Pakistan moving troops to Indian border

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Great. This should provide powerful cover for us to invade the NWFP. I hope Bush/Obama don't lose this opportunity to deal Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the ISI the blow they've been begging for.

link

Sources: Pakistan moves troops to India border

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistani troops have been moved to the Indian border amid fears of an Indian ground incursion, two Pakistani military officials told CNN on Friday.

The troops were deployed from Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan, where forces have been battling Taliban and al Qaeda militants in North West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

Pakistan's armed forces have been on high alert in anticipation of a possible conflict with India following last month's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, which killed 160 people.

India believes the 10 men who carried out the attacks were trained at a terrorist camp in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir.

A senior official said the troops had been moved from areas where there are no active military operations, and emphasized that troop levels have not been depleted in areas where soldiers are battling militants, such as the Swat Valley and the Peshawar area in the North West region.

In addition to the move, leave for all military personnel has been restricted and all troops were called back to active duty, the senior official said.

Asked for a reaction to the development, Husain Haqqani. Pakistani ambassador to the United States, said, "Pakistan does not seek war, but we need to be vigilant against threats of war emanating from the other side of our eastern border."

U.S. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the United States has been "in close contact" with India and Pakistan in probing the Mumbai attack and fighting terror. He is hoping that "both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times."

In London, England, Pakistani envoy to Britain Wajid Shamsul Hasan countered the report, noting that winter redeployments are normal and that only police and not the army had their vacation canceled. While he criticized India's "coercive diplomacy" and regretted India's "war hysteria," he underscored the fact that the two countries don't want to go to war.

Tensions increased between nuclear rivals India and Pakistan following the November 26 attacks in Mumbai, where militants launched a coordinated strike against luxury hotels, a Jewish center and other targets.

India has criticized Islamabad for not doing enough to counter terrorism, and it has accused elements within the Pakistan government and military of complicity in fueling terrorism in the region.

On Thursday, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi warned India to refrain from launching any strikes against Pakistan, according to a report in The Nation newspaper.

Another unnamed Pakistani military official told CNN that the Pakistani military has been taking precautionary measures to safeguard borders in the face of mounting military threats from India over the Mumbai attacks.

"Naturally, you have to take certain steps to stem that expected tide of Indian operations," he said, "You can't fight on both fronts so we have redeployed certain military elements from the western border to the northern border to meet Indian operations."

The official said that while Pakistan has tolerated U.S. missile strikes from Afghanistan into Pakistan, he believes the government and public would not stand for an Indian incursion.

In the Indian capital of New Delhi on Friday, three military chiefs briefed Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the security situation.

An Indian officer said Indian soldiers have spotted Pakistani troop movements along the Line of Control in Kashmir. The Line of Control divides the disputed region between the area controlled by India and the area administered by Pakistan.

Indian defense spokesman Sitanshu Kar said India isn't carrying out a troop buildup along its western borders but "is monitoring the situation closely." He also said he is "not aware" of military reports about Pakistani troop mobilization along the Indian border.

"But we are keeping a vigil," Kar said.

Indian and Pakistan have clashed over the disputed territory of Kashmir -- wracked by an 18-year, bloody separatist campaign that authorities say has left at least 43,000 dead. The two countries have fought three wars against each other since 1947.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?

I thought you were leaving? But since you're asking, North Korea could use a good beating.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,485
9,709
136
I wonder if Obama will side with Pakistan and/or try to play the role of third party and force a ceasefire as Bush did to Israel VS Lebanon. For some stupid reason we have a pattern of trying to preserve these hostile nations unless it?s our decision to go in.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?

I thought you were leaving? But since you're asking, North Korea could use a good beating.

See....this is part of your problem.

They did a study a few years back that basically proved that people will read a headline and never know what the context of the story was about. You seem to embody that. If you would have actually CLICKED THE FREAKING LINK, you would have seen that the title of my thread was sarcasm. But you and research don't really seem to be friends.

You see a headline and you automatically come to some mythical conclusion without the slightest bit of counter information to see which side is truly standing on the firmest ground. Who knows, you might even be right once in a while. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. But to automatically assume you are right without knowing what the other side of the argument is makes you look incredibly foolish even when you do find the occasional acorn.

Anyway, why bother to find out what someone's position is when it's way easier to just make shit up and then scream INVADE at the top of your lungs instead?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
These are not just any two squabbling nations, they are both nuclear weapons, and since India is by the larger nation, any large scale open conflict could cause on side or the other to use nukes.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?

I thought you were leaving? But since you're asking, North Korea could use a good beating.

See....this is part of your problem.

They did a study a few years back that basically proved that people will read a headline and never know what the context of the story was about. You seem to embody that. If you would have actually CLICKED THE FREAKING LINK, you would have seen that the title of my thread was sarcasm. But you and research don't really seem to be friends.

You see a headline and you automatically come to some mythical conclusion without the slightest bit of counter information to see which side is truly standing on the firmest ground. Who knows, you might even be right once in a while. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. But to automatically assume you are right without knowing what the other side of the argument is makes you look incredibly foolish even when you do find the occasional acorn.

Anyway, why bother to find out what someone's position is when it's way easier to just make shit up and then scream INVADE at the top of your lungs instead?

It must be that time of the month for you.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I wonder if Obama will side with Pakistan and/or try to play the role of third party and force a ceasefire as Bush did to Israel VS Lebanon. For some stupid reason we have a pattern of trying to preserve these hostile nations unless it?s our decision to go in.

Obama said that he'd be hawkish with Pakistan.. so I guess we'll have to wait and see what he'll actually do once he takes office. My gut tells me that he'll follow through with troop increases and more frequent attacks on AQ in NW Pakistan... I just hope my gut is correct.

 

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
Great. This should provide powerful cover for us to invade the NWFP. I hope Bush/Obama don't lose this opportunity to deal Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and the ISI the blow they've been begging for.

There won't be anyone there. All of the 'troops' have been moved down to the Indian border.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?

I thought you were leaving? But since you're asking, North Korea could use a good beating.

See....this is part of your problem.

They did a study a few years back that basically proved that people will read a headline and never know what the context of the story was about. You seem to embody that. If you would have actually CLICKED THE FREAKING LINK, you would have seen that the title of my thread was sarcasm. But you and research don't really seem to be friends.

You see a headline and you automatically come to some mythical conclusion without the slightest bit of counter information to see which side is truly standing on the firmest ground. Who knows, you might even be right once in a while. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. But to automatically assume you are right without knowing what the other side of the argument is makes you look incredibly foolish even when you do find the occasional acorn.

Anyway, why bother to find out what someone's position is when it's way easier to just make shit up and then scream INVADE at the top of your lungs instead?

It must be that time of the month for you.
pacifism doesn't have a time of the month. It is a life long affliction.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,705
54,702
136
Haha, cue the internet tough guys to come out and tell us about all the wars we should be starting.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
You basically have 53 NAZI like regimes coming up in the future. 21st century going to make the 20th look like a 60's commune.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, cue the internet tough guys to come out and tell us about all the wars we should be starting.
Are you saying that we started the war with AQ and the Taliban?! :confused:

Wake up fool. They've been hitting us from Pakistan, with near impunity, for more than eight years! IOW, this would not be the start of a war.. rather, it would be the beginning of the end of a war that our enemies began all those years ago.
 

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,695
1
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
My, you are quite the brave little warmonger this Christmas season.

Are there any other nations or groups of people that you would like to recommend to the new administration that we attack? And I'm sure that you are running down to your local recruiting office and waiting for the doors to open so that you can volunteer? Or you are advising everyone in your family that they should....right?

:thumbsup:

the American CIA was intimately involved with Al Qaeda in the '80's, and has had an ongoing relationship with the ISI to the extent of recently appointing one of their top managers.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, cue the internet tough guys to come out and tell us about all the wars we should be starting.
Are you saying that we started the war with AQ and the Taliban?! :confused:

Wake up fool. They've been hitting us from Pakistan, with near impunity, for more than eight years! IOW, this would not be the start of a war.. rather, it would be the beginning of the end of a war that our enemies began all those years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, palehorse is totally clueless. When the end goal is Afghan and Pakistani stability, the entire US effort for eight years and 16 years for that matter has been an inspired cluster Fuck guaranteed to produce anything but US desired goals.

Mistake after mistake, ever since Reagan used Afghanistan as a discard able tool to tweak the nose of the Russian bear, has lead up to the rise of the Taliban, and the larger misery of the Afghan people.

Our unfortunate marriage of convince with the corrupt Northern alliance may have accomplished short term goals, but as rotten as the Taliban is, the USA is now the greater danger to the safety of the Afghan people. It really takes inspired military incompetence and stupidity to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, and as a US citizen, I may understand how palehorse type cluelessness managed to screw the pooch, but I do not like it one damn bit.

Blaming palehorse is futile, he does not set totally inept GWB&co strategy, but as an advocate of it, palehorse on this forum needs to be labeled as clueless. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but its still the road to hell.

Hopefully Obama will be smarter, but that chapter is yet to be written.
 

tvarad

Golden Member
Jun 25, 2001
1,130
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, cue the internet tough guys to come out and tell us about all the wars we should be starting.
Are you saying that we started the war with AQ and the Taliban?! :confused:

Wake up fool. They've been hitting us from Pakistan, with near impunity, for more than eight years! IOW, this would not be the start of a war.. rather, it would be the beginning of the end of a war that our enemies began all those years ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, palehorse is totally clueless. When the end goal is Afghan and Pakistani stability, the entire US effort for eight years and 16 years for that matter has been an inspired cluster Fuck guaranteed to produce anything but US desired goals.

Mistake after mistake, ever since Reagan used Afghanistan as a discard able tool to tweak the nose of the Russian bear, has lead up to the rise of the Taliban, and the larger misery of the Afghan people.

Our unfortunate marriage of convince with the corrupt Northern alliance may have accomplished short term goals, but as rotten as the Taliban is, the USA is now the greater danger to the safety of the Afghan people....

The mother of all marriages of convince [sic] has been the one that the U.S. entered to with Pakistan right from the latter's independence, for the very same cold war reasons. That's what fed the belligerent monster that's become a threat to the world at large today.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Blaming palehorse is futile, he does not set totally inept GWB&co strategy, but as an advocate of it, palehorse on this forum needs to be labeled as clueless. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but its still the road to hell.
listen you arrogant fuck, I've never supported or encouraged Bush's half-assed "strategy" to win the war against the Taliban and AQ in central Asia.

I have always proposed a much more broad and effective strategy to deal with the AQ and Taliban scum throughout the entire region -- including the corruption in Kabul, Kandahar, Islamabad, Karachi, and everywhere in between.

Have I reminded you stop lying about my positions and to go fuck yourself lately? no?

consider it done.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,705
54,702
136
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Haha, cue the internet tough guys to come out and tell us about all the wars we should be starting.
Are you saying that we started the war with AQ and the Taliban?! :confused:

Wake up fool. They've been hitting us from Pakistan, with near impunity, for more than eight years! IOW, this would not be the start of a war.. rather, it would be the beginning of the end of a war that our enemies began all those years ago.

What are you babbling about? Don't talk to me about wars as if you know more than me. I was talking about all the idiots in this thread who think we should be starting wars with Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, etc. If you count yourself in with them, then consider me mocking you as well.
 

The Green Bean

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2003
6,506
7
81
Only the inactive troops are being moved for now. The ones involved in operations are where there are. So about 20,000 troops are being moved to the border.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has cancelled leave for 'operational' armed forces personnel and redeployed troops to the Indian border amid simmering tensions with New Delhi, a military official said Friday.

Relations between the South Asian neighbours have been badly strained since the Mumbai attacks, which New Delhi has blamed on Pakistan-based militants.

Islamabad says India has not provided it with evidence on which to act.

Both sides have said they do not want war, but warn they would act if provoked.

Pakistan's chief military spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas, declined to comment, but a senior defence ministry official confirmed some troops were being withdrawn from the northwest and sent to the eastern border.

'We do not want to create any war hysteria but we have to take minimum security measures to ward off any threat.

Leaves of all operational personnel of the armed forces have been cancelled as a defensive measure,' he told AFP.

Separately, Associated Press quoted intelligence officials as saying that Pakistan has begun moving thousands of troops away from the Afghan border toward India.

Two intelligence officials said the army's 14th Division was being redeployed to Kasur and Sialkot, close to the Indian border. They said some 20,000 troops were on the move.

An Associated Press reporter in Dera Ismail Khan, a district that borders the Afghan-frontier province of South Waziristan, said he saw around 40 trucks loaded with soldiers heading away from the Afghan border.

The Pakistani official said military authorities here had noticed the movement of Indian troops toward the border near Lahore, and that they believed India had also cancelled military leave.

In tandem with the military moves, civil defence authorities have launched a public awareness campaign in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani-administered Kashmir.

'We have launched an awareness campaign in Kashmir to prepare people for self-defence and response in an emergency situation, amid the looming threat of possible Indian aggression,' civil defence official Ghulam Rasool Nagra said.

Indian officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Friday with the chiefs of the army, navy and air force to discuss 'the prevailing security situation,' according to an official statement.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over Kashmir.

New Delhi has said the slow-moving peace process with Pakistan is now on hold in the wake of the attacks in Mumbai, which killed 172 people including nine of the gunmen.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
I wonder if Obama will side with Pakistan and/or try to play the role of third party and force a ceasefire as Bush did to Israel VS Lebanon. For some stupid reason we have a pattern of trying to preserve these hostile nations unless it?s our decision to go in.

Obama said that he'd be hawkish with Pakistan.. so I guess we'll have to wait and see what he'll actually do once he takes office. My gut tells me that he'll follow through with troop increases and more frequent attacks on AQ in NW Pakistan... I just hope my gut is correct.

The problem faced in Pakistan is remarkably complex. Not only are there very delicate ethical as well as political issues to be dealt with, but also that the situation has evolved over time, from the original Pashtun-York Rite relationship, to the present-day DIY projects that are proliferating in a region which has become essentially ungovernable. It is this latter situation which makes everything not only difficult to approach, but which also potentially opens a lot of doors which wouldn't normally be opened, not even by a blundering Bush administration.

If Pakistan is ungovernable, and if the Pashtuns have lost traction and the York Rite Freemasonic influence vanished, which it largely has, then we may be entering a new age and a new world of foreign policy and it will require not only an Obama, but the brain trust he has assembled, to create a novel approach creating an alloy of diplomacy and military intrusion unlike anything we in the west have done before.

If the Bush administration deserves praise for anything, it's for not going into an area where they had no clue. In point of fact the military has always ruled Pakistan, and in times when circumstances or policy dictate that they do so from the sidelines Pakistan's military leaders have assured their eventual return to the center of power by facilitating the chaos and oppression that guarantees their eventual acceptance as a welcome alternative to civilian government.

What makes it all especially pathetic is that, by perpetuating this system of junta rule, Pakistan is simply recapitulating its role under the British, when local military authorities ruled as iron-fisted proxies for distant imperial geopolitical interests.

This perverse, self-loathing internal colonialism will continue until the people who embody it are removed from power. If Obama intends to do anything constructive about Pakistan the first step will be to pry the military from the levers of power.

To that extent it isn't really a test of Obama's foreign policy chops so much as a test of his ability to rule his own bureaucracy. Pakistan's military junta derives a considerable amount of its authority within Pakistan from its ability to command respect and resources from abroad, and in particular from the United States.

If Obama is able to curb contacts between members of his administration and the convenient and familiar Pakistani faces they've done business with for 30 years, at all levels of decision-making, that will by itself have a profound impact on how Pakistan evolves.

And that, not "getting it right" in terms of policy issues, is what's really hard. If people hopeful for great things from Obama want to hold their breaths in suspense over something, make it be the question of whether he can actually bring the American domestic political apparatus to heel. Also, emphasis on bringing an end to "perverse, self-loathing internal colonialism." This is probably the lynchpin of the hell that is Pakistan, and until it can be broken, very little will change.