Indian terrorist army begging family of freedom fighter to surrender -his sisters awesome response

[Mirza Jatt]

I just did, other than 1971 we've won all wars with Hindustan (1947, 1965 and 1999), unless you count the Siachen conflict as a war (in which case, the score becomes 3-2 in our favour).


As discussed and debunked to death a zillions times. these fantasy theories, I will not waste my time on proving how Pakistan lost all these wars. I simple google search and neutral sources will tell the users about this.

But I will go with your numbers for the sake your convenience.

So since the score is 3-2 in your favour..should it be 3-1 since in Siachen you had the ratio as per your winning number. Also I am still waiting to know..why did your men surrender, is it just because they calculated and found the ration to be a little more tan 1:10 ?

LOl the real war was when Jinnah spilt your hindustan into 3 parts in 47, you indians havent gotten over that

and look your papa in the west is saying Pakistan won the war.

haha.... why was India before partition a Hindu land ? weren't the people who were Muslims also the owners of the land? If yes, then why did you get 1/3rd ? sad.

Also don't give me these paper cutting ...if you continue searching, you'll find hundred more to tell you how Pakistan lost.

 

[Sully3]

haha.... why was India before partition a Hindu land ? weren't the people who were Muslims also the owners of the land? If yes, then why did you get 1/3rd ? sad.

Also don't give me these paper cutting ...if you continue searching, you'll find hundred more to tell you how Pakistan lost.

lol
No can lead the blind they are already blind. believe what you want the world knows what happened.

also any comment on sikh genocide india is committing or are you not bothered sanghi

 

[Hamza913]

As discussed and debunked to death a zillions times. these fantasy theories, I will not waste my time on proving how Pakistan lost all these wars. I simple google search and neutral sources will tell the users about this.

But I will go with your numbers for the sake your convenience.

So since the score is 3-2 in your favour..should it be 3-1 since in Siachen you had the ratio as per your winning number. Also I am still waiting to know..why did your men surrender, is it just because they calculated and found the ration to be a little more tan 1:10 ?

Not at all fantasy, you lost 1/3 of Kashmir in the first war. Nothing debatable about it, you lost land where as we only made gains.

In 1965, you crossed the border on the 6th of September and had your invasion completely crushed. Your naval base at Dwarka was destroyed, and your Air Force suffered several times as many casualties, all while being far larger than us. You even ended up losing more land (which we generously gave back during negotiations) and your PM died of a heart attack because of the sheer magnitude of defeat. All within just over 2 weeks, making it one of the shortest wars in history. No matter how much you lie, we will always know what really happened:

Remember this guy?

Or his guy?

The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

As for 1999, you struggled to make major gains in Kargil until our army was politically pressured to leave it, and we still occupy point 5353 to this very day.

 

[Sully3]

Not at all fantasy, you lost 1/3 of Kashmir in the first war. Nothing debatable about it, you lost land where as we only made gains.

In 1965, you crossed the border on the 6th of September and had your invasion completely crushed. Your naval base at Dwarka was destroyed, and your Air Force suffered several times as many casualties, all while being far larger than us. You even ended up losing more land (which we generously gave back during negotiations) and your PM died of a heart attack because of the sheer magnitude of defeat. All within just over 2 weeks, making it one of the shortest wars in history. No matter how much you lie, we will always know what really happened:

Remember this guy?

Or his guy?

The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

As for 1999, you struggled to make major gains in Kargil until our army was politically pressured to leave it, and we still occupy point 5353 to this very day.

come take your L @Mirza Jatt

And you wanted lahore .........

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

Nice deflection. I honestly do not care either. I will refer to the other figures as I pointed out.

The fact is that you don't have any real reliable source of how many troops are deployed in Kashmir by India. Rest all is BS. So any argument based on 'X Thousands/Million Indian troops in Kashmir' is not grounded in facts but prejudice.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

lol
No can lead the blind they are already blind. believe what you want the world knows what happened.

also any comment on sikh genocide india is committing or are you not bothered sanghi

I agree on the blind thing.. that's why I don't take your claims seriously.

I have replied… on that thread about Sikhism. check please.

Not at all fantasy, you lost 1/3 of Kashmir in the first war. Nothing debatable about it, you lost land where as we only made gains.

In 1965, you crossed the border on the 6th of September and had your invasion completely crushed. Your naval base at Dwarka was destroyed, and your Air Force suffered several times as many casualties, all while being far larger than us. You even ended up losing more land (which we generously gave back during negotiations) and your PM died of a heart attack because of the sheer magnitude of defeat. All within just over 2 weeks, making it one of the shortest wars in history. No matter how much you lie, we will always know what really happened:

Remember this guy?

Or his guy?

The London Daily Mirror reported in 1965:

"There is a smell of death in the burning Pakistan sun. For it was here that India's attacking forces came to a dead stop.

"During the night they threw in every reinforcement they could find. But wave after wave of attacks were repulsed by the Pakistanis"

"India", said the London Daily Times, "is being soundly beaten by a nation which is outnumbered by four and a half to one in population and three to one in size of armed forces."

In Times reporter Louis Karrar wrote:

"Who can defeat a nation which knows how to play hide and seek with death".

USA - Aviation week - December 1968 issue:

"For the PAF, the 1965 war was as climatic as the Israeli victory over the Arabs in 1967. A further similarity was that Indian air power had an approximately 5:1 numerical superiority at the start of the conflict. Unlike the Middle East conflict, the Pakistani air victory was achieved to a large degree by air-to-air combat rather than on ground. But it was as absolute as that attained by Israel.

As for 1999, you struggled to make major gains in Kargil until our army was politically pressured to leave it, and we still occupy point 5353 to this very day.

This was my question highlighted in bold

So since the score is 3-2 in your favour..should not it be 3-1 since in Siachen you had the ratio as per your winning ration against kafir. Also I am still waiting to know..why did your men surrender in 1971, is it just because they calculated and found the ration to be a little more tan 1:10 ?

​

request you 2 things.

1. Open a thread on whatever knowledge you have about these wars. I am there to answer that. Answering these here mean YOU WILL FLEE the real question, the way you are doing right now.

2. Since you posted completely everything you had in mind without answering my actual question... let me give you one more chance. Try to answer that.

come take your L @Mirza Jatt

And you wanted lahore .........

He get his reply duly … why are you acting like a cheer leader... just few moments ago you took a U turn after proposing Khalistani movement. lol

 

[Hamza913]

This was my question highlighted in bold
​

They surrendered because, as you rightfully said, they realised they were outnumbered far too significantly.

As to why we lost the Siachen, I don't know the statistics about how many troops we brought but I guarantee it was less than you did.


​

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

LOl the real war was when Jinnah spilt your hindustan into 3 parts in 47, you indians havent gotten over that

Wrong, it was two parts. India and Pakistan. Why do you think they call it 'Two nation theory'. One Hindu Nation and One Muslim nation.

Its a totally different thing that Muslims were not able to live united under Islam. Sad but true.

 

[UnitedPak]

Wrong, it was two parts. India and Pakistan. Why do you think they call it 'Two nation theory'. One Hindu Nation and One Muslim nation.

Its a totally different thing that Muslims were not able to live united under Islam. Sad but true.

It's always convenient to forget Buddhist Burma which was also part of British India.

The truth is that the South Asia has never been a nation.

The fact is that you don't have any real reliable source of how many troops are deployed in Kashmir by India. Rest all is BS. So any argument based on 'X Thousands/Million Indian troops in Kashmir' is not grounded in facts but prejudice.

The argument is not based on the number of troops. Its based on Kashmiri determination and wishes. The troops are a sore thumb that Indians want to hide.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

It's always convenient to forget Buddhist Burma which was also part of British India.

The truth is that the South Asia has never been a nation.

Burma was dettached from 'British India' in '37. Heck it even had a premier of its own. Way before even a single letter was written on Lahore resolution. So claiming it to be '3rd nation' birthed by Jinnah is a barefaced lie.

The argument is not based on the number of troops. Its based on Kashmiri determination and wishes. The troops are a sore thumb that Indians want to hide.

You did mention the million number to drive the point that indian troop presence is to control and occupy using such a large force.

Occupying someones land with nearly a million troops is not peaceful either. This strategy has not worked anywhere on the planet. The desperation in your post give us joy on the other hand.

Folks here claim that :-

1. Troops number is not 1 million. You dont have any source for this claim.
2. Troops are for defending Kashmir against Pakistani invasion like '47 or '65 and against insurgency and Pakistan-supported militancy.

 

[UnitedPak]

Burma was dettached from 'British India' in '37. Heck it even had a premier of its own. Way before even a single letter was written on Lahore resolution. So claiming it to be '3rd nation' birthed by Jinnah is a barefaced lie.

I am addressing your own trolling, so perhaps you could stop slithering away from the point you brought up yourself? You were harping on about Muslims dividing India. Surely a Hindu Nepal and a Buddhist Burma which was actually part of the British Indian empire, should have all the more reason to join your glorious nation?

Sounds like united India is a pipe dream.

Folks here claim that :-

1. Troops number is not 1 million. You dont have any source for this claim.
2. Troops are for defending Kashmir against Pakistani invasion like '47 or '65 and against insurgency and Pakistan-supported militancy.

I gave you a source. Please fight your nature and stop lying. You decided not to accept the source, which is a different matter altogether.

 

[EndangeredSpecies]

I am addressing your own trolling, so perhaps you could stop slithering away from the point you brought up yourself? You were harping on about Muslims dividing India. Surely a Hindu Nepal and a Buddhist Burma which was actually part of the British Indian empire, should have all the more reason to join your glorious nation?

Sounds like united India is a pipe dream.

Huh?
Muslims indeed divided British India on the lines of religion, its a known fact. I guess you dont contest that.
My point was a response to the nonsense claim by @Sully3

LOl the real war was when Jinnah spilt your hindustan into 3 parts in 47, you indians havent gotten over that

I gave you a source. Please fight your nature and stop lying. You decided not to accept the source, which is a different matter altogether.

Your source is Pakistan government ministry, not an unbaised source and they dont have any means to asses on ground situation in Indian side of LoC.
It is same as Pakistan accepting Indian claims. Will they?

 

[HAIDER]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1005044269743202304

IOK is falling down, falling down, falling down.

Sadly this video proves ... a person is accused before any concrete evidence. A soldier is talking to his family on the basis of personal assumption. But it show how much people of Kashmir has hate against Indian army.

 

[Mirza Jatt]

Ok got to sleep.. but hope to see your replies in the m

They surrendered because, as you rightfully said, they realised they were outnumbered far too significantly.​

Hence they didn't even have the guts to try... so gave up without even picking up the gun. Point taken.

[QUOT]As to why we lost the Siachen, I don't know the statistics about how many troops we brought but I guarantee it was less than you did.
​

[/QUOTE]

If you dont know the stats then stop claiming any numbers.. that's how facts are discussed.. Now since we dont have numbers - let me tell you its because the theory of 1:10 is as rubbish as you history text books teaching you that you won 65 and 47 war.. haha

 

[Peshwa]

I couldn't care less who you find credible or not. Do you really think you can stop a legitimate argument by throwing a tantrum about my source? Troops numbers can easily be ascertained by spies or using local sources. There is nothing top secret about the situation in Kashmir.

Of course you don't care. Your only agenda is to peddle the lies you've lapped up from some 3rd rate source which cannot corroborate the number with any actual evidence. When the deployment numbers itself are classified and the rotation of troops is closely held information, we're now going to rely on pocket jihadis and mullahs like yourself to provide us this number with no evidence to back. Sure buddy.

What's even funnier is the fact that out of the 1.2MM active personnel, India has dedicated "nearly a million" in Kashmir, that too easy enough for some rag tag spies to ascertain. lol
….and while we were at it, we sent a cable to the Pakistani FO to let them know.
Seriously, learn to make sense.

Nitin Leetul Gogoi. A perv whose hotel adventures you can read all about online and how he harassed the girls family in the middle of the night under the guise of security. The same guy who tied a protester up to his jeep when he was, gee I don't know, crowd controlling? He is from the rashtriya rifles.
Once again, the hindu is caught shamelessly lying.
.

You're thicker than I thought.
First off, the "human shield" incident wasn't crowd control, but a way to escape a dangerous situation. This was a one off incident, where the RR convoy had to get out of hostile territory and used the "human shield" to escape without having to cause casualties. This is NOT a normal practice, and certainly NOT evidence of IA involved in law enforcement or crowd control.

Second, if Gogoi was actually law enforcement, how exactly was he booked by the law enforcement agencies (police)itself? You contradict yourself.
On one hand, you claim that the army is involved in law enforcement, and in the same breath claim that they are being booked by the law enforcement agencies, as was the case of Gogoi and the girl at the hotel. Make up your mind.

I think you need to quit while you're ahead.

Until now, you have show ZERO evidence of IA involved in policing or law enforcement.
Don't quote me again unless you can prove this. You're a waste of time.