Bomb blast in pune

[Hacker]

America goes into Iraq captures Saddam Hussein takes him to America performs a trial for the sake of it and hangs him to death.

Saddam had no connection with 9/11, they went to iraq for oil not to capture any terrorists.

 

[samwisedabrave]

^^ Correction..they went to Iraq to liberate Kuwait.
They went to Afghanistan to capture terrorists
Taking away oil from Iraq is just conspiracy theory..the whole thing is monitored by the UN. Though how much underhand deals is going on, is anyone's guess..
America is anyways taking oil from Kuwait, as the price for their freedom...they have even setup military bases in the Gulf to maintain their presence..

 

[Karthikeyan29]

That's so sad man May she R.I.P.

Really sorry dude..May her soul RIP

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

they went to iraq for oil not to capture any terrorists

Which is why the Iraqi provincial government is holding competitive bids from across the world for its oil fields right? Seriously....the Americans have the saudis by the balls, they don't need more oil...

And these attacks will only go up once the NATO pullout finally goes through in Afghanistan. Thats the price you have to pay for a leadership that doesn't have the balls to fight its own war. The WoT in Afghanistan is OUR war too, NATO needs men and equipment, we have a million man army and equipment just sitting here doing exercises every few months.

Deploy our troops to Afghanistan, support NATO there and ensure there is no pullout till a Northern Alliance backed, India loving government is in place. Talks with the packees won't do you any good, everytime you've talked with them you've been slapped on your faces. Grow a brain and stop listening to "liberal" "secular" "enlightened" morons that comprise your "elites".

 

[blr_p]

Which is why the Iraqi provincial government is holding competitive bids from across the world for its oil fields right? Seriously....the Americans have the saudis by the balls, they don't need more oil...

Bids are over, one chinese JV, not a single US firm selected, hope that kills the war-for-oil reason.

And these attacks will only go up once the NATO pullout finally goes through in Afghanistan. Thats the price you have to pay for a leadership that doesn't have the balls to fight its own war. The WoT in Afghanistan is OUR war too, NATO needs men and equipment, we have a million man army and equipment just sitting here doing exercises every few months.

Deploy our troops to Afghanistan, support NATO there and ensure there is no pullout till a Northern Alliance backed, India loving government is in place.

Biggest problem is logistics. And for the US as well, we could not get involved earlier or they would have threatened the US supply line. It also begs the question when they do pullout what our chances of success would be given it cost them dearly todate and its really up in the air how well things will go. This year is crucial and all wish ISAF will be successful.

If you look at the number of attacks most have happened whilst NATO was there, the perps have been desperately trying to get us to do something but keep on failing. In 2001 & 26/11 there was not a thing we could have done without endagering the Afghan mission, this is the major reason there was no retaliation. After they pullout i'm not so sure we would keep on taking it on the chin and the other party knows that.

I've discussed that troops deployment idea many times, it appears cheaper just to suport the NA with money & arms. That's what the US did during the cold war anyway. But this time the Russians also have an interest in keeping it that way.

Talks with the packees won't do you any good, everytime you've talked with them you've been slapped on your faces. Grow a brain and stop listening to "liberal" "secular" "enlightened" morons that comprise your "elites".

This is question of the moment isn't it

What's clear is whenever any talks are announced, attacks happen. If we ignore these attacks and say we will go ahead anyway, we are talking to a potential collaborator and look weak. So good arguments for both options but not heard a decisive one yet.

Let's see what south block comes up with.

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

Biggest problem is logistics. And for the US as well, we could not get involved earlier or they would have threatened the US supply line.

The packees can't threaten the supply lines of any country. Their economy is propped up by the Americans and groups like Friends of Pakistan and to some extent the Chinese. If the packees could have resisted American pressure they'd not have listened to Bush when he gave them his "Either you're with us or against us" speech.

What could be done is to leverage India's good-will with Iran, Tajikistan and other central Asian states and help the Russians open a corridor to Afghanistan.

Iran would probably be the best option since they also have a valuable deep sea port called Chahbahar which has direct land access to the interiors of AFghanistan courtesy the Zeranj-Delaram highway (but well, America papa has made it an issue of self esteem with the Iranians..so that can effectively be ruled out)

it appears cheaper just to suport the NA with money & arms.

That is there, but the NA at their peak were no match for the taliban..the tajiks, hazaras and Uzbeks who dominate the NA are not fighters like the pashtun.

During the times of the Taliban these same guys were reduced to a ragtag bunch of crew supported by major world powers but were still unable to dislodge the Talibanis, until after papa sam came in and dropped a few jdams here and there.

If we ignore these attacks and say we will go ahead anyway, we are talking to a potential collaborator and look weak.

We have always done the talk business. We've never done the action part. Can only hope the govt grows some balls.

 

[Lord Nemesis]

Just read about this. Another sad affair

This situations not going to change any time soon with the way things are in our country. Instead of focusing on blame games and peace talks, the govt badly needs to focus on internal security.

Its bad enough that our country does not have enough security on the borders and sea routes and not enough filtering of shady elements crossing borders across legal channels, but whats worse is that when a terror attack happens, our intelligence agencies do not have a clue whether its a terror attack from across the border or from people within trained across the borders or from people within for totally different political or other motives.

Americans claim that they sent intelligence of a possible attack, What happened to that. Is it just ignored and buried in the bureaucracy? America suffered surprise attacks during WWII because their bureaucracy buried British intelligence reports sent them months earlier. Thats when they became paranoid about their security. How many attacks do we need for the govt to at least care about improving security leave alone be paranoid about it. I know its hard in our country, but at least start somewhere. Today, we do not have enough security from internal threats, leave alone external. We have too much chaos in the country and it makes it ideal for such attacks to happen.

Another thing, why the heck would that waiter open an unattended package like that? Hasn't it been pretty common all over for terror elements to use bombs designed to activate on touching or opening packages. A bit of vigilance is need from the people as well.

 

[panther]

War is not going to happen even is there is another 26/11. Corporate India is not going to allow it. We have a growth rate target to meet every year for the next 20 years. The economy comes first & foremost.

We grow, become strong, and absorb these attacks, get it

Corporate india is non factor, it is pak's daddy USA and her mother China.. they wouldn't allow india to attack pak, it happened in 2004, when USA ripped indian's ball to tone down war rhethoric.

 

[blr_p]

The packees can't threaten the supply lines of any country. Their economy is propped up by the Americans and groups like Friends of Pakistan and to some extent the Chinese. If the packees could have resisted American pressure they'd not have listened to Bush when he gave them his "Either you're with us or against us" speech.

I agree they could not say no, but that does not mean an unconditional yes

This is the sticking point. The US at the time had only them as a way to get supplies through. How different it would have been if Iran-US relations were not as bad.

What could be done is to leverage India's good-will with Iran, Tajikistan and other central Asian states and help the Russians open a corridor to Afghanistan.

Yes, but what is the end goal here and could it also be achieved for less. In any case I hope they don't cut & run, mid 2011 is when this question will come up again. If it goes well obama gets another term otherwise he's out.

Iran would probably be the best option since they also have a valuable deep sea port called Chahbahar which has direct land access to the interiors of AFghanistan courtesy the Zeranj-Delaram highway (but well, America papa has made it an issue of self esteem with the Iranians..so that can effectively be ruled out)

Not until the current nuke thing in Iran is sorted out.

That is there, but the NA at their peak were no match for the taliban..the tajiks, hazaras and Uzbeks who dominate the NA are not fighters like the pashtun.

During the times of the Taliban these same guys were reduced to a ragtag bunch of crew supported by major world powers but were still unable to dislodge the Talibanis, until after papa sam came in and dropped a few jdams here and there.

Yep, i dont see us not supporting them, whether its will be with blood or only treasure is tbd.

We have always done the talk business. We've never done the action part. Can only hope the govt grows some balls.

I think the talks should go ahead just not on what they are billed for, maybe talk about weather, IPL or SRK

This way we're not looking weak either way but the bigger reason is it does not endanger the current Taliban offensive which will be ongoing for the next yeah & a half.

Tho it must be accepted if we do so there will be more attacks here, we will have to absor b them and continue in the interests of larger goals.

Corporate india is non factor, it is pak's daddy USA and her mother China.. they wouldn't allow india to attack pak, it happened in 2004, when USA ripped indian's ball to tone down war rhethoric.

I meant its the biggest internal factor. In the end the decison rests with us. Ultimately its in our interest to see the Afghan war conclude in our favour and not have it sabotaged over minor incidents.

US opposed us in '71 did it make a difference ? China did not do a thing during Kargil.

This does not mean we go all out & invade, war by proxy is still possible which we don't do right now.

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

In any case I hope they don't cut & run, mid 2011 is when this question will come up again.

lol, if they cut and run India will be amongst the biggest losers. We've constantly advocated a no-taliban-in-Afghanistan policy without realising that the majority of Afghanistan's population is made up of pashtuns who will support the talibunnies over the Northern Alliance simply because of feelings of brotherhood. The day Karzai gets the boot and a talib government takes over AFghanistan, they'll realise that hey, the only two people around us who screwed us over were Pakistan and to some extent India.

The ummah factor/durand line/pashtun population on either side of those borders will ensure that the talibs will eventually reconcile with the packees (inspite of traditional packee treachery). That only leaves one enemy for the talibani moron, the kuffar idol worshipper to the east, India.

The government has recognised this and I seriously feel that one of the reasons for the recent resumption of talks were the london summit where it was decided that the taliban hold a place in how Afghanistan functions. They are trying to get through the situation with their heads below the desk hoping we're not noticed.

Thing is you can't predict what will happen in the sh1thole called Afghanistan. If the talibs take over, then we'll have to support the NA all over again and it'll be back to the 90's WRT our foreign policy there, if by some miracle a india-favoring government comes to power then like Aamir khan says, aal ij well..lol

 

[blr_p]

lol, if they cut and run India will be amongst the biggest losers.

Turn the clock back to the 90s and compare with the noughties. Were we safer before or after NATO moved in ?

Thing is you can't predict what will happen in the sh1thole called Afghanistan. If the talibs take over, then we'll have to support the NA all over again and it'll be back to the 90's WRT our foreign policy there, if by some miracle a india-favoring government comes to power then like Aamir khan says, aal ij well..lol

Exactly.

The government has recognised this and I seriously feel that one of the reasons for the recent resumption of talks were the london summit where it was decided that the taliban hold a place in how Afghanistan functions. They are trying to get through the situation with their heads below the desk hoping we're not noticed.

We were blocked at that summit, no input whatsoever. It was more of a UK+Pak exercise for the sake of the upcoming UK elections. Nothing of substance.

We've constantly advocated a no-taliban-in-Afghanistan policy without realising that the majority of Afghanistan's population is made up of pashtuns who will support the talibunnies over the Northern Alliance simply because of feelings of brotherhood. The day Karzai gets the boot and a talib government takes over AFghanistan, they'll realise that hey, the only two people around us who screwed us over were Pakistan and to some extent India.

I think the Afghans already realise that right now by comparing the past with the present.

The ummah factor/durand line/pashtun population on either side of those borders will ensure that the talibs will eventually reconcile with the packees (inspite of traditional packee treachery).

And bite off the NWFP ? This is the main concern with having a non-taliban govt for the Paks.

 

[broadway]

What does the blast mean? Who knows.
But if i compare the things we know with the gut feelings then this is what i get.

Suppliers
RDX was either procured from pakistan or bangladesh since you can't procure that explosive unless you work for the indian army.

People responsible
Most probably indian. A witness who spoke to the bomber said the bomber spoke in a think indian accent. I think he was pointing at a southern accent rather than a punjabi pakistani.

Who ordered the hit?
First you need to know whether it was an indian or a pakistani who ordered the hit. The order could have come from pakistan to disrupt the coming FS talks. What would an IM group achieve from a blast in pune? Hence i think the perpetrators were indian but the orders came from across the border.

B. Raman was on india tonight yesterday where they were discussing if FS talks should be affected. A 30 min show is not enough to put the point across. He continues here on his blog.

Should India talk to Pakistan when it continues to use terrorism as a weapon to keep us destabilized?

This question has been confronting us for nearly 30 years since Pakistan started supporting Khalistani terrorism in 1981 and extended this support subsequently to terrorist groups in Kashmir and other parts of India.

This question has conceptual and tactical dimensions. The conceptual aspect is: Should we talk at all? Can talks and terrorism go together?

The tactical dimension is if we decide to talk when, how and under what circumstances.

Conceptually, different Prime Ministers have maintained a certain flexibility of approach. The seven hijackings of Indian Airlines aircraft to Pakistan between 1981 and 1984 and the blowing up of the Kanishka aircraft of Air India in June 1985 by Khalistani terrorists did not prevent the so-called cricket diplomacy when Gen.Zia-ul-Haq and Rajiv Gandhi were in power in the two countries. Rajiv Gandhi accepted a proposal from the then Crown Prince of Jordan for secret meetings between the heads of the R&AW and the ISI to discuss Indian complaints against Pakistan.

The fact that nothing came out of this exercise did not inhibit Narasimha Rao from meeting Nawaz Sharif, the then Pakistani Prime Minister, thrice at Davos, Jakarta and Harare in the margins of international conferences to discuss bilateral relations with specific reference to Pakistani involvement in Punjab and Kashmir.

Similarly, Atal Behari Vajpayee did not hesitate to meet Nawaz Sharif in Lahore in February,1999, and Gen.Pervez Musharraf at Agra as our guest in 2001 despite Islamabad’s failure to satisfy our demands for the arrests and handing-over for trial of 20 Khalistani, Kashmiri and other jihadi terrorists, including many hijackers and those involved in the March,1993, serial blasts in Mumbai.

The initiatives taken by Vajpayee in 1999 and again in 2001 despite the Kandahar hijacking and the Kargil conflict were devoid of results just as those of Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao were.

Does that mean they were wrong in having taken those initiatives? The hard-liners will say yes, but those, who advocate a more nuanced approach, will see such initiatives as part of a necessary dual policy---- a firm line to make Pakistan realize that terrorism will damage it more than India tempered by a flexibility to enable Pakistan come out of the jihadi trap which it has created for itself.

The fact that wisdom has not so far prevailed on Pakistan does not mean that one was wrong in trying a mix of powers of persuasion and coercion, with the support of the international community where available.

The tactical dimension involves the timing of our shift from firmness to flexibility. If the timing is not carefully decided, one might create a wrong impression in the minds of the Pakistani leadership that its use of terrorism has paid and that India has blinked.

We rightly took a firm line after the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai that there will be no more formal composite dialogue with Pakistan till Pakistan gave us satisfaction on the question of terrorism. It has taken some action under US pressure, but not to our complete satisfaction.

While taking note of the action taken by it, we should have kept up the pressure through our own efforts as well as through the US for giving full satisfaction.

Our tactical decision to propose a meeting of the Foreign Secretaries of the two countries on February 25 not for resuming the formal dialogue, but to discuss the progress in the action against terrorism taken by Pakistan was wrongly timed.

There are indications of fresh political instability in Pakistan, with pressure for the exit of President Asif Ali Zardari mounting. Pakistan has also been under increasing pressure from the US to do more against Al Qaeda and the Afghan and Pakistani Talibans. By proposing fresh talks at this stage, we have enabled the Pakistani leaders to divert attention away from their own troubles and re-focus on what they project as their problems with India and their perceived success in making India blink.

This was a serious tactical mistake committed by us. We should have waited at least till Shri P. Chidambaram’s visit to Islamabad for the SAARC Home Ministers’ meeting to see the outcome before considering new initiatives.

Having committed this mistake, we will be compounding it further by giving in to public pressure for the cancellation of the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries because of the Pune terrorist attack of February 13. By doing so, we will be handing over a propaganda victory to the terrorists.

We should go ahead with the meeting of the Foreign Secretaries and use it to reinforce our firm line that there can be no forward movement in Indo-Pakistan relations without effective action by Pakistan against the anti-India terrorists.

This is not the time for rhetoric, which could prove counter-productive. This is the time for an intelligent approach to the problem so that neither our firmness is diluted nor any scope for meaningful flexibility is damaged. ( 16-2-10)

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

Whats appaling is "hawks" like B.Raman advocating that we talk with the packees all the while knowing that there is nothing that can be gained from these talks in the first place! Have our external intelligence agencies like RAW become so impotent that they cannot carry out hits on dudes like Masood Azhar or Hafeez Saeed, or is it just the impotent government holding them back?

Propaganda victories like the one we just handed to them by agreeing to talk without any pre-requisites are just what the sh1thole needs to prevent it from collapsing upon itself.

The packjabi mindset thrives on victories like these, ghazni, ghori, Aurangzeb, Turkish invasions these are stories that drive this cesspit of a nation forward. Images of planting packee flags on top of the red fort or thrashing up the idol worshipper and yehudi is the fuel that drives these guys forward.

The logical step would have been to stop all dialog and just sit back and watch them kill each other apart. They're right on the brink of a massive shia/sunni riot in Karachi, their armies are not venturing into the troubled north western regions, their economy is in shambles, what is there to gain by talking with these packees?

Its stupid, the packees are threatening us by holding a gun to their own head, lol. "Talk with us or we'll blow ourselves up and you might get hit by the splinters". Manmohan Singh is the softest prime minister we have had to date. Chidamberam seems to have a handle on things at the home ministry but when you have a donkey pulling a freight train theres only so fast that you can go...

 

[broadway]

Did you even read ramans reasoning?

Bio-data of B.Raman

Was the head of the Counter-terrorism division of the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), India’s external intelligence agency, from 1988 to 1994.

We have a habbit of ignoring or not listening to what pakistan has to say as most of it is just rhetoric. Sometimes they do have something sincere to say.

Pakistan uses state terrorism for the following reasons:
1) To force india to let go off kashmir by creating an environment where the indian state is at loss if it continues to keep kashmir.
2) Force india to talk and there off accede kashmir to pakistan in return for assurances of normalcy
3) Strangulating indian economy
4) Keeping india engaged in south asia and there by preventing it from influencing it's powers further than south asia. China wins.

Since india is already inviting pakistan to the discussion table, i do not see a hand of ISI sponsored terrorists in pune's blast. Since forcing india to talk is pakistan's objective, the pune blast only jeopardizes that objective hence i do not think pakistani state terrorism was involved in pune's blast.

It could either be IM or a small time jihadi group in pakistan who gave the orders. It could also be a beginning of a momentum to jeopardize the common wealth games since foreigners where attacked.

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

Did you even read ramans reasoning?

I know who B.Raman is, why do you think I called him a hawk?

And his basic premise of talking with the packees is the hope that somehow they can be reasoned with. Now the man obviously is more experienced in these affairs than either of us but that does not mean that we should share every single view of his.

When you have your sworn enemy by the balls, generally the smartest thing to do is give them a good tug. Not release them and offer him candy.

 

[broadway]

Here's is pakistan trying to tell us that there state had nothing to do with the pune blast.

Gilani offers to step up intelligence cooperation with India

It is now generally believed that india has emerged victorious against pakistani state terrorism. It couldn't force india to hand over kashmir to pakistan. I think there terror policy can serve only one interest, which is to force india for talks. India cannot sit quite when they continue to radicalize few indian muslims and execute attacks through them. Obviously, the intention is not to wipe out indian population. It is to scare people, investor confidence and force india to talk. India is second to iraq when it comes to terrorist incidents and that still doesn't scare people. Indian economy is booming. When india retaliated in kargil, investors supported the actions by propping up the index values.

Hence, i think the only objective left is to force india to talk. Agreeing to talk to pakistan was a big mistake as raman has said himself. But since we have given our words, we cannot go back now and cancel the talks as it will look bad on us.

One of the reasons why it is thought that US forced us to talk to pakistan. Here

But our past meetings were at our initiative and not under US pressure. In the past, we did not allow the US to exercise any pressure.

Since we have started to wonder whether to go ahead with the talks after the pune blasts, i guess that's why senator kerry was here in india to keep the pressure, which is to talk.

 

[l33t_5n1p3r_max]

It could either be IM or a small time jihadi group in pakistan who gave the orders. It could also be a beginning of a momentum to jeopardize the common wealth games since foreigners where attacked.

Weird, didnt see the rest of your post, must be something wrong with the board s/w or my network...

Agree with whatevers written in the rest of your posts.

 

[blr_p]

What does the blast mean? Who knows.

Just to show they are still alive. Its been a 14 month gap, something had to happen sooner or later.

First you need to know whether it was an indian or a pakistani who ordered the hit.

Domestic given the IM has had a number of arrests in 2008, 24 of thier outfit got busted and the leader has absconded. So this is their proof of life.

The order could have come from pakistan to disrupt the coming FS talks.

Where it comes from matters less as being able to create the perception that they can interfere in the activities of both countries. This is used as a selling point for more funding from ppl that think they can deliver on Kashmir, given Pak govt is too weak to take it from us.

What would an IM group achieve from a blast in pune?

Publicity

B. Raman was on india tonight yesterday where they were discussing if FS talks should be affected. A 30 min show is not enough to put the point across. He continues here on his blog.

His reasoning is sound in going forward with the talks but with the relevant riders.