Pak may never try another Kargil, but it could get worse

[karan.1970]

Defeat of what?

Was just showing you the true face of your own soldiers before you start telling everybody that you are so brave a country. What a crap.

Ha Ha.. Khisiyani bill Khamba noche

Indian casualties were obviously more than PA. Most of our casualties weren't caused by Indian fire, but lack of supplies and logistics.

Good, so IA didnt even have to kill your soldiers?? They were killed by your generals only ???

 

[Ticker]

Ha Ha.. Khisiyani bill Khamba noche



Good, so IA didnt even have to kill your soldiers?? They were killed by your generals only ???

What does this billi thing means? sorry I couldn't get this.

The second statement is a crap which does not deserve an answer.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Joe Shearer,

Your depiction of events have holes as big as Universe's Black Holes. Selective highlighting of events to prove the point is inappropriate unless you want to start a trolling campaign. There is a lot more to Kashmir problem than outlining of some one sided points of view. These are differences spread over good part of the century between the two countries. And you can not convince me or any other Pakistani by this one sided point of view.

Please identify inaccuracies or stop arguing. My comments are very specific. Match them or stop bull-shitting.

 

[Rafi]

Please identify inaccuracies or stop arguing. My comments are very specific. Match them or stop bull-shitting.

Aquila non capit muscas

 

[sputnik]

Self defense is important, especially when you have a racist, starving, fascist state like india next door.

Till date on the name of self defense u just violated others sovereignty. every time u started and we finished it. And now calling India fascist. Get Life.

 

[Rafi]

Till date on the name of self defense u just violated others sovereignty. every time u started and we finished it. And now calling India fascist. Get Life.

Keep crying little indian

 

[ares]

My son, ISPR - says it's less than 350 - NS does not have credibility here.

Because your ISPR always tells the truth ..right!!


Pak army was not involved in Kargil: Musharraf - Video | The Times of India

Pak army was involved in Kargil: Musharraf - Express India

So what credibility does your army(ISPR) have??

 

[Contrarian]

We must prepare for the next conflict - the fascist indian regime - is forever plotting against us.

Better prepare better next time round, till date your preparations have led to liberation of almost half of your country from the evil Pakistani Army by the cunning Indians!

 

[karan.1970]

What does this billi thing means? sorry I couldn't get this.

The second statement is a crap which does not deserve an answer.

Why? IF your generals sent in your army men without logistics support, then they killed them themselves as sure as if they had actually put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sir

Nizam did not agree to join either India or Pakistan. If it was up to him he would have wanted Hyderabad to remain a sovereign state. But you cannot deny the fact that the Nizam had a soft corner for Pakistan, after all he bankrolled the Pakistani government at the time of Pakistan's inception. At no point did the Indian forces had the permission to enter and take Hyderabad forcefully, it was against the mandate. Thus, India was in clear violation of the law at the time.

The same argument can be used for Junagadh. Nawab Khanji chose to accede to Pakistan but India forcefully captured the state with use of military force. This again was in violation of the law at the time. My question is why is Pakistan being singled out for sending the lashkars to capture Kashmir when India used force to annex Junagadh and Hyderabad. I am clearly seeing a pattern of hypocrisy here Sir. India violated UN's resolution which called for a plebiscite in Kashmir. If my memory serves me right, Nehru also promised to hold a plebiscite in the disputed Kashmir.

Dear Sir,

It is an unexpected honour to have you take notice of my comment, and I hope you will find my explanations adequate.

Please note that with respect to Kashmir and to Hyderabad, the two topics to which I shall confine myself on this explanation, leaving Junagadh for the next, my limited purpose was to contradict two sets of untruths - to use the kindest possible word- which were gathering currency as they went unquestioned.

About Kashmir, both the principles and philosophy of the partition as of the offer made to the princes was distorted, either due to lack of knowledge or due to excess of nationalist zeal. Each to me is as unhealthy as the other. You will agree that I have been scrupulously exact in my narration of the Kashmir matter, both with regard to clarifying that there was no rule assigning a Muslim majority principality to Pakistan, or the other kind to India, and with regard to the deliberate overlooking of the will of the people as reflected in the policies of the National Conference and its leadership of the time.

About Hyderabad, my purpose was to stop this constantly repeated canard, that the Nizam had elected for Pakistan. This was not true, as you know. I freely grant that he sympathized with Pakistan, perhaps, that he made large subventions to the fledgling state, perhaps, but it remains precisely and exactly true that he had not made a choice at the time of the Indian police action.

Please also consider the date. It was September 1948. The old man had been given more than enough time to choose, more important, more than enough time to set his house in order. You are no doubt familiar with the dismal story of how his own Prime Minister and European Advisor were set upon by the Razakars, and hectored, to the point that the distinguished Indian Mussalman who was his PM resigned and returned home to his own principality. What followed was far from being on all fours with Kashmir. It bears closer resemblance to Bangladesh 1971, and is as illegal as that later action was, and justified by the Indian side with the plea of saving greater loss of life and stopping genocide.

Whatever the worth of that plea, it was certainly not the case that Hyderabad declared for Pakistan and India invaded. It was certainly just as strongly the case that Kashmir did declare for India, and Pakistan did invade.

I beg that you will consider my comment only with my limited purpose in mind. As to the hypocrisy, I humbly submit that I am not part of the apparatus Administering national policy towards a neighbouring country, and must decline any charges of hypocrisy on the grounds that I have stated the truth, the narrow truth perhaps, but nevertheless, the exact truth.

 

[Rafi]

The little indian cry's.

 

[ares]

The little indian cry's.

Come'on mighty Pakistani balloon of hot air ..answer my last!!

 

[Ticker]

Why? IF your generals sent in your army men without logistics support, then they killed them themselves as sure as if they had actually put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger

So as per the same analogy, your generals killed your soldiers in cold blood in 1962, 1965 when you attacked Pakistan and later as well and during your internal skirmishes with freedom movement groups etc. Have a heart yaar

 

[Ticker]

Please identify inaccuracies or stop arguing. My comments are very specific. Match them or stop bull-shitting.

Your philosophical analogies and implications of events as you think happened is not going to change the history because you said it so. And it is not bull-shitting. I am not going to involve myself in an unending discussion in which you will not believe me and I won't believe you and your prescription of events, no matter how much you think that they are accurate.

I'll bring in counter arguments and links to support myself and so will you. I have done that many times before. So much has been written about this subject by two disparaging set of people, having different set of views of history as they perceived it, nothing will come out of it. Therefore, it is better to agree to disagree and move on rather than starting with relatively soft words like bull-shitting and ending with much harder terminologies.

Have a good week-end

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

I am sorry I forgot to discuss the question of the plebiscite.in the preliminary discussions at Delhi, it is reported that Mountbatten had demanded that a plebiscite be held as soon as possible, to ratify the Maharaja's decision and place the seal of popular approval upon it. Nehru agreed, with enthusiasm. You will recall that this was when the entire National Conference, minus the break-away faction that had taken up the older 1932 name and re-located to its popular base in Mirpur, was solidly pro-Congress, solidly anti-League and actively involved in resistance to the Tribal invaders; Sheikh Abdullah had already sent word that accession to India was what they wished.

There was, therefore, no earthly reason for the Indian leadership to shy away from a plebiscite. Nehru continued to maintain his support for it bravely for a few more years, but nothing ever happened.

The cause was not as simple as hypocrisy. If you examine the UN Resolution, No 47 of April 21, 1948, it will appear immediately. The Resolution called for the total withdrawal of Pakistani armed elements (not troops alone), and for a sufficient force to be maintained by India to maintain law and order, and for subsequent steps to hold the plebiscite.

The plebiscite was not held, and we constantly face frustrated Pakistani suggestions that the conduct of the Government of India was hypocritical. As it stands, it is possible for a cynical or for a hyper-patriotic Indian to argue that it was in fact the Government of Pakistan that was hypocritical, in calling loudly for a plebiscite without taking the important first step to comply with the preliminary conditions. That is not my point of view.