Army Celebrates Indipendence day - 7 terrorists killed

[Ryuzaki]

Jihadis still believe this is 7th century,terminate them

 

[Hamza913]

Two divisions, at Baramula and Kupwara (thanks, @hellfire ), 23,000 per division, 46,000 soldiers in XV Corps in the Vale. Another 46,000 in two more divisions of XIV Corps further north, one facing Baltistan across the Kargil heights, another facing the PLA in Ladakh, from Daulat Beg Oldi to Panggong Tso and further south. Another 69,000 in three divisions of XVI Corps in Jammu, Rajouri and echeloned behind them in the Himachal mountains. A total of 50,000 policemen from the central reserve.

Do your own arithmetic. If you want, I can take you through the orbat division by division, corps by corps.



He didn't ask you here for the tourism value. He was making a point.



Balls.

Ask Raza Rumi, who visits Delhi frequently. Ask the most outstanding young Pakistani I know, Yassir Latif Hamdani. Ask members of this forum, including our most loved lady @Spring Onion. Ask Air Cdre. Kaisar Tufail, who visited with his wife, I am told.

And if you don't badger people, nobody will badger you.



No.



Shows how little you know.

Hari Singh was inclined towards Pakistan; it was Abdullah who leaned towards India. Hari Singh was in touch with the Muslim League through Ram Chandra Kak; read Kak's memoirs, of his term as Prime Minister for Hari Singh, immediately before October 47. He had a standstill agreement with Pakistan, he had none with India. He had understood the temper in west Jammu during his personal tours there, before the refugees flooded in from other parts of what was then shortly to become Pakistan and ugly massacres broke out on both sides, in eastern Jammu targeting Muslims, in western Jammu targeting Hindus and Sikhs. Mountbatten flew down to Srinagar in July, and tried to get him to take a decision, but he wouldn't; he was holding out, by then, for possible independence.

The consensus of Kashmiri opinion is that without the raiders having pushed him into a corner, he was most likely to have joined Pakistan. The Congress had given up on him, Abdullah was in detention, and there was no stopping him. Particularly with Jinnah's offer of a blank cheque.

I suggest that you read up on your background before letting your prejudice speak for you.
.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#cite_note-4

The above link shows almost 700,000 Indian troops are in Kashmir.

As for visiting India, I won't go there. I already told you, it isn't different enough from Pakistan to warrant a visit, and there is always the possibility I will face discrimination. I'm sorry but I won't take any chances, no matter what you tell me.

The phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a perfect phrase in describing wars today, and throughout history. For example, in Vietnam, those guerrillas were terrorists to NATO, but freedom fighters to Vietnam. Same principal applies to Kashmiri militants, I'm sure you can see this.

As for saying we should have been patient, sorry but sometimes you can't take any chances, got to think quick on your feet. Who's to say he wouldn't of joined India anyway? Who's to say India wouldn't have invaded after he went to Pakistan and snatched all of it away from us? We had to make a decision, and it was a perfectly reasonable one. Without it, we could have lost the entire region. Sometimes, you can't take chances.

Look, you see how reasonable I can be when people aren't rude towards me? I hope we can continue to have nice discussions without calling each other names. I will admit I overreacted to your statements about me, I was just having some pretty rough days back then.

thus leaning towards Pakistan. Hope that gives you the idea.

And then India might have invaded, and massacres would just get worse.

 

[Foxbat Alok]

https://twitter.com/x/status/765160012452954112

Mai to chala bundi k ladoo khane

 

[RISING SUN]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#cite_note-4

The above link shows almost 700,000 Indian troops are in Kashmir.

As for visiting India, I won't go there. I already told you, it isn't different enough from Pakistan to warrant a visit, and there is always the possibility I will face discrimination. I'm sorry but I won't take any chances, no matter what you tell me.

The phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a perfect phrase in describing wars today, and throughout history. For example, in Vietnam, those guerrillas were terrorists to NATO, but freedom fighters to Vietnam. Same principal applies to Kashmiri militants, I'm sure you can see this.

As for saying we should have been patient, sorry but sometimes you can't take any chances, got to think quick on your feet. Who's to say he wouldn't of joined India anyway? Who's to say India wouldn't have invaded after he went to Pakistan and snatched all of it away from us? We had to make a decision, and it was a perfectly reasonable one. Without it, we could have lost the entire region. Sometimes, you can't take chances.

Look, you see how reasonable I can be when people aren't rude towards me? I hope we can continue to have nice discussions without calling each other names. I will admit I overreacted to your statements about me, I was just having some pretty rough days back then.



And then India might have invaded, and massacres would just get worse.

Did India invaded after Kalat and Baluchistan was taken over? I don't India would had any issues logically if government as well as local population both were supportive of Pakistan.

 

[Joe Shearer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_Jammu_and_Kashmir#cite_note-4

The above link shows almost 700,000 Indian troops are in Kashmir.

As for visiting India, I won't go there. I already told you, it isn't different enough from Pakistan to warrant a visit, and there is always the possibility I will face discrimination. I'm sorry but I won't take any chances, no matter what you tell me.

The phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a perfect phrase in describing wars today, and throughout history. For example, in Vietnam, those guerrillas were terrorists to NATO, but freedom fighters to Vietnam. Same principal applies to Kashmiri militants, I'm sure you can see this.

As for saying we should have been patient, sorry but sometimes you can't take any chances, got to think quick on your feet. Who's to say he wouldn't of joined India anyway? Who's to say India wouldn't have invaded after he went to Pakistan and snatched all of it away from us? We had to make a decision, and it was a perfectly reasonable one. Without it, we could have lost the entire region. Sometimes, you can't take chances.



And then India might have invaded, and massacres would just get worse.

The link mentions two sources - one citing 30,000, that is based on the fighting strength of a division, 15,000 soldiers, across two divisions, ignoring non-combatants, which is a strict view of what I have already informed you; the other, a report from 2007, cites 600,000, and has no source, other than Khurram Parvez, a liar and a charlatan who lost a leg and a female companion to a terrorist explosive, and then represented this as an act by the Indian Army.

Is that the best you could do?

His figure, incidentally, seems to have come from a figure airily announced in a public address by Arundhati Roy, not by any means a military scientist, student or historian, who is admirable for her close watch on the state, but who is by no means an accurate source of information, least of all when she talks about the state in the full flow of oratory.

Those of you who have cited the 700,000 figure have only managed to sound ridiculous. 700,000 soldiers would mean more than 40 divisions, at 15,000 to a division; the Indian Army HAS only 34 (there are no armoured formations in the vale, there is one regiment, planned to be raised to two, ts in the XIV Corps facing the PLA).

As for visiting India, I won't go there. I already told you, it isn't different enough from Pakistan to warrant a visit, and there is always the possibility I will face discrimination. I'm sorry but I won't take any chances, no matter what you tell me.

LOLOL

Dear Sir and Intrepid Explorer,

Please don't feel hurt by what I am about to say. Nobody was actually coaxing and cajoling you to come to India; we get enough Pakistanis without asking, thank you very much. 90% are visiting friends and relatives, 9% come for medical treatment and go back overwhelmed by the kindness and hospitality that they receive, and 1% are uninvited and unwelcome guests who never go back. They are now part of India's sacred soil.

The phrase one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a perfect phrase in describing wars today, and throughout history. For example, in Vietnam, those guerrillas were terrorists to NATO, but freedom fighters to Vietnam. Same principal applies to Kashmiri militants, I'm sure you can see this.

As for saying we should have been patient, sorry but sometimes you can't take any chances, got to think quick on your feet. Who's to say he wouldn't of joined India anyway? Who's to say India wouldn't have invaded after he went to Pakistan and snatched all of it away from us? We had to make a decision, and it was a perfectly reasonable one. Without it, we could have lost the entire region. Sometimes, you can't take chances.

Look, you see how reasonable I can be when people aren't rude towards me? I hope we can continue to have nice discussions without calling each other names. I will admit I overreacted to your statements about me, I was just having some pretty rough days back then.

I am equally rude to Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chinese. Rid yourself of the notion that I had a special knife to stick into you. It is just that I do not suffer fools gladly, and that will remain an unfortunate incidental hazard. Here you made so many mistakes that I really had no time nor energy to be rude or critical, since all my energy went into the answers. As it happens, I am in bed and have been for two days with a high fever, so my physical resources are limited.

OTOH, those who do their homework, even if I disagree violently with them, never see that side of me. You can follow my exchanges with Azlan Haider or with WAJsal to understand what I am saying.[/quote]

 

[W-11]

RIP Freedom Fighter.

 

[Sankpal]

RIP Freedom Fighter.

Yes, now they will fight in hell for their freedom.

 

[Great Janjua]

Yes, now they will fight in hell for their freedom.

With your soldiers

 

[Sankpal]

With your soldiers

Yes, why not.... Indian solders just dropped them in hell and said, now fight for your freedom fight here. Also, wait for your friends because soon they will come ...

 

[Great Janjua]

Yes, why not.... Indian solders just dropped them in hell and said, now fight for your freedom fight here. Also, wait for your friends because soon they will come ...

Poor souls hope the Indian army is satisfied with their achievements which second to none

 

[barbarosa]

Killed the chicken of her own cage, congrate.

 

[DesiGuy1403]

7 piggies died squealing like little piggies...
Nice way to celebrate Independence day..

 

[Hamza913]

.
I am equally rude to Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Chinese. Rid yourself of the notion that I had a special knife to stick into you. It is just that I do not suffer fools gladly, and that will remain an unfortunate incidental hazard. Here you made so many mistakes that I really had no time nor energy to be rude or critical, since all my energy went into the answers. As it happens, I am in bed and have been for two days with a high fever, so my physical resources are limited.

[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying you have a special knife to stick with me, I am aware you are quite rude to other members as well, and your reason for being so is quite silly. You disagree with them so you just insult them? That just shows immaturity on your part, even if the people you are talking to act foolish. Honestly your not going to make anyone believe you or listen to with that mentality, your just going to have everyone ignore you.

As for my mistakes, I haven't made any. You cannot shift my stance and the fact is there is a few hundred thousand Indian soldiers in Kashmir bare minimum, every single source you can find will tell you the same. If you can find me a better one saying India has a much smaller number like you claim, go ahead and be my guest.

Did India invaded after Kalat and Baluchistan was taken over? I don't India would had any issues logically if government as well as local population both were supportive of Pakistan.

India would have if they could, but Baluchistan isn't on the border so that task would have proved to be difficult if not impossible.

If you don't think India would have any issues logically if the government and local population were supportive, I'm sorry but your wrong. If Baluchistan was on the border, and there was an opportunity to take it, it would be done. For example, you can clearly see Indian aggression in 1971, just 6 years after the previous war.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I'm not saying you have a special knife to stick with me, I am aware you are quite rude to other members as well, and your reason for being so is quite silly. You disagree with them so you just insult them? That just shows immaturity on your part, even if the people you are talking to act foolish. Honestly your not going to make anyone believe you or listen to with that mentality, your just going to have everyone ignore you.

As for my mistakes, I haven't made any. You cannot shift my stance and the fact is there is a few hundred thousand Indian soldiers in Kashmir bare minimum, every single source you can find will tell you the same. If you can find me a better one saying India has a much smaller number like you claim, go ahead and be my guest.

The same Wikipedia article you quoted, note 3.

Not to mention that your own source proved to be an unsubstantiated line by a Delhi-based reporter who mentioned a figure different from yours. No reference, no proof, just a bald assertion, against my authentic data citing an international source.

India would have if they could, but Baluchistan isn't on the border so that task would have proved to be difficult if not impossible.

If you don't think India would have any issues logically if the government and local population were supportive, I'm sorry but your wrong. If Baluchistan was on the border, and there was an opportunity to take it, it would be done. For example, you can clearly see Indian aggression in 1971, just 6 years after the previous war.

 

[Hamza913]

The same Wikipedia article you quoted, note 3.

How could India have only 30,000 troops there? That's a smaller number than Pakistan has in Kashmir.