Goodperson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,860
- Reaction score
- 0
Both sides probably push the limits on and off when it comes to flying too close to the others airspace or even violating it - as the article posted by Blain suggested, of Indian fighters getting locked on but not being engaged.
In fact, the reaction from the defense attache's and other diplomats taken to view the wreckage in Pakistan (no question over the location, unlike what the Indians initially said) clearly indicates that India's actions were uncalled for.
I am also not certain how the Indian claim of 'hostile action' can be regarded as true, given that the wreckage was in Pakistani territory, which meant that:
1. The Atlantique was moving away from Indian airspace towards Pakistani airspace (if we consider the allegation that it violated restricted airspace to be true), and was shot by the IAF while doing so.
- If this was the case, then it is quite frankly tantamount to shooting an unarmed individual in the back - which is the only plausible explanation to account for the wreckage falling in Pakistani territory. How can an aircraft turning away and flying back into Pakistan (if the allegation of airspace violation is true) be committing a 'hostile act'?
2. The Atlantique it was far enough in Pakistani territory that even after being shot allegedly moving towards Indian territory, the wreckage fell inside Pakistan.
- In this case the IAF position is again indefensible, given that it blatantly shot down an aircraft that was nowhere close to a threat nor violating Indian airspace.
In either case, the Indian version of events seems a distortion.
Some wreckage was found in indian territory too I guess
http://vayu-sena-aux.tripod.com/thumbs/FT0016749_t.jpg