Scores dead in Mumbai train bombs

[Ahassan]

now they are simply going to blame pakistan for it............

 

[melb4aust]

Still, as a gesture, it goes a long way to de-escalate.

I have very little hope for genuine peace but maybe the truce can last just a little bit longer.

So you want another war to happen between these two countries. Atleast think positive. whose gonna have a loss in case of war, me you and people like us.

 

[Awesome]

Kragil proved you're wrong.

Actually Kargil proved us right. By all accounts, India SHOULD have gone to war. If it was Pakistan whose hills were captured we would've taken the war onto the Indian controlled side.

Try to descalate. Keep your infantry at the border but pull back your artillery and armour - way back - some 50 miles back.

We're pretty much de-escalated on the military front. Our politicians are the ones that are making all the big talk right now.

Pak won't be the first one to amass troops but its certainly not going to turn the other cheek by not deploying troops once the Indian deployment begins. One of Pakistan's strategy with dealing with India has been one of a tigress. Even if a much larger, stronger predator comes near her new born cubs she'd spook the predator away.

India's political structure, it's economy, will never allow it to be anything but that uncertain predator.

It's important not to mistake this aggressive defensive posture as an aggressive offensive one. As a policy talks have always been open from Pakistan's side. We carefully follow a process of reciprocity. So descalation of rhetoric as well is still very much open.

After 2002 India realized its main problem was amassing troops on the border. It took them weeks to mobilize their army. I believe there was a plan developed to speed this up?

 

[Awesome]

So you want another war to happen between these two countries. Atleast think positive. whose gonna have a loss in case of war, me you and people like us.

He hardly said that. De-escalation has to happen from the rhetoric of the politicians and the war planners that would undoubtebly be pouring this as a suggestion down the Indian prime minister's ear.

It's wrongful to assume that India would go forth in a war mongering posture due to this incident. This incident to me seems genuine as compared to the bombings of Dec. 2001, which was such a big hoax to get the US to attack Pakistan, when the US didn't, India didn't... As I said India will ONLY attack when its SURE.

This time there are no US sentiments for India to play up! It's an internal Indian issue that India's trying to make it about Pakistan just to save face that it has such huge internal problems.

 

[Samudra]

So you want another war to happen between these two countries. Atleast think positive. whose gonna have a loss in case of war, me you and people like us.

Please make an attempt to comprehend what the Colonel has said.

 

[melb4aust]

This incident to me seems genuine as compared to the bombings of Dec. 2001, which was such a big hoax to get the US to attack Pakistan, when the US didn't, India didn't... As I said India will ONLY attack when its SURE.

.

US:disappointed: , Ru sure, Why US was gonna attack on pakistan, while all the attack happened in India, it was India who brought both countries to the brink of war. Not even that, even in Pakistan, i had seen tanks and missiles going to the border. All the villagers asked to empty their villages from the border and to go central if possible. And i have seen all this from eyes.

 

[Awesome]

US:disappointed: , Ru sure, Why US was gonna attack on pakistan, while all the attack happened in India, it was India who brought both countries to the brink of war. Not even that, even in Pakistan, i had seen tanks and missiles going to the border. All the villagers asked to empty their villages from the border and to go central if possible. And i have seen all this from eyes.

Well the US was high on passion at the time. India has attempted time and time again to build a parity with the US to obtain US help.

The US had no reason to attack Pakistan, but India hoping it could make a case for the US to do so.

Pakistan only deployed the military once India did.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

How about letting a military man decide what is defensive and what is offensive. An entire strike corps was mobilized for Kragil with no equivelent mobilization by the PakArmy. The InAF destroyed a PakArmy depot on the Pak side which meant the Pak's side of the Lines of Communications have become irrevelent. There was nothing to stop the InA to cross the border.

Just because the political will was not there does not mean that the InA was not prepared to militarily cross into Pak territory.

The Indo-Pak border is quiet but it is not de-escalated by any stretched of the imagination. Only the Korean DMZ surpasses that border as the most heavily foritified in the world.

The InA has embarked on a Cold Start doctrine and I take that as a sign of reduced Operational Objective. The only way Cold Start would work is reduced force with a reduced OpObj since the timing would not allow anything else.

Contrast that with the previous Strike Corps where an entire corps is readied, positioned, and armed to swarm over a prepared Pak defence - and that means the 1st canal line.

I really hate it when a civilian tries to me about things military.

 

[Awesome]

How about letting a military man decide what is defensive and what is offensive. An entire strike corps was mobilized for Kragil with no equivelent mobilization by the PakArmy. The InAF destroyed a PakArmy depot on the Pak side which meant the Pak's side of the Lines of Communications have become irrevelent. There was nothing to stop the InA to cross the border.

Just because the political will was not there does not mean that the InA was not prepared to militarily cross into Pak territory.

The Indo-Pak border is quiet but it is not de-escalated by any stretched of the imagination. Only the Korean DMZ surpasses that border as the most heavily foritified in the world.

The InA has embarked on a Cold Start doctrine and I take that as a sign of reduced Operational Objective. The only way Cold Start would work is reduced force with a reduced OpObj since the timing would not allow anything else.

Contrast that with the previous Strike Corps where an entire corps is readied, positioned, and armed to swarm over a prepared Pak defence - and that means the 1st canal line.

I really hate it when a civilian tries to me about things military.

Aw man, get used to it. Afterall you GOT to answer to civillians in real life too, ultimately. You should make a distinction whether or not anyone MEANT any disrespect. Which if you haven't figured out already, I didn't.

Heck you're talking about a depot? India occupied a few hills that belonged to Pakistan too, back in 2002. We pushed em back as well. It wasn't called Kargil II for nothing. Many strategists acknowledge Pakistan's ability to dominate in Kashmir especially as a defensive force.

We never had a problem with dealing India in Kashmir. Truth is there are 12 entrances (passes) to Kashmir, we control 11 out of 12. With India it's always been them threatening to cross the International borders. Over there strategy, pretty much goes out the window and its simply the numerical advantage that India has with its airforce that plays out.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Asim,

I've been dressed down by the best and worst. You ain't on par with either one. I'm not p!ssed off. I'm annoyed. And when I answer to my civilian bosses, they have the courtesy to listen to my presentation 1st and not make snap judgements based on entirely uninformed judgements.

And you've contradicted yourself. The very fact that the InA dominated a few Pak hills more than demonstrated that they have ample offensive capabilities and willingness. Mind you, it turned into a p!ssing contest but by no means the InA is the castrated cow you were implying earlier. Again, political unwillingness does not translate into military incapability.

And the following is even more ludicrous

We never had a problem with dealing India in Kashmir. Truth is there are 12 entrances (passes) to Kashmir, we control 11 out of 12. With India it's always been them threatening to cross the International borders. Over there strategy, pretty much goes out the window and its simply the numerical advantage that India has with its airforce that plays out.

You want to know what you've just said?

The PakArmy has no hope in hell of stopping an InA juggernaut and the only thing that they could do is to slow them down at 11 choke points. Strategy is out the window? How about the strategy of overwhelming force? How about the strategy of manouver. They're moving. You're not.

This is what really annoys me about you, Asim. You don't have command of the facts and when directly challenged with your at least misconceived if not outright mis-representation either deliberately or through ignornace, you try to put the onus on the other guy.

Well, I'm not the civilian trying to lecture a Lieutenant-Colonel on military matters.

 

[Awesome]

You yourself have admitted political matters played out the KEY deciding factor of this confrontation.

Ok now go back and search through my posts where I claimed the Indian army to be a castrated force. I just said that the Indians (note the Indian army doesn't make this call the Indian government does), won't EVER attack Pakistan till they are SURE they can win. This is all that I said. The only times I've mentioned military matters is when quoting History.

While talking about Indian army I too am talking about the lack of political will aren't I? Whereas I won't contest you on military matters, you're no politician. Infact the very opposite of one.

Perhaps the reason that you're annoyed by me is affecting you take this presumptuous tangent on this thread? Anyway, keep it focussed on the subject.

Asim,

I've been dressed down by the best and worst. You ain't on par with either one. I'm not p!ssed off. I'm annoyed. And when I answer to my civilian bosses, they have the courtesy to listen to my presentation 1st and not make snap judgements based on entirely uninformed judgements.

And you've contradicted yourself. The very fact that the InA dominated a few Pak hills more than demonstrated that they have ample offensive capabilities and willingness. Mind you, it turned into a p!ssing contest but by no means the InA is the castrated cow you were implying earlier. Again, political unwillingness does not translate into military incapability.

And the following is even more ludicrous



You want to know what you've just said?

The PakArmy has no hope in hell of stopping an InA juggernaut and the only thing that they could do is to slow them down at 11 choke points. Strategy is out the window? How about the strategy of overwhelming force? How about the strategy of manouver. They're moving. You're not.

This is what really annoys me about you, Asim. You don't have command of the facts and when directly challenged with your at least misconceived if not outright mis-representation either deliberately or through ignornace, you try to put the onus on the other guy.

Well, I'm not the civilian trying to lecture a Lieutenant-Colonel on military matters.

 

[Jay_]

We never had a problem with dealing India in Kashmir. Truth is there are 12 entrances (passes) to Kashmir, we control 11 out of 12.

Dont get your point, India needs to control those passes if it needs to get Azad Kashmir. Chest thumping apart, where is Hajir Pir and how did India took control of it in 1965? What were the real objectives of the last 4 wars ?

With India it's always been them threatening to cross the International borders.

Which just proves that we have the will and means to do so, when its absolutely necessary. If you cannot defend the IB, why fight a war?

Over there strategy, pretty much goes out the window and its simply the numerical advantage that India has with its airforce that plays out.

Advantage of any sort is also part of the strategy

 

[Neo]

As of this moment, I think you guys are expecting too much. I'm just hoping enough people keep their heads as to avoid a full scale war.

Full scale war is not an option between the two rivals, even the hawks realise that.
India is mighty but does not have the capacity nor the capability to launch sucessfull pre emptive srtikes and take out Pak nuclear arsenal.
Even if they opt to do so what is the calculated risk and aftermath?
Pakistan only needs four succesfull hits at Delhi, Bombay, Ahmedabad and Bengalore to criple India.
For sure Pakistan would be gone but is India willing to take that risk?

 

[Neo]

Wait, you have been trying that for 17 odd years. This was the main reason cited for Kargil. If no one cares about it after so many attempts, has it ever occured to you that what you think is wrong?

I'm not hinting at any military advantures a la Kargill.
Putting diplomatic pressure on the states and other major powers and link Kashmir solution to WoT!!!

Really? Tell me how India profitted from it. Infact Pakistan is the major benefactor in WoT.
1. Money
2. Mushraff cemented his place, became a President from dictator.
3. Started military actions against its own population in Balochistan and FATA.

India gained here politically. LeT and other organisations were recognised as terrorist organisations as result for successful Indian compaign.
India got worlds sympathy and could affort to send upto 500.000 troops into Kashmir.

So you do agree that Bombay blasts happen coz of Kashmiri terrorists??

Its a possibilty.

Let me ask you, if a group of Iranis bomb Islamabad and Karachi killing 1000's asking for Balochi independence, I guess thats fine with you? Right?

Depends on the grounds of provocation. Iran has ethnic ties with Balochistan but no border dispute and vice versa. If Pakistan invades Iran, takes over Chahbahar for example and illegally claims it than Iran has a case to ratalliate.
We have no beef with them so the scenario is unlikely to take place.

I'm not supporting one in Pakistan either, but if its indeed Pakistan based terrorists responsible for the blast, expect it in kind.

If you catch a Pakistani terrorist linked to the blasts, I sincerely hope you hang him.

 

[Awesome]

Which just proves that we have the will and means to do so, when its absolutely necessary. If you cannot defend the IB, why fight a war?

I believe we cannot launch offensives on both front, I never said we'd be unable to defend if one started by India.

We defended three fronts in 1965.