27 Feb 19: PAF shot down two Indian aircrafts inside Pakistani airspace: DG ISPR

[TheNoob]

First, he will get treatment.
Then, he'll be held captive.

Thats about it.
Until someone comes up with a political solution later down the line.

 

[RoadRunner401]

Dawn
The state of Pakistan, the government of Pakistan, the Armed Forces of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan have always conveyed a message of peace to India, and the route to peace goes through the way of 'dialogue'. Both countries have nuclear capabilities, but war is actually the failure of policy, which India needs to understand.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan news latest: Live updates after India jets are shot down and Imran Khan calls for 'wisdom and sense'

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...n-jets-over-kashmir-in-dramatic-a4077546.html

Pakistan has shot down two Indian Air Force jets in a dramatic escalation of the conflict in Kashmir.

The two Indian warplanes were shot down by Pakistan's air force after they crossed the boundary between the two rivals in the disputed territory of Kashmir.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

However long gangus are going to act immature and uncivilised

if after this they are still baying for war then the answer is 'indefinitely'

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

Prisoner of War.
Will be treated with respect as per norms.

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

He and othere will be returned to india ofcourse. According to geneva convention and international united nations law

 

[CHACHA"G"]

He is POW,,,,,, In the end, He will go back home (India) and most probably IAF will retire him...….. So this is end of his service...

 

[macnurv]

Indian Air force Veteran Pilot on PAF's action against IAF

View attachment 542454

Steps to deescalate must begin immediately from Indian side. However Pakistan must reveal more details about types of jets taken down, if it was really SU30 its a really big deal for JF17. As for returning the pilots, for now Pakistan will hold them in custody and will be handed over to India at an appropriate time of our choosing.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I see your posts on here often, and I respect your views... but also disagree with them.

Thank you for opening as you did, but in view of the obnoxious manners of some of your compatriots, and the sheer vulgarity of their posts, it feels necessary to remind decent members like you of what I stand for, and to inform the others of what is and is not permissible in their remarks directed to me.

I have, like many millions of Indians, not thousands, stood for peace with Pakistan, and for normal relations. We had no compulsion to do so; for us, it is not tied to our justification for our existence, or to a constructed reason for our specific existence. It is inherent; our culture is peaceful, and has been for thousands of years. After the carnage of partition, we had excellent relations, or at least, relations that were not hostile and toxic, for 18 years. I leave it to those of you who are educated and who know how to sift myth from reality to decide what ensued, and who originated it.

Kashmir is a special matter; discussing its rights and wrongs is not appropriate here. You will understand if I leave it on one side.

During my own efforts at doing what one individual can do to build better relations, I have encountered the reasonable, decent people who might oppose some views proposed to them, who might agree with others, but who, above all, could put things together in a rational manner. I have also encountered religious fanatics, in whom their religiosity mingled with their nationalism in a toxic cocktail that is difficult to separate into its components. Finally, there is that curse of the internet, the kiddy-crowd, that has nothing better to do but to vent its frustration and social restrictions by striking grossly vulgar postures on online fora.

It is impossible to conduct any conversation with the second and third varieties; over time, I have come to realise that they are incorrigible, although age might temper the third group.

I say this as a prelude to answering your observations below.

I too yearn for peace, but I think the blame of non-state actors is just about equal (and I'm being generous.) Indian support to Baloch terrorists is well-documented and well-known. Are they any less violent? Do they kill and maim any less number of innocent civilians (mostly poor labourers --- soft targets.) Was Kulbashan in Pakistan on a picnic?

First, non-state actors in Indian usage refers to literally thousands of young people from Punjab and Pakhtunistan who have been brought up with certain very negative impressions about their neighbouring country, its citizens, and its cultural attributes, including the religion that the majority follow in that country. In contrast, if we examine, without prejudice, the usage by our neighbours in Pakistan, it is Pakistanis who are seen to be acting against the interests of Pakistan, NOT, by any stretch, Indians indoctrinated into believing that Pakistan was an existential threat and recruited, trained, motivated, paid and armed before being introduced into Pakistan. The equivalent to those that Pakistan calls non-state actors are those militants within India who want a wider degree of independence from state control than the state deems admissible: the tribals, the north-eastern factions, the Naxals, and so on. Not a single one of these has been placed at the doorstep of Pakistan and its agencies, in spite of the written testimony of your own army officers, not to mention the research and findings of foreign academic investigators.

Second, it is unfair to take the doings of the last five years and put it in the balance of the doings of the other side for the last seventy years. There were restrictions and outright bans on any kind of monitoring, forget about intervention, on the part of our intelligence agencies. These are well-recorded; you do not have to take my word for it, although on this, I am peculiarly well-informed.

NATO needs you in the region as a buffer against growing Chinese influence so it turns a blind eye to your state sponsorship of terrorism, just as it does with your genocidal PM who was earlier on a visa blacklist for his role in the Gujrat massacre. Unfortunately, this has resulted in most of your population actually believing what is, in fact, untrue: that only Pakistan engages violent non-state actors and that only the ISI indulges in state sponsorship of terrorism (while Indian intel sits pretty and plants flowers for little kids.)

I found this the most painful part of your note.

From the time that the two nations were formed, Pakistan flung itself into the arms of the western bloc, while India tried its own quixotic brand of foreign policy of equi-distance from the two blocs. Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact, that later became CENTO, a parallel of NATO, Pakistan joined the south-east Asian bloc known as SEATO; do look up the dates and also do look up the policies of these two defence unions. And do refresh your memory about Pakistan's former role as a vital ally for NATO, and so declared, at the precise times that we were under interdict due to our policies and principles.

You might remember, or if you look up the annals, you may read for yourself that the hostility of the period of American attitudes to India, that plummeted to its lowest point under Nixon and his ubiquitous aide Kissinger, recovered only very, very slowly under Clinton, Bush and Obama. Again, it is not reasonable to equate the favour that India (and India's buying power) suddenly started to find with the west for the last twenty years with the unbroken support that Pakistan has enjoyed, in spite of the most egregious behaviour, over seventy years.

During this period, Pakistan was stuffed full of aid and cash. The economic miracle that Pakistan went through, all the while that its generals twitted Indians with the observation that they would travel in Mercedes cars while India's option was Maruti 800s. If you give him half a chance, my compatriot @Nilgiri will flood you with graphics explaining how injected aid led to economic improvement for Pakistan.

This happened not once but several times.

I put it to you that NATO being on the side of India is a pitifully recent phenomenon, and we should remember what little has flowed from that relationship. As a contrast to what military and developmental aid that Pakistan got.

The R&AW has just an illustrious and colorful a relationship with state sponsored terror outside of India's borders. Ask us --- we know. Ask the Sri Lankans --- they know.

Again, as I might point out, this was recently restored. Even earlier, it was started very, very recently, in contrast to the

So, with this issue aside, let us talk about Kashmir. By the accounts of various sane Indian analysts and journalists, the situation in Indian-Occupied Kashmir is increasingly homegrown and its draconian nature is there for everyone to see. How can you expect an occupied people to live under oppressive laws and paramilitary rule without some kind of violent reactions from time to time? Does Pakistan support these reactions? I think so, but that doesn't change the realities of the occupation.

Very reasonably put, and to be fair, the only thing wanted from Pakistan is to stop active promotion of the faction there that is committed financially to the overthrow of Indian administration. Don't support the reactions; do support the reactions. But don't send in armed men with missions to kill.

Many sane voices in India called for introspection after Pulwama. I hope you can do some too.

At the cost of sounding guilty of 'whataboutery', a reasoning trope that I abhor, there has to be considerable introspection.

But not only in India.

The threads are all combined now so that video must have gotten in between some page but when i tagged you it was on that particular thread.

Yes, I was shoved into the combined thread willy-nilly. I will try to look it up, but, as you might have noticed, there is a queue of Pakistani posters who have decided that the entire matter is to be resolved by interactions with me. A rich and mighty honour that is not of my choosing, and one that I wish I could step aside and allow to pass to Chhappanincheswar.

Calm down uncle. I know these events are shocking, I mean yesterday you were chest pumping and ejaculated prematurely, and today we put the IAF in its place, so please take care of your health.

I did? Which post?

What do you expect? 3 people died in that village from Indian shelling. The soldiers protected him otherwise he would of become a chappal kebab. It must be tough, jumping up and down and now reality has set in.

And they are an exception? People died on both sides due to artillery shelling; do you have any slickly packaged words for the bereaved on the other side?

Doesn't suits you

Cheap little sadak-chhap scumbags like that understand little else. What would you have me say?

I wish that man is returned and flies as soon as possible.
Yes, it was but not it's usage at that level.

In that case you didn't read these filthy creatures as some of us had done and had feared.

Locals just kicked your squadron leader's butt.

They would.

They just proved that they are the same quality of scum who mobbed people on our side of the border because they happened to be of a different religion, ate differently and prayed differently.

Glad to see that your scum are the same.

 

[graphican]

Like rest of India - Nirandra Modi is high on moral

 

[R Wing]

Thank you for opening as you did, but in view of the obnoxious manners of some of your compatriots, and the sheer vulgarity of their posts, it feels necessary to remind decent members like you of what I stand for, and to inform the others of what is and is not permissible in their remarks directed to me.

I have, like many millions of Indians, not thousands, stood for peace with Pakistan, and for normal relations. We had no compulsion to do so; for us, it is not tied to our justification for our existence, or to a constructed reason for our specific existence. It is inherent; our culture is peaceful, and has been for thousands of years. After the carnage of partition, we had excellent relations, or at least, relations that were not hostile and toxic, for 18 years. I leave it to those of you who are educated and who know how to sift myth from reality to decide what ensued, and who originated it.

Kashmir is a special matter; discussing its rights and wrongs is not appropriate here. You will understand if I leave it on one side.

During my own efforts at doing what one individual can do to build better relations, I have encountered the reasonable, decent people who might oppose some views proposed to them, who might agree with others, but who, above all, could put things together in a rational manner. I have also encountered religious fanatics, in whom their religiosity mingled with their nationalism in a toxic cocktail that is difficult to separate into its components. Finally, there is that curse of the internet, the kiddy-crowd, that has nothing better to do but to vent its frustration and social restrictions by striking grossly vulgar postures on online fora.

It is impossible to conduct any conversation with the second and third varieties; over time, I have come to realise that they are incorrigible, although age might temper the third group.

I say this as a prelude to answering your observations below.



First, non-state actors in Indian usage refers to literally thousands of young people from Punjab and Pakhtunistan who have been brought up with certain very negative impressions about their neighbouring country, its citizens, and its cultural attributes, including the religion that the majority follow in that country. In contrast, if we examine, without prejudice, the usage by our neighbours in Pakistan, it is Pakistanis who are seen to be acting against the interests of Pakistan, NOT, by any stretch, Indians indoctrinated into believing that Pakistan was an existential threat and recruited, trained, motivated, paid and armed before being introduced into Pakistan. The equivalent to those that Pakistan calls non-state actors are those militants within India who want a wider degree of independence from state control than the state deems admissible: the tribals, the north-eastern factions, the Naxals, and so on. Not a single one of these has been placed at the doorstep of Pakistan and its agencies, in spite of the written testimony of your own army officers, not to mention the research and findings of foreign academic investigators.

Second, it is unfair to take the doings of the last five years and put it in the balance of the doings of the other side for the last seventy years. There were restrictions and outright bans on any kind of monitoring, forget about intervention, on the part of our intelligence agencies. These are well-recorded; you do not have to take my word for it, although on this, I am peculiarly well-informed.



I found this the most painful part of your note.

From the time that the two nations were formed, Pakistan flung itself into the arms of the western bloc, while India tried its own quixotic brand of foreign policy of equi-distance from the two blocs. Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact, that later became CENTO, a parallel of NATO, Pakistan joined the south-east Asian bloc known as SEATO; do look up the dates and also do look up the policies of these two defence unions. And do refresh your memory about Pakistan's former role as a vital ally for NATO, and so declared, at the precise times that we were under interdict due to our policies and principles.

You might remember, or if you look up the annals, you may read for yourself that the hostility of the period of American attitudes to India, that plummeted to its lowest point under Nixon and his ubiquitous aide Kissinger, recovered only very, very slowly under Clinton, Bush and Obama. Again, it is not reasonable to equate the favour that India (and India's buying power) suddenly started to find with the west for the last twenty years with the unbroken support that Pakistan has enjoyed, in spite of the most egregious behaviour, over seventy years.

During this period, Pakistan was stuffed full of aid and cash. The economic miracle that Pakistan went through, all the while that its generals twitted Indians with the observation that they would travel in Mercedes cars while India's option was Maruti 800s. If you give him half a chance, my compatriot @Nilgiri will flood you with graphics explaining how injected aid led to economic improvement for Pakistan.

This happened not once but several times.

I put it to you that NATO being on the side of India is a pitifully recent phenomenon, and we should remember what little has flowed from that relationship. As a contrast to what military and developmental aid that Pakistan got.



Again, as I might point out, this was recently restored. Even earlier, it was started very, very recently, in contrast to the



Very reasonably put, and to be fair, the only thing wanted from Pakistan is to stop active promotion of the faction there that is committed financially to the overthrow of Indian administration. Don't support the reactions; do support the reactions. But don't send in armed men with missions to kill.



At the cost of sounding guilty of 'whataboutery', a reasoning trope that I abhor, there has to be considerable introspection.

But not only in India.



Yes, I was shoved into the combined thread willy-nilly. I will try to look it up, but, as you might have noticed, there is a queue of Pakistani posters who have decided that the entire matter is to be resolved by interactions with me. A rich and mighty honour that is not of my choosing, and one that I wish I could step aside and allow to pass to Chhappanincheswar.

I applaud your level-headed response. Allow me to respond soon. A bit caught up to give this the rebuttal it deserves... but, quickly:
-I agree Pak benefited from US aid / economic packages
-I disagree with some of the implications of many of your arguments
-Most importantly, I believe we should be discussing the here and now --- it is obvious that India may well be using state sponsored terrorists more than Pakistan in the last 5-10 years, or at least roughly at the same level
-Similarly, whether it is a recent phenomenon or not doesn't change the fact that the West (these days) turns a blind eye to India's current sponsorship of terrorism against Pakistan; therefore, I refuse to accept any narrative / line of thinking that pits Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror without acknowledging that India must share this reputation (Baloch vs Kashmiri "terrorists" --- if anything, the Kashmiris have international law on their side, in the sense of it being an illegal occupation and an internationally-recognized disputed territory being ruled by the kind of occupations rarely seen or allowed in the modern era, neither of which can be said of Balochistan)

More later! Thanks again for this intellectual foreplay!

 

[holysinner]

holier than thou as always!
I don't think any of them were "muslamic scholars" like you, they just saw him as one of them rapists and child blinders from across the line who had come over to bomb them, and for all they knew he was one them who bombed and killed 4 women and a child yesterday in the nearby area

I am not a muslim scholar. Our Prophet even forgave his worst enemy who ate his uncles liver. Read the instructions of Prophet Muhammad when he gave the sermon to his forces while entering Makkah. When someone gives up, you respect them kindly.

 

[IFB]

Damn right.
By the way the Pakistani jet shot down was indeed F-16. Confirmed.

where ? source please.

 

[Windjammer]

Squadron Leader Hassan Sadiqui after giving surprise to the Indians.

https://www.facebook.com/

 

[Sneaker]

He is POW,,,,,, In the end, He will go back home (India) and most probably IAF will retire him...….. So this is end of his service...

Flt Lt Nachiketa who was PoW during Kargil is still serving. But ejection is a hard thing, if he is medically fit, he will serve India once again..