What's new

The Kargil Conflict Revisited

Kalam is a bigger criminal, should be hung to death, just like that evil Bhagat Singh, the terrorist

kalam is a criminal because instead of beard he grow his hair and bhagath singh is terrorist because he was born in today's Pakistan and fought a armed revolution for your freedom.
 
Pakistan occupied nearly 500 km Sq and india occupied 1800+ but after ceasefire both forces returned to original position.
Thats why indian generals shout why give concessions to enemy?

Yr objective was to make us stop doing another claimed op in Kashmir.
But we all saw that in 90s,80s Kashmir's movement became armed n u guys still blame us for that.

So if u r to believe in yr claims then u certainly couldnt stop us by doing that in future.

So u couldnt achieve the very objective for which u had waged the war.
And more so nor today u nor we r having those areas that we had gained n we were forced back to the pre feb 26, 1965 positions.
So yr claims of a victory on the basis of pure territory gains is wrong.

So in the end if there was any a winner in the overall scenario, then it was surely Pakistan because she successfully defended herself n her main cities for which enemy advance was made in Punjab as well as the Kashmir issue remained a hot topic for enemy in the decades to come.

Same way how we had lost in kargil war because our main goal was to cut off the indian land route for Siachin so that yr supply lines was blocked for siachin n yr forces there will be sitting ducks n we will gain that land back as it was part of G-B according to tashkant treaty.
But we had failed to gain our objectives in the war just like u in 1965, hence we lost the overall war.
If u compare the land gained,casualties etc etc we had a clear advantage there
just like u guys in 65 who gained more land then us but to give it back in the end n so were the position of us in 99

We still have J&K

If you won then how is this possible ??? your history tells you lie

LOL u indian.read my post#317. if u still dont believe then........

Go Cry to yr Mamma.
 
Yr objective was to make us stop doing another claimed op in Kashmir.
But we all saw that in 90s,80s Kashmir's movement became armed n u guys still blame us for that.

So if u r to believe in yr claims then u certainly couldnt stop us by doing that in future.

So u couldnt achieve the very objective for which u had waged the war.
And more so nor today u nor we r having those areas that we had gained n we were forced back to the pre feb 26, 1965 positions.
So yr claims of a victory on the basis of pure territory gains is wrong.

So in the end if there was any a winner in the overall scenario, then it was surely Pakistan because she successfully defended herself n her main cities for which enemy advance was made in Punjab as well as the Kashmir issue remained a hot topic for enemy in the decades to come.

Same way how we had lost in kargil war because our main goal was to cut off the indian land route for Siachin so that yr supply lines was blocked for siachin n yr forces there will be sitting ducks n we will gain that land back as it was part of G-B according to tashkant treaty.
But we had failed to gain our objectives in the war just like u in 1965, hence we lost the overall war.
If u compare the land gained,casualties etc etc we had a clear advantage there
just like u guys in 65 who gained more land then us but to give it back in the end n so were the position of us in 99



LOL u indian.read my post#317. if u still dont believe then........

Go Cry to yr Mamma.

Bechara ... :lol::lol:

You can cry how much you want ... :rofl:

J&K belongs to India and no one can take it back :wave:
 
Yr objective was to make us stop doing another claimed op in Kashmir.
But we all saw that in 90s,80s Kashmir's movement became armed n u guys still blame us for that.

So if u r to believe in yr claims then u certainly couldnt stop us by doing that in future.

So u couldnt achieve the very objective for which u had waged the war.
And more so nor today u nor we r having those areas that we had gained n we were forced back to the pre feb 26, 1965 positions.
So yr claims of a victory on the basis of pure territory gains is wrong.

So in the end if there was any a winner in the overall scenario, then it was surely Pakistan because she successfully defended herself n her main cities for which enemy advance was made in Punjab as well as the Kashmir issue remained a hot topic for enemy in the decades to come.

Same way how we had lost in kargil war because our main goal was to cut off the indian land route for Siachin so that yr supply lines was blocked for siachin n yr forces there will be sitting ducks n we will gain that land back as it was part of G-B according to tashkant treaty.
But we had failed to gain our objectives in the war just like u in 1965, hence we lost the overall war.
If u compare the land gained,casualties etc etc we had a clear advantage there
just like u guys in 65 who gained more land then us but to give it back in the end n so were the position of us in 99



LOL u indian.read my post#317. if u still dont believe then........

Go Cry to yr Mamma.

M not surprised by DENIAL you live in :).

When we waged war? we never started any war.

Forces opened punjab border to repel your forces from kashmir not to get anything from pakistan otherwise we would have BD as indian territory and we cud exchange a lot through 93000 POW's.


Cut line for siachin?

Do u know india transport troops and other facilities through AIR on siachin?

You were left with 2 days of oil supply during kargil due to blockade by indian navy :lol:.


You have always been a looser.You started kargil resulting in 1100+ deaths almost 2 times of indian martyred soldiers.
 
Sadly, that is not the general Pakistani stand. Not in terms of the mass of participants in this forum, certainly, and emphatically not in terms of state policy, except for weak moments from halfway through the troubled relationship between our two countries. If it had been such a principled stand, there would have been no need for the original act of coercion that brought arms and fighting to the dispute over interpretation of the India Independence Act. If it had been such a principled stand, there would have been no sanctimonious hypocrisy over commandoes in plain clothes being infiltrated to incite the population to rise in revolt (it is worth pointing out that they did not). Nor would large sums of money have flowed into the valley, into the specific ambit of those who denigrate independence for Kashmir, and will hear only of a full union with Pakistan.

I am willing to accept what you have stated as your personal point of view, and it does you credit. Expanding it to the membership at large is, however, ingenuous.



You are to be congratulated on your successful advocacy, and your Indian friends (and foes) on their patience and forbearance. While many, though not most, Indians will be devastated that you find it offensive that Indians declare Kashmir to be a part of India, that is the cold, brutal legal reality, which cannot be swept away on a tide of emotion and salt water. Your point about Kashmiris being consulted is self-serving. Kashmiris were never to be consulted, any more than the population of any other Indian state was to be consulted. On the midnight of the 14th of August, the Maharaja of Kashmir became a sovereign ruler, with complete authority to decide his fate and the fate of his subjects, as much as the Maharaja, say, of Patiala.

As it happened, the only worthwhile part of Kashmiri political opinion, the National Conference led by Sheikh Abdullah, was already committed to India, and to alignment with the Indian National Congress, and went so far as to resist the invading tribals at the cost of their lives. Whatever the vicissitudes of the relationship between the Sheikh and his Indian interlocutors later, at that point of time, he was uncompromisingly on the side of merger with India, and ironically, it was his sovereign who hesitated, long enough to tempt Pakistan to seek to arrogate by force of arms what she could not achieve by suasion.

The only section of Kashmir that sought union with Pakistan was the Punjabi-settled fringe constituting the Mirpur belt, and the tribal enclaves of Swat and Chitral. It was in fact the state forces of the Mehtar of Chitral that captured Skardu and then Kargil, and laid siege to Leh. We shall leave aside the logistical aid given to these columns, and those to the south, by the Pakistan Army; somehow, that institution has throughout its history convinced itself that if it pretends not to notice by-standers, those by-standers will not notice it. Mildly innovative military theory, but not particularly successful.



Might I point out that this is a half-truth? There was certainly no denial of assimilation (partially, with ample safeguards) into India; there was, however, denial of assimilation with Pakistan, with only an Islamist minority holding out for it.



Really?

You claim, a little later, that you have been visiting this site since 2003. Have you read my posts? Have you read those of countless other Indians, the semi-permanent population from India, if you care to notice them, and the contents? Would you consider that your rights of ownership, based on lurking since 2003, and active participation since a month ago, outweigh those from India who have worked hard for almost every post, and who have sought to understand and to convey their understanding of any subject in the fairest possible terms?

On the specific issue of trolling, while there is no doubt that some Indians (not most) come here to make trouble, usually through trolling, the surprising thing is that those who should preserve the sanctity of discussion on this forum, the Pakistani members, are among the worst offenders. Read the Indian history thread, which I notice you have visited, and on which you have commented very wisely, and you will see what I mean. There was no need for a harmful or malicious interjection; it was made, it lies in public view, and it daubs the forum with stinking dirt.

Your age on this forum should not count, if it is a reasoned point of view that you present. If, on the other hand, you wish to generalize, you will readily agree that an observer has the right to ask for the basis on which you generalise. This, in response to your next.



Sometimes, a line does the job. What counts is relevance, not the number of lines. Just a suggestion that you might like to mull over.



And my best wishes to you.

1. The incursion by the tribals was not merely a squatting operation. If you dig into the history of the whole issue, you would find a program of ethnic cleansing by Dogra Raj that motivated people who formed Lashkars.

2. National Congress was not the name of just Sheikh Abdullah. There were others who differed with him and went to Pakistan. This faction was led by Mr. Abbas. It would be a stretch to claim that Sheikh Abdullah alone represented Kashmiris. He was given undue importance just for the sake of him being pliable. There were other worthwhile leaders. Sheikh Abdullah having been used was then put in jail by Nehru. Just reward, I should say.

3. The Maharaja treated his people like cattle much to the liking of Indian government. Claiming that Kashmiris had no say in who they joined might have worked for USSR, but not purpotedly 'democratic' India. Let us suppose that the Raja of Kashmir had the right to treat his subjects as cattle and freely sign them away to India, what would you make of Junagadh and Manadavar, whose rulers acceded to Pakistan. If India had a strong case because of an instrument of accession, then why not accord sanctity to the wishes of the rulers of Junagadh and Manadavar? Nizam of Hyderabad suffered an invasion of his territory. He did not see have been given the opportunity to join India or Pakistan. Goa was snatched from Portugal. I suppose they had no rights as recognized in the person of Raja of Kashmir. Why? Does it matter that Raja had a full time insurrection on his hands because of the excesses of his troops? His hand over of territory was thus forced.

I would like to challenge your assertion of that only a small Islamist minority wished to join Pakistan. How would you know? How can you say that? What evidence do you have? Why would we still have net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan?

I spoke to a Kashmiri Human Rights activist who left Kashmir in 1994. He had campaigned against Indian excesses at Geneva and thus after the conference was over, could not go back. He was an elderly lawyer by the name of Ghulam Nabi. I had detailed discussions with him over a couple of days. He was angry at Sheikh Abdullah because of his pro-India role. He was also upset about Kashmiris not having done enough to support Pakistan in their bid for being free from India.

4. India itself took the case to UN. How can anyone claim that Kashmir is NOT disputed. It is arrogant "might is right" thinking and nothing else.

5. I would like to know how you can claim that Swat and Chitral fell under the influence of the Raja of Kashmir?

6. You are not a troll, and I fail to understand why you would defend trolls just because they are Indians? My association with this site has nothing to do with Indians trolling here. Why bring it up even?

7. I used to visit this forum for content relating to military news & analysis with particular emphasis on Military aircraft. I have not come across any of your posts earlier. It does not quite matter.
 
This discussion is leading us nowhere, and the excessive usage of the colourful and funny smileys also reveal the mental level of the participants in this serious discussion.

A judicial commission should be set up in Pakistan to investigate the Kargil episode. The people of Pak have the right to know what really happened at LoC in the summer of 1999.

True indeed. Usually, the people of Pakistan are the ones to know the last and the the least about the momentous upheavals in their history.
But assuming that such a Judicial Comission does get set up and it does arrive at some findings; then what? The Hamoodur Rehman Commission on the 1971 Debacle reached some conclusions. Do the people know them or have they even heard of any action being taken on that basis?

Which is why I said at the outset: Usually the people of Pakistan are the ones who get to know the last and the least about all the messes that have bedevilled their country.
 
1. The incursion by the tribals was not merely a squatting operation. If you dig into the history of the whole issue, you would find a program of ethnic cleansing by Dogra Raj that motivated people who formed Lashkars.

Thank you for the education. So the response to ethnic cleansing by the Dogra Raj was the loot, rape and murder of Muslims by the Lashkars? Would you not say that it was a peculiar reaction?

2. National Congress was not the name of just Sheikh Abdullah. There were others who differed with him and went to Pakistan. This faction was led by Mr. Abbas. It would be a stretch to claim that Sheikh Abdullah alone represented Kashmiris. He was given undue importance just for the sake of him being pliable. There were other worthwhile leaders. Sheikh Abdullah having been used was then put in jail by Nehru. Just reward, I should say.

Again, not entirely unknown, not entirely unrecorded. A small minority, with NO representation from the Vale in general, consisting of people from Poonch exclusively, at one stage objected to the secular policy of the National Conference, and reverted to the older name of the Muslim Conference, and went to join Pakistan.

You may or may not be aware that when Mr. Jinnah visited the Valley himself, before 1947, the leaders of the pro-Muslim League elements, mainly the then Mirwaiz and a handful of others, bitterly disappointed him. He went on record to say that nothing was to be hoped from them.

There was no support for Pakistan in the Vale, only in the Muzaffarabad area, a handful from Poonch, the Mirwaiz and his followers, and the princely states of Swat and Chitral. I have already mentioned this.

3. The Maharaja treated his people like cattle much to the liking of Indian government. Claiming that Kashmiris had no say in who they joined might have worked for USSR, but not purpotedly 'democratic' India.

Sadly, you are letting your emotions overcome you. Instead, you should find out the facts. They are on record.

The Maharaja bitterly opposed the democratization sought by the National Conference. He imprisoned Sheikh Abdullah and many of the leaders of the National Conference. It was the Indian National Congress-led Government of India that insisted, as a condition of accepting the Maharaja's accession, that Abdullah should be released and should be allowed to form a government. Contrary to what you say, the Government of India was aligned with Abdullah and the National Conference and against the Maharaja and his line of thought.

It is surprising that you are building such an edifice of supposed purpose and counter-purpose without knowledge of the base facts.

Let us suppose that the Raja of Kashmir had the right to treat his subjects as cattle and freely sign them away to India, what would you make of Junagadh and Manadavar, whose rulers acceded to Pakistan. If India had a strong case because of an instrument of accession, then why not accord sanctity to the wishes of the rulers of Junagadh and Manadavar?

Generations of Pakistanis have been brainwashed into believing these urban legends. You really should find out more.

The Nawab of Junagadh declared for Pakistan. Two subsidiary principalities objected, and declared for India. The Nawab sent in the State forces to coerce them into submission. They then appealed to India, and Indian troops moved into these subsidiary states only, not into Junagadh proper.

By then, the Nawab had fled with his kennels of dogs. Only the Diwan, Shah Nawaz Bhutto, was left, alone and isolated. He contacted the nearest officer of the Government of India, situated outside Junagadh, and asked him to take over the administration. Subsequently, he actuated his own request by proceeding to Karachi. The officer concerned moved into a vacuum in Junagadh, with no treasury, no prince and no diwan, and informed the Government of India, who moved in troops, maintained law and order, and ran a plebiscite, overseen by the British.

I wish you would get your facts together before putting together opinions as sweeping as you have expressed.

Nizam of Hyderabad suffered an invasion of his territory. He did not see have been given the opportunity to join India or Pakistan.

And this happened when? In 1947? Sometime between August and December? The Nizam had ample opportunity, chose not to take it, and instead allowed groups of armed thugs called Razakars to go on the rampage. There were widespread communal massacres, aided and abetted by state troops.

Do get your facts straight.

Goa was snatched from Portugal. I suppose they had no rights as recognized in the person of Raja of Kashmir. Why?

Because Goa was not part of the British Crown Colony of India, nor was it one of the subsidiary states over which the British Crown wielded suzerain (not sovereign) power. That's why.

The facts, please.

Does it matter that Raja had a full time insurrection on his hands because of the excesses of his troops? His hand over of territory was thus forced.

An external invasion by Masud and Waziri tribals from the NWFP, and an armed attack by the State troops of Chitral is what you are pleased to call a full-time insurrection? Can you point to a single Kashmiri involved in any resistance to the Kashmir state troops, in your supposed 'full-time' insurrection?

I would like to challenge your assertion of that only a small Islamist minority wished to join Pakistan. How would you know? How can you say that? What evidence do you have? Why would we still have net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan?

You have the facts above. You have Mr. Jinnah's own assessment of the prospects of the Muslim League in J&K.

As for the net immigration of Kashmiris to Pakistan, that is an unsubstantiated claim by you. The only people to travel to Pakistan were those who were taken across and trained in irregular warfare for several years from 1984 onwards.

I spoke to a Kashmiri Human Rights activist who left Kashmir in 1994. He had campaigned against Indian excesses at Geneva and thus after the conference was over, could not go back. He was an elderly lawyer by the name of Ghulam Nabi. I had detailed discussions with him over a couple of days. He was angry at Sheikh Abdullah because of his pro-India role. He was also upset about Kashmiris not having done enough to support Pakistan in their bid for being free from India.

And are you not substantiating everything I have said through this conversation? The pro-India role of Sheikh Abdullah? The fact that Kashmiris had nothing to do with Pakistan? What else do you want to hear? Or is it that what stares you in the face is not what you want to hear?

And how should Kashmir have supported Pakistan in a so-called bid for being free from India? Pakistan did not win this freedom through popular support; she won it through negotiation. None of the constituent elements of Pakistan, ironically, not the Punjab, not Sindh, not Baluchistan, emphatically not the NWFP political elements, were pro-Pakistan. It was the Muslims of the UP and Bombay who voted for the Muslim League. It was only after the Unionists in the Punjab realized that the British were intent on gifting the Punjab in partitioned form to the Muslim League to form Pakistan that they came across to support the League.

Do get your facts straight.

4. India itself took the case to UN. How can anyone claim that Kashmir is NOT disputed. It is arrogant "might is right" thinking and nothing else.

Do look up the reference, and the consequent Resolutions of the UN. You seem to have not even an elementary idea of what happened.

The UN ruled that Pakistan would have to vacate its aggressions, and then the UN would hold a plebiscite. Indian troops were specifically allowed to stay on in Kashmir. Pakistan refused to meet these demands of the UN. That caused the matter to become a dispute. If Pakistan had obeyed the UN, there would have been no dispute today.

The Resolutions are on public record. The proceedings of the UN team are on public record. Is that a sufficient hint?

5. I would like to know how you can claim that Swat and Chitral fell under the influence of the Raja of Kashmir?

They were legally under the Maharaja of Kashmir. Again, look it up. Not under the influence. Under the state.

6. You are not a troll, and I fail to understand why you would defend trolls just because they are Indians? My association with this site has nothing to do with Indians trolling here. Why bring it up even?

I am NOT defending trolls, Indians or Pakistani. I am contesting your sweeping claim that all Pakistanis carry a halo around, and that all Indians have a set of horns and a tail. As for your association with this site, I am sure you have nothing to do with Indians or Pakistanis trolling here. What did I bring up that forms an association with you and trolls? Do elaborate, so that I can put whatever gives you that impression in better form.

7. I used to visit this forum for content relating to military news & analysis with particular emphasis on Military aircraft. I have not come across any of your posts earlier. It does not quite matter.

My point was that I was, and am, a contributor, when you were a ghostly presence. Those who participate actively surely have more right to be heard than those who by accident of citizenship have a claim on being natives to this forum, without doing anything to justify their claim other than that ephemery.

It does matter. Just as absentee landlords have less claim to the land than the tiller of the soil.
 
Lets not waste time on who won and who lost. India was caught unaware with their pants down. It was a superb strategic move on the part of Pakistan. Both armies fought well. Both lost brave men. No point in arguing about the cause or why it occur as everyone knows that unless Kashmir dispute is resolved, we may have more attacks like this and also like MUMBAI ATTACKS.
Both countries have to change their positions on Kashmir and find a common solution which should be acceptable by the Kashmiris first.
 
All i can say is that the reply for pakistani aggression anywhere ll be qurbani of kashmiri muslims in kashmir.
 
This discussion has gone endlessly. The whole fact can be put in 4 lines...

Both sides are guilty on fingering the other side. While the Baniyas in the East (no offence intended to real Baniyas but thats what wannabe arabs call all of us) have achieved spectacular success in fingering wannabe Arabs (no offence intended) twice first in 1971 by splitting wannabe Arabs in half and then again in 1984 by capturing the whole of Siachin from wannabe Arabs mouth. The wannabe Arabs have failed equally spectacularly both time they have tried to finger the Baniyas. In 1965 they fought to stalemate and in 1999 they lost their face across the world over.

I guess considering that wannabe Arabs can't do any thing right/properly both sides should accept the status co and try to peacefully co exist and yeah close this discussion as well :)
 
The Paramilitary men belonged to NLI had a regular uniform and represented Pakistan.Hence their actions as soldiers will hold Pakistan accountable.Just the same way they had the rights to be treated as POW upon capture.Indian Army had returned the bodies of dead Pakistani soldiers,once their identity was discovered from their ID cards, for the same reason,they followed the convention.

The force was not a part of the regular army so they were Non Regulars. I, too, have gone through a couple of months of military training in military uniform perhaps that makes me regular army to you but it is not the case in actual.

And all combatants and non combatants have the right to be treated as POW's under Geneva convention. Furthermore, returning bodies of martyred soldiers is a military norm, nothing special, both sides do that.



See,the fact is very simple.
Pakistani Army,at that point of time disowned the NLI jawans in Kargil saying that they were mujahideen.That was a mistake.
Now that the have been branded mujahideen,Pak Army or Airforce cannot directly help them.Without that,how long do you think these guys could withstand the artillery barrages and aerial bombardment ?
At best,they could have fought till the last bullet,last drop of blood.That would have prolonged the war for a month or two more.But,in the end,they would all have been killed.
Nawaz Sharif action or inaction didnt loose Kargil for you.But Gen. Musharraf's decision to portray the NLI soldiers as mujahideen definitely sealed the fate for them and eased India's way to win the war.

The fact that you failed to identify is that Mujahideen were infact present there as well, so it was only half the truth the Pak Army declared once the infiltration was detected. And that too because Pakistan had no intention to hold on to the territory, it was just meant to force India to demilitarize Siachin as well. And it's not like the Military did not consider all the possible responses, they must have calculated the response to be severe as we held the jugular to Kashmir supplies for 700,000 soldiers. The military could have assisted formally and could have engaged the Indians in Kargil had the civilian leadership not decided that they needed American blessings more then Siachin's demilitarization of a permanent solution to Kashmir.

NLI was a regular para military force (just like rangers and FC) but rolls up into Pakistani Army and not Ministry of interior like the rangers or FC.. And here goes another lie ;)

I can only pity your understanding as those who thought the earch was flat.
 
The force was not a part of the regular army so they were Non Regulars. I, too, have gone through a couple of months of military training in military uniform perhaps that makes me regular army to you but it is not the case in actual.


I can only pity your understanding as those who thought the earch was flat.

In retrospect, Gen Aziz feels that “even if only NLI men were up there, it would be wrong to suggest that the operation was carried out by paramilitary forces because NLI falls under the military chain of command unlike the Rangers that are headed by a military officer but technically they fall under the control of the ministry of interior”.
Kargil adventure was four-man show: general | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

I am sure a decorated General of Pakistan Army knows more about PA's organization than an anonymous Internet fanboy :)
 
In retrospect, Gen Aziz feels that “even if only NLI men were up there, it would be wrong to suggest that the operation was carried out by paramilitary forces because NLI falls under the military chain of command unlike the Rangers that are headed by a military officer but technically they fall under the control of the ministry of interior”.
Kargil adventure was four-man show: general | Newspaper | DAWN.COM

I am sure a decorated General of Pakistan Army knows more about PA's organization than an anonymous Internet fanboy :)

The part in red sums it all up nicely!! A fact is a fact, and feelings cannot replace facts!
 
You are not making any sense because as far as I know NS was more inclined towards not testing the nuclear devices rather then testing them and it was only because of intense military & civilian pressure on him that he succumbed and agreed to the tests.

Perhaps the aim was to remain at Kargil and not get Siachin back, that initial plan could have evolved with the circumstances and Pakistan may have agreed to an Indian offer of demilitarization of Siachin and Kargil and solution of Kashmir issue.

The rest of your post does not make any sense what so ever. It does not make sense on what AQ khan said and whoever was pitting his/her legs against the Pakistani atomic struggle, it does not make sense on who is sitting outside and the phone call as they were all different people!!!

I don't know what makes you contribute if you haven't ability to understand depth of matters. Go ahead with your illusions.
 
In retrospect, Gen Aziz feels that “even if only NLI men were up there, it would be wrong to suggest that the operation was carried out by paramilitary forces because NLI falls under the military chain of command unlike the Rangers that are headed by a military officer but technically they fall under the control of the ministry of interior”.

The part in red sums it all up nicely!! A fact is a fact, and feelings cannot replace facts!

Mate, you are just grasping at straws now.. The FACT that NLI falls under military chain of command is not a feeling. Based on that FACT its your decorated general's opinion/feeling that Musharraf is simply lying to protect his a$$..

In either case, it was a unit under the military chain of command and not irregular mujahids/militia

Its a decorated General's opinion against the lie of a criminal and a murderer...
 
Back
Top Bottom