She is most definitely entitled to her opinion. But, in the end, it's only an opinion.
If you go by what the IAF has said, she is obviously wrong.
She's entitled to her opinion, you to yours & me to mine. That doesn't address the question. Because a question deserves an answer not an opinion. Opinions are usually legalistic in nature. Answers aren't. That's the difference between posing an opinion and answering a question raised.
The IF released a bland statement where in they stated they had targetted structures housing JeM terrorists. What was the intention? To target structures or the people with in? Why can't they be quantified? If we lost 40, aren't we entitled to kill at least 40 of these scum? Why the coyness in disclosure?
The GoI thru the FS confirmed that this was pre emptive action against terrorists training to be suicide bombers, who were killed in large nos .The said facility was said to house up to 300 people. I suspect out of this arose speculation that up to 300 terrorists were killed. S. Jain of NDTV in the video I've Uploaded earlier has gone on record to state that govt sources had unofficially claimed such nos.
The program itself speculates that we may never know the true figure.
Now we have a minister of the BJP in the central government stating that the purpose of the entire exercise wasn't to have human casualties but to demonstrate to the Pakistanis that we can target such camps. Well, guess what? The Pakistanis reciprocated the gesture the very next day and how?
So whom do we believe?
Airstrike inflicted less damage in Pak, hints Ahluwalia
Just a year ago, we undertook Op Gaganshakti, where many members here including ex servicemen were of the opinion, we could tackle PAF, with our existing depleted strength in a matter of a few days and then transfer the entire IAF to our Eastern front. But hey! Why doesn't war follow the same script as a simulated exercise. Beats me.
I wonder if they hold the same opinions now.
The part in bold. Actually, no. It's a common mistake people make. The fact is no one is simply entitled universally just because you are a taxpayer.
So, why are we paying taxes then? Just because we earn a surplus or for the sheer fun of it?
Entitlement is well-defined and very specific. In India, you are entitled to your opinion and freely express them. You are entitled to free primary education. After 2022, you will be entitled to free healthcare. None of this includes national security, which is strictly on a need-to-know basis. Even less so when it comes to foreigners like Christine Fair.
It goes much beyond national security. It cuts to the very bone of it. It also covers individual freedom apart from a prescribed set of do's & don'ts as clearly emunciated by the Constitution of India. One can appreciate non disclose on grounds of national security if such confused and muddled thinking as reflected above weren't aired.
To re iterate. Did we undertake the air strikes to prove a point? Or did we undertake it as a reprisal measure? Or did we undertake it as a preemptive move? That's at the heart of this debate we're having here and none of the statements released so far by the GoI, the Armed Forces or individual ministers are in consonance with each other. In fact they're at cross purposes. Which brings up a suspicion voiced here earlier that there was no battlefield objective given by the GoI to the armed forces. All it wanted was to satiate public demand for retribution by staging something spectacular. As a one off event. Hype it up. Let the public celebrate. Avoid putting out facts and soon enough ppl would forget, go about biz as usual till the next big bang. Do we even have a coherent strategy to deal with terrorism in general and it's chief patron Pakistan in particular?
Where is our national security doctrine? I wouldn't mind if its a state secret to prevent making public all its contents. A redacted one would do too. Do we even have one?
We have a system where the military declassifies details after a specific time period in order to satiate the curiosity of the general population, and its release is up to the military's discretion. So the military decides what information you are exposed to.
The military doesn't decide squat. The GoI does. The military merely advises on the suitablity of putting out such info into the public domain. Stop indulging in subterfuge. Or please read up & be better informed.
Why hasn't the Henderson Brooks report yet been made public? What great state secrets are being protected by the armed forces for a war waged 6 decades ago when In spite of repeatedly being warned by the military the then GoI were living in their own fantasy world ?
Think about it this way. Maybe zero people died in the airstrikes. Maybe the F-16 wasn't destroyed. Regardless of the end result what are you or Christine Fair going to do about it? All you are interested in is sating your curiosity, which is totally irrelevant to the situation at hand. As far as the military is concerned, it makes no difference to their work whether you are informed today or 25 years from today.
Please check above for response on similar points raised by you.
The fact is taxpayers have the freedom to change loyalties at any time. So why are they entitled to national secrets?
So, your contention is that just coz a few thousands of a population of 1.3 billion people emigrate, the GoI is justified in keeping things under wrap for an eternity. Lazy and inept attempt at post facto justification. Come up with something better.
You want to be in the know, then you are going to have to give up on a lot of freedoms that you take for granted today, considering the govt decides you qualify to be in the "need-to-know" circle of people.
I want the bare bones. For details of the bare bones , pls refer above as answers to similar points raised by you . I'm not asking for a minutes of meeting down to the last punctuation mark.And what do you mean we have to give up a lot of freedoms? Are we a democracy or a police state? Aren't there enough democracies waging battle against terrorist movements of different intensities? Granted we are up against s more determined and formidable adversary who also happens to be a N power. Does that absolve our governments of inaction or ad hoc scant action?
That's why you and I can shoot our mouths off about any topic under the sun on any given day without facing repercussions from the govt, but Vstol and Falcon cannot.
Irrelevant, stating the obvious and gainsaying.
The only thing the general population should be interested in is the end result, and whether it was achieved within the laws we created.
The end result is the result of decades experience gained at a huge material & human cost which ought to have formed the core of ones national security doctrine based on which the case ought to have been prosecuted.
Where's it? The end result could be a few years away or decades away. Each step we take towards that end decides how close we are to it or how distant. Hence, not only the journey must be mapped but each step documented and justified. We have been facing terrorism in myriad forms since the 80's in in different parts of the country mostly through a single patron. At the end of 4 decades we are no closer to the end than we were at the beginning. Why do you think this is the case? Who's responsible for it? If the elected representatives haven't done their job well, shouldn't the citizeny question them apart from holding them responsible and accountable. After all the politicians are secured behind a firewall of security at the cost of you and me - the taxpayers. It's we - the ordinary citizen who pays the price in lives & After paying due taxes that most ordinary politicians don't.
That's fine. It's not like he can get away with lying about everything. You will have to rely more on what our military leaders say, not what Modi or RaGa say.
Again. Our military will only disclose that which their political masters permit. Nothing more nor less.
Modi and his ilk didn't say we shot down an F-16. Neither was Modi around when the IAF said 4 buildings were hit in the airstrikes. But any political mileage politicians and media get out of it is because most people are ignorant and are suckers for propaganda.
People want solutions. It's when solutions are elusive, when politicians make empty promises and assurances, when the body count doesn't stop over a period of time that frustration build up and explodes. That's where canny politicians do what they do best. Tap into public sentiment to expose the incumbent governments effeteness or give them a spectacle with a caveat - no questions to be asked. That's propaganda. Not the need to know or disclose the truth or at the very least, even be honest with ones own self.
