What's new

Cover up of 1971, lost half century!!

Lanaat lanaat aur lanaat

Pakis will not do anything
Pakis never took control of the situation
Pakis no good for call to action

To hell with this Poti discussions waste of my waakt rather listening who said wat
I swear on holy Allah
Better for India To Nuke this Poti nation once and for all
So we can move on next chapter .. to better days
 
Amphibious warfare through marines or brigades raised for amphibious warfare should have been the focus instead of defence of east lies in the west philosophy. The use of air cavalry by acquisition of UH-1s since the road network wasn’t vast. 1 infantry division and 1 PAF Squadron weren’t enough. Should have been 3 for both forces, with an expanding role for Navy through gun boats. M-113s with RR, mortar, and other roles would have served better instead of deploying M-24 Chaffee. The mobility factor of M-113 always has an edge and could have put a good defence against PT-76 and the few T-55 when equipped with RR. Heavy mortar 120mm or 81 mm could have proved decisive where howitzers could not reach in time. Thus instead of building static defences which were by passed by Indian Army, a more mobile force could have played a crucial role. Jeeps were lighter but needed boats to be ferried across riverine, swamps, nullahs, lakes and streams. Heavy logistics had to be hauled on roads.

Logistical and mobility factors through UH-1s and M-113. Study of Vietnam war was imperative.
 
Last edited:
Amphibious warfare through marines or brigades raised for amphibious warfare should have been the focus instead of defence of east lies in the west philosophy. The use of air cavalry by acquisition of UH-1s since the road network wasn’t vast. 1 infantry division and 1 PAF Squadron weren’t enough. Should have been 3 for both forces, with an expanding role for Navy through gun boats. M-113s with RR, mortar, and other roles would have served better instead of deploying M-24 Chaffee. The mobility factor of M-113 always has an edge and could have put a good defence against PT-76 and the few T-55 when equipped with RR. Heavy mortar 120mm or 81 mm could have proved decisive where howitzers could not reach in time. This instead of building static defences which were by passed by Indian Army, a more mobile force could have played a crucial role. Keeps were lighter but needed boats to be ferried across riverine, swamps, nullahs, lakes and streams. Heavy logistics had to be hauled on roads.

Logistical and mobility factors through UH-1s and M-113. Study of Vietnam war was imperative.
What are you trying to say really?

1. Pakistan Army should use the lessons / tactics learned from Bangladesh, now in Present day Pakistan to achieve the objectives, which were not achieved at that time because of lack of the planning and foresight.

2. Pakistan should learn a lesson from Bangladesh incident and try to avoid the situation reaching to that stage. Pakistan Army should guide the idiots in politics to avoid the same. We can ignore the part played by PA, to reach here, just for the same of National Security.


Please, do not blame India for anything, enemy is always looking for the chances, they played well, and now again they are waiting.

PA is not assigned to fight wars within its own borders with own Civ, and Mil causalities, 71 was same.

So no matter whatever was the reason for Military short comings, Lesson to be leaned is/was how to avoid similar circumstances.
 
What are you trying to say really?

1. Pakistan Army should use the lessons / tactics learned from Bangladesh in Present day Pakistan to achieve the objectives, which were not at that time because of lack of planning and foresight.

2. Pakistan should learn a lesson from Bangladesh incident and try to avoid the situation reaching to that stage. Pakistan Army should guide the idiots in politics to avoid the same.


Please, do not blame India for anything, enemy is always looking for the chances, they played well, and now again they are waiting.

PA is not assigned to fight wars within its own borders with own Civ, and Mil causalities, 71 was same.

So no matter whatever was the reason for Military short comings, Lesson to be leaned is/was how to avoid similar circumstances.
He is suggesting no such thing, rather responding to the idiotic "Army gave away East Pakistan" nonsense. He is just addressing the point that militarily we were at a massive disadvantage.

You are right, PA is not assigned to fight wars within. PA has never opened up fire against unarmed protestors in West Pakistan ever!

If the push comes to shove on the streets, PA will hold back and as someone said, will stay in the garrisons as it does not want to turn the gun on its own people.

However, PA is thinking about factors both domestic and international in the current environment. This is what is making the army's position rather difficult.
 
He is suggesting no such thing, rather responding to the idiotic "Army gave away East Pakistan" nonsense. He is just addressing the point that militarily we were at a massive disadvantage.

You are right, PA is not assigned to fight wars within. PA has never opened up fire against unarmed protestors in West Pakistan ever!

If the push comes to shove on the streets, PA will hold back and as someone said, will stay in the garrisons as it does not want to turn the gun on its own people.

However, PA is thinking about factors both domestic and international in the current environment. This is what is making the army's position rather difficult.
Thank you for the clarification.

@Signalian Sab, apologies.
 
Compare what Mujib is saying with what Bhutto was saying at that time.

Who is making more sense?

So why did Bhutto not agree with Mujib? Why were editorials being written in West Pakistani newspapers calling on the army to take action to keep the unity of the country intact and not let Mujib govern?

Some of you are either purposely or ignorantly leaving out the political context of 1971. Bhutto did not agree with Mujib's mandate. You can fault Yahya for various things but not for trying to mend fences between the two key politicians in East and West Pakistan. They never got on and Yahya gave in to the West's hubris to use force against our own people in the East.

So Mujib was making more sense from the standpoint of having the mandate and the right to rule. But what did the Pols, bureaucracy and military leadership in the West want?
 
So why did Bhutto not agree with Mujib? Why were editorials being written in West Pakistani newspapers calling on the army to take action to keep the unity of the country intact and not let Mujib govern?

Some of you are either purposely or ignorantly leaving out the political context of 1971. Bhutto did not agree with Mujib's mandate. You can fault Yahya for various things but not for trying to mend fences between the two key politicians in East and West Pakistan. They never got on and Yahya gave in to the West's hubris to use force against our own people in the East.

So Mujib was making more sense from the standpoint of having the mandate and the right to rule. But what did the Pols, bureaucracy and military leadership in the West want?
india had helped mujeeb win all but 2 seats. is it possible without divine or bharati involvement? even hassina does not win with that big a margin.
 
... and see what is being taught at PMA :
Congratulations :yahoo:

Now you know what EX Yarmouk is all about in the 2nd term along with the International affairs studies encompassing Global political system, foreign policy importance, the concept of nationalism, geography strategy, and laws of armed conflict.

But wait, damn, they missed out Pakistani political system, which is a subject of its own requiring a 5th term of 100 credit hours :laugh:
 
... and see what is being taught at PMA :



I hope they wouldn't say the same thing about Balochistan, if god forbid, Junta loses its grip on Balochistan.
What was IK able to do for Balochistan in his 3 years? The militancy increased. So let's not kid ourselves. There is a military dimension in Baluchistan. No insurgency survives without external support to destabilize our country.

The serious military action started in a democratic dispensation (ZABs along with Shah of Iran's support), and continued through multiple other democratic dispensations (including IK's). So it's not the military's fault. If anything the military puts down the violent actors so talks can be held with those more amicable to muk mukka.
 
Yes, Pakistanis are not Iranian and Turkic, but you never know.
Today or tomorrow, wardi waley traitors will loose. That's for sure.
The level of hatred they have earned.

We aren't Iranian but we are Iranic. Baloch, Pakhtuns, Wakhis etc. are Iranic peoples.
 
He is suggesting no such thing, rather responding to the idiotic "Army gave away East Pakistan" nonsense. He is just addressing the point that militarily we were at a massive disadvantage.

You are right, PA is not assigned to fight wars within. PA has never opened up fire against unarmed protestors in West Pakistan ever!

If the push comes to shove on the streets, PA will hold back and as someone said, will stay in the garrisons as it does not want to turn the gun on its own people.

However, PA is thinking about factors both domestic and international in the current environment. This is what is making the army's position rather difficult.
A more intrinsic question would be the policy of "Security of the east lies in the west" > whose brain fart was that?

Also: West Pakistani Army never opened up fire against protesters in West Pakistan. the story in east Pakistan is starkly different.
 
Its not only army

Its a combined effort of feudalists, mullahs, government officials and them
All are controlled by army.
They manufacture them in petri dishes.
Who have heard TLP a few years back.
Basatard Faiz was incubating them in the dark.

We will never know the true extent of the crimes of military Inc
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom