Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
King

Pakistan Vs India

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Laayla said:

Bismehe Ta3ala,

Assalam Alikum.

@starlight

@Marbles

As Shias are the minorities in Pakistan and victims of terrorism, almost every month, what is your take on what is happening now in the region.

Is everyone to blame both India and Pakistan or one more than the other?

Excuse my ignorance, how are Shias treated in the Pakistani army.  Can they reach high ranks?

This is what I have been receiving on Telegram.  Your take please.

 

Image may contain: 1 person, text

M3 Salamah, FE AMIN Allah

 

If you are concern about "Shias in ranks" then let me be clear about this strategy that Pakistan military is mostly occupied by Punjabi and Pathans!! DGMOs are welcomed from allover, military personals better have some one prior militant in the family!! That goes by, now a very few people ( from Shias to be precise,by their own wish) are concerned with military!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news that IAF pilot will be released but more than a peace gesture it seems compulsion. Pakistan at this moment cannot afford to further escalate the situation. Happy that this is slowly moving towards end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people including IK are relating Indian Airstrikes with upcoming elections. Well, they are 100 percent CORRECT. The timing of the terrorist attack and Indian Airstrikes has already given him second term. I'm no fan of Narendra Modi but he has done the right thing and any other person in his place would have done the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Good news that IAF pilot will be released but more than a peace gesture it seems compulsion. Pakistan at this moment cannot afford to further escalate the situation. Happy that this is slowly moving towards end. 

Neither can India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Comparatively, India can much much longer. That's the truth. 

Doesn't matter, a further escalation can totally ruin Modi's chances of re-election. He would be stupid to escalate as no one knows what it will lead to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King said:

Doesn't matter, a further escalation can totally ruin Modi's chances of re-election. He would be stupid to escalate as no one knows what it will lead to.

A Babri Masjid/Ayodhya Mandir conflict between Hindu and Muslim can get him votes from majority of Indian Hindus but conflict with Pakistan can get him votes from all corners. Believe me, he has hit a home-run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sirius_Bright said:

A Babri Masjid/Ayodhya Mandir conflict between Hindu and Muslim can get him votes from majority of Indian Hindus but conflict with Pakistan can get him votes from all corners. Believe me, he has hit a home-run. 

You didn't get my point. An escalation in war leads to totally unpredictable results, especially when it comes to economy and toll on poor civilians and soldiers.  Modi is sitting pretty for now but an escalation can completely destroy him due to unpredictable consequences.  He would be a fool to take such a risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, King said:

You didn't get my point. An escalation in war leads to totally unpredictable results, especially when it comes to economy and toll on poor civilians and soldiers.  Modi is sitting pretty for now but an escalation can completely destroy him due to unpredictable consequences.  He would be a fool to take such a risk.

I completely understood. Even an all out war won't be that bad for modi as election is very near. Until the war escalates to a point of people seeing it's ugly side, it will be too late as Modi will already be sitting on golden throne by then. 

He won't take risk. There are smart people in his cabinet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sirius_Bright Clearly you cannot think beyond what the Indian media(and the celebrities twitter, who btw get paychecks from modi for spewing this nonsense) is feeding you. Do you even realize how close India and Pakistan were to a nuclear war? And do you realise what would have that meant for half the world, yes at least half the world not just India and modi's elections but half the world, given the types of nuclear weapons both countries have. 

Modi alongwith his cabinets are stupid fools to even think of trying to send their air force to Pakistan.

Edited by starlight
Autocorrect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

A Babri Masjid/Ayodhya Mandir conflict between Hindu and Muslim can get him votes from majority of Indian Hindus but conflict with Pakistan can get him votes from all corners. Believe me, he has hit a home-run. 

Modi won't get the full support until IK runs in the war too... If IK is standing against the war, clearly people will see the dirty side!! How can one support the massive destructive plan when the other party is pleading to peace!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, starlight said:

Clearly you cannot think beyond what the Indian media(and the celebrities twitter, who btw get paychecks from modi for spewing this nonsense) is feeding you.

Clearly, you got it wrong. I know how media on both sides of the border reports news. I also understand it's difficult to accept the truth. 

2 hours ago, starlight said:

Do you even realize how close India and Pakistan were to a nuclear war?

The chances of nuclear war is minuscule. Whole world knows what nuclear is capable of doing. Both country did an Airstrike and every ally and enemy is asking to exercise restraint. Also, no country can afford war. So, even a moderate degree of war seems far-fetched. Nuclear would be the last thing. 

2 hours ago, starlight said:

And do you realise what would have that meant for half the world, yes at least half the world not just India and modi's elections but half the world, given the types of nuclear weapons both countries have. 

Nuclear weapons are mainly used for threatening. I doubt they'll be used in a distant future. 

2 hours ago, starlight said:

Modi alongwith his cabinets are stupid fools to even think of trying to send their air force to Pakistan.

They can send but they will not. 

If you feel that I'm advocating for a war then no I'm not. But I see nationalism in us is taking on our senses. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fakeha said:

Modi won't get the full support until IK runs in the war too... If IK is standing against the war, clearly people will see the dirty side!! How can one support the massive destructive plan when the other party is pleading to peace!! 

It doesn't happen like that. No side will come out and say we're going for an offensive war but they'll blame others for their attack. 

Let's see the current situation. IK was talking about peace but he failed to control terrorism and there was attack on Indian soil. India did Airstrikes on JeM camp in response to Pulwama attack. Pakistan hit back another day by claiming that India violated their Airspace. India could have done more Airstrikes claiming their Airstrikes was an act of aggression on military establishments while India had targeted terror camps. Pakistan would have come back again and this would go on and on and would escalate. Note that both are saying they're against war but will blame other side for their action. But since there are sane people on both sides, further escalation was prevented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think any government would deliberately start a nuclear war. The problem is that the more times the two sides are pushed to 'the brink', the greater chance for an accidental release of one or two weapons, then a cycle of retaliation from the other side, which would end in escalating cycles of retaliation, which would then be a nuclear war. I happens all the time in the chaos of a conflict where someone gets / sends the wrong signal leading to a mistake, then the mistake escalates, etc, etc. The more conflicts that are going on, and the more nuclear weapons that exists, the greater the chance for one of these mistakes to happen somewhere, with the consequences being felt everywhere. Before nuclear weapons, the most that could happen is that there would be hundreds or thousands of casualties. Now, this type of mistake could destroy the entire world. Both sides need to work toward a permanent solution, rather than just a 'de-escalation' 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sirius_Bright said:

Clearly, you got it wrong. I know how media on both sides of the border reports news. I also understand it's difficult to accept the truth. 

The truth is modi and India fell flat on its face with this one. This isn't just me saying this but also the Indians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, starlight said:

The truth is modi and India fell flat on its face with this one. This isn't just me saying this but also the Indians.

It was a good move by IK to de-escalate tension. How India fell flat on this one? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

It doesn't happen like that. No side will come out and say we're going for an offensive war but they'll blame others for their attack. 

Let's see the current situation. IK was talking about peace but he failed to control terrorism and there was attack on Indian soil. India did Airstrikes on JeM camp in response to Pulwama attack. Pakistan hit back another day by claiming that India violated their Airspace. India could have done more Airstrikes claiming their Airstrikes was an act of aggression on military establishments while India had targeted terror camps. Pakistan would have come back again and this would go on and on and would escalate. Note that both are saying they're against war but will blame other side for their action. But since there are sane people on both sides, further escalation was prevented. 

To escalate one wants a proof that the other party is the guilty one!! India is not providing the proof.. Not even a hint of a photograph, do you really think that Indian Nation is that blind?? Especially with a man who is ruling them for years. If that's the case than....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Both sides need to work toward a permanent solution, rather than just a 'de-escalation'.

 

There is no permanent solution between India and Pakistan!! There exist a 70% chance if Kashmir gets a way out, And exactly that is not possible..not in near decades!! 

(Hope for a Miracle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Fakeha said:

To escalate one wants a proof that the other party is the guilty one!! India is not providing the proof.. Not even a hint of a photograph, do you really think that Indian Nation is that blind?? Especially with a man who is ruling them for years. If that's the case than....

Regarding Pulwama attack? India already sent dossier to Pakistan. Also there's no need for formal proof as I don't think there's a greater proof than JeM (a Pakistani based terror organization) claiming responsibility for the attack. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-Asia-India-47414490 

On who won the propaganda war

Mr. Khan spoke to his people and defence officials kept the media updated regularly. The prime minister, many analysts in India say, came across looking as a "reasonable leader" by not trying to corner India, and allowing an exit route for cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Modi appeared to lose control of the narrative. "Any which way you spin it, Pakistan's attack took India by surprise," says Srinath Raghavan, historian and author, most recently of Fierce Enigmas: A History of the United States in South Asia.

Consider this. India struck Pakistan in the middle of the night in what was a retaliatory action for the attack in Pulwama on 14 February in which more than 40 Indian troops were killed. Pakistan's response was swift and audacious, striking India in broad daylight the next day.

Edited by Propaganda_of_the_Deed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

It was a good move by IK to de-escalate tension. How India fell flat on this one? 

I haven't read the entire thread so don't know who is saying what, but I think it's pretty clear that the outcome of the recent flare up has better improved Pakistan's image and harmed the Indian narrative.

Indian and Pakistani media outlets naturally support their respective country's official narrative and can't be expected to report objectively, so one must turn to international media outlets who can still write with some level of objectivity. 

This is by BBC, and by an Indian writer no less. The points he's made are echoed by other outlets as well as many among Indian intellectuals and opinion makers.

Quote

Many believe that Pakistan had blindsided Mr. Modi with a quick and brazen retaliatory attack in which it brought down an Indian fighter jet and captured the pilot. Over the next two days Mr. Khan called for de-escalation of hostilities, talked about peace and announced that the pilot would be freed. KC Singh says the Pakistani prime minister portrayed a picture of "dignified moderation and readiness to settle differences through talks" and took everyone by surprise with his decision to send back the Indian pilot.

Mr. Khan spoke to his people and defence officials kept the media updated regularly. The prime minister, many analysts in India say, came across looking as a "reasonable leader" by not trying to corner India, and allowing an exit route for cessation of hostilities.

Mr. Modi appeared to lose control of the narrative. "Any which way you spin it, Pakistan's attack took India by surprise," says Srinath Raghavan, historian and author, most recently of Fierce Enigmas: A History of the United States in South Asia.

Consider this. India struck Pakistan in the middle of the night in what was a retaliatory action for the attack in Pulwama on 14 February in which more than 40 Indian troops were killed. Pakistan's response was swift and audacious, striking India in broad daylight the next day.

The capture of the pilot meant that the narrative and expectations of Mr. Modi and his government were thrown off kilter and the upbeat narrative of the morning before had now completely changed to bringing the pilot home. The Indian military briefing came more than 30 hours after the Pakistani attack. Mr. Modi and his government had clearly little headroom to control the narrative.

In the end, trying to control the narrative through bravado can easily backfire.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-Asia-India-47414490

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

It was a good move by IK to de-escalate tension. How India fell flat on this one? 

You could tell India completely miscalculated and lost the international PR battle since right after Pakistan showed the video of the Indian pilot sipping tea, the Indian media went even more bonkers than it was before.  They couldn't take the embarrassment of the Indian state having provided hardly any proof of the surgical strike while Pakistan actually had an Indian pilot sipping chai with Pakistani army, along with photographs of plane wreckage.

This is what the world was talking about as well, go read the world news reddit or even the Indian reddit, all the threads are still there.  Most Indians were embarrassed and extremely concerned about the damage to Indian image internationally.  Indian mismanagement of this whole episode provided much of the humour on social media.  Imran Khan and the Pakistani military actually came out looking like the sensible ones which is a massive accomplishment given how negatively Pakistan is perceived around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add that Indian demands to stop anti-India militants from operating freely in Pakistan are justified. Pak must do more to address Indian grievances and develop the trust. 

But the path current Indian govt has chosen guarantees that no trust could be developed and that Indian demands would be ignored.

The thing is, threats and war rhetoric do not pay, even if you believe your adversary is weaker, in economic trouble, and can be pushed into submission (which is what a hawkish Indians believe). 

India absolutely can't achieve anything by violating LoC and international borders and dropping bombs inside Pakistani territory. India isn't the US and Pak isn't Afghanistan.

Furthermore, Modi govt is responsible for the the current wave of unrest in Kashmir and in general for ignoring the wishes and demands of the ordinary Kashmiris. He thought he could consolidate Kashmir by brute force and nationalistic jingoism. All it has done is backfired.

And everything that goes amiss anywhere in India is immediately laid at Pakistan's door without investigating whether there are any links or whether it was a home job. The Pulwama attack was carried out by an Indian Kashmiri youth not by Pakistani citizens.

I also feel that India credits Pakistan too much power and influence to successfully carry out attacks inside Indian territory, which may sound flattering but actually isn't true.

 

Edited by Marbles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I know how the Kashmir thing started, basically when the British left, the fate of this land was never decided and its status is still being debated. But can anyone quickly provide details on the important milestones? All the wars fought and the change in political dynamics? I know there was a war in 1971 and one in 1999 as well. But I'm seeing constant back and forth online over who started which war and whose fault this situation is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see someone talking facts. Let's take this one at a time. 

1. 300 militants killed in Indian Airstrike. 

There were militants/training camp somewhere near the point India made a strike but if there was any casualties remains to be seen. There wasn't any proof from Indian side inspite Indian army claiming they have credible evidence. I don't believe everything media says nor should anyone. 

2. Downed PAF F-16.

During Pakistani Airstrike, Indian Jets chased them and were not 'sleeping'. So, they had to retreat back into their territory, chasing which one MIG 21 Bison single seater with IAF pilot Abhinandan went behind. He successfully shot Pakistani double seater F-16 before being shot by group of Pakistani jets. As he was in the Pakistani territory, both F-16 and MIG 21 fell there with their 2 PAF and 1 IAF pilots respectively. Initially, Pakistan had claimed they shot 2 Indian Jets and captured 3 pilots but they soon realized one was their own F-16 and 2 Pakistani pilots. They revised the statement then. Also, It was difficult for India to produce evidence for downed F-16 since it fell into Pakistani territory. However, they later showed wrecked AMRAAM (Something from Missile) that can be only used in Pakistani F-16s. This is how much I have analyzed and does makes sense. 

3. Violating Pakistani Airspace. 

From decades, India had to face brunt of Pakistani militancy. Time and again when there's some chances of improving relations with the neighbors, there's an attack. It has not only hurt India but also Iran and Afghanistan. I doubt it is any difficult for Pakistan to reign in terrorism on their soil but state sponsored terrorism has always been Pakistan's strategy to hurt their neighbors. After repeated intimations to Pakistan from not only India but the whole world, Pakistan still fails to control growing terrorism in it's region. You cannot expect us to wait for another attack, Indian Airstrike was an ideal response and there was no need for retaliation. Any provocation in form of terrorism or otherwise from across the border should be met with similar response. It's a form of defence. 

4. Modi's criticism. 

Modi is not everyone's hero in India. As you know, elections are at the corner and Modi alone is not campaigning. He has all the big and small oppositions. When there was Airstrikes, the ruling party gave full credits to Modi but opposition gave credits to IAF. Again, opposition cannot let Modi to score big on this so they are busy asking evidence and criticizing his every move and that includes praising IK. People not involved into politics also praised IK's move and it was legit. All in all, Modi's heroics with Airstrikes wasn't incorrect as anyone else in his place at this crucial time would have done that and it was much needed as well. However, I do not endorse him in his other policies. 

5. Pulwama attack proof. 

I have already stated multiple times that JeM claimed responsibility and it is based in Pakistan from where their leader Masood Azhar operates freely. Pakistan is directly responsible for the attack for letting a terrorist loose for all these years. If it was an inside job remains to be seen but nothing at all indicates if it was. 

@Marbles @King

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...