Pakistan-India Conflict 2025: News Updates and Discussion

[lightning f57]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

50 launched, only 11 hit?

1/5 still resulted in loss of life, Pak needs bolster its AD against bases and key installations.

I also think a long range attack capability in the form of a 700-1000 miles hypersonic missile is needed to hit Indian assets and make it a punishing situation for them if they try another cross border terror attack.

 

[TopGun786]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

50 launched, only 11 hit?

Personally i believe they are lying again.... Number must be higher than 50 with penetrations only 11 or less.

 

[samsite84]

The Pahalgam attack IMO points to inside job. They wanted to suspend IWT that was the goal, now that's done these deaths are just cannon fodder to modis gang.

For all the Pakistani members asking for "proof" of Pahalgam, they don't somehow need "proof" of it being an "inside job". Double standards much...

Also, in the same vein, is it ok if I say that every terrorist action in Pakistan is an inside job and Pakistan Army wants a "cover your backside" story

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Yasser76]

For all the Pakistani members asking for "proof" of Pahalgam, they don't somehow need "proof" of it being an "inside job". Double standards much...

Also, in the same vein, is it ok if I say that every terrorist action in Pakistan is an inside job and Pakistan Army wants a "cover your backside" story

No, you dont understand how these things work do you?

If you make a claim that one state conducted terror activities and you initiate a war over it, the onus is on you to provide proof.

If you cannot provide proof, then everyone is free to speculate.

Let me now what part of the above you may not understand

 

[TopGun786]

For all the Pakistani members asking for "proof" of Pahalgam, they don't somehow need "proof" of it being an "inside job". Double standards much...

Also, in the same vein, is it ok if I say that if every terrorist action in Pakistan is an inside job and Pakistan Army wants a "cover your backside" story

Thats another full form cope from you. See, logic is very simple..... If you can't provide proof of Pakistan's involvement and there are too many loopholes in your narrative, your leaders & janta blatantly needs some narrative to attack Pakistan, then it automatically means it was an inside job. Nobody from China, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka or Maldives is going there to do these attacks.
Mr Sherlock Holmes.

 

[White Privilege]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

50 launched, only 11 hit?

This is the fifty they talk about...

 

[samsite84]

No, you dont understand how these things work do you?

If you make a claim that one state conducted terror activities and you initiate a war over it, the onus is on you to provide proof.

If you cannot provide proof, then everyone is free to speculate.

Let me now what part of the above you may not understand

In words of a certain mod: "don't try to be cute"

India's response has no bearing on whether proof needs to be provided or not. A proof needs to be provided for ANY claim you make, whether or not you respond.

Pahalgam is not new or one-off, and government would have engaged and provided proof to the right stakeholders. Same with 26/11, Pathankot, Uri etc.

 

[side-winder]

Personally i believe they are lying again.... Number must be higher than 50 with penetrations only 11 or less.

Number is indeed less than 50. However, what they are lying about is that all of them were air-launched. Majority were actually SSMs.

Seems more like an effort to redeem the lost pride and prestige of IAF. And overshadow the fact that PAF kept them grounded after 7th with only few exceptions.

 

[TopGun786]

In words of a certain mod: "don't try to be cute"

India's response has no bearing on whether proof needs to be provided or not. A proof needs to be provided for ANY claim you make, whether or not you respond.

Pahalgam is not new or one-off, and government would have engaged and provided proof to the right stakeholders. Same with 26/11, Pathankot, Uri etc.

So it means even in past such incidents you were failed to provide proof of Pakistan's involvement.
Why is it so hard when someone asks you and your government to provide proofs???

 

[Yasser76]

Number is indeed less than 50. However, what they are lying about is that all of them were air-launched. Majority were actually SSMs.

Seems more like an effort to redeem the lost pride and prestige of IAF. And overshadow the fact that PAF kept them grounded after 7th with only few exceptions.

You used Prestige and IAF in the same sentence....

 

[TopGun786]

Dear Mods
This indian troll @samsite84 went too far in his nonsense and gibberish.
He constantly posts nonsense and despite many times asking proof of his claims he is asking cross questions that we shall prove his claims are wrong which is a very foolish trolling thing in an argument.
So far much precious time has been wasted so please permanently ban this troll to clean this and other threads.
@Fatman17
@Musings

 

[Yasser76]

Dear Mods
This indian troll @samsite84 went too far in his nonsense and gibberish.
He constantly posting nonsense and despite many times asking proof of his claims he is asking cross questions that we shall prove his claims are wrong which is a very foolish trolling thing in an argument.
So far much precious time has been wasted so please permanently ban this troll to clean this and other threads.
@Fatman17
@Musings

It's ok, sure he will tell us he in French in a while....

 

[samsite84]

So it means even in past such incidents you were failed to provide proof of Pakistan's involvement.
Why is it so hard when someone asks you and your government to provide proofs???

Again, proofs would have been provided to the "relevant" stakeholders. Indian government provided proofs to Pakistan government for 26/11, Pathankot etc.

Over the years, many such dossiers have made their way across the borders and that is how international relations/diplomacy works

GoI or GoP is not going to provide proofs for my or your consumption. The way members here assess it being an "inside-job" is hurtful but more so shows double standards.

If you want to understand Indian perspective, you have it there... If you don't - your choice, don't need to engage

 

[Yasser76]

Again, proofs would have been provided to the "relevant" stakeholders. Indian government provided proofs to Pakistan government for 26/11, Pathankot etc.

Over the years, many such dossiers have made their way across the borders and that is how international relations/diplomacy works

GoI or GoP is not going to provide proofs for my or your consumption. The way members here assess it being an "inside-job" is hurtful but more so shows double standards.

If you want to understand Indian perspective, you have it there... If you don't - your choice, don't need to engage

First sentence of your reply basically undercut the whole argument.

Clown.