ARmy Rumour SErvice

Originally Posted by Jacques_Bustard

I think Old Goat needs a oxygen thief tag 'cos he's talking utter shite. In the meantime the Indian Police are out on the streets with fine array of rifles, ex British Army possibly?

Obviously a job for the Plockton lads

http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/...c/start=0.html

Originally Posted by armchair_jihad

Oh and rumours say that the ISI had a hand in the Indian terror attacks as the New Pakistani Government has been trying to broker a serious Indian/Pak peace and normailisation deal. Part of which was the closure of a major chunk of ISI.

Perhaps this may be a clue to these actions. I have been struggling with the 'why' of all this. Why effectively open up another front? If it is to put a stop to any Pak-Indian cooperation why would they (AQ?) fear such an alliance? Do they see it as being effective against them and if so why? Will such terrorist outbreaks not potentially strengthen such an alliance. Will Hindu terrorists try to carry out reprisals in India (likely) or even Pakistan (less likely).
Naturally the greater populace will blame Pakistan just as after 7/7 the British people immediately looked abroad for foreign influence. The population of India may start calling for affirmative action from its Government against Pakistan which may well bring Pakistan and India to loggerheads. Such action may prompt the US to step in and broker a deal to maybe do a carpet bombing campaign of the Pakistani AQ badlands with the blessing of both Governments as a way out of any possible impasse, or would that be playing further into AQ's hands?
Pakistan has aspirations to being a world player, it doesn't need this sort of trouble although it mustn't alienate its mainly muslim population by appearing to pander to the West or to be indescriminate against fellow Muslims. The taking of Western hostages is of significance here, is the aim to goad USA or UK into military action and, if so, against whom? Are the hostages just a sideshow designed to make sure news of this action is carried as far round the globe as is possible? As has already been alluded to, the Americans are unlikely to even be aware of these goings on without US hostages having been taken.

Originally Posted by Bumper

If yesterdays attacks in Bombay were carried out by Islamist militants, the Indian government will have little choice, politically speaking, but to blame them on Pakistan. That will in turn spark a crisis between the two nuclear rivals that will draw America in.

The Indian government has two choices. It can say that the perpetrators are a domestic group. In that case, it will be held accountable for a failure of enormous proportions in security and law enforcement. It will be charged with being unable to protect the public. Or it can link the attack to an outside power: Pakistan. In that case it can hold a nation-state responsible for the attack, and can use the crisis atmosphere to strengthen the government's internal position by invoking nationalism. Politically this is a much preferable outcome for the Indian government, and so it is the most likely course of action.

There is a precedent for this. In 2002 there was an attack on the Indian parliament in Mumbai by Islamist militants linked to Pakistan. A near-nuclear confrontation took place between India and Pakistan until the US brokered a stand down. Although a new hotline was put in place last year btween India & Pakistan and Pakistan has suffered attacks itself, with India in the spotlight they are likely to begin with a robust stance.

The crisis therefore, is only starting.

Could they not say, "What these terrorists are trying to do is split those of us who oppose them. Despite our differences, Pakistan and India wish to be friends, and will not rise to this provocation"?

And while I'm dreaming, can I have a Ferrari for Christmas?

Originally Posted by Markintime

Perhaps this may be a clue to these actions. I have been struggling with the 'why' of all this. Why effectively open up another front? If it is to put a stop to any Pak-Indian cooperation why would they (AQ?) fear such an alliance? Do they see it as being effective against them and if so why? Will such terrorist outbreaks not potentially strengthen such an alliance. Will Hindu terrorists try to carry out reprisals in India (likely) or even Pakistan (less likely).
Naturally the greater populace will blame Pakistan just as after 7/7 the British people immediately looked abroad for foreign influence. The population of India may start calling for affirmative action from its Government against Pakistan which may well bring Pakistan and India to loggerheads. Such action may prompt the US to step in and broker a deal to maybe do a carpet bombing campaign of the Pakistani AQ badlands with the blessing of both Governments as a way out of any possible impasse, or would that be playing further into AQ's hands?
Pakistan has aspirations to being a world player, it doesn't need this sort of trouble although it mustn't alienate its mainly muslim population by appearing to pander to the West or to be indescriminate against fellow Muslims. The taking of Western hostages is of significance here, is the aim to goad USA or UK into military action and, if so, against whom? Are the hostages just a sideshow designed to make sure news of this action is carried as far round the globe as is possible? As has already been alluded to, the Americans are unlikely to even be aware of these goings on without US hostages having been taken.

I read you, but I think you're wrong. Here's my conjecture..

Why. Pak and India of course are each other's enemy number 1. Islamic seperatists have been bombing Bombay for years, The Gateway to India where the Taj Mahal Hotel is (see my photo just above) was blown up in 2003 killing 90 people. There are bus bombings every year and you may remember the train bombings that killed hundreds. All Bombay. All muslim extremist agression.

The bombing of Pak wild lands by the US is obviously a upsetting fact for many. Let us not forget the Marriott in Islamabad got blown up last month.

I do not believe in any way that the ISI or Pak is behind the attacks. Though politically that may be tricky for an Indian to say.

Someone asked why now. I suggest that the plan has been on the drawing board for months. The recession is causing less and less businessmen to fly to Bombay each day so it strikes me that the sooner the plan is executed, the more brits and yanks they might get.

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

this latest, arguably second worst sophisticated terrorist attack in the world.

My bold, I heard the same on news this morning. I'm not sure whats so sophisicated about an armed group walking into a hotel and going 'weapons free'.

I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. A couple of magazines of ammo and a busy place has wreaked more havoc than the 7/7 bombers ever could. Hope its not the start of a trend.

TB

Originally Posted by TopBadger

Originally Posted by Mr Happy

this latest, arguably second worst sophisticated terrorist attack in the world.

My bold, I heard the same on news this morning. I'm not sure whats so sophisicated about an armed group walking into a hotel and going 'weapons free'.

I'm surprised this hasn't happened before. A couple of magazines of ammo and a busy place has wreaked more havoc than the 7/7 bombers ever could. Hope its not the start of a trend.

TB

Agreed. It doesn't seem very sophisticated to me either. Nor does it have to be. A lot of the early footage of the attacks show dozens of brave, liveried but unarmed doormen and bellhops doing their best to get people and bodies out while under fire.

There's not much security around these hotels. I was at the Jehan Numa in Bhopal (nice hotel but don't drink the water) and the only guard was carrying a Sten. If he had dropped it, he would have caused dozens of casualties on his own.

The fact that it took so long for the authorities to turn up and give the doormen a hand reveals part of the problem. It takes them far too long to organise themselves; a common failing because of India's mind-blowing bureaucracy.

Expect a large Indian contingent at the next big arms fair, mobbing the reps from H&K looking for modern weapons and some decent comms.

I notice the BBC is continuing its irritating habit of referring to the perpetrators of such attacks as Islamic(ist) "militants". No, they are terrorists, pure and simple.

In the same manner, they refer to Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassem Brigades as "militants", when they are proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the HM Government.

The term "militant" tends to imply a degree of legitimacy, where none exists.

Sophistication found in the preparation, clandestine movement into place and financing of dozens of attackers to simultaneously attack a multitude of targets...maybe?