2019 India-Pakistani border clash
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
- Status
Really? Because I took the opposite of this. From my understanding, if the Indian airforce had only managed to bomb some trees as claimed by Pakistani's than wouldn't crossing the LOC and targeting military installations with assets be a highly over reactive reaction to bombing of trees? PM Imran Khan went on TV afterwords to deescalate the situation with India and then blackmail India on miscalculation with nuclear weapons and then release the pilot with in 48 hours. During this entire drama, Modi did not go on national television to address the nation or even talk to Pakistan, no one in a high position did! thats not a exactly a behavior of kid who got a black eye.
Also for what its worth the Indian air force isn't exactly a pro at hiding aircraft crashes. For one they did not hide the Mi-17 chopper, they haven't hidden any crashes in Rajasthan or in the jungles. There are multiple reports every year of Indian air force crashes. So much so, it makes Indian airforce look like a banana republic. So we know its not their MO in peace time. This is also true during 1999 Kargil as well as all loses were reported. So India's credibility should be better than pakistans in this regard.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Well, your understanding is lacking at best but most likely actually misguided. First of all, India failed to hit anything with its strike so Pakistan also deliberately did not hit anything, striking all around high valued targets in a way to warn the Indians that they could have destroyed them if they wanted to and if the situation called for it. That tells us that since the Indians did no damage, Pakistan purposefully did no damage. Then, we see Pakistan clearly being generous in deescalating, even returning a captured pilot while India still rants and tries to fuel hostilities as seen in post 455 ranting without evidence about terrorists, asking the US to trouble Pakistan on F-16 usage, etc... Lastly, you are confused; I am not at all implying that there was another downed Indian jet that is hidden. I'm simply saying that India's claim that it downed an F-16 is even less likely because it's attitude shows that it is unhappy with the exchange, which it would not be if it traded a Bison for a Viper, so it is actually India's credibility that is far less than Pakistan's. Pakistan said they shot something down and captured pilot(s). At least they did shoot something down and capture a pilot, although the number seems off. India's just making stories up about doing things it never did (shooting things down that miraculously disintegrated)!
Well it clearly isn't, lol. Which is surprising, to be honest. The vast majority of international media is refusing to accept India's claims. It all began with Reuters, whose reporters saw and reported the failure of India's strike on Balakot. Ever since then, the India's narrative was exposed. Today, not even Russian media is backing India's claims. Read Sputnik's recent articles on this situation to get a sense of this. And the NY Times was outrightly making fun of India's failures.
I was watching India's news channels, like Times Now and NDTV after these incidents to get a sense of what they are reporting. And it is very obvious that they know India's narrative has failed to convince anyone outside India. In fact, around half of Indians don't even believe it. Most of the arguments/debates that I saw had Indians themselves rejecting the official narrative from Dehli.
Care to educate me this - any award, so far in public channel, about those pilots been credited for their kill(s), either India or Pakistan side?
I ask because: most military, though not all in the world, is very serious about the award/medal honored. And most military(s) got their investigation very, very cautiously. That's the minimum I tend to count on actual kills, despite all argument on EVERY sides.
I ask because: most military, though not all in the world, is very serious about the award/medal honored. And most military(s) got their investigation very, very cautiously. That's the minimum I tend to count on actual kills, despite all argument on EVERY sides.
my understanding could always be better but i doubt I have very much to learn from some one as young as you. I assume your not some one who studies the decades of conflicts in south asia but likes to play at being a well informed poster. Try reading my posts rather than narratives created by some one else for your consumption. I said it before and i'll say it again. If the Indians had attacked nothing but trees then wouldn't the Pakistani reaction be unwarranted? Not only this, India was punished in any way by the global community for the strikes. Also, how to do you know the strikes failed? Isn't that jumping to conclusions? For all we know the Indians deliberately targeted trees because of elections, or they worked and killed some high value targets or hell maybe they completely failed but your "logic" doesn't tell us anything because Pakistan denies American drone strikes for long time and denied OBL, lol. In which case Pakistan reacted, and went on its own offensive to protect what? terrorists? Did the global community pressure India for its strikes or Pakistan? Neither, the pressuring India to not to respond to the "ACT of WAR" by Pakistan. If Pakistan's attempt was to show that they could hit the Brigade HQ it wasn't effective bluff, because missiles fired from the border could do the same. Pakistan's reaction was for multiple reasons. Threatening India during the strikes wasn't one of them. Domestic consumption. Pakistan was NOT generious. As I said IMRAN KHAN went on TV to the world to talk about nuclear miscalculations. Thats not deseculating rather a nuclear blackmail. The same thing happened in Kargil, which is why India never crossed the LOC. So no. Pakistan didn't save face internationally, the lost on the diplomatic front. Imran Khan saved face infront of the Pakistani people a vast majority. India? They starrted something new. Something not done since 1971 and setting a new precedence. If you don't understand the consequence of this then you've failed to analyze the situation.
Would also like to add, no one cares about the F-16. In the big picture of things, its irrelevant as much as the mig. But India will play the F-16 to the people who sold it to them for pretty much free of cost to fight terrorists. I'm not understanding your logic because you assume because India claims the downed an F-16 its not true because thats what a desperate nation does? That seems like a pretty flawed and WEAK logic on your part. How can India show you proof of an F-16 when the apparently both landed in Pakistan? Ask the Pakistanis to show you proof? The Indians atleast proved a Pakistani lie by showing proof of F-16 in action. The track for Pakistan being honest is not very long. And For my part, I think India understands this.
So read this as the most important takeaway. India has started to bomb/ambush targets within Pakistan with impunity. Pakistan for its part will either, deny the attack and downplay the damage and loss of life and property. India helps Pakistan maintain its narrative and keep the situation from boiling by not providing public proof, which means Pakistan does not have to declare war. Which means the next attack India blames of Pakistan will have similar play from India. Which also means the terrorists can decides how India reacts and therefore Pakistan, ie Terrorists could start a very dangerous war. Digest that instead of acting like a ill informed poster.
FYI the WINNER does not use nuclear blackmail. Thats what a loser does. Kim jong ill, Musharaff and Imran Khan. They all did it because they were in a weak position.
Which narrative the F-16 that no one cares about or the fact India should be allowed to bomb terrorists within Pakistan when ever India feels like it? Take a guess at which narrative is more important. No one other than airforce staff colleges care about the air skirmish and who one between the f-16 and mig.
mind you would you believe the indian pilot once he releases a full statement?
The narrative that India's airstrike was successful, and that it won the air-engagement. Those narratives, have been rejected by everyone, except in India. Actually, even in India half the people don't believe it. That's evident from watching Indian News channels.
Equation
Lieutenant General
I'm sorry but what you wrote was a bunch of incoherent nonsense with no logic at all. I don't know if it's because English is not your native language, your thoughts are disorganized, that you are having a hard time twist this to look like India won, or some combination of the three.
Facts are:
1. India struck into Pakistani territory; regardless of whether anything was damaged, this merits a harsh retaliatory response. It's the principle that you cannot strike into the territory of another sovereign nation.
2. Pakistan responded by striking into Indian territory purposefully destroying nothing and when India responded, Pakistan shot its jet down.
3. Pakistan returned India's pilot out of good will (or maybe they felt sorry for the guy because he couldn't stop praising Pakistan when he was in captivity) while India keeps trying to keep the issue alive through either asking the US to investigate or by raising the terrorist issue, which it has no evidence of.
If you think that India can now strike into Pakistan with "impunity" then you don't know what "impunity" means. They just SHOT DOWN YOUR JET AND CAPTURED YOUR PILOT. That is the dictionary opposite of "with impunity." All of your "what ifs" don't hold up to any logic. If you want proof that India's strike hit nothing, then we first need to see proof that there was anything there in the first place, then we need to see proof of dead bodies. You don't just shoot into the sky at night and ask people to provide proof that you didn't kill anyone. You're ridiculous. For all of your reasons of why you don't believe Pakistan shot down an MKI, you can apply to why nobody believes that India shot down an F-16. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Pakistan is better than India at covering up jet crashes. Basic law of logic is to believe it's not true unless there's evidence that it's true. You are basically asking Pakistan to prove all its claims or they're false and asking Pakistan to disprove all of India's claims or they're true. And only if you apply that line of logic is it possible to believe that India has greater credibility than Pakistan. And only with that level of bias is it possible to believe that India kept any shred of its dignity in this screw up against Pakistan.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
There's a lot of nitpicking to be had in your post however I will start with the lowest hanging fruit... The part about you saying the F-16 narrative is something 'no one cares' about is intellectually dishonest because it WAS/IS the Indian government/media/public etc. that were hyping it it all up all day and all night long like Lionel Ritchie's hit from the 80s. with the amraam casing, disingenuous photos claiming the f-16 wreckage, other 'events' etc.
Secondly I believe it is ALSO intellectually dishonest on your part to presume that the IAF purposely went in with the sole INTENTION to just bomb trees for the reasons you mentioned. Not only is that purely 100% conjecture on your part but a very silly one at that and runs counter to what IAF has already publicly announced the mission objective which was to destroy the Jaish-e-Mohammed madrassah.
I believed what happened was they were unabled to deploy the munitions on target for whatever reason and had to drop them off clear of civilians to get the heck out of dodge before too much heat comes along.
- Status