Brave Indian Army Major telling how to deal with Kashmiris

[khansaheeb]

I guess you are just randomly posting things out of context..just for the sake of replying. Where I used the word history? what are you trying to prove by pasting an extract of mogul history of India in response to my question on Islamic history/conversions/bloodshed etc......
The debate started when someone said some hindu religious book teaches violence...I just gave remark that it can be said to our religion as well....and then you started your verbal diarrhea....

Anyways...let's stop it....Neither I could make you understand what I wanted to say..nor your vague replies are helping the cause...ta.

Since in order to speak, one must first listen, learn to speak by listening.
Know that a word suddenly shot from the tongue is like an arrow shot from the bow. Son, that arrow won't turn back on its way; you must damn the torrent at its source.
O, Great Spirit, open my eyes, open heart's wings, open my ears to your voice in all things.

Rumi

 

[Sully3]

Funny, most of the reports I've read say India managed to repel the assault on Kashmir and pushed into Pakistan before the stalemate and ceasefire.

"The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government."

- "Pakistan :: The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965". Library of Congress Country Studies

"This time, India's victory was nearly total: India accepted cease-fire only after it had occupied 740 square miles, though Pakistan had made marginal gains of 210 square miles of territory. Despite the obvious strength of the Indian wins, both countries claim to have been victorious."

- Jamal, Shadow War 2009

"Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated."

- "India and the United States estranged democracies", 1941–1991, ISBN

Sure India didn't win in the sense that we never completely invaded Pakistan, but we obtained our objective of repelling operation Gibraltar and Pakistan lost that objective.
All of this is off topic btw, create another thread if you wanna talk about it.

funny how even the indian media as well as international media called it a pakistani victory
India lost the war the world knows it, indians can deny it as much as they want.

 

[salarsikander]

no wonder he was drinking alcohol or cow piss. He is gonna act like that then

 

[Sully3]

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions–

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"–

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

• English historian John Keays "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war–

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"–

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

• According to the Office of the historian within the U.S Department of State:

Conflict resumed again in early 1965, when Pakistani and Indian forces clashed over disputed territory along the border between the two nations. Hostilities intensified that August when the Pakistani army attempted to take Kashmir by force. The attempt to seize the state was unsuccessful, and the second India-Pakistan War reached a stalemate.

India lost the war
world media acknowledges this. stop giving me quotes from books i can write a book 2mura on the war and give my personal views. what matters is the world media called it a pakistani victory and an Indian loose

shame you indians are taught lies in the temples they feed you and educate you in

 

[Sully3]

B.S.
That article from Sept 13 is about Battle of Chawinda on Sept 10-12 whereas the war ended on Sept 22.
All neutral assessments of the entire war agree that India had an upper hand.

haha
the world media says different look above. every single nation in the world from usa to holland to Indian newspapers called it Pakistani victory

All neutral assessments of the entire war agree that Pakistan had an upper hand

You Indians are taught garbage in your schools

Even you own Indian army is telling you dumbos the truth. open your eyes the world media and indian army is telling you the truth

 

[Sully3]

:lol ::lol ::lol :
That article from Sept 13 is about Battle of Chawinda on Sept 10-12 whereas the war ended on Sept 22.
All neutral assessments of the entirewar agree that India had an upper hand

You blind imbecile cant you read ??? Read the date again September 14

Pakistani Victory

 

[Sully3]

The journalist reported it on September 13 and it appeared in print edition on September 14.
That article is about Battle of Chawinda on Sept 10-12 whereas the war ended on Sept 22.
All neutral assessments of the entire war agree that India had an upper hand.

we can do this all day long

 

[Sully3]

So can I:

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions–

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

Robert Johnson

 

[Sully3]

The Australian i.e. Kangaroo.

Better then any Z class indian media house

 

[Corona]

funny how even the indian media as well as international media called it a pakistani victory
India lost the war the world knows it, indians can deny it as much as they want.

You've posted newspaper clippings of a battle that were published a few days after the battle. I've posted links to published works that go in depth into the conflict. Anyone can see which one has more merit.

 

[Sully3]

You've posted newspaper clippings of a battle that were published a few days after the battle. I've posted links to published works that go in depth into the conflict. Anyone can see which one has more merit.

Published works

Shut up

 

[Corona]

Published works

Shut up

Same document, 7 times....yeah you're winning this argument

 

[Sully3]

Same document, 7 times....yeah you're winning this argument

yuuup