₦airaland Forum

shoodboi2:
Big scam. India should have just stuck to Russian jets. Pakistan used to buy western jets before pivoting to Chinese jets. But for some reason, India went from buying Russian jets to buying western jets.

Even after buying those French Rafales, they considered buying F16s and F21s from the US and are in talks to purchase the F35. The F21 itself is a specifically modified version of the F16 made specifically for India.

But as usual, India will only end up shooting itself in the foot with such jets because of the many rules and conditions the US will impose against them. Western jets are usually all hype and noise, and they will still slam usage rules against you.

Pakistan itself cannot use its own F16’s against India because of US rules against such. The US also withheld spare parts from Pakistan some years ago over political issues. The case will be no different with India.

It is not all about the jets... I I said I don't comment on this thread. But let me just react to this

Pakistan and India air force are one of the best in the world, it is not the first time Pakistan has shutdown India jets in large numbers

Both sides will lose alot of equipment.. writerng even your russian weapon was destroyed

Allthelight:
It is not all about the jets... I I said I don't comment on this thread. But let me just react to this

Pakistan and India air force are one of the best in the world, it is not the first time Pakistan has shutdown India jets in large numbers

Let anybody say whatever they like. Based on the Russia Vs Ukraine war, one can safely conclude that Western weapons are far better than Russians. A lot depends on the expertise of the pilot. Look at it this way, ever since Ukraine has been fielding F16s for almost a year now, the so called best air defence system in the world (S400) has shot down only a single one. Just a single one. Another crashed. On the other hand, Russian planes do not even dare enter Ukrainian air space. They stay hundreds of miles off to fire their weapons. Despite that, the ones who are fortunate enough to get anywhere close have been downed. Nothing less than 6 Su-35 have been lost.

Gbadebo19:
No no no, you getting it wrong.
The division of India and Pakistan was a religious issue where separate people had different visions for the future of India. That aside.
The current issue is not a Hindu Vs Muslim thing. (Everyone knows that)
Lastly, the death of this particular individual is not enough reason for you to say it is not a Hindu Vs Muslim thing (Even though it isn't. Am saying it isn't a reliable evidence to determine whether or not the conflict is Hindu Vs Muslim).What am saying is that the death of the individual is not a targeted killing. Pakistan didn't kill the individual because he was a muslim or a Hindu. They only killed an Indian security force. It could have been a Hindu or a Muslim. Pakistan obviously were not going to know whether the person they killed was a Hindu or a Muslim.

Boss man, I no really understand your angle for this matter
Our Indian brother don clear this matter say religion no follow join but you still dey insist say na Muslim vs Hindu
Wetin dey really sup,
Na 2025 we dey, people no really mind your religion, we don fight that wan for past

Wetin I no understand na why you dey try give every conflict religious coloration.

E wan be like say you dey purposely start confusion

usmanpogo:
Boss man, I no really understand your angle for this matter
Our Indian brother don clear this matter say religion no follow join but you still dey insist say na Muslim vs Hindu
Wetin dey really sup,
Na 2025 we dey, people no really mind your religion, we don fight that wan for past

Wetin I no understand na why you dey try give every conflict religious coloration.

E wan be like say you dey purposely start confusion

No, don't get me wrong. I said:
1. The breakaway of Pakistan from India occured as a result of religion where different people had different vision for the future of India.
2. The present conflict is not a religious matter.

What I am particular about is his use of the killing of another Muslim to condemn those who said the present conflict is a religious matter. I am saying the killing of another Muslim is not enough and definite enough to determine whether or not the conflict is religion based. The conflict is not religion based (people know) but that evidence (killing of another Muslim) should not be used as a determining factor. Gracias

usmanpogo:
Boss man, I no really understand your angle for this matter
Our Indian brother don clear this matter say religion no follow join but you still dey insist say na Muslim vs Hindu
Wetin dey really sup,
Na 2025 we dey, people no really mind your religion, we don fight that wan for past

Wetin I no understand na why you dey try give every conflict religious coloration.

E wan be like say you dey purposely start confusion

Let me try to be very simple.
He said some people believe the present conflict is a religious conflict, and countered them by showing that if it was was a religious conflict, then Pakistan wouldn't have killed a Muslim.
My position is that he is correct that it isn't a religious conflict but the killing of a Muslim is not an evidence good enough to use because Pakistan didn't deliberately killed a Muslim, they only killed an Indian security force.

If the people who believe it was a religious crisis see his angle of defence, they could easily counter him and strengthen their own position if it was a Hindu that was killed.

Gbadebo19:
Let me try to be very simple.
He said some people believe the present conflict is a religious conflict, and countered them by showing that if it was was a religious conflict, then Pakistan wouldn't have killed a Muslim.
My position is that he is correct that it isn't a religious conflict but the killing of a Muslim is not an evidence good enough to use because Pakistan didn't deliberately killed a Muslim, they only killed an Indian security force.

If the people who believe it was a religious crisis see his angle of defence, they could easily counter him and strengthen their own position if it was a Hindu that was killed.

Bro, you just said you agreed the conflict is not about Hindus vs Muslims, what other evidence are you waiting for ?
The skirmish that led to this confrontation is all over the papers and media space.

What exactly is your angle ?

I really hope you're familiar with what happened on April 23, Writerng even posted it here, when it happened.

Gbadebo19:
No, don't get me wrong. I said:
1. The breakaway of Pakistan from India occured as a result of religion where different people had different vision for the future of India.
2. The present conflict is not a religious matter.

What I am particular about is his use of the killing of another Muslim to condemn those who said the present conflict is a religious matter. I am saying the killing of another Muslim is not enough and definite enough to determine whether or not the conflict is religion based. The conflict is not religion based (people know) but that evidence (killing of another Muslim) should not be used as a determining factor. Gracias

Alright, this is the cause of the confrontation according Wikipedia, just in case you have doubts about other sources

"
On 23 April 2025, a standoff emerged between India and Pakistan, which was sparked by the 2025 Pahalgam attack, a terrorist attack in the Baisaran Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, killing 27 people, including 25 Hindu tourists, a Christian tourist, and a local Muslim, as well as injuring more than 20 others.
"

usmanpogo:
Bro, you just said you agreed the conflict is not about Hindus vs Muslims, what other evidence are you waiting for ?
The skirmish that led to this confrontation is all over the papers and media space.

What exactly is your angle ?

I really hope you're familiar with what happened on April 23, Writerng even posted it here, when it happened.

I am not asking for evidence. I am not asking our Indian friend to prove anything.
Let me try to be simpler.
1. Some people believe the conflict was religious.
2. Our Indian friend said it wasn't religious.
3. Almost everybody agrees with our Indian friend except those who believe it was religious.
4. Our Indian friend uses the killing of a Muslim to buttress his point, meaning that if it was a religious conflict, Pakistan would have killed a Hindu instead.
5. Me, a third party says that the evidence used by our Indian friend is not good enough because it gives room for those who believe it is a religious conflict to have an argument if it was a Hindu that was killed.
6. I can't be simpler than this. Any other thing, I believe you are just pulling my legs.

Gbadebo19:
I am not asking for evidence. I am not asking our Indian friend to prove anything.
Let me try to be simpler.
1. Some people believe the conflict was religious.
2. Our Indian friend said it wasn't religious.
3. Almost everybody agrees with our Indian friend except those who believe it was religious.
4. Our Indian friend uses the killing of a Muslim to buttress his point, meaning that if it was a religious conflict, Pakistan would have killed a Hindu instead.
5. Me, a third party says that the evidence used by our Indian friend is not good enough because it gives room for those who believe it is a religious conflict to have an argument if it was a Hindu that was killed.
6. I can't be simpler than this. Any other thing, I believe you are just pulling my legs.

I'm not sure anyone thinks it's religious
You lawyers are really good at twisting facts 😁
Bonne journee 😊

Coalition of the scared ones

usmanpogo:
I'm not sure anyone thinks it's religious
You lawyers are really good at twisting facts 😁
Bonne journee 😊

Well, the conflict is not a religious conflict per se, but you can't fully mitigate against the influence of religion in the case of the present India-Pakistan debacle. Religion differences were key reasons in the partition of India into two, with the Hindus in India and the moslems in Pakistan.

Religion is very important in both India and Pakistan, and the groups who are carrying out these attacks in Indian occupied Kashmir are "Isl*mic terrorist groups.

Also, people who were eyewitnesses said the attackers targeted Hindus during the attacks.. you can verify it yourself..

usmanpogo:
I'm not sure anyone thinks it's religious
You lawyers are really good at twisting facts 😁
Bonne journee 😊

The sad fact people don't want to face is that law is not really about the truth. Truth doesn't exist and even if it does, it is impossible to know if it is the truth (Got this one from a philosophy class oo 😂😂)
Law is a game. It depends on how good you are able to sway the court to reason with you and also how good you make your adversary's evidence look irrelevant and useless.

Obedience40:
Well, the conflict is not a religious conflict per se, but you can't fully mitigate against the influence of religion in the case of the present India-Pakistan debacle. Religion differences were key reasons in the partition of India into two, with the Hindus in India and the moslems in Pakistan.

Religion is very important in both India and Pakistan, and the groups who are carrying out these attacks in Indian occupied Kashmir are "Isl*mic terrorist groups.

Also, people who were eyewitnesses said the attackers targeted Hindus during the attacks.. you can verify it yourself..

Another Banga 🤣🤣🤣
Usmanpogo, where are you? 🤣🤣

Obedience40:
Well, the conflict is not a religious conflict per se, but you can't fully mitigate against the influence of religion in the case of the present India-Pakistan debacle. Religion differences were key reasons in the partition of India into two, with the Hindus in India and the moslems in Pakistan.

Religion is very important in both India and Pakistan, and the groups who are carrying out these attacks in Indian occupied Kashmir are "Isl*mic terrorist groups.

Also, people who were eyewitnesses said the attackers targeted Hindus during the attacks.. you can verify it yourself..

This makes no sense, I hope you know a Christian and a Muslim was among the 27 people killed

usmanpogo:
This makes no sense, I hope you know a Christian and a Muslim was among the 27 people killed

I think he is right.
Terrorist attacks always have religious undertones.
I never saw a terrorist attack that was for political or economic reasons.
Doesn't mean I subscribe to the Palhagam attack being a religious one though.

Gbadebo19:
The sad fact people don't want to face is that law is not really about the truth. Truth doesn't exist and even if it does, it is impossible to know if it is the truth (Got this one from a philosophy class oo 😂😂)
Law is a game. It depends on how good you are able to sway the court to reason with you and also how good you make your adversary's evidence look irrelevant and useless.

Did you take any ethics class in law school ?

I don't do emotions, I believe in facts, that's why I have learned to question every religious belief Islam and Christianity included.

Obedience40:
Well, the conflict is not a religious conflict per se, but you can't fully mitigate against the influence of religion in the case of the present India-Pakistan debacle. Religion differences were key reasons in the partition of India into two, with the Hindus in India and the moslems in Pakistan.

Religion is very important in both India and Pakistan, and the groups who are carrying out these attacks in Indian occupied Kashmir are "Isl*mic terrorist groups.

Also, people who were eyewitnesses said the attackers targeted Hindus during the attacks.. you can verify it yourself..

You all should stop trying to give this a religious twist. On one hand, you say “it is not about religion per se” and then go on to try to make it appear to be about religion. 80% of Indians are Hindi, so it makes sense that the majority of the victims were Hindis.

But they were not targeted because they were Hindis. They were targeted because they are Indians. A Christian was also killed, and so was a Muslim tour operator who died protecting the victims.

Trying to force a religious narrative is like someone killing a Hausa or Fulani man over issues he has with Hausa and Fulani leaders and then you twist it to claim it is about Muslims and Islam. The average Hausa and Fulani man is a Muslim. But does that mean they were attacked because they are Muslims? No.

Let us focus on the truth here rather than trying to turn this into another religious war. We can talk about the India and Pakistani crisis and wars without making a single mention of Hindi or Islam.

usmanpogo:
Did you take any ethics class in law school ?

I don't do emotions, I believe in facts, that's why I have learned to question every religious belief Islam and Christianity included.

Ethics is compulsory. Though it deals more with the do's and don'ts of the profession in Nigeria and not about facts or emotions. That part is classified under law of evidence. I don't know about other jurisdictions though.

The moment the truth and facts becomes secondary consideration and religious inclination, ethnicity is the crux, then such education is a waste.

Late Chief Okadigbo

Nigeria is fiasco not because we don't have enough laws, it's because we have very weak institutions to enforce such laws.

Truth and facts are two different things.
It's not about Nigeria alone, it is all over the world.
A fact can become truth when proven by evidence. Such evidence can be accepted or rejected. The evidence used will also determine the weight to be placed on that fact to determine how much influence it carries when determining something. In short, it is evidence that determines whether a fact is true or not. Something may be a fact and may not be true. It's nobody's fault nor is it about being dubious, it's the way of the world and probably the only way to get to the bottom of matters.

obedience4:
You made a claim that Russian jets are superior to Western ones Yes or no?? he is only asking what index did you used to come to that conclusion??

Here you are busy writing epistles!!

epistles devoid of anything sensible sha. Why did he support the claim that Indians were offered toys by the West when according to him, even Russian jets were among the ones shot down? Almost as though he doesn't read what he writes. Anyways I've left him behind.

Gbadebo19:
Truth and facts are two different things.
It's not about Nigeria alone, it is all over the world.
A fact can become truth when proven by evidence. Such evidence can be accepted or rejected. The evidence used will also determine the weight to be placed on that fact to determine how much influence it carries when determining something. In short, it is evidence that determines whether a fact is true or not.

Thanks to God this is coming from a law man himself. The last time I mentioned this to them they almost ate me raw.

As a scientist, facts are piece of information that has been tested and verified, not subjected to conjecture, just information that has been rigorously verified.

Perhaps your profession allows you to interpret facts as other wise. As a scientist I'm not allowed to do that, without facts Science is nothing.

A logical example that can easily be tested is the law of floatation
A floating object displaces it's own weight of the fluid in which it floats. You can easily verify this fact at home, you don't have to be a scientist.

These facts are incontrovertible.

This is one reason we need more scientists than lawyers in our society.

Now I think one of the reasons we have an hypothesis, a theory and principle in science is because of lawyers lol

Before you say something is a fact in science, it means it has been thoroughly tested and verified.

One kilo of feather is the same weight as one kilo of iron, that's a fact.

Facts are incontrovertible and that's the basics of science.

obedience4:
I didn't say you did, I only said you should verify news before commenting on it.

You commented on a false news, thereby giving it credence..
Your comments was based on the falsehoods of Putin making Turkey’s Erdogan the mediator between Russia and Ukraine..

never said so mate

usmanpogo:
Now I think one of the reasons we have an hypothesis, a theory and principle in science is because of lawyers lol

Before you say something is a fact in science, it means it has been thoroughly tested and verified.

One kilo of feather is the same weight as one kilo of iron, that's a fact.

Facts are incontrovertible and that's the basics of science.

You perfectly summed it up.
Our definition of facts is different.🤣

I can inundated this thread with facts that can be easily tested at home, just to show you how powerful facts are in science.

No dey joke with science bro lol

Gbadebo19:
You perfectly summed it up.
Our definition of facts is different.🤣

Exactly bro
Na why criminal fit win case with better lawyer
Una don scatter everything lol

usmanpogo:
As a scientist, facts are piece of information that has been tested and verified, not subjected to conjecture, just information that has been rigorously verified.

Perhaps your profession allows you to interpret facts as other wise. As a scientist I'm not allowed to do that, without facts Science is nothing.

A logical example that can easily be tested is the law of floatation
A floating object displaces it's own weight of the fluid in which it floats. You can easily verify this fact at home, you don't have to be a scientist.

These facts are incontrovertible.

This is one reason we need more scientists than lawyers in our society.

Well, I think we need more lawyers than scientists. Why? As long as humans will have to interact with one another, lawyers are more useful. Scientists can make the world easier to live through innovations and inventions. But at the same time, conflict is ever present wherever there are more than one person. Science can't solve such 🤣