Pakistani militants/terrorists ready to strike India again - NYTimes

[Med911]

@Jalaluddin

It is a big deal for any Pakistan government to give up their Kashmir case openly, therefore they will continue doing the periodic incursion such as this through ISI sponsored terrorists. India should simply get help from Israel and USA to better border security and make it increasingly difficult for these border crossings.

Indian nonsesne as usual.

Pakistan will do whats in the best intrest of Kashmiri people. And KAshmiri people themselves will continue to resist Indian occupation.

Ofcourse India will turn to other occupying nations, such as Israel for their support. India is to incompetant to take care of anything either inside or outside of her borders.
But u cant defend against whats already within your borders anyway. The Kashmiris are already in India, as according to your worthless consittitution they are Indian. Try stopping them...

[Med911]

Your idiots are sleeping on the job. That is why they get through.

LOL... No one needs to get through. Most insurgents and so called terrorsits are already in India as most of them are Indian...:)

Indians truly are their own worst enemy.

Khair, let them go kiss Israels rear to try to defend themselves.

[happyheart]

Your idiots are sleeping on the job. That is why they get through.

and your sissy soldiers are awake?
lolz

[happyheart]

Your idiots are sleeping on the job. That is why they get through.

if u do not have the ability to stop few hundred freedom fighters
then whats the use of your army? and 20 billions that u spend annually??

just spend the money to feed the poor.

[vigoratus]

Re: Pakistani militants/terrorists ready to strike India again - NYTimes

By LYDIA POLGREEN
Published: October 3, 2009

AHMEDABAD, India — The tableau was as improbable as it was grisly. **The bullet-riddled bodies of four Muslims lay neatly lined up in the middle of a road. One of the dead cradled a machine gun. Bomb-making chemicals and a suitcase full of cash sat in the trunk of their car. Intelligence reports had identified the four as terrorism suspects. **

It was a tidy crime scene with a story to match: four Islamic extremists who planned to assassinate the powerful chief minister of India’s richest state stopped cold by a fearless band of policemen early on the morning of June 15, 2004. The officers were hailed as heroes.
But the story was too good to be true, according to a recently released magistrate’s report. The supposed militants included a 19-year-old college student, a woman named Ishrat Jehan, who had no evident links to terrorist groups, the magistrate wrote.
The forensic evidence showed that the four had not died in a shootout but were shot at point-blank range, much earlier than the police had said. None of the four had actually fired a gun. They had been killed, the magistrate declared, in cold blood. **
The sensational case has fed a heated national debate about the longstanding Indian police practice of killing suspects. Known euphemistically as “encounter killings,**” such extrajudicial executions have been a tolerated and even celebrated method of dealing swiftly with crime in a country with a notoriously slow and sometimes corrupt judiciary. An officer in such cases invariably “encounters” a suspect and kills him, supposedly in self-defense.
In cities like Mumbai, which was for decades gripped by violent organized crime syndicates, officers who killed notorious gangland figures were often seen as dark folk heroes, selflessly carrying out the messy business of meting out justice. These officers, known as encounter specialists, became celebrities, even boasting about the number of gangsters they had killed.
But Indians have become increasingly wary of police officers crusading as judge, jury and executioner. Since 2006, 346 people have been killed in what seem to have been extrajudicial police killings, according to the National Human Rights Commission.
In many of these killings, investigations have found, the motive was not vigilante justice. The police often staged such killings for personal gain: bumping off a rival of a powerful politician in the hopes of a big promotion; killing a crime boss at the behest of one of his rivals; settling scores between businessmen.
Here in the state of Gujarat, the grim practice took on an even more sinister form. According to court documents, lawyers, human rights activists and the families of the victims, police officers seeking the favor of Gujarat’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, began killing small-time Muslim criminals and framing them as big-time terrorists bent on mass murder. No evidence has been offered to show that Mr. Modi encouraged such killings.
Riots in Gujarat killed more than 1,000 people, most of them Muslims, in the aftermath of an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims that killed 59 people in 2002. Mr. Modi, a prominent member of the Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has long been accused of fueling the anti-Muslim violence with inflammatory remarks.
Tensions between Hindus and Muslims here are high. **The officers who carried out the killings hoped to win promotions and other favors from lawmakers, according to court documents and human rights workers here. **
In Gujarat, the team of officers suspected of carrying out these killings usually chose their victims carefully. In all five cases pending in the courts so far, the main targets had shady pasts confirmed by an arrest or conviction, usually for a petty crime. Most were Muslims.
But in the killing of Ms. Jehan that formula went awry. **She hardly fit the usual profile of encounter victims. She was a full-time college student who also worked to provide for her widowed mother and six siblings. **
According to her family, she was on a trip with her employer to help him set up his marketing business. On June 15, she was shot, according to the police, along with her accomplices as they tried to evade capture.
But the Gujarat magistrate’s report shredded that claim. The food in the victims’ stomachs proved that they had been killed much earlier, the report said. Their wounds were consistent with point-blank shootings. Their hands showed no trace of gunpowder residue. The police had planted weapons on the victims and staged the crime scene.
Gujarat government officials dispute the magistrate’s report, and Gujarat’s High Court has stopped the authorities from arresting the officers it named as the court conducts an inquiry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/asia/04ahmedabad.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

oh jeez :smack: didn’t see that one coming, did ya? To believe or not to believe…

this one is from NY Times too. I guess the “real terrorists” are some Indians, namely elected politicians like Modi and Co., and their hired thugs in the uniform of Indian Law enforcement agencies. This is the picture NYTimes is painting. tsk tsk

[happyheart]

@vigoratus

Indian state sponsored executions-NYTimes

By LYDIA POLGREEN
Published: October 3, 2009
AHMEDABAD, India — The tableau was as improbable as it was grisly. The bullet-riddled bodies of four Muslims lay neatly lined up in the middle of a road. One of the dead cradled a machine gun. Bomb-making chemicals and a suitcase full of cash sat in the trunk of their car. Intelligence reports had identified the four as terrorism suspects.

It was a tidy crime scene with a story to match: four Islamic extremists who planned to assassinate the powerful chief minister of India’s richest state stopped cold by a fearless band of policemen early on the morning of June 15, 2004. The officers were hailed as heroes.
But the story was too good to be true, according to a recently released magistrate’s report. The supposed militants included a 19-year-old college student, a woman named Ishrat Jehan, who had no evident links to terrorist groups, the magistrate wrote.
The forensic evidence showed that the four had not died in a shootout but were shot at point-blank range, much earlier than the police had said. None of the four had actually fired a gun. They had been killed, the magistrate declared, in cold blood.
The sensational case has fed a heated national debate about the longstanding Indian police practice of killing suspects. Known euphemistically as “encounter killings,” such extrajudicial executions have been a tolerated and even celebrated method of dealing swiftly with crime in a country with a notoriously slow and sometimes corrupt judiciary. An officer in such cases invariably “encounters” a suspect and kills him, supposedly in self-defense.
In cities like Mumbai, which was for decades gripped by violent organized crime syndicates, officers who killed notorious gangland figures were often seen as dark folk heroes, selflessly carrying out the messy business of meting out justice. These officers, known as encounter specialists, became celebrities, even boasting about the number of gangsters they had killed.
But Indians have become increasingly wary of police officers crusading as judge, jury and executioner. Since 2006, 346 people have been killed in what seem to have been extrajudicial police killings, according to the National Human Rights Commission.
In many of these killings, investigations have found, the motive was not vigilante justice. The police often staged such killings for personal gain: bumping off a rival of a powerful politician in the hopes of a big promotion; killing a crime boss at the behest of one of his rivals; settling scores between businessmen.
Here in the state of Gujarat, the grim practice took on an even more sinister form. According to court documents, lawyers, human rights activists and the families of the victims, police officers seeking the favor of Gujarat’s chief minister, Narendra Modi, began killing small-time Muslim criminals and framing them as big-time terrorists bent on mass murder. No evidence has been offered to show that Mr. Modi encouraged such killings.
Riots in Gujarat killed more than 1,000 people, most of them Muslims, in the aftermath of an attack on a train carrying Hindu pilgrims that killed 59 people in 2002. Mr. Modi, a prominent member of the Hindu nationalist party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, has long been accused of fueling the anti-Muslim violence with inflammatory remarks.
Tensions between Hindus and Muslims here are high. The officers who carried out the killings hoped to win promotions and other favors from lawmakers, according to court documents and human rights workers here.
In Gujarat, the team of officers suspected of carrying out these killings usually chose their victims carefully. In all five cases pending in the courts so far, the main targets had shady pasts confirmed by an arrest or conviction, usually for a petty crime. Most were Muslims.
But in the killing of Ms. Jehan that formula went awry. She hardly fit the usual profile of encounter victims. She was a full-time college student who also worked to provide for her widowed mother and six siblings.
According to her family, she was on a trip with her employer to help him set up his marketing business. On June 15, she was shot, according to the police, along with her accomplices as they tried to evade capture.
But the Gujarat magistrate’s report shredded that claim. The food in the victims’ stomachs proved that they had been killed much earlier, the report said. Their wounds were consistent with point-blank shootings. Their hands showed no trace of gunpowder residue. The police had planted weapons on the victims and staged the crime scene.
Gujarat government officials dispute the magistrate’s report, and Gujarat’s High Court has stopped the authorities from arresting the officers it named as the court conducts an inquiry.

Lawyers had known for years that something strange was happening in the Gujarat police force and that the killings of terrorism suspects were dubious, said Mukul Sinha, a lawyer for the relatives of several victims. But hardly anyone thought the killers would be brought to justice.
Then in 2005, the brother of one victim — a small-time bandit named Sohrabuddin Sheikh — sent a letter to India’s Supreme Court demanding an inquiry into the death of Mr. Sheikh, who had been killed by the police and branded a terrorist and who, like the four killed in June 2004, had been accused of planning to kill the chief minister of Gujarat.
Under Indian law any citizen can petition the country’s highest court directly, and the Supreme Court demanded an investigation. In 2007, Gujarat’s government acknowledged that the killing did not happen as the police had claimed and that the police had also killed Mr. Sheikh’s wife to cover up the crime.
The revelation opened the floodgates. “People realized that something can be done, that it is not impossible to get justice in Gujarat,” Mr. Sinha said.
After the officers who made up the elite squad that had carried out these encounters were arrested in the death of Mr. Sheikh, the killings stopped.
“All of a sudden the terrorists have stopped coming to kill Modi,” Mr. Sinha said.
But families of the victims are still waiting for justice.
Ms. Jehan’s mother, Shamima Kausar, said that the charge that her daughter was a terrorist was ludicrous. “She was just a college girl,” she said, tears welling in her eyes. “She was my right hand. I am lost without her.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/world/asia/04ahmedabad.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

oh jeez didn’t see that one coming, did ya? To believe or not to believe…

this one is from NY Times too.

Well the thing is that they only see and post articles that they like and what they believe
is the reality. India is a country where everything is good and everybody is happy
nothing goes wrong there the Indian army is actually salvation army
Which treats its prisoners as guests and treats them like one of their own.

Is it too much to ask you guys to be objective?

[CM]

and your sissy soldiers are awake? lolz

You forget, your claim as Indians is that we support them. So why would we stop them. Stick to one story atleast. If we support them you are failing to do your job. If we do not support them they are home grown. Take your pick.

[Sarsaparilla]

Re: Pakistani militants/terrorists ready to strike India again - NYTimes

@Reason,

Well reasoned and cool-headed posts.

[infiniti]

Re: Pakistani militants/terrorists ready to strike India again - NYTimes

I agree with sarsaparilla.

I dont know if you are Indian or Pakistani, but I look forward to your sensible, educated and honest posts as opposed to the garbage responses to your posts.

[pak-one]

I would like Kashmiris to have a chance to determine their own fate but let's face it: India will never allow such a vote.

I don't think you care about Kashmiri self determination, so let's not even go there. Now to discuss your arguments one by one:
**
No country would allow a vote on secession. Would Pakistan allow Baluchistan or Wazirstan to hold such a vote? Canada did but then said if even if Quebec voted to secede it would not be allowed to leave Canada.**

You're mistakenly comparing secessionist movements with a faulty colonial partition where the rights of the Kashmiri peoples ability to decide their fate were usurped. Furthermore, the UN resolutions brought to the table by India, i might add, bring a historical precedence nd is an internationally recognized disputed territory.

No comparison with Baluchistan, Waziristan or even Quebec.

In theory the international community could pressure India to hold a vote through sanctions but that is both unlikely to happen and unlikely to work. Countries will not cede land. Besides, the UN would never impose such sanctions because of the precedent that would set. If India must be forced to allow a vote on secession what about the others of Russia and China that want to secede (which means an automatic veto from both nations, end of the issue at the UN)? What about Baluchistan in Pakistan, the Kurdish areas in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey, South Ossetia in Georgia, the Basque region in Spain and so on. Would the UN then impose sanctions to hold votes in all these places? I doubt it. Anyway, Russia and China would veto any such resolution so there is no hope of forcing India to hold a vote.

Again I don't hold a crystal ball but the international community successfully pressurizing India seems remote, but that does not mean that we Pakistanis (Not YOU) give up on the issue. It is our moral responsibility to continue to bring the issue on the table and continue to fight the good (diplomatic) fight.

On the flip side, you must concede that Kashmir is never and will never truly be a part of India. As the only Muslim majority state with a distinct culture that is more similar to Tibet, Pakistan's Northern Areas, Pakhtunkhwa..Kashmiris will never truly be a part of India. India will HAVE To continue to pour military and developmental resources to convince (coerece?) Kashmiris into becoming Indians with no sucess. Indian economic and political trajectory is hampered and will continue to be hampered by this regional issue.

**
The other option is to take it with force. This is impossible. India is far stronger than Pakistan. Its military budget is $33 billion, Pakistan's is $8 billion. It has a far larger economy, far more resources, far more people, etc. There is no way Pakistan can beat India in a conventional war. Suppose that by some miracle Pakistan did beat India and take Kashmir. Is that worth the risk of nuclear retaliation by India? Is Kashmir worth losing Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, etc.?**

Geopolitics is a curious animal. There werent many people who though Pakistan would be reality in 1942, yet Pakistan came into existance in 1947. While conevntionally the military match up there is no comparison, however lets not forget the winds of politics, future competition between India and China and various internal weaknesses within the Indian Union. Pakistan lost a great opportunity in '62, don't you forget it.

Also, your hypothetical does not include the fact that India does have no first use policy when it comes to the Nukes. If that is set aside during times of war, surely you can expect an equally brutal Pakistani retaliation that will annihilate the nation known as India. No one wants to go nuclear and if by any sad circumstance it does happen, you can expect atleast 1/6 of humanity of wiped out.

[Reason]

Thanks Sarsapilla, Infiniti. I am Pakistani (my parents emigrated) but have lived in the US all my life. I consider myself American but want to see Pakistan do well because of the ethnic tie and also because Pakistan doing well is in America's interests given the rise of Islamist terrorism and the use of Pakistan as the headquarters of Jihad, Inc. in recent years.

[QUOTE]
I don't think you care about Kashmiri self determination
[/QUOTE]
That depends on how you define care. If by care you mean whether I lose sleep over it then I don't care. If you mean that if I were ruler of the world would I give Kashmir a plebiscite? Yes--but I would do the same across the board. There are four areas in Russia and Georgia alone with separatist movements (Chechyna, Dagestan, South Ossetia, and Abhkazia).

[QUOTE]
You're mistakenly comparing secessionist movements with a faulty colonial partition where the rights of the Kashmiri peoples ability to decide their fate were usurped. Furthermore, the UN resolutions brought to the table by India, i might add, bring a historical precedence nd is an internationally recognized disputed territory.

No comparison with Baluchistan, Waziristan or even Quebec.
[/QUOTE]
That is your position and the Pakistani position. That is not the Indian position. Unless you can convince India of that you cannot get them to hold a vote. As far as India is concerned that is Indian territory. No country is going to voluntary cede a province.

The same could be applied to Pakistan. Pakistan was created out of the same colonial partition. Would you then favor a vote for Baluchistan and the NWFP? How about the Kurds? Did anyone ask them if they wanted to be part of Iraq when the British created "Iraq"? Tibet? And so on. This is the problem with allowing such a vote as far as other nations are concerned. If Kashmir is allowed such a vote why not Tibet, the Kurds, or the South Ossetians? This would affect two veto-wielding nations. Why would China or Russia allow a Kashmiri plebiscite given the implications it would have for them?

[QUOTE]
but that does not mean that we Pakistanis (Not YOU) give up on the issue. It is our moral responsibility to continue to bring the issue on the table and continue to fight the good (diplomatic) fight.
[/QUOTE]
At what cost? 60+ years of unending hostility, the constant threat of nuclear war, and the siphoning off of limited resources that are needed for social services and economic development for military purposes. Pakistan trades more with Afghanistan than India. This is ridiculous. India is a rising country. Pakistan is fortunately located next to the two rising Asian giants. It should tether itself economically to them and benefit from their rapid growth. In 50 years Pakistan will neighbor the two largest economies in the world. Do you propose Pakistan have no meaningful relationship with the second largest economy because of a quixotic Kashmir dream? What is Kashmir worth? It has no economic or strategic value.

[QUOTE]
On the flip side, you must concede that Kashmir is never and will never truly be a part of India. As the only Muslim majority state with a distinct culture that is more similar to Tibet, Pakistan's Northern Areas, Pakhtunkhwa..Kashmiris will never truly be a part of India. India will HAVE To continue to pour military and developmental resources to convince (coerece?) Kashmiris into becoming Indians with no sucess. Indian economic and political trajectory is hampered and will continue to be hampered by this regional issue.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Kashmir is useless. Only national pride keeps both Pakistan and India obsessed with it. India would be wise to give it up, or at least grant it independence and make peace with Pakistan.

Jammu is majority Hindu, Ladakh is majority Buddhist. Does the religious logic then mean these parts of Kashmir get a separate vote? Give Jammu to India, Ladakh to China? This is the logical extension of the notion that since Kashmir as a whole is Muslim it should be part of India. If the goal is truly self-determination why hasn't Pakistan proposed this? Perhaps this could be a basis for a deal. Allow India to keep Jammu and Ladakh and give the Kashmir Valley portion, where most people in Indian Kashmir live, to Pakistan.

[QUOTE]
While conevntionally the military match up there is no comparison, however lets not forget the winds of politics, future competition between India and China and various internal weaknesses within the Indian Union. Pakistan lost a great opportunity in '62, don't you forget it.
[/QUOTE]
The key difference between 62' and now is nuclear weapons. In 62' Pakistan would have had a good shot at taking Kashmir but even if China and India go to war today Pakistan would risk a nuclear war if it attempts to take Kashmir.

[QUOTE]
your hypothetical does not include the fact that India does have no first use policy when it comes to the Nukes. If that is set aside during times of war, surely you can expect an equally brutal Pakistani retaliation that will annihilate the nation known as India.
[/QUOTE]
This is why I believe an India-Pakistan war should never be fought for it can never truly be "won" by either side. The losing party would face immense political pressure to use nukes and the other side would retaliate. Is losing the major cities of both countries worth Kashmir?