Indian wars with neighbors

[Blue_Eyes]

I feel sad
This is what pdf has come down too

Trolls opening stupid threads

you should enjoy it mr.D ,, I am enjoying it,,every now and then I saw such threads since i have joined pdf ,,its all fun man

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

You start a war by keeping an objective in mind and win and loss are derived from their objective and not from losses in the war .

Pak sent paramil in 1948 to Kashmir to occupy it did they managed to capture it? last time I checked we still have Srinagar.

1965 same Kashmir but turned into a full scale war but in the end we still holds Kashmir.

1971 lol it was a civil war so? is it written some where we can't interfere in it. Pak lost almost half of its territory. Period.

Kargil same kashmir shyt. Same results.

AKA when Pakistan fails to meet its objective its a stalemate but in case of India its a loss RIP logic.

First off; majority of the Pakistani forces were Pathan tribesmen; who had rifles from WW1. India inherited around 90% of British equipment while Pakistan inherited less than 5-10%. Pathan Militias and Gilgit Scouts capturing half of Kashmir, which was defended by combined forces of Dogra Regime and Indian Regulars(many of whom were paratroopers), in all sense is a victory. In the end, we GAINED much more then we lost (we didnt really lose anything); in all sense that should be a victory.

In 1965; most of our military was at Kashmir. Sialkot and Lahore was never expected to be attacked and were only defended by halved Garrisons; and you were still not able to defeat them even with full force, by that time; tens of thousands of Pathan Militias formed and Pakistani garrisons from West and Central Pakistan were advancing to counter attack; if they reached before the Tashkent agreement; Pakistan forces would have possibly taken Punjab. Even the war didn't get each side anywhere; if it was extended; Pakistan would have pushed India out of Amritsar and Agra. When it was our turn to go full-scale and attack in full force, the Tashkent agreement was signed. Even so we obliterated the Indian Air Force.

Also i'm glad Bangladesh is separated, they are almost catching up to you guys in being the top rape, prostitute and trash filled country.

Kargil War was fought in INDIAN territory. Pakistani Forces numbered 5,000(including Pathan and Mujahideen Militias); while Indian Forces numbered 30,000. We captured major and strategic mountain points, the secret operation wasnt known to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and when he learnt. He pressured and even threatened General Musharraf to retreat back to Pakistani territory, that was one of the motives for General Musharraf to declare martial law and depose Nawaz Sharif.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

First off; majority of the Pakistani forces were Pathan tribesmen; who had rifles from WW1. India inherited around 90% of British equipment while Pakistan inherited less than 5-10%. Pathan Militias and Gilgit Scouts capturing half of Kashmir, which was defended by combined forces of Dogra Regime and Indian Regulars(many of whom were paratroopers), in all sense is a victory. In the end, we GAINED much more then we lost (we didnt really lose anything); in all sense that should be a victory.

In 1965; most of our military was at Kashmir. Sialkot and Lahore was never expected to be attacked and were only defended by halved Garrisons; and you were still not able to defeat them even with full force, by that time; tens of thousands of Pathan Militias formed and Pakistani garrisons from West and Central Pakistan were advancing to counter attack; if they reached before the Tashkent agreement; Pakistan forces would have possibly taken Punjab. Even the war didn't get each side anywhere; if it was extended; Pakistan would have pushed India out of Amritsar and Agra. When it was our turn to go full-scale and attack in full force, the Tashkent agreement was signed. Even so we obliterated the Indian Air Force.

Also i'm glad Bangladesh is separated, they are almost catching up to you guys in being the top rape, prostitute and trash filled country.

Kargil War was fought in INDIAN territory. Pakistani Forces numbered 5,000(including Pathan and Mujahideen Militias); while Indian Forces numbered 30,000. We captured major and strategic mountain points, the secret operation wasnt known to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and when he learnt. He pressured and even threatened General Musharraf to retreat back to Pakistani territory, that was one of the motives for General Musharraf to declare martial law and depose Nawaz Sharif.

1971 war or not, indian intervention or not, at some point bangladesh would have separated from Pakistan as we are completely different from them in terms of race, physical looks, genetics, heritage and culture. In fact us Pakistanis share more of these traits with Iranians and Southern Turks than we do with bengalis.. So Pakistan, Iran and Turkey forming one nation is more feasible than Pakistan and bangladesh forming one nation. bengalis and indians have much more in common with one another than they do with Pakistanis.

 

[dray]

We see here Indians bragging about how they have won all the wars she has fought. So I thought why not open a thread to collect some facts.

It is a known fact that India has been at wars with many of her neighbors since she is the major source of exporting cross-border terrorism in the region. Here is the list of some of the wars the modern day "India" has fought:


1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Sound defeat. Lost major part of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Lost badly to China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

1971: War with Pakistan (taking advantage of civil war in Pakistan)
Result: Pakistan lost Bangladesh

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Soundly defeated. Had to withdraw all the forces.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

So why is that Indians always brag about 1971, which was actually a civil war in Pakistan started by Indian trained terrorists but forget all the others where Indians were soundly defeated? Gloating about a situation, where it was almost next to impossible to defend East Pakistan because of its geographical location (where in order to reach from one part of Pakistan to the other you actually had to cross India first), is not really great heroism.


Could it be due to the hindutava enforced distortion of history, which is taught in their schools to keep war-mongering going on in the Indian mindsets? That greately suits fundamentalist nutcases like Modi.

What would it be like if for a change real history is taught in Indian schools?

Any ideas?

Reality.

1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back the invaders from large parts of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Stalemate. Unilateral ceasefire by China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

1971: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pakistan was reduced to half.

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Peace keeping mission only.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

 

[coffee_cup]

Reality.

1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back the invaders from large parts of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Stalemate. Unilateral ceasefire by China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

1971: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pakistan was reduced to half.

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Peace keeping mission only.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

Yo man, I know what distorted history you are taught in your hindutava inspired schools, that is why I opened the thread.

To give Indians a chance to see the world as it exists and not through the delusional hindutava lense with what they are brainwashed as children.

 

[dray]

Yo man, I know what distorted history you are taught in your hindutava inspired schools, that is why I opened the thread.

To give Indians a chance to see the world as it exists and not through the delusional hindutava lense with what they are brainwashed as children.

What I posted are facts, what you posted were fictions.

 

[coffee_cup]

What I posted are facts, what you posted were fictions.

LOL brainwashed delusional Indians think these are the facts:

That India has not lost to China in 1962 war.

That India has not lost to Pakistan, where Pakistan took more than one third of Kashmir in 1948

That in 1965 despite being 7-8 times larger than Pakistan in every aspect and still not being able to defeat the Pakistani military in any sector is a victory for Indians,

That India despite losing thousands of soldiers in Sri Lanka and having to retreat from there is a victory for Indians.

Keep on entertaining us with your "facts".

 

[Luca1]

Reality.

1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back the invaders from large parts of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Stalemate. Unilateral ceasefire by China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

1971: War with Pakistan
Result: Victory. Pakistan was reduced to half.

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Peace keeping mission only.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Victory. Pushed back Pakistani aggression.

Wrong. In Indian history, India win in 1962. And India colonized Britain and taught the English the English language. And taught them cricket. India is also the birthplace of all religions as Jesus and Muhammad are both graduates of Nalanda university.

 

[ito]

Wrong. In Indian history, India win in 1962. And India colonized Britain and taught the English the English language. And taught them cricket. India is also the birthplace of all religions as Jesus and Muhammad are both graduates of Nalanda university.

And you have gone mad.

 

[silent poison]

We see here Indians bragging about how they have won all the wars she has fought. So I thought why not open a thread to collect some facts.

It is a known fact that India has been at wars with many of her neighbors since she is the major source of exporting cross-border terrorism in the region. Here is the list of some of the wars the modern day "India" has fought:


1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Sound defeat. Lost major part of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Lost badly to China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

1971: War with Pakistan (taking advantage of civil war in Pakistan)
Result: Pakistan lost Bangladesh

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Soundly defeated. Had to withdraw all the forces.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

So why is that Indians always brag about 1971, which was actually a civil war in Pakistan started by Indian trained terrorists but forget all the others where Indians were soundly defeated? Gloating about a situation, where it was almost next to impossible to defend East Pakistan because of its geographical location (where in order to reach from one part of Pakistan to the other you actually had to cross India first), is not really great heroism.


Could it be due to the hindutava enforced distortion of history, which is taught in their schools to keep war-mongering going on in the Indian mindsets? That greately suits fundamentalist nutcases like Modi.

What would it be like if for a change real history is taught in Indian schools?

Any ideas?

1948 ; The day Indian army enters the war .. Pakistan army was standing near Srinagar International Airport which was thrown back to present day Ceasefire line . Sounds as Victory to me .

Victory over portugese for Goa and someother small war that end up India wining Huderabad , Junagarh .

1962 ; War some political miss judgement but not being a Pakistani i accept the defeat .

1965 ; Objective wise we met all our objective entering into war just after three year of 1962 war is something to be remembered .

1971 is clear defeat both in West and east Pakistan ( West - Kargil , East Bangladesh ) so civil war can be a excuse but PA didnt gain any territory in west to bargain for Bangladesh . So , its a clear victory for India .

Now you miss saichen glacier in between Kargil war .

Kargil war is a stalemate can you explain ?

 

[dray]

Wrong. In Indian history, India win in 1962. And India colonized Britain and taught the English the English language. And taught them cricket. India is also the birthplace of all religions as Jesus and Muhammad are both graduates of Nalanda university.

Piles giving trouble today?

LOL brainwashed delusional Indians think these are the facts:

That India has not lost to China in 1962 war.

That India has not lost to Pakistan, where Pakistan took more than one third of Kashmir in 1948

That in 1965 despite being 7-8 times larger than Pakistan in every aspect and still not being able to defeat the Pakistani military in any sector is a victory for Indians,

That India despite losing thousands of soldiers in Sri Lanka and having to retreat from there is a victory for Indians.

Keep on entertaining us with your "facts".

Lal masjidwali books ke bahar bhi kuch pada kar bhai..

In 1948 India came later to rescue Maharaja Hari Singh's kingdom Kashmir once he signed the acceession papers to join India, and pushed back the invaders from a large part of Kashmir.

1962 ended in a stalemate with China declaring a ceasefire unilaterally.

1965 was a hillarious example of Pakistan biting more than it can swallow! Your generals started with the objective of capturing Kashmir, and ended up defending their own cities frantically.

1971 was a weight loss program for Pakistan.

1999 another failed adventure by Pakistan...and you forgot to mention 1987 Siachen.

Our Sri Lankan mission was a peace keeping mission only, our objective was not to fight and win any war. I hope you understand what is peace keeping mission.

 

[Ragnar]

1971 was a weight loss program for Pakistan.

.

Jab We Met. And Bangladesh was born.

 

[ThaniOruvan]

1971 war or not, indian intervention or not, at some point bangladesh would have separated from Pakistan as we are completely different from them in terms of race, physical looks, genetics, heritage and culture. In fact us Pakistanis share more of these traits with Iranians and Southern Turks than we do with bengalis.. So Pakistan, Iran and Turkey forming one nation is more feasible than Pakistan and bangladesh forming one nation. bengalis and indians have much more in common with one another than they do with Pakistanis.

Then why did your forefathers asked for Bangladesh to be part of Pakistan ?
You think you know more than what they knew and saw ?
To cover up your loss you are throwing the most stupid argument I have ever heard.
"We had lost Bangladesh, thank god they are not one of our kind and it is good that we lost them."
You will gain respect if you proudly and bravely say "yes, we lost BD, so what ?" but your statement is cheap and disgusting. It does not have honor.

 

[guyhandz]

We see here Indians bragging about how they have won all the wars she has fought. So I thought why not open a thread to collect some facts.

It is a known fact that India has been at wars with many of her neighbors since she is the major source of exporting cross-border terrorism in the region. Here is the list of some of the wars the modern day "India" has fought:


1948: War with Pakistan
Result: Sound defeat. Lost major part of Kashmir

1962: War with China
Result: Lost badly to China

1965: War with Pakistan
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

1971: War with Pakistan (taking advantage of civil war in Pakistan)
Result: Pakistan lost Bangladesh

1987-1990: War in Sri Lanka
Result: Soundly defeated. Had to withdraw all the forces.

1999: War with Pakistan in Kargil
Result: Stalemate, ceasefire

So why is that Indians always brag about 1971, which was actually a civil war in Pakistan started by Indian trained terrorists but forget all the others where Indians were soundly defeated? Gloating about a situation, where it was almost next to impossible to defend East Pakistan because of its geographical location (where in order to reach from one part of Pakistan to the other you actually had to cross India first), is not really great heroism.


Could it be due to the hindutava enforced distortion of history, which is taught in their schools to keep war-mongering going on in the Indian mindsets? That greately suits fundamentalist nutcases like Modi.

What would it be like if for a change real history is taught in Indian schools?

Any ideas?

Seems like OP has wet his pants last night..

 

[junaid hamza]

The truth has been spoken ,,,,