Indian Sikh company surrendering to Lone Pilot Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar

[Krptonite]

Sure sure. Just like how you indians also claimed to have killed exactly 350 terrorists in Balakot and shot down an F-16..............








So unless someone doesn't believe indian FAKE news it means they don't have historical knowledge?????.......

Thank you for answering my questions, I've found your rebuttal to be most illuminating.

 

[PAKSpecialForces]

Thank you for answering my questions, I've found your rebuttal to be most illuminating.

So you actually believe that india killed exactly 350 terrorists in Balakot and shot down an F-16?????.............

 

[xyxmt]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

yes that famous victory that your PM is citing in his speeches

he also has a video about Kargil famous victory

 

[Longhorn]

If the deaths of your brethren over goals you cannot explain translate into strength, then yes, Pakistan's stronger than ever and worse, people will continue to persue such policies to bring "strength".

It's interesting that you quote Winston Churchill, a PM whose own populace threw him out of power as soon as war was done. He presided over an empire that crumbled into an island state, but hey! As long as he won, he stronk, who cares what the consequences were.

It's a long story.
You probably wouldn't understand anyway.

 

[peagle]

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective using force.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

Your statement is a hotchpotch of different thoughts that have little bearing to what I said, but I will try to answer the best I can, hopefully, so we can move towards a conclusion. I do like your inquisitive approach rather than empty answers, so thank you for that.

Means to an end? Everything you do in life is a means to an end, you drink water and eat food so have enough nutrients to function and stay alive, and you breathe air so that your body gets oxygen to be able to operate. Means to an end means nothing.

All wars are measured by a large number of perimeters and not all perimeters apply to every single scenario. But I am willing to answer your questions provided mine are included and accepted in the discussion. Surely the world does not operate by your benchmarks alone.

I recognize your acknowledgement of Pakistan army Jawans as Bravehearts, and heartily accept the same goes for Indian Army Jawans, both our Jawans love their countries so they deserve our respect and fair analysis of the past, only then we can move towards a peaceful future.

Your last paragraph is seriously lacking in commonsense, I think it would be wise to at least make an effort to understand what the other person has said before attempting a reply. I never claimed we won the wars, when did I make that claim? I clearly said India was not able to defeat Pakistan in any of the wars.

Before I give a detailed reply to your questions, whilst adding a more realistic analysis of relevant facts, I would like you to declare what is your claim? Because you have not made a claim, but I infer from your statements that you think you won all of the wars. I find that extremely hilarious.

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective using force.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

Pravin Sawhney is an ex-Indian Army officer and was a correspondence for Jane’s international defense review for 6 years. He has no soft spot for Pakistan especially its Army. Like all Indians, he is also negatively obsessed with the Pakistan army, with some of his claims regarding the Pakistan army being of suspect nature.

What we are concerned with here is his analysis of Indian armed forces, I have yet to meet an Indian who does not blow trumpets regarding their armed forces and he is also one of them in his other writings, but I have to respect him for being truthful here, his motive being so that his army and his people can learn from reality rather than keep ignoring the facts.

At 14:40 he clearly states with heavy emphasis that in all the years since 1947 Pakistan has never lost a war with India in the western sector, and makes a joke of Indian claims to have repeatedly beaten them.

 

[MZ-PDF]

Video unavailable

 

[Joe Shearer]

So you actually believe that india killed exactly 350 terrorists in Balakot and shot down an F-16?????.............

Don't be silly. That was a farrago of nonsense, but as a patriotic Indian, I also do not wish to say what I would like to say about that ridiculous episode. We do, among ourselves, in trusted conversations, have a somewhat different view of things, but in today's climate of hate, saying anything opposed to the hype going around will get me invited to Pakistan by some Indians.

Your statement is a hotchpotch of different thoughts that have little bearing to what I said, but I will try to answer the best I can, hopefully, so we can move towards a conclusion. I do like your inquisitive approach rather than empty answers, so thank you for that.

Means to an end? Everything you do in life is a means to an end, you drink water and eat food so have enough nutrients to function and stay alive, and you breathe air so that your body gets oxygen to be able to operate. Means to an end means nothing.

All wars are measured by a large number of perimeters and not all perimeters apply to every single scenario. But I am willing to answer your questions provided mine are included and accepted in the discussion. Surely the world does not operate by your benchmarks alone.

I recognize your acknowledgement of Pakistan army Jawans as Bravehearts, and heartily accept the same goes for Indian Army Jawans, both our Jawans love their countries so they deserve our respect and fair analysis of the past, only then we can move towards a peaceful future.

Your last paragraph is seriously lacking in commonsense, I think it would be wise to at least make an effort to understand what the other person has said before attempting a reply. I never claimed we won the wars, when did I make that claim? I clearly said India was not able to defeat Pakistan in any of the wars.

Before I give a detailed reply to your questions, whilst adding a more realistic analysis of relevant facts, I would like you to declare what is your claim? Because you have not made a claim, but I infer from your statements that you think you won all of the wars. I find that extremely hilarious.

Pravin Sawhney is an ex-Indian Army officer and was a correspondence for Jane’s international defense review for 6 years. He has no soft spot for Pakistan especially its Army. Like all Indians, he is also negatively obsessed with the Pakistan army, with some of his claims regarding the Pakistan army being of suspect nature.

What we are concerned with here is his analysis of Indian armed forces, I have yet to meet an Indian who does not blow trumpets regarding their armed forces and he is also one of them in his other writings, but I have to respect him for being truthful here, his motive being so that his army and his people can learn from reality rather than keep ignoring the facts.

At 14:40 he clearly states with heavy emphasis that in all the years since 1947 Pakistan has never lost a war with India in the western sector, and makes a joke of Indian claims to have repeatedly beaten them.

I am reacting only to your comments on Pravin Sawhney. It is quite correct to say that he is one of the honest and truthful commentators on Indo-Pakistani conflicts, and it is quite correct to say what he does, and what Major Amin also says, about the truth behind reports of India-Pakistan battles. He is a breath of fresh air.

I do think that his assessment is always very conservative, and he loses the wood for the trees. Having said that, I also have to admit that I am his avid fan.

yes that famous victory that your PM is citing in his speeches

he also has a video about Kargil famous victory

This is the best you could do, a semi-lunatic and a class 6 illiterate who has made a career of raising the security bogey to win votes? I feel sorry for you.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Sikhs are over rated. At the end of the day Sikhs are kuffars and they have the same weak DNA as their kuffar Hindu cousins.

will get me invited to Pakistan

Sorry! you kuffars are not welcome here.

We do not give two hoots about your aman ki tamasha

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sikhs are over rated. At the end of the day Sikhs are kuffars and they have the same weak DNA as their kuffar Hindu cousins.



Sorry! you kuffars are not welcome here.

We do not give two hoots about your aman ki tamasha

Not you. The human beings. I don't expect the denizens of field and farm to do anything.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

Not you. The human beings. I don't expect the denizens of field and farm to do anything.

Look who is talking. A cow piss drinking kuffar talking about Humans.

 

[Krptonite]

Your statement is a hotchpotch of different thoughts that have little bearing to what I said, but I will try to answer the best I can, hopefully, so we can move towards a conclusion. I do like your inquisitive approach rather than empty answers, so thank you for that.

Means to an end? Everything you do in life is a means to an end, you drink water and eat food so have enough nutrients to function and stay alive, and you breathe air so that your body gets oxygen to be able to operate. Means to an end means nothing.

All wars are measured by a large number of perimeters and not all perimeters apply to every single scenario. But I am willing to answer your questions provided mine are included and accepted in the discussion. Surely the world does not operate by your benchmarks alone.

I recognize your acknowledgement of Pakistan army Jawans as Bravehearts, and heartily accept the same goes for Indian Army Jawans, both our Jawans love their countries so they deserve our respect and fair analysis of the past, only then we can move towards a peaceful future.

Your last paragraph is seriously lacking in commonsense, I think it would be wise to at least make an effort to understand what the other person has said before attempting a reply. I never claimed we won the wars, when did I make that claim? I clearly said India was not able to defeat Pakistan in any of the wars.

Before I give a detailed reply to your questions, whilst adding a more realistic analysis of relevant facts, I would like you to declare what is your claim? Because you have not made a claim, but I infer from your statements that you think you won all of the wars. I find that extremely hilarious.




Pravin Sawhney is an ex-Indian Army officer and was a correspondence for Jane’s international defense review for 6 years. He has no soft spot for Pakistan especially its Army. Like all Indians, he is also negatively obsessed with the Pakistan army, with some of his claims regarding the Pakistan army being of suspect nature.

What we are concerned with here is his analysis of Indian armed forces, I have yet to meet an Indian who does not blow trumpets regarding their armed forces and he is also one of them in his other writings, but I have to respect him for being truthful here, his motive being so that his army and his people can learn from reality rather than keep ignoring the facts.

At 14:40 he clearly states with heavy emphasis that in all the years since 1947 Pakistan has never lost a war with India in the western sector, and makes a joke of Indian claims to have repeatedly beaten them.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation, and I appreciate your efforts to have a constructive dialog with me. It's a breath of fresh air.

My apologies for the 'hotchpotch' manner of my posts, as you've put it, I blame my poor editing skills.

I'd like to clear up the point I was trying to convey; the 65 war on most accounts ended in a stalemate, a mixed bag, successes and failures on both sides in various sectors. Neither side achieved significant gains.

The PA was successful in the defense of it's territories while the IA was successful in defending ours, but this war was initiated by PA executing Operation Gibralter, with an aim to capture Kashmir from Indian control, it's stated objectives could not be achieved. Ultimately, lives were lost for no gains to show for it.

Individual valour, as you've rightly pointed out, was prevalent on both sides and should be lauded but to ignore lessons from past wars risks repetition with the same disastrous results.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Look who is talking. A cow piss drinking kuffar talking about Humans.

Well, that's a surprise. I never thought you would drink such stuff, or turn out to be a kuffar yourself.

Thank you for such a detailed explanation, and I appreciate your efforts to have a constructive dialog with me. It's a breath of fresh air.

My apologies for the 'hotchpotch' manner of my posts, as you've put it, I blame my poor editing skills.

I'd like to clear up the point I was trying to convey; the 65 war on most accounts ended in a stalemate, a mixed bag, successes and failures on both sides in various sectors. Neither side achieved significant gains.

The PA was successful in the defense of it's territories while the IA was successful in defending ours. Ultimately, lives were lost for no gains to show for it.

Individual valour, as you've rightly pointed out, was prevalent on both sides and should be lauded but to ignore lessons from past wars risks repetition with the same disastrous results.

That made better reading. Be careful, you are in discussion with someone who lays his facts out in an orderly manner, draws conclusions from those step by step, and is impatient with loose writing. Take your time replying. I know very well what you are saying, and I am sure he does too, but he has this tendency to punish untidy posts.

 

[Trango Towers]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

Still being Joe nobody I see

 

[Joe Shearer]

Still being Joe nobody I see

Ka kareen, Sahib, aadat se majboor.

 

[Jf Thunder]

Pakistanis trolling Indians since 1947