Pakistan General: 'We'll nuke India, no conventional war'

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Just heard an interview with a Pakistan General on the Alex Jones show.

He had pretty remarkable thoughts on many issues, and more will follow from Infowars.com.

But when asked about the situation with India, he said something to that effect, making clear that they will not be bullied by India over the Mumbai bombings, and will resort to nukes if India attacks them, rather than be drawn into a conventional war.

He said that would almost guarantee WW3, as China and Russia would not accept that in their own back yard.




posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I dont listen to Alex Jones Live..
I wait till later on in the night when its uploaded to youtube.

Any source to this?

Or is it just breaking?



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Just heard an interview with a Pakistan General on the Alex Jones show.

He had pretty remarkable thoughts on many issues, and more will follow from Infowars.com.

But when asked about the situation with India, he said something to that effect, making clear that they will not be bullied by India over the Mumbai bombings, and will resort to nukes if India attacks them, rather than be drawn into a conventional war.

He said that would almost guarantee WW3, as China and Russia would not accept that in their own back yard.



The 'general' you are talking about is Hamid Gul - He thinks 911 was an inside job and it seems he would make a great ATS member!



Can you post the link to stream that you are talking about?

As part of a sovereign country's policy they can NEVER say they will NEVER use nukes otherwise what's the point in having them?

To maintain a deterrence and prevention of war Pakistan's strategy will most definitely deter any mischievous actions perpetrated by the Indian's.

If India ATTACKS them then Pakistan has the full right to DEFEND themselves. Same vice versa.

EDIT:

Here are the 5 parts youtube videos of the interview:







I think Hamid Gul is the coolest general I have ever heard.


[edit on 9-12-2008 by Jinni]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Pakistan needs to take down this entire network of terrorism and it will do nothing but make things better with India. They have to prove to the world that they can tackle this problem as well as take steps to prevent future acts. You can never stop everything, but a noticeable effort must be made.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni
The 'general' you are talking about is Hamid Gul - He thinks 911 was an inside job and it seems he would make a great ATS member!


Bingo, yep, agreed! Thanks for getting that for us, I've been tied up a lot today, but wanted to get that up. You are "da man!"


If India ATTACKS them then Pakistan has the full right to DEFEND themselves. Same vice versa.


Yeah, but doesn't that depend a bit on what India uses if they attack? I mean Christ, we didn't really nuke anybody lately with all the wars. But that too depends on if you want to include the depleted uranium argument in that equation.

It sorta leaves India one option if they want to attack, or they will be nuked first. But who knows, there were some other issues with the guy as I listened to the interview that made him sound a touch uninformed. But just a touch.


Thanks



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


WOW ON CNN THEY LET A REPUTABLE GUEST ACTUALLY CLAIM THAT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB PERPETRATED BY THE NEOCONS.

Sorry, I had to make sure the caps were used to ensure you guys understood how shocked I am.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by Jinni
 


WOW ON CNN THEY LET A REPUTABLE GUEST ACTUALLY CLAIM THAT 911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB PERPETRATED BY THE NEOCONS.

Sorry, I had to make sure the caps were used to ensure you guys understood how shocked I am.


I saw that too!

But did you hear what the CNN presenter said right at the end?

I almost laughed myself to death.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican


But when asked about the situation with India, he said something to that effect, making clear that they will not be bullied by India over the Mumbai bombings, and will resort to nukes if India attacks them, rather than be drawn into a conventional war.





He said a Conventional War is not possible between the parties because they are nuclear powers. Which makes sense because any side hat feels he is losing WILL use the weapons (e.g. US nuking Japan when they were getting their butts kicked).

Can you indicate in the videos where he said what you claim he has said?

That would certainly clear things up!

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Jinni]



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


I agree with the vast majority of what you said however, I feel I must take issue with one thing; the US were not getting their butts kicked by Japan.

The US were gradually reclaiming every island chain in The Pacific but this was a long drawn out affair costing lots of lives on both sides.
In an attempt to nullify the need for an all out conventional invasion of Japan itself and all the subsequent loss of life during what would have been a long and most bitter campaign, which the US would definately have won, it was decided to use nuclear weapons to force a surrender.

As catastrophic as this was it probably saved thousands of lives and shortened the war considerably.

Someone had to use nuclear weapons at some point just to demonstrate their effect.

Let's hope we never have to witness it again.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   
The nuclear arsenal of India is far more advanced and India has nuclear capable missiles that can reach any part of Pakistan. Besides India has strategic advantage with respect to the Army. Navy and Air Force. The person you are talking about is the ex chief of ISI (Pak intelligence). He has also been accused by the US of aiding taliban.



posted on Dec, 9 2008 @ 10:49 PM
link   
oh back in the day, when no one had a weapon like us it was a sure fire way to end a war with anyone, now it is unpredictable what will happen when almost everyone has a nuke and almost everyone faced with defeat in this day, with much to lose in a war will use it as the weapon of choice rather than fight a long drawn out war, I do believe the deep seeded hatred between Pakistan and India is the starting point will be the likely catalyst for a regional and world war, the type of intentional or irreversible actions in the form of nuclear delivery is guaranteed to draw others into the war.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni
He said a Conventional War is not possible between the parties because they are nuclear powers...

Can you indicate in the videos where he said what you claim he has said?


OP title:
'Pakistan General: 'We'll nuke India, no conventional war.'

I'm not too far off the mark there, and I was paraphrasing from memory after listening to the show initially on the radio. That's why I stuck this in skunk works, cause I wasn't sure, and didn't use full quotes. Also, that guy was pretty hard to understand on the reduced bit rate streamlink I was listening to. I haven't watched these videos yet, but I would assume the radio show audio would be the same. The video's audio maybe better, dunno.


That would certainly clear things up!


Hope that helps, and sorry to confuse anyone. But again, if I was sure, and this wasn't to some degree speculation, it would not be in skunk works.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Jinni
He said a Conventional War is not possible between the parties because they are nuclear powers...

Can you indicate in the videos where he said what you claim he has said?


OP title:
'Pakistan General: 'We'll nuke India, no conventional war.'

I'm not too far off the mark there, and I was paraphrasing from memory after listening to the show initially on the radio. That's why I stuck this in skunk works, cause I wasn't sure, and didn't use full quotes. Also, that guy was pretty hard to understand on the reduced bit rate streamlink I was listening to. I haven't watched these videos yet, but I would assume the radio show audio would be the same. The video's audio maybe better, dunno.


That would certainly clear things up!


Hope that helps, and sorry to confuse anyone. But again, if I was sure, and this wasn't to some degree speculation, it would not be in skunk works.


Thank you kindly for your response.

I've watched all five parts of the interview but I didn't get the impression painted by the thread title and op.

The thread title seems to indicate that Pakistani General is some insane maniac that is going to Nuke India. I didn't get that impression from the interview at all. That's why I'm asking for an exact time from any of the five parts of the video that gives the impression painted by the thread title.

I just dislike misrepresentation of news and interviews and it's something CNN and FOX news excel at in order to influence the public with their Neuro-linguistic Programming techniques.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by Jinni]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jinni
 


From OP:

But when asked about the situation with India, he said something to that effect, making clear that they will not be bullied by India over the Mumbai bombings, and will resort to nukes if India attacks them, rather than be drawn into a conventional war.


I don't see how I have erred to the point, especially with that paragraph above EXPLAINING what I heard, that you are confused. I guess I will have to watch the videos first, then maybe I can give you the mark points that paraphrase what I am saying. Remember this is skunk works, a forum FOR speculation, and thread titles run rampant around here, concocted mostly as attention getters.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Jinni
 


From OP:

But when asked about the situation with India, he said something to that effect, making clear that they will not be bullied by India over the Mumbai bombings, and will resort to nukes if India attacks them, rather than be drawn into a conventional war.



[edit on 10-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]


I still didn't get this impression either. He said that it would not be possible to conduct a totally non-nuclear conventional war any more (referring to both parties).

Please watch the videos and comment.

I have and I don't think I'm wrong but I have an open mind...



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni
He said that it would not be possible to conduct a totally non-nuclear conventional war any more (referring to both parties).


Right, which means (to me) that they will resort to nukes.


And if you're going to use nukes, why use conventional war at all beforehand? Just to see how much they can piss each other off??

So that further means (to me) that Pakistan is disposed to use nukes, first. Problem is, whoever pushes that button first has the only slight advantage of advance planning. Because uninhabitable means just that....unihabitable. It won't make much difference in the face of multiple nukes exploding over your territory.

Against another substantial nuclear armed enemy, even the use of tactical nukes first would be idiotic. Unless maybe they were trying to take out bigger yield nukes with the smaller ones. But that's kinda risky. Operationally, it just doesn't make any sense. To me.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Jinni
He said that it would not be possible to conduct a totally non-nuclear conventional war any more (referring to both parties).


Right, which means (to me) that they will resort to nukes.


And if you're going to use nukes, why use conventional war at all beforehand? Just to see how much they can piss each other off??

So that further means (to me) that Pakistan is disposed to use nukes, first.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by TrueAmerican]


BOTH parties FFS. Which is totally different to what you are talking about.

You are resorting to singling out Pakistan in this matter as the one who is going to use Nukes, in line with the current trend of news about how bad they are, they need to be stopped and destroyed killed, murdered, massacred, bombed with UAVs, baddy Muslims terrorist nuker's. That's the trend of opinions I see because of the media brainwashing of today.

My point is that either side MAY resort to using Nukes but you keep picking out Pakistan and not India on this matter.

I find that a bit CNN\FOX.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by Jinni]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinni
My point is that either side MAY resort to using Nukes but you keep picking out Pakistan and not India on this matter.

I find that a bit CNN\FOX.


lol, no, I am quite aware that it's both sides (ffs), but this is coming from a Pakistani general, not from India. And I am trying to make the point (obviously in vain here) that once nukes are considered it is really only giving India one option- to nuke first- IF they are going to attack first.

My last post regarding your confusion, for sure. Look, u2u a mod and request a thread title change on this if you like. I could really care less. I know what the implications are of what I heard. And you know the same. We're just arguing semantics at this point. And no, no videos for me yet. Need more time.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by Jinni
My point is that either side MAY resort to using Nukes but you keep picking out Pakistan and not India on this matter.

I find that a bit CNN\FOX.


lol, no, I am quite aware that it's both sides (ffs), but this is coming from a Pakistani general, not from India. And I am trying to make the point (obviously in vain here) that once nukes are considered it is really only giving India one option- to nuke first- IF they are going to attack first.

My last post regarding your confusion, for sure. Look, u2u a mod and request a thread title change on this if you like. I could really care less. I know what the implications are of what I heard. And you know the same. We're just arguing semantics at this point. And no, no videos for me yet. Need more time.


Semantics make all difference when one is trying to paint the 'bad' guy.

Here's the transcript of the interview:

www.infowars.com...

With his views on 9/11 etc I am pleasantly amazed about this Ex-General.





top topics
 
1

log in

join