Myths of 1971–Time for Redemption

[Crimson Blue]

My dear, that person is a known N activist who is making up things to spoil Imran Khan' image (General Niazi and Imran Khan Niazi).

Post deleted. I shall try to get hold of the book, may be he was referring to Asad Umar's father.

 

[Goenitz]

 

[White privilege]

Victory is never lesser or more. It remains a victory. I don’t know how a person can make it a lesser of a defeat because they raped and killed lesser than advertised by the adversary? Inspite of loosing a major chunk of its land mass.

Attempt is being made to make this loss appear to be a fait accompli. Attempt to say that there was no failure by anyone by propagating this fait accompli theory. That is the bigger game in this redemption saga.

Bajwa tried to wash away the sins of his army by statement of his and he has set the ball rolling for his followers to take that job further.

Paksiatn Army is squarely and directly blameworthy in this fiasco. They can’t wash away their hands from each and every failure that came your way.


You have hung on to, two far away land theory too much. You seem to be convinced that there was now way to defend a nation with separate land masses.
1967 Arab Israel war wasn’t about a contiguous piece but about tactics used by Israel to rewrite the way a war is fought. Israel didn’t give up because it is a small nation with lesser capabilities at that time. It turned the tables on the adversary by innovative and daring methods. Now, don’t start counting numbers and say that your situation was different.

Your generals were required to work out their own asymmetry. Which they never did. They kept sleeping on their back side till the war started when India imposed it’s will.

In the garb of redemption of just few aspects an attempt is being made to wash away bigger sins of those who indulged in debauchery, political lust, corruption and cowardice.

There mate, you getting triggered because u are used to living inside this cocoon of lies of supa dupa Indian power that 'melts the '. But I don't hold it against u.

Well ofcourse u won, but that is not it. How u won is also part of history and cannot be dulled from it. The thing is u are used to celebrating ur mythical 'victory against heavy odds', where your 'tactical actions' supposedly won the war. However the heavily skewed strategic situation, brought about by your scheming and all that, was the deciding factor. Let the history be instead of trying to re-write it.

If geographical contiguity does not matter than please enlighten me ,why the British had to run away from Dunkirk, but managed to hold on during the "Battle of Britain" ?? Why did the allies loose their far away colonies of Singapore and Philippines ?? Why did the British loose Falklands and South Georgia in the first place??They were resourceful, how could they not afford that 'magic portal' that discounts lack of geographical contiguity completely??

The fact is u are the one chasing the myth of "degeneracy kills competence" obsessively. However ground realities stand firm and in contrast.

 

[VkdIndian]

However the heavily skewed strategic situation,

India skewed the situation in it’s favour and your Generals slept? Why? Who stopped them? Every adversary would try and skew a situation in its favour? Tell me one stupid nation that wouldn’t try to skew a situation in its favour?
Stupid generals that don’t do it, loose a war. You want an example?

Your arguments are still on the same track, of an “unfair game”. It wasn’t a cricket match, hence this crying about unfairness is an idiotic stance. It was a very very very fair game of WAR.

but managed to hold on during the "Battle of Britain"

Please don’t forget that Britain created an empire where sun didn’t set and ruled it for a time that I am sure you know.

Have you heard about Falkland war? You know the distance between Britain to Falklands vs distance between Argentina to these islands? Ohh. You will now complain that they skewed the situation in their favour. How sad? These scheming British I tell you.

Wasn’t East Paksiatn your territory? It wasn’t a far away tiny piece of land. It is a sad story of betrayal where your masters decided that West Pakistan was mainland and East a tertiary landmass that didn’t need any importance or security. Why did you denude it of any forces that were required to protect it? Inspite of recent 1965 war, what were your planners thinking? Utter foolishness by your Generals again.

Let the history be instead of trying to re-write it.

Gen Bajwa seems to have made an effort to rewrite it and his boys have taken upon themselves to take it further. The name given is “Redemption”.
All worthy nations would try and create an asymmetry, try nasty surprises, be willy, cunning, scheming, bloody minded and use psychological warfare, when it comes to their adversaries.

If you disagree to any of these, then please give up any intentions of fighting a war.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

The story is busted , reality Pakistan Army , refused to accept the result of elections because they had prABlem to salute Mujib Sahib

It was just a "EGO" and sense of Superiority Army had vs Mujib who won the elections fairly

Same "JANRAIL" and their own comfort group , supporting each other how can we salute a Bangali ?

 

[Dr.Nick Riviera]

Fun fact: In post 1971 Bangladesh few of the opposing political parties have ever accepted the election results. BNP never accepts election results of awami league and vice versa. History rhymes. Another fun fact: check the founding date of the awami league ....again....history rhymes.

 

[VkdIndian]

The story is busted , reality Pakistan Army , refused to accept the result of elections because they had prABlem to salute Mujib Sahib

It was just a "EGO" and sense of Superiority Army had vs Mujib who won the elections fairly

@White privilege rather than focusing on an idea of UNFAIR war please spend some time to analyse these things very aptly highlighted by a senior FM.

A chaos created by your hatred filled bigoted generals that finally led to breakup of your country.
Are these generals ready to take that responsibility?
Rather they and their cronies are trying to deflect it on politicians and seeking redemption.

 

[White privilege]

India skewed the situation in it’s favour and your Generals slept? Why? Who stopped them? Every adversary would try and skew a situation in its favour? Tell me one stupid nation that wouldn’t try to skew a situation in its favour?
Stupid generals that don’t do it, loose a war. You want an example?

Your arguments are still on the same track, of an “unfair game”. It wasn’t a cricket match, hence this crying about unfairness is an idiotic stance. It was a very very very fair game of WAR.

Please don’t forget that Britain created an empire where sun didn’t set and ruled it for a time that I am sure you know.

Have you heard about Falkland war? You know the distance between Britain to Falklands vs distance between Argentina to these islands? Ohh. You will now complain that they skewed the situation in their favour. How sad? These scheming British I tell you.

Wasn’t East Paksiatn your territory? It wasn’t a far away tiny piece of land. It is a sad story of betrayal where your masters decided that West Pakistan was mainland and East a tertiary landmass that didn’t need any importance or security. Why did you denude it of any forces that were required to protect it? Inspite of recent 1965 war, what were your planners thinking? Utter foolishness by your Generals again.


Gen Bajwa seems to have made an effort to rewrite it and his boys have taken upon themselves to take it further. The name given is “Redemption”.
All worthy nations would try and create an asymmetry, try nasty surprises, be willy, cunning, scheming, bloody minded and use psychological warfare, when it comes to their adversaries.

If you disagree to any of these, then please give up any intentions of fighting a war.

Let me set the record straight again since u r constantly trying to twist it.When the geography is surrounded and stranded by an overwhelming advantage in men and material, and subverted from within, w/o possibility of a relief or breakout, the resistance is heroic but becomes pointless by every passing day. It has happened throughout history, whether the commanders were legends or not, whether there was degeneracy among the ranks or not, the overall situation always decides.

I don't believe u read that last comment among your own mumbo jumbo. I quoted Falklands conflict. My question was simple. If geographical contiguity was not a factor, why did the British loose the Falklands in the beginning?? And also all the other examples I gave. Were they also incompetent to leave those areas undefended because apparently, by your definition, the sun never set on them. So they must have been resource abundant, right?? Now, jumping back to reality, British got the Falklands back by bringing to bare all the resources they could overtime. They had the Americans on their side, had dominance over the ocean, no civil war back home, and were on paper and in reality , the bigger power. Also they were not fighting to keep an invasion at bay on the mainland. The tactical actions just did not matter in the end. Overall strategic situation did.

Gen. Bajwa was spot on with his remark, but that is another conversation about all the factors that contributed to 71 fiasco. He said that because, like what u are trying to insist, people tend to just cruise over and call it a 'military defeat', which is an attempt to alibi out all the other factors.

 

[VkdIndian]

like what u are trying to insist, people tend to just cruise over and call it a 'military defeat'

All the elements of a nation fail in a conflict with an outcome like that of 1971. Paksiatn lost on all fronts - military, diplomacy, planning etc etc.

Biggest of all these failures, was military defeat. If it was not your army surrendering, there wouldn’t have been creation of Bangladesh.

Don’t try to spin it into anything else.

Your army signed the Instrument of Surrender and laid their arms on ground in front of cameras accepting a clear defeat. If that is not a military defeat then what is?

Your valuable comments on Instrument of surrender? And what it means?

Please don’t go into - one on one PA would have done this, our soldiers were very good etc.
If a fully functional standing army drops its weapons in front of an adversary then it is a military defeat.

What a shame, people don’t want to accept a clear defeat and move on, rather than try and convert it into a victory, willy nilly.

 

[James David]

Redemption for what? Pakistan lost Bangladesh. What else there is to redeem? Instead of sulking in bitterness for the past 50 years move on and make your country stronger. That boys is redemption.

 

[Crimson Blue]

ARROGANCE of brainwashed testosterone in uniform, it seems he was inviting the defeat.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1588997357609562112