Most of European Union, Australia and Gulf Countries Skip Indian Government Kashmir Tour Drama

[xyxmt]

Yeh togo, fiji, Maldives aur guyana k envoys ko kaun tour pai lai jata hai

unhain to koi bhi tour ke offer kero wo inkar ne karain gye

 

[Flight of falcon]

Either your English is too poor to articulate your point properly or as I wrote you lie ...


Here you are talking about 2019 casualties and I wrote back that there is not much difference . Then you selected 2014 as a base year..... jumping all over

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Ok. So no actual numbers or statistics to counter my so-called lies(which everyone knows is truth). Even the source you posted shows that over twice as many terrorists were killed as security forces

Your lies has already been exposed by me. The indian influenced website includes 300 deaths from balakot strike which proved to be a propaganda from BJP government and thats just one incident that we know of and their are many more like it.

And that article shows data from 2018, when I was referring to 2019. But since you are so obsessed with old data, the source you posted shows the number of indian security forces killed in four years is less than the number of Pakistani security forces killed in one year (2014).
https://satp.org/datasheet-terrorist-attack/fatalities/pakistan

Pakistan may have lost more troops thats because Pak was involved in much bigger war then India which only kills innocent civilians and tags them with which ever label they want to. Their is no international media to verify any of its claims because India has placed strict ban on transparency meanwhile Pak army was very active with taking international media to show damages inflicted on the bad guys.

And btw, the South Asian terrorism portal actually lists fewer Pakistani security forces casualties than the Pakistani government itself
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pakistan-saw-31-reduction-in-terrorism-in-2019.647762/.

You are just an indiot. The article mentions civilian casualties not armed forces.

As for Kargil, Pakistan was doing so well that Nawaz Shariff went running to Bill Clinton on 4th of July, after India had captured the highest point of Kargil. That, and Pakistan actually suffered higher casualties, according to US State dep. and CIA reports.

Thats why India loves this corrupt bastard Nawaz who has betrayed army many times. If Pakistan was being defeated in Kargil then it would not have taken India over 3 months, unlimited reinforcements, and air support to claim victory.

 

[Minho]

Your lies has already been exposed by me. The indian influenced website includes 300 deaths from balakot strike which proved to be a propaganda from BJP government and thats just one incident that we know of and their are many more like it.

Pakistan may have lost more troops thats because Pak was involved in much bigger war then India which only kills innocent civilians and tags them with which ever label they want to. Their is no international media to verify any of its claims because India has placed strict ban on transparency meanwhile Pak army was very active with taking international media to show damages inflicted on the bad guys.

You are just an indiot. The article mentions civilian casualties not armed forces.

Thats why India loves this corrupt bastard Nawaz who has betrayed army many times. If Pakistan was being defeated in Kargil then it would not have taken India over 3 months, unlimited reinforcements, and air support to claim victory.

Obviously it took some time to expel the intruders. You had the higher ground, and the weather conditions weren't conducive to launching large-scale operations until summer. The fact is, India recaptured the heights and even took a few Pakistani peaks, and suffered fewer casualties. Don't see how you can claim victory there.

BTW, the only reason Kargil happened was because Pakistan violated a treaty made by both sides to withdraw troops from the peaks of Kargil/Baltistan to decrease deaths due to weather conditions during winter. Some bravery that took

Either your English is too poor to articulate your point properly or as I wrote you lie ...


Here you are talking about 2019 casualties and I wrote back that there is not much difference . Then you selected 2014 as a base year..... jumping all over


View attachment 599070

You posted an article about data between 2014 and 2018, so I thought it was appropriate to make a similar comparison with data from PAkistan from that same time period. Still don't know why you posted an articel from 2018 when I was specifically referring to data from 2019.

 

[Myth_buster_1]

Obviously it took some time to expel the intruders. You had the higher ground, and the weather conditions weren't conducive to launching large-scale operations until summer. The fact is, India recaptured the heights and even took a few Pakistani peaks, and suffered fewer casualties. Don't see how you can claim victory there.

BTW, the only reason Kargil happened was because Pakistan violated a treaty made by both sides to withdraw troops from the peaks of Kargil/Baltistan to decrease deaths due to weather conditions during winter. Some bravery that took

What kind of lame excuse is that for taking so long to take back your own territory! Did Pakistan and India not engage in Siachen conflict for decades in even a more harsher environment? Infact Pakistan was more effected by weather conditions in Kargil because higher ground and did not have the luxury of unlimited supply of reinforcements and weapons like india did. Pakistan had to pretty much fight with what ever they had when they occupied the posts. Indian army had access to longer range artillery, compared to out dated 1940s artilery pakistan was using to hit indian positions.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...-kargil-war/casualties/slideshow/59772212.cms
According to Indian sources.

The victory came at a high price. The official death toll on the Indian side was 527, while that on the Pakistani side was between 357 and 453.

Also it was India that ran to daddy Bill Clinton to force Pakistan into a retreat while Nawaz was being forced by its military not to!

The Kargil war between May and July 1999, part of the broader conflict between India and Pakistan over the region of Kashmir, was a seminal turning point in American foreign policy with India. President Bill Clinton’s diplomatic intervention in the war, and his high-stakes summit with Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, set the stage for Clinton’s visit a year later to India—the first by an American president in over 20 years—and for the warm engagement between Washington and New Delhi, which has persisted till today.


Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East Policy
Director - The Intelligence Project


Before the Kargil incursion, the United States was preoccupied with non-proliferation concerns in South Asia, especially after the Indian nuclear tests. Strobe Talbott’s dialogue with Jaswant Singh was an important channel of communications, but it was devoted almost entirely to curbs on nuclear weapons. The focus was on securing India’s adherence to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

When the U.S. determined that Pakistan had deliberately violated the Line of Control near Kargil, Clinton did not hesitate to blame Pakistan for risking a broader war. For the first time, an American administration was siding publicly with India against Pakistani aggression. The Pakistani generals who had planned the Kargil incursion, led by Pervez Musharraf, had badly misread the likely American reaction.

Sharif insisted on a summit in Washington with Clinton on July 4, 1999. Clinton was adamant that Pakistani troops had to withdraw to their old positions behind the Line of Control. If not, Washington would blame Pakistan for the war. He warned Sharif that he would also speak out about Pakistan’s coddling of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. The American intelligence community had told the president that Pakistan was flirting with nuclear war. It was perhaps the most important and intense meeting of his presidency. The normally soft negotiator who usually sought compromise was tough and firm. I had never seen him more concentrated.

The outcome of the Kargil war altered the substance of the Talbott mission. The focus moved to conflict prevention. The Musharraf coup that ousted Sharif reinforced the new direction of the Indo-American dialogue. The stage was set for Clinton’s multi-day trip to India in early 2000 and his few hours in Islamabad. The contrast was striking.


Clinton’s trip to India not only broke the decades-old famine of presidential travel to India; his two successors followed in his steps and visited India. The security dialogue between Washington and New Delhi has deepened and strengthened enormously. The current administration has also committed to a strong relationship with India, but is so dysfunctional that it has been largely absent from the subcontinent.

Clinton came into office in 1993 determined to rebuild U.S. relations with India, which had been in disrepair since the mid-1960s. Like his predecessor and idol, John F. Kennedy, Clinton believed India was bound to be a major power in the future—and a democratic one as well. He was determined to visit India, but a succession of short-lived governments in New Delhi and the distraction of other events kept the trip from happening.

The nuclear tests in May 1998, first by India and then by Pakistan, seemed to be the final blow to the president’s plans. The Kargil conflict changed the equation. The president and his team were determined to exploit the opportunity. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was equally determined to be engaging and a warm host.

The turning point was the Kargil war 20 years ago. The trajectory of America’s engagement with India was set. Hopefully it will remain on course.

 

[Type59]

Well these guys got a free trip and large amounts of money. Superpower 2020

 

[undercover JIX]

Modi only carried important countries.....
Remember India is a supa powa in front of those countries, they have no choice.....USA tagged along to make sure fake supa powa atleast carry out this simple visit properly.