1965 war by international & Indian observers.

[ayesha.a]

Indian war doctrine is a continuation of its 1000 years of defeat

Unlike Pakistan, I suppose. What was Pakistan (and your ancestors) doing those 1000 years? Being victorious?

As I said before, every inch of your country was defeated and plundered those thousand years. Most parts of today's India were not.

 

[surya kiran]

Source links added

oooo that was bad! you naughty boy!

 

[Bang Galore]

That's exactly what i want to point out!

When it comes to 1965 war, Pakistan becomes the attacker and you take the commencement of hostilities from Aug 1965 onwards (Op Gibraltar) and negate that the international border was crossed on 6 September by India.

but..

When it comes to 1971 War, Pakistan again becomes the aggressor when it attacked you on 3 December 1971 and you foolishly ignore the skirmishes / cross-border attacks by your forces well before that, and the conspiracy / activities by India as early as start of the year 1971.

Sir, there is no denying the fact that Pakistan indeed did Gibraltar and it did attack on 3 Dec 71, but it's the hypocrisy displayed by you guys when you pick-n-chose dates to your convenience that needs to be highlighted.

No hypocrisy at all, while the actual act of an open war was started by Pakistan in 1971, there is no doubt whatsoever that circumstances for it were contributed by Indian actions in East Pakistan which were a response to the events occurring there. The point for me is very clear, if India had not planned & anticipated Pakistan's response across India's western border, that would have been extremely foolish on India's part. The whining is what I question, once you set in motion, events that may lead to war, you must be prepared for any outcome. Pakistan has plenty of blame to take in the events leading to the 1971 war, the act of initiating a full blown conflict was but a last futile attempt. No one will grudge you your argument that India had become involved well before 3rd December 1971, nor will many Indians argue that war was anything but inevitable when it did finally come along.

Pakistan did attack India in 1971, presumably because they thought so

I thought that bit at the start of my earlier post made it clear that Pakistan did presumably consider Indian actions in East Pakistan as provocations/act of war.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

You would be more believable if you had actually held your tongue, instead of spouting this gem:




After that pathetic venting due to the inability to answer meaningfully, you cannot pretend that you were merely "holding your tongue". It was anything but.

Sorry boy, you have amply demonstrated your lack of wits or brains. Please do continue doing it.

(I won't be responding anymore unless you can muster enough brain cells and post something meaningful. But rest assured, I will read and enjoy such posts, as they prove the poster's dim-wittedness and retarded cognitive abilities.)

@Xeric has posted an argument which you choose to ignore...

He is a better man than I, because he is actually trying to indulge with you slummis. Personally, I would not have even bothered. Anyways, why don't you address his points of bharti hypocrisy and propganda pushing? You attacked us, but then spun it around and crafted a false narrative. Let's look into that, pseudo-intellectual bharti.

 

[Areesh]

You shouldn't talk about logic when you don't have any.

It's not like India started a war with the objective of capturing Lahore and Sialkot. It was Pakistan that started the war. The objective of a war only exists for the starter of the war.

It's not like India, since 1948, has a stated national objective of capturing or "liberating" Lahore and Sialkot. It is Pakistan who has had that obsession from birth, about Kashmir.

When you jump in a war and bring whole of brigades then it doesn't matter who was the aggressor. The Indians fighting at Lahore, Sialkot, Kasur, Khem karan, Fazilka, Sindh sectors weren't fighting for Kashmir. They were fighting to capture Pakistani cities that were located vry close to international border. It is stupid to even think that an Indian soldier who died at Lahore front, died to defend Kashmir and not to capture Lahore. This is a moronic idea itself. India applied whatever full force it can use to capture Sialkot and Lahore. to teach Pakistan a lesson. And when it failed then they like you started coming up with lame excuses that it was never our objective. Typical case of grapes are sour.

We have all the logic in the world and we would use it again and again to tease you Indians who are celebrating a "victory" that never happened.

 

[Bang Galore]

wao ............................ So Siachin was also Pakistan mistake ............. I see .............Evil Pakistanis always messing Great and Dignified Indians...................so sad

Never said Siachen was Pakistan's mistake, merely that it was Pakistan's choice of whether to widen the conflict or escalate it.

 

[hussain0216]

Unlike Pakistan, I suppose. What was Pakistan (and your ancestors) doing those 1000 years? Being victorious?

As I said before, every inch of your country was defeated and plundered those thousand years. Most parts of today's India were not.

Where was Delhi when Tamerlane made mountains of dead hindu skulls

Where is Somnath

Where were the great hindu Yadavs and Rajputs and Marathas

When Babur, Akbar were Marching
Where were they when Ghauri and Ghaznavi plundered temple after temple

Where were the hindu supermen when Tamerlane ordered the culling of hindus


Where were they when the British turned up how were the great Marathas and Singhs abd Rajputs subdued so easily through out history

Why couldn't they fight and protect their land, temples and country



Its simple, they were cowards

The hindus have a great myth building ability so no bodies get lauded to create a hindu fighting myth to try to protect their ego

Why would an alleged muslim try to protect hindu ego????

 

[nForce]

Where was Delhi when Tamerlane made mountains of dead hindu skulls

Where is Somnath

Where were the great hindu Yadavs and Rajputs and Marathas

When Babur, Akbar were Marching
Where were they when Ghauri and Ghaznavi plundered temple after temple

Where were the hindu supermen when Tamerlane ordered the culling of hindus


Where were they when the British turned up how were the great Marathas and Singhs abd Rajputs subdued so easily through out history

Why couldn't they fight and protect their land, temples and country



Its simple, they were cowards

The hindus have a great myth building ability so no bodies get lauded to create a hindu fighting myth to try to protect their ego

Why would an alleged muslim try to protect hindu ego????

All the routes of invasion are through present-day Pakistan. Are you so poor at geography ?
Also, are you aware of the saying about Ahmad Shah Abdali in Punjabi ?

 

[Bang Galore]

All the routes of invasion are through present-day Pakistan. Are you so poor at geography ?
Also, are you aware of the saying about Ahmad Shah Abdali in Punjabi ?

They really can't see. The great battles against these invaders, even if fought for a losing cause, was almost fought in the Haryana plains. They always seemed to have walked in without much opposition till then.

 

[hussain0216]

All the routes of invasion are through present-day Pakistan. Are you so poor at geography ?
Also, are you aware of the saying about Ahmad Shah Abdali in Punjabi ?

So tamerlane was never in Delhi

Your hindu rashtra maha bharat was never conquered

The Rajputs and Yadavs and Marathas and the other hindu supermen successfully stopped india from being conquered and culture trampled upon and ridden roughshod over


Is this RSS history month?

 

[Windjammer]

 

[nForce]

They really can't see. The great battles against these invaders, even if fought for a losing cause, was almost fought in the Haryana plains. They always seemed to have walked in without much opposition till then.

God knows what do they teach in their text books. I would very much like to see a few sample of their history books.

So tamerlane was never in Delhi

Your hindu rashtra maha bharat was never conquered

The Rajputs and Yadavs and Marathas and the other hindu supermen successfully stopped india from being conquered and culture trampled upon and ridden roughshod over


Is this RSS history month?

Tell me, how did Timur reach Delhi ? Pole vaulting over the Himalayas ? He captured Multan, crossed the Indus river, ransacking all the way. It seems you are very proud of your forefathers being in the receiving end.

 

[Bang Galore]

When you jump in a war and bring whole of brigades then it doesn't matter who was the aggressor.

Except that if the initiator does not get his chosen outcome, he lost in his objectives.

The Indians fighting at Lahore, Sialkot, Kasur, Khem karan, Fazilka, Sindh sectors weren't fighting for Kashmir. They were fighting to capture Pakistani cities that were located vry close to international border. It is stupid to even think that an Indian soldier who died at Lahore front, died to defend Kashmir and not to capture Lahore. This is a moronic idea itself. India applied whatever full force it can use to capture Sialkot and Lahore. to teach Pakistan a lesson. And when it failed then they like you started coming up with lame excuses that it was never our objective. Typical case of grapes are sour.

No one was going to take any of your cities, that would have been militarily suicidal. Especially when India had no reserves left except the Presidential bodyguards. Hugely populated cities would have been a military nightmare to hold. You are confusing tactical aims of India against goals & strategy employed by Pakistan which failed. The push towards Lahore was a tactical aim to benefit the strategy of relieving Pakistani pressure on Kashmir. India had no goal of taking Lahore, we didn't claim it & we didn't want it. India had no interest in Lahore unlike your interest in Kashmir. You started your military action to get Kashmir, in the end you got nothing of Kashmir & had to scramble to save Lahore.

As I have said earlier, if one makes an attempt to snatch someone's jacket, he cannot then end up claiming victory because he managed to save his shorts when retaliation came his way.

 

[nForce]

Except that if the initiator does not get his chosen outcome, he lost in his objectives.



No one was going to take any of your cities, that would have been militarily suicidal. Especially when India had no reserves left except the Presidential bodyguards. Hugely populated cities would have been a military nightmare to hold. You are confusing tactical aims of India against goals & strategy employed by Pakistan which failed. The push towards Lahore was a tactical aim to benefit the strategy of relieving Pakistani pressure on Kashmir. India had no goal of taking Lahore, we didn't claim it & we didn't want it. India had no interest in Lahore unlike your interest in Kashmir. You started your military action to get Kashmir, in the end you got nothing of Kashmir & had to scramble to save Lahore.

As I have said earlier, if one makes an attempt to snatch someone's jacket, he cannot then end up claiming victory because he managed to save his shorts when retaliation came his way.

Actually India had lot of reserves left. J.N Chaudhri had grossly miscalculated.

 

[Tipu7]

merely that it was Pakistan's choice of whether to widen the conflict or escalate it.

So Pakistan unlike India acted like a peace full country and didn't spread the war?