manqiangrexue
Brigadier
LOL Sounds like North Korea.
2019 India-Pakistani border clash
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
- Status
The crazy thing is that even the higher ups in the Indian military seemed to have bought the "JF-17s are junk" narrative. It is one thing if military fans believe it, but another entirely if the decision makers believe it.
That has to be an antimatter bomb.
Let's leave the kids out of this please...
Well your argument is semi logical, not what I would say about the rest of the posters here.
But you spoilt it by by referencing that video at the end. I didn't even click on the video because I know it would suit your agenda.
Deterrence is obvious when subsequent to the Feb events, Pakistan is in panic mode and calling in the P5 members and inventing new strike days from India. Keeping your airspace closed for more than a month and losing valuable foreign exchange. Seems your establishment has more fear of India than your bravado here.
India undisputably lost a fighter jet in PoK and one helio loss in kashmir, but these are the risks of ingress. Next time we just take more care but the next time is assured. Look at the placating statements from your establishment and contrast with the aggressive ones from India.
You talk about logic and then proudly ignored the guy's video link accusing it as serving his agenda. There is no learning or self-modulating with this attitude. You will ignore all the evidence that doesn't suit your needs. All that evidence may indeed be questionable which is why I've not used any of those but stuck with the mutually agreed facts. However you do exactly the same if not worse and you claim your own dodgy "evidence" as groundbreaking and faultlessly incriminating. Please. It's you who is acting semi-logical at best. If you want to prove us wrong, why don't you start by addressing the points I've raised in the last few pages? Of course you know better and far above such nonsense
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You don't look at other people's evidence because you're afraid they'll support his argument? LOLOL Impressive strategy! Talk to yourself then!
All that's obvious is that India got a huge black eye so it's kicking and screaming trying to look tough but Pakistan delivered that black eye so it's being an adult and telling India to calm down. When a child attacks a grown man, that's what happens; doesn't mean the man is scared.
Aggressive statements? That's what victory sounds like to you? Haha Other people shoot down your jets and beat down your pilots and you bring "aggressive statements" to equalize that?? Can you possibly set the standards any lower for India? By your logic, North Korea's the toughest country around, always threatening to turn other people into ash and their cities into a "sea of fire."
Next time? Next time you will lose more, your whole air force if you dare send them. Then you will say, "Ah! There will be the next time after that!" Then you will lose more again. This is called self-inflicted harm. Why would the next time be different? I don't recall Indians saying before this incident that next time India will lose 2 aircraft and many airmen. Next time behave properly, don't attack anyone, and your airmen stay alive and your aircraft stay in one piece... until you wreck them in training that is.
Last edited:
wow... dude, you just forfeited this debate, in the most ridiculous way possible:
You've been refusing to listen to the arguments of everyone here from the beginning, and now you just admitted to it.
that's Game Over.
Last edited:
Guys, please calm down.
We all know this is a controversial issue, and no need to get testy over it.
@maint1234,
For your argument, I mainly see 2 main premises:
1. Pakistan was successfully bombed with malicious intent. (evidence: Pakistan government did not give immediate access of the balakot madrassa)
2. Pakistan did not retaliate with the same intensity. (evidence: Pakistan "deliberately " missed Indian army posts in retaliation.)
Such leads to your conclusion that Pakistan is unable and possibly afraid to retaliate.
As others pointed out, premise 1 does not stand due to the variety of reasons that could have led to the late access to balakot madrassa, so you argued that
3. Successful or not, Pakistan was bombed with malicious intent.
so together with premise 2 your argument still stands.
I would like to refute your premise 3.
Although Pakistan was bombed, it was highly likely that the bombing run was not successful, and India suffered a huge embarrassment (loss of a Mig 21 and a Mi 17). Keep in mind that it was close to the elections, and should Pakistan organise a successful retaliation, it would lead to poorer popularity of the current ruling party and may lead to unnecessary escalation. As such Pakistan has plenty of reason to "deliberately" miss. Not that your premise 3 must be wrong, but that it was not a convincing one since there are other explanations and without further information, it is hard to make that sort of assumptions.
Feel free to disagree or clarify anything you felt that was illogical or misrepresented.
We all know this is a controversial issue, and no need to get testy over it.
@maint1234,
For your argument, I mainly see 2 main premises:
1. Pakistan was successfully bombed with malicious intent. (evidence: Pakistan government did not give immediate access of the balakot madrassa)
2. Pakistan did not retaliate with the same intensity. (evidence: Pakistan "deliberately " missed Indian army posts in retaliation.)
Such leads to your conclusion that Pakistan is unable and possibly afraid to retaliate.
As others pointed out, premise 1 does not stand due to the variety of reasons that could have led to the late access to balakot madrassa, so you argued that
3. Successful or not, Pakistan was bombed with malicious intent.
so together with premise 2 your argument still stands.
I would like to refute your premise 3.
Although Pakistan was bombed, it was highly likely that the bombing run was not successful, and India suffered a huge embarrassment (loss of a Mig 21 and a Mi 17). Keep in mind that it was close to the elections, and should Pakistan organise a successful retaliation, it would lead to poorer popularity of the current ruling party and may lead to unnecessary escalation. As such Pakistan has plenty of reason to "deliberately" miss. Not that your premise 3 must be wrong, but that it was not a convincing one since there are other explanations and without further information, it is hard to make that sort of assumptions.
Feel free to disagree or clarify anything you felt that was illogical or misrepresented.
@maint1234
Also, although sources of opposing prospectives are difficult to take in due to their opposing nature, it would be good to still look through it to take in some different perspectives that would help you make a better judgement of the situation. If the sources are biased and possess an agenda, it should be easily determinable based on the language, logic and use of evidence. If you find these sources biased or was placed to suit an agenda, you could list down the evidence and we could have a more intellectual debate on the bias and reliability of the source which would frankly be a better argument compared to your statement which is not very convincing.
- Status