Latest details.

These people are monsters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/03/india.attacks/index.html

12/4/2008 4:42:11 PM

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/06/mumbai.attack.investigation/index.html#cnnSTCText

12/6/2008 1:23:48 PM

http://ishare.rediff.com/filevideo-Found-terrorist-at-pak-id-523698.php

12/6/2008 2:08:56 PM

^^ So it seems like it was planned and carried out by militants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, AND India.

12/6/2008 5:00:16 PM

Well the sabre rattling is getting pretty intense now. Looks like it's pretty easy for a handful of people to spark a conflict between two nuclear powers...

12/6/2008 5:36:20 PM

World War I anyone?

12/6/2008 6:52:01 PM

Someone just sent me a video by email with some blood-curdling footage of a large number of wooden stick wielding uni students savagely beating up 2 separate students that they gang up on inside what looks like a uni campus, while the police looks on.

Apparently, it is Hindu students beating up Muslim students, in India.

I would like confirmation, but there is no way to tell.

If you would like to receive this video, pm me your email address and I will send it to you.

WARNING: It will really depress you.

12/6/2008 8:59:52 PM

^ how do you know the students getting beat didn't deserve it?

12/6/2008 9:07:50 PM

It will get worse before it gets better, but I remain confident it won't come to war, or anything seriously resembling it.

Turns out that when two sides have the bomb, cooler heads tend to prevail. I'm not saying India and Pakistan will reach detente any time soon, or that internal violence within the respective countries will subside, but I have hope -- justifiably, I think -- that it will not really get that close to something really, really bad, and we all know what that is.

12/7/2008 3:13:45 AM

Quote :

"Turns out that when two sides have the bomb, cooler heads tend to prevail"

You know this.. how? During the Cold War, countries faced off over ideology. Russia and the US had no long standing / historical hatred for each other. India and Pakistan is a very different animal. For one, religion is involved, and once you throw that in there all bets are off. This religious strife is centuries old, not just a few decades old and religion has far more sway over men than some political ideology.

Now, I don't think it will escalate to all out war, but to try and use some sort of precedent that because two countries have the bomb it somehow makes them more rational doesn't work in this case. Pakistan is incredibly unstable right now. They also don't face MAD, since both countries nuclear arsenals are limited, and their ability to effectively employ them is somewhat questionable.

12/7/2008 4:18:05 AM

Quote :

"because two countries have the bomb it somehow makes them more rational"

This isn't what I'm suggesting. It does, however, appeal to the rationality that both sides do actually have. Self-preservation is pretty much the root function of rationality. People in both governments realize that even if a nuclear war doesn't kill them, starting one puts their political power or military influence on very tenuous ground. And, in the case of Pakistan and India, even an initially conventional war has decent odds at becoming nuclear.

12/7/2008 1:47:57 PM

Quote :

"^ how do you know the students getting beat didn't deserve it?"

Huh?

So you believe in mob justice now?

And what do you mean? Only one terrorist was caught alive, and the rest were killed during the siege.

12/7/2008 4:10:27 PM

^ huh? What terrorist are you talking about? Your post was about some video of a fight at a school.

mob justice has it's place though.

12/7/2008 4:52:03 PM

Quote :

"It does, however, appeal to the rationality that both sides do actually have. Self-preservation is pretty much the root function of rationality"

What evidence do you have that they are rational? Religion almost by definition is irrational. This conflict is purely fueled by religion, thus irrational. Again, this isn't the USA vs USSR, this is an entirely different ball game.

12/7/2008 4:56:44 PM

Quote :

"^ huh? What terrorist are you talking about? Your post was about some video of a fight at a school. mob justice has it's place though."

It was obvious what I meant by my original post. The person who sent me the video said that it showed reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims in India, because of the terrorist attack in Mumbai.

I said I want to confirm that.

And you said something completely insensitive and meaningless.

12/7/2008 5:30:10 PM

Quote :

"This conflict is purely fueled by religion"

Not in any meaningful sense it isn't. Religious factions haven't been at the head of either government in quite some time. There are sectarian elements in both governments, but they're far from the only ones responsible for the agitation between the two countries. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, mere national survival looms large in the minds of many Pakistanis -- their country is wedged between India and Afghanistan, with which India has a current and historically strong relationship. The idea of a "pincer move" to permanently eliminate the Pakistani state is a going concern there, but concern for the eradication of Muslims isn't -- remember, after all, that there are nearly as many Muslims in India as in Pakistan, and Afghanistan is an overwhelmingly Muslim country.

There's also institutional momentum. India and Pakistan have had their security apparatuses set up to fight each other since day one. And the reason for that is partially religiously based, and partly based on the wisdom of the last British colonials in ensuring that they split their previously unified subcontinent into three parts that would inevitably hate each other just out of proximity.

12/7/2008 10:21:13 PM

i hate to admit it, but i quit paying attention to this a long time ago.

weren't the terrorists really targeting US/British citizens? because that would make arguments about Pakis vs Hindus kind of irrelevant.

or did this selective targeting of westerners not really occur to any meaningful degree?

12/8/2008 6:05:51 PM

It is more like between Pakis and those who are considered as infidels by Pakis.

If there is ever going to be a victory in the "war on terror", it will only happen when the war is directly taken into Pakistan. Pakistan is center for those who provide the infrastructure for terror activities all over the world.

12/9/2008 5:34:20 PM

BTW, I wonder what kind of interrogation techniques were used on the terrorist in question. I'll bet they weren't playing patty-cake with the guy, that's for sure--and whatever they did, he sang like a bird.

What if Indian officials "tortured" the terrorist in question? Does this make India's government immoral?

FWIW, I don't know if this has been discussed here or not. I've been very busy lately and I continue to be.

12/10/2008 2:47:03 AM

^
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=550611

1) Have there been allegations along this line, that India's government has been torturing people?
2) Has India's president/leader made public statements implicitly supporting torture?
3) Why wouldn't it be "immoral" for their gov. to support torture?

12/10/2008 2:54:26 AM

^^ man, you're about as sharp as a bag of hammers.

it apparently hasn't connected with you that the guy is giving false and contradictory information. people who are being tortured will say anything and everything. every fucking intelligence officer has agreed that all info gained by torture is of highly questionable value.

i mean, damn. sometimes you're just really BAD at this. I swear you're just like my dad, who hasnt read a peer-reviewed science article in his life, and gets all his news from Rush Limbaugh.

i swear to god you people make me




[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 2:59 AM. Reason : ]

12/10/2008 2:58:57 AM

^^
1) Did the terrorist in question volunteer the valuable information that was obtained? Serious question--it's possible, I suppose.

2) Has India's president/leader made public statements implicitly supporting denouncing torture?

3) Define torture as (1) it relates to the Indian authorities' understanding of it and (2) as it relates to the specific incident at issue.

4) I saw no discussion of the Indian situation in your link.

^ You're an idiot if you actually believe any of that bullshit you just posted. You are nothing more than a Left Coast, anti-Semitic, nancy-boy know-it-all who attempts to appear superior to conservatives by lecturing them with the same old tired-ass far-left canards.

Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Calls Waterboarding Necessary But Torture
Former Agent Says the Enhanced Technique Was Used on Al Qaeda Chief Abu Zubaydah

Quote :

"A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary. In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds."

Quote :

"'From that day on, he answered every question,' Kiriakou said. 'The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231&page=1

Shut. . .the fuck. . up.

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 3:16 AM. Reason : .]

12/10/2008 3:02:41 AM

^ you're the one who brings up torture (out of nowhere too) and now you're asking ME to define it? haha

India has signed the UN Convention Against Torture though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Torture

[Edited on December 10, 2008 at 3:09 AM. Reason : ]

12/10/2008 3:04:50 AM

^ Great. Now, back to my central theme:

Quote :

"BTW, I wonder what kind of interrogation techniques were used on the terrorist in question."

12/10/2008 3:17:56 AM

^ that is actually a good question, but I can't fathom how we'll get an answer.

12/10/2008 3:24:10 AM

The truth is out there.

12/10/2008 3:24:41 AM

My suspicion is that torture was used, though it may or may not have been approved by higher-ups in the government. And even then, "torture" isn't as clearly defined as a lot of people in here think it is or want it to be. Still and all, I think it probably tended towards more harsh stuff. I doubt the guy sang this loud and this fast because he was put in a cold room with loud music for a few hours.

12/10/2008 2:32:34 PM

Wasn't a truth serum involved?

12/10/2008 3:19:03 PM