SIPRA
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2019
- Messages
- 13,549
- Reaction score
- 3
- Country
- Location
For ur masochist kinks...u r gonna have to look elsewhere. As for the rest of ur post...wow...when I took ur bait I didn't think u would jump all over the place like this. Why not stick with ur Aug 5th subject u trolled about? I only have so much time I can take out from my day to shatter ur delusions...so I ask that u keep most of ur delusions to urself.
Really is that why a military exists? Did u set Pak military's doctrine?
If a military's sole existence is to take Kashmir then only China, India, and Pak should have their militaries and the rest of the world shouldn't...right? Unless that is retarded logic...bcuz clearly the rest of the world also maintains their respective militaries.
If by Kashmir however u meant a "disputed territory"...then by that reasoning only countries who have claims on disputed territories should maintain militaries while the rest shouldn't...
...that is also retarded logic bcuz there are plenty of countries in the world that don't have any claims to any disputed territory and still they maintain their military.
Now let's come to the super obvious reason that everyone knows(except u I guess) why a country maintains its military. It is to safeguard that country's interests and to protect it from external threats. This is why Pak has its military and this is also why India has its own. If ur argument is that Pak military has been unable to take Indian Kashmir in the past 72 years...then the same logic applies to u...Indian military has also failed to take Pak's side of Kashmir(and China's side as well) for the past 72 years.
Again more crap fed to u by ur media's constant propaganda. Yes Pak and US created Afghan Mujahideen to fight off USSR. US did bcuz it couldn't risk direct fighting with USSR and Pakistan did bcuz with USSR in Afghanistan it would've created a second front for Pak. Pak was in US camp and India was in USSR's camp. USSR would've allowed Indian designs in Afghanistan to proceed without any hindrance. Additionally the government USSR was backing in Afghanistan...was also anti Pak. If Pak didn't create Afghan Mujahideen Pak would've been sandwiched between India on one side and (anti Pak)Afghanistan on the other.
Look up Afghanistan's air force of that time...it wasn't anything like it is today. USSR had armed them well and that threat had to be dealt with whatever the cost. It was a matter of survival...whatever it takes. Pak didn't ask for those circumstances...Pak didn't ask for USSR to come in Pak's backyard...it happened anyways...such is reality. Pak just picked what was the only solution at that point in time.
Now that spoonfeeding of the above obvious history lesson is done...let's talk about "the devil" u mention. So u think creating armed militia(whatever label u wanna apply feel free to do so "terrorist", "freedom fighters", etc.) to further ur goals is wrong? So Pak was "evil" for creating "Afghan Mujahideen"...hmm I wonder what u have to say about "LTTE", "Mukti Bahini"(and other such groups)...and more recently ur chimp(Kulbhushan) caught in Balochistan aiding BLA.
In this game of dancing with the devil...all countries that play this chess game utilize this "trick". US, USSR(now Russia), China, India, Pak, KSA and GCC, Iran, western European countries, and many more. All these countries have at one point or another tried their hand at creating militias to further their own interests. As the Urdu saying goes "is hamam mein sub nangay hain". So u can keep ur "holier than thou" BS to urself.
Lol yeah no need to take credit...it's the US who has the power to do that and not India. India is just the lackey they need to counter China...and so they tried to free u up a little by holding one of ur enemies back a little. No matter there are other ways to finance "black operations"...if the CIA could do it a few decades back...so can Pak
Sooner or later the Afghan mess would come to a conclusion...and idk if u have been following it but all the money u threw at them buying those Afghan puppets...well that's not gonna work out for u bcuz Afghan Taliban hold most of the power(bar US of course). US has been willing to negotiate with them too for some time now(and recently did) bcuz it is just draining them with no end in sight. Sooner or later that negotiation would work...US will withdraw and Afghanistan would be back in Pak's fold(via Afghan Taliban). All that years of Indian effort would fail...and I wonder what would be done with all that opium that's grown in Afghanistan...food for thought(see above part about financing "black operations"...straight out of CIA's textbook).
Pak would eventually come out of the FATF greylist...and at least it would also force Pak to put in safe guards for money laundering(one of the key reasons why Pak was greylisted). So u see any hope u had in FATF somehow ending support to Kashmir's militant groups...it's nothing but a wet dream. That decision is purely based on the whims and wishes of the political and military leadership of Pak...however I'm looking forward to some tough measures being taken against money laundering...so that Pak's crooked politicians wouldn't be able to siphon off loads of money so easily.
And? As I already said above...any "gloating" that Pak hasnt been able to take Indian Kashmir...looks equally bad on u...bcuz using that same reasoning India has also failed to take Pak's Kashmir. If anything it's more embarrassing for India since Indian military is far bigger with more resources.
That was the only time India ever won against Pak and the reason for that wasn't some amazing Indian military prowess(both had fought to a stalemate just 6 years prior to that). The reason was that East Pakistan(the very territory Pak was supposed to protect...and the very ppl had turned against Pak). There was mutiny and sabotage at the military and civilian level during the war in addition to Mukti Bahini and other militias...added to that was Indian military action. So u can thank Bangladeshi ppl for ur victory.
Advantage India? U do know that Pak still holds some key strategic points taken during the Kargil war right? India was never able to take those back. If u consider that an advantage...then go right ahead...Pak would love it if India would have more of that advantage. The political image is water under the bridge...no nation even gives a crap about Pak's Kargil actions...and there are no consequences for Pak at present time or in the future due to Kargil...and yet Pak will keep those strategic points
India shied away from those actions bcuz unlike ur bollywood movies...India can't just take military action against Pak without consequences...as evident by recent skirmish in February. I know u guys like to think u r a superpower like the US but reality is far different than the fiction ur media throws at u.
U can keep trying ur "military action" against "terrorist launchpads" and keep getting blown out of the sky. Let's see if ur chai wala is in mood for some more fantastic chai.
Alright for the nth time...I keep hearing Indians using that sorry *** excuse that the air strike was to test Pak's nuclear bluff. Surely not all of u Indians in that huge quantity can be empty in the head all at the same time? Or is that too much to ask for?
Do u guys get the concept of nukes? Do u know the difference between declaring a no first use policy and not declaring it?
The whole concept of acquiring nuclear weapons is to ensure MAD. This means there isn't going to be a scenario where ur enemy would win. If u r going down...u take ur enemy with u. Did u catch that? Here I'll repeat it IF U R GOING DOWN...u take ur enemy with u.
Did u think that Pak would lose or cease to exist or be conquered by India with that one airstrike? So why would Pak fire nukes for that and have both countries destroyed when it is perfectly able to retaliate in a conventional manner?
One must assess the threat level and potential escalation of it...if one doesn't do that then how do u establish WHEN to use ur nukes? If the automatic response for anything is nukes then just one bullet fired from India on LoC would've been enough to cause a nuclear holocaust in the region...but of course all normal ppl(especially defense enthusiasts...like members of this forum for example) know that's not how NUCLEAR DETTERENCE works. If Pak's answer to anything and everything was nukes then why bother building up the conventional military capacity? In short nukes are to be used when conventionally Pak is backed into a corner where defeat is certain.
Next let me spoon feed u some basic knowledge about no first use policy. India has a no first use policy. No first use policy is a voluntary declaration by a nation that possesses nukes. It basically means that during a war they wouldn't be the first one to launch nukes towards their enemy and will only do so if their enemy used nukes first. Nations that have nukes and don't declare a no first use policy...those nations basically declare(in a sense) without having to say anything that they MAY(keyword here) use their nukes during a war regardless of whether or not their enemy has used them.
This means that the nation who has not declared a no first use policy DECIDES when it's appropriate to use their nukes. If u r fighting an enemy that also has nukes(meaning MAD would occur) then the only time u would DECIDE to use ur nukes is when u r going to lose anyway...and so u might as well take ur enemy down with u.
Pak's approach always was to build up conventional capability as much as possible. If in case of war Pak's conventional forces are overwhelmed by Indian numerical superiority and Pak is about to lose...then nukes come into play. In conclusion nothing has changed with February events...prior to that Pak's nuclear deterrence and doctrine was the same as it is after the February events. The use of that invented excuse by Indians that "it was to call Pak's nuclear bluff" is just a sad and pathetic attempt to try and paint the embarrassing defeat as some sort of carefully calculated strategic win by India.
Nothing political was to be gained from a brief military action. It wasn't supposed to be political. It was simply a retaliation to show India its place...as simple as that.
Lmao this is another one of those dumb made up victories I keep hearing about from Indians just like that one above of "calling Pak's nuclear bluff". Removing article 370 is the same as what u guys do with ur maps...when u show Kashmir(including Pak and China's part of it) as part of India. Neither of those things change the reality...it is still an internationally recognized "disputed territory"...whether u alter the map or remove an article from ur constitution...nothing is going to change that. If anything India has weakened its own case since it was India that took the matter to the UN...it was India that wanted a "bilateral solution"...and now that same India by taking unilateral actions and by ignoring the UN resolutions is axing its own foot.
This means either u give up ur claim on Pak and China's portion of Kashmir or u have to take it by force bcuz u just shut the door on the proposed peaceful solutions.
U mean just like how India was huffing and puffing about CPEC passing through Pak Kashmir and no one cared?
CPEC is still proceeding without a hitch btwbut u don't see Pakistanis invent a victory for themselves over that.
So often I see this "heads I win, tails u lose" mentality in Indians.
--> India removes article 370
----> Pak raises it at the international level...unable to get results*
------> Indian victory somehow
--> Pak and China work on CPEC
----> India raises it at the internation level...unable to get results
------> not Pakistan's victory somehow? bcuz Indian logic changes when it applies to them
As for the aesterik above...
*US did ask India to lift the curfew and the media blackout. A US senator also went to visit and was not allowed in Indian Kashmir...but sure let's just say nothing happened bcuz it makes u feel good.
Lmao refer to the top part of my post regarding the reason why militaries exist. As for India making LoC "de facto border"...again how many times do I have to tell u? The thing with logic is that it applies both ways. This also means that u have no claim left on Pak and China's portion of the Kashmir...that is unless u can take it by force(highly doubtful). So I guess it's back to square one...which for u guys is drawing fake maps.
As for Pak "having to" invade India bcuz of a change in ur constitution...well again by using ur reasoning...this means India "had to" invade Pak when Pak and China started building CPEC....and also according to u...since u guys didn't there's no reason for ur military's existence...right? Normally a person would have to agree reluctantly bcuz it's his reasoning after all...though in ur case I can just sense some mental gymnastics coming my way, which will bend all reason until hypocrisy is reached.
If peace could be achieved with just some addition or removal from the constitution...then it wouldn't have taken this long. If u think this is over then u r sorely mistaken. India isn't about to give up its claim, neither is Pak nor China.
@doorstar see above if interested
@waz @The Eagle and other mods...one of my other posts was deleted...plz don't delete this one. I took some time in writing it...there are plenty of worse threads out there...plz allow this to exist at least for a while.
Excellent reply and a very logical one.
