Kashmiri Nationalist
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Who idiot said that we will invade lahore? its you who have been saying that we will launch proxies.
and now wars are fought with proxies like you have been under and now more n more resources are used for anti nuke systems ..and trust me,india have systems who can encounter every missile you have but still in unmature stage so it will take time till then you can fart.
why kargil was different? india brought navy and air force and army for that conflict and you say its skirmish?
as i told you,Today wars are fought with proxies not directly and when country gets weakened then military force is used like syria libya etc ...so dont confuse ur self ..and india have no intention to invade pakistan nor we have capability now presently..
Regarding 26/11 ..
Post-26/11, Mukherjee's words rattled Pakistan: Condoleezza Rice - Times Of India
read this and it shows where u were and even u asked to baitullah mehsud who was TTP leader at that time for help..do i need to say anything? reasons were some thing else and it will change direction of thread.
Nobody asked the TTP for help, the TTP attempted to gain some public support by saying it would aid Pakistan in a war - nothing less, nothing more. And in that article it seems Rice is more rattled than Pakistan; you're acting as if India didn't make more than one threat for war against Pakistan. In the threat of a war, the State acts on all fronts - whether it be dimplomatic or otherwise, and as the article states, it was India that was requesting a defuse of the situation, not Pakistan (that is not to say that Pakistan wished for a war).
The facts are the facts - India was attacked by what it states are "foreign based elements" in Pakistan and the whole country was calling for action, whether it be a land invasion, or tactical strikes. Neither of them materialised, and put quite simply, India backed off.
Kargil, Parliament Attacks and Mumbai attacks. If India was so mighty, it'd done something by now. Tactical strikes remove the need for a conventional war to disable any anti-India networks and it would have been, at the most, a major skirmish-cum-war on the international border with India playing on the defensive (which is quite easy, seeing the numerical advantage). Yet India didn't even have the stomach for any: why?
And the answer to that, my friend, lies in "nuclear deterrent" as it is euphemistically called.
Who idiot said that we will invade lahore
and now wars are fought with proxies like you have been under and now more n more resources are used for anti nuke systems ..and trust me,india have systems who can encounter every missile you have but still in unmature stage so it will take time till then you can fart.
why kargil was different? india brought navy and air force and army for that conflict and you say its skirmish?
as i told you,Today wars are fought with proxies not directly and when country gets weakened then military force is used like syria libya etc ...so dont confuse ur self ..and india have no intention to invade pakistan nor we have capability now presently..
Regarding 26/11 ..
Post-26/11, Mukherjee's words rattled Pakistan: Condoleezza Rice - Times Of India
read this and it shows where u were and even u asked to baitullah mehsud who was TTP leader at that time for help..do i need to say anything? reasons were some thing else and it will change direction of thread.
Nobody asked the TTP for help, the TTP attempted to gain some public support by saying it would aid Pakistan in a war - nothing less, nothing more. And in that article it seems Rice is more rattled than Pakistan; you're acting as if India didn't make more than one threat for war against Pakistan. In the threat of a war, the State acts on all fronts - whether it be dimplomatic or otherwise, and as the article states, it was India that was requesting a defuse of the situation, not Pakistan (that is not to say that Pakistan wished for a war).
The facts are the facts - India was attacked by what it states are "foreign based elements" in Pakistan and the whole country was calling for action, whether it be a land invasion, or tactical strikes. Neither of them materialised, and put quite simply, India backed off.
Kargil, Parliament Attacks and Mumbai attacks. If India was so mighty, it'd done something by now. Tactical strikes remove the need for a conventional war to disable any anti-India networks and it would have been, at the most, a major skirmish-cum-war on the international border with India playing on the defensive (which is quite easy, seeing the numerical advantage). Yet India didn't even have the stomach for any: why?
And the answer to that, my friend, lies in "nuclear deterrent" as it is euphemistically called.
