What's new

India claimed to attack 4 different targets on 4 different locations.

After the Mirage pilots had conducted final checks on the targets and briefed their commander, they were cleared to cross the LoC and drop their lethal arsenal on the terrorists based in the above-mentioned camps. The bombing run started at around 3.43 am and by 4.04 am all the camps had been blown to smithereens resulting in the death of almost 300 terrorists.

Balakot in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province was the first to be bombed followed by Muzaffarabad and Chakoti respectively, taking the Pakistani armed forces by surprise and blowing a huge hole in their defences.

https://zeenews.india.com/india/300...-iaf-struck-deep-inside-pakistan-2183698.html








Guys, the source is indian, it is zee news. Therefore it is an indian propaganda piece.
 
Salaam


Right? Finally a article that doesn't paint PAF so incompetent.

Isn't that how this works?

You believe that your government was able to conveniently find 300 terrorists sitting right next to the border that you were able to kill in one go, not because you've seen hard evidence- but because that's what favours your 'tribe'.

That's how we all function. We believe things we want to believe.



.
 
Let's be frank here. If we go along with the Indian claim that Pak was involved in the massaxre of 40 Indian soldiers then by any measure Pakistan deserves a crushing response. Keping mind that India is seven times more populous. Therefore it has size, it has reason, it has cause to give a knock out blow.

Do really honestly think this 'drama' is sufficient response to the massacre? And I am playing along with the Indian narrative.
 
You believe that your government was able to conveniently find 300 terrorists sitting right next to the border that you were able to kill in one go, not because you've seen hard evidence- but because that's what favours your 'tribe'.

.

http://www.rafael.co.il/5624-790-en/Marketing.aspx

I don't know.. This baby looks enough to kill few hundred. Then take formations of 4..

Let's be frank here. If we go along with the Indian claim that Pak was involved in the massaxre of 40 Indian soldiers then by any measure Pakistan deserves a crushing response. Keping mind that India is seven times more populous. Therefore it has size, it has reason, it has cause to give a knock out blow.

Do really honestly think this 'drama' is sufficient response to the massacre? And I am playing along with the Indian narrative.

Jais claimed responsibility. It just returned the favor now. As you said.. India has the means to deliver blows like that.
 
http://www.rafael.co.il/5624-790-en/Marketing.aspx

I don't know.. This baby looks enough to kill few hundred. Then take formations of 4..



Jais claimed responsibility. It just returned the favor now. As you said.. India has the means to deliver blows like that.
where are those vedic satellite with accuracy of 0.000001nm
why its taking so long to release before and after images?
 
you mean to say this worked?

When ISPR said PAF was "scarmbled", I was like..

main-qimg-48431eba8ce3d3f6edc859cf24f4bed9.webp


This??

where are those vedic satellite with accuracy of 0.000001nm
why its taking so long to release before and after images?

It was being streamed in IAF twitch. Follow it..
 
Jais claimed responsibility.
There has been no proof that Jaish even was hit. The very Jaish that was cited as proof for Pulwama has categorically rejected that they got attack. There has been no evidence given by India of a attack on a target. All we have is a intrusion that has been sexed up into 'Mission Pakistan' starring Bollywood's finest.
 
Let's be frank here. If we go along with the Indian claim that Pak was involved in the massaxre of 40 Indian soldiers then by any measure Pakistan deserves a crushing response. Keping mind that India is seven times more populous. Therefore it has size, it has reason, it has cause to give a knock out blow.

Do really honestly think this 'drama' is sufficient response to the massacre? And I am playing along with the Indian narrative.

First time after 1971, IAF has crossed Pakistan borders, they did not just bomb a target AJK, they bombed Pakistan proper.
Now Pakistan can claim, that no one was hit no damage was done, when a dozen Indian aircrafts crossed into Pakistan, just like how they claimed, that no Indian troops crossed the LOC and there were no surgical strikes after Uri.

But putting things into today's perspective. If India had the balls to carry out a bombing run on across the international border, why couldn't they have carried cross border surgical strikes across the LOC.
 
are you retarded?
how does a 1999 article confirm that 300 people died and that Pakistan is covering it up?

no wonder your media lies to you all the time, you are guys are actual idiots.

I am the retard..


https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/17/world/india-buries-soldiers-that-pakistan-won-t-claim.html

From, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40209839-from-kargil-to-the-coup

Ever since the Kargil war of 1999 between then newly nuclearized India and Pakistan, there has been endless speculation about the precise motivations, planning and execution of the operation. In her long-awaited study of Kargil, Nasim Zehra combines hitherto unknown information garnered from key players in the Pakistani military establishment involved in the planning of the incursion with a historically grounded and analytically nuanced analysis of the Indo-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir. She convincingly shows how the Kargil conflict accentuated Pakistan s relations with not only India and the United States of America but also brought to the fore age-old tensions between the civil and military arms of the state, resulting in the 1999 military coup. A gripping account of the Kargil war as it unfolded surreptitiously and then flagrantly, this study puts to rest myths about the relative strengths of the military decision-making process in Pakistan compared to its civilian counterpart, underscoring the imperative need to streamline both with a view to facilitating more cooperative relations between them, especially in the realm of strategic security.

Well researched and persuasively argued, the book is mandatory reading for students of international relations and South Asia. (Professor Ayesha Jalal, Historian) Nasim Zehra s book is a remarkably honest, bold, diligent and well-researched account of the Kargil episode, a doomed initiative, conceived in shadows, without a thought-through institutional evaluation and based on a misreading of the international situation. The author combines a wealth of information and a good deal of fresh detail with scholarly insights and deep analysis. She has produced a comprehensive landmark case study- a must read- of great value to policy makers and scholars in Pakistan and to the wider readership interested in the history and political affairs of the country and the region. (Riaz M Khan, Senior Diplomat, former Foreign Secretary) The Kargil episode has remained an enigma both in Pakistan as well as India. Shrouded in secrecy, the deafening silence on this conflict has given rise to many conspiracies, rumours and ill-informed opinions on both sides of the divide, in India and Pakistan. In this book, the author has collated facts painstakingly and juxtaposed them into the regional environment. She establishes the context of this conflict in the light of the US-Afghan issues at the time, the international concerns in view of the potential of a Nuclear Conflict, the contradictions of the Lahore Declaration and the history of the Line of Control. An extremely well analysed study that will remain a reference point for any further study. (Lt General (retd) Tariq Khan, Pakistan Army Armoured Corps)

https://wikileaks.org/gitmo/pdf/pk/us9pk-000301dp.pdf

https://www.dawn.com/news/1125484

from, https://books.google.com/books/about/What_Shall_We_Tell_the_Children.html?id=1K4vcexzA3QC

The Pakistani Studies curriculum was hurriedly introduced in 1972, a year after the loss of East Pakistan. With the aftermath of a disastrous war with India, a frenzy of panic gripped the nation and the powers that be in Pakistan feared that its raison d'etre was crumbling. Teaching contorted and fabricated history to impressionable children is their attempt at nation-building.

1) Introduction

All students in Pakistan are required to take courses called Pakistan Studies and must pass standardized tests. There are numerous textbooks published under this title for the 9th class to the BA level. The curriculum is a composite of patriotic discourses, justification of the Two-Nation Theory, hagiographies of Muslim heroes, and, endemic in the discourse, polemics about the superiority of Islamic principals over Hinduism. The rubric in these textbooks must be learned by rote in order for students to pass the examination.

The social studies curriculum in Pakistan, as both product and propagator of the “Ideology of Pakistan,” derives its legitimacy from a narrow set of directives. The textbooks authored and altered during the eleven years of General Zia-ul-Haq’s military rule between 1977 and 1988, are still in use in most schools—they are decidedly anti-democratic and inclined to dogmatic tirades and are characterized by internal contradictions.

In the thirty years since the “fall of Dhaka” the government controlled curriculum still does not include a historically circumspect version of the causes of the civil war that dismembered the nation. It is no wonder that during and in the aftermath of the Kargil crisis in the summer of 1999, newspapers ran stories referring to the occupation of the heights above Kargil as “revenge for 1971.” There is a chronic shortage of objective information available to the majority of Pakistani citizens that can adequately explain the actual events that led to the three wars with India. Kashmir in 1948, the war with India in 1965, and the Bangladesh War of Independence have become national metaphors for betrayal within and a reminder of the constant threat looming from Hindu India. The split-up of the nation and the creation of Bangladesh remains a potent symbol of Pakistan’s disempowerment and a constant reminder of what will happen if the Muslim ummah does not remain vigilant.

During the war-like situation in the summer of 1999 at the Line of Control near Kargil, the Pakistani government claimed that the Mujahideen were not physically supported by Pakistan, that the combatants were indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters. However, the presence of satellite television, the internet, and newspapers that are now more connected to international media sources, offered the possibility of broader exposure than during the two previous wars fought over Kashmir. Perhaps there is at least one positive outcome of the tragic Kargil crisis where hundreds of young men lost their lives; in the aftermath there was an outpouring of newspaper and magazine articles in Pakistan that attempted to analyze the brinkmanship from various angles.

Although some of the essays in Pakistani newspapers prophetically called for the military to take over the government in the wake of Nawaz Sharif’s sell out to Clinton, most of the discussions were more circumspect and many authors looked at the Kargil debacle through a lens of history, trying to understand the cause of Pakistan's repeated failures arising from military brinkmanship. Many of the observations made after Kargil, such as the inadequacy of Pakistan’s international diplomatic missions, are interestingly, also cited in Pakistan Studies textbooks regarding India's perceived manipulation of world opinion during the 1971 war and Pakistan's inability to counter it.

2) Manipulation by omission

Pakistani textbooks are particularly prone to historical narratives manipulated by omission, according to Avril Powell, professor of history at the University of London, such erasure can have its long-term negative repercussions.

Another example of this is the manner in which the Indo-Pak War of 1965 is discussed in Pakistani textbooks. In standard narrations of the 1965 War there is no mention of Operation Gibraltar, even after four decades. In fact, several university level history professors whom I interviewed claimed never to have heard of Operation Gibraltar and the repercussions of that ill-planned military adventurism which resulted in India's attack on Lahore.

In Pakistani textbooks the story is told that “the Indian army, unprovoked, inexplicably attacked Lahore” and that “one Pakistani jawan (soldier) equals ten Indian soldiers,” who, upon seeing the fierce Pakistanis, “drop their banduks (rifles) and run away.” Many people in Pakistan still think like this, and several mentioned this assumed cowardice of the Indian army in discussions with me while the fighting was raging in Kargil. The nation is elated by the valiant victories on the battlefield, as reported in the newspapers, then shocked and dismayed when their country is humiliated at the negotiating table. Because they were not fully informed about the adventurism of their military leaders, they can only feel betrayed that somehow Pakistani politicians once again “grabbed diplomatic defeat from the jaws of military victory.” Operation Gibraltar, the recent debacle in Kargil, and especially the tragic lessons that could have been learned from the Bangladesh War are products of the same myopic processes. The Kargil crisis was a legacy of the lack of information that citizens have had about the real history of their country.

3) Fabrication of geography

Pakistani textbooks have a particular problem when defining geographical space. The terms South Asia and Subcontinent have partially helped to solve this problem of the geo-historical identity of the area formally known as British India. However, it is quite difficult for Pakistani textbook writers to ignore the land now known as India when they discuss Islamic heroes and Muslim architectural monuments in the Subcontinent. This reticence to recognize anything of importance in India, which is almost always referred to as “Bharat” in both English and Urdu versions of textbooks, creates a difficult dilemma for historians writing about the Moghul Dynasties. It is interesting to note that M.A. Jinnah strongly protested the Congress’ appropriation of the appellation “India,” but his arguments were dismissed by Mountbattan. Because Pakistani textbook writers are constrained by the imperative to represent all facts and events in the historical record of South Asia so as to prove the inevitability of the Two Nation Theory, there are, by necessity of this agenda, numerous misrepresentations. Geography also falls prey to this ideological orientation, as can be seen in this quote from one of the many textbooks titled, Pakistani Studies:

During the 12th century the shape of Pakistan was more or less the same as it is today. Under the Khiljis, Pakistan moved further south-ward to include a greater part of Central India and the Deccan. In retrospect it may be said that during the 16th century “Hindustan” disappeared and was completely absorbed in “Pakistan.”

4) Editing political narratives on the fly

Another recent example of alterations made in textbooks to conform the narrative to the current political jargon can be seen by comparing two editions of the textbook Pakistan Studies for Secondary Classes, published by the Punjab Textbook Board. First, the 1997 edition states on page 206-207:

India is very advanced in its nuclear energy program and has performed an atomic test in 1974. To divert world attention from its nuclear plans, Bharat launched a propaganda campaign against Pakistan to the effect that Pakistan was manufacturing nuclear weapons. Pakistan categorically contradicted these baseless allegations and proposed that both the countries should adopt such limitations with mutual consent as may be acceptable at international level, putting an end to the possibility of proliferation of nuclear arms in South Asia. Bharat is not prepared to accept any restriction in this respect and desires that Pakistan should give up its peaceful nuclear energy program. Obviously this is an unrealistic demand.

After the nuclear tests in May of 1998, pages 206-207 of this textbook were changed in the 1999 imprint and the substituted comments added in a different font:

India is very advanced in its nuclear energy program and has performed an atomic test in 1974. To divert world attention from its nuclear plans, Bharat launched a propaganda campaign against Pakistan to the effect that Pakistan was manufacturing nuclear weapons. Pakistan categorically contradicted these baseless allegations and proposed non-proliferation of nuclear arms in South Asia. On May 11 and 13, 1998 India detonated five nuclear explosions and threatened the strategic and security balance in the region. Pakistan was compelled to respond in the same language and it conducted its six nuclear explosions on May 28 and 30 of 1998 at Chagai.

The day following the nuclear tests, public servants in Pakistan, without their consent, were docked a day’s pay to help offset the cost of exploding nuclear devices. Subsequently, Yome Takhbeer Day is celebrated in Pakistan on May 28. The revised curriculum guide suggests that school children draw posters and march in parades to mark the date of Pakistan’s ascendancy to nuclear status.

There has been no proof that Jaish even was hot. The very Jaish that was cited as proof for Pulwama has categorically rejected that they got attack. There has been no evidence given by India of a attack on a target. All we have is a intrusion that has been sexed up into 'Mission Pakistan' starring Bollywood's finest.

Sure bud. Whatever you say...
 
Back
Top Bottom