Infiltration bid foiled, five militants killed in J&K

[janon]

I too get Karan's "monkey trap" and the status quo power game....we just wait for them to end themselves....

but,

There are 3-4 worries about maintaining a long prolonged status quo battle - off the top of my head I'll list down a few here. These are all big "if's".

1. The biggest one is we get into a two front war and as a ceasefire agreement get into signing some kind of treaty.

2. The Islamic propaganda that Pakistan has unleashed puts Kashmir on the map of Islamic jihaad that gets funded and manned by the jihaadi machinery that's at work in Syria, Afghanistan and some African countriesand soon to be unleashed in Burma and Kashmir becomes a hotspot of Islamic terrorism.

3. Some fked up leader comes to power and signs off an unfavorable accord in the hope of bringing non existent peace.

My contention is why leave a wound to fester for so long? when it's apparently clear that we are always caught on the wrong foot and sleeping.

1) Then we are screwed. India is in no position to wage a two front war at present, and it will be at least a decade before she has that ability (and that's assuming that all the planned military modernization will go as per plan). If both china and pak attack us together in the near future, we will have to cede territory. However, the fact is that even though we cannot hope to win against their combined might, we have enough might to ensure that they will both pay a price for waging war against us. In other words, we have the ability to ensure that whatever they gain from such a misadventure will be paid for dearly. That is, it will not be worth their while to try it on us. They will pay for more than it is worth. At the moment, that is all we can hope to ensure. And our military brass have repeatedly said that they can ensure that much. Which is why such a misadventure has not been attempted. In another 10-15 years, we will be in a position to ensure even more - that even the combined might of these two countries can't take our territory from us.

2) That should be the least of our concern. At the moment, the Islamic world is at war with itself. They are busy slaughtering each other from sudan to yemen to Egypt to Pakistan, just as they have always been. Them becoming a unified force and taking on India together is as remote a possibility as Martians invading us. Besides, EVEN IF that were to happen; Even if the whole Islamic world falls for Pakistani propaganda on Kashmir, and decides to join Pakistan's cause - then what? We have enough military might to ensure that no professional military (barring the US) can invade us. If they try the other method, that of trying to sneak into India and do suicide attacks, they will only be as successful as the Pakistanis. They will all get killed at the border. Numbers don't matter anymore - whether they send 10 Pakistanis or a 1000 other muslims, they will have to cross the LoC first. Our BSF and army will dispatch them to hell at the LoC.

3) That's not really going to happen. Despite what many PDFites seem to believe, Indian politicians have to obey public opinion. It has never happened before, and it cannot happen in future, that one lone person who is crazy enough will somehow give away territory to Pakistan. Especially not at a time like this, when we are stronger than them on all fronts. The beauty of being a democracy is that one person cannot judge the course of the nation's journey, a lot of people collectively do so.

As for the last two sentences of your post, as I said before, I don't like this going on for so long either, but in the absence of an alternative method to put an end to it...

 

[dabong1]

Read the post you quoted, and you will know.

1) They did NOT defeat the NATO coalition, on the contrary, they were ousted from power by NATO, and reduced to doing periodic terror attacks.

The answer i gave was not in the past tense but the now.......So with NATO-US pulling out in the next few years you think NATO-US has won and the taliban wont come to power again?

2) They can continue waging a guerilla war, because as explained in the post you quoted (but presumably failed to read), their country is suited for guerilla war, being full of mountainous regions and barren lands.

So now its the fault of the taliban for having a "mountainous regions and barren lands" and make it difficult for them to be defeated

But it's not like they can touch a hair on the head of one American or other NATO country citizen, away from their own country.

Why would they want to attack another country?

Being guerillas in their own country is very different from expeditionary war in far off lands. For that, you have to be a very strong and professional military power, not bearded gunmen with a primitive ideology. Which is why, as I said before, they may do guerilla war in their country, unable to take control of their country as long as NATO is present, but they will NOT fight away from their homeland. And even within their territory, all they can do is hit and run attacks against their own people.

So you want the taliban to stand out in the open and "play fair" and get blasted..........I think the taliban have agreed to the demand as long as no planes or helicopters are used by NATO-US.
Everyone wants the game to be slanted in there favour but it doesnt really work like that.

Them stealing Kashmir from India?

More like liberating kashmir then stealing it.

Ha ha ha. They won't even get past the LoC, without finding out the mysteries of the afterlife.

The parting cheap shot.....you do india proud

 

[dabong1]

What you found loving about it, Compared to Kashmir 20 times more people die in Karachi every year in violence.

And more people die of hunger and poverty in india then they do in karachi.......are we having a comparing match?

 

[janon]

The answer i gave was not in the past tense but the now.......So with NATO-US pulling out in the next few years you think NATO-US has won and the taliban wont come to power again?


Very unlikely. Anyway my statement was that they won't ever come to power WHILE NATO is there, which negates your theory that they defeated NATO. No, they were defeated by NATO and thrown out of power.

So now its the fault of the taliban for having a "mountainous regions and barren lands" and make it difficult for them to be defeated

Not their fault. The point is that hiding in the mountains and doing geurilla war is all they can do, and they cannot fight an expeditionary war away from home.

Why would they want to attack another country?

LOL. This conversation started because of your theory that after 2014 they will fight in Kashmir. Now you as why they would fight another country? Glad to know you have come to realize the truth.

So you want the taliban to stand out in the open and "play fair" and get blasted..........I think the taliban have agreed to the demand as long as no planes or helicopters are used by NATO-US.
Everyone wants the game to be slanted in there favour but it doesnt really work like that.

Stop making straw man arguments. The point is not how they fight in their country. The point is that they cannot do anything more than that. You asked me why they have success against NATO, and I disagreed they won anything, but what you think is success, is nothing but hiding in the mountains and doing guerilla war.


More like liberating kashmir then stealing it.


LOL. LOL. LOL.

The parting cheap shot.....you do india proud

Neither a parting shot (I'm still here), nor cheap. It is true, Taliban/lashkars/mujahideens/non-state-cannon-fodders/whatever will all die at the LoC, and discover the mysteries of the afterlife, without entering India. The title of the thread is proof of that.

My response in red.

And more people die of hunger and poverty in india then they do in karachi.......are we having a comparing match?

Well India happens to be a thousand times bigger than Karachi, and a country, not a city. If you want the comparison match that you ostensibly disapprove of, at least know the entities you are comparing. City or country and so on. The point is that Kashmir is more peaceful than most parts of Pakistan, and will remain an integral part of India. Period.

 

[INDIC]

And more people die of hunger and poverty in india then they do in karachi.......are we having a comparing match?

People don't die of hunger and poverty because of violence. Compared to Kashmir 20 times more people die in Karachi due to violence through killings and crackdown by security forces.

 

[dabong1]

People don't die of hunger and poverty because of violence.

Your a genius.

Compared to Kashmir 20 times more people die in Karachi due to violence through killings and crackdown by security forces.

Karachi from 1994-2011 -----9,696 dead
2003-2011: Karachi violence claimed 5,549 lives

If you have other figures which sure different....please do share as these figures where the best i could find.

Kashmir---1990s-2010/11---- 43,460 people
State data refutes claim of 1 lakh killed in Kashmir - Times Of India

The 43,460 people killed in kashmir is what the indian govt admits to and not the esitimates of other groups/organizations who put the figure closer to a 100'000.

Your 20-1 ratio seems wide of off mark.

 

[Star Wars]

Your a genius.





Karachi from 1994-2011 -----9,696 dead
2003-2011: Karachi violence claimed 5,549 lives

If you have other figures which sure different....please do share as these figures where the best i could find.

Kashmir---1990s-2010/11---- 43,460 people
State data refutes claim of 1 lakh killed in Kashmir - Times Of India

The 43,460 people killed in kashmir is what the indian govt admits to and not the esitimates of other groups/organizations who put the figure closer to a 100'000.

Your 20-1 ratio seems wide of off mark.

43,000 people where killed directly because of Pakistan sponsored militants , they would not have died of Pakistan never supported militants

 

[dabong1]

Well India happens to be a thousand times bigger than Karachi, and a country, not a city. If you want the comparison match that you ostensibly disapprove of, at least know the entities you are comparing.

Its was not me that started the "comparison match" INDIC did......I was trying to show the fruitless of having a "comparison match" by giving the india example.
You now want to "compare" the size of the two countries and i will want to "compare" something else and we just spend all day "comparing" which gets us nowhere.

City or country and so on. The point is that Kashmir is more peaceful than most parts of Pakistan, and will remain an integral part of India. Period.

Karachi from 1994-2011 -----9,696 dead
2003-2011: Karachi violence claimed 5,549 lives

If you have other figures which sure different....please do share as these figures where the best i could find.

Kashmir---1990s-2010/11---- 43,460 people
State data refutes claim of 1 lakh killed in Kashmir - Times Of India

The 43,460 people killed in kashmir is what the indian govt admits to and not the esitimates of other groups/organizations who put the figure closer to a 100'000.

43,000 people where killed directly because of Pakistan sponsored militants , they would not have died of Pakistan never supported militants

43,000-100'000 people where killed directly because of indian state sponsored terror , they would not have died if india had not supported state terror and oppression.

 

[Star Wars]

43,000-100'000 people where killed directly because of indian state sponsored terror , they would not have died if india had not supported state terror and oppression.

prove it . you come here and kill Indians and blame Indians for killing Indians .. you need help

 

[INDIC]

Karachi from 1994-2011 -----9,696 dead
2003-2011: Karachi violence claimed 5,549 lives

If you have other figures which sure different....please do share as these figures where the best i could find.

Kashmir---1990s-2010/11---- 43,460 people
State data refutes claim of 1 lakh killed in Kashmir - Times Of India

The 43,460 people killed in kashmir is what the indian govt admits to and not the esitimates of other groups/organizations who put the figure closer to a 100'000.

Your 20-1 ratio seems wide of off mark.

Why don't you compare the recent years. In 2012 total insurgency related casualties in Kashmir was 117, while in Karachi it was 19-20 times more. The casualties in FATA was 30 times more compared to Kashmir, in Balochistan 8-9 times more compared to Kashmir. In FATA alone 16,000 security forces have died in last 5 years.