JF-17 Block-3 -- Updates, News & Discussion

[Trango Towers]

Sheer respect for the man..

View attachment 460786

Stars signify kills?

 

[araz]

Ab rulao gai kiya.

Qais jungle main akela hai mujhay jaanay do.
Khoob guzray gi jo mil baithain gay deewanay do.
I have been shedding tears at my unfortunate nation for decades. I actually saw it being dismembered based on hate and regionalism. If for once someone had shown kindness and justice things could have been d9ne much more amicably.
A

 

[HRK]

Stars signify kills?

no ..... but his rank

 

[Joe Shearer]

So how do you explain 1971?

Bone-headed stupidity, corrosive personal ambition that destroyed the person's own nation, and a hideous display of violence by an institution, an organ of the state, towards that institution's own country's citizens.

 

[ziaulislam]

Bone-headed stupidity, corrosive personal ambition that destroyed the person's own nation, and a hideous display of violence by an institution, an organ of the state, towards that institution's own country's citizens.

exactly per Indian definitions thats happening right now in pakistan with pushtoons and balochs, had our defense between poor india would have invaded again without even blinking

in kashmir however, there are ideal human rights, those people who were blinded with pellets were "androids" not humans

i hope now you got your answer

 

[Joe Shearer]

exactly per Indian definitions thats happening right now in pakistan with pushtoons and balochs, had our defense between poor india would have invaded again without even blinking

in kashmir however, there are ideal human rights, those people who were blinded with pellets were "androids" not humans

i hope now you got your answer

I am quite satisfied with my original answer, without modification. As for an Indian invasion of Pakistan to serve either the Pushtoon or the Baloch separatist movements, did you have parachute operations, or an amphibious effort, or both, in mind?

 

[ziaulislam]

I am quite satisfied with my original answer, without modification. As for an Indian invasion of Pakistan to serve either the Pushtoon or the Baloch separatist movements, did you have parachute operations, or an amphibious effort, or both, in mind?

nope, even sindh has troubles remember, you can simply invade that through rajistan.

in any case, the next invasion would be through line of control cutting off Kashmir and GB, simultaneously co coordinating and cutting of KPK with Afghanistan, as once you get GB, KPK is next door

this however, now is not possible due to we learning our lesson in 1971 and thus we mades nukes..we should have learned this lesson before, ayub"s grave mistake, he was told about nukes and he rejected it, saying he doesnt believe a full invasion would happen, as he trusts nehru and just had indus treaty signed

regardless, you see why Pakistan is rightfully paranoid about india because even today a blant simple invasion is justified..this is not restricted to pakistan, every country in region has been invaded by india, some completely swallowed like sikkam through sham referendums, had it been not the china equation bhutan and nepal would have long been swallowed

PS:
you are satisfied with your answer..excellent.. which is why i am glade that we as a nation are not paranoid..

 

[Cookie Monster]

I am quite satisfied with my original answer, without modification. As for an Indian invasion of Pakistan to serve either the Pushtoon or the Baloch separatist movements, did you have parachute operations, or an amphibious effort, or both, in mind?

In all honesty Joe, ur answer is quite unsatisfactory...he questioned ur argument about how India wouldn't "bother" with Pak if Pak minded its own business by bringing up 1971...and how India intervened in Pak's internal matters...

U can't just side step away from that and bring up what Pakistan and the army was doing as a justification for Indian intervention...

r u now modifying ur initial argument to "India wouldn't bother with Pak...unless it was for MORAL reasons"?

...and if so then(as @ziaulislam has pointed out) what's ur opinion on all that's going on and has gone on in Indian Kashmir(rapes, disappearances, mass graves, and more recently pellets used to harm the public). Is that India's own internal matter? Or does it now give the right to Pakistan to intervene on the basis of MORALITY?

 

[ziaulislam]

In all honesty Joe, ur answer is quite unsatisfactory...he questioned ur argument about how India wouldn't "bother" with Pak if Pak minded its own business by bringing up 1971...and how India intervened in Pak's internal matters...

U can't just side step away from that and bring up what Pakistan and the army was doing as a justification for Indian intervention...

r u now modifying ur initial argument to "India wouldn't bother with Pak...unless it was for MORAL reasons"?

...and if so then(as @ziaulislam has pointed out) what's ur opinion on all that's going on and has gone on in Indian Kashmir(rapes, disappearances, mass graves, and more recently pellets used to harm the public). Is that India's own internal matter? Or does it now give the right to Pakistan to intervene on the basis of MORALITY?

there is simply no way india can do both..it cannot claim to be non intervening in other countries affairs and simultaneously claim what it did in 1971 right..thus it cannot reject Pakistan "paranoia"....

and hence the big dilemma, india whole media campign against pakistan is based upon idea that Pakistan is "paranoid" with india while india is peaceful and would never threaten Pakistan, but it has done it making it a FACT, by definition you are not paranoid if its a FACT

problem is due to our sham of defeat we dont bring up 1971 which i think is wrong, nations should learn from their defeats not hide it, no country in the world could have won with convention warfare in 1971 when outnumbered 20:1, we should learn from political mistake made by ZABs and military should learn from it..i will no

i will not derail this thread any more though

 

[Joe Shearer]

nope, even sindh has troubles remember, you can simply invade that through rajistan.

Ah, the goal posts just shifted, I see; we are now playing football, not hockey.

Fair enough.

in any case, the next invasion would be through line of control cutting off Kashmir and GB, simultaneously co coordinating and cutting of KPK with Afghanistan, as once you get GB, KPK is next door

You are writing this with full knowledge of the terrain in the theatres involved, of the lines of communication and of the need for logistics to go through narrow and vulnerable choke-points to the point of engagement, and the difference in acclimatization of the respective soldiers? Could I just say that the plan outlined is remarkable in its display of - dare I use the word? - paranoia?

this however, now is not possible due to we learning our lesson in 1971 and thus we mades nukes..we should have learned this lesson before, ayub"s grave mistake, he was told about nukes and he rejected it, saying he doesnt believe a full invasion would happen, as he trusts nehru and just had indus treaty signed

That means no more bone stupidity (as displayed subsequent to 1971 in Kargil), no more corrosive personal ambition that destroyed the person's own country (as displayed in the Lal Masjid, the siege of a major Pakistani city only weeks ago, and the PTI) and no more hideous displays of violence by an institution? Sounds like major changes are being planned. Until these are fully planned and implemented, we must watch and hope.

regardless, you see why Pakistan is rightfully paranoid about india because even today a blant simple invasion is justified..this is not restricted to pakistan, every country in region has been invaded by india, some completely swallowed like sikkam through sham referendums, had it been not the china equation bhutan and nepal would have long been swallowed

As you probably already know, paranoia does not need an external stimulus. Pakistan's paranoia is wholly manufactured within Pakistan, without the need for any transfer of technology.

By the way, the invasion that you refer to may or may not be justified; its modalities are still not clear. A helpful suggestion of paradropping or of amphibious operations was ignored (and my tender feelings bruised), and instead, Sindh, that was not in the subject even one post earlier, has been introduced as a useful candidate for invasion. Could we think about it, or are we obliged to accept this offer of an alternative target without deviations?

Were you aware that the China equation did not exist when Nepal's and Bhutan's independence was in question, in the 40s and the 50s? Or was your remark in 'l'esprit d'escalier'?

PS:
you are satisfied with your answer..excellent.. which is why i am glade that we as a nation are not paranoid..

My dull sensibilities gather that this is an extremely witty remark, and I will not fail to applaud it once I have understood it.

 

[ziaulislam]

Ah, the goal posts just shifted, I see; we are now playing football, not hockey.

Fair enough.



You are writing this with full knowledge of the terrain in the theatres involved, of the lines of communication and of the need for logistics to go through narrow and vulnerable choke-points to the point of engagement, and the difference in acclimatization of the respective soldiers? Could I just say that the plan outlined is remarkable in its display of - dare I use the word? - paranoia?



That means no more bone stupidity (as displayed subsequent to 1971 in Kargil), no more corrosive personal ambition that destroyed the person's own country (as displayed in the Lal Masjid, the siege of a major Pakistani city only weeks ago, and the PTI) and no more hideous displays of violence by an institution? Sounds like major changes are being planned. Until these are fully planned and implemented, we must watch and hope.



As you probably already know, paranoia does not need an external stimulus. Pakistan's paranoia is wholly manufactured within Pakistan, without the need for any transfer of technology.

By the way, the invasion that you refer to may or may not be justified; its modalities are still not clear. A helpful suggestion of paradropping or of amphibious operations was ignored (and my tender feelings bruised), and instead, Sindh, that was not in the subject even one post earlier, has been introduced as a useful candidate for invasion. Could we think about it, or are we obliged to accept this offer of an alternative target without deviations?

Were you aware that the China equation did not exist when Nepal's and Bhutan's independence was in question, in the 40s and the 50s? Or was your remark in 'l'esprit d'escalier'?



My dull sensibilities gather that this is an extremely witty remark, and I will not fail to applaud it once I have understood it.

you definitively need history and geographical lesson on GB and Kashmir, i can post details but i am not going to derail this thread.

i am surprised you are giving us lesson when what you done in golden temple, babri masjid and gujrat riots, and i even havent brought up whats going on in the eastern states, you do know that till India market opened up, Modi was a terrorist in USA for his role in Gujrat..really i mean there is limit to idiocity
where did lal masjid came in from, till recently i thought indians and west were declaring them terrorists..wow

 

[Joe Shearer]

In all honesty Joe, ur answer is quite unsatisfactory...he questioned ur argument about how India wouldn't "bother" with Pak if Pak minded its own business by bringing up 1971...and how India intervened in Pak's internal matters...

To be equally honest, I answered the question put 'as is, where is', without any creative interpretation of the sort that you have used. If it had been put in your terms, I would have - and shall proceed to - answer it differently.

U can't just side step away from that and bring up what Pakistan and the army was doing as a justification for Indian intervention...

Oh, I can't? I can, but, more to the point, why mayn't I? Do you see no link to the morality of the
situation and India's actions?

r u now modifying ur initial argument to "India wouldn't bother with Pak...unless it was for MORAL reasons"?

No.

Two different questions, two different answers is a more accurate - I shall not make the elementary mistake of terming it more fair - description.

...and if so then(as @ziaulislam has pointed out) what's ur opinion on all that's going on and has gone on in Indian Kashmir(rapes, disappearances, mass graves, and more recently pellets used to harm the public). Is that India's own internal matter? Or does it now give the right to Pakistan to intervene on the basis of MORALITY?

I have answered these issues in this very forum, not once but a few score times. If your indignation will permit some flippancy, this film clip might illuminate the situation:

you definitively need history and geographical lesson on GB and Kashmir, i can post details but i am not going to derail this thread.

You already have derailed the thread, so this is a lame justification. You should have thought about derailing threads before derailing them.

i am surprised you are giving us lesson when what you done in golden temple, babri masjid and gujrat riots,

When? Where? Other than within your mind?

and i even havent brought up whats going on in the eastern states,

Many thanks for the indulgence and courtesy shown. Your patience and forbearance is extraordinary.

you do know that till India market opened up, Modi was a terrorist in USA for his role in Gujrat

A terrorist? Really? Ignorance, as you probably know, is not a defence. He was denied a visa. A CRPF officer was denied a visa to visit Canada. Did that make him a terrorist?

As some members know, I am hostile to what Modi stands for and to his present policies, but that hostility does not force me to entertain the delusions of other members.

..really i mean there is limit to idiocity

Please feel free to inform the world when you discover these limits.

where did lal masjid came in from, till recently i thought indians and west were declaring them terrorists..wow

The context is clear. The reference to Lal Masjid was precisely what it was meant to be, a reference to corrosive personal ambition and attention seeking, that influenced many to support it, and that proved to be hostile to the state.

It is difficult to understand why that reference proved to be obscure.

By the way, to revert to the language of my current profession, this is a take-home exam.; in addition, seeking help is permitted.

In all honesty Joe, ur answer is quite unsatisfactory...he questioned ur argument about how India wouldn't "bother" with Pak if Pak minded its own business by bringing up 1971...and how India intervened in Pak's internal matters...

U can't just side step away from that and bring up what Pakistan and the army was doing as a justification for Indian intervention...

r u now modifying ur initial argument to "India wouldn't bother with Pak...unless it was for MORAL reasons"?

...and if so then(as @ziaulislam has pointed out) what's ur opinion on all that's going on and has gone on in Indian Kashmir(rapes, disappearances, mass graves, and more recently pellets used to harm the public). Is that India's own internal matter? Or does it now give the right to Pakistan to intervene on the basis of MORALITY?

Incidentally, Pakistan has never been at a loss for reasons for intervention. Consult your record in Mizoram in 1965 and onwards. You will, naturally, note the dates.

 

[ziaulislam]

To be equally honest, I answered the question put 'as is, where is', without any creative interpretation of the sort that you have used. If it had been put in your terms, I would have - and shall proceed to - answer it differently.



Oh, I can't? I can, but, more to the point, why mayn't I? Do you see no link to the morality of the
situation and India's actions?



No.

Two different questions, two different answers is a more accurate - I shall not make the elementary mistake of terming it more fair - description.



I have answered these issues in this very forum, not once but a few score times. If your indignation will permit some flippancy, this film clip might illuminate the situation:

You already have derailed the thread, so this is a lame justification. You should have thought about derailing threads before derailing them.

[quotei am surprised you are giving us lesson when what you done in golden temple, babri masjid and gujrat riots,

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


hopefully production 2019-2020

 

[Tameem]

MODS: Pls clear the thread of Off topic posts and inflict thread ban to both Joe and zia at least.

 

[redgriffin]

Stars signify kills?

No, they signify his rank, 4 stars = full general or equivalent rank