你上本版就是为了扒某个素不相识的网友的个人隐私的吗？
我以为本版是讨论国家大事的，每次五毛在国家大事的议题上被打脸无处遁形才会转进到网友的个人隐私。我对你和任何五毛id的个人隐私都毫无兴趣。所有id都不过是一串数字和字母的组合而已，毫无实际意义。重要的是你的观点是否言之有物。
完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
版主： Softfist
#143 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你在个人隐私问题上不撒谎造谣？那就请你老老实实公开自己的真实姓名年龄籍贯毕业院校等个人信息。
你上本版就是为了扒某个素不相识的网友的个人隐私的吗？
我以为本版是讨论国家大事的，每次五毛在国家大事的议题上被打脸无处遁形才会转进到网友的个人隐私。我对你和任何五毛id的个人隐私都毫无兴趣。所有id都不过是一串数字和字母的组合而已，毫无实际意义。重要的是你的观点是否言之有物。
你上本版就是为了扒某个素不相识的网友的个人隐私的吗？
我以为本版是讨论国家大事的，每次五毛在国家大事的议题上被打脸无处遁形才会转进到网友的个人隐私。我对你和任何五毛id的个人隐私都毫无兴趣。所有id都不过是一串数字和字母的组合而已，毫无实际意义。重要的是你的观点是否言之有物。
#144 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
这是关于朱令投毒案的话题，是不是清华的有助于这个话题上发言的可信度，有助于还原当时的案情。而本主题是讨论印度究竟损失几架阵风，你转进到我个人毕业的院校干什么？
#145 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你分不清楚撒谎造谣 和 沉默 之间的区别?
你可以保持沉默, 但是造谣撒谎就是你的人品问题了
你可以保持沉默, 但是造谣撒谎就是你的人品问题了
ridgway 写了： 2025年 7月 24日 11:25 你在个人隐私问题上不撒谎造谣？那就请你老老实实公开自己的真实姓名年龄籍贯毕业院校等个人信息。
你上本版就是为了扒某个素不相识的网友的个人隐私的吗？
我以为本版是讨论国家大事的，每次五毛在国家大事的议题上被打脸无处遁形才会转进到网友的个人隐私。我对你和任何五毛id的个人隐私都毫无兴趣。所有id都不过是一串数字和字母的组合而已，毫无实际意义。重要的是你的观点是否言之有物。
#146 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
说的是发言是否一致的人品问题. 这个问题是你一马当先提出的. 问题是你本身有造谣撒谎的人品问题
ridgway 写了： 2025年 7月 24日 11:27 这是关于朱令投毒案的话题，是不是清华的有助于这个话题上发言的可信度，有助于还原当时的案情。而本主题是讨论印度究竟损失几架阵风，你转进到我个人毕业的院校干什么？
#147 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
在个人隐私问题上造谣是完全可以理解的，这一点wh版主给了背书。
本版本来就不是用来讨论个人隐私问题的，你不敢讨论国际政治问题却只能纠结网友个人隐私，只能说明你的卑劣和无能。
本版本来就不是用来讨论个人隐私问题的，你不敢讨论国际政治问题却只能纠结网友个人隐私，只能说明你的卑劣和无能。
#148 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
在个人隐私问题上造谣是完全可以理解的，这一点wh版主给了背书。
本版本来就不是用来讨论个人隐私问题的，你不敢讨论国际政治问题却只能纠结网友个人隐私，只能说明你的卑劣和无能。
本版本来就不是用来讨论个人隐私问题的，你不敢讨论国际政治问题却只能纠结网友个人隐私，只能说明你的卑劣和无能。
-
wanmeishijie（石昊）楼主
- 论坛元老
wanmeishijie 的博客 - 帖子互动： 2144
- 帖子： 69598
- 注册时间： 2022年 12月 10日 23:58
#149 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你造谣巴基斯坦战果膨胀，却用维基百科冒充媒体报道，这是典型的造谣
理解了老将是代入狗的视角之后，你就理解了老将
viewtopic.php?t=120513
理解了它们是代入狗的视角之后，它们为什么会嘲笑不愿意当狗的人，以及为什么会害怕想要反抗的人，就都可以理解了：
“放着好好的狗不当”
#150 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
维基百科都有引用出处说明，是非常可靠的信源，比你的傅前哨自媒体可靠多了。傅前哨根本没有给出出处，连那个编辑的名字都没有。
#151 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你个人隐私造谣，和不泄露个人隐私不一样ridgway 写了： 2025年 7月 24日 12:49 在个人隐私问题上造谣是完全可以理解的，这一点wh版主给了背书。
本版本来就不是用来讨论个人隐私问题的，你不敢讨论国际政治问题却只能纠结网友个人隐私，只能说明你的卑劣和无能。
难怪你把菌斑臭名昭著的造谣大王捧为心目中唯一的神
原来你就是造谣一族的
你帝，我帝，他帝，谁的帝？
#156 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
我看大家对你的隐私根本没有兴趣
大家鄙视你的是你造谣
你为啥造谣你是清华的而不是焦作矿学院的？
不外乎你想用清华的头衔证明你自己是正确而厉害
这跟保护隐私根本是两回事
可见你造谣成性实锤
你帝，我帝，他帝，谁的帝？
#157 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
那是在讨论朱令投毒案，所以才提了一下，因为跟讨论内容直接相关。
现在讨论的是印巴空战，你转进到我的个人隐私，不是理屈词穷打滚转进是什么？
现在讨论的是印巴空战，你转进到我的个人隐私，不是理屈词穷打滚转进是什么？
民主自由是婊子的遮羞布 写了： 2025年 7月 24日 19:44 我看大家对你的隐私根本没有兴趣
大家鄙视你的是你造谣
你为啥造谣你是清华的而不是焦作矿学院的？
不外乎你想用清华的头衔证明你自己是正确而厉害
这跟保护隐私根本是两回事
可见你造谣成性实锤
#158 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你既然说自己是清华的，但实际上你撒谎
合理推断，你在其他议题上包括印巴空战上也有可能撒谎
别人戳破你的谎言，不是很正常吗
你帝，我帝，他帝，谁的帝？
#159 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
不想泄露自己的个人信息，所以前后矛盾，这很正常。跟其他与个人信息无关的讨论没有关系。
就是你这个id，撒谎造谣就多了去了。只不过根本没人在意你这个无名小卒罢了。
就是你这个id，撒谎造谣就多了去了。只不过根本没人在意你这个无名小卒罢了。
#160 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
你造谣实锤，连我们这种nobody都可以轻松指出ridgway 写了： 2025年 7月 24日 19:54 不想泄露自己的个人信息，所以前后矛盾，这很正常。跟其他与个人信息无关的讨论没有关系。
就是你这个id，撒谎造谣就多了去了。只不过根本没人在意你这个无名小卒罢了。
可见你的谎言是多么荒诞不经
你帝，我帝，他帝，谁的帝？
#162 Re: 完了！阵风不是被击落3架，而是4架，美刊的编辑戳中了印军的肺管子
20楼有人发了英文全文，根本就没有什么印度损失4架阵风，你和傅前哨造谣都实锤了。
https://archive.ph/iZsFu
How did Pakistan shoot down India’s fighter jets?
New clues suggest Indian errors and Chinese arms may both be to blame
Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel stand in front of the Rafale fighter jet during Aero India
Photograph: Getty Images
Jul 16th 2025
They were used to hearing fighter jets from a nearby airbase. But this noise was louder and less familiar: a roar punctuated by repeated explosions. Residents of Akalia Kalan, a village in northern India, leapt from their beds as it grew closer in the early hours of May 7th. Outside, they saw a ball of flames pass overhead and crash into a nearby field. The wreckage was clearly identifiable as a fighter. Two bystanders died, according to villagers. The two Indian pilots had ejected earlier and were found, injured, in fields nearby.
India has yet to confirm it officially but this was one of a number of its fighter jets that were lost in a four-day conflict with Pakistan in May. The Indian government disputes Pakistan’s claim to have shot down six warplanes, including three of its new French Rafale jets. But foreign military officials believe that five Indian aircraft were destroyed, including at least one Rafale. And Indian military officers, while refusing to confirm numbers, do now admit to losing some aircraft. What is more, they are starting to indicate that the losses may have stemmed from Indian errors rather than technological deficiencies.
The admissions are significant because China is Pakistan’s top arms supplier. This was the first conflict in which advanced Chinese fighters and missiles were used against Western and Russian equivalents. America and its allies are especially interested, as China could use much of the same weaponry in a potential war over Taiwan. Early reports suggested that the decisive factor was the superiority of Pakistan’s Chinese-made J-10 fighters and its PL-15 air-to-air missiles. India does appear to have underestimated those. And China may have also tipped the balance by providing Pakistan with early warning and real-time targeting data.
But given India’s success later on in the fight, the bigger problem might have been how India used its own fighters on that first night. One of the latest and most controversial twists in the saga came in June when Indian news outlets aired a recording of Captain Shiv Kumar, India’s defence attaché in Jakarta, addressing a seminar earlier in the month. He said that India lost some aircraft only because its political leadership had ordered its air force not to hit Pakistan’s air defences. Instead, they targeted only militant sites on the first day. “After the loss, we changed our tactics and we went for their military installations,” Captain Kumar said.
That followed an acknowledgment from General Anil Chauhan, India’s chief of defence staff, in a television interview at the end of May that India lost some planes on the first night of the conflict because of “tactical mistakes”. He went on to say that India had rectified its errors after two days, allowing all its fighters to fly again and to strike targets in Pakistan from long range. India did have more success later in the conflict when its missiles overcame Pakistan’s air defences and hit several of its military bases.
One theory among foreign officials is that on the first day, India did not mount its Rafales with Meteor long-range air-to-air missiles (presumably thinking that they were beyond the reach of Pakistan’s fighters or that Pakistan’s initial response would be less escalatory). Another is that India’s fighters did not have the right electronic jamming equipment, up-to-date software or relevant data to protect them from Pakistan’s new weaponry. A third, and broader, explanation is that India lacked the necessary “mission data” to understand how Pakistan could identify Indian plans, pass data to its own jets and guide missiles to their targets.
Fight club
But if the fighters were made vulnerable because of orders from political leaders to only hit militant targets, as Captain Kumar suggests, then responsibility would lie more with the government of Narendra Modi. While consistent with India’s approach to other recent clashes with Pakistan, in which India has sought to avoid escalation, such orders would not have taken into account recent improvements in Pakistan’s capabilities. That suggestion is now fuelling opposition allegations of a cover-up. “Why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the opposition into confidence? Why has the demand for a special session of parliament been rejected?” asks Jairam Ramesh, a spokesman for the opposition Congress party.
There are implications, too, for India’s biggest defence deal in years. It is expected to launch a long overdue tender for 114 fighters this year. And Dassault, the French manufacturer of Rafales, is a leading contender alongside Sweden’s Saab and America’s Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But some Indian military figures have suggested that the Rafales under-performed in the recent conflict. Others complain that Dassault is reluctant to share the source code for the Rafale’s software, preventing India from adapting the aircraft to suit its own needs. Since the conflict, Chinese diplomats are also said to have been badmouthing Rafales to other prospective buyers and urging them to buy Chinese fighters, instead.
Dassault executives are anxious to reassure countries that have bought Rafales, including Egypt, Indonesia, Qatar and the UAE, as well as potential future customers. But the company is constrained in what it can say publicly, for fear of angering India. It is also unclear to what extent Dassault has been permitted to take part in India’s investigation into the episode. Eric Trappier, Dassault’s aviation chairman, has dismissed as “simply untrue” Pakistan’s claims to have downed three Rafales. “When the complete details are known, the reality may surprise many,” he told a French magazine in an interview published on June 11th. He also said that the Rafale was “far better than anything China currently offers”.
The French government is also under pressure to explain what would be the first confirmed loss of a Rafale in combat. Marc Chavent, a member of France’s parliament, submitted a written question to the government in late May voicing concern that the SPECTRA electronic-warfare system on India’s Rafales failed to detect or jam Pakistan’s Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles. He asked if newer Rafales would have an upgraded version of SPECTRA and whether France was considering developing a fighter designed specifically for electronic warfare. SPECTRA’s performance is also of interest to countries that use or have ordered Rafales.
Back in Akalia Kalan and nearby villages, relatives of the dead and injured have more immediate concerns. Raj Kumar Singh, who died of head injuries from one of the blasts, left behind a wife, two children and a 70-year-old mother with little means to support themselves. They have not yet been offered compensation or been visited by local officials or politicians. Instead, says one villager, the authorities “want to bury news of this crash”. ■
Stay on top of our India coverage by signing up to Essential India, our free weekly newsletter.
https://archive.ph/iZsFu
How did Pakistan shoot down India’s fighter jets?
New clues suggest Indian errors and Chinese arms may both be to blame
Indian Air Force (IAF) personnel stand in front of the Rafale fighter jet during Aero India
Photograph: Getty Images
Jul 16th 2025
They were used to hearing fighter jets from a nearby airbase. But this noise was louder and less familiar: a roar punctuated by repeated explosions. Residents of Akalia Kalan, a village in northern India, leapt from their beds as it grew closer in the early hours of May 7th. Outside, they saw a ball of flames pass overhead and crash into a nearby field. The wreckage was clearly identifiable as a fighter. Two bystanders died, according to villagers. The two Indian pilots had ejected earlier and were found, injured, in fields nearby.
India has yet to confirm it officially but this was one of a number of its fighter jets that were lost in a four-day conflict with Pakistan in May. The Indian government disputes Pakistan’s claim to have shot down six warplanes, including three of its new French Rafale jets. But foreign military officials believe that five Indian aircraft were destroyed, including at least one Rafale. And Indian military officers, while refusing to confirm numbers, do now admit to losing some aircraft. What is more, they are starting to indicate that the losses may have stemmed from Indian errors rather than technological deficiencies.
The admissions are significant because China is Pakistan’s top arms supplier. This was the first conflict in which advanced Chinese fighters and missiles were used against Western and Russian equivalents. America and its allies are especially interested, as China could use much of the same weaponry in a potential war over Taiwan. Early reports suggested that the decisive factor was the superiority of Pakistan’s Chinese-made J-10 fighters and its PL-15 air-to-air missiles. India does appear to have underestimated those. And China may have also tipped the balance by providing Pakistan with early warning and real-time targeting data.
But given India’s success later on in the fight, the bigger problem might have been how India used its own fighters on that first night. One of the latest and most controversial twists in the saga came in June when Indian news outlets aired a recording of Captain Shiv Kumar, India’s defence attaché in Jakarta, addressing a seminar earlier in the month. He said that India lost some aircraft only because its political leadership had ordered its air force not to hit Pakistan’s air defences. Instead, they targeted only militant sites on the first day. “After the loss, we changed our tactics and we went for their military installations,” Captain Kumar said.
That followed an acknowledgment from General Anil Chauhan, India’s chief of defence staff, in a television interview at the end of May that India lost some planes on the first night of the conflict because of “tactical mistakes”. He went on to say that India had rectified its errors after two days, allowing all its fighters to fly again and to strike targets in Pakistan from long range. India did have more success later in the conflict when its missiles overcame Pakistan’s air defences and hit several of its military bases.
One theory among foreign officials is that on the first day, India did not mount its Rafales with Meteor long-range air-to-air missiles (presumably thinking that they were beyond the reach of Pakistan’s fighters or that Pakistan’s initial response would be less escalatory). Another is that India’s fighters did not have the right electronic jamming equipment, up-to-date software or relevant data to protect them from Pakistan’s new weaponry. A third, and broader, explanation is that India lacked the necessary “mission data” to understand how Pakistan could identify Indian plans, pass data to its own jets and guide missiles to their targets.
Fight club
But if the fighters were made vulnerable because of orders from political leaders to only hit militant targets, as Captain Kumar suggests, then responsibility would lie more with the government of Narendra Modi. While consistent with India’s approach to other recent clashes with Pakistan, in which India has sought to avoid escalation, such orders would not have taken into account recent improvements in Pakistan’s capabilities. That suggestion is now fuelling opposition allegations of a cover-up. “Why is the PM refusing to preside over an all-party meeting and take the opposition into confidence? Why has the demand for a special session of parliament been rejected?” asks Jairam Ramesh, a spokesman for the opposition Congress party.
There are implications, too, for India’s biggest defence deal in years. It is expected to launch a long overdue tender for 114 fighters this year. And Dassault, the French manufacturer of Rafales, is a leading contender alongside Sweden’s Saab and America’s Boeing and Lockheed Martin. But some Indian military figures have suggested that the Rafales under-performed in the recent conflict. Others complain that Dassault is reluctant to share the source code for the Rafale’s software, preventing India from adapting the aircraft to suit its own needs. Since the conflict, Chinese diplomats are also said to have been badmouthing Rafales to other prospective buyers and urging them to buy Chinese fighters, instead.
Dassault executives are anxious to reassure countries that have bought Rafales, including Egypt, Indonesia, Qatar and the UAE, as well as potential future customers. But the company is constrained in what it can say publicly, for fear of angering India. It is also unclear to what extent Dassault has been permitted to take part in India’s investigation into the episode. Eric Trappier, Dassault’s aviation chairman, has dismissed as “simply untrue” Pakistan’s claims to have downed three Rafales. “When the complete details are known, the reality may surprise many,” he told a French magazine in an interview published on June 11th. He also said that the Rafale was “far better than anything China currently offers”.
The French government is also under pressure to explain what would be the first confirmed loss of a Rafale in combat. Marc Chavent, a member of France’s parliament, submitted a written question to the government in late May voicing concern that the SPECTRA electronic-warfare system on India’s Rafales failed to detect or jam Pakistan’s Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles. He asked if newer Rafales would have an upgraded version of SPECTRA and whether France was considering developing a fighter designed specifically for electronic warfare. SPECTRA’s performance is also of interest to countries that use or have ordered Rafales.
Back in Akalia Kalan and nearby villages, relatives of the dead and injured have more immediate concerns. Raj Kumar Singh, who died of head injuries from one of the blasts, left behind a wife, two children and a 70-year-old mother with little means to support themselves. They have not yet been offered compensation or been visited by local officials or politicians. Instead, says one villager, the authorities “want to bury news of this crash”. ■
Stay on top of our India coverage by signing up to Essential India, our free weekly newsletter.