Indian Army may not be able to stop Pakistani Tanks onslaught in case of war

[kasper95]

U had to take them? Seriously that's ur explanation. In case of Junagadh and Hyderabad those were independent states with their respective monarchs and as for Goa that was under Portuguese control. India didn't "have to take" any of them. India sent its army to forcefully take them.

If we go by ur reasoning then I assume u wouldn't be bothered if China marched in and took Arunachal Pardesh from u...bcuz "they had to take it" right?

Bro tell me,will you agree for a tiny kingdom in middle of your country to be independent

 

[Cookie Monster]

Bro tell me,will you agree for a tiny kingdom in middle of your country to be independent

Again the argument here that u presented was that India never attacked anyone. Had ur argument been about national security issues then we would've discussed that.

So r u changing ur argument now to "India has never invaded anyone unless it's for national security"?

 

[Rusty]

The reason they are here is because the nation they are facing that is 6.5 times their size is because that big country has never attacked any country in it's history .

If breaking up of the country into two is ,we are still here for you no one can help it.
Afghanistanis can claim after fighting super powers and terrorists for so long ,we are still here

Are you kidding?
You directly attacked us in 71.
And yes, Indians love to masturbate over "breaking Pakistan into two"
But give my even one nation in 10,000 years of human history has was able to hold on to two parts of their territory on either side of their biggest enemy. (Again, that enemy being 6.5x larger than them)

Indians have very little to celibate as they are known as the rape and sh!t capitol of the world, so I should not be too harsh on you for having one "good" thing about your country.

GOC's and up, not Bde Comds.


Israel.


Bigger country attacked yes, frontal sometimes but mostly under belly hitting tactics.


Such types of statements come when its evident that poster has no idea what he is talking about.

Level of faith is different in every individual. Not every momin is a muslim and vice versa.


Correct.

PA even defied odds of statistics which states that attacking force should be three times the enemy to succeed. PA attacked sometimes at places having strength lesser than the defenders. While defending, PA faced enemy strength mostly greater in numbers.

Isreal is an artificial state held together by the US. They are the largest recipient of American "aid." So they are not really a factor in my equation

 

[kasper95]

Again the argument here that u presented was that India never attacked anyone. Had ur argument been about national security issues then we would've discussed that.

So r u changing ur argument now to "India has never invaded anyone unless it's for national security"?

Here is the post you are referring too,read it carefully and if you don't understand let me know

The reason they are here is because the nation they are facing that is 6.5 times their size is because that big country has never attacked any country in it's history .

 

[Cookie Monster]

Here is the post you are referring too,read it carefully and if you don't understand let me know

I did read it correctly the first time around...this is what u said
"The reason they are here is because the nation they are facing that is 6.5 times their size is because that big country has never attacked any country in it's history."

U see that part in bold? Isn't that what u said that India never attacked any country in its history? So let's leave aside everything we just discussed and only discuss India's forceful occupation of Goa. Portugal controlled Goa and India went to war over it just like how Argentina went to war with Britain over Falklands(British controlled). I think u need a refresher...here read below...

"The Annexation of Goa was the process in which the Republic of India annexed the former Portuguese Indian territories of Goa, Daman and Diu, starting with the 'armed action' carried out by the Indian Armed Forces in December 1961. Depending on the view, this action is referred as the "Liberation of Goa" or the "Invasion of Goa". Following the end of Portuguese rule in 1961, Goa was placed under military administration headed by Lt. Gen. Candeth as Lt. Governor"

Also don't forget to read the part on that wikipedia page under "Belligerents" about the strengths of the Indian/Portuguese military and the casualties etc. just so no doubt remains in ur head about whether or not this was a war.

Here's the source...
Indian Annexation of Goa - Wikipedia

So now let's get back to ur claim that India hasn't attacked any country in its history. 1961 is definitely part of Indian history is it not? Portugal is a country is it not? India attacked Portugal's territory and occupied it.

Now would u like to take back ur baseless claim or would u insist that what u said is true despite the facts and beat around the bush?

 

[Kapwercs]

Israel was much smaller than the combined arab countries but they did quite well.
Pakistan liked to think it was exceptional based on the latest weapons it managed to get from usa under seato and attacked India in 65 , but the latest weapons proved too complicated for the pakistanis to use .
Lots of brand new captured patton tanks in India.
Weapons without brains = defence day celebrations .
Weapons with brains = Bangladesh and Israel.

 

[suresh1773]

U had to take them? Seriously that's ur explanation. In case of Junagadh and Hyderabad those were independent states with their respective monarchs and as for Goa that was under Portuguese control. India didn't "have to take" any of them. India sent its army to forcefully take them.

If we go by ur reasoning then I assume u wouldn't be bothered if China marched in and took Arunachal Pardesh from u...bcuz "they had to take it" right?

In case of Junagadh,the Indian army had surrounded Junagadh cutting off vital links. India closed all its borders to Junagadh and stopped the movement of goods, transport and postal articles. The unsettled conditions in Junagadh had led to a cessation of all trade with India and the food position became precarious. With the region in crisis, the Nawab, fearing for his life, felt forced to flee to Karachi with his flee to Karachi with his family and his followers, and there he established a provisional government. Junagadh had a 90% hindu population during 1947. Some of the towns and cities of Junagadh had already declared independence from Junagadh. Two small states of Junagadh, Mangrol and Babaria, came to know about nawab's plan and revolted. Nawab's army attacked and occupied both of them

 

[Cookie Monster]

In case of Junagadh,the Indian army had surrounded Junagadh cutting off vital links. India closed all its borders to Junagadh and stopped the movement of goods, transport and postal articles. The unsettled conditions in Junagadh had led to a cessation of all trade with India and the food position became precarious. With the region in crisis, the Nawab, fearing for his life, felt forced to flee to Karachi with his flee to Karachi with his family and his followers, and there he established a provisional government. Junagadh had a 90% hindu population during 1947. Some of the towns and cities of Junagadh had already declared independence from Junagadh. Two small states of Junagadh, Mangrol and Babaria, came to know about nawab's plan and revolted. Nawab's army attacked and occupied both of them

Great history lesson though u should teach this to ur friend who I had quoted bcuz I'm already aware. He claims that India hasn't attacked anyone since its independence.

I assume u used Wikipedia. U left the part out where Vallabh Bhai Patel ordered a forcible annexation of Junagadh. Also surrounding a country, blocking all trade, causing food shortages etc. is still a type of warfare.

As for ur justification that Junagadh had 90% Hindu population...it would've been nice had India stood on principles. But u see India doesn't stand on principles and likes to change the rules for its own selfish gains.

Junagadh: Majority population Hindu/Muslim Ruler
--> Accedes to Pakistan
--> Indian justification is that bcuz the Hindus r in majority therefore it belongs to us. Instrument of accession doesn't matter all of a sudden.

Kashmir: Majority population Muslim/Hindu Ruler
--> Accedes to India
--> Indian justification is that Kashmir acceded to India. Muslim majority doesn't matter.

Double standards and hypocrisy

 

[suresh1773]

Great history lesson though u should teach this to ur friend who I had quoted bcuz I'm already aware. He claims that India hasn't attacked anyone since its independence.

I assume u used Wikipedia. U left the part out where Vallabh Bhai Patel ordered a forcible annexation of Junagadh. Also surrounding a country, blocking all trade, causing food shortages etc. is still a type of warfare.

As for ur justification that Junagadh had 90% Hindu population...it would've been nice had India stood on principles. But u see India doesn't stand on principles and likes to change the rules for its own selfish gains.

Junagadh: Majority population Hindu/Muslim Ruler
--> Accedes to Pakistan
--> Indian justification is that bcuz the Hindus r in majority therefore it belongs to us. Instrument of accession doesn't matter all of a sudden.

Kashmir: Majority population Muslim/Hindu Ruler
--> Accedes to India
--> Indian justification is that Kashmir acceded to India. Muslim majority doesn't matter.

Double standards and hypocrisy.

In Kashmir a plebiscite could not be held because the Pakistani army refused to withdraw while in Junagadh a plebiscite had taken place and the people voted for India. What about Azad Kashmir,was it not occupied by force. There was also a proposal by Vallabh Patel to exchange Kashmir with Hyderabad(Deccan) and Junagadh which was rejected by Pakistan

 

[Cookie Monster]

In Kashmir a plebiscite could not be held because the Pakistani army refused to withdraw while in Junagadh a plebiscite had taken place and the people voted for India. What about Azad Kashmir,was it not occupied by force. There was also a proposal by Vallabh Patel to exchange Kashmir with Hyderabad(Deccan) and Junagadh which was rejected by Pakistan

Yes Kashmir was taken by force by Pak. We r not claiming that Pak never attacked anyone in its history unlike ur countrymen who choose to ignore facts.

As for plebiscite I fully agree. In my opinion as long as India would continue to bend the rules to get its way and try to act like a bully...animosity between the India/Pak would remain. India can only wield its influence and bend countries like Bhutan/Nepal/etc to its will. Pakistan will not bend to India's will like that...if anything it will continue to worsen the relationship between the two. So what should India/Pak do? Stop being selfish and sort out their issues with FAIRNESS

- Best way to do that is indeed a plebiscite. This would be the most fair thing to the people of Kashmir since its their future that would be decided.
- Secondly neither Pak nor India trust each other. So Pak wouldn't be willing to withdraw its forces to let India take Azad Kashmir/Gilgit Baltistan and hold a plebiscite nor would India trust Pak with that. Best and fair solution would be that both India/Pak give over law and order control to the UN peacekeepers temporarily. Both agree to a ceasefire for a certain period of time(as necessary for UN peacekeepers to arrange and hold a fair plebiscite) and withdraw military/police forces transitioning control to UN peacekeepers. These UN peacekeepers must not contain any Pakistani nor any Indian troops to ensure that there is no foul play.
- Then both countries be willing to accept the result no matter which way it goes(whether independence or siding with India or siding with Pak). Since the current cause of conflict between India/Pak is claim to each other's parts of Kashmir...once it is resolved there would little cause for conflict and both can begin a peace process.

 

[saurav jha]

It's true after all 1 Muslim tank is equal to 10 hindu tanks

 

[Telescopic Sight]

I did read it correctly the first time around...this is what u said
"The reason they are here is because the nation they are facing that is 6.5 times their size is because that big country has never attacked any country in it's history."

U see that part in bold? Isn't that what u said that India never attacked any country in its history?


GOA, Junagadh , Hyderabad, etc.

The statement in red is CORRECT.
All your examples ( Goa, Hyderabad, Junagad) are all in India and have always been Indian! Are you serious in claiming that they were separate countries at some point ?
I am surprised that nobody has pointed out your foolishness in these claims yet !

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@saurav jha

It's true after all 1 Muslim tank is equal to 10 hindu tanks

Thanks. Where do X-tian, Yahoodi, Confusion, Buddhist and Shinto tanks figure in the equation. Thanks in advance.

Regards

PS: And Jain tanks too, assuming Jains have tanks.