Will you personally be participating in the great holy war or does the PA HQ command centre in Canada suffice.
Doesn't matter, the targets were of similar distance, higher significance and quantity.
Not what I think happened, what actually happened. Don't tell me you're one of the believers of 300 terrorists dying and Abhinandan downing an F-16 without firing a single missile.
They're linked in the original post.
In case you weren't aware, India and Pakistan share a 3,000km long land border, and Pakistan has a vast logistics network near the border.
Pakistani forces are more concentrated near the border, and can mobilise faster in the event of a perceived conflict nearing- India learnt that the hard way in 2002.
I studied in the British education system, but I wasn't aware that in the Indian education teaches you to pull statistics out of your arse and consider them more credible than those presented by qualified academics and journalists.
There is international consensus that India was humiliated at Balakot, both militarily and because of the fact that it outright lied, causing the credibility of its claims, past and future, to come under scrutiny.
Separatism is very much alive in Kashmir.
Kashmiris only hit military targets, tourists aren't military targets. Tourism to Afghanistan has also risen since the Taliban took over.
Forget those on income who fund militancy, you have 14-16 year old CHILDREN picking up arms and going on killing sprees of Indian personnel after watching their families be tortured by Indian forces. It doesn't help that while chasing said children, the Indian forces are so afraid, that following a militant operation, they arrest and torture tens of civilians and RPG entire houses to the ground (which is, by the definition of terrorism - using armed forced against civilian targets to impose your rule by fear) instead of entering them and engaging the militants like honorable men.
As a Kashmiri, I object to your usage of the term "terrorist." You'd probably call those Indians who rebelled against the British in 1847 terrorists too, I assume?
You think Pakistani MRBMs cannot be armed with conventional warheads? You think PAF doesn't have SOWs, and PA's artillery doesn't have double the range (150km) of IA's? You think India's breadbasket isn't right at the border?
You think China will let its trade routes be controlled by an American lackey state like India? You clearly don't get why CPEC is important for China. China doesn't care about of South Asia, development,development is just an incentive for Pakistan to accept CPEC. The real reason China wants CPEC is so it has a trade route that can't be threatened by Americans or their allies, like Malacca.
What a joke. Even the US has not developed a reliable ballistic missile defence system yet, and you expect Indian cities will have a force field around them? Even if I were to entertain your fantasy of India having systems more advanced than the US's, you do realise said systems would hardly intercept 30% of missiles?
Lol, and you don't think destroying Pakistan's economic centres will be crossing a nuclear red line? For Pakistan, any weapon above 300km is considered strategic because it covers most of the country.
No, it is fed to you that Punjab is India's breadbasket, it isn't. Madhya Pradesh is the biggest breadbasket India has. Other than that no major economic hub of India is under conventional arty range of pakistan. Even if you think you can harm Punjab agriculture, what exactly will you do? Shell each farm?
Yet they never took it seriously, how much has CPEC generated volumes in the trade routes built for it, especially Gwadar?
Americans did it because Ukraine is the major thing that separates Russia from NATO and Ukraine's fall would mean Russia next door to Nato, especially the European Union's biggest countries.
Something's better than nothing, India is shoring up multi-layered ADS in major cities, would reduce the chances of hit if not nullify it completely.
If India bombs your only port, will pakistan respond by nuking India? For all the war Russia has fought for a year to even recent "attack" on Putin, they didn't use nuclear weapons on Ukraine, it's not a toy which ya'll keep harping about.
India, by sending its military to support Hari Singh in his genocidal campaign against Kashmiri Muslims which had led to an uprising against him. By the way, the Pakistan Army didn't enter Kashmir until May 1948.
India, who first enroached upon Pakistani patrol points in Kutch, and then launched a failed invasion of Pakistani territory after Pakistan merely instigated an insurgency in retaliation for the Kutch misadventure.
We were certainly not the aggressors in 48; we intervened on behalf of an independent state that had been brutalised by its genocidal British installed ruler.
You merely sent a few hundred thousand troops to the border, killing thousands of them in the process to damage our reputation and coerce us into obeying you, just as you tried in 2016 and 2019.
It depends on the objectives of each side. Pakistan's at the moment is most likely to defend itself and seize small pockets of Indian territory where possible and perhaps a larger offensive into southern Kashmir (judging by ORBAT and historical trends), by which time the international community will have stopped the war before India can fully utilise its numerical advantage.
And Pakistan is the only link China has to the Arabian sea, and China's closest ally - we are to China what Israel is to the US, as a Chinese diplomat once said.
You cannot stop a strategic range range ballistic missile, the Americans can't nullify North Korea's measly arsenal, there is no way in hell India can stop Pakistan's.
As I said, fantasising of nukes is good for online debates, it will never be used no matter how much you argue.
They have been employing this strategy since 1947.
Nukes will never be used, because your fantasies of annexing Gilgit Baltistan, destroying Pakistani economic centres, and defeating Pakistan in a war, and using your BMDs, will never come true.
Yeah Indians are deluded low IQ guys, and nukes are toys, happy?
The government of Pakistan sent everybody but the Army, and that sent contingent included military officers 'on leave', who played an active role in leading the tribals.
'...merely instigated...'
If your forefathers believed that the terms of the legislation allowing princes to decide their accession could be flouted, what will you answer to the Hindutva lunatics who will then argue that with the violation of one part of the legislation, the rest of the legislation became null and void?
