No sir you fcuk off, did u like them waving pakistani flag, looks like even your private hair got burnt in anger.
Again the same idiocy.
Not really. They can fly as many flags as they want. But the state stays with India. End of story. Go cry.
Again - you attacked the small, independent kingdom of Kashmir. You did not take an inch from India. So the existence of "Azad Kashmir" proves nothing about India's might.
Again - you attacked the small, independent kingdom of Kashmir. You did not take an inch from India. So the existence of "Azad Kashmir" proves nothing about India's might.
Take even one inch from us, and then talk. Until then, Kashmir is India's, and there is nothing your country can do about it. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Nope. You haven't. You tried to take it in '65, ended up desperately defending Lahore instead. Lost more than half the country in '71. Lost Siachen glacier and Saltoro in '84. Tried to regain them in '87, and failed. Tried to take Kashmir in '99, and failed. Gave up trying since then, and decided to "deplore" uselessly now and then.
Fact is we captured far more land in western sector apart from creating Bangladesh in 1971 but returned it back along with 93000 POW according to simla agreement plus retained some strategic areas which was never returned to pak
Very well I suppose... it liberated lot of punjabis for all their problems... some became rich and some became worm food in unmarked graves...And how well did that work in the past?
We gained additional Pakistanis territory in 1971 which we retained and not covered under simla agreementOh, FFS
Oh FFS. In a war territory is always captured by both sides, and then bargained for. It is the totality at the end of the war itself that matters. India and Pak have taken chunks of territory in individual battles. By that logic, India has even taken Lahore:
Status quo pro bellum is what matters. ie, what was the territorial change at the end of the war. The answer is that Pak lost half its country. Gaining one inch and losing one mile is not considered gaining, it is called losing.
When India captured Siachen and Saltoro, there was no equivalent capture by Pakistan. It was one sided.
Pakistan has tried since 1965 to take Kashmir from India, and never gained an inch. It has stopped trying since 1999. Now all it can do is "deplore" and cry in front of the world, and here on PDF. Keep it up.
Yes, those Pakistani Punjabis have been selflessly sacrificing their lives to fertilize the soil of Indian Kashmir for quite a while now. 90% of LeT are Pak Punjabis, sent to die. But they still have this delusion that these unemployed cannon fodder youths would some day do what even their armed forces can't - take Kashmir from India.
Oh, FFS
Oh FFS. In a war territory is always captured by both sides, and then bargained for. It is the totality at the end of the war itself that matters. India and Pak have taken chunks of territory in individual battles. By that logic, India has even taken Lahore:
Status quo pro bellum is what matters. ie, what was the territorial change at the end of the war. The answer is that Pak lost half its country. Gaining one inch and losing one mile is not considered gaining, it is called losing.
When India captured Siachen and Saltoro, there was no equivalent capture by Pakistan. It was one sided.
Pakistan has tried since 1965 to take Kashmir from India, and never gained an inch. It has stopped trying since 1999. Now all it can do is "deplore" and cry in front of the world, and here on PDF. Keep it up.
!! 
