India-Pakistan Conflict - Land Of The Indus Versus Land Of The Pure

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
30+GameOvers said:
This looks more like an FAL clone. Are no-gun retards calling everything an AK-47 or are pajeets genuinely this retarded and can't even get the look of the gun right, let alone anything else?
Click to expand...
Aesthetically it's got FAL vibes (daily reminder that the sun never sets on the British Empire) but according to Wikipedia it's got a AK-style bolt and gas system - which is basically 70% of a guns mechanics right there.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Pedophobe, Cottontail and Nome
Sweeter and Savoury said:
chance of anything big happening is pretty small but you never know.

Last time they did this routine (2011) both sides stopped after a day or so due to the costs of the fighting. They do this little oohga-boohga war thing every few years when the ruling party needs some support and it's never amounted to really anything besides a few deaths among the military.

I mean you never do know, it could ramp up but neither country can really afford to fight for a prolonged period of time and India knows that they will never be able to actually over the Paki's without a serious long term drag out guerrilla style war. And the Paki's know they can never really defeat India due to being outnumbered 100 to 1.

In the end this is mostly political theatre as each side is using the conflict to shore up internal support for the ruling parties. It just sucks that some poor street shitter army types will die for no good reason. While soldiers lives are there to be spent by commanders (and Paki or Poo lives are worth almost nothing) you still shouldn't spend your soldiers lives without good result.

TLDR: This is a nothing burger, it happens every 5 to 7 years and always ends up the same with nothing changing...but we can always hope!
Click to expand...
Normally I'd fully agree with you but we live in clown world now where memes are magic and retards run the world.
Anything is possible and its not a good thing in this case.

Like seriously. Shits getting spicy everywhere. The only confidence i have is that the ultra rich don't all have deep enough bunkers or space rockets yet so they're stuck with us here and can't just let everything burn down yet.
 
  • Optimistic
  • Horrifying
Reactions: Stephan Kang, BullfrogBill, Lokenstien and 3 others
@MIC Shill
We lost money today. Something HAS happened.
image_2025-05-06_215253344.webp
 
  • Feels
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Cnidarian, Arthur_Schopenhauer, greatUncleShitHeel and 3 others
so did they actually attack each other or is this iranian style posturing where they shoot a missile into an empty field and do a victory lap?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Cardef1121
30+GameOvers said:
This looks more like an FAL clone. Are no-gun retards calling everything an AK-47 or are pajeets genuinely this retarded and can't even get the look of the gun right, let alone anything else?
Click to expand...
The INSAS is primarily based on the AKM but incorporates features from other rifles. It has a chrome-plated bore. The barrel has a six-groove rifling. The basic gas operated long stroke piston and the rotating bolt are similar to the AKM/AK-47.

It has a manual gas regulator, similar to that of FN FAL, and a gas cutoff for launching grenades. The charging handle is on the left instead of on the bolt carrier, similar in operation to the HK33.
Click to expand...
The fire selector is placed on the left side of the receiver above the pistol grip, it can be set to semi–auto, three round burst and full auto. To set it to safe, the selector has to be rotated all the way up, which will block the sear and prevent the rifle from firing.
Click to expand...
Its basically a shitty mix-mash of Galil, AKM and FAL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nome, Cottontail and Seaside Ronin
rosecig said:
I don't get "anti war" types who think one nation should just be allowed to invade another and the invaded country should just secede territory or roll over and hand back whatever the loser demanded. That is the definition of a pro war stance.
Click to expand...
I'm not really "pro-war", I'm just saying that if two countries decide they WANNA fight to the death and just become one big country, what right does the global order have to tell them no?
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Coo Coo Bird, Cardef1121, poggies123_ and 9 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back