Search results

Everything that I said is verifyable from independent sources. Heck, the source you yourself gave verifies it. Here is what it says about Skardu: You are the reason they lost their independence. If you had not attacked them, they would not have signed the instrument of accession to India. Are...

Man, are you this thick? When India and Pak became independent, Kashmir was not part of either nation. It was an independent kingdom. Whatever you took, you took from them, before we stepped in. Kashmir was not part of India when you took Skardu, they signed the accession precisely because of...

Umm...no - read my next post.

That in itself is humiliating for Pakistan, that too when the military was running the country. But what was even better for us, the areas we captured were so strategically significant - we occupied commanding heights on the glaciers, forever having the ability to maintain vigil over an even...

Did you even bother to read the link you gave? Please check whom PA was fighting in that siege. It was Pakistan army v/s the police force of Kashmir. Pak even took Kargil, before the Indian army sent you packing. It's all in your own link.

You started the war with the grand aim of conquering Kashmir. Not only did you not take an inch of Kashmir, but had Indian forces on the outskirts of your largest city. I guess that's victory by your madrassah logic. If India tried to capture Tibet, and Chinese forces reached Gurgaon on the...

Yes, those Pakistani Punjabis have been selflessly sacrificing their lives to fertilize the soil of Indian Kashmir for quite a while now. 90% of LeT are Pak Punjabis, sent to die. But they still have this delusion that these unemployed cannon fodder youths would some day do what even their armed...

Is he a pilot at all, in the IAF? I mean, is he a flying officer? If so, it is unlikely that he was in the Garuds. But otherwise, it is possible.

Oh, FFS Oh FFS. In a war territory is always captured by both sides, and then bargained for. It is the totality at the end of the war itself that matters. India and Pak have taken chunks of territory in individual battles. By that logic, India has even taken Lahore: Status quo pro...

Nope. You haven't. You tried to take it in '65, ended up desperately defending Lahore instead. Lost more than half the country in '71. Lost Siachen glacier and Saltoro in '84. Tried to regain them in '87, and failed. Tried to take Kashmir in '99, and failed. Gave up trying since then, and...

Umm..OK.

He could be flying C-130s from Manesar. The IAF transports the NSG in helicopters and aircrafts. So that must be what he was doing with the NSG. I'm guessing it was the same with RR. They have one para qualified unit, which obviously needs a transport aircraft.

Again - you attacked the small, independent kingdom of Kashmir. You did not take an inch from India. So the existence of "Azad Kashmir" proves nothing about India's might. Take even one inch from us, and then talk. Until then, Kashmir is India's, and there is nothing your country can do about...

So by "multinational", you mean it will be used by many nations, although it was developed entirely in the US. Correct. Similarly JF-17 was entirely made in China, and Pak is the sole user. That was my point. It is ridiculous to point at India's troubles in designing and developing the Tejas...

OK. And is the F-35 a British plane, or American plane? Yes, that's what I thought. On the other hand, Tejas is Indian. It was developed in India, it is being tested in India. Not in Chengdu.

Again the same idiocy. Did you take Azad Kashmir from India? No, you invaded the independent country of Kashmir and took it from them. The ruler then invited the Indian army to stop the marauding Pashtun tribal lashkars, and acceded to India. Since the Indian army came there and drove you...

I was talking about the US as well. Newspapers can and have been sued for libel, defamation etc - the crucial question being whether they lied with malicious intent or not. Usually malicious intent cannot be proved, so they get away with lying. But in this case that's provable. Another factor in...

Pity they don't condemn every use of force in their "brotherly" countries. You know, like barrel bombs and chemical weapons and crucifictions. That's all halal, no condemnation or crocodile tears necessary. But a few batons in India? Haraaaam!!!

One major difference though is that our forces are competent enough to keep these terrorists irrelevant - in fact so irrelevant that certain people can even call them "civilians". On the other hand, in Pak they blow up naval bases, air force bases, army headquarters, police stations, visiting...

Making up stories, are we? Sorry boy, your ignorance has been exposed. This had nothing to do with any fake encounter.