What's new

Soldiers should kill the enemy, not lay down lives: Manohar Parrikar

thesolar65

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
4,922
Reaction score
-12
Country
India
Location
India
Panaji: Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Sunday said soldiers should be asked to kill the enemy instead of being told to lay down their own lives.

"It was said that soldier is ready to lay down his life for country. I am against it. Why get killed? Don't get killed. Kill the enemy. See the record of one year and you will see the result (of the instruction)," Parrikar said.

http://img01.ibnlive.in/ibnlive/uploads/2015/10/PARRIKAR-Azad Kashmir.transfer.jpg
The Defence Minister said he liked to go around without security as "having security might not be safe at times".
He was addressing a reception hosted by the state BJP here on his 60th birthday.

Recalling the country's counter-insurgency operation in Myanmar earlier this year, Parrikar said, "After Indian soldiers were martyred, we called for the meeting within three hours. I have got support of (Home Minister) Rajnath Singh.

"After Myanmar crisis, we held meeting within three hours and the entire operation was kept a secret. As per official statement we conducted the operation on Indo-Myanmar Border. But one should know to read between the lines".

The counter-insurgency operation was carried out by commandos in June who destroyed camps of NSCN (Khaplang) terrorists in Myanmar in retaliation to killing of 18 Army personnel by the ultras in Chandel district of Manipur earlier.

The Defence Minister said he liked to go around without security as "having security might not be safe at times".

"They (police) relay message on wireless giving exact position of the VIP. I ask police to stay away as I don't want security but I have to take it as attack on Union Defence Minister can make international news," he added.

Soldiers should kill the enemy, not lay down lives: Manohar Parrikar - IBNLive
 
Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar on Sunday said soldiers should be asked to kill the enemy instead of being told to lay down their own lives.

"It was said that soldier is ready to lay down his life for country. I am against it. Why get killed? Don't get killed. Kill the enemy. See the record of one year and you will see the result (of the instruction),"

A modicum of knowledge of the subject is expected from Ministers. Canada has set a fine example by making an Ex Servicemen the Defence Minister.

No soldier likes or wants to die. Neither does his Commanding Officer ever ask a soldier to go & kill himself.

To engage & destroy the enemy making contact with him is the first step. The contact has to be such that the enemy either shifts location ( & discloses his strength in numbers & makes himself a target for other weapon system waiting for this movement) or retaliates which amounts to pinning him down for eventual engagement & destruction.

None of this can happen unless the attacker exposes himself to a well entrenched & camouflaged enemy. Thats why the casualties of the attacker are higher & superiority of numbers is mandatory .
 
A modicum of knowledge of the subject is expected from Ministers. Canada has set a fine example by making an Ex Servicemen the Defence Minister.

No soldier likes or wants to die. Neither does his Commanding Officer ever ask a soldier to go & kill himself.

To engage & destroy the enemy making contact with him is the first step. The contact has to be such that the enemy either shifts location ( & discloses his strength in numbers & makes himself a target for other weapon system waiting for this movement) or retaliates which amounts to pinning him down for eventual engagement & destruction.

None of this can happen unless the attacker exposes himself to a well entrenched & camouflaged enemy. Thats why the casualties of the attacker are higher & superiority of numbers is mandatory .


There are two conceivable points he could be making -

# that he was pushing for an offensive strategy rather than an defensive one

# That he was looking at equipping the soldiers better to help skew the ratio by providing them with better protection and/or weapons..
 
There are two conceivable points he could be making -

# that he was pushing for an offensive strategy rather than an defensive one

# That he was looking at equipping the soldiers better to help skew the ratio by providing them with better protection and/or weapons..

Any which way.

His verbiage was bad.
 
Any which way.

His verbiage was bad.

It usually but thats mostly because he's an innocent guy (i believe) and speaks his mind without giving it much thought as to what he's uttering.
 
It usually but thats mostly because he's an innocent guy (i believe) and speaks his mind without giving it much thought as to what he's uttering.

A man who speaks his mind without giving much thought to what he says is not called innocent.

There are other names for him.
 
[QUOTEh="third eye, post: 7989741, member: 10858"]Any which way.

His verbiage was bad.[/QUOTE]
So according to you his words are bad, I think people like you agree with JDU MPs saying that people join army to die and serve their masters.
 

Back
Top Bottom