India-Pakistan air conflict

[trundler]

I highly doubt they targeted a 'training camp'. It was probably an ordinary madrassah as per locals. Jaish should be uprooted and destroyed for sure though.

 

[weldone]

Yeah that terror camp talk doesn't have much basis. IAF hasn't made any claims about the impact, casualties etc. (that 300 number didn't come from any official report). So far all that has been claimed is that some bombs have been dropped inside Pakistan - and this claim has been confirmed from the Pakistani side too. But that means nothing (except IAF actually breached LOC, but then so did PAF).

 

[vcs]

They blew up some rogue Jihadi trees on a hillside.

 

[shankar]

I highly doubt they targeted a 'training camp'. It was probably an ordinary madrassah as per locals. Jaish should be uprooted and destroyed for sure though.

I take local accounts with a giant grain of salt, but it doesn't really matter. The fact that such an attack was carried out itself has called the nuclear bluff. The air strikes have been carried out with widespread tacit approval from the international community. The escalation has also been costly for Pakistan's economy. The Indian side claims that they did hit a terror camp and that they will undertake similar attempts in the eventuality of future terror attacks. So I believe things have changed.

 

[vcs]

 

[weldone]

I take local accounts with a giant grain of salt, but it doesn't really matter. The fact that such an attack was carried out itself has called the nuclear bluff. The air strikes have been carried out with widespread tacit approval from the international community. The escalation has also been costly for Pakistan's economy. The Indian side claims that they did hit a terror camp and that they will undertake similar attempts in the eventuality of future terror attacks. So I believe things have changed.

what nuclear bluff?

 

[weldone]

Do people shouting 'Geneva Convention' 'Geneva Convention' 24*7 for the last 2 days have any idea how many times GC has been breached in the past by a wide range of countries?

 

[vcs]

If we're talking of sending cricketers over, I hope they don't send us Umar Akmal.

Now that would be breaching the Geneva Convention.

 

[shankar]

So far all that has been claimed is that some bombs have been dropped inside Pakistan - and this claim has been confirmed from the Pakistani side too.

That is false. Here's the actual claim from yesterday's press conference by the Air Vice Marshall: https://m.timesofindia.com/india/ba...ired-results-iaf/amp_articleshow/68205183.cms

Of course it is possible that the bombs missed the target. But the claim is different.

But that means nothing (except IAF actually breached LOC, but then so did PAF).

That's silly. The IAF did not merely cross LOC. They dropped bombs in 'proper' Pakistan i.e. outside of Kashmir.

 

[trundler]

I take local accounts with a giant grain of salt, but it doesn't really matter. The fact that such an attack was carried out itself has called the nuclear bluff. The air strikes have been carried out with widespread tacit approval from the international community. The escalation has also been costly for Pakistan's economy. The Indian side claims that they did hit a terror camp and that they will undertake similar attempts in the eventuality of future terror attacks. So I believe things have changed.

Besides the point. It accomplished nothing since there was no training camp. Only France came out in support.

 

[shankar]

what nuclear bluff?

https://theprint.in/opinion/the-fac...but-modi-cannot-become-complacent/198346/amp/

 

[weldone]

Here's the actual claim from yesterday's press conference by the Air Vice Marshall: https://m.timesofindia.com/india/ba...ired-results-iaf/amp_articleshow/68205183.cms

That doesn't mean anything. Was it an active camp? [I understand Pak has many deserted buildings which were terror camps before] Approx. how many people were supposed to be inside? Has the camp been destroyed completely? "We hit the intended targets" doesn't mean much sadly.

 

[shankar]

Besides the point. It accomplished nothing since there was no training camp. Only France came out in support.

I said tacit support. Did you see any condemnations of the action? I didn't. Merely facile advice to resolve matters peacefully.

 

[weldone]

That's silly. The IAF did not merely cross LOC. They dropped bombs in 'proper' Pakistan i.e. outside of Kashmir.

As I said before, dropping bombs and hitting targets don't mean much harm necessarily, until we know more about what exactly is being claimed. O ya and Pakistan actually took one of our 'proper' Pilots.

 

[shankar]

That doesn't mean anything. Was it an active camp? [I understand Pak has many deserted buildings which were terror camps before] Approx. how many people were supposed to be inside? Has the camp been destroyed? "We hit the intended targets" doesn't mean much sadly.

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the claim. You posted that the claim this far was merely that bombs had been dropped somewhere in Pak territory. The claim is clearly much more.

 

[weldone]

https://theprint.in/opinion/the-fac...but-modi-cannot-become-complacent/198346/amp/

Long article with boring language, but a cursory read tells me that the article doesn't mention anything about nuclear bluff. Did you read it? I think the headline and the body were written by two separate persons at two different points of time.

 

[ankitj]

There is one camp that oversimplifies the whole thing by saying that 300 terrorists were neutralized (which is not corroborated much) and declare victory.

There is another camp that oversimplifies the whole thing by saying that 300 terrorists were not neutralized hence it was a complete failure.

How can people be so naive?

 

[weldone]

I didn't say anything about the veracity of the claim. You posted that the claim this far was merely that bombs had been dropped somewhere in Pak territory. The claim is clearly much more.

How do you know 'bombs hit the target' is much more than 'Bombs were dropped in Pak territory'? Tell me some details about the target.

 

[trundler]

I said tacit support. Did you see any condemnations of the action? I didn't. Merely facile advice to resolve matters peacefully.

Wouldn't call that a deviation from norm at all.

Anyway, India IS an oppressive state for Kashmir and Kashmir deserves the right to self determination. We can all agree on ISI's well-documented meddling but as per my knowledge the Kashmiri rebellion has developed pretty organically by now. The problem with that is that the Movement has generally allied with Islamists in the past.

 

[shankar]

As I said before, dropping bombs and hitting targets don't mean much harm necessarily, until we know more about what exactly is being claimed. O ya and Pakistan actually took one of our 'proper' Pilots.

The claim from the Indian side is that he was part of a team of aircrafts repulsing an attack on an army camp and that he shot down an F-16 before being shot down himself.

Regardless of whether one believes the above it not, why would the fact if his capture change anything? It would only change things if the Indian side considered the loss of 1 aircraft and the capture of an officer such an unacceptable cost that they wouldn't follow the same retaliatory path in the event of future terror attacks.