J&K: Soldier, civilian dead as Pakistan violates ceasefire in Uri sector

[RazPaK]

When civilians die in Pakistani side, do they die for being used as human shields by Pakistani soldiers?

The difference is quite clear. The Indians shell villages, while Pakistanis fire on posts. Indians are using the Kashmiri population as human shields, which is quite evident because the civilian was shot and did not die due to shelling or mortars.

 

[JonAsad]

This what happened last time they violated ceasfire, whole village was blown in just 2 minutes, that is why they blacked out media.

what nonsense- that looks like targeting practice- you can actually see the impact- bullets ricochet from not more than 800 meters-
stupid indians-

Do you want to know what stupidity equivalent of this video be?-

change title to* Pakistani MLRS decimating indian positions at LOC after indians kidnapped our cattle
re-upload on youtube*

gullible Indians are easily fooled-

 

[Sugarcane]

You know what it doesn't take a week or two for me to reply in the same kind considering whats happening in your country

I prefer honesty over faking

 

[Zarvan]

Baramulla: A 17-year-old civilian Gulshan Bano and a soldier was killed on Saturday evening as Pakistani troops violated ceasefire in Kamalkot area of Uri sector.

The firing occurred on Saturday evening from 5:15 PM.

Indian troops appropriately responded to Pakistan firing.

@HariPrasad @gslv mk3 @SarthakGanguly @DRAY

RIP soldier!!

mod edit: Anyone who celebrates deaths on either side will be given warnings.

For civilian Rest in Peace and according to our forces your soldiers opened fire we hit back

 

[JonAsad]

Ok, now lets talk about your stupidity, what you did was you took comments from that youtube link and posted here, secondly, do you think target practice videos are shooted in this manner ? Third, ask your own military persons about this, they know it better lol !

which youtube comments?-

i made a genuine video by just changing the titles to extreme bravado- the video is the proof in itself-
now believe that Pak Army pounded indian positions hard with MLRS when the indians stole our cattle- -

 

[jaunty]

So after a brief period of relative calm, Pakistan has again started this mindless game of death like the last time and then they have the gall to run to the UN. Let's see how the Indian side retaliates.

 

[jaunty]

Apparently Modi and the BJP's childish "jaw breaking response" and "carrying a sword as well as a shield" war-mongering ranting was just that - mindless, childish ranting to make large sections of a gullible Indian electorate believe that Modi was actually capable of doing something different (in the context of a military response to Pakistan) compared to the Congress led coalition.

I see your Modi-phobia runs deep. No wonder the last time Modi decided to react to your provocations you ran to the UN and the US like a headless chicken.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I see your Modi-phobia runs deep. No wonder the last time Modi decided to react to your provocations you ran to the UN and the US like a headless chicken.

Actually, Pakistan's decision to go the UN was a diplomatic escalation on our part, along with responding militarily to unprovoked Indian violations of the ceasefire, done specifically to let India know that Pakistan was not going to follow the Indian request to keep disputes bilateral. The diplomatic offensive worked, because the Indian government was pretty soon essentially begging Pakistan to stop raising the Kashmir dispute in the UN.

The only way Modi's ranting and raving about "jaw breaking response" could have been argued to have worked was if there was no military response from the Pakistani side after he made those claims. Instead, he now looks like a loony old fool who made a whole bunch of jingoistic statements that made absolutely no impact on Pakistan's military response (given that yet another Indian soldier has been killed in Pakistani military responses to Indian violations of the CF), and made no impact on Pakistan's decision to take the ceasefire violations and the J&K dispute back to the UN.

Quite simply, Modi failed to restrain or control Pakistan on the diplomatic and military front.

 

[Didact]

Actually, Pakistan's decision to go the UN was a diplomatic escalation on our part, along with responding militarily to unprovoked Indian violations of the ceasefire, done specifically to let India know that Pakistan was not going to follow the Indian request to keep disputes bilateral. The diplomatic offensive worked, because the Indian government was pretty soon essentially begging Pakistan to stop raising the Kashmir dispute in the UN.

The only way Modi's ranting and raving about "jaw breaking response" could have been argued to have worked was if there was no military response from the Pakistani side after he made those claims. Instead, he now looks like a loony old fool who made a whole bunch of jingoistic statements that made absolutely no impact on Pakistan's military response (given that yet another Indian soldier has been killed in Pakistani military responses to Indian violations of the CF), and made no impact on Pakistan's decision to take the ceasefire violations and the J&K dispute back to the UN.

Quite simply, Modi failed to restrain or control Pakistan on the diplomatic and military front.

Actually, you are wrong, and terrifyingly at that. No matter how much you'd like to twist the narrative to suit your fancies, the reality on the ground is that you managed to hand India a diplomatic victory without us even trying. But beyond the defeat, you also managed to hand India several vital indicators that I assure you will help guide our policies in the mid to long term.

A. We were able to gauge the level of international enthusiasm (or more correctly the lack of it) to intervene in India-Pak affairs, no matter the persistence and pleading of the Pak diplomatic community.

B. We also observed the capability of the Pak diplomatic community to conduct a diplomatic offensive, both in intensity and duration of time.And frankly, we are less than impressed. A comparison with the Indian diplomati offensive after 26/11 would tell you the shortcomings in your diplomacy, if you would be willing to open your eyes and observe.

C. We know, even without classified intelligence reports, that we hit something, something vulnerable, with our escalation. This is not the way Pak usually behaves, and going by precedent, such a behaviour only occurs when our actions cause damage, serious, savage damage. Infact, I had to go back to 2002, the IAF's Mirage strike on a LOC post captured by PA, to find the last time pak responded with such vigor to the Indian action. So, something did happen.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually, you are wrong, and terrifyingly at that. No matter how much you'd like to twist the narrative to suit your fancies, the reality on the ground is that you managed to hand India a diplomatic victory without us even trying. But beyond the defeat, you also managed to hand India several vital indicators that I assure you will help guide our policies in the mid to long term.

A. We were able to gauge the level of international enthusiasm (or more correctly the lack of it) to intervene in India-Pak affairs, no matter the persistence and pleading of the Pak diplomatic community.

B. We also observed the capability of the Pak diplomatic community to conduct a diplomatic offensive, both in intensity and duration of time.And frankly, we are less than impressed. A comparison with the Indian diplomati offensive after 26/11 would tell you the shortcomings in your diplomacy, if you would be willing to open your eyes and observe.

C. We know, even without classified intelligence reports, that we hit something, something vulnerable, with our escalation. This is not the way Pak usually behaves, and going by precedent, such a behaviour only occurs when our actions cause damage, serious, savage damage. Infact, I had to go back to 2002, the IAF's Mirage strike on a LOC post captured by PA, to find the last time pak responded with such vigor to the Indian action. So, something did happen.

What "diplomatic victory" did India achieve from Modi's ranting and the so called "jaw breaking response"? India was unable to silence the Pakistani military, as can be clearly seen by the continued exchanges of fire along the LoC and IB, and India was unable to make Pakistan adhere to the Indian preference of "bilateral dialog to resolve issues", with Pakistan escalating her UN diplomacy on both the J&K and ceasefire violations.

Keep in mind that it is India that demands ONLY bilateral discussions to resolve India-Pakistan disputes and it was India that cancelled the bilateral India-Pakistan dialog on Kashmir. Pakistan's decision to take both the J&K Dispute and the ceasefire violations to the UN was a huge snub to India and essentially a "get lost" message.

With respect to the "response of the international community", that response has not changed for decades and therefore to argue that "Modi gauged the capacity of Pakistan" or "gauged the level of international enthusiasm" are both disingenuous comments meant to concoct a pro-Modi narrative. Pakistan's diplomatic capacity and international enthusiasm are the same as they always have been, the recent events have done nothing to change that, except encourage the Pakistani government to escalate the J&K issue at the UN.

Yet another disingenuous argument is the claim that India actually accomplished anything tangible from her histrionics and screaming after the Mumbai attacks. The international community has not taken one single tangible action against Pakistan on the basis of this so called "Indian diplomatic offensive after the Mumbai attacks' - can you point to any tangible action on the part of the International community after the Mumbai attacks that caused any material damage to Pakistan?

The fact of the matter is that Modi manipulated the Indian media to promote his narrative of "military and diplomatic victory over Pakistan", when the facts on the ground since his inflammatory statements show him out to be utterly wrong.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

C. We know, even without classified intelligence reports, that we hit something, something vulnerable, with our escalation. This is not the way Pak usually behaves, and going by precedent, such a behaviour only occurs when our actions cause damage, serious, savage damage. Infact, I had to go back to 2002, the IAF's Mirage strike on a LOC post captured by PA, to find the last time pak responded with such vigor to the Indian action. So, something did happen.

As has been pointed out several times before:

A. The fact that the Pakistani military continues to respond to Indian military provocations (or if the Indian media is to be beleived, continues to instigate military provocations) clearly debunks the argument that the Indian military response caused any serious setbacks to the Pakistani Rangers or Army

B. The military exchanges on both sides have been limited to small arms and light artillery (mortars of various calibers). At this scale, India and Pakistan can both match the level of intensity engaged in by the other, which means the damage inflicted on each side's military positions will be largely the same. There is no credible evidence or rational argument to justify Indian claims of "inflicting heavy damage on PA/Ranger positions", without the BSF/IA positions suffering similar damage.