Post 183:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not fear, but I'd suggest caution that we don't go courting the western media, which is what the instigation of pre-meditated riots (so long after the initial event to which we are trying to retaliate) will do - retaliation should have been immediate. We have enough problems in India what with Islam exploding every few months and attempted separatism in the NE; we don't need the holier-than-Hindus attitude that the western media pulls when it covers Indian retaliation (yet their conscience was completely silent during the retaliatory attack on Afghanistan and they trumpeted non-existent wmds to excuse Iraq's invasion). Such biased media reports could be used by others in future to serve as a basis for sanctions, and perhaps other meddling (like refusing Modi a Visa, ...).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The West plays a lot of covert games, but any overt threat is not believable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->These 'games' do have consequences to the security of our nation (as they have done for others), and they should not be ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Assuming you're in the Indian army, you would obviously know better than any US journalist about what happened regarding the airlift incident. However, I have read of the same occurrence elsewhere (in articles not referring to the Newyorker) and this was the only one I could find at short notice to post in the forums.
If any paper is considered completely unreliable because it made the wrong conclusions and predicted things that never materialised later (though Iran has been on the US agenda for at least a year now - a fact not denied by C Rice, but that doesn't mean the US restricted its options to military action), then imagine how unreliable the Washington Times, New York Times and Newsday are for blatantly lying about fictional Serb atrocities. Yet these newspapers do give factual information on some topics on occasion.
I generally take any such controversial news with a pinch of salt, unless I can confirm the same from an independent source. In the case of the Tban airlift into India, there was one more article I'd read that came to the same conclusions, as well as another entirely different one that only briefly alluded to the misstep in some 'drop off in N India'. If the US army really makes missteps as catastrophic as this, they are very incompetent. However, I don't think they were incompetent nor that this was an accident.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...the situation in Serbia where the government, its army, and paramilitaries led by people like Arakan commited violence instead of ordinary serbs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the actual facts are that beyond retaliation in war, the Serbian government, army and military did nothing to make them more uniquely ruthless than those of Croatia and Albania. Yet the media spun fiction after fiction about Serbian atrocities and kept silent about the very real crimes committed by the Albanians and Croatians. And, unlike the Serbian populace, the Albanian populace did partake in the violence which was also entirely absent from news reports.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then let me ask, how will riots <i>permanently</i> 'secure the Hindu nation'? How will riots <i>stop Islam in a permanent </i>sense? It will only temporarily hold back the problem. As you or someone else already said, they'll only try their antics in any area where they're in the majority. So even if a riot or two stopped them today, they'll merely wait and grow in size and then regain confidence that they can take on the rest of the population again. Yes, they'll have learned that we will not hesitate to retaliate, but they'll also know that it's a numbers game at the end of the day and if they're in the majority then they'll win.
Counter-terrorism (CT) won't solve the whole problem (the intolerance and terrorism inherent to Islam). Counter-terrorism will only work on organised terrorism (although in theory, if succesful, it might expand to deter propaganda organisations who go around instigating hatred).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How would this tit for tat attacks weaken the Muslim camp strategically?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The CT operations shouldn't be restricted to take place only after each attack, but should be continuously active, searching for hideouts, for suspects, infiltrations, terrorist propaganda organisations, what have you. But as I said, it's only effective on organised terrorism.
For the rest, I will PM you later. I've taken up too much space on this thread as it is for this off-topic discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not fear, but I'd suggest caution that we don't go courting the western media, which is what the instigation of pre-meditated riots (so long after the initial event to which we are trying to retaliate) will do - retaliation should have been immediate. We have enough problems in India what with Islam exploding every few months and attempted separatism in the NE; we don't need the holier-than-Hindus attitude that the western media pulls when it covers Indian retaliation (yet their conscience was completely silent during the retaliatory attack on Afghanistan and they trumpeted non-existent wmds to excuse Iraq's invasion). Such biased media reports could be used by others in future to serve as a basis for sanctions, and perhaps other meddling (like refusing Modi a Visa, ...).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The West plays a lot of covert games, but any overt threat is not believable.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->These 'games' do have consequences to the security of our nation (as they have done for others), and they should not be ignored.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Assuming you're in the Indian army, you would obviously know better than any US journalist about what happened regarding the airlift incident. However, I have read of the same occurrence elsewhere (in articles not referring to the Newyorker) and this was the only one I could find at short notice to post in the forums.
If any paper is considered completely unreliable because it made the wrong conclusions and predicted things that never materialised later (though Iran has been on the US agenda for at least a year now - a fact not denied by C Rice, but that doesn't mean the US restricted its options to military action), then imagine how unreliable the Washington Times, New York Times and Newsday are for blatantly lying about fictional Serb atrocities. Yet these newspapers do give factual information on some topics on occasion.
I generally take any such controversial news with a pinch of salt, unless I can confirm the same from an independent source. In the case of the Tban airlift into India, there was one more article I'd read that came to the same conclusions, as well as another entirely different one that only briefly alluded to the misstep in some 'drop off in N India'. If the US army really makes missteps as catastrophic as this, they are very incompetent. However, I don't think they were incompetent nor that this was an accident.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->...the situation in Serbia where the government, its army, and paramilitaries led by people like Arakan commited violence instead of ordinary serbs.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->But the actual facts are that beyond retaliation in war, the Serbian government, army and military did nothing to make them more uniquely ruthless than those of Croatia and Albania. Yet the media spun fiction after fiction about Serbian atrocities and kept silent about the very real crimes committed by the Albanians and Croatians. And, unlike the Serbian populace, the Albanian populace did partake in the violence which was also entirely absent from news reports.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Then let me ask, how will riots <i>permanently</i> 'secure the Hindu nation'? How will riots <i>stop Islam in a permanent </i>sense? It will only temporarily hold back the problem. As you or someone else already said, they'll only try their antics in any area where they're in the majority. So even if a riot or two stopped them today, they'll merely wait and grow in size and then regain confidence that they can take on the rest of the population again. Yes, they'll have learned that we will not hesitate to retaliate, but they'll also know that it's a numbers game at the end of the day and if they're in the majority then they'll win.
Counter-terrorism (CT) won't solve the whole problem (the intolerance and terrorism inherent to Islam). Counter-terrorism will only work on organised terrorism (although in theory, if succesful, it might expand to deter propaganda organisations who go around instigating hatred).
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->How would this tit for tat attacks weaken the Muslim camp strategically?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The CT operations shouldn't be restricted to take place only after each attack, but should be continuously active, searching for hideouts, for suspects, infiltrations, terrorist propaganda organisations, what have you. But as I said, it's only effective on organised terrorism.
For the rest, I will PM you later. I've taken up too much space on this thread as it is for this off-topic discussion.