What's new

Pakistan can take Laddakh in few days: Samson

Didn't I say don't bother me again!!

My point is simple, Nawaz lost his nerves in front of Clinton. Next para clarifys how,

" Sandy told the president that he was heading into what would probably be the single most important meeting with a foreign leader of his entire presidency. It would also be one of the most delicate. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal. But another, probably incompatible, goal was to increase the chances of Sharif’s political survival. “If he arrives as a prime minister but stays as an exile,” said Sandy, “he’s not going to be able to make stick whatever deal you get out of him.” We had to find a way to provide Sharif just enough cover to go home and give the necessary orders to Musharraf and the military."


I am an English Speaker, off you go idiot.

You may be an English speaker, but you are certainly not an English reader. What did the entire episode mean? Nawaz Sharif did not go there on invitation, he practically barged in. If he had been given a winning brief by his military, why did he go to Washington? At Washington, they knew that there was a face-saving issue, and they acted on it. The paragraph you have quoted proves that. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal; why did that turn up? Because India asked for it? Was India able to compel the Pakistani PM to go to Washington?

All India had to do was to keep blowing up Pakistani bunkers.

Nawaz Sharif was sent to Washington with a Mission Impossible, to defend the intruders and to obtain a face-saving formula; it was because he was unable to get this done that he showed signs of losing his nerve.

If you want to know more, check the accounts of Shaukat Aziz and Mushahid Hussain, not to mention Kaisar Tufail.

And learn to read.
 
.
This is not Bharti line but on ground fact. On ground fact is LOC is defacto border till resolution of Kashmir issue. By that agreement, IoK is Indian airspace. The day IoK get liberated it will become Pakistani airspace. If you cant get this simple fact then keep living in a dream world.

With respect to Laddakh being Indian state, even by our standard it should not be part of Pakistan as it do not have muslim majority and should be divided like bangal or punjab

Nonsense logic.

So whoever have Muslim majority, should be divided according to you. While Hindu majority states with millions of Muslims like Rajasthan and Gujarat stays with bhart.

Stop your propaganda and mind games dude. Like I said, I do hope agencies are monitoring your social network. Your kind only want to change a mindset of Pakistanis and want them to keep backing off.

Again I repeat, IOK is not Bharti airspace. Nor IOK is bhart. It is held at gunpoint.

The only practical solution which could be acceptable to Pakistan and Kashmiris is to convert chenab River into border, it is also a natural diving line.
 
.
Nonsense logic.

So whoever have Muslim majority, should be divided according to you. While Hindu majority states with millions of Muslims like Rajasthan and Gujarat stays with bhart.

Stop your propaganda and mind games dude. Like I said, I do hope agencies are monitoring your social network. Your kind only want to change a mindset of Pakistanis and want them to keep backing off.

Again I repeat, IOK is not Bharti airspace. Nor IOK is bhart. It is held at gunpoint.

The only practical solution which could be acceptable to Pakistan and Kashmiris is to convert chenab River into border, it is also a natural diving line.
Great logic. I am waiting for you to land your aircraft on Pakistani airport and Pakistani air space in Srinagar.

And yes thanks for your advice and highlighting me and now I am tagged on with agencies and they are coming to grab me?

While you are claiming IoK Pakistani airspace you yourself living in USA far from troubles we Pakistani and our Kashmiri brothers are facing.

Good job buddy.
 
.
You may be an English speaker, but you are certainly not an English reader. What did the entire episode mean? Nawaz Sharif did not go there on invitation, he practically barged in. If he had been given a winning brief by his military, why did he go to Washington? At Washington, they knew that there was a face-saving issue, and they acted on it. The paragraph you have quoted proves that. The overriding objective was to induce Pakistani withdrawal; why did that turn up? Because India asked for it? Was India able to compel the Pakistani PM to go to Washington?

All India had to do was to keep blowing up Pakistani bunkers.

Nawaz Sharif was sent to Washington with a Mission Impossible, to defend the intruders and to obtain a face-saving formula; it was because he was unable to get this done that he showed signs of losing his nerve.

If you want to know more, check the accounts of Shaukat Aziz and Mushahid Hussain, not to mention Kaisar Tufail.

And learn to read.

You are the one who is really stupid and have problem of reading and comprehension.
Read the quoted paragraphs again.
The army didn't send him, they were getting nuclear arms ready to launch at India.
It was Nawaz who lost the bottle, as Clinton said to his aides, he will try to put pressure on him.
Why you think that the Americans were worried that he may be arrested or stay in exile!!
 
.
They told the then PM, these were the usual incursions into Indian Occupied Kashmir, nothing like thousands of Pakistani soldiers are being deployed in IOK and they're like going to be bombed with bofors like there's no tomorrow. Further, the soldiers won't be getting any supplies as we're going pretend these are Kashmiri Mujahideen.

It's not PM's fault if Pakistani Army failed to tell the full story to the then PM and have since then spent 21-years trying to brainwash the Pakistani people into believing Kargil was fully conquered but PM didn't want to be seen as the hero of that conquest. What?

Let's just try to remember, Pakistani incursion started on 3rd May 1999 and PM went to the US on 4th July. PakistanI military had 2 full months to defeat the enemy but failed miserably and have never owned up to their blunder like a bunch of losers.
As I have stated before, let's stick to facts instead of noise. Pakistan did not have thousands of troops deployed and in harms way at Kargil. They numbered in the hundreds. There isn't enough real estate on the heights to put multiple battalions worth of troops in defensive positions.

There was dumping done to keep the troops supplied throughout the campaign. Only at the tail-end, when the Indians brought in air support, some of these lines were cut. Pakistani troops had taken over roughly 120 or so positions. Indians only talk about the 5 or so where they used air power to take the positions back after weeks of effort and losing countless lives.

As far as your point about "Pakistani Army failed to tell", that is your perception of it and also the canard that NS and his supporters have used to deflect responsibility. I also see you have also conveniently skipped the point about Ayub Khan and Bhutto executing on the very same plan and in that situation too, both the military and the civilian advisory side were in sync but the opprobrium is only reserved for Musharraf. I wonder why.

Lastly, in the two months that you mention, Pakistani forces had inflicted serious casualties on the Indian side to the point there was exasperation on their end. Never has the exchange been as lopsided on the LoC as it was during Kargil (despite what the propaganda machinery on the other side churns). The purpose of the Kargil operation was to put pressure on the Indian side militarily and make sure Kashmir stays on the table as such it is another episode in this long running Kashmir conflict. It brought the Kashmir issue back on the main stage for the region.

Many other nations do things which serve their national interests in the long term not giving a damn about the image. Case in point are all the military shenanigans in the Middle East by the Western powers or for that matter in Afghanistan.

Lastly, unlike fools, we don't need to own up to anything if the situation requires discretion. Operational security reasons at the time required things to be done discretely and kudos to the Army for going about it professionally. This applies when the situation requires all the tools at disposal to be leveraged i.e. covert, overt, diplomatic etc. This whole conflict is not a popularity contest as can be clearly seen by the recent Indian actions in IoK. So let's stop being so apologetic about what Pakistan has to do for Kashmir. The same goes for our policy in Afghanistan. We have to do what we must, foreign opinion be damned.
 
.
R u that dumb cant see i am Pakistani. If i am disagreeing with the idea of capturing enemy's territory due to poor economic condition then u will label me Indian.

Thats the level of your Q?


Stupid man. Look at my flags. I am a well known Pakiatani.
Well then u sud be more clear. Instead of making Us looks weak.. who really care what your flag looks like its your point of view which shows what u upto.
 
.
The purpose of the Kargil operation was to put pressure on the Indian side militarily and make sure Kashmir stays on the table as such it is another episode in this long running Kashmir conflict. It brought the Kashmir issue back on the main stage for the region.

And how has this goal of the Kargil operation been upheld since then, specially in view of recent developments? Foreign opinion be damned as you say, but keeping Kashmir on the table will require support from the international community if Pakistan is to get somewhere with this line of strategizing.
 
.
You are the one who is really stupid and have problem of reading and comprehension.
Read the quoted paragraphs again.
The army didn't send him, they were getting nuclear arms ready to launch at India.

Because they were winning, right, genius?

It was Nawaz who lost the bottle, as Clinton said to his aides, he will try to put pressure on him.
Why you think that the Americans were worried that he may be arrested or stay in exile!!

Because he was sent out to cover for the military defeat and try to get a compromise, to try and get the Indians from completing the military demolition.

You can wriggle and turn as much as you like, you remain on the hook.
 
.
Because they were winning, right, genius?



Because he was sent out to cover for the military defeat and try to get a compromise, to try and get the Indians from completing the military demolition.

You can wriggle and turn as much as you like, you remain on the hook.

Ea4xiq4UcAAi_bq
 
.
Nonsense logic.

So whoever have Muslim majority, should be divided according to you. While Hindu majority states with millions of Muslims like Rajasthan and Gujarat stays with bhart.

Stop your propaganda and mind games dude. Like I said, I do hope agencies are monitoring your social network. Your kind only want to change a mindset of Pakistanis and want them to keep backing off.

Again I repeat, IOK is not Bharti airspace. Nor IOK is bhart. It is held at gunpoint.

Do you want to fly in and check that assertion? No need for advance warning.

The only practical solution which could be acceptable to Pakistan and Kashmiris is to convert chenab River into border, it is also a natural diving line.

It looks like we will be deprived of the pleasure of your practical solution, and the only acceptable solution will never see the light of day. What a pity.
 
. .
... I also see you have also conveniently skipped the point about Ayub Khan and Bhutto executing on the very same plan and in that situation too, both the military and the civilian advisory side were in sync but the opprobrium is only reserved for Musharraf. I wonder why.

Pakistan was run by a military dictatorship in the 1960s. A moronic Field Marshall Ayub Khan who was promised he would receive 10,000 sq km from India if he didn't side with China in the 1962 Sino-Indo conflict.

After he didn't get his 10k, he went on his hopeless 1965 adventures thinking he was America's favourite dictator simply because the US was funding 20% of Pakistani GDP.

Whatever good/bad he did, he did so as a tyrant that lead to losing 60% of Pakistani populous and 40% of Pakistani economy.

Lastly, in the two months that you mention, Pakistani forces had inflicted serious casualties on the Indian side to the point there was exasperation on their end. Never has the exchange been as lopsided on the LoC as it was during Kargil (despite what the propaganda machinery on the other side churns).

You're saying it as if India was defeated to the extent that it was ready to surrender Kargil after receiving heavy casualties for two months.

Let me say it again: The incursion began on the 3rd May and PM Nawaz Sharif visited the US on 4th July. Pakistani Army had full 2 full months to have a decisive victory but they failed. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister would've bothered to go to the US if Pakistan was winning?

No doubt india was taken by surprise but they boffored the Pakistani Army out. It's that simple. The visit was made by the PM in the hope to halt the Indian bombardment and declare a ceasefire so Pakistani positions could be reinforced in Kargil but it didn't work and the soldiers had to be saved.

The purpose of the Kargil operation was to put pressure on the Indian side militarily and make sure Kashmir stays on the table as such it is another episode in this long running Kashmir conflict. It brought the Kashmir issue back on the main stage for the region. ...

The purpose: Kargil Operation was done by a treacherous General to avenge his humiliating defeat and loss of the Quaid Post on 26th June 1987. This wannabe tyrant had proposed the same Kargil adventure to General Zia-ul-Haq in the late 1980s but it was rejected as it was considered mad simply because how will the front line be resupplied when they're so deep inside occupied enemy territory.
 
.
Well then u sud be more clear. Instead of making Us looks weak.. who really care what your flag looks like its your point of view which shows what u upto.

The point of view is known as reality. I am not saying that we should not fight india but i am saying we r not ready to fight india.

If u want to fight build war reserves.
 
.
And how has this goal of the Kargil operation been upheld since then, specially in view of recent developments? Foreign opinion be damned as you say, but keeping Kashmir on the table will require support from the international community if Pakistan is to get somewhere with this line of strategizing.

Kashmir issue is on the table ONLY because it has got hot from time to time. Otherwise the world would rather see it go away without any sort of resolution and that means India gets what it wants and that obviously isn't an option from either the Kashmiri or the Pakistani PoV.

Secondly, let's reassess. What International community are you expecting support from? Since the 1948 resolution, Pakistan has not and will not get any further tangible support specially from the west. With the focus on China now, even the lip service offered in the past will not be on offer as it is in the interest of the western powers to corner China and look at the Kashmir conflict from an Indian PoV. So what this means is that being parties to the conflict, Pakistan and China will have to do things that no longer depend on "support from international community" to safeguard their own territorial interests. Yes, the Pakistani campaign will continue to bring up the issue on International forums, but the tangible steps will have to be taken by Pakistan herself and may include military options that are overt/covert.

The recent developments clearly show that Pakistan's strategy of expecting world powers to do something about Kashmir won't help. Given the situation, and the recent developments between China-India, all options, including those like Kargil, are on the table. Kashmir issue can only be resolved by Pakistan-India-China fighting it out and/or coming to some arrangement perhaps. This hope for this "support from international community" is a joke and that too a bad one for the Kashmiris.
 
Last edited:
.
Pakistan was run by a military dictatorship in the 1960s. A moronic Field Marshall Ayub Khan who was promised he would receive 10,000 sq km from India if he didn't side with China in the 1962 Sino-Indo conflict.

After he didn't get his 10k, he went on his hopeless 1965 adventures thinking he was America's favourite dictator simply because the US was funding 20% of Pakistani GDP.

Whatever good/bad he did, he did so as a tyrant that lead to losing 60% of Pakistani populous and 40% of Pakistani economy.



You're saying it as if India was defeated to the extent that it was ready to surrender Kargil after receiving heavy casualties for two months.

Let me say it again: The incursion began on the 3rd May and PM Nawaz Sharif visited the US on 4th July. Pakistani Army had full 2 full months to have a decisive victory but they failed. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister would've bothered to go to the US if Pakistan was winning?

No doubt india was taken by surprise but they boffored the Pakistani Army out. It's that simple. The visit was made by the PM in the hope to halt the Indian bombardment and declare a ceasefire so Pakistani positions could be reinforced in Kargil but it didn't work and the soldiers had to be saved.



The purpose: Kargil Operation was done by a treacherous General to avenge his humiliating defeat and loss of the Quaid Post on 26th June 1987. This wannabe tyrant had proposed the same Kargil adventure to General Zia-ul-Haq in the late 1980s but it was rejected as it was considered mad simply because how will the front line be resupplied when they're so deep inside occupied enemy territory.

Again, let's stick to facts and not hearsay.
Let me start off with the very last point. "Kargil Operation was done by a treacherous General to avenge his humiliating defeat and loss of the Quaid Post on 26th June 1987."
How and when was Musharraf involved in the loss of Quaid Post in 1987? Musharraf was nowhere close to Siachen at that time and he was not even involved in the planning or the actual operations. This silly claim was made by Indians and some on the Pakistani side picked it up and started regurgitating it. You clearly are doing the same unfortunately without knowing the facts. Musharraf was doing a staff course in this timeframe getting ready for his promotion to Brigadier. Secondly, no Pakistani general is "treacherous"! That statement in itself is ignorance. Every single war or conflict waged along the LoC has been for the Kashmir cause. One can question that national cause some, but putting pressure on the other side for the Kashmir cause is far from treachery. It is in support of our national interests, simple and the men and officers involved have to be lauded for it.

Let me say it again: The incursion began on the 3rd May and PM Nawaz Sharif visited the US on 4th July. Pakistani Army had full 2 full months to have a decisive victory but they failed. Do you seriously think the Prime Minister would've bothered to go to the US if Pakistan was winning?

Such operations have tactical value and they will remain an option on the table even in the future. The only decisive victory is a just settlement for the Kashmiri Muslims in the IoK. Otherwise, what and who has the decisive victory at Siachen? It's a stalemate despite more lives lost across both sides than Kargil. What is so "decisive" about Indian actions of Feb. 28 last year? Each side will do what it feels it needs to gain advantage. Pakistan did the very same in Kargil and while introspection is always needed, let's stop with the self-flaggelation.

Pakistan was run by a military dictatorship in the 1960s. A moronic Field Marshall Ayub Khan who was promised he would receive 10,000 sq km from India if he didn't side with China in the 1962 Sino-Indo conflict.

After he didn't get his 10k, he went on his hopeless 1965 adventures thinking he was America's favourite dictator simply because the US was funding 20% of Pakistani GDP.

Any source or reference to the above claim? Ayub was neither a tyrant nor a moron to be taken in by such a silly promise. This promise was never made as no Indian in his right mind would do that, and second, Ayub Khan was not wet behind the ears to fall for such things.
Also the tie-in between the unfulfilled promise of land from India and the 1965 war that you have made here seems to be a work of fantasy. First, none of what you claim is true or has any historical evidence. Secondly, the 1965 war was prodded by no other than Pakistan's FM of the time, ZAB. I don't blame either one of them because again, the purpose was to push the Kashmir agenda. I go back to this point to make the case that unless you want to surrender Kashmir to India, all such operations in the past and those that may take place in the future are for furthering the Kashmir cause. Kargil was not an anomaly and neither were the intentions of the men involved ill.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom