51 Indian soldiers dead in 80 days post-surgical strikes

[Hamza913]

Just go through this and add, you can clearly see SATP figures includes casualties of security forces i.e. police, army, paramilitary in all over India in Maoist, NE, jk, ceasefire violations from September 29 onwards:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/maoist/data_sheets/fatalitiesnaxal.asp

www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/annual_casualties.htm

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/database/fatalitiesnorteast2006.htm

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/data_sheets/CFAViolations.htm

The break down is, JK: 19, Ceasefire violations:13, NE: 9, maoists: 10; total=51.

Now in the same period Pakistan saw 100 such security forces casualties i.e. nearly two times more than India, and Pakistani figures do not include ceasefire violation casualties:

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/Pakistan/database/casualties.htm

Pretty sure that's nonsense, considering how Pakistan has routinely suffered less casualties than India in just about every conflict except for the first Kashmir war.

 

[Dean Winchester]

Pretty sure that's nonsense, considering how Pakistan has routinely suffered less casualties than India in just about every conflict except for the first Kashmir war.

Pakistani forces suffered more casualties than India in every conflict:
1948, 1965, 1971, Siachen, 1999 etc

As for Pakistani security forces casualties in 2016, you can clearly see that they are far higher than India.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/Pakistan/database/casualties.htm

 

[Hamza913]

Pakistani forces suffered more casualties than India in every conflict:
1948, 1965, 1971, Siachen, 1999 etc

As for Pakistani security forces casualties in 2016, you can clearly see that they are far higher than India.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/Pakistan/database/casualties.htm

Completely wrong, only in the first war did Pakistan suffer more casualties. In every other war, India suffered more. Also, those casualties include more than just what happened at the LOC, as you said earlier. So I'm still right.

 

[TISSOT]

we had already made up our minds but indian leaders still don't believe your army. Even though they are traitors now. Like AAK,congress.
one of your leader said :those who ask for proofs should go to pakistan.

Its good to know you have finally made up your mind.

So which is it ? Did the surgical strike happen or it did not happen ?

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Its good to know you have finally made up your mind.

So which is it ? Did the surgical strike happen or it did not happen ?

It happened and we brought two heads with us.
and about indian surgical strike. Pakistan SSG or airforce never did any which clearly shows it never happened.

 

[Dean Winchester]

Completely wrong, only in the first war did Pakistan suffer more casualties. In every other war, India suffered more. Also, those casualties include more than just what happened at the LOC, as you said earlier. So I'm still right.

Actually the opposite happened, Pakistani losses in every neutral analysis was higher.

 

[Hamza913]

Actually the opposite happened, Pakistani losses in every neutral analysis was higher.

You can blabber all you want, the fact is the only conflict Pakistan suffered higher casualties in was in 1948.

 

[TISSOT]

It happened and we brought two heads with us.
and about indian surgical strike. Pakistan SSG or airforce never did any which clearly shows it never happened.

So as per your logic the Indian surgical strike never happened, so that means this entire thread is pointless and is all lies, is it not ?

As for the heads of cabbage that your stole from India, hope you made soup out of them. Heard cabbage soup is good for the health.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

First pakistanis make up their mind whether the Surgical strike took place or not

Proof ?
Anyways its an article by indian