Ladakh Flash Point

Xizor · Feb 27, 2021

plawolf said:
I can see it now, when there are more Indian fatalities from their own unwise advances, the Jai Hind’s new party line is to not only deny that they died, but also claim they were never born to start with.

They do a good job of defending their party but not the nation.
Then they try to repeat certain phrases as if they are 'mantras' so as to try to get them be taken as facts. Can't let them leave unencountered or will try to frame them as truths (just like their wikipedia call-center keyboard warriors)

twineedle said:
When did you provide evidence for India patrolling up to finger 8? Please provide any credible evidence and not claims. Nobody here has been able to do that.

And yes status quo ante has been restored in all areas except for gogra, exactly what India wanted. Deal with it.

"Deal with it" !?
You need to deal with it.

India patrolled upto Point 8 by foot. Evidences has been posted prior you don't read them or are blind to it.

Xizor · Feb 27, 2021

twineedle said:
But since China is now going by the 1959 claim line instead of the de facto LAC of the 1993 agreeement, that means China failed to secure its territory, since India is still occupying Galwan and fingers 2-3

India still occupies Galwan ? So that means India has a post at PP14 ?

The initial move by India at PP14 has been thwarted by China. How does that mean India occupies Chinese territory ?

There is no LAC demarcation for 1993 Agreement.
Why do you keep going at the same claims that have been rebutted multiple times? 1993 called for disengagement along LAC but didn't specify what that LAC meant for both parties.

India lost territory since then (1993). China gained territory.
India has been having a post between F2/3 for long. Isn't that what you said ? How does that mean "occupation".
Are you saying Finger 3 and 2 also belong to China ?
That's good too.

twineedle · Feb 27, 2021

Xsizor said:
India still occupies Galwan ? So that means India has a post at PP14 ?

The initial move by India at PP14 has been thwarted by China. How does that mean India occupies Chinese territory ?

There is no LAC demarcation for 1993 Agreement.
Why do you keep going at the same claims that have been rebutted multiple times? 1993 called for disengagement along LAC but didn't specify what that LAC meant for both parties.

India lost territory since then (1993). China gained territory.
India has been having a post between F2/3 for long. Isn't that what you said ? How does that mean "occupation".
Are you saying Finger 3 and 2 also belong to China ?
That's good too.

PP14 is a patrolling point that marks the limits of Indian patrols. Indian troops always patrolled up to that point, but never occupied its. Indian army and ITBP did set up a small camp in the area in response to Chinese activity there. however, satellite images show Indian camps present just 500 meters away from the clash site, which indicates regular patrols there.

The 1993 agreement clearly mentioned the lac, which at the time was the areas China had reached in 1962. This includes finger 4. Also, learn the meaning of de facto.

Xizor · Feb 27, 2021

twineedle said:
The denial you are showing is both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time. I have repeatedly shown that India did not retreat from any post in Galwan. PP 14 was a patrolling point, and never had any Indian camps until China moved in. At least until winter, Indian soldiers were patrolling up to pp14 while PLa had retreated over a kilometer away.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281829922168659969
Not only that, but according to Australian satellite analyst Nathan Ruser, India secured the heights surrounding Galwan, meaning that DSDBO is secure.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1276061645731594240

" The denial you are showing is both ridiculous and hilarious at the same time."

Unless other members here are blind, I don't think it can be proved that I'm showing "denial". But then multiple posts are there showing you conveniently ignoring posts debunking your false narratives.

India did try to push into China with PP14. That was what made China move in. No need of depending on third party Kangaroo evidences for that. China has given ground video evidences for that.

"PLA retreated over a Kilometer away"

Is that what a Bhakt/Jai hind headline look like ? You yourself claimed China moved its post 800m from PP14. Even if that was true , how does that mean "over 1 km"?

the Indian Army, which earlier patrolled up to PP-14, have been restricted behind by a distance of 2.4 km fom that point. While as Chinese patrols can come up to 400 metres from PP-14.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"At least until winter, Indian soldiers were patrolling upto PP14"

Wrong. The issue at Galwan had China dismantling the Indian post at PP14 put up as the forward thrust, erecting a Chinese post at that site later on and then leaving after disengagement. No patrols are part of Galwan disengagement, denying India right to PP14 since July

twineedle · Feb 27, 2021

Satellite imagery suggest something different

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281829922168659969

The fact that there were Indian camps that close to pp 14 indicates that when river levels were favorable, Indian soldiers would conduct normal patrolling. There are also no chinese camps in the area

And that is not even mentioning the permanent camps India has at the Galwan mouth, which is where China's new claim lies.

Xizor · Feb 27, 2021

twineedle said:
PP14 is a patrolling point that marks the limits of Indian patrols. Indian troops always patrolled up to that point, but never occupied its. Indian army and ITBP did set up a small camp in the area in response to Chinese activity there. however, satellite images show Indian camps present just 500 meters away from the clash site, which indicates regular patrols there.

The 1993 agreement clearly mentioned the lac, which at the time was the areas China had reached in 1962. This includes finger 4. Also, learn the meaning of de facto.

Wrong. The satellite images are dated.
few points

1. How do you know what exactly are the real status on ground of these posts or in fact they are posts itself ?
2. Have you got any "satellite images" during the winter to prove your claims of patrols ?

If no, then your claims don't hold much water.

twineedle · Feb 27, 2021

Xsizor said:
Wrong. The satellite images are dated.
few points

1. How do you know what exactly are the real status on ground of these posts or in fact they are posts itself ?
2. Have you got any "satellite images" during the winter to prove your claims of patrols ?

If no, then your claims don't hold much water.

I believe i specifically said it is likely both sides have limited activities in the area due to winter, which is what happens every year. And even if my evidence is not perfect, I am at least presenting something to support my claims. Whereas you are using the same Indian media you ridicule.

Xizor · Feb 27, 2021

twineedle said:
I believe i specifically said it is likely both sides have limited activities in the area due to winter, which is what happens every year. And even if my evidence is not perfect, I am at least presenting something to support my claims. Whereas you are using the same Indian media you ridicule.

Don't you see ? I am using Indian media so that you may not use them. I'm using multiple Indian media sources so that in the future, you may not bring them up as you yourself would've tagged them as "unreliable".

My issues with your claims are , again -

1. Authenticity and authoritativeness of the satellite images. How do you verify if an object is a post. How do you know the status of these structures?

2. Date of the satellite images ( June for most).

3. Contrasting narratives by Indian media itself well past the date of satellite image study . Example -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

twineedle · Feb 27, 2021

Mt1701d said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I am not sure if this can be considered evidence in your eyes... but at least 4 of your major media outlets seems to agree that the Indian Army patrolled or claim the right to patrol up to finger 8... if it can be considered evidence then the current situation in Pangong Tso is not status quo ante... and by extension the entire situation, regardless of whether the PLA have returned to their original positions or not, cannot be considered status quo ante by definition as facts on the ground have now changed (no more patrols between F4-8) no matter how small... it maybe a technicality but you are factually incorrect in this argument...

Otherwise, if this cannot be considered evidence then your news media is spewing BS about the situation and thus any articles from these news media outlets cannot be trusted...

As for the other positions or situations I don’t really care and can’t be bothered digging for information but the articles seems to suggest that other prior patrols routes have been blocked as well... if that is the case then that is also a change in the facts on the ground and thus not status quo ante no matter how close...

Now please choose and admit whether status quo ante is in fact not the case or your news media are BS mills that spews unsubstantiated BS

Actually, I agree that most Indian media cannot be trusted. Of course, there are exceptions such as anlysts like Snehesh Alex Philip, Nitin Gokhale, Vishnu Som, Manu Pubby etc. They are in general apolitical an trusted reporters on defence related matters.

BTW, a retired Indian army officer who actually served on Pangong, unlike most "anonymous sources" disputes some of those claim of Indian soldiers regularly patrolling up to finger 8

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1361633166608396288

twineedle · Feb 27, 2021

Xsizor said:
Don't you see ? I am using Indian media so that you may not use them. I'm using multiple Indian media sources so that in the future, you may not bring them up as you yourself would've tagged them as "unreliable".

My issues with your claims are , again -

1. Authenticity and authoritativeness of the satellite images. How do you verify if an object is a post. How do you know the status of these structures?

2. Date of the satellite images ( June for most).

3. Contrasting narratives by Indian media itself well past the date of satellite image study . Example -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

When have I posted mainstream Indian sources as evidence?
And I have said that there are some reputable defence reporters/analysts who write for mainstream outlets like the Print, India today etc.

Ladakh Flash Point

Xizor

Captain

Xizor

Captain

twineedle

Junior Member

Xizor

Captain

twineedle

Junior Member

Xizor

Captain

twineedle

Junior Member

Xizor

Captain

twineedle

Junior Member

twineedle

Junior Member