How India’s QR-SAM has poured Cold water on Pakistan’s NASR

[Hellfire]

I started talking to him as he sounded rational unlike the other rabid dogs who dwell in new threads.

I don’t disagree with most things he said. However, choosing the more positive, powerful word like deterrence when it comes to Pakistan and tending to use words like lacks capability, indecisiveness when talking about India means there is only one agenda.

So I though I should be open and show him the mirror. But no, he wants to do it again. I spend little time in forums, would prefer to use it well.

On point, GHQ it is. i don't care about justified negative markings like the Pakistani troll who just came back from ban, deserves in successive posts. But unjustified ones, need to be dealt with. Would urge you to take it up in GHQ. Not for any other reason, only because there are still some rational members around.

Meanwhile, enjoy the song.

 

[GumNaam]

Like I say to Areesh, whenever you post a sensible post, you will get a response and a discourse. Otherwise, you are the typical Pakistani poster who has no value to add, merely brings a bad name to Pakistan with repeated ignorance, uncouth and idiotic behavior and a propensity to revel in your stupidity.

All the best growing up. Clearly, you have major upbringing issues. Perhaps abusive parents or neglected child? My sympathies.


***IGNORED***

I've been following you and your likes for quite a while and have keenly observed that you have nothing but lies to offer disguised as intellectual comments. you can tell be all of my previous posts dating back two years where I have exposed the indian lies through their own media links. Must have picked up this habit from your childhood by observing your two parents constantly lying to each other perhaps even cheating on each other, hence it has become a pathological liar issue for you and your types. None the less, I could care less and since you do continue to show your face(s) around here, I'd might as well enjoy the trolling opportunity to rub your auqaats in your faces.

enjoy your ignorance...

 

[Mav3rick]

Yet, every time an attempt was made at peace, the same was undermined by the very same 'defensive' force, would you not agree?

Opportunities have been lost, yes. I will not argue who 'sabotaged' all attempts at peace, although that it has always been India which seized every such opportunity to get out of a peace agreement. The same India could have singlehandedly failed all such 'sabotage' attempts by continuing with CBM's and Peace Agreements but it chose to wriggle out of peace deals.

Not that I wish to argue on the actors, agents and forces behind all sabotage attempts, there is incriminating evidence of India behind all terrorist attacks in Pakistan through her proxies such as TTP and BLA etc., yet we still made several attempts to make a peace deal.

I agree, but the word would not be many. Do let know any conflict where you have emphatically achieved your objectives. The bold portion, by itself, indicates that you have, indeed, achieved the opposite.

Again, I do not wish to indulge in useless arguments or semantics of 'emphatic achievements', this is especially true while we are still there at Kargil even today. Military victories of PakMil are second to none, in their unique constraints and circumstances.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And still everyday whether it's your steel mills, to water, to IT to movies, all issues point towards India. Right?

Where did I say that?

Yes, that's a long term impact, and it can be done even without a terrorist attack. For example, a FATF blacklist can be just the start of problems for Pakistan. But Pakistan can rely on friends from China and the GCC to protect Pakistan anyway. The effect of sanctions on Pakistan is not as impactful as you believe it can be.

China and the GCC will not be able to provide significant cover to Pakistan in case of a full on sanctions onslaught led by the US. Iran has stumbled along despite US sanctions because of oil revenues and a higher socio-economic starting point. Similar US sanctions against Pakistan would be devastating - which is why staving off potential US sanctions is a far bigger threat than Bhensa's bluster and hot air.

But if the Pindi boys push this govt to beyond a certain extent, Pakistan will cease to exist. That's how much of a danger a hawkish govt is to Pakistan.

The Pindi Boys will push whatever they need to push to the extent needed to safeguard Pakistan's interests. The ranting and raving of Bhensa has no impact, but you can choose to believe what you wish.

LOL

Negative rating for writing "very nice"

As I pointed out already, it's for the use of sarcastic one liners multiple times in response to a genuine question.

Stop wasting your time. Understand that the so called 'Surgical Strikes' never took place. Just like in Kargil, Pakistan Army was never involved. Pakistan Army has said it, that is enough!

And we all know how that panned out.

Bad analogy - the 'event' of the Kargil conflict was never denied. What was, initially, denied was the extent of Pakistani military involvement in the initial taking of military heights.

In the case of the so called 'surgical strikes', there simply is no evidence that strikes along the lines claimed by India occurred. The PA took local and foreign journalists to the alleged sites and there was no evidence to support Indian claims.

Remember what I said about echo chamber?

Absolutely, but throwing out such insults does not lend itself to civil debate.

I don't need to read yet another Indian post about 'Pakistanis are fed XYZ from their military, live in an echo chamber, blah, blah, blah'. Most of us already get it: a majority of you internet Indians have a very low opinion about Pakistanis, and the feeling is mutual. So if we've gotten all those insults out of the way, next time provide us with an actual counter argument.

However, choosing the more positive, powerful word like deterrence when it comes to Pakistan and tending to use words like lacks capability, indecisiveness when talking about India means there is only one agenda.

Dear god, this is what occurs when you choose to cherry pick some words and ignore the context of the comments & discussion. This entire thread was started with the premise that Pakistan's 'deterrence' was going to be nullified by the QRSAM system, so of course I'm going to approach it from the perspective of 'Pakistani deterrence'.

 

[ranadd]

Where did I say that?


China and the GCC will not be able to provide significant cover to Pakistan in case of a full on sanctions onslaught led by the US. Iran has stumbled along despite US sanctions because of oil revenues and a higher socio-economic starting point. Similar US sanctions against Pakistan would be devastating - which is why staving off potential US sanctions is a far bigger threat than Bhensa's bluster and hot air.

The Pindi Boys will push whatever they need to push to the extent needed to safeguard Pakistan's interests. The ranting and raving of Bhensa has no impact, but you can choose to believe what you wish.


As I pointed out already, it's for the use of sarcastic one liners multiple times in response to a genuine question.

Bad analogy - the 'event' of the Kargil conflict was never denied. What was, initially, denied was the extent of Pakistani military involvement in the initial taking of military heights.

In the case of the so called 'surgical strikes', there simply is no evidence that strikes along the lines claimed by India occurred. The PA took local and foreign journalists to the alleged sites and there was no evidence to support Indian claims.


Absolutely, but throwing out such insults does not lend itself to civil debate.

I don't need to read yet another Indian post about 'Pakistanis are fed XYZ from their military, live in an echo chamber, blah, blah, blah'. Most of us already get it: a majority of you internet Indians have a very low opinion about Pakistanis, and the feeling is mutual. So if we've gotten all those insults out of the way, next time provide us with an actual counter argument.


Dear god, this is what occurs when you choose to cherry pick some words and ignore the context of the comments & discussion. This entire thread was started with the premise that Pakistan's 'deterrence' was going to be nullified by the QRSAM system, so of course I'm going to approach it from the perspective of 'Pakistani deterrence'.

Ok buddy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ok buddy.

Not that I really expect you or some others to refrain from the derogatory generalizations about Pakistanis, but thanks for the attempt.

 

[randomradio]

China and the GCC will not be able to provide significant cover to Pakistan in case of a full on sanctions onslaught led by the US. Iran has stumbled along despite US sanctions because of oil revenues and a higher socio-economic starting point. Similar US sanctions against Pakistan would be devastating - which is why staving off potential US sanctions is a far bigger threat than Bhensa's bluster and hot air.

You overestimate sanctions that the US can place on Pakistan. It won't be with the same severity as it has been with Iran because you need UNSC support for such levels of sanction, which China won't support.

This story of sanctions is only an excuse.

The Pindi Boys will push whatever they need to push to the extent needed to safeguard Pakistan's interests. The ranting and raving of Bhensa has no impact, but you can choose to believe what you wish.

Since they have done nothing since Modi came to power, it's all good. Once he's reelected, we will see 5 more years of zero terror attacks.

Not that I really expect you or some others to refrain from the derogatory generalizations about Pakistanis, but thanks for the attempt.

You are the wrong person to say that when you compare the PM of a country to that of a farm animal in the same thread. Perhaps I should do the same to IK, relate him to a similar category of farm animal so that we are on even footing?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You overestimate sanctions that the US can place on Pakistan. It won't be with the same severity as it has been with Iran because you need UNSC support for such levels of sanction, which China won't support.

Are the US led sanctions on Iran with UNSC support? The US doesn't need UNSC support to implement unilateral sanctions. Given US clout in the global economy, other countries will be forced to reduce exchanges with Pakistan for fear of violating US laws.

Since they have done nothing since Modi came to power, it's all good. Once he's reelected, we will see 5 more years of zero terror attacks.

Doesn't matter if he's re-elected or not, Pakistan is going to continue efforts it started under the Congress government to ensure groups like the LeT do not carry out attacks like Mumbai.

You are the wrong person to say that when you compare the PM of a country to that of a farm animal in the same thread. Perhaps I should do the same to IK, relate him to a similar category of farm animal so that we are on even footing?

I did not make a derogatory generalization about all Indians - I mocked the hate-mongering Prime Minister of India much like I mock Trump and used to mock Zardari and Nawaz Sharif.

 

[randomradio]

Are the US led sanctions on Iran with UNSC support?

Obviously. Resolution 1696. Resolution 1737.

The US doesn't need UNSC support to implement unilateral sanctions. Given US clout in the global economy, other countries will be forced to reduce exchanges with Pakistan for fear of violating US laws.

If the US sanctions Pakistan, then China will fill the void. Only UNSC sanctions are dangerous and such sanctions are very rare, and very unlikely for Pakistan to be a victim of such with China around.

Doesn't matter if he's re-elected or not, Pakistan is going to continue efforts it started under the Congress government to ensure groups like the LeT do not carry out attacks like Mumbai.

That didn't stop all the attacks on cities from 2010 to 2013.

I did not make a derogatory generalization about all Indians - I mocked the hate-mongering Prime Minister of India much like I mock Trump and used to mock Zardari and Nawaz Sharif.

Shows your conduct. But that also means you have no right to say what you did to others before changing your own conduct.