In 1971, America almost fought the Soviets (Russia) over Bangladesh

[dray]

My motive was to create rift between BNP and JeI supporters. Where they always accuse AL for dividing their country. And some confused BNP elements try to claim whole credit on them. While some through their discussion proved Zia was nothing and it was spontaneous reaction of people against invasion. And for that war our country saw worst days of distraction lawlessness which pushed BD 20 years behind. So these are mixed feelings.

Ok. But assuming that the war had pushed BD 20 years behind (which I see as too much exaggeration), can you tell me if BD would have been better off today as east Pakistan, and why?

Did Indira Gandhi phoned you to say India had no plan to annex!!!! Seems you stupidity has no boundary line. Stop bullshitting in every thread.

I don't want to get involved in ridiculous Bangladeshi conspiracy theories, I don't even understand how Bangladesh can manage to produce so many conspiracy theorists! But what I said is part of the recorded history, and we have tons of government papers in the open to support that. India had no intention to annex Bangladesh, and India conveyed it by both words and actions before and after the war. You probably don't know much about Indira Gandhi, but the lady had a pair of 'balls' that are far bigger and hairier than most of the leaders internationally. Do you even know how much pressures America put on India to stop us from going into war in 1971? She put her middle finger deep down their asses in reply. That lady, again, had the 'balls' to risk a three front war with Pakistan, China, and USA, and finish what she wanted to do. And if she wanted to annex East Pakistan, then our army wouldn't have moved an inch from there. Learn to accept the facts with humility.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

defeated them convincingly.

How so?

In that case Bangladesh would have been East Pakistan even today, no?

Never. No country on earth has ever lasted for long which had such huge populations that were geographically, ethnically and culturally diffuse and on the opposite poles of a sub-continent.

And peddling false history? A bit rich? When Indian's win the Oscar for mangling and twisting history to the point that it get's delusional.

 

[bongbang]

Ok. But assuming that the war had pushed BD 20 years behind (which I see as too much exaggeration), can you tell me if BD would have been better off today as east Pakistan, and why?

I didnt say as East Pakistan. Dont delude yourself. Telling every bits and pieces is impossible. SM was working on autonomy. I mean the name isnt important. EP/BD or whatever but people would get what they deserved. Peaceful coexistence or separation on people's demand through political solution. But brutal force ruined many things. Many of BD asset transfer couldnt be solved because of military separation. BD was in one kind of development process, and all of a sudden all stopped and it takes time to reestablish. Foreign elements got foothold in the country which is also unwanted. And unified BD people became separate into different armed gangs which took time as long as 1990 to totally disarm. And still BD is in chaos over that issue.

 

[Jackdaws]

From what I understand, while the Chinese refused to intervene militarily to help Pakistan - they did send their troops to India-China border to put some sort of pressure on India. And India convinced the Soviets to send Soviet troops to the China-USSR border to relieve the pressure. What a game of chess.

How so?


Never. No country on earth has ever lasted for long which had such huge populations that were geographically, ethnically and culturally diffuse and on the opposite poles of a sub-continent.

And peddling false history? A bit rich? When Indian's win the Oscar for mangling and twisting history to the point that it get's delusional.

Untrue. How long has Puerto Rico been part of the US? Or Falklands been part of the UK? How diverse is Indonesia? And look at India - how geographically, ethnically and culturally different is someone from Nagaland compared to someone from Tamil Nadu?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Untrue. How long has Puerto Rico been part of the US? Or Falklands been part of the UK?

US > popuation is > 320 million.
Puerto Rico is > 3.5 million

Thus Puerto Rico is just about 1%, yes one percent of US population.

UK > population is > 64 million
Falklands is > 2,932. Yes just two thousand nine hundred and thirty two people. There are more sheep there.

Thus Falkland is just about 0.004%, yes just a minuscle zero point zero zero four per cent of UK.

Look above at the comparison. Falkland is a tiny satellite of UK. In comparison Bangla was actually more populaous than Pakistan itself. So don't make wrong comparisons. Not a tiny metropolitan outlier of the "mother" country.

The relative comparison would be like you faggots holding onto China as it is relatively as bigger than India as was Bangla compared to Pak.

Anyway this is my last reply in this thread. As far as I am concerned all you Indian/Banglas are scions of the mighty Ganga/Bramaputra so both you guys celebrate 1971 and give each other good hug that you beat Pakistan with about 1:10 advantage in numbers.

Ta Ta.

 

[Desist]

Anyway this is my last reply in this thread. As far as I am concerned all you Indian/Banglas are scions of the mighty Ganga/Bramaputra so both you guys celebrate 1971 and give each other good hug that you beat Pakistan with about 1:10 advantage in numbers.

Perhaps then Pakistanis shouldn't feel so upset as they do because they chose to start the war not us.

 

[Nilgiri]

Did Indira Gandhi phoned you to say India had no plan to annex!!!! Seems you stupidity has no boundary line. Stop bullshitting in every thread.

No one in their right mind wants to annex an overpopulated basket case.

Pakistanis are glad they are rid of you, Indians are glad for fence and BSF and the money we extract from your elite as liberation+ security tax.

No one wants to spoil there country by burdening themselves with this thing called Bang-la-desh.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Calm your tittis. It is a newly written article posted here. You don't always need to shove your nose up our arrse.

Mightn't be space.

This is what you call the crushing defeat - Tough guys?

I would feel deeply ashamed of myself if I were you, @Kaptaan . It would be raking up a lot of past history to point out in explicit, brutal detail why, so let me just say it was a very cheap and a very self-pitying dig that you made.

Pity.

The unlikeliest of people succumb to jingoism.

funny india humiliated & defeated pakistan in western sector too... far away from bangladesh in the heartland of mard-e-momins

Oh, didn't you know?

Pakistan had completely beaten India in the west, and tanks were about to roll into New Delhi before the cease-fire started, and the white horsemen had to return to heaven.

Sorry, that last bit was the previous war.

 

[Nilgiri]

The unlikeliest of people succumb to jingoism.

Not really. Haven't you see his many threads mocking the misery of India's poor people and beggars?

He is an intriguing fellow to me.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Not really. Haven't you see his many threads mocking the misery of India's poor people and beggars?

He is an intriguing fellow to me.

Hadn't seen those, no. This is a bit of a surprise, what you said, because he came across as a very balanced kind of person in conversations with me. One never knows about people.

Did Indira Gandhi phoned you to say India had no plan to annex!!!! Seems you stupidity has no boundary line. Stop bullshitting in every thread.

A strange and immature comment.

Before challenging this assertion, why don't you take the trouble to look up the documentation, much of which has been made public, or the memoirs of soldiers and government servants, which makes this point crystal clear?

 

[Indika]

No one in their right mind wants to annex an overpopulated basket case.

Pakistanis are glad they are rid of you, Indians are glad for fence and BSF and the money we extract from your elite as liberation+ security tax.

No one wants to spoil there country by burdening themselves with this thing called Bang-la-desh.

Refugees were overloading India and we could not even support them with food. Taking over bangla would have pushed India by another 30 years back. Another thing ppl dont understand is that how will some one take over a country after supporting rebels for freedom? These very rebels will turn against and fight back if their land is take over.

No country on earth has ever lasted for long which had such huge populations that were geographically, ethnically and culturally diffuse and on the opposite poles of a sub-continent.

Why in the world even accept such a country in the first place if it is doomed to fail?

 

[bluesky]

Ok. But assuming that the war had pushed BD 20 years behind (which I see as too much exaggeration), can you tell me if BD would have been better off today as east Pakistan, and why?

I don't want to get involved in ridiculous Bangladeshi conspiracy theories, I don't even understand how Bangladesh can manage to produce so many conspiracy theorists! But what I said is part of the recorded history, and we have tons of government papers in the open to support that. India had no intention to annex Bangladesh, and India conveyed it by both words and actions before and after the war. You probably don't know much about Indira Gandhi, but the lady had a pair of 'balls' that are far bigger and hairier than most of the leaders internationally. Do you even know how much pressures America put on India to stop us from going into war in 1971? She put her middle finger deep down their asses in reply. That lady, again, had the 'balls' to risk a three front war with Pakistan, China, and USA, and finish what she wanted to do. And if she wanted to annex East Pakistan, then our army wouldn't have moved an inch from there. Learn to accept the facts with humility.

You are the one who continuously bring out conspiracies against BD from your bag. This stupid Lady of yours was such a naive in military matters that she proposed a BSF attack inside BD long before Dec. '71. Her wrong decision was paid with the capture of those BSF troops. PA fondly exhibited them to the western Press to propagate India's involvement with the Freedom Fighters (FF). Find out the truth by yourself because you brag the collection of many confidential materials, you must find the truth by yourself. You are a Father of Archieves.

You are boasting here to fight a war against a combined China, Pakistan and USA. Well said, and yes, you are right. A man should eat Biriyani in dreams instead of a loaf of Sukkha Roti. When India would have been defeated with the two sides of Pakistan were fighting united, you are here to boast about those IA troops, who always run away from the battle fields. India is great in conspiracy but is loaded with cowardice fighters. Shame on India!!

 

[Nilgiri]

Hadn't seen those, no. This is a bit of a surprise, what you said, because he came across as a very balanced kind of person in conversations with me. One never knows about people.

Yup you can never tell for sure.

Some examples of what I mean:

https://defence.pk/threads/cycle-human-rickshaw-a-cruelty-pictures-only.409679/page-3#post-7908832

https://defence.pk/threads/bbc-can-...lth-and-corruption.402993/page-3#post-7762580

https://defence.pk/threads/can-india-really-be-the-‘next-china’.405585/#post-7816223

https://defence.pk/threads/slumdog-king-india.409528/

these are not even the worst.

 

[Jackdaws]

PDF is going to the dogs. These days all we get is faggots with no brains replying. Okay here goes.

US > popuation is > 320 million.
Puerto Rico is > 3.5 million

Thus Puerto Rico is just about 1%, yes one percent of US population.

UK > population is > 64 million
Falklands is > 2,932. Yes just two thousand nine hundred and thirty two people. There are more sheep there.

Thus Falkland is just about 0.004%, yes just a minuscle zero point zero zero four per cent of UK.

Look above at the comparison. Falkland is a tiny satellite of UK. In comparison Bangla was actually more populaous than Pakistan itself. So don't make wrong comparisons. Not a tiny metropolitan outlier of the "mother" country.

The relative comparison would be like you faggots holding onto China as it is relatively as bigger than India as was Bangla compared to Pak.

Anyway this is my last reply in this thread. As far as I am concerned all you Indian/Banglas are scions of the mighty Ganga/Bramaputra so both you guys celebrate 1971 and give each other good hug that you beat Pakistan with about 1:10 advantage in numbers.

Ta Ta.

If you were slightly educated, you would also read some more numbers instead of picking part of my post to quote. I specifically said - India too is a diverse nation - just what is common between a person from Manipur and a person from Tamil Nadu? Nothing. So instead of abusing and looking for excuses - learn some history and geography. How ethnically and religiously different is Bali from the rest of Indonesia? LOL. Now make a few more circles.

 

[dray]

You are the one who continuously bring out conspiracies against BD from your bag. This stupid Lady of yours was such a naive in military matters that she proposed a BSF attack inside BD long before Dec. '71. Her wrong decision was paid with the capture of those BSF troops. PA fondly exhibited them to the western Press to propagate India's involvement with the Freedom Fighters (FF). Find out the truth by yourself because you brag the collection of many confidential materials, you must find the truth by yourself. You are a Father of Archieves.

You are boasting here to fight a war against a combined China, Pakistan and USA. Well said, and yes, you are right. A man should eat Biriyani in dreams instead of a loaf of Sukkha Roti. When India would have been defeated with the two sides of Pakistan were fighting united, you are here to boast about those IA troops, who always run away from the battle fields. India is great in conspiracy but is loaded with cowardice fighters. Shame on India!!

More truckload of nonsensical blabbering.

BTW, where was that mighty other side of Pakistan during the wars of 1948 and 1965? How did it change the outcome of the wars? Your country wouldn't have existed today without the help of those 'cowardice fighters' of Indian army. Now keep breaking your keyboard brave internet warrior, you are only good at that.