US report mentions Pakistan’s ‘military success’ over India in May conflict

[CricVet]

Oh what did you win in West Paksitan..dunno about Gilgit as that was never part of India and part of Kashmir was taken from independent Kahsmir and not India. India intervened after Kahsmir choose to align with secular country ...true to its Sufi root and not the Sunni extremism exported later .

Were you napping when Pakistan took away your bride Kasmir or total cowards not to take it back and more?

 

[straighttalk]

Were you napping when Pakistan took away your bride Kasmir or total cowards not to take it back and more?

Dude read your history...Pakistan invaded Kashmir before Kashmir was part of India. The peaceful Muslims and the king of Kahsmir were horrified to be part of a extremist Sunni country...they requested India to help..India said we can defend if you are part of India..they signed it..Indian army came in drove the Pakistani army back and Nehru agree to the ceasefire. Go read and come back. So you occupy a territory illegally..glad we are on the same page there...but didn't take it from India. Rather you lost occupied territory when India intervened.

 

[CricVet]

Dude read your history...Pakistan invaded Kashmir before Kashmir was part of India. The peaceful Muslims and the king of Kahsmir were horrified to be part of a extremist Sunni country...they requested India to help..India said we can defend if you are part of India..they signed it..Indian army came in drove the Pakistani army back and Nehru agree to the ceasefire. Go read and come back. So you occupy a territory illegally..glad we are on the same page there...but didn't take it from India. Rather you lost occupied territory when India intervened.

be back with reply in a moment after brunch... think hard before digging a hole for yourself

 

[straighttalk]

be back with reply in a moment after brunch... think hard before digging a hole for yourself

Sure will wait..always love a Pakistani debating after reading their Army whitewashed history..mwhile you dig the history..read the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia

Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pakistan occupied territory almost up to Srinagar before India intervened...pushed them back but then our Congress party accepted the ceasefire..remember both countries army were commanded by British generals...casualties were double on Paksitani side ....we agree you illegally occupy territory but that was captured before Kahsmir became part of India.


Now I will wait...share independent evidence not your Pak version. Wikipedia is independent or you can try editing it

 

[uppercut]

@big_gamer007 welcome to the "Andbhakt" club .... didnt know you converted lol

I knew andhbakhts will play dumb and pretend they are talking about the total jet count.

When the Total Indian jet count in that report is THREE your best case scenario for Rafale's is THREE. But then again Lahori Madrassa math might work differently

Par for the course for andhbakhts. They do what they accuse others of. I mean Trump is claiming 7 jets shot down, and the language clearly states that they are narrowing the scope to just Rafale. Yet andhbakhts will play dumb to make another meaning out of it. Oh well, I have wasted enough time arguing with these propagandists of highest order in the past that I know better not to waste more time now.

here is what Grok has to say about your post. Perhaps Grok is a Andhbhakt too like big_gamer?

--------

From a purely mathematical/logic perspective, the response you quoted is a textbook example of fallacious quantification and scope manipulation:

1. Undefined variable substitutionLet T = total Indian jets downedLet R = Rafale jets among themThe report states: T = 3 and “all may not have been Rafales” → R ≤ 3 (and likely R < 3).The response silently redefines the sentence to mean “R = 3, therefore T > 3” without any evidence. This is an illicit conversion of the quantifier (swapping universal/partial scope).
2. Introducing an extraneous variable with no supportIt injects Trump’s claim (T = 7 or 8) as an independent data point and treats it as authoritative, then performs an implicit T ≥ 7 assertion while the actual document fixes T = 3. Mathematically, this is multiplying by a fabricated constant with no citation.
3. Logical non sequitur disguised as deductionPremise 1: Report says “only three jets … and all may not have been Rafales”Premise 2 (invented): The “only” applies exclusively to RafalesConclusion: Therefore T ≥ 5–7This is an elementary scope fallacy: confusing ∀ (all downed jets) with ∃ (some downed jets).

In short, the response has zero mathematical validity. It is 100 % rhetorical sleight-of-hand that collapses the moment the actual universal quantifier in the report (“only three jets flown by India’s military”) is respected. It’s the logical equivalent of claiming “only three animals in the zoo are tigers, and not all may be tigers → the zoo has dozens of animals” and then insisting the total must be 50 because someone on Twitter said so

 

[ahsan17]

@big_gamer007 welcome to the "Andbhakt" club .... didnt know you converted lol




When the Total Indian jet count in that report is THREE your best case scenario for Rafale's is THREE. But then again Lahori Madrassa math might work differently



here is what Grok has to say about your post. Perhaps Grok is a Andhbhakt too like big_gamer?

--------

From a purely mathematical/logic perspective, the response you quoted is a textbook example of fallacious quantification and scope manipulation:

1. Undefined variable substitutionLet T = total Indian jets downedLet R = Rafale jets among themThe report states: T = 3 and “all may not have been Rafales” → R ≤ 3 (and likely R < 3).The response silently redefines the sentence to mean “R = 3, therefore T > 3” without any evidence. This is an illicit conversion of the quantifier (swapping universal/partial scope).
2. Introducing an extraneous variable with no supportIt injects Trump’s claim (T = 7 or 8) as an independent data point and treats it as authoritative, then performs an implicit T ≥ 7 assertion while the actual document fixes T = 3. Mathematically, this is multiplying by a fabricated constant with no citation.
3. Logical non sequitur disguised as deductionPremise 1: Report says “only three jets … and all may not have been Rafales”Premise 2 (invented): The “only” applies exclusively to RafalesConclusion: Therefore T ≥ 5–7This is an elementary scope fallacy: confusing ∀ (all downed jets) with ∃ (some downed jets).

In short, the response has zero mathematical validity. It is 100 % rhetorical sleight-of-hand that collapses the moment the actual universal quantifier in the report (“only three jets flown by India’s military”) is respected. It’s the logical equivalent of claiming “only three animals in the zoo are tigers, and not all may be tigers → the zoo has dozens of animals” and then insisting the total must be 50 because someone on Twitter said so

You are trying to use grok on a post that is meant to be an insult and not all of it meant to be taken literally? You do realize AI doesn't deal well with interpreting this stuff. The fact that you have to rely on grok to interpret a sentence means your English is obviously week and you don't have confidence in your comprehension skills.

How about this. Ask an English professor what this means. Grok is trained to say everything is false. It's literally saying we should ignore what Trump says, despite the fact that he's the leader of the same government that released this report.

It's quite obvious the initial part of the sentence is restricting scope to Rafale only. The fact that no one is claiming that only 3 jets were shotdown, except for andhbakhts playing dumb, says it all.