India Pakistan conflict along LoC and counter terrorist operations

[Underground Soldier]

Army's summer strategy in place at LoC with temperatures expected to rise in Kashmir

Move comes at a time when a new outfit, The Resistance Front, has emerged in Kashmir, which security agencies believe is yet another terror proxy group launched by Pakistan.

theprint.in

My 2 questions on the report:
1. Why so much importance to TRF. After all it a susbsidiary of LeT and we have been giving LeT tough times on LC and valley. What makes this group so important that we are not aiming on LeT, JeM and ISI but this group? This group is no different than them
2. Regarding False Flag, why can't we claim same for Pakistanis. APS was a FF ops and was conducted by Porkis themselves which was acknowledged by their soldiers as well. Why don't't we say that Porkis themselves are carrying attaks to earn sympathy and make money from west!?

 

[SatanHell]

4 x 72 = 288 https://t.co/cJgBOJ8xq9

 

[fire starter]

2 more pigs killed in balochistan.

 

[fire starter]

 

[fire starter]

another fake account popped up from Madarsa.

 

[pankaj nema]

Now a days ,Zaid Hamid is saying Daily
That War is Coming Very soon

Is it really possible that India might do something in this Lockdown phase

 

[MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00]

Army's summer strategy in place at LoC with temperatures expected to rise in Kashmir

Move comes at a time when a new outfit, The Resistance Front, has emerged in Kashmir, which security agencies believe is yet another terror proxy group launched by Pakistan.

theprint.in

My 2 questions on the report:
1. Why so much importance to TRF. After all it a susbsidiary of LeT and we have been giving LeT tough times on LC and valley. What makes this group so important that we are not aiming on LeT, JeM and ISI but this group? This group is no different than them
2. Regarding False Flag, why can't we claim same for Pakistanis. APS was a FF ops and was conducted by Porkis themselves which was acknowledged by their soldiers as well. Why don't't we say that Porkis themselves are carrying attaks to earn sympathy and make money from west!?

These are My Answers Regarding your Questions

1. TRF is a new Terrorist Group it is better to nip it from Bud than let it grow before it gets bigger than the Original Terrorist Group that created it. TRF is trying to recruit more Radicalized Kashmiri Youth by attacking Indian Army, CRPF and J&K Police Units. They are trying to show that they are aggressive against “Indian Occupation” and will do anything that is necessary to create a Islamic State in Kashmir Valley which them makes more dangerous than Currently Traditional Pakistani Terrorist Groups operating in the Valley.

2. The Number Two ‘s Answer is very very easy. We wouldn’t call them that because of Libturds and weak willed people. India can easily claim that every attack against Paki Civilians and soldiers up to now were all conducted by Paki Army, ISI and there Terrorist subsidiaries and the only reason they are blaming India is to create tension between both states and For Paki Deep State also called Pak Army to take over the Paki Government to create Military dictatorships.

 

[MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00]

Another Reason why we need to keep the Current Afghan Government Alive and fighting. They are India ‘s primary and Most Direct asset in Afghanistan. India needs them running the Country and we need to help them stabilize it with Economic Aid for there devastated infrastructure and People and Weapons for there Military.

 

[Hellfire]

I think our armed forces should now start taking out infrastructure from the Paki side as part of our action/reaction.
The singular focus on just military & militant infrastructure must go.

And would that not result in a reciprocal action from the other side?

The calculation should be on return on investment. The Pakis have for long imposed an excessive cost from us by sending their unwashed abduls with cheap guns and simple training. Our responses should extract multiples of that cost, if not atleast equivalent cost from the Pakis.
By ROI, I am not just talking of money.
It is
1) People (already being done)
2) Cost (not being done)
3) Standard/Ease of living on the other side(not being done)

How is this an 'excessive cost'?

Without even going into the costs of the suggested course of action (as suggested by you), a mere look at the 'costs' at present will show that there is adequacy in controlling the level of violence, the mandate to the forces.

Example. In 2017, about 80 Security Personnel laid down their lives in J&K. Compare it to the 350 lives lost of Security Personnel from the three branches of the Armed Forces lost in road accidents for the same year. I shall not even get into suicides, ailments and other non-war casualties.

 

[SatanHell]

The unidentified bodies(officially) are buried somewhere in #Sonmarg in #Ganderbal district. Also, families did not claimed bodies. However, Records were kept. Good. https://t.co/bovE11kI7t

 

[indiatester]

And would that not result in a reciprocal action from the other side?

Yes and hence the imposition of cost should be more from our side. If you are assuming that the enemy will back down with just one action or some show of strength, then you are mistaken. We must ensure their degradation in military, economic and generic civic standards with continuous action till they irreversibly and verifiably stop working against us.

How is this an 'excessive cost'?

Without even going into the costs of the suggested course of action (as suggested by you), a mere look at the 'costs' at present will show that there is adequacy in controlling the level of violence, the mandate to the forces.

Example. In 2017, about 80 Security Personnel laid down their lives in J&K. Compare it to the 350 lives lost of Security Personnel from the three branches of the Armed Forces lost in road accidents for the same year. I shall not even get into suicides, ailments and other non-war casualties.

Not even comparable, you are equating malicious intent with accidents. One is an active action by an enemy with intention to cause harm. The other is as you have noted are "accidents" or non-war casualties.

 

[Hellfire]

Yes and hence the imposition of cost should be more from our side. If you are assuming that the enemy will back down with just one action or some show of strength, then you are mistaken. We must ensure their degradation in military, economic and generic civic standards with continuous action till they irreversibly and verifiably stop working against us.

Let me quote the relevant text of your post earlier.

I think our armed forces should now start taking out infrastructure from the Paki side as part of our action/reaction.
The singular focus on just military & militant infrastructure must go.

The calculation should be on return on investment. The Pakis have for long imposed an excessive cost from us by sending their unwashed abduls with cheap guns and simple training. Our responses should extract multiples of that cost, if not atleast equivalent cost from the Pakis.

In the above you have called for military action against Pakistani infrastructure. And you have also agreed to the fact that a similar response (i.e. targeting of own infrastructure) will be forthcoming. Yet in the latter half you have asked for an equivalent cost from the Pakistanis. Ignoring the rather contrarian position here.

What you have suggested in above is escalation in the level of violence with an expansion of targeting options. And in the same stroke you have accepted a similar response will be elicited. So, how does this achieve your objectives of dissuasive action/reducing costs by imposition of unacceptable costs?

Not even comparable, you are equating malicious intent with accidents. One is an active action by an enemy with intention to cause harm. The other is as you have noted are "accidents" or non-war casualties.

Costs are costs. In terms of human lives and the toll that is exacted from the families. Intent is of irrelevance here. The alternative is escalation of the level of violence. Towards what end!

Side note: In face of enemy action, classified as "Battle Casualties", the benefits to Next of Kins is significantly much greater than what is given for simple "Physical Casualties"

 

[indiatester]

Let me quote the relevant text of your post earlier.



In the above you have called for military action against Pakistani infrastructure. And you have also agreed to the fact that a similar response (i.e. targeting of own infrastructure) will be forthcoming. Yet in the latter half you have asked for an equivalent cost from the Pakistanis. Ignoring the rather contrarian position here.

What you have suggested in above is escalation in the level of violence with an expansion of targeting options. And in the same stroke you have accepted a similar response will be elicited. So, how does this achieve your objectives of dissuasive action/reducing costs by imposition of unacceptable costs?

Sir, you are reading with a bias. In the same paragraph I have said

Yes and hence the imposition of cost should be more from our side.

Costs are costs. In terms of human lives and the toll that is exacted from the families. Intent is of irrelevance here. The alternative is escalation of the level of violence. Towards what end!

Side note: In face of enemy action, classified as "Battle Casualties", the benefits to Next of Kins is significantly much greater than what is given for simple "Physical Casualties"

Intent is very must relevant. That is exactly what I am discussing. There has been violence for a long time, it is time to impose our will and end it.

Casualties due to accident don't disappear whether there is enemy action or not.
And the family benefits are not what we are discussing.

 

[fire starter]

 

[MIDKNIGHT FENERIR-00]

View attachment 46093
View attachment 46094
View attachment 46095
View attachment 46096

Bro Please Post all Pashtun and KPK Related Posts and there Content here as well.

Pashtun Freedom Struggle - News, Updates, Discussions, Weapons and Multimedia Thread

“All Pashtuns want freedom from Pak” AREEBA FALAK January 28, 2017, 9:45 PM Pashtuns, Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Zarb-e-Azb, Internally Displaced People, Asfandyar Wali Khan To fight militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan had started Operation...

defenceforumindia.com

 

[fire starter]

exclusive videos of baloch freedom fighters raping porkis.

 

[fire starter]

pictures of killed terrorists in yesterday encounter. patt se headshots.

 

[SatanHell]

Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) releases images of it's Mujahideen Special Group (MSG) attacking Pakistan army checkposts in Bajaur agency yesterday. https://t.co/Q7nnE10vh1

 

[SatanHell]

Victim terrorist :saeed https://t.co/8tplTLvbJq

 

[Hellfire]

Sir, you are reading with a bias. In the same paragraph I have said

Yes you have said that. But when you talk of imposition of greater costs, you have left it unclear how do you impose that greater cost.

If your statement on targeting of infrastructure is read in conjunction with the preceding paragraph, and you accept a retaliatory action by the opponent, you merely suggest an escalatory sequence with meaningless violence heading towards uncontrolled violence benefiting none and not achieving your objectives. Is violence to be the new norm in that case? Does it then achieve your objective?

Intent is very must relevant. That is exactly what I am discussing. There has been violence for a long time, it is time to impose our will and end it.

How?

Casualties due to accident don't disappear whether there is enemy action or not.
And the family benefits are not what we are discussing.

The example has been given to drive in the point that the higher casualties of losses in road accidents due to opening of Cantonment roads must indeed be a greater concern as that has significantly higher costs being incurred in recruiting, training, maintaining & welfare without achievement of any tactical/strategic objective as opposed to loss of lives in CI/CT operations within the designated areas where our tactical/strategic objectives as politically defined in directives to armed forces, are being met.