Ababeel SSM - Pakistan gains MIRV technology.

[GumNaam]

Terminal stage defence systems intercept warheads during decent. So it will intercept MIRVs the same way as any regular warhead.

MIRVs only increase the number of warheads that the BMD has to deal with. So it depends on how many missiles are available to deal with a warhead at a time.

A modern S-400 battery is capable of dealing with 12 MIRVs. Delhi may have as many as 10-15 batteries covering it. This is not counting the Indian BMD that will be part of Delhi's defences as well.

The s400 (nor THAAD) can track anything going at 4.8km/s. On decent, or missiles themselves are traveling at far faster than 4.8km/s, the MIRVs would probably be a lot faster once releases as modem MIRVs have their own thruster engines. The s400's only hope is to attempt a track, launch and intercept during the first few moments during the ascent time and that too, if the missile isn't hyper accelerating while changing its directions. If it is changing directions than the one interceptor won't do, multiple interceptors will have to be launched to intercept just 1 missile.

And bear in mind that the S400s have pretty large interceptors, they themselves can get intercepted. SSM missiles can be fired under the cover of other SAM systems like HQ16 and Asphide that would give it just enough coverage and protection from other interceptors until the missile reaches the untrackable speeds. Also remember that even the older missiles from the 70s accelerated at rates where there were hundreds of Gs worth of pressure; one can imagine the high acceleration. Needless to say the modern ones will accelerate at a far greater rate which would reduce the time to when the missile can effectively be intercepted down to a hopeless, dismal level of at most 1 minute if that.

Slim chances of success.

 

[Pyara9]

Terminal stage defence systems intercept warheads during decent. So it will intercept MIRVs the same way as any regular warhead.

MIRVs only increase the number of warheads that the BMD has to deal with. So it depends on how many missiles are available to deal with a warhead at a time.

A modern S-400 battery is capable of dealing with 12 MIRVs. Delhi may have as many as 10-15 batteries covering it. This is not counting the Indian BMD that will be part of Delhi's defences as well.

Ok so your telling me S-400 which you don't even have yet... is capable of destroying MIRVS? Please prove it Link please?

 

[GumNaam]

Ok so your telling me S-400 which you don't even have yet... is capable of destroying MIRVS? Please prove it Link please?

If the definition of a MIRV is an object that is flying at the speed of a canary with blinking lights, a guidance beacon and a big sign saying HERE I AM then yes, the s400 can intercept MIRVs!

 

[randomradio]

The s400 (nor THAAD) can track anything going at 4.8km/s. On decent, or missiles themselves are traveling at far faster than 4.8km/s, the MIRVs would probably be a lot faster once releases as modem MIRVs have their own thruster engines. The s400's only hope is to attempt a track, launch and intercept during the first few moments during the ascent time and that too, if the missile isn't hyper accelerating while changing its directions. If it is changing directions than the one interceptor won't do, multiple interceptors will have to be launched to intercept just 1 missile.

Slim chances of success.

Lots of mistakes. Radars regularly track targets moving at mach 25, that's more than 8Km/s, 4.8Km/s is easy. How else do you think satellites are tracked? They are moving even faster at mach 28, more than 9Km/s. The S-400 can intercept targets up to 4.8Km/s, that's mach 14.

MIRV warheads fall due to gravity, it's nothing special. What's special about MIRVs is a missile can carry 3 or more warheads. Even missiles that have only one warhead come with reentry vehicles. During interception, the warhead is not changing directions, it is merely falling.

The S-400 was designed to intercept MIRVs. Along with other BMDs. For example, a battery can target 12 warheads. So a missile with 12 MIRV warheads can be intercepted by S-400. The only major criteria is the warheads should be doing less than mach 14. Since Delhi may have a minimum of 10 batteries, the S-400 can intercept 120 warheads at the same time. So you will need enough missiles that can carry 120 or more warheads to saturate the defences. This is not counting the Indian Phase 1 BMD.

If the Ababeel has 3 warheads, then Pak will need more than 40 missiles to saturate Delhi's S-400s. Of course, as time goes, the S-400 will be upgraded to be able to handle more threats at the same time. The Indian BMD is no different.

Missile speed depends on the range and altitude. So ICBMs have more speed, mach 17-25, SRBMs have the least speed, mach 2-3. So a missile fired from Pakistan towards Delhi is not going to be doing more than mach 10 even from the furthest ranges possible. Such missiles are significantly slower than 3Km/sec.

However, other cities in India are under greater threat of nukes. But for that there will be 2 new missiles introduced in the S-400 family that can stop targets up to 7Km/s. Plus, the phase 2 of the Indian BMD program will also be able to stop IRBMs. So any missile fired from inside Pakistan to any part of India will be stopped by the BMD. The Phase 2 BMD and the new missiles for the S-400 are primarily targeted to stop missiles that can be fired from any part of China into India.

 

[Pyara9]

If the definition of a MIRV is an object that is flying at the speed of a canary with blinking lights, a guidance beacon and a big sign saying HERE I AM then yes, the s400 can intercept MIRVs!

Some how it all remindes me of gen. Musharaf saying "counter maro counter maro" The entire purpose of mirvs is to fool the air defense system. Otherwise we wouldn't spend billions of dollars on research. We would just build more shaheen 3's.?

 

[randomradio]

Ok so your telling me S-400 which you don't even have yet... is capable of destroying MIRVS? Please prove it Link please?

I don't think you understand what MIRVs are. Look at my previous post.

 

[Pyara9]

I don't think you understand what MIRVs are. Look at my previous post.

I know exactly what they are.. I just want an external source or link saying s-400 is capable of destroying mirvs thats all. Like a brochure if u will?? Not the Bollywood crap where a man can catach a bullet with his hand thanx.

 

[GumNaam]

your entire previous post, completely based on the premise of tracking satellites is incorrect because those satellites have transmitters to where they are constantly giving their own location to the ground stations. Further more, when it comes to satellites from the enemy nation, besides just ground radar, there are OTHER satellites moving just as fast that are also tracking the target satellite so it is an entire network or ground radars, monitoring stations and other satellites that make the detection possible. Do yourself a favor and read up on limitations of THAAD which is probably at par with the s500 if not more advanced. N. Korea and S. Korea are right next to each other so it's a similar situation AND N. Korea's missiles are not as advanced nor fast as ours, basically glorified SCUD like missiles that have been fine tuned to be a little more accurate, that's basically it. They had to downgrade the effectiveness of THAAD in 1 hit 1 kill probability against even such a primitive missile from 75% to 90% based on how many N. Korean SCUDs are launched. They can ONLY make more effective by (guess what) INTRODUCING SATELLITE based IR detection!

So a few ground radars of the S400 is not gonna save you. Sorry man.

I don't think you understand what MIRVs are. Look at my previous post.

@Pyara9 has a fair request. all that he's asking for is the source that s400 can intercept MIRVs.

The S-400 was designed to intercept MIRVs. Along with other BMDs. For example, a battery can target 12 warheads. So a missile with 12 MIRV warheads can be intercepted by S-400. The only major criteria is the warheads should be doing less than mach 14.

Shaheen missiles travel at mach 18. So you've contradicted yourself. Nothing protects delhi or any other indian city from us.

cheers

 

[CriticalThought]

your entire previous post, completely based on the premise of tracking satellites is incorrect because those satellites have transmitters to where they are constantly giving their own location to the ground stations. Further more, when it comes to satellites from the enemy nation, besides just ground radar, there are OTHER satellites moving just as fast that are also tracking the target satellite so it is an entire network or ground radars, monitoring stations and other satellites that make the detection possible. Do yourself a favor and read up on limitations of THAAD which is probably at par with the s500 if not more advanced. N. Korea and S. Korea are right next to each other so it's a similar situation AND N. Korea's missiles are not as advanced nor fast as ours, basically glorified SCUD like missiles that have been fine tuned to be a little more accurate, that's basically it. They had to downgrade the effectiveness of THAAD in 1 hit 1 kill probability against even such a primitive missile from 75% to 90% based on how many N. Korean SCUDs are launched. They can ONLY make more effective by (guess what) INTRODUCING SATELLITE based IR detection!

So a few ground radars of the S400 is not gonna save you. Sorry man.



@Pyara9 has a fair request. all that he's asking for is the source that s400 can intercept MIRVs.



Shaheen missiles travel at mach 18. So you've contradicted yourself. Nothing protects delhi or any other indian city from us.

cheers

Loving your replies.

 

[Pyara9]

This shouldn't even be a discussion. India dosn't have s-400 yet. We have MIRVs! Their entire discussion is based on theory. In theory are commando's would also have neturailized all s-400 batteries. Indian kids think It's just going to be one MIRV launched from Pakistani side which they will easily counter with their future s400 n they won the war. No No No. In a full blown war they will have to deal with many more systems which work in a tandom. vise-versa so too many factors. as of this moment we have edge in some fields the have edge in others. Im a full blown war many perious lives will be lost won't matter who won like the past wars..

 

[Cookie Monster]

If there is any credible links of India involved in terrorist acts inside Pakistan, I would be the first to condemn the Republic. Terrorism and Espionage are two very different things, Spies of either countries have been active in respective nations for decades, but if there are Indian organisations that are standing outside temples, churches and gurudwaras in India to fuel an insurgency in Pakistan Controlled Kashmir or Pakistani Punjab or balochistan, then we would be in the same league as of Pakistan as admitted by your own Ex President and COAS P. Musharraf that terror organisations like LeT and JEM have unprecedented support in Pakistan.

As far holier than thou attitude is that you take grave offense in concerned, Mukti bahini (Literal translation as I am sure no one in Pakistan any longer understands Bengali means Freedom Platform). The question remains was Mukti Joddhas terrorists? If so why would Pakistan then recognize a government formed by the same Mukti Bahini's political platform led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? a simple parallel in example was Taliban - a known terrorist outfit, forms a government in Afghanistan, and nations that considered them as terrorists did not recognize their government. So calling Mukti Bahini a terror outfit is not very convincing because they lacked most of the character traits of terrorist organisations. After the conflict they did not continue to be an armed organisations unlike Taliban, they did not indulge in repraisal and genocide after victory like the taliban or Isis, they abided by Geneva conventions and spared 90,000 PoW's of Pakistan. They did not indulge in bombings of hotels or public transport in civilian populations in west or east pakistan unlike taliban, let, jem isis etc. And foremost, they were not recognised by UN, or any other major power around the world as terrorists, even Pakistan never declared Mukti Jodhas as terrorists throughout the 70's, so today to turnaround and claim they were, is a bit lazy.

U have written quite a lot of stuff about various topics that each require lengthy discussion so I'm gonna try my best to address each of those points concisely without making it confusing...hopefully. Here it goes...

I admit that I have no credible evidence to present in this case for proving that India is currently funding the likes of BLA etc. There are plenty of statements from our politicians and several reports in our media that make such claims but I don't think that is credible enough evidence. By that same token I don't buy India's evidence either where they try to link Pakistan with a terrorist attack in India by showing that the shoes he(the terrorist) wore were made in Pakistan or something else along those lines.

So I'm only going to stick with what has been admitted by government/military officials on both sides.

Our officials have admitted to supporting the likes of LeT and JeM and urs have admitted to supporting Mukti Bahini. Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan and was armed by India. JeM and LeT do the same against India and armed by Pakistan. By saying that "terrorism and espionage are two very different things", u r implying that India never supported terrorism inside Pakistan. It is a well known fact that India armed Mukti Bahini and Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan. How different is that from Pakistan supporting the likes of LeT and JeM to fuel the Kashmiri separatist movement and their attacks against the Indian government/army?

"The question remains was Mukti Joddhas terrorists? If so why would Pakistan then recognize a government formed by the same Mukti Bahini's political platform led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? a simple parallel in example was Taliban - a known terrorist outfit, forms a government in Afghanistan, and nations that considered them as terrorists did not recognize their government."
Many political parties have militant wings. Whether a country recognizes their political platform or not is irrelevant to this subject. A country may choose to recognize or not recognize their political platform based on that country's interests. It doesn't make their killing of ppl justifiable.

"calling Mukti Bahini a terror outfit is not very convincing because they lacked most of the character traits of terrorist organisations"
Then what would u call the attacks they carried out against the Pak government/military?
Let's see who else is carrying out attacks against their country's government/military? Oh right Kashmiris...then according to u they also must not be terrorists right?

"They did not indulge in bombings of hotels or public transport in civilian populations in west or east pakistan unlike taliban, let, jem isis etc."
Wrong. One quick example on June 9, 1971 Mukti Bahini members hijacked a car and launched a grenade attack on Dhaka Intercontinental Hotel. There are many more examples. Not to mention the attacks/sabotage efforts against PA. How r u going to justify that? Call it a freedom movement? Well then if attacking the government institutions and army is not a terrorist attack and instead a freedom struggle or whatever then I expect u would be using the same terms to describe the attacks against Indian troops by Kashmiris?

"After the conflict they did not continue to be an armed organisations unlike Taliban, they did not indulge in repraisal and genocide after victory like the taliban or Isis, they abided by Geneva conventions and spared 90,000 PoW's of Pakistan."
So abolishing past practices after objective has been achieved makes u not a terrorist? That's convenient. Well then don't be too quick to call Kashmiris terrorists when they attack. Wait for them to achieve their objectives first and then we can decide.

"A terrorist killing pakistanis is a bad terrorist, a terrorist killing Indians in India, is a good terrorist, TTP, LEJ, BRA - Bad, LET, JEM, AL Badr, HuJ- Good Terrorist."

Oh look the pot calling the kettle black. If u see all ur points I countered above u will realize that u r also doing the same thing by defending Mukti Bahini. Having different definitions of terrorism as they suit ur narrative.

That is fine. It is an acceptable human behavior demonstrated time and again throughout history. U see there is always that differentiation as it suits one's agenda and a lot of it is based on which side won. Just like how Mukti Bahini is hailed as Freedom Fighters now bcuz they won. Had they failed they would've been remembered as terrorists and traitors. French revolution, Russian revolution and all kinds of other freedom movements go down in history as epicly heroic, remembered for generations bcuz they were successful. The unsuccessful ones are remembered as traitors, terrorists, etc.
The second big reason is that it is a matter of perspective. U don't perceive Mukti Bahini as a terrorist organization(u went to great lengths to defend them) bcuz they didn't rise up against India. But Kashmiris are labelled as terrorists by India for doing exactly the same thing. Why? Bcuz they stand against India unlike Mukti Bahini that stood against India's enemy.

In short one side's freedom fighter is another side's terrorist.

My issue with u or other Indians isn't that u don't consider Mukti Bahini at the same level as Kashmiri separatists(supported by LeT, JeM) etc. The different views are expected. I can totally understand why u guys would have different views on them. My issue is again that "holier than thou" attitude of Indians. Just like Pakistanis u guys also differentiate based on India's interests and yet don't own up to it...maintaining that we can do no wrong and all the fault lies with Pakistanis.

"None of the terror outfits operating in Pakistan, LEJ, BRA, BLA, TTP has any crowd funding operations, recruitment offices or any ground support here in India. But terror outfits operating in India find unprecedented support in pakistan, so much so leaders of JKLF, JEM, etc are based out of Pakistan.
None of Pakistani terrorist on the wanted lists find safe haven in India, whereas all the terrorist released from IC814 Hijacking are thriving/thrived in Pakistan, one of them went on to behead Daniel Pearl, and you as a common Pakistani having the cognizance of this reality want to equate the conduct of both the nations."
It is no secret that US has propped up/armed many drug cartels in various Central and South American countries...guess what? Without giving them a safe haven in US. Same for the Talibans btw when US was funding them, they were not provided safe havens in US. Their crowd funding operations, recruitment offices, etc. none of that occurred on US soil. So US must have never done those things?
There are many ways to go about doing such a task. It is not a requirement for a country to host bases for the organization they are supporting against some other country.

...and as for that last sentence since u brought up the whole equating the conduct of both nations...well let's equate it then.
Training camps of LeT/JeM in Pakistan
|__ Training camps of Mukti Bahini in India

Pakistan arming LeT/JeM
|__ India arming Mukti Bahini

What's so different here?

Such narratives will find takers in Pakistan, but who else buys this? is rest of the world looking at India and pakistan and saying hey both are the same when it comes to terrorism, or are they pointing fingers at you?

Yes they are pointing fingers at Pakistan for now but that has more to do with the West's current pivot towards India and away from Pakistan. It was the same Pakistan that helped create Taliban and US/Europe didn't care at all. They even turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear program for a while. The same US even threatened India. Remember that?
At that time Pak's bad actions weren't so bad but India's bad actions were bad actions.

But now that India is needed to balance China and Pakistan isn't that useful in this regard, Pak's bad actions are bad actions and India's not so much.

Now after that long discussion let's get to the important bit where u said
"If there is any credible links of India involved in terrorist acts inside Pakistan, I would be the first to condemn the Republic"

1) Now u have to either condemn India for supporting a terrorist organization (Mukti Bahini). Admitting that India has its hands just as dirty as Pakistan.

OR

2) Say that Mukti Bahini was not a terrorist organization and that their attacks against Pakistan's government/military are justified(insert some reason here). Label them as Freedom Fighters or whatever other label. Thus demonstrating the same differentiation between "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", of which we Pakistanis are accused of.

The second option may seem more appealing, though be careful about picking it bcuz then Pakistanis can use the same reasoning to justify supporting Kashmiri separatists(or Freedom Fighters) attacking Indian government/military

 

[Falcon26]

If there is any credible links of India involved in terrorist acts inside Pakistan, I would be the first to condemn the Republic. Terrorism and Espionage are two very different things, Spies of either countries have been active in respective nations for decades, but if there are Indian organisations that are standing outside temples, churches and gurudwaras in India to fuel an insurgency in Pakistan Controlled Kashmir or Pakistani Punjab or balochistan, then we would be in the same league as of Pakistan as admitted by your own Ex President and COAS P. Musharraf that terror organisations like LeT and JEM have unprecedented support in Pakistan. As far holier than thou attitude is that you take grave offense in concerned, Mukti bahini (Literal translation as I am sure no one in Pakistan any longer understands Bengali means Freedom Platform). The question remains was Mukti Joddhas terrorists? If so why would Pakistan then recognize a government formed by the same Mukti Bahini's political platform led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? a simple parallel in example was Taliban - a known terrorist outfit, forms a government in Afghanistan, and nations that considered them as terrorists did not recognize their government. So calling Mukti Bahini a terror outfit is not very convincing because they lacked most of the character traits of terrorist organisations. After the conflict they did not continue to be an armed organisations unlike Taliban, they did not indulge in repraisal and genocide after victory like the taliban or Isis, they abided by Geneva conventions and spared 90,000 PoW's of Pakistan. They did not indulge in bombings of hotels or public transport in civilian populations in west or east pakistan unlike taliban, let, jem isis etc. And foremost, they were not recognised by UN, or any other major power around the world as terrorists, even Pakistan never declared Mukti Jodhas as terrorists throughout the 70's, so today to turnaround and claim they were, is a bit lazy.



This story of Pakistan/US created taliban to fight the soviets is for people who are not familiar with the chronology of events in Afghanistan. Sorry but you won't be able to sell me that story. Does Pakistan still funds Taliban, I don't know the answer to that, but it surely built a robust parallel economy for taliban along with back channel religious donation pipelines from the gulf states, secure secondary HQ's and safehouses inside Pakistan, airlifted all of it's leadership before d-day, and given the accounts of most of the Military chiefs in the led ISAF in Afganistan, serves as the venerable arm of Pakistani military.


I have never said Pakistan is an evil country, and I would never say that. I have never said India is an angel either. Countries do not have character traits, they have certain institutional mechanism, Pakistan has for most of it's existence been a centralized state governed by a strong military and I don't mean that as an insult. For Ayubs time the system worked wonders, and Pakistan was positioned to be a tremendously successful economy with a very powerful military. India at that stage was on verge of being a failing state with static institutions, weak economy, burgeoning population and on brink of failure. Both nations chose their paths and we are where we are today. On the security aspect, yes absolutely India got involved in it's neighborhood where it saw it needed to intervene, and India has made mistakes, but it is in India's nature to learn from them. India got involved in LTTE to ensure Tamils were protected, but do remember when it became a heinous organisation, India went to war with the LTTE and supported SL in defeating LTTE. But when it comes to Pakistan, it hasn't done so, even after factions of Taliban that have turned against Pakistan have decimated it's growth, it has still played along with extremist faction. Even today this is your definition, A terrorist killing pakistanis is a bad terrorist, a terrorist killing Indians in India, is a good terrorist, TTP, LEJ, BRA - Bad, LET, JEM, AL Badr, HuJ- Good Terrorist.

None of the terror outfits operating in Pakistan, LEJ, BRA, BLA, TTP has any crowd funding operations, recruitment offices or any ground support here in India. But terror outfits operating in India find unprecedented support in pakistan, so much so leaders of JKLF, JEM, etc are based out of Pakistan.
None of Pakistani terrorist on the wanted lists find safe haven in India, whereas all the terrorist released from IC814 Hijacking are thriving/thrived in Pakistan, one of them went on to behead Daniel Pearl, and you as a common Pakistani having the cognizance of this reality want to equate the conduct of both the nations. Such narratives will find takers in Pakistan, but who else buys this? is rest of the world looking at India and pakistan and saying hey both are the same when it comes to terrorism, or are they pointing fingers at you?

Just out of curiosity, when the Indian PM openly says his country will help the BLA- a terrorist organization that carries despicable acts of terror throughout Pakistan, hosts BLA leaders in plain view and sends senior RAW officials to Baluchistan; isn't that in your view an example of India blatantly aiding a terror outfit? Or are there special parameters and exceptions that applies to India?

Regarding good terrorist bad terrorist argument you have made, Pakistan has gone to war with the TTP and totally destroyed them pushing them to Afghanistan where they have enablers and friends. Your idea that Pakistan helps the taliban is really unsubstantiated. General David Petraeus who led the CIA, ISAF and the Central Command recently went on record where he said that he had vigorously went after idea of Pakistani support to the Taliban and that he has never been able to find any evidence. Should we consider your views more worthy of consideration than someone like David Petraeus?

The rest of your post is reasonable but lazed with the predicable anti Pakistan visceral hostility that's common among Indians. For a senior member, this is very unfortunate.

 

[MilSpec]

Just out of curiosity, when the Indian PM openly says his country will help the BLA- a terrorist organization that carries despicable acts of terror throughout Pakistan, hosts BLA leaders in plain view and sends senior RAW officials to Baluchistan; isn't that in your view an example of India blatantly aiding a terror outfit? Or are there special parameters and exceptions that applies to India?.

Ok lets deal with trump talk (otherwise known as BS opinions presented as facts) PM never has openly said anything about helping any organisation in Baluchistan. back up your claim.
Which BLA leader is hosted in India?
Which senior raw official was sent to balochistan? the alleged spy arrested from iranian border who was denied consular access?

Regarding good terrorist bad terrorist argument you have made, Pakistan has gone to war with the TTP and totally destroyed them pushing them to Afghanistan where they have enablers and friends. Your idea that Pakistan helps the taliban is really unsubstantiated. General David Petraeus who led the CIA, ISAF and the Central Command recently went on record where he said that he had vigorously went after idea of Pakistani support to the Taliban and that he has never been able to find any evidence. Should we consider your views more worthy of consideration than someone like David Petraeus?

The rest of your post is reasonable but lazed with the predicable anti Pakistan visceral hostility that's common among Indians. For a senior member, this is very unfortunate.

Here you go

US military chief accuses Pakistan of backing terror group | World news | The Guardian

"Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said Pakistani duplicity puts in jeopardy not only the frayed US-Pakistani partnership against terrorism, but also the outcome to the decade-old war in Afghanistan."

"Testifying alongside Mullen, US defense secretary Leon Panetta also decried Pakistani support for the Haqqani network, and he said Pakistani authorities have been told that the US will not tolerate a continuation of the group's cross-border attacks."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/w...attack-on-us-embassy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further than any other American official in blaming the ISI for undermining the American effort in Afghanistan. His remarks were certain to further fray America’s shaky relationship with Pakistan, a nominal ally.

CIA Director David Petraeus met this week with Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, chief of the ISI, to warn him against supporting the Haqqanis.

"We have credible intelligence obtained through a series of methods that directly implicate the ISI" in having "knowledge or support" for Haqqani activities, the official told CNN. "The ISI is providing financing, safe haven, advice and guidance" to the Haqqanis.

U have written quite a lot of stuff about various topics that each require lengthy discussion so I'm gonna try my best to address each of those points concisely without making it confusing...hopefully. Here it goes...

I admit that I have no credible evidence to present in this case for proving that India is currently funding the likes of BLA etc. There are plenty of statements from our politicians and several reports in our media that make such claims but I don't think that is credible enough evidence. By that same token I don't buy India's evidence either where they try to link Pakistan with a terrorist attack in India by showing that the shoes he(the terrorist) wore were made in Pakistan or something else along those lines.

So I'm only going to stick with what has been admitted by government/military officials on both sides.

Our officials have admitted to supporting the likes of LeT and JeM and urs have admitted to supporting Mukti Bahini. Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan and was armed by India. JeM and LeT do the same against India and armed by Pakistan. By saying that "terrorism and espionage are two very different things", u r implying that India never supported terrorism inside Pakistan. It is a well known fact that India armed Mukti Bahini and Mukti Bahini carried out attacks against Pakistan. How different is that from Pakistan supporting the likes of LeT and JeM to fuel the Kashmiri separatist movement and their attacks against the Indian government/army?

"The question remains was Mukti Joddhas terrorists? If so why would Pakistan then recognize a government formed by the same Mukti Bahini's political platform led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? a simple parallel in example was Taliban - a known terrorist outfit, forms a government in Afghanistan, and nations that considered them as terrorists did not recognize their government."
Many political parties have militant wings. Whether a country recognizes their political platform or not is irrelevant to this subject. A country may choose to recognize or not recognize their political platform based on that country's interests. It doesn't make their killing of ppl justifiable.

"calling Mukti Bahini a terror outfit is not very convincing because they lacked most of the character traits of terrorist organisations"
Then what would u call the attacks they carried out against the Pak government/military?
Let's see who else is carrying out attacks against their country's government/military? Oh right Kashmiris...then according to u they also must not be terrorists right?

"They did not indulge in bombings of hotels or public transport in civilian populations in west or east pakistan unlike taliban, let, jem isis etc."
Wrong. One quick example on June 9, 1971 Mukti Bahini members hijacked a car and launched a grenade attack on Dhaka Intercontinental Hotel. There are many more examples. Not to mention the attacks/sabotage efforts against PA. How r u going to justify that? Call it a freedom movement? Well then if attacking the government institutions and army is not a terrorist attack and instead a freedom struggle or whatever then I expect u would be using the same terms to describe the attacks against Indian troops by Kashmiris?

"After the conflict they did not continue to be an armed organisations unlike Taliban, they did not indulge in repraisal and genocide after victory like the taliban or Isis, they abided by Geneva conventions and spared 90,000 PoW's of Pakistan."
So abolishing past practices after objective has been achieved makes u not a terrorist? That's convenient. Well then don't be too quick to call Kashmiris terrorists when they attack. Wait for them to achieve their objectives first and then we can decide.

"A terrorist killing pakistanis is a bad terrorist, a terrorist killing Indians in India, is a good terrorist, TTP, LEJ, BRA - Bad, LET, JEM, AL Badr, HuJ- Good Terrorist."

Oh look the pot calling the kettle black. If u see all ur points I countered above u will realize that u r also doing the same thing by defending Mukti Bahini. Having different definitions of terrorism as they suit ur narrative.

That is fine. It is an acceptable human behavior demonstrated time and again throughout history. U see there is always that differentiation as it suits one's agenda and a lot of it is based on which side won. Just like how Mukti Bahini is hailed as Freedom Fighters now bcuz they won. Had they failed they would've been remembered as terrorists and traitors. French revolution, Russian revolution and all kinds of other freedom movements go down in history as epicly heroic, remembered for generations bcuz they were successful. The unsuccessful ones are remembered as traitors, terrorists, etc.
The second big reason is that it is a matter of perspective. U don't perceive Mukti Bahini as a terrorist organization(u went to great lengths to defend them) bcuz they didn't rise up against India. But Kashmiris are labelled as terrorists by India for doing exactly the same thing. Why? Bcuz they stand against India unlike Mukti Bahini that stood against India's enemy.

In short one side's freedom fighter is another side's terrorist.

My issue with u or other Indians isn't that u don't consider Mukti Bahini at the same level as Kashmiri separatists(supported by LeT, JeM) etc. The different views are expected. I can totally understand why u guys would have different views on them. My issue is again that "holier than thou" attitude of Indians. Just like Pakistanis u guys also differentiate based on India's interests and yet don't own up to it...maintaining that we can do no wrong and all the fault lies with Pakistanis.

"None of the terror outfits operating in Pakistan, LEJ, BRA, BLA, TTP has any crowd funding operations, recruitment offices or any ground support here in India. But terror outfits operating in India find unprecedented support in pakistan, so much so leaders of JKLF, JEM, etc are based out of Pakistan.
None of Pakistani terrorist on the wanted lists find safe haven in India, whereas all the terrorist released from IC814 Hijacking are thriving/thrived in Pakistan, one of them went on to behead Daniel Pearl, and you as a common Pakistani having the cognizance of this reality want to equate the conduct of both the nations."
It is no secret that US has propped up/armed many drug cartels in various Central and South American countries...guess what? Without giving them a safe haven in US. Same for the Talibans btw when US was funding them, they were not provided safe havens in US. Their crowd funding operations, recruitment offices, etc. none of that occurred on US soil. So US must have never done those things?
There are many ways to go about doing such a task. It is not a requirement for a country to host bases for the organization they are supporting against some other country.

...and as for that last sentence since u brought up the whole equating the conduct of both nations...well let's equate it then.
Training camps of LeT/JeM in Pakistan
|__ Training camps of Mukti Bahini in India

Pakistan arming LeT/JeM
|__ India arming Mukti Bahini

What's so different here?


Yes they are pointing fingers at Pakistan for now but that has more to do with the West's current pivot towards India and away from Pakistan. It was the same Pakistan that helped create Taliban and US/Europe didn't care at all. They even turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear program for a while. The same US even threatened India. Remember that?
At that time Pak's bad actions weren't so bad but India's bad actions were bad actions.

But now that India is needed to balance China and Pakistan isn't that useful in this regard, Pak's bad actions are bad actions and India's not so much.

Now after that long discussion let's get to the important bit where u said
"If there is any credible links of India involved in terrorist acts inside Pakistan, I would be the first to condemn the Republic"

1) Now u have to either condemn India for supporting a terrorist organization (Mukti Bahini). Admitting that India has its hands just as dirty as Pakistan.

OR

2) Say that Mukti Bahini was not a terrorist organization and that their attacks against Pakistan's government/military are justified(insert some reason here). Label them as Freedom Fighters or whatever other label. Thus demonstrating the same differentiation between "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists", of which we Pakistanis are accused of.

The second option may seem more appealing, though be careful about picking it bcuz then Pakistanis can use the same reasoning to justify supporting Kashmiri separatists(or Freedom Fighters) attacking Indian government/military

Simple question.
Did UN, any other nation, even Pakistan, till date has declared Mukti Bahini as a terror organisation?


LET> From Wiki
On 28 March 2001, in Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1261, British Home Secretary Jack Straw designated the group a Proscribed Terrorist Organization under the Terrorism Act 2000.

On 5 December 2001, the group was added to the Terrorist Exclusion List. In a notification dated 26 December 2001, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, designated Lashkar-e-Taiba a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

Lashkar-e-Taiba was banned in Pakistan on 12 January 2002.

It is banned in India as a designated terrorist group under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

It was listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia under the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 on 11 April 2003 and was re-listed on 11 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.

On 2 May 2008 it was placed on the Consolidated List established and maintained by the Committee established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 as an entity associated with al-Qaeda. The report also proscribed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a front group of the LeT.[53] Bruce Riedel, an expert on terrorism, believes that LeT with the support of its Pakistani backers is more dangerous than al-Qaeda.

Please do present one shred of evidence that shows Pakistan moved in UN or elsewhere to classify Mukti Jodhas as terrorists....

 

[Areesh]

Ok lets deal with trump talk (otherwise known as BS opinions presented as facts) PM never has openly said anything about helping any organisation in Baluchistan. back up your claim.
Which BLA leader is hosted in India?
Which senior raw official was sent to balochistan?

Terrorists can openly roam and stay in Delhi saying they are forming terrorist organization against Pakistan but yeah you don't support terrorists

https://twitter.com/x/status/820120792918675457

 

[Falcon26]

Ok lets deal with trump talk (otherwise known as BS opinions presented as facts) PM never has openly said anything about helping any organisation in Baluchistan. back up your claim.
Which BLA leader is hosted in India?
Which senior raw official was sent to balochistan? the alleged spy arrested from iranian border who was denied consular access?


Here you go

US military chief accuses Pakistan of backing terror group | World news | The Guardian

"Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said Pakistani duplicity puts in jeopardy not only the frayed US-Pakistani partnership against terrorism, but also the outcome to the decade-old war in Afghanistan."

"Testifying alongside Mullen, US defense secretary Leon Panetta also decried Pakistani support for the Haqqani network, and he said Pakistani authorities have been told that the US will not tolerate a continuation of the group's cross-border attacks."


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/w...attack-on-us-embassy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further than any other American official in blaming the ISI for undermining the American effort in Afghanistan. His remarks were certain to further fray America’s shaky relationship with Pakistan, a nominal ally.

CIA Director David Petraeus met this week with Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, chief of the ISI, to warn him against supporting the Haqqanis.

"We have credible intelligence obtained through a series of methods that directly implicate the ISI" in having "knowledge or support" for Haqqani activities, the official told CNN. "The ISI is providing financing, safe haven, advice and guidance" to the Haqqanis.




Simple question.
Did UN, any other nation, even Pakistan, till date has declared Mukti Bahini as a terror organisation?


LET> From Wiki
On 28 March 2001, in Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 1261, British Home Secretary Jack Straw designated the group a Proscribed Terrorist Organization under the Terrorism Act 2000.

On 5 December 2001, the group was added to the Terrorist Exclusion List. In a notification dated 26 December 2001, United States Secretary of State Colin Powell, designated Lashkar-e-Taiba a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.

Lashkar-e-Taiba was banned in Pakistan on 12 January 2002.

It is banned in India as a designated terrorist group under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

It was listed as a terrorist organisation in Australia under the Security Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2002 on 11 April 2003 and was re-listed on 11 April 2005 and 31 March 2007.

On 2 May 2008 it was placed on the Consolidated List established and maintained by the Committee established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267 as an entity associated with al-Qaeda. The report also proscribed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a front group of the LeT.[53] Bruce Riedel, an expert on terrorism, believes that LeT with the support of its Pakistani backers is more dangerous than al-Qaeda.

Please do present one shred of evidence that shows Pakistan moved in UN or elsewhere to classify Mukti Jodhas as terrorists....

The only BS opinion that's being presented is coming from you with your alternative view of the issues we are discussing. Modi publicly lent support to Baluch rebels. His government is in the process of granting asylum to Brahamdagh Bugti- a man designated as terrorist by Pakistan and whose organization has carried out vicious terror attacks against the Pakistani state and civilians.

If you can not accept Kulbhushan Yadav as an Indian spy then there's no point in discussing with you. You suffer from a predictable Indian malice of parroting anything your government says without any scrutiny.

With regards to General David Petraeus, the fact that he can categorically and enpathically state that he's never found any Pakistani support to despite his best efforts oncd hrs out of office is the clearest evidence that the allegations are politically motivated to exert pressure on Pakistan. General Petraeus had led the CIA, ISAF & Central Command. No one has better experience on this issue than him

By the way, since you are in the mood for flashing US statements, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is on record stating that India has financed terrorism in Pakistan- a claim repeatedly made by Pakistanis.