07-14-2006, 01:56 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If we did have a non-govt counter-terrorism organisation, say composed of former intel officers and army-personnel with expertise in this field, then they could track down terrorists and just quietly flush them out (our disinterested govt never will). That way the media will never know. Obviously the media doesn't know where the terrorists were hiding and will not now know they went missing. And the Indian population won't miss them either and Shabana Azmi can't admit her terrorist friends just went missing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now this is one of the most unpractical things I have heard. Recruiting former intel officers and army-personnel, that too under the noses of state and central governments? Who will recruit them? How would they operate nationally, as well as within the region? And targeting only the terrorists, not the community whose interests they are forwarding. Even if they do get the terrorists, how would they secure the Hindu nation at large? Would they solve the problem of a demographic nightmare, the imposition of Sharia, the adherence to Islam, and therefore the sharing of terrorist goals by over 100 million people? How would this tit for tat attacks weaken the Muslim camp strategically?
As I have stated before, you seem to be exagerating the threat of intervention. Ofcourse during mass riots the media won't be on our side, but that is quite different from the situation in Serbia where the government, its army, and paramilitaries led by people like Arakan commited violence instead of ordinary serbs. The government in India's case would be paralysed because they won't have enough resources to stop the violence, not because they have no intention of stoping the riots. It would be a very hard case to make that government and armed forces of India need to be hit in such a situation.
And I am aware of the claims of Newyorker, and do not believe them. It is the same Newyorker that said that abuse at Abu Garaib was some kind of intelligence operation, or that US was ready to attack Iran in 2005. Newyorker and Seymour Hersh are 50-50 hit, and I wouln't base my entire conclusion on their articles. During the airlift of Konduz, the Pakistani officers did get to go home, and maybe some Taliban too, but to claim that it was America diverting Taliban in Kashmir is not credible.
Husky, you seem to be exhibiting a paralyzing fear of Western intervention, but as I have said before, intervention in India (which in not in European backyard) is not easy in terms of capability or will. The West plays a lot of covert games, but any overt threat is not believable.
Now this is one of the most unpractical things I have heard. Recruiting former intel officers and army-personnel, that too under the noses of state and central governments? Who will recruit them? How would they operate nationally, as well as within the region? And targeting only the terrorists, not the community whose interests they are forwarding. Even if they do get the terrorists, how would they secure the Hindu nation at large? Would they solve the problem of a demographic nightmare, the imposition of Sharia, the adherence to Islam, and therefore the sharing of terrorist goals by over 100 million people? How would this tit for tat attacks weaken the Muslim camp strategically?
As I have stated before, you seem to be exagerating the threat of intervention. Ofcourse during mass riots the media won't be on our side, but that is quite different from the situation in Serbia where the government, its army, and paramilitaries led by people like Arakan commited violence instead of ordinary serbs. The government in India's case would be paralysed because they won't have enough resources to stop the violence, not because they have no intention of stoping the riots. It would be a very hard case to make that government and armed forces of India need to be hit in such a situation.
And I am aware of the claims of Newyorker, and do not believe them. It is the same Newyorker that said that abuse at Abu Garaib was some kind of intelligence operation, or that US was ready to attack Iran in 2005. Newyorker and Seymour Hersh are 50-50 hit, and I wouln't base my entire conclusion on their articles. During the airlift of Konduz, the Pakistani officers did get to go home, and maybe some Taliban too, but to claim that it was America diverting Taliban in Kashmir is not credible.
Husky, you seem to be exhibiting a paralyzing fear of Western intervention, but as I have said before, intervention in India (which in not in European backyard) is not easy in terms of capability or will. The West plays a lot of covert games, but any overt threat is not believable.