This Page

has been moved to new address

India and Pakistan At Brink of War

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: India and Pakistan At Brink of War

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Sunday, November 30, 2008

India and Pakistan At Brink of War


Two very large problems with that:

  • 1. The countries are next door to each other;
  • 2. They both possess nuclear arsenals.



Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday warned India against any "over-reaction" after the militant attacks in Mumbai and vowed the "strictest" action if Pakistani involvement was proved.

"Whoever is responsible for the brutal and crude act against the Indian people and India are looking for reaction," Zardari said in an interview with Indian CNN-IBN television.

"We have to rise above them and make sure ourselves, yourself and world community guard against over-reaction," he said according to an interview transcript issued by the Press Trust of India.

The Indian government has blamed "elements in Pakistan" for the attack by Islamist militants against multiple targets in Mumbai that left nearly 200 people dead.




The only terrorist captured alive after the Mumbai massacre has given police the first full account of the extraordinary events that led to it – revealing he was ordered to ‘kill until the last breath’.

Azam Amir Kasab, 21, from Pakistan, said the attacks were meticulously planned six months ago and were intended to kill 5,000 people.

He revealed that the ten terrorists, who were highly trained in marine assault and crept into the city by boat, had planned to blow up the Taj Mahal Palace hotel after first executing British and American tourists and then taking hostages.


Britain has not only tolerated but embraced Islamists for years; here is the result:


A banned Islamic terrorist group funded with cash raised in British mosques is believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks.

Kashmiri separatists Lashkar-e-Taiba, ‘The Army of the Righteous’, which has strong links to Al Qaeda, is accused of previous terrorist outrages in India.

And intercepted telephone and radio communications before and during the latest attacks apparently suggest a link.

And despite British mosques likely being a cash source, the terrorists from Pakistan were told to ‘target whites, preferably Americans and British’.

This is now India's own '9/11'. Clearly sourced from Pakistan. The death toll is suggested to exceed 300 persons.

If anyone in Britain, the United States or the western world believe that you can lay down with Islam and not be bitten, this and thousands of prior events -- plus those certain to come in 2009 on the heels of this new presidential administration -- should convince otherwise.

That is, if you're listening.

BZ

4 Comments:

Blogger Gayle said...

You're listening, and I'm listening, and many other conservatives are listening, BZ, but it's nowhere enough. We are going to be victimized because of ignorant, apethetic and politically correct people.

Sun Nov 30, 10:24:00 AM PST  
Blogger TexasFred said...

India and Pakistan, short lines, short tempers and short flight paths...

And WE keep on dicking around on the Afghan/Paki border, WE are observing, at least *some* protocol...

I would give a left nut if WE had a president that had the balls to order this thing brought to a DEFINITIVE end...

But we don't, and for at least the next 4 years and 2 months, we won't...

Sun Nov 30, 11:33:00 AM PST  
Blogger A Jacksonian said...

Remember the Cold War?

Remember how we saw that the world's second largest democracy was working with Russia?

Remember who we sided with?

China and Pakistan.

Kissinger admits this was a blunder... now... so we supported Pakistan when it was funding Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, back in the 70's. The guy with the money flow from heroin, gold, gems and such? Largest terrorist organization in central asia? Head of the Taliban government for a few years? Has terror operations in Western China?

We supported Pakistan that directly funded him, no questions asked save to bother India in Kasmir. The folks who also fund Lashkar-e-Taiba... the ISI. Could we get a President who can actually tell these jokers to *knock it off*? Pakistan has been funding terrorism against India since the 1950's, so we *knew* what we were getting into bed with. Yeah, only Nixon could go to China... and only Nixon could open up relations with a Nation that directly funds terrorists who, once they got their act together, actually took over Afghanistan.

When you point to the 'good' Nixon did in China, look at the blood on the streets in Mumbai today. We have looked the other way for decades, now, and only go tut-tut because what could replace the government there would be 'worse'. That was *before* they got nukes. Now that is a lock-solid guarantee, not a dicey game of international politics but a solid guarantee that things would get worse if we tried to stop this now. And things will need to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better... and I really don't think a regional nuclear conflict is in the best interests of the US, but neither is supporting a government that funds this sort of thing.

And supported the country that got some jets into the twin towers and pentagon.

Since 'realistic' and 'pragmatic' politics has gotten us to this point, could we try a bit of 'idealism', please? Support democracies, maybe? Say that we really will have 'dead or alive' posters out for each and every terrorist on the State Dept. list? Take down the companies, groups and individuals that support terrorism, even if it winds up at the feet of governments?

Please?

Because going at it 'pragmatically' and 'realistically' is getting lots of people killed, year on year. And that number per year is not good at all. It is the price of our 'pragmatism' and 'realism' that we now get in return for 'peace'. Until, of course, the price gets too high.

Dead or Alive posters, please.

And start bringing these groups down *now* with a high bounty on their heads. We won't get that, of course... so we will start paying in blood, the more or less civilized parts of the world will. Until that lovely civilization thingy just can't stand any more.

Shame, that.

People used to stand up for it and fight.

Now we see what happens when we don't.

Sun Nov 30, 12:43:00 PM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

Worse yet, AJ, WHERE do we find these two critically important aspects in order to carry out your suggested courses:

1. A leader with the WILL to do this and
2. The necessary physical military infrastructure to carry OUT the will?

We are now a 283-ship mostly littoral and backed-up blue water navy as opposed to our high count in 1989 (as RWR was leaving office) of 580 ships.

Each individual craft, air or ship, is now a technological miracle. But DIMINISHING the number of ships, DIMINISHING the number of aircraft, DIMINISHING the number of troops "just in time" for the world to become even MORE dangerous for the United States?

Insanity which will result in chaos, bedlam, death, defeat. For US: the last, best hope of the entire planet.

BZ

Sun Nov 30, 02:01:00 PM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home