while the carnage in Mumbai was not in Musharraf's interests, it could have found backers from within Pakistan.
"The ISI is usually portrayed as a big monolithic block, but it is beset by factions," he said. "It could be one part of the ISI following one policy while its leaders are doing the exact opposite."
Indian political analyst Prem Shankar Jha argues that India was too quick to blame its neighbour and is simplistic when it equates Lashkar with the Pakistani state. Those charges are not helping the peace process, nor fostering the kind of cooperation required to beat extremism.
"We have to understand they (Pakistan) are not our adversaries, and if you portray them as adversaries you will not be able to work with them," Jha said
speaking of big guns, didn't pakistan get one a while ago?
In the long run, I would much rather have India than Pakistan as an ally of the WOT.
Not only as an ally of the WOT -- but also as a counter-balance against China.
Al Reuters is worried about the "piss process" with the "religions of piss" SOBs . Somebody tell them we lost 200 people in the bombings. Were it not for the cowards that hold our government hostage we would be discussing "War process" by now.
Al Qaeda wants the wider Islamic world to join its war.
One way to do that is to trick major nations into going to war against each other.
Won't happen. India won't be fooled by such tricks.
The key for India is to smash Al Qaeda without triggering a nuclear exchange with Pakistan and/or China.
India is clever enough to do this.
That's true.
But what you aren't asking yourself is "Why" Pakistan would want that sort of damage and trouble for itself.
The answer is that Musharaff doesn't want that.
Instead, Al Qaeda wants India to dethrone Musharaff.
Al Qaeda has tried no fewer than 4 assasination attempts against Musharaff; all failed.
But India could do it. So all that Al Qaeda has to do is to get India mad at Pakistan...then India does Al Qaeda's dirty work.
...if India falls for Al Qaeda's trick.
bumping for later comment
Comments....nothing is going to change in India. Life will go on ..both the people's and the govt's. No one will do anything solid. We are used of living with humility. we Indians talk too loud, but always with no action.
But what you aren't asking yourself is "Why" Pakistan would want that sort of damage and trouble for itself.
Why indeed. Tell me why do you think Pakistan has been waging direct wars and low-medium intensity proxy wars against India for the last 50 years now? I thought you would have figured that out by now.
And why this time? Is there anything better than exposing or exploiting the enemy's weakness? We right now have the most weak-kneed and incompetent leadership ever in our history.Would there be any better time when they could hit us, cause a national injury and insult and get away with it? I doubt.
The answer is that Musharaff doesn't want that.
We know very well what Musharraf wants. In this regard we have better intelligence then what US has. Musharraf was the architect of Kargil war, we have heard his radio intercepts in Urdu and of course his jihad rhetoric to his domestic audience again in Urdu. The man is a class act, he says one thing in to western press in English and quite another to his domestic crowed.
Instead, Al Qaeda wants India to dethrone Musharaff.
Al Qaeda has tried no fewer than 4 assasination attempts against Musharaff; all failed.
But India could do it. So all that Al Qaeda has to do is to get India mad at Pakistan...then India does Al Qaeda's dirty work.
...if India falls for Al Qaeda's trick.
Terrorism in India didn't start with Al Qaida. It was started by the Pakistani Army and the ISI. LET, Jaish, Hizb, Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, Sipah-e-Sahab, Markaz-Ud-dawa etc and dozens or other similar groups were created by the Pakistani Army and ISI. The Taliban was created by the Pakistani Army and ISI. Al Qaida only introduced a global dimension to it but the terrorism was alway Pakistan's creation/design and a part of their strategy to achieve their geopolitical ambitions. This particular terrorist attack too has Pakistan's involvement. Al Qaida only makes use of Pakistan's already existing terror infrastructure and resources in the region. And I dont even for moment believe that Pakistan Army/ISI is in conflict with the terrorist groups. In fact at times there is no distinction between the two. The Mujahideens we fought on the peaks of Kargil were from the Northan Light Infantry. Many of those heading terrorists groups are/were retired Pak Army men or ISI agents. They are two side of the same coin. The WOT is only an on going sham meant for western consumption. In order to defeat Al Qaida, the war has to be fought against Pakistan. There is no other way to deal with this.
The documents that we captured in Iraq indicate that Al Qaeda wants Musharaff dead.
You list a lot of historical facts above, but you don't answer my question as to "Why" Pakistan would want the obvious damage that would come from a large war with India.
Nor do you explain why Al Qaeda wants Musharaff dead.
Clearly you and I disagree over Musharaff, with me thinking that he has chosen the side of the U.S. and civilization, with you thinking that a tiger doesn't change his stripes.
Both of us can point to reams of evidence supporting our views.
You may be correct. I may be correct.
If we both remain honorable, then our debate is intractable. I have solid facts on my side; you have solid facts on your side.
I can say that India has the option of choosing better timing for war. Right now the rush to war would only come from India's current (quite justified) anger.
In a short amount of time, however, Chechnya will have surrendered to Russia, Iraq will be a "normal" 3rd world country rather than a war zone, Afghanistan will be peaceful save for some rural areas that no one cares about, Hezbollah will be smashed in Lebanon, and Iran will be isolated...facing checkmate or peace on our terms.
That would be better strategic timing, rather than demonstrating India's military might in the next 6 weeks.
And even then, with the stakes so high, I'd encourage our Indian allies to consider that Musharaff may indeed have changed his stripes. Hard to believe, I realize, but with stakes so high that possibility should be considered.
My view is that Al Qaeda wants Musharaff dead, and that they want to trick India into killing him. I understand that you disagree with my view. I respect that. But this is a tough place to make a mistake.
Choose wisely.
"You list a lot of historical facts above, but you don't answer my question as to "Why" Pakistan would want the obvious damage that would come from a large war with India."
You havent yet understood the ABC's of this dynamic. Pakistan does not want a large war and they correctly assume that the Indian govt would not want to bear the costs of a large war. THAT along with the fact that it has american support in that America will continue to turn a blind eye towards terrorism against India is why they continue with the terror attacks without fear of reprisal.
The terrorism is used as leverage on the Kashmir issue. This is nothing new and has been happening for decades.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.