An interesting incident from Indo-Pak war 1965

[Wow]

Charity begins at home. Think of the victims there.

 

[War Thunder]

Meanwhile India is winning wars since the beginning.

in Bollywood.

 

[Arsalan 345]

My friend, but when did we ever ask for one? The video speaks for itself.
Every neutral account of the war states that you were on the verge of losing. It's as absurd as India claiming victory in the war with China. We lost in 1962 and it was and is a huge embrassment. But it is what it is.

I think a country presented solution and India accepted it first.we remember our every defeat but 65 is seen as victory here.as I said earlier,your decision to accept ceasefire was based on shortage of weapons but in reality,it was poor decision because there was no ahirta

It's Bhutto who asked to save small Pakistan from Mighty India.

A solution was given and India accepted ceasefire first.i have seen your media cursing a general about shortage of weapons.in reality,there was no shortage of weapons.

 

[American Pakistani]

So let me get this right. Your "strategy" was to show that you are small and weaker nation and India is the aggressor. How exactly does this strategy supposed to work?

I've never seen a video of Ben Gurion or any Israeli leader crying like that of Bhutto crying at the UN in 65. But perhaps you can enlighten me.

The countries would sanction and pressure india while keeping the supplies open for Pakistan, while Pakistan fights. We could not risk a blocked supplies when we were fighting india.

Israel leader do not have to, it was always someone else who was doing this for Israel, sometimes even US.

Tiny Israel VS massive Arab armies

Poor tiny Israel.

 

[Jackdaws]

The countries would sanction and pressure india while keeping the supplies open for Pakistan, while Pakistan fights. We could not risk a blocked supplies when we were fighting india.

Israel leader do not have to, it was always someone else who was doing this for Israel, sometimes even US.

Tiny Israel VS massive Arab armies

Poor tiny Israel.

Lol. Keep supplies open by stopping India? Military supplies are guaranteed by contracts not charity that you can cry for them.

 

[American Pakistani]

Lol. Keep supplies open by stopping India? Military supplies are guaranteed by contracts not charity that you can cry for them.

US alone has the capacity to deny supplies to India even today if it wants to. Here we are talking about 1965 and entire UN.

Even though Pakistan and US had military and strategic contracts and agreements in 65 under SEATO and CENTO, but STILL in 65 US denied weapons to Pakistan and India both. Pakistan needed both weapons and supplies to keep fighting India and for this it had to prove that india is giant aggressor and Pakistan is a weak country fighting for it's survival. After all India still had open option of getting supplies from Russians, Pakistan did not.

 

[nahtanbob]

Barking the same point doesn't make it correct. During the 80s we were the fastest growing economy in the world, the momentum wasn't lost.

1980s was largess courtesy from the Afghan war. What happened from 1965 to 1980 ??

it was obvious a lot of you have difficulty thinking. you can never beat India in a military war. your only attempt at parity with India would be economic. Thanks to the 1965 war you lost the initiative for good. this is in hindsight.

US alone has the capacity to deny supplies to India even today if it wants to. Here we are talking about 1965 and entire UN.

Even though Pakistan and US had military and strategic contracts and agreements in 65 under SEATO and CENTO, but STILL in 65 US denied weapons to Pakistan and India both. Pakistan needed both weapons and supplies to keep fighting India and for this it had to prove that india is giant aggressor and Pakistan is a weak country fighting for it's survival. After all India still had open option of getting supplies from Russians, Pakistan did not.

Your CENTO and SEATO contracts were to fight communist bloc not India

 

[American Pakistani]

Your CENTO and SEATO contracts were to fight communist bloc not India

That maybe US's agenda and a few more member's. Officially it was for,

SEATO
Signatories, including France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Thailand, and the United States, pledged themselves to “act to meet the common danger” in the event of aggression against any signatory state.

CENTO
Formed at the urging of Britain and the United States, the Central Treaty Organization was intended to counter the threat of Soviet expansion into vital Middle East oil-producing regions.

Now kindly stop your bharti mental f@rts.

 

[nahtanbob]

That maybe US's agenda and a few more member's. Officially it was for,

SEATO
Signatories, including France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Pakistan, Thailand, and the United States, pledged themselves to “act to meet the common danger” in the event of aggression against any signatory state.

CENTO
Formed at the urging of Britain and the United States, the Central Treaty Organization was intended to counter the threat of Soviet expansion into vital Middle East oil-producing regions.

Now kindly stop your bharti mental f@rts.

no brownie points for naming the common danger
"act to meet the common danger"

 

[Hamza913]

1980s was largess courtesy from the Afghan war

Rofl no it wasn't.

What happened from 1965 to 1980 ??

Bhutto and his socialism happened. Never the less, the economy was still doing well.

it was obvious a lot of you have difficulty thinking

You can't even spell "Nathan" properly, put a sock in it Ram Singh.

 

[nahtanbob]

Rofl no it wasn't.



Bhutto and his socialism happened. Never the less, the economy was still doing well.



You can't even spell "Nathan" properly, put a sock in it Ram Singh.

draw your own conclusions
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=PK

 

[Aasimkhan]

name me few territories you gained in 1965 please this is the BULL SCRAP load of propaganda indians and pakistnais teach kids in schools . and when they grow up they believe it like religion . do you call a 16 day skrimish a war ? what a joke man 16 days are just for sign the orders or real wars read about some real wars sir you will surprised


1965 surrender its new invention of verdict gov or what ?

 

[PurAzamBaHadaf]

1980s was largess courtesy from the Afghan war. What happened from 1965 to 1980 ??

it was obvious a lot of you have difficulty thinking. you can never beat India in a military war. your only attempt at parity with India would be economic. Thanks to the 1965 war you lost the initiative for good. this is in hindsight.



Your CENTO and SEATO contracts were to fight communist bloc not India

What happened on 27th Feb? You got your arse handed to you and yet you bark the same thing over and over again.

India did NOT occupy Lahore. In fact, the only advances they made were thwarted and they ran back leaving the land they had already captured. The irony though is, even though someone previously countered this point, Indians then resort to "the author is pro Pakistani" jibberish and try to act if the source isn't valid. I haven't seen a single proof where IA was even close to conquering Lahore, let alone enter it. The only evidence you have if of a small suburb of Lahore which held no significance since you never developed on it.

Also, India called for ceasefire first. Period. Or do you still deny this despite enough evidence out there.

We accepted was in 71 but that was only because you attacked a country which had its other half in the other corner. Only an idiot would continue to keep fighting because it was clearly going to be an Indians sponsored victory.

Pathetic Indians like you love to distort facts but here's an extract of your own general talking about it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1134012113658273792

 

[Politico]

I'm not much of a history buff and just too lazy to google it. What exactly started the war in 1965? I know that 1947 was Kashmir and 1971 Bangladesh. What started the war of 1965?

 

[American Pakistani]

no brownie points for naming the common danger
"act to meet the common danger"

Read again and try to comprehend slowly, it says common danger against any signatory state, india was a close ally of Soviet Union, hence a common danger.

But anyways that was not what we were discussing at first place.