Why can't India have a war on terrorism, too?

[Chumma Fun]

Please post your views about these article...

Why can't India have a war on terrorism, too?
!
[This message has been edited by Chumma Fun (edited January 01, 2002).]

[Michael Ernest]

Here are some questions to consider in the processL What is India's track record for seeking multilateral action against its enemies? Which other superpowers does it count as historical or treaty-based allies? How much does India spend on foreign aid every year? Which other countries does India offer medical, military, and logistical aid to in times of crisis and in return support India's actions abroad?

[Sameer Jamal]

One week back I used to think that the only solution for terrorism is the war against them, but three days back my friend who was a army person died in a mine explosion (in Kashmir ) then I thought, We r sitting in our home and office and discussing about the war against terror, Ask those people who r fighting at border or fighting against terrorism, War is not the only soultion it will shed more blood, there will be more killing, find out the root cause of terrorism, why the people become terrorist, they are also human being like us what cause them to become a terrorist, It dosent matter if Osama bin laden will be killed in the war after some time another Osama will be born we have to identify the root cause. again I say War is not the solution

[Paul Stevens]

Face it there are some in the world who kill because they like it. It doesn't matter what they say caused it this time. There will always be something else that causes it if you give in on 1 thing. Talk only solves so many problems. This belief that all people are basically good is wrong. There are those who aren't. They kill for power. They kill for fun. So if you think turning the other cheek time and time again is ok. Then keep doing so. It won't end by doing so and asking why did you kill this time.

[Cindy Glass]

Originally posted by Sameer Jamal:
find out the root cause of terrorism, why the people become terrorist, they are also human being like us what cause them to become a terrorist

Of course we would never agree on what the TRUE root cause is.
Why do the angry Irish use terrorism? Why do the fundamentalist Islams use terrorism? Why did Hitler use a terrorism (of a slightly different sort)?
The truth is that many of mankind have a deep seated anger inside them, and they go LOOKING for a cause to justify using that anger. Today it is the fundamentalist Islams telling us how the US is so decadent that we must be killed. But if we weren't an issue, they would just find something else to fight against - because it is the FIGHT that they like. And the attitude is passed from father to son - with Mom helping out on occasion.
The only true way to eliminate the problem - is to erase the teaching of that anger in every household across the world. How to teach strength without teaching anger. Not an easy task.

[Jim Bertorelli]

The reason India can't attack Pakistan is, IMHO, the lack of sufficient power. The difference between India and Pakistan is not same as the diff. between US and Afghanistan.
Most importantly, these days wars are not won by just military power. They are won by economic might. Like it or not, US is not just a military super power, it is an economic super power as well. Countries may have the capability to defend US military but no country in the world can afford to "not do business" with the US. US economy drives the economy of a large part of the world. That's the reason all the European and Asian countries fell in line for the US action against the Taliban. Not even China dared to go agaist us.
No offence, but India lacks this might.

[Badriprasad Bumbabol]

Simply put, India does not have the military/economic/financial might to take on Pakistan and along with it , the other Islamic countries which will definitely swing in Pakistans Favour if there was to be a war. Also Post-Sept 11, the US owes a favour to Pakistan who let them use her Air-Space, Military bases and other Support which Pakistan (willingly or unwillingly is not the issue)has given to the US.
If a major Conflict arises, the Pakistanis will not hesitate in asking help from the US and the US will be obliged to help them(directly or indirectly).
Keeping in mind all this, India Dare not wage a war Against Pakistan, at least not now.
Tintin

[sonny kher]

I think Jim is right, India (nor pakistan) have the stomach to wage a full fledged war against each other. But even though this might be news to some of you, both countries have very very good armies. But having said that, India definitely has the upper hand.
Will the US support Pakistan? I am not too sure it will, though the pakastanis sided with the americans, it was not that they are great supporters of the fight against islamic fundamentalists or the so called jihad that they preach. Oh no, if the terrorism in kashmir is any indication, they have always used it to their own advantage and no one knows this better than the US government. Pakistan is definitely next on the United states list of nations that harbor terrorists, but the fact is that they are not as hard headed as some of the others (syria, iraq for example) and IMHO they can and will be coerced into withdrawing support from all such activities. The US will never support pakistan(atleast directly, which is more important because the pakistani army is not so weak that they will require a spare missile here and a spare tank there to help it win a war with India). They simply cannot not least because of their own standpoint (and their current campaign) against global terrorism.
If anything, India is helping the united states by making pakistan realize it means business and that it should stop wagin a proxy war with India.

[Corey McGlone]

For some time now, I've been wondering about the impact that the global alliance against terrorism has had on the way nations think and deal with one another. After what was, undeniably, one of the most atrocious terrorist attacks in history, the US gained significant support from nations around the world by creating an alliance against all terrorism. As Bush once said, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
As was seen in the Middle East shortly thereafter, however, was what I think of a country "crying terror," much like the little biy that "cried wolf." (Hopefully, you all remember your childhood stories. ) After the Palistineans attacked the Israelis (including an assasination of a high Israeli official), the Inraelis begain to yell "terrorist!" and, by what was laid out by the US and the UN in the creation of the alliance, the rest of the world should have come running to help (and to some extent, they did - a lot of pressure has been put on the Palistineans to stop these attacks).
Now, in India, we seem to have the same thing happening. After the suicide attacks by a number of Palistineans, India begain yelling "terrorist!" Now, it's up to the rest of the world (according to the terms of the alliance) to come running to India's aid.
Applebaum makes a significant point, though. Who will everyone side with? A year ago, I don't think many people would have doubted that Pakistan, like Afghanistan, harbored and supported terrorists. Now, however, after backing the US war in Afghanistan against great internal protest, does the alliance owe Pakistan a favor? Should they be given the benefit of the doubt? On the other hand, does one good deed make them exempt from the rules next time?
This is a difficult situation and I hope that it does not come to war, but I don't see an easy solution. What India calls terrorists, Pakistan calls freedom fighters. What India calls state support, Pakistan calls moral support. Personally, I think that when the Pakistani "freedom fighters" attacked in December, they were attacking civilians, which now makes them, without a doubt, terrorists. But, who is right and where is the line drawn between evil terrorists and the oppressed fighting for what they believe in? Think about the American Revolutionary War for a minute - weren't the Americans being oppressed by the British? Would many people say that the Americans acted as terrorists? I doubt it. Yet another difficult decision, if you ask me.
So now I wonder, how many more times will people "cry terrorist" and how many times will the alliance of nations come running to help until they don't believe the cry or simply don't care?
I just wish it would all stop.
Corey

[Jason Menard]

I have a general rule of thumb for separating terrorists from legitimate freedom fighters.
Terrorists attack civillians, freedom fighters don't.
Palestinieans, IRA, Kashmiri "separatists", Hizzbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Queda, the group in the Phillipines kidnapping people and beheading them (can't remember thier name), the Chechens, etc... all terrorists.
Any legitimate greivances they might have are made irrelevant by their methods.
Legitimate freedom fighters restrict their attacks to legitimate military targets. The ends do not justify the means.

[sonny kher]

legitimate freedom fighters are not foreign to the land they are fighting for. Most militants in Kashmir are Pakistanis, Afghans and Chechnyans. More than half the original population has already fled the area.

[Sameer Jamal]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
[B]I have a general rule of thumb for separating terrorists from legitimate freedom fighters.
Terrorists attack civillians, freedom fighters don't.
what do u call what America did it in vietnam and in Iraq freedom fight ?

[Michael Ernest]

We call those military campaigns in support of our allies, Sameer, namely a democratically-inclined Vietnamese political body and Kuwait. Military forces who hide among civilians and knowingly put them at risk, we call them guerillas. In the case of Saddam Hussein, we just call him a coward with a big mouth.

[Ashley Pratt]

So Micheal, what do u call millitants in kashmir..who r also hiding in civilians...
then attack..result of that civilians gets killed..and then they name them as jihad..
Maximum of locals there living in isolated brackets or already shifted to different cities..
When Bush says "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Then what is his policy now..In which side he is now!!!
Ashley..

[Ashley Pratt]

Pakistan who is claiming himself to be a partner of fight againist terrorism..
pakistan is the same country which makes taliban..
They are the one who are putting Pakistanis, Afghans and Chechnyans in kashmir and calling them "Freedom Fighters".
At one end pakistan wants to be a part of world alliance againt terrorism and gain all the sympathy and benefits from it and at the other end they are one who are harboring it also..
And above all Bin Laden is also enjoying his time in pakistan itself.
Ashley

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by ashley:
So Micheal, what do u call millitants in kashmir..who r also hiding in civilians...
then attack..result of that civilians gets killed..and then they name them as jihad..
Maximum of locals there living in isolated brackets or already shifted to different cities..
When Bush says "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Then what is his policy now..In which side he is now!!!
Ashley..

Are you asking if I agree wholesale with Bush's definitions? I don't. In a informed debate, we deem guilt-by-association a logical fallacy. But Bush is not saying people who harbor terrorists are terrorists. He's saying they're sympathetic to their cause, and that's good enough for George Dubya to say (more or less) to hell with the lot of 'em. Shrug.
Clearly it's more important for him not to mince words than make distinctions we normally maintain for the sake of a just-minded society. You know, get rid of time-consuming sophistries like "harboring a fugitive is a crime, but it is not the same as being a fugitive."

[Marcus Green]

Michael said..
"We call those military campaigns in support of our allies"
And thus it involves attacking civillians.
The distinction that
"Terrorists attack civillians, freedom fighters don't."
Is spurious, the time (if it ever existed) when only combatants were in danger during a war is long gone. To give a couple of examples the British carpet bombed Dresden causing fire bombing of civilian areas, the Americans had a huge bombing campaign of Vietnam and Cambodia. I'm sure people can give other examples.
Marcus
------------------

http://www.jchq.net Mock Exams, FAQ,
Tutorial, Links, Book reviews
Java 2 Exam Prep, 2nd Edition by Bill Brogden and Marcus Green
=================================================
JCHQ, Almost as good as JavaRanch
=================================================

[Jason Menard]

Sameer Jamal: "what do u call what America did it in vietnam and in Iraq freedom fight?"
I call fighting in Vietnam a)helping an ally (France) who bailed after Dien Bien Phu and b)attempting to fight a Communist insurgency during the Cold War. We were living in a bipolar world at the time and that's just how things were done back then. Vietnam was basically the US vs Russia. Russia came out on top on that one, but the US took a page out of their book when it came to the Russians in Afghanistan. But that was 30 years ago and many things have changed.
I call fighting in Iraq defending vital national interests, defending an ally (Saudi Arabia), and liberating a friendly nation of great strategic value that had been taken over by an agressor. The truth is, the US produces 21% of the world's goods and we are a nation that is dependant on fossil fuels. Neither we nor our allies are going to sit around and let somebody threaten what is essentially our life blood. It may not be politically correct but that's the way it is. If Iraq had taken Kuwait, and then proceeded on to Saudi Arabia as they planned, they would have put a stranglehold on world oil supplies. This would not have only hurt us, but it would have also put a hurting on the rest of the world who depends on what we produce, as well as the rest of the nations who count on the uninteruppted flow of oil.
Freedom fighters are by definition indiginous to the area they are fighting in, so the Chechens and Arabs in Kashmir are not freedom fighters

[Jason Menard]

Marcus Green: "...Is spurious, the time (if it ever existed) when only combatants were in danger during a war is long gone."
When I used the word attacking I meant as in to actively and specifically target. If you want to go back many years you can find examples where that was not the case. That was then and this is now. I was attempting to frame things in terms of how things are now.
We do not target civillians. Is anybody in a combat zone, particularly anyone in or near a legitimate military target in danger? Of course.
While we may inadvertantly kill civillians in the course of legitimate military operations, or if we decide to target a high value military target regardless of the fact that the enemy is deliberately placing the asset in order to maximize civillian casualties, the same cannot be said of terrorists. These people are deliberately targetting civillians with the express purpose of causing a terror effect.
Attempting to apply the term terrorism, as some have done, to a military force conducting legitimate military operations in full compliance of international law, the laws of armed conflict, and the Geneva convention is absolutely absurd.
[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Sameer Jamal]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
They kill for power. They kill for fun.

I dont think so somebody can just blew himself and others just for fun

[sonny kher]

I find it funny when on the one hand you seek the approval of the United States and the american ppl by starting such a discussion and then make stupid comments that will only make them angry, especially in light of their recent losses


Vietnam happened way before I was born so I am in position to comment on it, though as far as I know it is one of the most hated wars, even by americans themselves. There should be no argument about the necessity of milatary action in Kuwait (though I wish the US/allies intentions were a little more noble than just their interest in the oil fields of kuwait) and more recently in Afghanistan.

[Michael Ernest]

I go back and forth on that point myself, Sonny. I mean, isn't it interesting how energy becomes the issue of the day when we have a Texan president?
At the same time, I think Jason's made the point: it's our way of life and the economic power we have that drives other economies, rather than our very survival, that we often fight for. It's not that we send young men and women out to die so we can have cheap gas. We do it so that Iraq cannot tell us whether we'll buy able to buy some as a military, rather than an economic, option.
Or something like that. This comes from a view that the anti-US sides loves to jump on as expansionist, but: being who we are means we have to protect the dominoes in front of us. If we wait until the rest of them fall, with the notion of "just defending our own," it will be too late.

[Axel Janssen]

One very important point of the article is that the superpower gets involved in conflicts of foreign countries. And local allies of the U.S. have exploited this in the past and will try to do so in the future, which is dangerous.
Bin Laden did exactly this when he was fighting against the russians in cold war. Some vietnamese oligarches did that. Some cuban oligarches did that in 1908. Not everything in U.S. foreign policy was free of naivity.
U.S. policy need local allies in the post-cold war conflicts (Pakistan, India). But U.S. has to choose to not to get involved to much in their local conflicts. So they used their influence in the region to search for easing of tension, which is intelligent.
Often when they talk about imperialistic U.S. the main reason in the past was a mixture of proneness to get used by others and anti-communistic paranoia.
Axel