2 points. I never said "irrespective of any false flag", merely that even if you called it so......
This doesnt matter. The point between line here is that India is going to attack Pakistan, if there is an incident inside India whether a real one, false flag or even due to as i like to call it itch.
Hence, the following ensues out of the above:-
- War initiator will be India.
- To be the initiator India has to keep its strike forces up and ready 24/7, because a terror incident false flag or real or for that matter the itch will not announce itself before happening.
- By keeping its strike elements on toes and ready most of the time so as to respond to any incident means that the country is generating an offensive posture. What's so hard in it to understand?
If my sword (the real one
) is out of the sheath all the times, even when i am making love, dude, i am offensive!!
To answer your main point, I said that regardless of whether you call it a preemptive strike or not, the logic backing the argument of it being a retaliation against an attack by the state of Pakistan or its proxies is valid irrespective of how you wish to categorise it.
Attack of state of Pakistan
And
Attack by so called proxies
are two different things, " irrespective of how you wish to categorise it."
Even then, if the retaliatory strike is in response to an act by the so called proxies, here i will like to draw your attention towards my third point above:
- By keeping its strike elements on toes and ready most of the time so as to respond to any incident means that the country is generating an offensive posture. What's so hard in it to understand?
No tricks, merely a stating of "common sense" position that an attack by a known proxy of Pakistan can & will be seen as an attack by the Pakistani state, protestations like you have said not withstanding. I didn't argue specifically on military posture, you can go back & read what I said exactly. Maybe those in Pakistan's power structure too should understand that the "trick" of separating the Pakistani state from its proxies may not work as well as before. Maybe then, we can all be done with these "tricks".
[/QUOTE]
What you want to believe and know is of the least concern to me.
But, for this (retaliatory strike) to happen, the actions India is supposed to take and has already taken (in the form of Cold Start/Pro Active Operations) as a function of commonsense spells out to be an
offensive military posture and thus the conclusion that India (always) has had an
Offensive Doctrine against Pakistan.
Just so that you and other readers should not forget, i'll like to say it again one more time:
- By keeping its strike elements on toes and ready most of the time so as to respond to any incident (itched, false flagged or real) means that the country is generating an offensive posture. What's so hard in it to understand?
Savvy?
sir is there a source that you could post before I take those words as touchstone to India's cold start doctrine because if that was true then by now we would 've fought a lot many more wars.
This could merely be your interpretation.
Sir proof please...I would not take your words as god's words.
whatever you say on this thread needs to be backed by neutral sources (as in dont use Indian or pakistani links).
Sache sache batana, did you ever read any paper or link on Cold Start ever?
And as far as I know even if I look back beyond 1990 I see wars and covert operations started by our neighbors.
My indication to go beyond 1990 was for you to look towards your OWN military doctrine which was prevalent at that time. Stop sniffing our arse on every opportunity that you guys get, please!
