• Sunday, December 15, 2019

Civilian Setup Vs Military Targets

Discussion in 'Military Forum' started by Windjammer, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. Windjammer

    Windjammer ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    32,337
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Ratings:
    +149 / 105,586 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    [​IMG]

    Of the India/Pakistan clash of February 2019, one main point overlooked by many is that in the early hours of 26th February, the Indian airforce tried to attack the Balakot Seminary, which is a civilian entity with no means of defense or hardened infrastructure. There was no pre-warning of the impending Indian attack and no need or means to monitor any cross border activity. Yet with the element of surprise with both time and place and despite attempting to ingress from several points to confuse the Pakistani defenses, the IAF still failed miserably to execute the mission and had to beat a hasty retreat after firing off weapons into a forested area.....Albeit the IAF totally failed in it's mission to hit the Seminary, none the less it was an act of provocation. Since the Indian defense personal started boasting of going some 50 Kms into Pakistani territory and killing some 300 Militants, the Indians should have naturally expected some form of response from Pakistan, especially after Pak Army spokesperson made it clear that Pakistan will retaliate, and it did within 48 hours by not hitting back at vulnerable Indian Civilian establishments but hardcore Indian Military targets including Indian Army Brigade HQ and Army Supply Depots in broad daylight.
    The PAF missions were launched in such a decisive manner that even the expecting Indians were in sheer panic sustaining casualties at the hands of both PAF and their own defenses. After this humiliation, some Indian anchors and Think Tanks questioned that since the IAF only targetted some civilian establishment in Pakistan, why did the PAFchose to hit Indian military targets, to which the PAF responded that it was the Indian Military which sought aggression against Pakistan so naturally, it becomes a legitimate target for the PAF.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  2. Windjammer

    Windjammer ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    32,337
    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Ratings:
    +149 / 105,586 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  3. MastanKhan

    MastanKhan PDF VETERAN

    Messages:
    17,538
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Ratings:
    +161 / 45,755 / -4
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United States
    Hi,

    Here in the US---I went on yahoo---read the news and then read the comments---.

    Almost every american stated that " CROSSING THE BORDER WAS AN ACT OF WAR BY INDIA ON PAKISTAN"---plain and simple---.

    Pakistan marketed itself extremely poorly on that---.

    Next thing---with the invent of BVR missiles and Stand off weapons---the threshold of declaring war has changed again---.

    Now staying within your borders in not enough---you are declaring an act of war the moment you target a position across from the border at your enemy---.

    That is where the Paf failed in marketing pakistan's position and striking at the locked targets---.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. The Accountant

    The Accountant SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    5,721
    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    Ratings:
    +15 / 5,778 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I humbly disagree the PAF marketing was lesser.

    Yes it was an act of war and as a nation we decided to respond equally. they attacked us and we replied ... 6 attacks against 4 and also took 2 war trophies. However after giving a response we wanted to get back to previous status ... So this was a brief 2 days war or you may call it a battle in which we came out at top...

    I personally think that missing the target was all pre-planned. It was mere an election stunt. They always knew that causality means even much greater response for example had it been 300 civilian than in response we might have planned to take military targets with 300 persons.

    All of this was just to make world believe that India is supa power otherwise they are afraid to take us head-on. Every sane mind even in India understand that in case of conventional there is a very high risk of nuclear escalation.

    So they planned a low level attack which they can market for local public opinion while keeping the risk of response to minimum possible level