Military vows befitting response against Indian aggression

[That Guy]

Waited 50 years?
We are discussing 1971 here...and you asked me or rather told me that India creating an uprising in East Pakistan(then) was aggression and not retaliation.

I just pointed it out that India took the leaf from Pakistan's book based on what Pakistan tried on India in 1965.

What it did comes strictly under retaliation.

No, I said what is happening TODAY is aggression. When the hell did I mention 71? Even then, there is ample evidence that 71 was in fact aggression. You don't start wars as retaliation.

 

[Sneaker]

First of all, those were war, Pakistan has conducted many aerial raids in India during them, as well; it's stupid to bring them up. Second, 1947 is when Pakistan successfully broke away from India, permanently splitting the subcontinent into many pieces.

Next, things have changed. A war now guarantees mutually assured destruction. There is a reason why India has backed off, every time there have been standoffs.

You people need to stick to one narration. Was there any india (as a country) before partition or not? There are threads after threads running saying there was no "India", now you say you broke "India"? which is it? If you can't give befitting reply in war, what can you do in peace? zilch...

We won't go for a war.. just target action.. If at all there is a war, pak has to initiate it..

 

[tsinga]

No, I said what is happening TODAY is aggression. When the hell did I mention 71? Even then, there is ample evidence that 71 was in fact aggression. You don't start wars as retaliation.

Says who? Who decides the rules? You? Very convenient.

Pakistan did Op. Gibralter against India in 1965 that started a full blown war. That is called aggression. It was a period when we India was unprepared having just a war to China in 1962.

India took exactly what Pakistan did in 1965 and repeated it (successfully this time) in 1971 as retaliation for Pakistan initiating a war in 1965.

 

[TankMan]

So, your military waited 50 years to retaliate? Dude, shut up. stop comparing old events with new ones. This isn't retaliation, today's events are aggressio from India. It's so like you to try your statement to suit your argument.

Pakistan has not shown any aggression towards India in today's age, while India has shown that it's intent is to attack Pakistan every chance it gets. Pakistan is busy stablizing it's western border, it has no time nor intention to start anything with India.

Some people are indoctrinated to the point of no return.

On one hand India admits to using terrorists, on the other it says this is all in 'retaliation' and 'self defense'. Quite similar to Israel's justifications. But then it also brags about moral superiority to Pakistan because Pakistan allegedly sponsors terrorism - even though India admits to using terrorism.

A case of extreme hypocrisy.

 

[That Guy]

Says who? Who decides the rules? You? Very convenient.

Pakistan did Op. Gibralter against India in 1965 that started a full blown war. That is called aggression. It was a period when we India was unprepared having just a war to China in 1962.

India took exactly what Pakistan did in 1965 and repeated it (successfully this time) in 1971 as retaliation for Pakistan initiating a war in 1965.

It's called common sense. India started a war that it knew it would win, not as retaliation, but as a way to get rid of Pakistan as a rival. That's not retaliation, that's aggression.

Do try and use your head.

 

[tsinga]

It's called common sense. India started a war that it knew it would win, not as retaliation, but as a way to get rid of Pakistan as a rival. That's not retaliation, that's aggression.

Do try and use your head.

Are you suggesting that in retaliation, the aggrieved party that retaliates is supposed to loose?

Ofcourse when we planned a retaliation, we planned to win.

If Pakistan did not want to loose a part of its territory, it should not have attacked India in 1965. We learnt the trick of the trade from Pakistan's attempt on us and paid it back in kind.

 

[That Guy]

Are you suggesting that in retaliation, the aggrieved party that retaliates is supposed to loose?

Ofcourse when we planned a retaliation, we planned to win.

If Pakistan did not want to loose a part of its territory, it should not have attacked India in 1965. We learnt the trick of the trade from Pakistan's attempt on us and paid it back in kind.

Do you just not read other people's comments? Seriously?

 

[Desert Fox]

What a distorted view.. It was bengalis who were feeding you... It was Bengali resources being diverted to the then west pakistan, not other way around. I don't git everything concentrated at one front hyperbole you are on... at one hand, you cry there wasn't enough troops in EP (ergo everything concentrated in west) hence it was defeated and now this? In 1971, india had to divide its forces in 3 fronts while all pakistan forces were concentrated in west.. now india has to divide forces in 2 fronts.. how does it help you again?

Ha ha ha, bharatiya. Who's feeding Pakistan today?? Bangladeshis?? Lol, we are 200 million strong and we don't depend on Bangladeshis to feed us. Maybe you depend on Bangladeshis since they do most of the work in your country.

Now we are a growing nuclear power with the 7th largest standing army. Now we can easily focus on one front. Thanks bharatiyas.

Keep sending them pigeons with olive branch (symbol of surrender and request for peace)..

Good, we will keep sending pigeons your way to scare your media and gov.t since they seem to make a hysteria out of it.

BTW, are you guys taking good care of our spy camel?? I hope he's being treated as a POW according to geneva laws by indian authorities :

 

[Neemo neemo]

What a dumb statement.

First of all, Pakistan hasn't been fighting itself for a long time. Second, India has always raised the stakes, not Pakistan. Remember, it was India's decision to introduce nuclear weapons to south Asia, not Pakistan's.

Pakistan isn't the one issuing out threats, and saying that they'll use terrorists as assets to destabilize neighboring nations, it is India.

Statement's not dumb. You are.

Pakistan is fighting itself for a long time, no doubt about that.

India never raised the stakes, Pakistan did From OP Gibraltar to Kargil. I don't know what's worse, your hypocrisy or your knowledge.
The only time India raised the stakes successfully was Siachin and that ended without any violence.

Indian nukes are not aimed at Pakistan, they are for China. Indian conventional power is enough to crush Pakistan. Hence possession of nukes is justified in India's case. However in Pakistan case it is not justified because unlike India, Pakistan does not have No First Use policy Which India does. So your argument for nukes is invalid too.

India never used such "using terrorist " statement, don't pull crap from your behind and post here. Read the statement, not ZAID HAMID CONSPIRACY LOGIC.

India always issues statement regarding countries which harbour terrorism, it's Pakistan which feels obligated replying anything related to terrorism. That's Pakistan problem, not ours.

dude, you should read more. From a former general to chaprasi and from a 2 bit politician to a news anchor, everybody in Pakistan acts like they own about a dozen nookaleear bumb and threatening to use them at shab e baraat and what not. They pull out their nookaleear hathgola even if somebody farts at decibal frequency.
No kind of threat can beat it.

 

[Sneaker]

Good, we will keep sending pigeons your way to terrorize your media and gov.t since they seem to make a hysteria out of it.

BTW, are you guys taking good care of our spy camel?? I hope he's being treated as a POW according to geneva laws by indian authorities :

Thanks for accepting that you send terrorists inside india, after so much denial, at last you admitted.
Your camel is being treated exactly like we treated 90,000 of your POWs.

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks for accepting that you send terrorists inside india, after so much denial, at last you admitted.

Yes, pigeons and camels sure do terrorize you bharatis. But don't start worshiping them in the process.

Your camel is being treated exactly like we treated 90,000 of your POWs.

Yeah, thanks for the favor.

 

[Sneaker]

Yeah, thanks for the favor.

No issues, we could take of 90000 of your nationals as POWs, camels are no biggies.
Thanks again for affirming your support for terrorists. Does nation as a whole agree with you that you are a terrorist nation? Or is it only you?

 

[Desert Fox]

Thanks again for affirming your support for terrorists. Does nation as a whole agree with you that you are a terrorist nation? Or is it only you?

Thanks again for affirming your support for terrorists in East Pakistan. Does nation as a whole agree with you that you are a terrorist nation that can't provide 600 million of its citizens with toilets or is it just you?

 

[Sneaker]

Thanks again for affirming your support for terrorists in East Pakistan. Does nation as a whole agree with you that you are a terrorist nation that can't provide 600 million of its citizens with toilets or is it just you?

POWs were taken in war, justified war. A war which you lost badly forcing us to feed and look-after 90,000 of your nationals. We do not sponsor terrorists like pakistan. But how conveniently you skipped answering any of the questions even after admitting sending terrorists into india..

 

[chauvunist]

If someone gave me a cent each time pakistan "warned" befitting reply to india, i would be a millionair by now.