If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   While investigating Mumbai terror attack, India finds links to Pakistani extremists. Immediately begins gearing up for invasion of Iraq   (latimes.com) divider line 333
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

5731 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2008 at 12:31 AM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-11-30 01:06:30 AM
Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?
 
2008-11-30 01:06:48 AM
RanDomino: Who in India actually cares? By some measures, India is poorer and has a higher poverty rate than sub-Sahara Africa. The wealth stratification is ridiculous- Do the ~900,000,000 Indians on the edge of survival really give a damn about something that only affects the wealthiest 3% of the population? I suspect that there's more outrage about this in Europe and the US (and even then, only among bourgeoisie) than there is in Bharata.

Meh, I think they care. The US is not different. We have an incredibly unfair stratification of income but we still have people complaining about the Estate Tax. It is all about PR.
 
2008-11-30 01:07:08 AM
Cubist Robot Party: After seeing how painfully incompetent the Indian security forces are at handling a few dozen (well equipped and planned, admittedly), I have to ask...

Does this say, loud and clear, to Pakistan, that they could easily invade without so much as brushing aside the Indian army?

The US has been supplying Pakistan with some pretty heavy machinery to "fight terrorism" over the past few years.


Guerrilla style urban warfare by a few dozen people and an army invading a foreign country have fark all to do with each other.

And this isn't "Pakistan" starting shiat per se, it's the ISI.
 
2008-11-30 01:08:08 AM
eraser8: ignorantalmond: I call for a global hug-fest.

Orgy time?


Best. Porn. Ever.
 
2008-11-30 01:08:28 AM
CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?


So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?
 
2008-11-30 01:08:53 AM
RanDomino: Who in India actually cares? By some measures, India is poorer and has a higher poverty rate than sub-Sahara Africa. The wealth stratification is ridiculous- Do the ~900,000,000 Indians on the edge of survival really give a damn about something that only affects the wealthiest 3% of the population? I suspect that there's more outrage about this in Europe and the US (and even then, only among bourgeoisie) than there is in Bharata.

You'd be mistaken. Think about who was killed during 9/11. A bunch of insurance and finance people. But people in Alabama still give a shiat and want blood.

People in India already have good reason and plenty of history of hating Pakistani's. It doesn't matter if they killed rich or poor.
 
2008-11-30 01:09:23 AM
CanisNoir: Mutually Assured Destruction

MAD is a doctrine, not a treaty. MAD was never officially accepted as US policy. You are confusing it with the ABM Treaty, which allowed the US and USSR/Russia to construct ABM systems to protect a limited number of cities. The US only briefly operated the allowed ABM system. The US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002.
 
2008-11-30 01:10:25 AM
CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?


Goddamn, you're dumb. Do you not see that you're creating a nuclear power from whole cloth, and one that's openly and directly ideologically opposed to us, by pursuing that train of thought?

Who responds to being cornered by capitulating? And why the hell would you bet on someone doing so when the alternative is destruction on a biblical scale?
 
2008-11-30 01:10:30 AM
Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?

So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?


And you're implying that Israel has no pull in the global scene?
 
2008-11-30 01:12:11 AM
Maybe they'll start putting magnetic yellow ribbons on their car bumpers to express how more patriotic they are than you.
 
2008-11-30 01:12:48 AM
ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?

So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

And you're implying that Israel has no pull in the global scene?


Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.
 
2008-11-30 01:13:10 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

Goddamn, you're dumb. Do you not see that you're creating a nuclear power from whole cloth, and one that's openly and directly ideologically opposed to us, by pursuing that train of thought?

Who responds to being cornered by capitulating? And why the hell would you bet on someone doing so when the alternative is destruction on a biblical scale?


I'm amused by all of this, because of the total issue of ignorance all around. Someone posts something about Iraq, someone else fires back about Israel. These people probably don't get it on any level. Yeah, Iraq is ALWAYS going to be an issue on the oil level. Israel is ALWAYS going to be an issue on the holocaust scale. Destruction on the "biblical scale" is feasible all around.

Please, rub their faces in it for me. I'm too tired to handle this on my own. Do my work, son.
 
2008-11-30 01:13:23 AM
As a recent convert to Islam, I deplore the terror attacks in Mumbai... Pakistan is NOT a Muslim state... it is a secular country where the government uses and abuses Islam in order to obtain regional superiority, in their unholy struggles against India, and other south-west Asian countries. The murder by ANYBODY against innocents shall always be decried, and to be honest with you, before I became a Muslim, I didn't always share that thought. I used to believe that terrorist attacks could be, and are, justified. Now, not so much...
 
2008-11-30 01:13:36 AM
Link (new window)

comment to this article is very interesting, makes the case why war is likely.
 
2008-11-30 01:14:06 AM
Sabyen91: So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

No, I'm saying that the goal was to pacify the region, not catch Osama; sure he's a priority target but not *the* priority target.

There's no way in hell we want to have military action in Iran but if we can nab Iraq and Afghanistan we completely isolate them. Sure, Syria's not exactly the greatest of buds, but we could work with them a lot better than we could with Sadaam. Turkey is a close ally and Pakistan *is* an ally where Iraq was not.

We've now got Iraq, that seals up the western border of Iran, when we have Afghanistan, they will be for the most part isolated except for the north.

It was a smart move if the goal was to pacify or at least stabalize the entire region and not just catch a criminal. In other words, solve the problem not just cure a symptom.
 
2008-11-30 01:14:19 AM
I love cheesecake.
 
2008-11-30 01:14:45 AM
Sabyen91: RanDomino: Who in India actually cares? By some measures, India is poorer and has a higher poverty rate than sub-Sahara Africa. The wealth stratification is ridiculous- Do the ~900,000,000 Indians on the edge of survival really give a damn about something that only affects the wealthiest 3% of the population? I suspect that there's more outrage about this in Europe and the US (and even then, only among bourgeoisie) than there is in Bharata.

Meh, I think they care. The US is not different. We have an incredibly unfair stratification of income but we still have people complaining about the Estate Tax. It is all about PR.


Huge difference though. In India, millions of people will not even hear of this. My company does business there and two of the guys I talk to were there a few weeks ago. They mentioned the large number of shacktowns with thousands living without water or power. These people probably don't feel any less safe today then they did last week. 911 hit all Americans because of the feeling that we or someone we know might be next. This, not so much. People in the working sectors will be scared and angry, but the rest will barely know about it unless full scale war hits. Then, they will be eating better.
 
2008-11-30 01:14:51 AM
Sabyen91: ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?

So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

And you're implying that Israel has no pull in the global scene?

Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.


It's ignorant to assume that Israel won't pop into any middle east situation under any condition. They'll always pop up. Inevitability, and whatnot. I'm not saying they've got something to do with the situation at hand, but give it a month and you'll hear the name.
 
2008-11-30 01:17:15 AM
jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam, I deplore the terror attacks in Mumbai... Pakistan is NOT a Muslim state... it is a secular country where the government uses and abuses Islam in order to obtain regional superiority, in their unholy struggles against India, and other south-west Asian countries. The murder by ANYBODY against innocents shall always be decried, and to be honest with you, before I became a Muslim, I didn't always share that thought. I used to believe that terrorist attacks could be, and are, justified. Now, not so much...

Pakistan was a secular country (at least the government was) until Musharef was voted out. Who the hell knows how secular they are now? I am guessing they will give their surrogates much more latitude than the previous regime did.
 
2008-11-30 01:17:39 AM
Sabyen91: Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.

You're missing it. He's saying that invading Iraq was necessary to park an army on both of Iran's borders, therefore scaring them into becoming a westernized democracy. Because they certainly wouldn't just develop a nuke and tell us to piss up a rope, nosir.

jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam...

These jokes write themselves.
 
2008-11-30 01:18:01 AM
Doublek111: Link (new window)

comment to this article is very interesting, makes the case why war is likely.


That is pretty interesting. I'm curious though who are the "powers" they speak of? Who wants India to go to war with Pakistan. Secondly, doesn't India and Pakistan of a MAD arrangement... similar to USA and the Soviets during the Cold War?

It is a compelling argument with some valid points, but there's also some gaps.
 
2008-11-30 01:18:20 AM
CanisNoir: Sabyen91: So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

No, I'm saying that the goal was to pacify the region, not catch Osama; sure he's a priority target but not *the* priority target.

There's no way in hell we want to have military action in Iran but if we can nab Iraq and Afghanistan we completely isolate them. Sure, Syria's not exactly the greatest of buds, but we could work with them a lot better than we could with Sadaam. Turkey is a close ally and Pakistan *is* an ally where Iraq was not.

We've now got Iraq, that seals up the western border of Iran, when we have Afghanistan, they will be for the most part isolated except for the north.

It was a smart move if the goal was to pacify or at least stabalize the entire region and not just catch a criminal. In other words, solve the problem not just cure a symptom.


We chased out all the Sunnis in Iraq. You really think Iraq will be anti-Iran?
 
2008-11-30 01:19:41 AM
ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?

So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

And you're implying that Israel has no pull in the global scene?

Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.

It's ignorant to assume that Israel won't pop into any middle east situation under any condition. They'll always pop up. Inevitability, and whatnot. I'm not saying they've got something to do with the situation at hand, but give it a month and you'll hear the name.


The loss of Hussein was bad for Israel. Period.
 
2008-11-30 01:20:06 AM
Brisketeer: CanisNoir: Mutually Assured Destruction

MAD is a doctrine, not a treaty. MAD was never officially accepted as US policy. You are confusing it with the ABM Treaty, which allowed the US and USSR/Russia to construct ABM systems to protect a limited number of cities. The US only briefly operated the allowed ABM system. The US withdrew from the ABM treaty in 2002.


I stand corrected.
 
2008-11-30 01:20:29 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: Sabyen91: Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.

You're missing it. He's saying that invading Iraq was necessary to park an army on both of Iran's borders, therefore scaring them into becoming a westernized democracy. Because they certainly wouldn't just develop a nuke and tell us to piss up a rope, nosir.

jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam...

These jokes write themselves.


Syria would have been a better target...
 
2008-11-30 01:20:58 AM
Brisketeer: You are confusing it with the ABM Treaty, which allowed the US and USSR/Russia to construct ABM systems to protect a limited number of cities.

Actually, the point of the ABM treaty was to limit the reach of missile defense systems. And that limited number of cities was actually two: Moscow and Washington1.

The two signatories were also allowed to construct a single ABM battery to defend an ICBM launch site.

1Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components except that:

(a) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred and fifty kilometers and centered on the Partys national capital, a Party may deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, and (2) ABM radars within no more than six ABM radar complexes, the area of each complex being circular and having a diameter of no more than three kilometers
 
2008-11-30 01:21:14 AM
Sabyen91: We chased out all the Sunnis in Iraq. You really think Iraq will be anti-Iran?

Honestly it doesn't matter what I believe about Iraq right now, this is about India and Pakistan, and it truly is serious bidness.

/I should of kept my trap shut with regards to Iraq - not everything is about America.
 
2008-11-30 01:21:39 AM
jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam, I deplore the terror attacks in Mumbai... Pakistan is NOT a Muslim state... it is a secular country where the government uses and abuses Islam in order to obtain regional superiority, in their unholy struggles against India, and other south-west Asian countries. The murder by ANYBODY against innocents shall always be decried, and to be honest with you, before I became a Muslim, I didn't always share that thought. I used to believe that terrorist attacks could be, and are, justified. Now, not so much...

So what about the girl in Somalia that was stoned to death?
Or the girl in France who was raped?

Were those justified? If so, why has no major muslim religious figure delcared those people as not following the Koran?
 
2008-11-30 01:22:23 AM
Sabyen91: Meh, I think they care. The US is not different. We have an incredibly unfair stratification of income but we still have people complaining about the Estate Tax. It is all about PR.

The race and cultural hatred between Hindi have for Muslims makes Israel v. Arabs look like puppies v. kittens. Don't underrate what over a billion pissed-off haters with nukes can and will do.
 
2008-11-30 01:22:29 AM
CanisNoir: Sabyen91: We chased out all the Sunnis in Iraq. You really think Iraq will be anti-Iran?

Honestly it doesn't matter what I believe about Iraq right now, this is about India and Pakistan, and it truly is serious bidness.

/I should of kept my trap shut with regards to Iraq - not everything is about America.


Ok, so you made the point and now you are backpeddling? Everything is also not about Israel.
 
2008-11-30 01:23:22 AM
Sabyen91: ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: ignorantalmond: Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?

So you are saying Israel is calling the shots?

And you're implying that Israel has no pull in the global scene?

Oh, Jebus, it wasn't farking Israel. Iraq was secular and insulated from the middle east. Israel did not tell Bush to attack Iraq. He did it on his own.

It's ignorant to assume that Israel won't pop into any middle east situation under any condition. They'll always pop up. Inevitability, and whatnot. I'm not saying they've got something to do with the situation at hand, but give it a month and you'll hear the name.

The loss of Hussein was bad for Israel. Period.


I, sadly, won't disagree on any level.

It'll soon be back to what it was a bit o' time ago... "My land. MY LAND!". Again, hug the shiat out, and call it good. Knock that shiat off over there.
 
2008-11-30 01:24:50 AM
Also, someone here should make me a sammich.
 
2008-11-30 01:25:08 AM
Dispector: Doublek111: Link (new window)

comment to this article is very interesting, makes the case why war is likely.

That is pretty interesting. I'm curious though who are the "powers" they speak of? Who wants India to go to war with Pakistan. Secondly, doesn't India and Pakistan of a MAD arrangement... similar to USA and the Soviets during the Cold War?

It is a compelling argument with some valid points, but there's also some gaps.


I think the writer means some factions of the government but doesn't specify who exactly. This was a highly coordinated attack that had all kinds of weapons caches planted around the city. The ruling party has to respond in some fashion, the question is how.

Your second question, my understanding is that India was in the Russian sphere of influence during the Cold War. They recently made a nuclear energy deal with the U.S. and had more recently aligned themselves with the west vs a MAD w/ pakistan.
 
2008-11-30 01:25:21 AM
TheOther: Sabyen91: Meh, I think they care. The US is not different. We have an incredibly unfair stratification of income but we still have people complaining about the Estate Tax. It is all about PR.

The race and cultural hatred between Hindi have for Muslims makes Israel v. Arabs look like puppies v. kittens. Don't underrate what over a billion pissed-off haters with nukes can and will do.


I don't see a revolution anytime soon. There wasn't one before and with this a nationalistic tendency will probably come through.
 
2008-11-30 01:26:04 AM
Sabyen91: Ok, so you made the point and now you are backpeddling? Everything is also not about Israel.

I'm not backpedaling, and Syria wasn't a valid target as we were able to legally invade Iraq. I just felt like I was threadshaiting by turning the conversation into an Iraq flame-fest instead of focusing on the two countries in the article.


/You should know by now that I don't leave this topic easily, nor do I back pedal; I just try not to threadshait or thread-jack.
 
2008-11-30 01:26:49 AM
CanisNoir: Sabyen91: Ok, so you made the point and now you are backpeddling? Everything is also not about Israel.

I'm not backpedaling, and Syria wasn't a valid target as we were able to legally invade Iraq. I just felt like I was threadshaiting by turning the conversation into an Iraq flame-fest instead of focusing on the two countries in the article.


/You should know by now that I don't leave this topic easily, nor do I back pedal; I just try not to threadshait or thread-jack.


How were we able to legally invade Iraq?
 
2008-11-30 01:27:31 AM
Sabyen91: CanisNoir: Sabyen91: Ok, so you made the point and now you are backpeddling? Everything is also not about Israel.

I'm not backpedaling, and Syria wasn't a valid target as we were able to legally invade Iraq. I just felt like I was threadshaiting by turning the conversation into an Iraq flame-fest instead of focusing on the two countries in the article.


/You should know by now that I don't leave this topic easily, nor do I back pedal; I just try not to threadshait or thread-jack.

How were we able to legally invade Iraq?


I mean...we didn't so I am interested to know how we could have legally done it.
 
2008-11-30 01:27:37 AM
Sabyen91: How were we able to legally invade Iraq?

Can we agree to go back to the topic at hand? I really don't feel like doing the Iraq waltz tonight.
 
2008-11-30 01:28:14 AM
CanisNoir: Goodfella

You posted the map and still don't see the wisdom in going after Iraq?

I think that might be part of the problem. I'll give you a hint though.

Look at who our allies are and which country we'd really like to isolate in order to bring better diplomatic pressure. Now, add to that list of allies Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do you see it now?


This is about 50 kinds of stupid. So we invaded a country on false pretenses to put pressure on another country, neither of which had anything to do with our being in the region in the first place? OH MAN THAT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE

Why don't you explain to me why we didn't just invade Iran instead of bothering with two costly, deadly wars that will (maybe one day when those countries pull themselves out of war) create countries that will "put diplomatic pressure" on Iran which maybe possibly hopefully cross-your-fingers will get them to change.

What a god damn farking brilliant plan.
 
2008-11-30 01:30:43 AM
Occam's Chainsaw: Sabyen91: How were we able to legally invade Iraq?

Can we agree to go back to the topic at hand? I really don't feel like doing the Iraq waltz tonight.


Meh, sure. Not sure what more could be said but knock yourself out.
 
2008-11-30 01:32:09 AM
Sabyen91: jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam, I deplore the terror attacks in Mumbai... Pakistan is NOT a Muslim state... it is a secular country where the government uses and abuses Islam in order to obtain regional superiority, in their unholy struggles against India, and other south-west Asian countries. The murder by ANYBODY against innocents shall always be decried, and to be honest with you, before I became a Muslim, I didn't always share that thought. I used to believe that terrorist attacks could be, and are, justified. Now, not so much...

Pakistan was a secular country (at least the government was) until Musharef was voted out. Who the hell knows how secular they are now? I am guessing they will give their surrogates much more latitude than the previous regime did.


They're still very secular. The only two viable parties, the PPP and PML-N aren't Islamist by any stretch of the imagination. The actual Islamist party, the MMA (which is still fairly moderate by most standards) got 2.2% of the vote and only six seats after the last election. In fact, after that election, Fehmida Mirza was became the country's first female Speaker of the National Assembly.
 
2008-11-30 01:32:54 AM
Doublek111: Link (new window)

comment to this article is very interesting, makes the case why war is likely.


Interesting. Also, the neutering of Pakistan not only helps ease up the eastern front of Afghanistan, it can also help restore the Durand Line as the renewed eastern border of Afghanistan. AND, assuming India spins out of this a stronger nation - we will have a regional battle hardened ally to counter the growing Chinese military threat.

Of course, it's easy to play armchair general when its not me or mine getting our asses shot off in a war.
 
2008-11-30 01:32:54 AM
Sabyen91: I don't see a revolution anytime soon. There wasn't one before and with this a nationalistic tendency will probably come through.

You do realize that the nationalistic tendency is actually aggravated by the schism between Hindus (principally Indians) and Muslims (principally Pakistanis), don't you?
 
2008-11-30 01:33:06 AM
Let's face it--the government of Pakistan couldn't sanely support such action, so let's take them at their word. There should be no war or anything like it between India and Pakistan.

This is the work of maniacs focused on a self-centric ideology, be it religious or political--these are the actions of people all of us would recognize as closed-minded, uneducated dumbasses if we met them one on one and engaged in discussion about life.

I'm not saying any of us couldn't relate and make friends for a day or two, but given time huge, very serious gaps in philosophy would appear.

This is akin to a radical group of Americans, say...a biker gang, attacking China. Some weirdos go to China and go apeshiat, shooting people and taking over buildings, and somehow our government is responsible?

I mean like, gyawl.
 
2008-11-30 01:34:54 AM
Biological Ali: Sabyen91: jebusfreak: As a recent convert to Islam, I deplore the terror attacks in Mumbai... Pakistan is NOT a Muslim state... it is a secular country where the government uses and abuses Islam in order to obtain regional superiority, in their unholy struggles against India, and other south-west Asian countries. The murder by ANYBODY against innocents shall always be decried, and to be honest with you, before I became a Muslim, I didn't always share that thought. I used to believe that terrorist attacks could be, and are, justified. Now, not so much...

Pakistan was a secular country (at least the government was) until Musharef was voted out. Who the hell knows how secular they are now? I am guessing they will give their surrogates much more latitude than the previous regime did.

They're still very secular. The only two viable parties, the PPP and PML-N aren't Islamist by any stretch of the imagination. The actual Islamist party, the MMA (which is still fairly moderate by most standards) got 2.2% of the vote and only six seats after the last election. In fact, after that election, Fehmida Mirza was became the country's first female Speaker of the National Assembly.


Thanks for the info. It really is a stark difference from my view of Pakistan.
 
2008-11-30 01:35:27 AM
 
2008-11-30 01:35:40 AM
SuperCatBarf: This is akin to a radical group of Americans, say...a biker gang, attacking China. Some weirdos go to China and go apeshiat, shooting people and taking over buildings, and somehow our government is responsible?

Or like a group of Saudis attacking the US, perhaps.
 
2008-11-30 01:36:19 AM
Doublek111: I think the writer means some factions of the government but doesn't specify who exactly. This was a highly coordinated attack that had all kinds of weapons caches planted around the city. The ruling party has to respond in some fashion, the question is how.

Your second question, my understanding is that India was in the Russian sphere of influence during the Cold War. They recently made a nuclear energy deal with the U.S. and had more recently aligned themselves with the west vs a MAD w/ pakistan.


It's very interesting though. I'll admit that my knowledge in the region is very limited. It will be interesting to see how India responds.

I do know that one of Pakistan's concerns about Afghanistan was allowing to much influence by India... which would effectively surround the country. I'm curious whether India will simply magnify it's influence in Afghanistan or take the steps towards a direct war with Pakistan.
 
2008-11-30 01:36:21 AM
eraser8: Sabyen91: I don't see a revolution anytime soon. There wasn't one before and with this a nationalistic tendency will probably come through.

You do realize that the nationalistic tendency is actually aggravated by the schism between Hindus (principally Indians) and Muslims (principally Pakistanis), don't you?


Oh, I was thinking internally. I realize India and Pakistan despise each other. I just don't see bordering states going to war when they both have nukes.
 
2008-11-30 01:36:51 AM
Verdelak
Huge difference though. In India, millions of people will not even hear of this.

This is kind of what I'm thinking about. TV is pervasive in the US and people consider themselves members of the decision-making class. It seems to me that India is more like a country of 100 million with a massive slave population; those are the people who have the real problems.


InmanRoshiathe ISI have been starting shiat in Mumbai for decades. They coordinated 6 bombings that killed 80 just two years ago, it just wasn't the lead story on CNN because it didn't involve Westerners and there wasn't "cool" hostage footage.

this.
 
Displayed 50 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report