Originally Posted by Hari_Om

As an Indian, I would truly like to be understanding.

But I am given no choice when I have to read the drivel about the excessive use of force by the Indian Armed forces dished out by the US State Department practically every year.

Reciprocity does rule.

Would not using Airpower by way of an AC 130 on a building to suppress terrorists in Birmingham, Alabama be excessive use of force?

So why is it alright in Ishaqi, Baghdad ?

How many instances in a counter insurgency war in Jammu & Kashmir have you come across the Indian Armed Forces using indiscriminate weapons ie : either Air Power or for that matter Artillery to meet a counter insurgency objective?

If none, why the drivel from the State Department’s annual report.

Perhaps the difference is that one is an occupation Army the other is not, so one can afford to be blasé about civilian deaths. To be entirely specific the Indian Army does nor operate as an Army of occupation.

People who throw stones should not live in glass houses.

I am OK with people who do not throw stones.

So can I hear from the American’s here why their State department is wrong as ……………?