Indian Army shot Pakistani officers, after calling flag meeting

[Jf Thunder]

its a tweet.. you can fit in everything in a tweet.

whut?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

....and you would know that with absolute certainty, how?

Because no such unit exists in the PA/Ranger ORBAT or structure, and has been verified in discussion with numerous serving and retired PA officials. Where is your evidence that such a unit exists in the PA/Rangers?

According to the Pakistani Rangers, soldiers carrying a white flag and going for a "flag meeting" were supposedly shot. The story goes that the Pakistanis then raised another white flag & went to collect the bodies. Something different about the whiteness of the 2 flags? How did the Rangers suddenly become confident that the BSF would not fire and if the BSF was used to firing at soldiers carrying white flags, why stop with one? Could have taken down more Pakistanis, couldn't they?

They had to take a chance at that point didn't they? It was either that or let the soldiers bleed to death (which was the result caused by the BSF in any case after firing on soldiers approaching for a Flag Meeting).

Except that the BSF is a much larger force when compared to the Rangers & can bring far more firepower to bear in any given situation than the rangers. There was a program by Ejaz Haider at the time of the last flare up comparing the BSF & the Rangers and pointing out that the BSF was a much better equipped & armed force with equipment that the rangers didn't have. Pakistani government's own statistics for the last engagement showed a 1:4 ratio in favour of the BSF of the rounds fired. Maybe Rational thinking ought to be a 2 way street.

Which is why the PA supports Ranger operations when needed (Indian escalation) with both equipment and personnel, and which brings us back to the same point I reiterated earlier,

"..the media is regurgitating BSF statements that are ludicrous and the holes in their rationale should be obvious to most rational observers. Both the Pakistani and Indian side have used similar weaponry during the clashes recently and in the past, and since BSF/IA bullets and mortar shells are not 'guided by Sita and Ram', and BSF/IA bunkers are not 'protected by Force Fields provided by Ancient Indian technology', any static exchange of fire across the LoC/WB will inflict similar levels of damage on either side."

So if Pakistani forces target 'a dozen bunkers with small arms and mortar fire', and the IA/BSF responds with 'small arms and mortar fire', why on earth do you think the IA/BSF is not going to suffer similar casualties to the Pakistani forces? If the IA/BSF can 'destroy a Pakistani bunker' with small arms and mortar fire, why do you think the Pakistani side can't destroy an IA/BSF bunker with similar small arms and mortar fire?

Use some common sense already and stop swallowing the nonsensical propaganda fed to you by your media and military establishment. The BSF/IA is running a Bollywood Tamash in cahoots with the Indian media, and Indians like you keep dancing to it without a second thought."

Choosing to downplay the incident is another way of saying not informing your own citizens which might prove an inconvenience.

It is a way of acting responsibly and allowing the diplomatic and military channels to work out the issue without escalating it, something the Indian government and military establishment has no clue about.

For example propagating civilian casualties but at the same time hiding military ones (as that might prove in embarrassment for the force) as happened in Oct 2014.

Again, that theory goes out the door given the fact that casualties were reported both prior and subsequent to October. You can only establish 'lack of credibility' by showing a consistent and recent pattern of such 'hiding of casualties', and such a pattern does not exist.

On the other hand, the BSF issue two contradictory accounts (both attributed to IDENTIFIED BSF officials) about the same incident, which does bring into question the veracity of their claims.

BSF replies to Pakistan firing; 2 Rangers killed - The Hindu

Two Army jawans, one woman killed in Pak. firing

Two Army jawans and a woman were killed while 11 people were injured as Pakistani troops targeted villages and security posts at various places in Jammu and Kashmir since Friday night which triggered migration of hundreds of people from some border areas.
Two Army jawans, one woman killed in Pak. firing - The Hindu

=========

We will talk in a language India understands: Pakistan

Pakistan on Saturday appeared to threaten India with retaliation over the killing of its soldiers in cross-border firing, saying it will now “communicate in the language they understand“.

“In the past six—seven months, we have tried to better our ties with India so that peace can prevail. But it seems that they do not understand this language,” Defence Minister Khawaja Asif told reporters outside the Pakistan Parliament.

“I believe, we will now communicate with India in the language they understand,” he said.

Asif’s remarks came after four Pakistani rangers were killed in BSF’s strong retaliation after a jawan of the force lost his life in heavy firing from the other side on a patrol on December 31 along the International Border in Jammu and Kashmir’s Samba district.

“Day before yesterday’s incident has been taken up at every level from the army’s side. The issue was taken up at the very location of firing, then we established contact from one post to the other,” Asif said.

“After that we took up the issue at the level of Rangers and BSF, than at the DGMO level, we also explored the diplomatic channel. We have taken up the issue at every possible level,” he said.

Asif made the remarks also in response to the alleged killing of a 13-year-old Pakistani girl from Sialkot in cross-border firing.
Two Army jawans, one woman killed in Pak. firing - The Hindu

Well, really there was no clutching of straws. Factually tribune misquoted the FO spokesperson and the briefing transcripts still shows that there was no mention of the ambush during the briefing. And that's exactly was the discussion on whether the spokesperson talked about the ambush or not.

It absolutely was clutching at straws, with you going so far as to state that the FO was trying to 'distance itself from the Chenab Rangers account of the incident'.
Anyway, here is the response from India
India Dismisses Pakistan's Allegations on Cross-Border Firing
[/quote]
To be expected from the Indian side, especially from the Modi government, they turned a fishing boat into a 'terror boat' after all, with recent reports suggesting that even the fire on the boat might have been caused by the Coast Guard firing without cause on the boat.
Doubts mount over India’s claims of destroying ‘terror boat’ from Pakistan

Never thought that you would have such comprehension deficit. Read the BSF statement again.. This time with the right parts highlighted

"If Pakistan rangers fire on us, we will also fire on them. If they suffer collateral damages (in our action), they (Pakistan) should be ready for that,"

Clearly calling out that Pakistan will be responsible for any collateral damage if it initiates hostilities. On the other hand,no matter what you say, following your logic, knowingly sending in f 16s with gravity bombs in civilian areas, and killing families of the militants along with the terrorists is a war crime Pakistan has been committing since months

The comprehension deficit is on your end. Collateral damage, by definition, is accidental. Accidental damage cannot be 'predicted'. The BSF is threatening Pakistan with 'intentional collateral damage', which is clearly a threat to commit war crimes, and not surprising given the cowardly shooting of Pakistani soldiers arriving for a Flag Meeting (and now the destruction of a fishing boat as well).

The title of chapter VI is "Pacific resolution of disputes" and you are right, UN does not enforce the resolutions under Chapter VI and leaves it to the parties to implement those through mutually agreed negotiations. And that's the definition of non binding.

Under that definition the ONLY international treaties and commitments that are 'binding' would be those that are 'enforceable'. How many international, treaties, agreements, commitments outside of the Chapter VI resolutions are enforceable and how?

Wrong again. First of all, its a non binding resolution and not a treaty on which India is a signatory. Secondly India, way back in 1950's put the onus of non implementation of this resolution on Pakistani action of changing the demographics of the P OK and not withdrawing its forces that was the pre condition of the plebiscite. Another key difference between the Kashmir resolution and IWT is the legality of the two. Breaches to IWT can be taken to ICJ. Try doing that wrt Kashmir and you will knwo the difference.

The Indian and Pakistani commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is just as binding as any of their other international treaties or commitments.For example, please explain how exactly the ICJ will 'enforce' any of its decisions on India and Pakistan with respect to breaches in the IWT? Is the ICJ going to send military forces to enforce its decisions? How about economic or trade sanctions? Can the ICJ apply those against a State to 'enforce' its decisions?

Sure and Pakistan or other nations are free to raise any issue in the UN they see regarding India's stand on this topic. See where that leads..

In fact, India raised the Kashmir dispute at the UN and both Indian and Pakistani governments committed to implementing those resolutions, commitments that Pakistan stands by even today and Indian openly is reneging on. Pakistan also states that it is in compliance with UN resolutions regarding HS, so given the fact that you have no response to that, and that the Indian government has not taken up (in the UN) the issue of a 'lack of implementation of UN sanctions on HS', your argument on this particular issue stands debunked.

 

[Bang Galore]

Because no such unit exists in the PA/Ranger ORBAT or structure, and has been verified in discussion with numerous serving and retired PA officials. Where is your evidence that such a unit exists in the PA/Rangers?

I'll take it to mean that you can't be absolutely sure that there isn't a BAT. Not like anyone will confirm it to you as a matter of routine, is it? What we are left with is you believing what you have been told & we believing what our chaps tell us. Nothing to discuss here.

They had to take a chance at that point didn't they? It was either that or let the soldiers bleed to death (which was the result caused by the BSF in any case after firing on soldiers approaching for a Flag Meeting).

That's a pretty sorry excuse. No one would risk more soldiers unless they were sure the BSF would not be firing. The point here is simple - that story put out is not entirely convincing, certainly to those inclined to think rationally. Special pleading doesn't cut it, either the BSF was doing things against all norms & couldn't be trusted or it could and those allegations remain unproven (being very generous here)

Which is why the PA supports Ranger operations when needed (Indian escalation) with both equipment and personnel, and which brings us back to the same point I reiterated earlier,

[/QUOTE]

Not easily available at short notice & can be matched in return. The figures that the Pakistani government provided parliament was the total rounds supposedly fired by the Pakistani forces, all of them compared to the Indian forces. The ratio was 1:4. Can't have it both ways, accuse India of massive firing and claim parity when you are putting out such figures.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

@Bang Galore

One other comment on the BSF vs Rangers - the BSF is a better equipped force overall, but the exchanges between the two sides so far (even the so called mini-war in October 2014) have remained limited to small arms and light artillery/mortar fire, and the Rangers possess that equipment in sufficient enough numbers to respond to the BSF, until a certain threshold.

I'll take it to mean that you can't be absolutely sure that there isn't a BAT. Not like anyone will confirm it to you as a matter of routine, is it? What we are left with is you believing what you have been told & we believing what our chaps tell us. Nothing to discuss here.

Your 'chaps' have concocted something out of thin air - there is nothing to believe about the BAT with respect to what your 'chaps' have told you just like there is nothing to believe about the 'planet hopping space ships and cosmic weapons developed by ancient Indians' your 'chaps' have told you about. The onus is on you, the individual claiming this fantastic thing (ancient Indian space ship, BAT etc) exists, to provide the evidence establishing their existence.

That's a pretty sorry excuse. No one would risk more soldiers unless they were sure the BSF would not be firing. The point here is simple - that story put out is not entirely convincing, certainly to those inclined to think rationally. Special pleading doesn't cut it, either the BSF was doing things against all norms & couldn't be trusted or it could and those allegations remain unproven (being very generous here)

The Rangers obtained clear clarification from higher levels at the BSF before retrieving the injured soldiers the second time around.

Not easily available at short notice & can be matched in return. The figures that the Pakistani government provided parliament was the total rounds supposedly fired by the Pakistani forces, all of them compared to the Indian forces. The ratio was 1:4. Can't have it both ways, accuse India of massive firing and claim parity when you are putting out such figures.

As I pointed out in a follow up post, the Rangers posses sufficient numbers of small arms and mortars/light artillery of the caliber used in these exchanges, and can match the BSF until a certain level of escalation, at which point the Army provides support.

With respect to the numbers of fired shells - you could fire 100,000 rifle rounds at a concrete bunker and not inflict a single casualty. The caliber of weapons used has a bearing on the damage inflicted on fortified bunkers and positions, so quoting a random ratio of 1:4 means little given the smaller caliber of weapons and light artillery used by both sides. Where the ratio does matter is with collateral damage, since civilian areas are not fortified, and that can be seen in the higher civilian casualties on the Pakistani side during the exchange in October 2014.

 

[karan.1970]

It absolutely was clutching at straws, with you going so far as to state that the FO was trying to 'distance itself from the Chenab Rangers account of the incident'.

Absolutely not. At that time there was no formal statement from Pakistani FO regarding the ambush and it seemed that the civilian govt was trying to back away from the lies of the Pakistani security forces. But it seems the security forces were able to brow beat the ministry into backing their story eventually. Why else would the letter be sent on Friday for an incident that happened on Tuesday, 3 days after the fact. There was clearly some manipulations that happened in those 3 days. The sequence is clear. Pakistani Rangers sniped at BSF. Got hit back really hard and ended up making excuses about how they were tricked to avoid looking bested. Initially the civilian govt backed away from that and hence there was no mention of this in the Press briefing on 1st Jan. As an after thought, probably after being forced into it, Pakistani foreign ministry wrote to India on 2nd Jan.

Anyway, here is the response from India
India Dismisses Pakistan's Allegations on Cross-Border Firing
To be expected from the Indian side, especially from the Modi government, they turned a fishing boat into a 'terror boat' after all, with recent reports suggesting that even the fire on the boat might have been caused by the Coast Guard firing without cause on the boat.
Doubts mount over India’s claims of destroying ‘terror boat’ from Pakistan

Yeah. And we should believe 1 anti BJP media house over the Indian MoD, PMO and all other newspapers ?

Really.. That lame ?

The comprehension deficit is on your end. Collateral damage, by definition, is accidental. Accidental damage cannot be 'predicted'.

In which case how is the Pakistani COAS asking his forces to minimize collateral Damage. By asking something to be minimized, he is actually predicting its occurance. Dude, what's good for Peter, needs to be good for Paul too. Else its called double standards.

The BSF is threatening Pakistan with 'intentional collateral damage',

You are clearly lying here. There is no such statement. BSF is simply putting the responsibility of any collateral damage on Pakistan if it initiates hostilities.

which is clearly a threat to commit war crimes,

And this was the comprehension deficit you demonstrated. Living in the US, I expected you to be aware of the concept of felony homicide. Let me lay it out for you. In case of an accidental shooting of a bystander by a police officer, during a robbery, the death of that bystander is on the head of the robber and not the policeman because the robber created the situation in which the collateral damage occurred. The same has been communicated by BSF that if Pakistan creates a situation of skirmish on the border, all deaths resulting from it, soldiers or collateral will be on Pakistan's head.

As a side note, by your logic, the US govt who created this law of felony homicide, predicted collateral damage and hence should be tried for war crimes. What rubbish.

and not surprising given the cowardly shooting of Pakistani soldiers arriving for a Flag Meeting (and now the destruction of a fishing boat as well).

Its surprising how even Intelligent Pakistanis like yourself so quickly down the cool-aid distributed by Pak sec forces.

Under that definition the ONLY international treaties and commitments that are 'binding' would be those that are 'enforceable'. ...KASHMIR ISSUE.

Lets take this 1948 resolution discussion to a separate thread. Else @Oscar will get another chance to threaten me or ban me.

You only exploited a geographical weakness of Pakistan. With that weakness gone, it is a tit for every tat for you.

Excuses.. Excuses . When you mentioned geographical weakness, for a moment I thought you were talking about Siachen

 

[Areesh]

Excuses.. Excuses

Reality. Hitting hard with every death at LOC and IB.

 

[karan.1970]

Reality. Hitting hard with every death at LOC and IB.

Humko Maloom hai jannat ki haqueekat lekin, dil ke behlaane ko Ghalib, yeh khayal accha hai

 

[Areesh]

Humko Maloom hai jannat ki haqueekat lekin, dil ke behlaane ko Ghalib, yeh khayal accha hai

Masla tu yeh hai munnai kai jannat ki tumhain haqeeqat tumhain maalom nahi. Aur jahannum hum tumhain bhaijain gai.

 

[Rahi812]

We just need to keep escalating this now. Pakistan cannot be allowed to break cease-fire every time they want. Instead of retaliating with bullets for bullets, retaliate with mortars for bullets, then rockets for mortars, artillery for rockets and so on. And every time there is a fresh violation after a period of peace, start from where we left it the last time and escalate again.

I don't think this is retaliation is the right strategy. This is just a war business by military industrial complexes, and this business will keep on going when they will be able to successfully implant hatred among people.

At the end in this war business people are the one who are dying and there are people in this military industrial complexes who are making money, real big money.

 

[karan.1970]

Masla tu yeh hai munnai kai jannat ki tumhain haqeeqat tumhain maalom nahi. Aur jahannum hum tumhain bhaijain gai.

On a lighter note, I recently read the following

Go to heaven for the weather.. Go to hell for the company

 

[Areesh]

On a lighter note, I recently read the following

Go to heaven for the weather.. Go to hell for the company

On a lighter note we would continue with tit for tat policy despite people getting orgasms from decades old wars and fight. No change in New Delhi can change that.

 

[ranjeet]

On a lighter note we would continue with tit for tat policy despite people getting orgasms from decades old wars and fight. No change in New Delhi can change that.

Tu yaar ... classy banda hai. kissi din trolling ka mood hua na I will tag you for sure.

 

[karan.1970]

On a lighter note we would continue with tit for tat policy despite people getting orgasms from decades old wars and fight. No change in New Delhi can change that.

Orgasms are always good..No?

 

[Areesh]

Tu yaar ... classy banda hai. kissi din trolling ka mood hua na I will tag you for sure.

Mera to aaj bhi bohat mood ho raha tha bharation ko tag karnai. After death of two Indians today. Phr socha janai do yaar apnai hi bachai hain.

Orgasms are always good..No?

Don't bring dead back for sure.

 

[ranjeet]

Mera to aaj bhi bohat mood ho raha tha bharation ko tag karnai. After death of two Indians today. Phr socha janai do yaar apnai hi bachai hain.

Awww only if you could care about the real bachey in Peshawar.