Classic case of the b.s. sandwich folks.
Many legitimate members have cited evidence and logic in pointing out Pakistan's shortcomings during the op, particularly in decisiveness, civilian leadership and decision making algorithms.
Contrarily, you and a select few others have certainly hinted at some of the same rational critique, but have also thrown in patent falsehoods that circulate ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY within the mainstream Indian media echo chamber (see bold text regarding damage to nuclear assets).
Presumably, the aim is to quietly embed the one falsehood per post until it becomes fossilised within the discourse.
An unwitting reader who yesterday might have legitimately bemoaned "Pakistan's suboptimal final kill count, due to restraint, and resulting in India's continued belligerence, leading to a hars counterstrike with missiles." would tomorrow add the addendum "
with missiles striking our nuclear assets" because of the fossilised untruths initiated by unscrupulous posters like you.
We know the trick very well around here.
It's called a b.s. sandwich. Put a thin layer of unmitigated b.s. in between 2 layers of truth (or at least, 2 layers of what the majority has been rationalising already) and expect us all to eat it up.
It's this layer of b.s. radiating from your posts that raises a flag or two. Same goes for several others around here.
