What's new

Is IAF planing limited airstrikes inside Pakistan?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if LET is clearly implicated, will Pakistan after years of investment in grooming millitantant group like Let let go of it?

Does it have the will to deport senior Let commanders in case it is proved beyond doubt that Let was involved.

I highly doubt that Pakistan will do any of the aforementioned things, how can you expect it to? It Its generals and government can't even agree on a historic decision.

At best I think Pakistan will put up a horse and pony show, allow Let to go underground and claim that they are searching for the leadership. They have invested too much into organisations like Let. The question is wht will India do?



I think it will be much more than that. The nation is enraged. Expect lot of covert activities within Pakistan. A minister's head has rolled a CM's head is to follow don't you think one way or the other Pakistan will have to bear the cost of this..

IPF

and wht about the hindu extremist organization the RSS and VHP, both protected and supported by indian govt, wht will ur actions be if these names come out, or perhaps, BJP???, its very easy to accuse any body, but living with facts is very tough

let has already declared, it was not behind the attacks??,why not u ppl focus on some body else, surely indians r not the most peaceful nation of the world, proved esp when the authentic evidance of malegaon and samjhauta express has been finally disclosed!!

i think indians have very bad habits to justify and producing lame excuses as they r doing right now esp when ever they r guilty and ready throw garbage on neighbors when they dont have facts to support their claims
 
.
not jsut Anzas also RBS too and we should keep ready our F16 recently got from USA and install some air to air missiles but i dont see india want to kick its *** by pakistan.
 
. .
If IAF manages to strike Pakistan.

Let me provide some guidelines to Pakistan's counter strike agenda.



1) Pakistan must quickly strike IAF airbase in Tajikistan, to remove the "Northern threat" (my words). The base should become a pile of dust and scrap metal. I prefer using 500 pound bombs.

2) Pakistan must hit IAF bases in Kashmir.

3) ISI should engage in sabotage in India.

All of this will most likely turn into ground warfare.

4) Pakistan must deploy it's missiles, for example Ghauri Missiles.

5) Threaten a Nuclear first strike on Mumbai and Delhi, to prevent further large scale invasion. If you haven't noticed Pakistan's economy is not in the condition for prolonged warfare.

6) Pakistan MUST guard Karachi from India's Naval forces. Using PAF and Pakistani Navy force.

7) Guard other cities as well.


In land warfare Pakistan must utilize the new Khalid Tanks immediately, no deep invasions but just enough to kick Hindu Indian a**....

A1Kaid; sir
great input, the real reason of this post was to think & come up with some good counter strike plans, you have done a great job.:tup::)
plz , improve your language, do not leave decency, it will make you more good.:agree:
thanks
 
.
Dont worry, hindus follow ****** ideologies, they wont fight so easily, rather cry like dogs for a long time.

And as a side note :

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
i think it is the time to **** INDIA. whole MOMBAI ATTACKS are drama and nothing more coz india think we are weak but dis is not the situation we are able to put the missiles back into INDIAN *****.

And for war the most important thing isUNITY. indian air strikes should be cure by giving threats of PREMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKES. So INDIA coma back in senses coz when INDIANs see SU 30 MKI they lost there senses and think pakistan will be ruin by them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Attacks Imperil Delicate U.S. Role Between Rivals
NYTimes.com

By MARK MAZZETTI and PETER BAKER
Published: November 29, 2008

WASHINGTON— As evidence mounts that last week’s attacks in Mumbai may have originated on Pakistani soil, American officials’ aggressive campaign to strike at militants in Pakistan may complicate efforts to prevent an Indian military response, which could lead to a conflict between the bitter enemies.

In December 2001, when Pakistani militants attacked India’s Parliament, and again this summer, when militants aided by Pakistani spies bombed the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, the Bush administration used aggressive diplomacy to dampen anger in New Delhi.

This time, however, the Indian government might not be so receptive to the American message — and that could derail the coming Obama administration’s hopes of creating a broader, regional response to the threat posed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has already faced months of criticism from political rivals in India about his government’s decision not to respond forcefully to past acts of terrorism, and domestic anger over the carnage in Mumbai has increased the pressure on his government to strike back.

Officials in New Delhi might also feel less compelled to follow calls for a controlled response from the Bush administration, which has steadily escalated a campaign of airstrikes on Pakistani soil using remotely piloted aircraft. The Pentagon has even sent Special Operations forces into Pakistan to attack suspected militant targets, partly in an attempt to stop the militants from crossing the border into Afghanistan, where they are helping fuel an increasingly robust Taliban insurgency.

The White House has adopted a clear position to justify those attacks: if a country cannot deal with a terrorism problem on its own, the United States reserves the right to act unilaterally.

Should it become clear that the men who rampaged through Mumbai trained in Pakistan, even if the Pakistani government had no hand in the operation, what will stop the Indians from adopting the same position?

“In some ways, it doesn’t even matter whether this attack was hatched in some office in Islamabad,” said Paul Kapur, a South Asia expert at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., and Stanford University. “The provocation in this case is orders of magnitude more than anything that’s happened before.”

Even if the Bush administration can keep the situation from escalating, President-elect Barack Obama will find his administration trying to broker cooperation between two aroused and suspicious regional powers.

An important element of Mr. Obama’s plan to reduce militancy in Pakistan and turn around the war in Afghanistan has been to push for a reconciliation between India and Pakistan, so that the Pakistani government could focus its energy on the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan that are controlled by Islamic extremists.

Mr. Obama’s advisers have spent the past few days watching the unfolding crisis for hints about how the situation might look after Jan. 20. While they said they understand that the tensions unleashed by the Mumbai attacks might hobble the new president’s aspirations, they held out hope that the attacks might, instead, open the door to increased cooperation between Pakistan and India to weed out militants intent on more attacks.

Some in the Bush administration, as well as outside experts, agree that an Indian military response is not a foregone conclusion. Mr. Singh’s government has long believed that the instability caused by a conflict with Pakistan would act as a brake on the rapid economic growth India has enjoyed. Mr. Singh has also seen Pakistan’s new civilian government as a hopeful departure from the militarism of President Pervez Musharraf’s government.

Washington could use Mr. Singh’s past hopes for better relations to try to shape a modulated Indian response. Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said one possibility was that the Indian government could decide to strike Kashmiri militant training facilities in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, rather than facilities in the heart of the disputed territory of Kashmir, where Pakistan’s government has a greater presence.

Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani author whose work has been studied by the Obama team, said that any hint of a military mobilization by the Indians will give the Pakistani military the excuse it wants to shift forces away from its western border areas and back to its eastern border. If that happens, he said, it could cause a repeat of 2002, when a standoff between the nations forced the United States to turn at least some of its attention away from fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda to work to avoid war between Pakistan and India.

That time, the impetus was an assault on the Indian Parliament in December 2001 that India said was the work of Kashmiri militants.

So far, Mr. Obama has tried to walk a careful line during the latest crisis, expressing support and concern without appearing to get in the way of President Bush. Even as Mr. Obama was preparing to host several dozen guests for Thanksgiving dinner on Thursday, a foreign policy adviser, Mark Lippert, and a Central Intelligence Agency official arrived at his house in Chicago to brief him on the latest from Mumbai, according to an aide. Mr. Obama ushered them into a side room as the rest of the house buzzed with dinner preparations.

Mr. Obama also called Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice three times over the last few days seeking information. But he waited until after Mr. Bush called Mr. Singh to place his own call to the Indian prime minister late Friday night. (The call was patched through the State Department operations center.)

Advisers to the president-elect said that while they were not aware of everything the Bush administration has done during the crisis, they knew of nothing that Mr. Obama would have necessarily done differently.

Given the disastrous implications of any armed conflict between India and Pakistan, it is not hard to envision the Obama administration following a similar playbook to the one the Bush administration followed during the two countries’ occasional flare-ups.

As some experts see it, though, there is a danger in the United States’ continuing to intervene directly when tensions between India and Pakistan escalate.

“If both sides think they can afford to go closer to the edge because the U.S. is always going to keep them from going over,” said Mr. Kapur, “then they are more likely to edge up to the precipice.”:eek:

Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Peter Baker from Chicago.
 
.
‘Smoking gun’ to harm Pakistan-India ties, fear US experts
By Anwar Iqbal and Masood Haider
dawnnews.com

WASHINGTON/New York, Nov 28: US anti-terrorism experts have warned that ‘a smoking gun’ in the Mumbai attacks could not only derail Pakistan-India talks, but also jeopardise Islamabad’s relations with Washington.:agree:
Christine Fair, a South Asia affairs analyst for US think-tank RAND Corporation, said that the attacks had raised several questions.

“Was Pakistan involved? “What type of Pakistani involvement was there? Did anyone in the government know?”

She warned that “if there is a smoking gun,” it would have serious repercussions for US-Pakistan and Pakistan-India relations.

“The attacks will increase pressure on the incoming Obama administration to be tough on Pakistan,” she warned.

Bruce Riedel, a former South Asia analyst for the CIA and the US National Security Council who now advises President-elect Barack Obama, agreed.

“This is a new, horrific milestone in the global jihad,” he told The Washington Post.

“No indigenous Indian group has this level of capability. The goal is to damage the symbol of India’s economic renaissance, undermine investor confidence and provoke an India-Pakistan crisis.”:eek:
But Ms Fair believed that the attacks were apparently carried out by indigenous Indian militants with some outside support.

“This isn’t India’s 9/11. This is India’s Oklahoma City,” said Ms Fair, referring to an April 1995 domestic attack in the US that killed 168 people.

“It is almost unimaginable that this could have been done entirely by outside militants without Indian involvement; implications are very dangerous,” she told Dawn.:tup:
“There are a lot of “very, very angry Muslims in India. The economic disparities are startling,” she said. “This is a major domestic political challenge for India.”

Ms Fair said it was not possible to deny what happened during anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002.

“You have Islamist militants in India and you have a militarised Hindu right; these are small numbers but they feed on each other, without one the other will be difficult to exist,” she said.:agree::tup:
Ms Fair said the Indians had a ‘strong incentive’ to link this to Al Qaeda,” but so far no one has presented any evidence to show that Al Qaeda is involved.

Another important question, she said, was how Israel would respond, especially if there’s a Pakistani involvement. “Another important question is: Could this be a reaction to (secret) Pakistan-Israel talks?”:disagree::crazy:
View endorsed

Namrata Goswami, associate fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, agreed with Ms Fair.

“They want to establish some kind of linkage with Al Qaeda,” she told USA Today. “But I don’t believe it is there. The motive is very, very clear. This outfit wants to attract sponsors abroad. There’s a lot of money in it.”

Ms Goswami also endorsed Ms Fair’s views that Indian Muslims bore plenty of grievances against the Hindu majority. They lag behind economically. And they have been targeted by Hindu extremists; hundreds of Muslims died, for instance, in communal riots in Gujarat in 2002, she said.

Gary Ackerman, a pro-Indian Democratic Congressman from New York, worried about the Mumbai attacks’ implications for the United States.

“The implication for us is that there are bad guys still out there, and we’re going to have to learn how to deal with them, because our friends are getting sucked into this big-time,” said Congressman Ackerman, who chairs the House subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

USA Today quoted Bahukutumbi Raman, former head of counter-terrorism for India’s intelligence agency, saying that the attackers caught Indian security forces unprepared.

“Till now, we were greeting with glee Pakistan’s incompetence in dealing with terrorism,” he said. “We can no longer do so. We have become as clueless as Pakistan.”

One highly placed US intelligence official, who has been briefed on the attacks, told CNN that the head of the operation was a Bangladeshi and that the militants were Indians, Kashmiris and Bangladeshis. The Indian military had sustained a large number of casualties, the source said.

The experts who spoke to CNN also mentioned another group called the Indian Mujahideen. Despite its relatively new status, the organization is thought to have the organisational capability to carry out such attacks, said Paul Cruickshank, a fellow at the Centre on Law and Security at New York University’s School of Law.

Experts and analysts are warning against rush to judgment.

The New York Times said on Friday “many security experts insist the style of the attacks and the targets in Mumbai suggested the militants were likely to be Indian Muslims, with a domestic agenda” suggesting it may not be the work of Pakistan’s intelligence services or Al Qaeda.

Referring to a claim by a previously unknown outfit ‘Deccan Mujahideen’ that it has carried out the attacks, an Indian security official, who spoke on condition of anonymity with the newspaper, said the name suggested ties to a group called Indian Mujahideen.

The Indian Mujahideen has been implicated in a string of bombing attacks in the country killing about 200 people this year alone.
 
.
want to say something against this person but let me stand even above that action... Here. Just watch the movie and you will understand...

EqgDGfkCl2Q[/media] - Gerrit Wellens/Les Anciens/Tot Maandag/Dansen/popping
Lame .. He thinks he is such a stud, runs off when he cannot sustain a debate, belittles other if he is discovered to be well whatever.. Once got himself exposed arguing about AESA guess what he resorted to personal attacks. Derives pleasure seeing Indians dead. Flaming right from the beginning hiding (The bombing episode) behind the facade of seniority. If Indian voice (media) is dominating the globe then who dont you puke in your bathroom? why on the forum?

Anyways you can ignore me if you cant tolerate me
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
and wht about the hindu extremist organization the RSS and VHP, both protected and supported by indian govt, wht will ur actions be if these names come out, or perhaps, BJP???, its very easy to accuse any body, but living with facts is very tough

let has already declared, it was not behind the attacks??,why not u ppl focus on some body else, surely indians r not the most peaceful nation of the world, proved esp when the authentic evidance of malegaon and samjhauta express has been finally disclosed!!

i think indians have very bad habits to justify and producing lame excuses as they r doing right now esp when ever they r guilty and ready throw garbage on neighbors when they dont have facts to support their claims

Blahh .. Read my post again if you can. I visualising a situation in case if LET is implicated.

Why would India waste its cash to hunt ghosts
 
.
Lame .. He thinks he is such a stud, runs off when he cannot sustain a debate, belittles other if he is discovered to be well whatever.. Once got himself exposed arguing about AESA guess what he resorted to personal attacks. Derives pleasure seeing Indians dead. Flaming right from the beginning hiding (The bombing episode) behind the facade of seniority. If Indian voice (media) is dominating the globe then who dont you puke in your bathroom? why on the forum?

Anyways you can ignore me if you cant tolerate me

Dear indiapakistanfriendship! sir
leave it, plz come back on the topic!
thanks, be cool:enjoy:
 
. . . .
Blahh .. Read my post again if you can. I visualising a situation in case if LET is implicated.

Why would India waste its cash to hunt ghosts

just explain to me one thing, if LET has clearly declared, it wasnt behind the attacks, why u even mention LET in ur post???
 
Last edited:
.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom