What's new

India may plan airstrikes in Muridkay

I think you are twisting facts. No one is involved in Afghanistan-- including Paklands in the way the US was involved in the 70s and 80s. There is moral support but no physical or material support. This is the significant difference between the 70s and now. Indian effort was also not for the purpose of coercion at least AGAINST the US and the after effects of their efforts were for Paklands rather than the US.

I am merely describing the situation in Afghanistan. All the nations I mentioned are still actively involved in the situation. Even Mossad has several teams there presently, but they are more focused towards the western side. You are correct that the level of involvement is way less than previously, but it is still significant since many players are actively vying to influence things according to what suits their respective national interests. You are also correct that India is there primarily to open up another front against Pakistan to divert its attention and resources.
 
Yet degrading. They could do much better than that.

Can't be helped. The choice was between doing what they did or mowing down a whole bunch of people. The people to blame are the stone pelters obviously.

You are also correct that India is there primarily to open up another front against Pakistan to divert its attention and resources.

This is a narrative that Pakistan wants to push. But it's detrimental to Indian interests if India starts operating in Afghanistan. Pakistan will then try to garner sympathy from the international community with the excuse that India is encircling Pakistan. This is the main reason why we have only provided political and financial support to the Afghans rather than military support. India has no military presence in Afghanistan nor has any plans to sending troops there.

Another major reason is Pakistan can play the victim card among the Taliban and other warlords and have them unite against this 'Indian threat' in Afghanistan. But if we do not have a presence there at all, then there is no question of playing the victim card.

Militarily India has no need to open another front there. Afghans and Iranians can create enough headache for Pakistan without our direct help.
 
This is a narrative that Pakistan wants to push. But it's detrimental to Indian interests if India starts operating in Afghanistan. Pakistan will then try to garner sympathy from the international community with the excuse that India is encircling Pakistan. This is the main reason why we have only provided political and financial support to the Afghans rather than military support. India has no military presence in Afghanistan nor has any plans to sending troops there.

Another major reason is Pakistan can play the victim card among the Taliban and other warlords and have them unite against this 'Indian threat' in Afghanistan. But if we do not have a presence there at all, then there is no question of playing the victim card.

Militarily India has no need to open another front there. Afghans and Iranians can create enough headache for Pakistan without our direct help.

India is there exactly as I have mentioned, no doubt about it, like it or not.
 
Here, in an interview from earlier today - NDTV's host is trying to push 'Pakistan' card on the Foreign Affairs of KSA (Adel Al-Jubeir).

The video is 18mins in duration.

The first 3:06 its about Saudi/India relations and trade.

And from 3:07 to 13:25 its ONLY Pakistan.

You guys have to see the sheer frustration on the face of the Foreign Minister.

Finally, she ends the conversation by bringing up...Jamal Khashoggi. *mic dropped*

 
Here, in an interview from earlier today - NDTV's host is trying to push 'Pakistan' card on the Foreign Affairs of KSA (Adel Al-Jubeir).

The video is 18mins in duration.

The first 3:06 its about Saudi/India relations and trade.

And from 3:07 to 13:25 its ONLY Pakistan.

You guys have to see the sheer frustration on the face of the Foreign Minister.

Finally, she ends the conversation by bringing up...Jamal Khashoggi. *mic dropped*



anchor : pakistan pakistan pakistan....Terrorit terrorist terrorist
FM: The number u have dialed is Not responding at the moment



Indians are buzy in planning tomatical strike by banning laal tomatoes!! And they are going to release film named Sabzical Strike sequence to URRI!!
 
According to some defense sources Indian Airforce is planning a retaliatory strikes in Muridkay bahawalpur on training camps of militants
Read the book ex FM of Pakistan Kasuri wrote. Interesting reference about Murdkay ...
 
India is there exactly as I have mentioned, no doubt about it, like it or not.

Only on the economic and political side of things, not military. But yeah, the end result is the same.

Just saying it's not as bad as made out to be. For example, Pak can fix relations with Afghanistan and Iran tomorrow and there's nothing much India can do about it.
 
Only on the economic and political side of things, not military. But yeah, the end result is the same.

Just saying it's not as bad as made out to be. For example, Pak can fix relations with Afghanistan and Iran tomorrow and there's nothing much India can do about it.

There is nothing good or bad in international geopolitics, only the pursuit of national interests. By all sides, equally.
 
I am merely describing the situation in Afghanistan. All the nations I mentioned are still actively involved in the situation. Even Mossad has several teams there presently, but they are more focused towards the western side. You are correct that the level of involvement is way less than previously, but it is still significant since many players are actively vying to influence things according to what suits their respective national interests. You are also correct that India is there primarily to open up another front against Pakistan to divert its attention and resources.
I stand by my statement. Involvement with disperasal and active dissemination of armaments are totally different from vying for political influence. No one I repeat no one is involved in Afghnaistan the way the US was.
A
 
I stand by my statement. Involvement with disperasal and active dissemination of armaments are totally different from vying for political influence. No one I repeat no one is involved in Afghnaistan the way the US was.
A

Actually, you are correct that that no one is involved to the extent USA was, and even is, but that may be more of an indication of the resources available to be thrown into the mix than anything else.
 
Actually, you are correct that that no one is involved to the extent USA was, and even is, but that may be more of an indication of the resources available to be thrown into the mix than anything else.
I am glad we can agree on something.Again I see the picture and the motives differently, However, we are moving away from the main topic even though, i chose not to dwell into idiocy. I will simply bow out.
Regards
A
 

Back
Top Bottom