Indian Sikh company surrendering to Lone Pilot Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar

[Signalian]

In 1965 war, Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar single handedly took surrender of entire Indian company deployed in Chamb sector.

4:00 onwards till 6:25

 

[Joe Shearer]

In 1965 war, Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar single handedly took surrender of entire Indian company deployed in Chamb sector.

4:00 onwards till 6:25

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

You can fool your indians but cant hide a reality that a small nation slap hard in every single war we had.
i m waiting when your terrorist PM allow your mighty army take over Pakistan. how about you keep watching bUll#hit indian media to convience indian that abhinandan slip into Pakistan after hitting aif solah. lol

 

[Signalian]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

wit was of a Lt Col, not Lt Gen, though he did become a Maj Gen.

If Lt Gens had same wits in 1965, then yes, result would have been favourable.

 

[peagle]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

Don't get cocky, neither did you. You couldn't defeat an opponent 9 times smaller than you.

1948 > India was 11 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (as a new country Pakistan had no money, nor its share of weapons)

1965 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (Pakistan was put under sanctions, but India still received weapons from the Soviets)

1971 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not achieve victory in West Pakistan. (Pakistan was still under sanctions, but India had the full backing of the Soviet Union.)
(What happened in Bangladesh is a more complicated story and has to be viewed holistically. Once a local population decides against you, nothing can be done. Look at America in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan, both were the most powerful countries in the world at the time.)

1999 > Results only came after India went crying to America and they along with China forced Pakistan to pull back.
2002 > Full deployment for nearly one year, killed over 1000 over its own soldiers, just to pull back.

 

[Krptonite]

Don't get cocky, neither did you. You couldn't defeat an opponent 9 times smaller than you.

1948 > India was 11 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (as a new country Pakistan had no money, nor its share of weapons)

1965 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not defeat Pakistan. (Pakistan was put under sanctions, but India still received weapons from the Soviets)

1971 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not achieve victory in West Pakistan. (Pakistan was still under sanctions, but India had the full backing of the Soviet Union.)
(What happened in Bangladesh is a more complicated story and has to be viewed holistically. Once a local population decides against you, nothing can be done. Look at America in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan, both were the most powerful countries in the world at the time.)

1999 > Results only came after India went crying to America and they along with China forced Pakistan to pull back.
2002 > Full deployment for nearly one year, killed over 1000 over its own soldiers, just to pull back.

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective using force.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

 

[Longhorn]

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.” Winston Churchill.

You can argue about the past all you want, but Pakistan is still standing, stronger than ever.

 

[Krptonite]

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.” Winston Churchill.

You can argue about the past all you want, but Pakistan is still standing, stronger than ever.

If the deaths of your brethren over goals you cannot explain translate into strength, then yes, Pakistan's stronger than ever and worse, people will continue to persue such policies to bring "strength".

It's interesting that you quote Winston Churchill, a PM whose own populace threw him out of power as soon as war was done. He presided over an empire that crumbled into an island state, but hey! As long as he won, he stronk, who cares what the consequences were.

 

[StormBreaker]

Out of many qualities we Pakistanis have, we do excel in trolling

That’s some high level and practical trolling on battlefield.

Amazing, Simply just Amazing !!!

 

[Maarkhoor]

....and this is why, children, we won a famous victory.

Bellcome Back.....

 

[BATMAN]

In 1965 war, Lt.Col Naseerullah Babar single handedly took surrender of entire Indian company deployed in Chamb sector.

4:00 onwards till 6:25

One has to listen to the full interview.

 

[Esgalduin]

1971 > India was 9 times larger than Pakistan, still could not achieve victory in West Pakistan. (Pakistan was still under sanctions, but India had the full backing of the Soviet Union.)
(What happened in Bangladesh is a more complicated story and has to be viewed holistically. Once a local population decides against you, nothing can be done. Look at America in Vietnam and Soviets in Afghanistan, both were the most powerful countries in the world at the time.)

Not to mention how massively outnumbered the Pakistanis were in Bangladesh: facing a rebel insurrection (admittedly, of the Pakistani government's own making), cut off from reinforcements, aerial assets amounting to a single fighter squadron against many more enemy squadrons at a single airfield eventually bombed and rendered unusable.

If the deaths of your brethren over goals you cannot explain translate into strength, then yes, Pakistan's stronger than ever and worse, people will continue to persue such policies to bring "strength".

It's interesting that you quote Winston Churchill, a PM whose own populace threw him out of power as soon as war was done. He presided over an empire that crumbled into an island state, but hey! As long as he won, he stronk, who cares what the consequences were.

Wartime leadership doesn't necessarily translate to continued popularity in peacetime. Winston was no exception to that "rule." Sure, he presided over the collapse of the British Empire but it's not like Britain had any other choice in the matter. They were in the conflict around 3 years before the Americans came in and helped relieve the pressure, it was either draw upon the reserves of its empire (criminally and inhumanely, I'll admit) rather than be crushed by the German onslaught.

 

[Krptonite]

Not to mention how massively outnumbered the Pakistanis were in Bangladesh: facing a rebel insurrection (admittedly, of the Pakistani government's own making), cut off from reinforcements, aerial assets amounting to a single fighter squadron against many more enemy squadrons at a single airfield eventually bombed and rendered unusable.



Wartime leadership doesn't necessarily translate to continued popularity in peacetime. Winston was no exception to that "rule." Sure, he presided over the collapse of the British Empire but it's not like Britain had any other choice in the matter. They were in the conflict around 3 years before the Americans came in and helped relieve the pressure, it was either draw upon the reserves of its empire (criminally and inhumanely, I'll admit) rather than be crushed by the German onslaught.

I agree with you sir, PA fought bravely and courageously, my question was simple and to those who celebrate without any historical knowledge.

What were the gains from the war and what justified the soldiers deaths?

 

[Esgalduin]

I agree with you sir, PA fought bravely and courageously, my question was simple and to those who celebrate without any historical knowledge.

What were the gains from the war and what justified the soldiers deaths?

Now that is a question which both illogical, blind ""patriots" and rational students of history can unanimously agree on: Bhutto's continued rule. It was "justified" by the death of his own people and the irrevocable separation of many more. The conflict in 1971(especially prior to Indian military intervention) did not cause East Pakistanis to resent us, it was the final nail in a battered coffin. It was not the cause, it was the catalyst.

 

[PAKSpecialForces]

War's a means to an end, a militaristic approach to a goal, to achieve an objective using force.

The initiating side has the advantage and a clear objective to achieve. It's the reason why the war is started. Allies, enemies, planning, contingencies, are taken into account when attacking. If they don't conform to reality, is the planner to blame or other "factors" beyond planners control.

If PA's objective was to display its military powress and the courage and valour of it's bravehearts, then there is no doubt about either of them. PA soldiers have proven themselves to be among the best of them.

Might I ask for each war you've mentioned, who was the initiator? What was the objective behind it ? and in the aftermath what was the result?

After all, if you've won the war and didn't achieve anything substantial or the objectives remain unfulfilled, what did the soldiers die for?

Sure sure. Just like how you indians also claimed to have killed exactly 350 terrorists in Balakot and shot down an F-16..............

I agree with you sir, PA fought bravely and courageously, my question was simple and to those who celebrate without any historical knowledge.

What were the gains from the war and what justified the soldiers deaths?

So unless someone doesn't believe indian FAKE news it means they don't have historical knowledge?????.......