Role of India in the Anti-terror campaign

[derk yall 0]

Okay, got the point how it was meant :)

I dont say that you cant sustain military operation. But I am from a country wich deployed mostly only it's SF into Afghanistan (601.skss) but still it's expensive and when you have people who have to pay more taxes because of the crisis and you have to think realy wisely on what spend your hard-gained moeny it's not pleasing to hear how much this and this operation cost and how much it would cost in the next years - there is almost no money for healtcare. People are starting to hate our own military because of that and the respect for the governament is nowhere.

The problem is that Afghanistan is not an Two - three month operation but probably something for several years if not decades. Even if it would include only SF, it will cost a big amount of moeny and people will not be pleased. And unfortunately, the benefits of these aliances with other countries, it's not something you can realy depend on. My country, Czechoslovakia (now divided into Czech and Slovak Republic) was betrayed in 1938 by its allies wich caused the Second World War (Hitler got hands on the Number 1 weapons manufacturers in the world for free - also the czechoslovak army could stop him). Later we were betrayed again in Jalta, again in 1968 but this time by our warshaw pact allies and even after the fall of the eastern block western "investors, bussynesmens etc." crippled our economic, wich people belived they would save. So by the history I can say that big countries will threw you out, if you will no longer be "use" for them.

The problem of islamization will not end by waepons. Hate bring hate, but education and knowledge bring peace if used rightly. Vilas was right in this one. By killing you will kill someone sister/brother/father/mother an this on person will begin to hate you and he will kill someone brother/sister and the bloody circle will spin to the eternity. So trying to bring knowledge to these people, is a step further. To show them that the so-called western civilization isnt evil for them.

[shobhit 10]

Okay, got the point how it was meant :)

I dont say that you cant sustain military operation. But I am from a country wich deployed mostly only it's SF into Afghanistan (601.skss) but still it's expensive and when you have people who have to pay more taxes because of the crisis and you have to think realy wisely on what spend your hard-gained moeny it's not pleasing to hear how much this and this operation cost and how much it would cost in the next years - there is almost no money for healtcare. People are starting to hate our own military because of that and the respect for the governament is nowhere.

The problem is that Afghanistan is not an Two - three month operation but probably something for several years if not decades. Even if it would include only SF, it will cost a big amount of moeny and people will not be pleased. And unfortunately, the benefits of these aliances with other countries, it's not something you can realy depend on. My country, Czechoslovakia (now divided into Czech and Slovak Republic) was betrayed in 1938 by its allies wich caused the Second World War (Hitler got hands on the Number 1 weapons manufacturers in the world for free - also the czechoslovak army could stop him). Later we were betrayed again in Jalta, again in 1968 but this time by our warshaw pact allies and even after the fall of the eastern block western "investors, bussynesmens etc." crippled our economic, wich people belived they would save. So by the history I can say that big countries will threw you out, if you will no longer be "use" for them.

The problem of islamization will not end by waepons. Hate bring hate, but education and knowledge bring peace if used rightly. Vilas was right in this one. By killing you will kill someone sister/brother/father/mother an this on person will begin to hate you and he will kill someone brother/sister and the bloody circle will spin to the eternity. So trying to bring knowledge to these people, is a step further. To show them that the so-called western civilization isnt evil for them.

The cost of fighting a war for more than 2 years does not daunt us because in the end the dividends will be massive.. If we spend 100 million dollars per year for 3 years i.e. 300 milion dollars right now to fight extremism and save 300 million a year for the next 10 years due to the savings from de-militarizing Kashmir and disbanding PM forces then we will infact profit from our present engagement. You have to think long term it's not about saving a few dollars of tax money it's about thinking about our Nations future and internal security. If it takes 10 billion dollars to safeguard my Nation from further attacks like the 26/11 then hell yeah! double my taxes I'll pay. I'd say that tackling the problem head-on with a two pronged approach is the best solution

1. Militarily isolate and destroy extremists. (isolate them from the local population centres to deny them of human resources and recruitment pool)

2. Infrastructural development of those areas afflicted by extremist to provide a better quality if life to the people

3. Improve relations with Islamic countries (US) especially Iran

[derk yall 0]

I am thinking in long term, but the citizen who suffer because he cant afford medical threatment, because the money for health care was spent ont the military, will give a damn about long terms - thats the problems and when there is a majority of people who suffer because of this, then you have the risk of revolts, or revolutions. That's said a bit extremly, but it's also a part of the Long term effect. It dont need to be a revolution, but in the next election, the party wich will say, that they'll whitdraw the forces from afghanistan will win and who know what will then happen. The terrorist could increase their attacks in India, because of its previous war support - they wont leave India safe because they've already withdraw. But on the other way, the money wich would be spent in afghanistan could have saved someone live if given to the health care, or used to help in the education system. The fact is that the money spent on the military operation will lack somewhere else and people wont be happy about it. It's not some, two, three year operation. Soviet army was in Afghanistan for ten years and still they failed to win. Now, the NATO armies are in the same situation, and the threat of terorism is not local based in afghanistan, it's something wich have spread to almost whole world. So defeating terrorist in Afghanistan unfortunately wont stop from future terorist attacks. But withdrawing from afghanistan is a no go. Leaving the country now will open them to the radical muslims and the situation will get much worse. I Think, that if india want to prepare herself and fight against the radical muslims, cooperation with other nations polices and states security forces is the way to go.

I agree with your three point aproach, but unfortunately, how I'd said, the radical muslim threat is widespread so cutting them from resources is not so easy and by every innocent death among civilians, their support is growing.

Not saying that fighting in afghanistan is useless - with some effort it can maybe stabilize that country, but there is already enough nations involved including US of A, UK etc. And figting in Afghanistan isnt the only way how to fight against the international-terorism threat.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Derk Yall

[Macadam Cow 1]

Russell Crowe tells it better than I could :

ZvdjAEpGgN8

Why would you like to enter a war you can't win ?

Edited November 20, 2010 by Macadam Cow

[spooky lynx 73]

Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Georgia. I would say Chechnya, but they're not an independent country. Those countries Russians were directly involved in. You've also incited violence and political unrest in many of the former Soviet republics and else where in the world and then when war starts you send "volunteers" or "advisers" to fight for the side you want to win.

I love it when you people dip your collective wicks into other people's internal politics, but then come back and condemn the US when we do it. Stop trying to paint NATO as an evil empire and Russia as a benevolent country who minds their own business. You're not Switzerland...

Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Afghanistan - all those operations were conducted together with governments of those countries. So, where's invasion? Georgia - this was act of defence of russian citizens, thousands of them live in South Osetia. So, what country had been invaded by USSR of RF like Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia and Iraq by US & NATO?

[tiket 0]

@shobhit

looks like you are a NRI.

by the way here most people are western,so they can't understand india point of view,

we can deal with our problem own.

we did't need any help from anyone.

remember USA aid pak in previous battles of 1971.

Indian army not going to inter fear in afghan,as our pm say.

Edited November 20, 2010 by tiket

[shobhit 10]

@shobhit

looks like you are a NRI.

by the way here most people are western,so they can't understand india point of view,

we can deal with our problem own.

we did't need any help from anyone.

remember USA aid pak in previous battles of 1971.

Indian army not going to inter fear in afghan,as our pm say.

No tiket, I am and Indian citizen for the past 2 decades. My father was in the IA for 24 years. It is very easy for us to say that the west will not understand our POV. Instead we should help people to understand it. And nobody has mentioned anywhere in their posts that India requires assistance or needs help. So I do not know where you're getting all that from. Yes I do remember the US carrier off the coast of Bengal in '71, but the geopolitical climate has changed would you agree? And I have said this once and saying it again, I am aware of India's current stance on Afghanistan but I am talking about YOUR opinion on a hypothetical situation! Are you supporting the thread's topic are are you against it. It is clear that you do not support any Afghanistan venture but can you give any ORIGINAL arguments to support this. Thanks.

---------- Post added at 12:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 PM ----------

Russell Crowe tells it better than I could :

ZvdjAEpGgN8

Why would you like to enter a war you can't win ?

A very haunting and chilling speech regarding the nature of extremists. But I disagree. Are you telling me that we cannot outlast them? To completely cut off extremists strong steps need to be taken to isolate them from their recruitment pools, i.e. population centres with unemployed and uneducated youth with no opportunites. Infrastructural developments in the form of schools and hospitals and job oppurtunites to offer them a decent source of income and security from extremist violence will not only deny the militants manpower but may also *cheese bomb alert* win the hearts and minds of the people. Also stepping up operations to cut off financial aid would be a major setback to the extremists. Dismantle cover groups and shell companies raising money. Use US-Saudi ties to clamp down on wealthy sheiks backing extremist groups. Destroy the poppy fields. Resettle the farmers and give them new jobs (how?) and most importantly....deal with Pakistan. It will require tremendous will-power, effort and time but we can win, just dont "take the foot of their throats"

The US public needs to realise that it'll need to tighten up it's stomach and try to outlast the religiously motivated groups, simple as that but a very hard thing to achieve. A democratic country is run on Public opinion.

---------- Post added at 01:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

Another point in favour of India's involvement is that it's intelligence agencies may find it easier to infiltrate terrorist cells due to ethnic and cultural similarities. The general lukewatm relations between Afghanistan and India may also make it easier for the Locals to co-operate with Indian agencies.

---------- Post added at 01:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 PM ----------

Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Afghanistan - all those operations were conducted together with governments of those countries. So, where's invasion? Georgia - this was act of defence of russian citizens, thousands of them live in South Osetia. So, what country had been invaded by USSR of RF like Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia and Iraq by US & NATO?

Please let's make this a "World Invader 2010" contest. Both countries have been involved in certain operations which can be called as "assistance" or an invasion under false pretense, almost every nation tries it or has done it at some point in it's history.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:15 PM ----------

I am thinking in long term, but the citizen who suffer because he cant afford medical threatment, because the money for health care was spent ont the military, will give a damn about long terms - thats the problems and when there is a majority of people who suffer because of this, then you have the risk of revolts, or revolutions. That's said a bit extremly, but it's also a part of the Long term effect. It dont need to be a revolution, but in the next election, the party wich will say, that they'll whitdraw the forces from afghanistan will win and who know what will then happen. The terrorist could increase their attacks in India, because of its previous war support - they wont leave India safe because they've already withdraw. But on the other way, the money wich would be spent in afghanistan could have saved someone live if given to the health care, or used to help in the education system. The fact is that the money spent on the military operation will lack somewhere else and people wont be happy about it. It's not some, two, three year operation. Soviet army was in Afghanistan for ten years and still they failed to win. Now, the NATO armies are in the same situation, and the threat of terorism is not local based in afghanistan, it's something wich have spread to almost whole world. So defeating terrorist in Afghanistan unfortunately wont stop from future terorist attacks. But withdrawing from afghanistan is a no go. Leaving the country now will open them to the radical muslims and the situation will get much worse. I Think, that if india want to prepare herself and fight against the radical muslims, cooperation with other nations polices and states security forces is the way to go.

I agree with your three point aproach, but unfortunately, how I'd said, the radical muslim threat is widespread so cutting them from resources is not so easy and by every innocent death among civilians, their support is growing.

Not saying that fighting in afghanistan is useless - with some effort it can maybe stabilize that country, but there is already enough nations involved including US of A, UK etc. And figting in Afghanistan isnt the only way how to fight against the international-terorism threat.

The average working class man in India can support himself regarding healthcare. Indian healthcare system though not a welfare system is pretty efficient. Besides the Government has earmarked funds for military operations so that it does not hurt the pockets of the common people. Long term operations can be sustained by these funds especially if they are LOW INTESNITY ANTI-TERROR OPERATIONS in tandem with other countries. And what point is saving one persons life when the next day 12 gunmen storm another city in some other country and kill 250 people. I value Human life above everything which is precisely why we need to step up the tempo of operations.

---------- Post added at 01:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

@ Derk I am not only considering Afghanistan as a theatre of operations. Pakistan and other mid-east countries come into play. When you mention cooperation within the international state and police forces I wholeheartedly agree, but that is just a prevention!

the threat is still at large.

I want to roam around safely in my city

I want to get rid of full body scanners and meticulous and long body searches whenever travelling abroad

I want my country to stop spending billions on defense forces to keep them holed up as a cork on the northwestern borders

Edited November 20, 2010 by shobhit

[Baff1 0]

A To completely cut off extremists strong steps need to be taken to isolate them from their recruitment pools, i.e. population centres with unemployed and uneducated youth with no opportunites. Infrastructural developments in the form of schools and hospitals and job oppurtunites to offer them a decent source of income and security from extremist violence will not only deny the militants manpower but may also *cheese bomb alert* win the hearts and minds of the people.

Terrorists in my country have all these opportunities and still they are extreme.

[Big Mac 19]

Hungary, Chechoslovakia, Afghanistan - all those operations were conducted together with governments of those countries. So, where's invasion? Georgia - this was act of defence of russian citizens, thousands of them live in South Osetia. So, what country had been invaded by USSR of RF like Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia and Iraq by US & NATO?

Right because Russian tanks totally didn't cross the borders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia to put down a popular revolution by the people that had (at least in Hungary) already toppled the government.

Now on to Afghanistan; because it is totally acceptable to double tap the president and his family of the country who "invited" you in. I guess that's where the US has gone wrong..

On to Georgia; South Ossetia is not Russian territory anymore than Baja is US territory. Does that mean that just because you have citizens there (who most are fighting as mercenaries) that that gives you the right to invade a country who's trying to put a stop to cross border raids by the the South Ossetian militias who are being supplied and supported by the Russian government? I think not.

You're a tool who has bought his country's revisionist bullshit and propaganda hook line and sinker. I bet you think just because Russia captured a butt load of Humvees in Georgia that Americans were fighting there right? Run along and read a book and learn something about yourself as a Russian.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Big Mac

[tiket 0]

No tiket, I am and Indian citizen for the past 2 decades. My father was in the IA for 24 years. It is very easy for us to say that the west will not understand our POV. Instead we should help people to understand it. And nobody has mentioned anywhere in their posts that India requires assistance or needs help. So I do not know where you're getting all that from. Yes I do remember the US carrier off the coast of Bengal in '71, but the geopolitical climate has changed would you agree? And I have said this once and saying it again, I am aware of India's current stance on Afghanistan but I am talking about YOUR opinion on a hypothetical situation! Are you supporting the thread's topic are are you against it. It is clear that you do not support any Afghanistan venture but can you give any ORIGINAL arguments to support this. Thanks.

@shobhit

mate my father is in army,

its good that USA fighting against taliban.ALL THESE CONSEQUENCES arrise due to US whole world know.

i think US have to deal with this with help of there friends countries.

why we will lose our soldier lives for others countries.we loose many soldiers due to US,

this thing we can't forget.

US always support pak by providing them new equipment,which pak use against us always.

what i think,if

Edited November 20, 2010 by tiket

[shobhit 10]

Now on to Afghanistan; because it is totally acceptable to double tap the president and his family of the country who "invited" you in. I guess that's where the US has gone wrong...

XD LOL!!^^

Totally agree. "hey! please come in" "why thank you, heres a bullet for you, wherdya like the head or the heart, abdomen...?"

You do not politically decapitate a country you are assisting

Now could all of you settle your argument regarding a "peaceful, non-violent" Russia.

---------- Post added at 07:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

Terrorists in my country have all these opportunities and still they are extreme.

If you don't mind my asking but where are you from?

[Macadam Cow 1]

I think Baff1 is from UK

Are you telling me that we cannot outlast them?

Yup exactly :)

Wether we like it or not we're an occupation force and I can't recall any occupation force winning any modern war.

What you said about employement, education,... is very true. Problem is talibans were providing that before the beginning of the war.

We don't like to hear that but the talibans were a major source of stabilisation for the country. They gave job, they openned schools (for boys only but still), they brought justice to afghanistan.

Of course it was horrible in many ways but unfortunatly we don't do war because of that. We don't fight for freedom, we never did.

What about Birmania ? What about China ? What about almost half of the African countries ?

The better way to have a safer world is to leave Afghanistan ASAP.

by ASAP I mean as soon as the ANA can take care of itself.

Terrorist attacks in the UK and in Spain were only the result of their involvement in Iraq/Afghanistan. Lately France has received threats too because they were in Afghanistan.

Honestly let's let those guys live their live, fighting their fight. It doesn't concern us. And the worst thing is a good part of the muslim world consider this as a war on Islam, not a war on terror.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Macadam Cow

[shobhit 10]

@Macadam

True the Taliban provided a semblance of unified governance. But consider this, if the US had not invaded Afghanistan and allowed Taliban and Al Qaeda influence to grow unchecked wouldnt it be strengthening an already powerful religious extremist group? the scale of attack would have grown and also the frequency. This would directly increase Islamic Militancy in India, and this makes us our fight, sooner or later.

I 100% agree with you in that the US needs to hand over the fighting to the ANA. As I believe that terrorism or not, this is an issue of Afghanistan and the people need to do something about it. But before doing that it needs to hand them over a stable country and let them mop up and if need be continue fighting. The situation in Ira is similar but much worse because there the people themselves don't want the US there, classic case of insurgency. The US needs to rapidly establish a strong Law & order body there. As for "fighting for freedom" I agree that it's horseshit. Any country generally does not intervene in foreign matters unless its offers the said country a massive strategic advantage.

And I disagree about the point that we can't outlast them, historical precedents are always broken and new ones constantly formed. It is possible but not very probable.

[Baff1 0]

@Macadam

True the Taliban provided a semblance of unified governance. But consider this, if the US had not invaded Afghanistan and allowed Taliban and Al Qaeda influence to grow unchecked wouldnt it be strengthening an already powerful religious extremist group?

That doesn't really match my definition of power. Sorry.

Not stopping something is not the same as helping something along.

Despite the Taliban bringing more security to Afghanistan than it had known in many years....cracking down on the international heroin trade...

The west did not support the Taliban. The West didn't like them and took diplomatic steps to isolate them.

They did what they could to peacefully undermine them.

The thing is that anyone who's powerbase is Afghanistan, isn't ever going to take over the world. Two adjacent valleys is more than most Afghan rulers have ever achieved.

Terrorism is about the limit of the force they can ever hope to project. Which, unpleasant as it may be... dramatic as 9/11 was.. is ultimately not something to fear.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Baff1

[shobhit 10]

That doesn't really match my definition of power. Sorry.

Not stopping something is not the same as helping something along.

Despite the Taliban bringing more security to Afghanistan than it had known in many years....cracking down on the international heroin trade...

The west did not support the Taliban. The West didn't like them and took diplomatic steps to isolate them.

They did what they could to peacefully undermine them.

The thing is that anyone who's powerbase is Afghanistan, isn't ever going to take over the world. Two adjacent valleys is more than most Afghan rulers have ever achieved.

Terrorism is about the limit of the force they can ever hope to project. Which, unpleasant as it may be... dramatic as 9/11 was.. is ultimately not something to fear.

Not doing something also counts as helping. You Think I was talking about Taliban becoming a superpower? I was actually worried about it supporting other extremist networks and ramping up operations in my country. Clearly you are unconcerned with terror attacks and don't care about a nation's internal security.

[joshrego 10]

Even I'm totally agree to this.. why India should participate in this?, will it bring any kind of benefits for them? in my opinion instead of wasting so much money in wars they can use this money for the development of their own nation.

[shobhit 10]

Even I'm totally agree to this.. why India should participate in this?, will it bring any kind of benefits for them? in my opinion instead of wasting so much money in wars they can use this money for the development of their own nation.

Kindly see earlier posts regarding the benefit to India.

[Baff1 0]

Not doing something also counts as helping. You Think I was talking about Taliban becoming a superpower? I was actually worried about it supporting other extremist networks and ramping up operations in my country. Clearly you are unconcerned with terror attacks and don't care about a nation's internal security.

I am broadly speaking unconcerned by terrorist attacks, yes.

Not on a personal level, not to those people and families who are affected by them, but on a national level. We've always had terrorsim, we always will. You get used to it, and we've been dealt much worse than any mere terrorist organisation can ever hope to field.

It's armies and navies and airforces that typically get me alarmed.

I care about a nation's internal security, but I like to keep that in perspective.

I've lived through a couple of terrorist campaigns in my own country. Both of them still on going.

They aren't top of my list of national threats.

The fear of terrorism is very real, but statistically, lightning strikes kill more people. It's a threat, but ultmately an insignificant one. I still go out in the rain.

"Not doing something" doesn't count as helping in my book.

It counts as not helping.

I know G.W.Bush didn't subscibe to this theory, but I do.

Helping, is what we did during the Russian occupation, when we sent guns and ammo and trainers and intelligence and money and medecine.

Helping, is something altogether quite different from "not helping".

Edited November 24, 2010 by Baff1

[KEVINMGXP 20]

lol i went trough whole the Thread to be sure that i know what this is all about :D

anyways:

It seems that that a nation with over 50 years of counter-insurgency and anti-terrorist experience has not been involved in current operations in Afghanistan.

It is not because they have over 50 years of counter-insurgensy and anti-terrorist experiance that they have to be involved, on the other hand they can give advice to the ones that are involved :cool:

Is this a because of reluctance of the Indian government or because the NATO nations have sidelined India due to it's not too friendly relations with Pakistan

Why is it when a country have some unrest in diplomatic relations that it would be a imidiate reason not to participate? can it not just be so that they would think about other things like internal situations that are far more important to attend to?

(a nation which is still supported by the US) is not clear but don't you think that India's involvement may help speed up the dismantling of the Al Qaida-Taliban nexus?

Why would it speed up? because of more assets? now sorry did this country not had a huge flooding past august and i pretty much beleave we did some calls to put money in the bucket to help those people.

the goverment of india asked help on this and if they would put there assets in helping the war on terrorism then it would make me pretty much offended!

Advantages

1. Extensive experience in counter-terrorist operations against Pakistan trained militants, foreign insurgents from Chechnya, Afghanistan, etc.

they can provide their knoledge without putting assets in

2.Intelligence sources and contacts

the ones already involved have their own they don't need indian intellegence and sources to do that

3. Well trained military, veterans of COIN operations with experience in operating in terrain similar and in many ways harsher than that of Afghanistan

these guys need to help their own people by going out there to help and rebuild there own country and help those people that are suffering

SO what are your opinions on India's involvment? Can you think of better ways to combat terrorism in Afghanistan?

My opinion on indian's goverment when not getting involved and helping there own people tumbs up if they don't thumbs down

as for better ways: i don't think this is a war that is fought like a regular war, this is more like a guerilla kind of warfare and the US had already hes experiance in this kind of warfare back in the time of vietnam and you know what happened there, because the way it was fought ... you should see the movie about tzun tzu a lot of what happened in vietnam was readable in the text of that man, if i see to the events in pakistan against the taliban i see not much differance it is abovious not the US not any united force can bring down the taliban because this war is fought just the way the taliban wants to fight it! even the pakistany goverment wants to make peace with the taliban and they already asked the US to decrease hostile actions arround sivillian ereas where they think the taliban is active ... the taliban is in fact not fighting this war in afganistan, this war is fought everywhere and surly on your own soil you can't overwin them on a fixed spot plain and simple kill them over in pakistan wont stop them.

every stratigic analist can put here what he wan'ts but he or she will be wrong! predict the outcome of the war? give better advice ...

NON

NewsFlash the war is LOST on both sides noboddy will win nothing!

and you know why? because it is already written, this war is fought on wrong terms and with wrong reasons on both sides ...

Edit: and the question is in fact then is there a right or is their a wrong in our cause?.

Answer:

it depends through wich eyes your looking at it

Edited November 26, 2010 by KBourne
Typos, might still be wrong :s

[shobhit 10]

@Baff1

Im assuming that you're from the UK. because someone else did mention it before. Now the UK has not seen an insurgency or terrorist activity on a scale as large as India has. Yes you have had severe problems with internal security but India has had bigger problems and for a longer period. You have a mild fever whereas we have cancer ;)

It is a big issue for us. The extremist networks backed by ISI and China also support internal dissidents in the NE regions of India. It is in our best interests to dismantle this network. you can't do anything about lighting strikes can you? but its a different matter when it comes to terrorism.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

@Tvertne

Thanks for taking the time to go through the thread, it is long isnt it?

1. Apparently an advisory role will not suffice

2. True India has a tremendous lot on her plate...including her national security and state of affairs with Pakistan which is just a nuclear disaster waiting to happen with such a dangerous presence of islamic extremists in the country. I guess the Border issues with pak and terrorism are major issues here in India, is a fact lost to the other countries.

3. Yes it would speed it up. NATO forces along with India could pressurize Pakistan into taking more credible action. Yes, we did have a major flood in India and thank you for your help :) but we are more than capable of taking care of ourselves in times of natural calamities. besides SF units dont really play much of a role in disaster management and community development.

4. As for experience in Guerilla warfare...the Indian army is arguably the MOST experienced, probably after the Pakistani armed forces, in guerilla operations....both sides of it. It has trained Guerilla forces to great success (Tibetan SFF and The Mukti Bahini) and has also tremendous experience in fighting against a guerilla army. So there.

[maturin 12]

How about India gets rid of its Maoist bandits first?

If I'm not mistaken they control far more land than the Pakistani Taliban.

[Baff1 0]

@Baff1

Im assuming that you're from the UK. because someone else did mention it before. Now the UK has not seen an insurgency or terrorist activity on a scale as large as India has. Yes you have had severe problems with internal security but India has had bigger problems and for a longer period. You have a mild fever whereas we have cancer ;)

It is a big issue for us. The extremist networks backed by ISI and China also support internal dissidents in the NE regions of India. It is in our best interests to dismantle this network. you can't do anything about lighting strikes can you? but its a different matter when it comes to terrorism.

You are correct I am English and I am not up to speed on the terrorism in India aside from what I have seen on the news over the years.

For what it's worth I was here in 1996.

I've had my nightclubs shut down from bomb scares. (Very expensive!!!).

I've used to get stuck in bomb related traffic jams on thrice weekly basis for a few years back when I worked in London.

I've even been arrested for terrorism.

I highly doubt that many Indians' terrorist experiences are any more severe than my own.

We've had terrorism here for my entire life. The most recent car bomb here was 2 months ago. One month ago a bomb was found on an aeroplane.

The same sort of problems as yours in many ways. Foreign state sponsorship, an independance movement and more recently Islamic extremists...LMAO we even get animal rights extremists.

It's the norm.

And when we are not to pre-occupied with our own domestic terrorism, we are ususally to be found sticking our noses in various anti-terror campaigns across the globe. This of course encourages more terrorism back here as a by product.

But we aren't so scared of it.

I certainly feel a sense of solidarity with your people in these regards. There are obvious parallels, (not to mention our cultural and historical ties).

But ultimately I believe my assertion will still be correct in India just as it is in mine. More people get killed by lightning strikes in your country than they do from terrorism.

It's important to keep these things in perspective so that they don't end up dominating our lives or eroding our civil liberties etc.

All the old grannies here lived through the Blitz. You think what you have in India is so bad, but many people here have lived through far worse. They have seen total war. Terrorism doesn't quite cut the mustard after that.

They have seen more carnage in one day than all of India's terrorist attacks in the last 50 years combined... And if my mother is not cowed, neither should I be.

Life goes on.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Baff1

[Chadaface 10]

How about India gets rid of its Maoist bandits first?

If I'm not mistaken they control far more land than the Pakistani Taliban.

And thats the reason why neither countries want all out war