Acts of Terrorism in Pakistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Tell me then, who has benefitted till now from the hundred of attacks on India(without including Kashmir)?
Yet we find time and again, Pakistan helping the infiltrators cross the LoC. These terrorists blow themselves up all over India, not just Kashmir, so how has Pakistan benefitted from that as well?
Does that mean Pakistan has not been involved? NO. Pakistan was actively involved in such asymmetric war on India for over a decade and a half.

I disagree strongly here. Pakistan was not involved in supporting the infiltration for purposes of carrying out terrorist attacks. Nothing in all the literature on Pakistani support for covert activities going back to the Afghan Jihad suggests that deliberate attacks on civilian targets was ever considered as a part of covert ops, directly or through proxies.

The problem has always been that the nature of acting covertly through proxies, especially in such an emotionally and ideologically charged environment as Kashmir, left open the possibility of various groups, or even factions or individuals within groups, engaging in acts that were not endorsed by their handlers.

And ofcourse Pakistan did not benefit from the attack on the Parliament as India responded with threats. Musharraf was MADE to publicly disown these groups and promised to crack down on them. He also put the accused under house arrest-which he ironically set free exactly a year after the attacks.

So the logic of Pakistan not benefitting by an attack on Indian Parliament does not hold. Pakistan has done a hundred other things which apparently dont benefit it, but Pakistan has done so nonetheless.

Technically, as the seat of power of an occupying authority, I am not sure whether an attack on the Indian parliament qualifies as 'terrorism'.

For the Kashmiris, the Indian government is the authority that perpetuates the occupation and orders the presence of overwhelming military force. Yes, geo-political and economic interests, and the aftermath of 911, determined that the attack be declared a terrorist attack, but from an academic point of view the Indian parliament was a legitimate target IMO.

That said, I still disagree that Pakistan had any interest in carrying out such an attack, given the 911 factor - it was way too early for that and the global response (regardless of the legitimacy of the target) could have been predicted by a half wit.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The situation was pretty much the same in terms of numbers and support from across the border till 2002 for IA in Kashmir.

I disagree - even prior to 2002, the cross-border infiltration and supplies never approached the levels we saw in Bajaur alone (I am talking infiltration numbers in the thousands in under a month), though I am open to credible sources validating your contention.

The LoC is much shorter, and heavily militarized on both sides, which alone reduced the chances of the sort of infiltration and cross-border movement we see across the Pak-Afghan border. In addition, the movement across the Durand has been historic, and the Tribes nomadic which brings its own complexities in even attempting to control cross border movement. Not so the case in Kashmir.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I disagree strongly here. Pakistan was not involved in supporting the infiltration for purposes of carrying out terrorist attacks. Nothing in all the literature on Pakistani support for covert activities going back to the Afghan Jihad suggests that deliberate attacks on civilian targets was ever considered as a part of covert ops, directly or through proxies.

The problem has always been that the nature of acting covertly through proxies, especially in such an emotionally and ideologically charged environment as Kashmir, left open the possibility of various groups, or even factions or individuals within groups, engaging in acts that were not endorsed by their handlers.

Technically, as the seat of power of an occupying authority, I am not sure whether an attack on the Indian parliament qualifies as 'terrorism'.

For the Kashmiris, the Indian government is the authority that perpetuates the occupation and orders the presence of overwhelming military force. Yes, geo-political and economic interests, and the aftermath of 911, determined that the attack be declared a terrorist attack, but from an academic point of view the Indian parliament was a legitimate target IMO.

Indian parliament was a legitimate target eh? I guess even the WTC was legitimate target considering that the US was "killing muslims and raping their women", and "occupying muslim lands".

What a disgusting post this is. You are justifying some cowardly attempt to attack the elected representatives of the world's largest democracy by some fanatic organization which has nothing to offer humanity except a twisted interpretation of religion and a desire for power.

And yet you contend that Pakistan never officially sanctioned the attack. I wonder if "academics" like yourself hold such views, what the common, more ideologically inclined member of Pakistan's alphabet soup intelligence agencies would think of it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indian parliament was a legitimate target eh? I guess even the WTC was legitimate target considering that the US was "killing muslims and raping their women", and "occupying muslim lands".

What a disgusting post this is. You are justifying some cowardly attempt to attack the elected representatives of the world's largest democracy by some fanatic organization which has nothing to offer humanity except a twisted interpretation of religion and a desire for power.

And yet you contend that Pakistan never officially sanctioned the attack. I wonder if "academics" like yourself hold such views, what the common, more ideologically inclined member of Pakistan's alphabet soup intelligence agencies would think of it.

Oh please - obfuscation, dissembling and strawmen is all your post is.

What comparison is there between the governing authority ordering a military occupation and a civilian building?

The Indian government is directly responsible for ordering the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops occupying and committing violence against the Kashmiris.

Just because Hitler was 'elected' does not make his crimes any better or acceptable.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I disagree - even prior to 2002, the cross-border infiltration and supplies never approached the levels we saw in Bajaur alone (I am talking infiltration numbers in the thousands in under a month), though I am open to credible sources validating your contention.

The LoC is much shorter, and heavily militarized on both sides, which alone reduced the chances of the sort of infiltration and cross-border movement we see across the Pak-Afghan border. In addition, the movement across the Durand has been historic, and the Tribes nomadic which brings its own complexities in even attempting to control cross border movement. Not so the case in Kashmir.

Indian army has faced a potential Bajaur or Swat-like situation for the last couple of decades.
The only differences between Bajaur and Kashmir is that in Kashmir there was a hostile army to train, equip and help the terrorists cross over.
The reason that the situation never went out of hand like the way it has in Pakistan is that the IA reacted quickly and did its best to tackle the militants.

During Kargil, the IA faced a situation far, far worse than anything the PA has ever had to contend with in its tribal regions, and yet it managed to repel the invaders, army and tribal alike.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Indian army has faced a potential Bajaur or Swat-like situation for the last couple of decades.
The only differences between Bajaur and Kashmir is that in Kashmir there was a hostile army to train, equip and help the terrorists cross over.
The reason that the situation never went out of hand like the way it has in Pakistan is that the IA reacted quickly and did its best to tackle the militants.

The reasons for the situation in Kashmir not becoming FATA is because the dynamics are not the same, as I explained already.

During Kargil, the IA faced a situation far, far worse than anything the PA has ever had to contend with in its tribal regions, and yet it managed to repel the invaders, army and tribal alike.

Completely different scenario - hardly any civilian population and limited military support from the Pakistani side in favor of the combatants - the IA and IAF went whole hog against their targets.

Kargil could be considered an asymmetric 'military to military' conflict - no comparison to Bajaur or FATA.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Oh please - obfuscation, dissembling and strawmen is all your post is.

What comparison is there between the governing authority ordering a military occupation and a civilian building?

The Indian government is directly responsible for ordering the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops occupying and committing violence against the Kashmiris.

Just because Hitler was 'elected' does not make his crimes any better or acceptable.

What about the attack on the Pentagon? The military headquarters of the US? Wasn't that justified? Or the attempted attack on the Whitehouse? forgotten those? Wouldn't that be justified since the President of USA which supported the "evil terrorist state of Israel which has killed thousands of muslims" lives there?

You're treading in dangerous waters here mate, justifying terrorist attacks.

There is no military occupation of kashmir, it is quite simply a counter-insurgency operation to defeat islamist insurgents supported by a hostile country.
The "military occupation" part is the propaganda campaign initiated by the hostile country, i.el Pakistan.

You have the cheek to accuse the IA of perpetrating violence against the kashmiris, while your own army has killed thousands in the WOT, and created almost half a million refugees at last count. This is probably more than enough reason to "academically" justify the bombing of the Pakistani parliament Lets not even mention the stuff that's being going on in Balochistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What about the attack on the Pentagon? The military headquarters of the US? Wasn't that justified? Or the attempted attack on the Whitehouse? forgotten those? Wouldn't that be justified since the President of USA which supported the "evil terrorist state of Israel which has killed thousands of muslims" lives there?

No - the US has no direct role in the Israeli occupation. If the US was at war with a nation or occupying a people, one could argue that the opposing side could have justification for attacking government and military targets.

You're treading in dangerous waters here mate, justifying terrorist attacks.

It wasn't a terrorist attack - The Indian government is directly responsible for ordering the occupation of Kashmir through the deployment of hundreds of thousands of soldiers who have committed significant human rights abuses documented by international organizations.

Kashmir is considered disputed territory under international law, so the use of military force to quell a separatist movement there is an occupation, since the Indian government refuses to accept the principles outlined (and accepted by India at the time as well) of Kashmir being disputed and the people of Kashmir determining their future status.

You have the cheek to accuse the IA of perpetrating violence against the kashmiris, while your own army has killed thousands in the WOT, and created almost half a million refugees at last count. This is probably more than enough reason to "academically" justify the bombing of the Pakistani parliament Lets not even mention the stuff that's being going on in Balochistan.

FATA is not disputed territory, and therefore not an occupation. Pakistan did not attempt to militarily suppress the tribes or deny them freedom.

In fact, Pakistan entered into a compact with the tribes under which they would retain significant autonomy as part of the Pakistani state. The violence that has been initiated is because a group from the Tribal areas, the Taliban, wish to impose a new compact on FATA and the rest of Pakistan - that of an extremist and barbaric interpretation of Islam. This then is a clear threat to the Pakistani state and people of FATA, and must be addressed.

In Kashmir it is the other way around - it is India's occupation, atrocities and refusal to implement UNSC resolutions giving the Kashmiris the right to a determine their future through a plebiscite that caused the separatist movement.

 

[S-2]

"I am talking infiltration numbers in the thousands in under a month..."

Ah...an epic struggle, this one. Thousands in less than thirty days? Coming from Konar, I presume?

I'll ask you to reconsider this statement as I don't find it feasible that the militants massed thousands in less than a month but our contacts in Konar rarely exceed platoon strength and are often much less.

One attack on the COP last summer suggested approx. 200 men or so. Beyond that, we don't ever see those numbers.

I don't see it in Bajaur either. Not "thousands" and not 30 days.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"I am talking infiltration numbers in the thousands in under a month..."

Ah...an epic struggle, this one. Thousands in less than thirty days? Coming from Konar, I presume?

I'll ask you to reconsider this statement as I don't find it feasible that the militants massed thousands in less than a month but our contacts in Konar rarely exceed platoon strength and are often much less.

One attack on the COP last summer suggested approx. 200 men or so. Beyond that, we don't ever see those numbers.

I don't see it in Bajaur either. Not "thousands" and not 30 days.

You should have paid more attention to the reports at the time then - Qari Ziaur Rehaman (IIRC) had a force of about 600 come into Bajaur, and that was one single incident. The articles are probably still in the Bajaur thread.

The incident you mentioned, of the attack on an FC post, occurred later.

To clarify though, in both cases the suggestion was not that these were groups numbering in the hundreds that just strolled over from Afghanistan, but smaller groups that combined to form larger forces in well planned attacks such as the one on the FC fort.

 

[S-2]

I was actually referring to the attack on the American position last summer. I'm aware of Rahman's group and I agree that any prudent commander would move his elements in discrete packages to avoid detection.

I still question "thousands in under a month". I might believe thousands if you include infiltration from your south and back from SWAT as well as the west and then extend the time out five or six months. That Bajaur operation is still not closed down despite IGFC's "mission accomplished" uttered in February and there's every reason to believe that reinforcement is continuous.

Finally, you really need to consider the Chitral route from CAR down the Konar river valley. We see it as a problem now as much as Bajaur given the Euros and Uzbeks we whack in the Korengal. I'd think it's an issue, therefore, for you too.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree that 'thousands' would be possible only with infiltration from Afghanistan and the surrounding areas in Pakistan, and that is likely what happened.

I'll clarify my earlier post, the reports of infiltration from Afghanistan under Qari Ziaur Rehman were of '600 to a thousand' not 'thousands'. And I have no doubt that he withdrew quickly when he saw the direction of the operations - he would not have wanted to sacrifice a significant number of men in Bajaur when his operations are primarily targeted at NATO troops in Kunar and Nuristan.

I do not however see the timeline of within a month being a hindrance in terms of the infiltration numbers. The Taliban have shown repeatedly that they can mass forces in the hundreds on short notice - we saw that repeatedly in Waziristan against PA/FC check posts and forts.

On the subject of Qari Ziaur Rehman (given your interest in the Korengal) have you read this interview with him before?

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

Part 1, also dealing with the same region:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JE23Df02.html

 

[Contrarian]

Agnostic, it becomes a terrorist attack the second Pakistan lends its support. If it remained a Kashmiri(Indian) affair, it could be called a freedom struggle. But Pakistan aiding in arms, training camps, money, and men from its side of the border, then it instantly becomes terrorism. And all these groups have used Pakistani services. Thus all these groups commit terrorism.

This is the distinction you have failed to understand.

And incase you do not know. The situation in Kashmir in the 90's was just as bad. There were thousands people totting AK-47's roaming openly on the streets of Kashmir, ordering shops to close down, killing people at will. The only difference is, while your nation did not go for a confrontation and while your Army dithered in action, Indian Army was sent in immediately with a clear mandate.

The situation was exactly the same, and need i point out that Indian Army has till date not used Artillery or Air Strikes in Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Agnostic, it becomes a terrorist attack the second Pakistan lends its support. If it remained a Kashmiri(Indian) affair, it could be called a freedom struggle. But Pakistan aiding in arms, training camps, money, and men from its side of the border, then it instantly becomes terrorism. And all these groups have used Pakistani services. Thus all these groups commit terrorism.

This is the distinction you have failed to understand.

It's an arbitrary distinction concocted for validating your POV.

Do we even have any unanimity over the 'definition' of terrorism?

The one thing people do agree upon is that deliberate attacks on civilian non-combatants are unacceptable in any situation, whether by insurgents or governments.

The attack on the Indian parliament does not qualify as terrorism then for reasons I mentioned before.

Kashmir cannot remain an 'Indian' affair since the territory is disputed.

I have said repeatedly in the past that if you want to talk about state support for insurgents as being a metric for defining 'terrorism', then India has to accept that it supported terrorism in East Pakistan (leaving Baluchistan out of this for now) and the US has to accept that it supported 'terrorism' in its own support for insurgents in several countries.

 

[Contrarian]

I disagree strongly here. Pakistan was not involved in supporting the infiltration for purposes of carrying out terrorist attacks. Nothing in all the literature on Pakistani support for covert activities going back to the Afghan Jihad suggests that deliberate attacks on civilian targets was ever considered as a part of covert ops, directly or through proxies.

The problem has always been that the nature of acting covertly through proxies, especially in such an emotionally and ideologically charged environment as Kashmir, left open the possibility of various groups, or even factions or individuals within groups, engaging in acts that were not endorsed by their handlers.

No. Pakistan has been directly involved in supporting the infiltration for puposes of carrying out terrorist attacks. Not only that, Pakistan has been directly involved in printing and distributing Fake Indian Currency Notes(FICN) in India.

There is nothing to suggest that these groups when they carried out attacks in Kashmir on civilians(which they have been doing for a long while now) or in the rest of India were not sanctioned by Pakistan.

In any case, they have been targetting civilians in Kashmir and bombing in the rest of India for a very long while now. If Pakistan did not infact aid them to do these things, they could very well have stopped their support to them. These groups are connected with an umbilical cord to Pakistan. Without Pakistani support they would die. They depend on Pakistan for almost everything, right down to ammunition and sat/encryption comunication equipments.

Technically, as the seat of power of an occupying authority, I am not sure whether an attack on the Indian parliament qualifies as 'terrorism'.

For the Kashmiris, the Indian government is the authority that perpetuates the occupation and orders the presence of overwhelming military force. Yes, geo-political and economic interests, and the aftermath of 911, determined that the attack be declared a terrorist attack, but from an academic point of view the Indian parliament was a legitimate target IMO.

Again, even if for Kashmiri extremist groups the Parliament was a valid target, even then, if these groups received support of any kind apart from diplomatic, then it would be considered terrorism from Pakistan. Had they been self dependent and sufficient, it could be classified as a valid target. Sadly, for both you and me, it is not so. Thus, it immediately becomes terrorism from Pakistan.

That said, I still disagree that Pakistan had any interest in carrying out such an attack, given the 911 factor - it was way too early for that and the global response (regardless of the legitimacy of the target) could have been predicted by a half wit.

Pakistan wanted to bring up the Kashmir issue, and it has tried to do so through terrorism time and again. I dont understand this academic excercise to find a reason why Pakistan did it.