What's new

An account of 1965 | Book review posted in India Today

Instead of displaying your own ignorance like a clown, why don't you post some sources here yourself which are "better"? my source atleast mentions the losses on the pakistani side. What have you contributed till now? Your idiotic comments trying to show yourself as some intelligent soul which you clearly are not.

No one cares whether it is a "desperate" reference according to you since you yourself don't matter. You asked for a source and I gave it. And its library of congress. You are incapable of accepting the truth so now you are resorting to trolling. Typical pakistani behaviour.

Mr. Name caller, this is exactly what I expected from you. I am not making wild claims here. I am questioning display of text-book indoctrination by a specific Indian member. I do not need to provide any sources. Your verbal mayhem is something like "begani shadi mein Shadow Hunter Deewana". Let the kid learn, keep your crutches and trolling to yourself.
 
Last edited:
.
 

There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most agree that India won, some say it was a draw but none say that Pak won-
Here from MSN - WebCite query result
And read the following books -
The greater game: India's race with destiny and China by David Praagh
A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947 by Robert Johnson

This is an excerpt from Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact edited by Spencer Tucker - Tanks: An Illustrated History of Their Impact - Google Books

  • According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States[
The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

  • TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

  • Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

  • In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",Gertjan Dijkink writes –
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

  • An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,
In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

  • In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –
India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

  • Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

  • BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

  • "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

  • An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.
  • English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

 

Both 1965 war and 1971 war were complete miltary failures for Pak. Even in 1971 war, multiple Pakistani thrusts were defeated by India in the western sector and in eastern sector, well your army didn't even last a fortnight.
And where are you suggesting US and Israel came to our rescue? US was allied to Pak in both wars. They were even planning a naval invasion of India with UK in 1971 but were deterred by the Russians and the short span of war didn't give them time for proper planning. In fact, Pak received substantial help from Iran, Indonesia and People's Republic of China.

Did you carefully read the references provided by yourself?

1. The sources you quoted keep repeating something like: "Pakistan would have lost had the war continued". This is external to what is being discussed here. What could have happened is not what did happen.

2. The figures for territory gain are contradictory. None of them cite a number for Pakistani thrust into Rajasthan by forces led by Col. Mumtaz. He took a number of posts and POWs. His gains were far higher than Indian gains in its attack on Punjab. By just quoting figures from war effort in Punjab, you are willfully providing wrong information. Your sources are wrong. Just look at the break down provided by one of them. Pakistan in fact controlled greater size of Indian territory.

3. Lahore was safe from Indian attack. Your million man army could not cross BRB Link Canal. Any talk of encirclement of Lahore is plain nonsense. A few sq. KM gained by virtue of an armour thrust in Sialkot does not constitute even a beginning of an encirclement, especially since the said armour thrust petered out in face of intense and successful opposition by Pakistani forces. Any reference that says that Lahore was in any danger is obviously biased and possibly planted.

4. None of the sources your quoted say anything about air war or naval operations.

5. None of the sources note that India crossed international border in the dark of the night. Pakistan's operations were across the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which is not international border.

6. 1965 war was a stalemate. Considering that a country 7 times the size of the other was the actual aggressor with far superior resources, such stalemate was a victory for Pakistan.

7. Pakistan won the air war and PAF planes flew unopposed.

8. PN inflicted serious losses upon Indian naval assets in Dwarka. IN was nowhere to be seen.

So you see my friend, I do not even need to make a google search like yourself, or plagiarize from wiki and such. Your sources have been shown to be insufficient, incomplete, and biased. The internal contradictions inside them and between them are enough for me to discredit your indoctrinated POV. Case close. 
1965 war produced no significant results for either India or Pakistan. So what if the Pak Airforce displayed superiority in the air? Did the airforce achieve the objectives of the war ? On that note, Indians claim that the objective of the war was determined by Pakistan who wanted to capture Kashmir. What is the Pakistan response to this ? Are Pakistanis given a different objective of the 1965 war ?

1965 war was a result of Paksitani miscalculation that crossing cease-fire line would not provoke India enough to cross international border. This war should never have happened.

Pakistan wanted to high-light the Kashmir issue and cause embarrassment to India. A limited operation with a view to capturing Akhnur could not be stretched to make a case for Pakistani aim of liberating Kashmir. Pakistan merely wished to gain an advantage on cease-fire line. This action coupled with an attempt to start guerrilla operations inside IOK was going to be no more than an attempt to internationalize Kashmir issue.
 
Last edited:
.
Did you carefully read the references provided by yourself?

1. The sources you quoted keep repeating something like: "Pakistan would have lost had the war continued". This is external to what is being discussed here. What could have happened is not what did happen.

2. The figures for territory gain are contradictory. None of them cite a number for Pakistani thrust into Rajasthan by forces led by Col. Mumtaz. He took a number of posts and POWs. His gains were far higher than Indian gains in its attack on Punjab. By just quoting figures from war effort in Punjab, you are willfully providing wrong information. Your sources are wrong. Just look at the break down provided by one of them. Pakistan in fact controlled greater size of Indian territory.

3. Lahore was safe from Indian attack. Your million man army could not cross BRB Link Canal. Any talk of encirclement of Lahore is plain nonsense. A few sq. KM gained by virtue of an armour thrust in Sialkot does not constitute even a beginning of an encirclement, especially since the said armour thrust petered out in face of intense and successful opposition by Pakistani forces. Any reference that says that Lahore was in any danger is obviously biased and possibly planted.

4. None of the sources your quoted say anything about air war or naval operations.

5. None of the sources note that India crossed international border in the dark of the night. Pakistan's operations were across the cease-fire line in Kashmir, which is not international border.

6. 1965 war was a stalemate. Considering that a country 7 times the size of the other was the actual aggressor with far superior resources, such stalemate was a victory for Pakistan.

7. Pakistan won the air war and PAF planes flew unopposed.

8. PN inflicted serious losses upon Indian naval assets in Dwarka. IN was nowhere to be seen.

So you see my friend, I do not even need to make a google search like yourself, or plagiarize from wiki and such. Your sources have been shown to be insufficient, incomplete, and biased. The internal contradictions inside them and between them are enough for me to discredit your indoctrinated POV. Case close. 


1965 war was a result of Paksitani miscalculation that crossing cease-fire line would not provoke India enough to cross international border. This war should never have happened.

Pakistan wanted to high-light the Kashmir issue and cause embarrassment to India. A limited operation with a view to capturing Akhnur could not be stretched to make a case for Pakistani aim of liberating Kashmir. Pakistan merely wished to gain an advantage on cease-fire line. This action coupled with an attempt to start guerrilla operations inside IOK was going to be no more than an attempt to internationalize Kashmir issue.
All figures mentioned by me are ground positions at the time of ceasefire and they include everything captured by colonel Mumtaz, Shahjahan, Humanyu, Akbar or any other colonels you had in all places where war was fought. You people wanted neutral sources, so I posted them. Now you don't want to believe them either. So now we all should stop believing contemporary neutral sources but rather believe your genius brain as you were a live witness to everything that happened in the war, is it?
 
.
1965 war was a result of Paksitani miscalculation that crossing cease-fire line would not provoke India enough to cross international border. This war should never have happened.

Pakistan wanted to high-light the Kashmir issue and cause embarrassment to India. A limited operation with a view to capturing Akhnur could not be stretched to make a case for Pakistani aim of liberating Kashmir. Pakistan merely wished to gain an advantage on cease-fire line. This action coupled with an attempt to start guerrilla operations inside IOK was going to be no more than an attempt to internationalize Kashmir issue.

Thank you for your reply. I agree with you that the war should never have happened given the economic issues affecting both nations at the time. I must however disagree with your view that the attempt by Pakistan to highlight the Kashmir issue, cause embarrassment for India, embark on a limited operation to capture Indian held territory to gain an advantage on the cease fire line and to start guerilla operations inside Indian occupied Kashmir weren't sufficient grounds for India to commence a full scale war with Pakistan. If the scenarios were reversed and India did the same in Azad Kashmir, I'm certain that you would agree with me that this would be adequate reasons for Pakistan to retaliate with a full scale war against India ?
 
.
In 1965 Pakistan had better planes and better tanks than us, yet our soldiers were courageous to take on a better equiped military and defeat it. And in case some people still had any doubt about the defeat, our soldiers convinced them further in 1971.

But that is history now.
well atleast you accept that we had better planes tanks and men lol
 
Last edited:
.
Its not your fault as you are brain washed by your textbooks and bollywood...:lol:...Neutral sources claim it otherwise....Even your newspapers are posting about our victory in 65...


1965-India-Pakistan-War-Memorabilia-The-Australian-newspaper-14-September-1965-edition-Photos-and-Mementos-of-1965-Indo-Pak-War.jpg
War ended on 23 September by the intervention of the great powers and peace deal at Tashkent Declaration of 10 January 1966 and u claim WIN BY SEP 14 NEWS HEADING:rofl::rofl:

Neutral assessments
There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

  • TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi2 of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi2 of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily.[74] The article further elaborates,
Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

  • Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics"[75]
The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

  • In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions",[76] Gertjan Dijkink writes –
The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

  • In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote[7]
India won the war. It gained 1,840 km2 (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km2 (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km2 (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km2 (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km2 (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km2 (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km2 (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km2 (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

  • Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,[78]
Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

  • BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,[79]
The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

  • "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions[8]
India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km2) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km2) of its own.

  • An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment"[80]
A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

  • English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war[81]
The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

  • Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan"[82]
Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

  • Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.[83]
By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.
 
.
Pakistan lost more men, more machine and more territory in 1965 war. They also could not achieve their objective of taking Kashmir. Pak's performance was impressive but India won the war by all definitions.
The bottom line is that Pakistan launched Operation Gibralter and Operation Grand Slam which was one of a number of contingency plans that had been prepared in support of Gibraltar, in the hope of finally capturing Kashmir.

The operation ended in a failure for the Pakistan Army as the stated military objectives were not achieved and subsequently were forced to retreat following a counterattack by the Indian Army.

Proof that India won the war? Kashmir is still in India! If Pakistan had won, we would be needing visas to go for a honeymoon to the Kashmir Valley!! :azn:
 
.
lolzz pakistanies posting such videos is like that after a boxer looses his match tells his supportors that did you saw my punch in last round it almost swept off my opponent ..but alas i lost the match but i fought braveli :taz::taz::rofl::rofl:

And what is this video anyway? A bunch of pilots bragging on their airbase!

What is it supposed to prove!
 
.
In which country soldiers have refused to take on a to an a superior equipped military?
That really is not an advantage to brag around!

This topic is about 1965 and war of 1971 was a political failure, not military and in both wars US and Israel came to your rescue.

If Pakistan had any advantage of technology in 1965, than general Ayyub Khan, may not have put up defence industry immediately after the war and start producing its own stuff.

You can say you have wrong stuff for every job, where as Pakistan had applied its available resources more effectively and its soldiers were better educated.

Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
.
The bottom line is that Pakistan launched Operation Gibralter and Operation Grand Slam which was one of a number of contingency plans that had been prepared in support of Gibraltar, in the hope of finally capturing Kashmir.

The operation ended in a failure for the Pakistan Army as the stated military objectives were not achieved and subsequently were forced to retreat following a counterattack by the Indian Army.

Proof that India won the war? Kashmir is still in India! If Pakistan had won, we would be needing visas to go for a honeymoon to the Kashmir Valley!! :azn:
but, but it would have been your win if you gained something, did you get our Kashmir? no? so it means you didn't win, neither did we, both countries stayed the same as before, apart from you loosing A LOT of your air force lol
 
.
but, but it would have been your win if you gained something, did you get our Kashmir? no? so it means you didn't win, neither did we, both countries stayed the same as before, apart from you loosing A LOT of your air force lol

Victory or defeat is judged by the objectives - whether one side achieved its objectives or failed.

India's objective was not to take pakistani kashmir, it was only to defend our own. It was pakistan that started the war with the objective of taking Indian kashmir, and failed as usual. Operation Gibraltar and operation grandslam both ended in a grand mess. That is why India won the war and pak lost, because it was a war that pak started to capture indian territory, and failed. India only wanted to hold on to her territory, and succeeded. India won, pak lost. Deal with it.

well atleast you accept that we had better planes tanks and men lol
He didnt say men. He said pak had better tanks and aircrafts, but still lost. So go figure who had better men.

I reported posts like these in other threads but no action had been taken so i wanna respectfully ask Mods @Aeronaut @WebMaster @Oscar @Zakii can we also call them "Mandir educated illiterates"? Or this privilege of bashing(like Madarsah educated illiterates & 72 virgins, etc) is dedicated to indians only?

The difference is that mandirs don't go about brainwashing and miseducating children, they only serve as a place of worship for anybody to voluntarily go there and pray. Madrassa education has ruined pakistani society, since Zia encouraged all those madrassas with saudi money.

But yes, I agree with you that name calling people as 'madrassa educated' on this forum erves no purpose. However, I must point out that trying to even that out by calling the other person 'mandir educated' is rather meaningless, for the reason explained above.
 
.
but, but it would have been your win if you gained something, did you get our Kashmir? no? so it means you didn't win, neither did we, both countries stayed the same as before, apart from you loosing A LOT of your air force lol
Don't try and rationalize your defeat by an argument that would put an imbecile to shame.

India did not go to war for capturing Pakistan Administered Kashmir. You guys did to capture Indian Kashmir. You failed. Period! And this in spite of your delusions that your air force and army is the best in the world!! Oh yeah! And I'm godzilla! :P

Your specious arguments are laughable!
 
.
All of this is laughable

The reality is that the war was a dud, it didnt go anywhere with no side getting any major advantage

The Indians can talk about objectives of the war all they want, but they are still 7 times the size of Pakistan in terms of population and atleast 4 times the size in terms of land mass.

And they still couldnt defeat a much smaller foe.

Pakistani soldiers have to beat a more numerous foe so 1 Pakistani soldier has to be equal to atleast 3 indians in terms of fighting spirit.



Indian was losing in Kashmir, so they diverted the war to the international border, shocking Pakistan, Pakistan destroyed the indian advance and stopped them dead, war ended



The only conclusive result in our history has been 71, when Pakistan was over a thousand miles from the battle field & couldnt support its men with any air, naval or resupply


Everything else has just been a point of view, with the bottom line always being that India is hugh compared to Pakistan & its failure to defeat Pakistan shames it
 
.
All of this is laughable

The reality is that the war was a dud, it didnt go anywhere with no side getting any major advantage

The Indians can talk about objectives of the war all they want, but they are still 7 times the size of Pakistan in terms of population and atleast 4 times the size in terms of land mass.

And they still couldnt defeat a much smaller foe.

Pakistani soldiers have to beat a more numerous foe so 1 Pakistani soldier has to be equal to atleast 3 indians in terms of fighting spirit.



Indian was losing in Kashmir, so they diverted the war to the international border, shocking Pakistan, Pakistan destroyed the indian advance and stopped them dead, war ended



The only conclusive result in our history has been 71, when Pakistan was over a thousand miles from the battle field & couldnt support its men with any air, naval or resupply


Everything else has just been a point of view, with the bottom line always being that India is hugh compared to Pakistan & its failure to defeat Pakistan shames it
dil behlane ko ghalib khayal achha hai :taz::chilli::nana::chilli::rofl::rofl:

but sirji truth is not what you read in your baised history books thing is when ever your millitarry or feudal elite is asked serous questions about the mismangement and deteroutaing situtaion by the people they try to scuttle the issue by raising the bogey of kashmirthats what ayub khan did thats what zia did thats what musharraf did

now thing is every war is fought for some goals and ayubs goal was to capture kashmir thing is he thought he willhave a cake walk cause they are alaways thought that short dark hindu banyas will not fight back and 1 pakistani = 10 indians

so the thing is they never learn from there mistakes and shamelessli try to milk an issue till the bones come owt and that too withowt remose or thinking about the consecouenes and thats priciesli why pakistan finds itself in this position ...alwyas

but you never learn from mistakes and think it will give different result and when every time you loose you first go in denail and if that doesnt works you call it a conspiracy aginst you

but the most funny part is your people buy that theorie cause they hate india more than they love pakistan and thats the onli identity you have got

deal with it cause those who dont change history changes them :cheers:
 
.
First of all dont write in hindi, I never know what the hell your talking about


Which part of my post was wrong.

The fact that India is so much larger then us that our soldiers have to be equal to atleast 3 indians just for parity

The reality that india diverted the war to the International Border because it was losing ground to a more proffesional army in Kashmir

The reality that Indian forces tried to take Lahore but were destroyed




Most of the modern wars (bar 71 for good reason) have gone no where because both sides field modern militaries

But the sheer size of india and the fact that you have so many more people and soldiers and forces alone should make you question why India has performed so poorly in wars against Pakistan


the Afghans are a brave people but being so much smaller then Pakistan we would expect to destroy them, Your failure to subdue a much smaller state on your own border is pathetic on your part dont you think
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom