State of teaching (and recording) military history (MH) in Pakistan

[Ticker]

Militarily speaking, yes Pakistan should be wary of Indian deployments and build up their forces accordingly. I guess they are doing that as much as possible, and am sure the Pakistani Army is professional enough to know about its operational capabilities and weaknesses.

But as for India, India is deployed not as an offensive force, but as a defensive force. Please tell me has India ever ATTACKED Pakistan leading to one of the 4 wars our countries have fought? India has never and India never will. India has dedicated so many forces against Pakistan including their aggressive posturing in Siachen etc., because they do not trust Pakistan. We believe that the moment there is a lapse in security or the moment there is demilitarization, we might suffer what we suffered in 1965, 71 or 1999. We might be pushed into a major war. We dont have anything to look back at that gives us the confidence that Pakistan wont pull one of its stinkers. On the other hand, Pakistan has only its own actions to criticize, for what happened in the past. That is why Indian apprehension (threat perception) has more credibility than Pakistani apprehension, because your fear is baseless. Our fear has reason.

What you state is a standard Indian response.

Let me respond with the facts.

1948

Yes, India invaded Indian Occupied Kashmir first. The Indian invasion of IOK started much earlier than the Pathan intrusion and Pakistan Army’s involvement. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir with complete knowledge of Indian Hindu political leaders and their supporters in Indian government.

Many of us do not even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? Indians wouldn’t know or probably wouldn’t want to acknowledge it – these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.

As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus and Pakistan Army moved in later when Indian Army had already invaded IOK.


1965

Yes you attacked Pakistan in 1965 war. Indian Occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory and is not part of India. The military action was taking place in IOK. India attacked mainland Pakistan. India is the aggressor.

1971

Yes you invaded east Pakistan first. Is there any doubt about it. I don't think so.

1972

Attacked in Chorbatla AJK.

1982

Indian Army invaded and occupied a portion of Siachen. Indian Army Northern Command Command accepted that India invaded occupied Siachen on a perception that Pakistan may occupy it. He accepted that it was without provocation.

Let me also highlight your so-called peaceful, non threat posing and non-hegemonic regional approach as well.

India invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, captured certain locations in Chorbatla in Kashmir in 1972, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1984, captured certain locations in Qamar Sector in Kashmir in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.

 

[Ticker]

The two nation theory is not being undermined here. The two nation theory is just a principle that nationality and identity is defined by religion. Noone is saying you are not Pakistani, or you are not Muslim. I am not even saying your identity shouldn't be based on your religion.

All I am saying is that whatever be people's identity in both India and Pakistan, one cannot take away the fact that they have roots in both the countries. This is definitely a commonality. It doesnt challenge your identity in any way, it only acknowledges the fact that some of your ancestors are from some place in current India. Similarly it also acknowledges that ancestors of some Indian's were from present day Pakistan. And because we have people from everywhere, even though we hold different identities, we are geographically and ethnically "sons of the soil". But not by religion, principle, identity or core values.

I am sorry I disagree with your connotation.

A large large majority of Pakistanis have not even seen India. How can they relate to what they have not seen and is a foreign country with acrimonious relations.

Some may have ancestral linkages, but the ancestors are long gone and these people have also moved on.

Some may still have relationships in India and many may have relationships in other parts of the world as well. So what.

There is no son of the soil environment here.

 

[Jackdaws]

What you state is a standard Indian response.

Let me respond with the facts.

1948

Yes, India invaded Indian Occupied Kashmir first. The Indian invasion of IOK started much earlier than the Pathan intrusion and Pakistan Army’s involvement. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir with complete knowledge of Indian Hindu political leaders and their supporters in Indian government.

Many of us do not even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? Indians wouldn’t know or probably wouldn’t want to acknowledge it – these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.

As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus and Pakistan Army moved in later when Indian Army had already invaded IOK.


1965

Yes you attacked Pakistan in 1965 war. Indian Occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory and is not part of India. The military action was taking place in IOK. India attacked mainland Pakistan. India is the aggressor.

1971

Yes you invaded east Pakistan first. Is there any doubt about it. I don't think so.

1972

Attacked in Chorbatla AJK.

1982

Indian Army invaded and occupied a portion of Siachen. Indian Army Northern Command Command accepted that India invaded occupied Siachen on a perception that Pakistan may occupy it. He accepted that it was without provocation.

Let me also highlight your so-called peaceful, non threat posing and non-hegemonic regional approach as well.

India invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, captured certain locations in Chorbatla in Kashmir in 1972, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1984, captured certain locations in Qamar Sector in Kashmir in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.

Would be nice if you backed up this wild 1948 allegation with some source. It is well known that it was the Pathans who invaded Kashmir. If not, how did those guys get within 20 km of Srinagar?

1965 - As far as India is concerned, Kashmir is not a disputed territory - it is Indian territory. You attacked it without provocation. India was well within its right to respond.

1971 - You conveniently forget 10 million refugees in India.

India did not invade Junagadh, there was a plebiscite held there. Sikkim was also not captured - it was the Chogyal who acceded to India. Goa of course was invaded and captured - after all it was a colonial province. Are you now supporting colonialism? Then why ask the Brits to leave Pakistan? You should have been a British province.

Invaded Sri Lanka? LOL - While Sri Lanka was India's Vietnam - India went there because it was asked to be there. It did not invade it.

 

[Ticker]

Would be nice if you backed up this wild 1948 allegation with some source. It is well known that it was the Pathans who invaded Kashmir. If not, how did those guys get within 20 km of Srinagar?

1965 - As far as India is concerned, Kashmir is not a disputed territory - it is Indian territory. You attacked it without provocation. India was well within its right to respond.

1971 - You conveniently forget 10 million refugees in India.

India did not invade Junagadh, there was a plebiscite held there. Sikkim was also not captured - it was the Chogyal who acceded to India. Goa of course was invaded and captured - after all it was a colonial province. Are you now supporting colonialism? Then why ask the Brits to leave Pakistan? You should have been a British province.

Invaded Sri Lanka? LOL - While Sri Lanka was India's Vietnam - India went there because it was asked to be there. It did not invade it.

I have already given links about Indian Hindu extremists and hordes' invasion of Jammu region and the massacres and ethnic cleansing.

The rest - I am sorry I disagree with you.

 

[Wickerman]

1948:

Yes, India invaded Indian Occupied Kashmir first.

No India did not. India actually refused to intervene. It was only after the king acceded to India, India landed her forces in Kashmir to halt the Pakistani invasion.

Many of us do not even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography

Such atrocities did happen. However, we do remember the trains filled with bodies that used to come from Pakistan. The sacks full of breasts cut out from Hindu women and many other horrendous atrocities. Those happened on both sides. Hindus were forcefully removed from their homes, their property confiscated. People were dispossessed overnight. Both countries paid a heavy price, so it is not just Pakistan that suffered.

1965

Yes you attacked Pakistan in 1965 war. Indian Occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory and is not part of India. The military action was taking place in IOK. India attacked mainland Pakistan. India is the aggressor.

1965 began with Pakistan attacking India. Not with India attacking Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and it is an Indian state. Period. Pakistan's idea that they were not a complete nation, without achieving their objectives, whether or not the people in those states actually wanted to be a part of Pakistan, is what led to the conflict.

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces,

tipped off by the local populace

, crossed the cease fire line on August 15. Thats how the war started. And even Pakistan had attacked and took some part of the Indian mainland.

BTW that bolded part above, should tell you that the local populace, DOES NOT wanna be a part of Pakistan. Ever.

1971

Yes you invaded east Pakistan first. Is there any doubt about it. I don't think so.

We planned to because of the apalling number of refugees and the genocide of hindus that was happening in Bangladesh and the general war propaganda that was going on in Pakistan. However the first blow was again by Pakistan in the form of a preemptive air strike, in an attempt to cripple India. They tried to emulate Israel, but failed. They aerially raided Indian airbases and radar systems, but of course India was fully prepared to go to war this time.

Indian Army invaded and occupied a portion of Siachen. Indian Army Northern Command Command accepted that India invaded occupied Siachen on a perception that Pakistan may occupy it. He accepted that it was without provocation.

Yes. It was a necessity and the region was not in Pakistani control. It is disputed and India wanted to take advantage of that. I personally fully support it, cuz it is essential for national security.

India invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, captured certain locations in Chorbatla in Kashmir in 1972, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1984, captured certain locations in Qamar Sector in Kashmir in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.

We've been through this before. Junagardh, Manavadar, Hyderabad were hindu majority places ruled by a muslim ruler. It was bang in the middle of India. Its ridiculous to expect India to hand over that region to Pakistan. Plus the people there wanted to be with India anyway. You might cite Kashmir as an exactly opposite thing and hence argue that it rightfully belongs to Pakistan. But no. Kashmiris wanna be a part of India. The majority of them. As for Goa, yes the people there wanted to go with India again. We asked the portueguese and they refused. Hence the invasion.

As for Sikkim, again, the referendum showed that 98% of the registered voters in that state wanted to go with India.

So in all these cases, India has always done what the people wanted. So none of these are wrong.

As for Sri Lanka, India actually supported the LTTE at first, air dropping supplies over Sri Lanka in a show of force called Operation Poomalai. It was then that the Sri Lankan govt signed the Indo-SL accord, in which they welcomed the IPKF to Sri lanka to fight the terrorists. However, we were like an elephant in a china shop and we destroyed the shop when we were supposed to protect it. Hence why we were asked to leave. And we did. This is not intervention.

In 1988, Maldives was taken over by PLOTE Tamil Militant groups. Because the government of Maldives appealed to India, India sent her troops. This was welcomed by the whole world, and it actually improved relations with Maldives, so am not sure what you are going on about.

Look, fact of the matter is, you have a very distorted and falsified view/notion of history. You deny your own history, your own connections and India is your boogeyman and punching bag. So keep blaming India for everything and keep calling it expansionist. And if this is the kind of attitude one can find in Pakistan then I have to say that you guys are living in denial, ignoring your own problems and denying your own history. India or Indians wont be affected by this false propaganda.

 

[Ticker]

No India did not. India actually refused to intervene. It was only after the king acceded to India, India landed her forces in Kashmir to halt the Pakistani invasion.



Such atrocities did happen. However, we do remember the trains filled with bodies that used to come from Pakistan. The sacks full of breasts cut out from Hindu women and many other horrendous atrocities. Those happened on both sides. Hindus were forcefully removed from their homes, their property confiscated. People were dispossessed overnight. Both countries paid a heavy price, so it is not just Pakistan that suffered.




1965 began with Pakistan attacking India. Not with India attacking Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and it is an Indian state. Period. Pakistan's idea that they were not a complete nation, without achieving their objectives, whether or not the people in those states actually wanted to be a part of Pakistan, is what led to the conflict.

On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, , crossed the cease fire line on August 15. Thats how the war started. And even Pakistan had attacked and took some part of the Indian mainland.

BTW that bolded part above, should tell you that the local populace, DOES NOT wanna be a part of Pakistan. Ever.



We planned to because of the apalling number of refugees and the genocide of hindus that was happening in Bangladesh and the general war propaganda that was going on in Pakistan. However the first blow was again by Pakistan in the form of a preemptive air strike, in an attempt to cripple India. They tried to emulate Israel, but failed. They aerially raided Indian airbases and radar systems, but of course India was fully prepared to go to war this time.



Yes. It was a necessity and the region was not in Pakistani control. It is disputed and India wanted to take advantage of that. I personally fully support it, cuz it is essential for national security.



We've been through this before. Junagardh, Manavadar, Hyderabad were hindu majority places ruled by a muslim ruler. It was bang in the middle of India. Its ridiculous to expect India to hand over that region to Pakistan. Plus the people there wanted to be with India anyway. You might cite Kashmir as an exactly opposite thing and hence argue that it rightfully belongs to Pakistan. But no. Kashmiris wanna be a part of India. The majority of them. As for Goa, yes the people there wanted to go with India again. We asked the portueguese and they refused. Hence the invasion.

As for Sikkim, again, the referendum showed that 98% of the registered voters in that state wanted to go with India.

So in all these cases, India has always done what the people wanted. So none of these are wrong.

As for Sri Lanka, India actually supported the LTTE at first, air dropping supplies over Sri Lanka in a show of force called Operation Poomalai. It was then that the Sri Lankan govt signed the Indo-SL accord, in which they welcomed the IPKF to Sri lanka to fight the terrorists. However, we were like an elephant in a china shop and we destroyed the shop when we were supposed to protect it. Hence why we were asked to leave. And we did. This is not intervention.

In 1988, Maldives was taken over by PLOTE Tamil Militant groups. Because the government of Maldives appealed to India, India sent her troops. This was welcomed by the whole world, and it actually improved relations with Maldives, so am not sure what you are going on about.

Look, fact of the matter is, you have a very distorted and falsified view/notion of history. You deny your own history, your own connections and India is your boogeyman and punching bag. So keep blaming India for everything and keep calling it expansionist. And if this is the kind of attitude one can find in Pakistan then I have to say that you guys are living in denial, ignoring your own problems and denying your own history. India or Indians wont be affected by this false propaganda.

You earlier asked me to, Please tell me has India ever ATTACKED Pakistan leading to one of the 4 wars our countries have fought?

I responded. At least now you agree that it was not Pakistan which attacked India all the time, and in some cases India has also attacked Pakistan first - whatever the reason, propped, cropped or accusatory.

 

[JonAsad]

]In spite of that[/B], you guys failed to capture Kashmir right since 1947 and lost half your country that's now Bangladesh because Hindus are weak! Aren't your soldiers aware of this simple fact? If they are, which most likely is so, then where is the question of raising their morale by telling them that they would be fighting Hindus who are 'inherently weak'?

The first line is interesting-
Yes inspite of that we failed- bad leadership- half hearted strategy- drunk command-
We a small nation are a thorn for you since 47-
If the demographics were other way around we would have eaten you alive by now--


You should have understood the context- what i meant to say in that post- now i have just trolled you--


When you train soldiers- you dont tell them that the enemy is 7-10 time bigger- you cannot match them- ofcourse numerical advantage is there- but to boost the morale such tactics are used to make a soldier believe- lift the confidence- make him want to fight- you dont go on glorifying the enemy just because it is larger- if you do you"ll get an already defeated low on morale soldier-

 

[Wickerman]

You earlier asked me to, Please tell me has India ever ATTACKED Pakistan leading to one of the 4 wars our countries have fought?

I responded. At least now you agree that it was not Pakistan which attacked India all the time, and in some cases India has also attacked Pakistan first - whatever the reason, propped, cropped or accusatory.

Where have I agreed to that ?. Please quote me. If you read it right, the only occassion when India did something that can be called offensive against Pakistan, was when we took Siachen. However not a single Pakistani intervened, not a single Pakistani soldier defended it, not a single Pakistani soldier died or was injured in that operation. It was also NOT Pakistani territory. Therefore as such it was not an attack on Pakistan. At all. So am not sure what you mean by "India attacked Pakistan". India has never done that. India has only defended her territory, her interests and her people.

We a small nation are a thorn for you since 47-

Well most Indians do not even consider Pakistan a threat. It is in the mind of every Indian, that given a war between Pakistan and India, India would undoubtedly win and Pakistan lose. So most Indians do not look at Pakistan the way Pakistanis look at India, if I can say that. Most are neutral, unless trolled.

If the demographics were other way around we would have eaten you alive by now

Let me play Ticker here:

"If aunty had balls, she would have been an uncle"

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes, India invaded Indian Occupied Kashmir first. The Indian invasion of IOK started much earlier than the Pathan intrusion and Pakistan Army’s involvement. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir with complete knowledge of Indian Hindu political leaders and their supporters in Indian government.

Many of us do not even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? Indians wouldn’t know or probably wouldn’t want to acknowledge it – these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.

As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus and Pakistan Army moved in later when Indian Army had already invaded IOK.

@Ticker, are you, Sir, seriously under the impression that you Re speaking to a bunch of illiterates without access to a map, or to the records of your own public personalities?

Apparently so, from the condescension with which you dole out your home-cooked history to us poor beggars.

Here is a map.

Could it be the case that the unfortunate kabilas lost their way, and raped Kashmiri women in Baramula thinking that they were raping Punjabi women from Alwar (which lies in Punjab according to your home-cooked geography), Kapurthala and those places? After all, people have been known to lose their way in unfamiliar territory before.

As for raping and looting those just raped and looted according to your account, obviously it might be argued that these women having succumbed to Sikh and Hindu mobs earlier, all they deserved was a little more punitive raping and looting, to remind them not to get raped and looted in future. Nothing personal, of course, only to drive home the point about resistance to marauding mobs in future. No, not the marauding mobs of Pathans, marauding mobs of Sikhs.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Yes you attacked Pakistan in 1965 war. Indian Occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory and is not part of India. The military action was taking place in IOK. India attacked mainland Pakistan. India is the aggressor.

@Ticker, please try to explain why military action in a disputed territory should be permissible. According to the UN Resolutions which ill-informed people like to cite when it suits therm, without having read them, not only was military action forbidden, but also the resolution had asked Pakistan to evacuate all military and other arms-bearing personnel from the state.

On what grounds can this be interpreted to legitimize military action? And on what grounds is it not to be counted as an attack on the Indian state, considering that the territory had given itself a constitution and was ruled by an elected government, not to mention that the targets of the commandos infiltrated were the units of tthe Indian Army stationed in the state?

 

[Joe Shearer]

India invaded and captured Junagarh and Manavadar in 1947, invaded and captured Indian Occupied Kashmir in 1947, invaded and captured Hyderabad in 1948, invaded and captured Goa in 1961 which was an area belonging to Portugal, invaded East Pakistan in 1971, captured certain locations in Chorbatla in Kashmir in 1972, invaded and captured Sikkim as late as 1975, invaded and captured some portions of Siachen in 1984, captured certain locations in Qamar Sector in Kashmir in 1988, created Sri Lankan terrorist group LTTE and later invaded Sri Lanka in 1988 till the President of Sri Lanka had to openly ask the Indians to leave, invaded Maldives in 1988 and has continually interfered in internal affairs of Nepal and Bhutan and has spread state sponsored terrorism in all her neighbouring states including Pakistan.

We now have lies, damn' lies and Ticker's recasting of history.

You are already aware of the circumstances behind the Nawab of Junagadh's misadventure with his a cession; this was discussed at length. However, it is entirely consistent with your propagandist approach to ignore what you cannot refute and repeat the lie as soon as possible, in a different place.

As far as the attack on Kashmir is concerned, even Tariq Ali has no hesitation in depicting in minute detail how the Pakistani invasion was plotted and executed, long before the Indian Army found its way there. We have also gone through a detailed analysis of how the state troops of the Mehtar of Gilgit supported the kabilas on their northern flank and captured Skardu, then Kargil and then besieged Leh. The dates are on record, and if you are not aware of them, it is not due to lack of effort on the part of those of us who would like any discussion to be illuminated by facts, not fancy.

 

[SamantK]

What you state is a standard Indian response.

Let me respond with the facts.

1948

Yes, India invaded Indian Occupied Kashmir first. The Indian invasion of IOK started much earlier than the Pathan intrusion and Pakistan Army’s involvement. It was all started by and planned in meetings between rulers of Alwar, Kapurthala and Patiala etc with Maharaja of Kashmir with complete knowledge of Indian Hindu political leaders and their supporters in Indian government.

Many of us do not even know that after the pogrom in Punjab where Muslims were killed in millions in order to ethnically cleanse the areas and change the demography, where did these marauding Hindu and Sikh hordes were sent to? Indians wouldn’t know or probably wouldn’t want to acknowledge it – these hordes were sent to Jammu to loot, rape, abduct and kill Muslims.

As planned, in the initial instance, they intended to ethnically cleanse areas of Jammu where Muslims were in minority. Between July and October 47, over 500,000 Muslims were thrown out of their homes, out of which 200,000 thousand were killed and about 300,000 were forced to emigrate to Pakistan. This was the first stage of this operation. The Pathans came to safeguard the Muslims from hordes of marauding Sikhs and fundamentalist Hindus and Pakistan Army moved in later when Indian Army had already invaded IOK.

Here again I ask you for clarification.. If we believe that there were muslims which were killed in Jammu (Upon your admission) why did the Pathans invaded the Kashmir Valley? You have not answered on this yet..

India will attack any part of Pakistan if Pakistan tries to attack any Indian territory including J&K.. It cannot be more clear than this..

 

[Contrarian]

I have already given links about Indian Hindu extremists and hordes' invasion of Jammu region and the massacres and ethnic cleansing.

The rest - I am sorry I disagree with you.

You can disagree all you want but that won't change history as recorded and as accepted world over and increasingly by Pakistanis.

The only time India has acted first is in siachen.

Yes even in 1971 it was Pakistan first that launched cross border military strike and thus starting full scale war I'll give you that India had forced Pakistan to start war but nonetheless it was Pakistan that started the first blow.

Pakistan also started the 65 war rather cleanly with no prodding from India ! Please go and brainwash other gullible young Pakistanis into thinking India started 65 war.

And ofcourse Pakistans love for irregular forces started right in 1947. There again Indian army was deployed after the raja signed IoA and the marauders were 20kms away from the srinagar airport.

It's hard to do revisionism in this age ticker. Everyone knows Pakistanis are taught lies about their wars.

 

[Joe Shearer]

The first line is interesting-
Yes inspite of that we failed- bad leadership- half hearted strategy- drunk command-
We a small nation are a thorn for you since 47-
If the demographics were other way around we would have eaten you alive by now--


You should have understood the context- what i meant to say in that post- now i have just trolled you--


When you train soldiers- you dont tell them that the enemy is 7-10 time bigger- you cannot match them- ofcourse numerical advantage is there- but to boost the morale such tactics are used to make a soldier believe- lift the confidence- make him want to fight- you dont go on glorifying the enemy just because it is larger- if you do you"ll get an already defeated low on morale soldier-

Of course you would have eaten us alive if the demographics had been reversed. That very telling statement represents the essence of the Pakistani deep state - always aggressive, always nursing I'll-feeling, always looking for an opportunity to harm its neighbours.

It was a conscious decision by the Indian leadership not to humiliate Pakistan further in 1971. It was a conscious decision to release the prisoners to Pakistan, rather than to Bangladesh, which was clamoring for a public war crimes trial. It was a conscious decision to keep the protocols relating to Kashmir secret, because of Bhutto's pleading not to have to explain their decisions to a defeated and humiliated country. And it was a conscious decision by Pakistan to become even more hostile, even more intractable than ever before.

Count yourself lucky that you do not face a vicious, terrorist-sponsoring neighbour determined to eat you alive.

 

[JonAsad]

Well most Indians do not even consider Pakistan a threat. It is in the mind of every Indian, that given a war between Pakistan and India, India would undoubtedly win and Pakistan lose. So most Indians do not look at Pakistan the way Pakistanis look at India, if I can say that. Most are neutral, unless trolled.

Hey maybe you are a victim of same over confidence syndrome most of the indian posters are accusing us of- 1 Pak vs 10 Inherently weak indians- No?-
Now your text book teaching that- media feeding that- Generals portraying that i suppose?-
The same over confidence gona get you killed in the battle field some day-

Let me play Ticker here:

"If aunty had balls, she would have been an uncle"

And yet you guys lay some where in the middle--