Pak may never try another Kargil, but it could get worse

[Abhishek_]

^I LOLed

 

[RazPaK]

^

Trollers slapping together penises.


Priceless.

 

[RazPaK]

Double Post.

 

[TheJewverine]

^

Trollers slapping together penises.


Priceless.

A topic you are apparently well versed in? Please keep the details of your fruity antics to yourself.

kthxbye

 

[Mercenary]

You went there when we were not even present in Kashmir. You call it a victory?

We were not present there either. Our British military commander refused to send Pakistani Troops into Kashmir. We had to act and use any force at our disposal before you would have gobbled up Kashmir like you did Hyderabad. The fact that a rag tag milita managed to capture 1/3 of Kashmir from an Army which just 3 years previous fought in World War II. Yeah, I call that a victory. Not a total victory but a victory nonetheless.

Stalemate? lol you wanted to TAKE Kashmir, did you do that? Oh you didn't? well, that doesn't sound like victory to me. I'm not sure about Pakistani meaning of victory lol.

Did I say victory? Learn to read before responding. In the Korean War, US and UN Forces wanted to expel North Koreans from South Korea but then launched an attack into North Korea with the aim of conquering it. When they crossed the 38 parallel and then China attacked to throw the attackers out. When both sides could not dislodge each other, the war was considered a stalemate. Same thing applies here. Pakistan attacked and then you guys went beyond your objective and then attacked into Pakistan and Pakistan held you at bay which means it was a stalemate.

What is the result sir? We cut your country in 2 different pieces, it denied the so called 2 nation theory, and the Pakistan that your jinna made, don't even exist now.

I'm sorry for you people.

Yes, 1971 was a defeat. And all the blame lies with west Pakistan. I dont disagree.

Lol. The same thing you did in '48. You went there when we were not present. Then you denied your involvement. Then you went to US. They ordered you to get out from India. You BACKED OFF. You call it victory?
Can you tell me what's the meaning of victory in Pakistani dictionary?

Our forces in Kargil were a mixture of Army soldiers and Kashmiri fighters. We just needed better logistics and we could have annexed Kargil. The fact that you guys had such a tough time and needed to deploy over 30,000 X 2 with logistics, just shows how tenacious the defenders of Kargil were.

Not since the Spartans held the Persians at bay Thermopayle did soldiers faced such great odds.

 

[MilSpec]

We were not present there either. Our British military commander refused to send Pakistani Troops into Kashmir. We had to act and use any force at our disposal before you would have gobbled up Kashmir like you did Hyderabad. The fact that a rag tag milita managed to capture 1/3 of Kashmir from an Army which just 3 years previous fought in World War II. Yeah, I call that a victory. Not a total victory but a victory nonetheless.

There were no british/ Indian troops in kashmir, once Indain army entered your spartans ran like nigerians in Olympic.

Did I say victory? Learn to read before responding. In the Korean War, US and UN Forces wanted to expel North Koreans from South Korea but then launched an attack into North Korea with the aim of conquering it. When they crossed the 38 parallel and then China attacked to throw the attackers out. When both sides could not dislodge each other, the war was considered a stalemate. Same thing applies here. Pakistan attacked and then you guys went beyond your objective and then attacked into Pakistan and Pakistan held you at bay which means it was a stalemate.

Our objective was to open the western front to pressurize pakistan in kashmir sector, we were sucessfull in doing so, in the end Over 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) of territory lost by Pak (primarily in Sialkot, Lahore, and Kashmir sectors) compared to 540 km2 (210 mi2) of territory won by pak (primarily in Rann of Kutch), Does that indicate successful 6-day war style blitz krieg that ayub khan had envisioned

Our forces in Kargil were a mixture of Army soldiers and Kashmiri fighters. We just needed better logistics and we could have annexed Kargil. The fact that you guys had such a tough time and needed to deploy over 30,000 X 2 with logistics, just shows how tenacious the defenders of Kargil were.

Not since the Spartans held the Persians at bay Thermopayle did soldiers faced such great odds.

Kargil was a missed opportunity by India by all means, just like 65, india should have rolled down its armored corp down pakistan's throat for this misadventure, but this was BJP's coalition governments first term and the political establishment for the lack of better words were spineless.

As far as bravery of pak spartans (mix of army and so called NLI) with active shelling from P.A armed with anti aircraft weaponry with a nuclear blackmail is concerned, I wonder why only twoo of them received Nishan-e-haidar?
Btw, remind me if the spartans at Thermopayle, retreat???

 

[SQ8]

Ah good sir, solutions are only required if there are problems and the current structure of Pakistani politics is extremely comfortable for those in charge. Feudals and Generals alike would have the status quo continue for many more years.
While I understand your sentiment, do also think about the Pakistanis that have died due to these misadventures. For every Indian or Afghani or even American, far more Pakistanis have given their lives simply because someone in Islamabad decided he will make a name for himself. The cause of those in power is only strengthened when Pakistani soldiers die, because what no nation will do is to abandon its soldiers; the common public invariably falls behind the Generals and the whole ordeal turns into a self fulfilling prophecy. As I said before, a war just has to be started and everything falls into place.

If there is going to be a change, it would require either the elimination of external threats (unlikely) or continuous failure and exposure of the PA in protecting its citizen (painstakingly slow). In the end, the fear is: Pakistan may over play it's hand one too many times in global politics and give the USA or India the convenient excuse to take matters into their own hands. Guess who'll make up the bulk of the dead in that situation? As usual, the Pakistanis of course.

I say this not to undermine the loss of Indians, but to point out that we are all sufferers in this grand chess game that the Pakistani elite are playing and none are more desperate than Pakistanis, who seem to die for no cause at all. They don't even have the benefit of their government exacting revenge on those responsible as the Indians and Americans often promise; since those responsible for these crimes are the very people that lead them.

And in that little piece of honesty.. you have enclosed what is an Arabian sea of issues.. into a fish pond..


Bravo..

As for the rest aspiring few.. who complain of not being able to get their point across because they cannot hold their own in a discussion and have to resort to low blows .
this gentlemen.. is how you should post.
Bravo once again..

 

[Mercenary]

There were no british/ Indian troops in kashmir, once Indain army entered your spartans ran like nigerians in Olympic.

How did we run when we managed to hold 1/3 of Kashmir? Why couldn't India take all of Kashmir? We held our ground but India had Tanks and Fighters which greatly outnumbered and outgunned the Militias. But still we managed to hold 1/3 of Kashmir which is a great achievement.

Our objective was to open the western front to pressurize pakistan in kashmir sector, we were sucessfull in doing so, in the end Over 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) of territory lost by Pak (primarily in Sialkot, Lahore, and Kashmir sectors) compared to 540 km2 (210 mi2) of territory won by pak (primarily in Rann of Kutch), Does that indicate successful 6-day war style blitz krieg that ayub khan had envisioned

No battleplan survives first contact. The fact that an outnumbered, outgunned and outmanned Pakistani Army fought the numerically superior Indians and held them at way when Indians decided to launch an attack into Pakistan shows that if both countries were on an even footing, India would have lost more badly than its defeat to China in 1962.

Kargil was a missed opportunity by India by all means, just like 65, india should have rolled down its armored corp down pakistan's throat for this misadventure, but this was BJP's coalition governments first term and the political establishment for the lack of better words were spineless.

As far as bravery of pak spartans (mix of army and so called NLI) with active shelling from P.A armed with anti aircraft weaponry with a nuclear blackmail is concerned, I wonder why only twoo of them received Nishan-e-haidar?
Btw, remind me if the spartans at Thermopayle, retreat???

And just like in 1965, your generals would be dreaming of having Tea in Lahore.

We did not retreat, we withdrew our forces to a more strategic location. We held you guys at bay even though u guys threw everything at us.

Is it any wonder why India has lost so many wars.

1962 - total Indian defeat against China

1965 - an Army 3 times as big as Pakistan and yet could not defeat it

1987 - got badly mauled by LTTE and ran away like cowards

2002 - deployed troops at border but 700 died in accicdents

2008 - attack at mumbai and no response from India

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

How did we run when we managed to hold 1/3 of Kashmir? Why couldn't India take all of Kashmir? We held our ground but India had Tanks and Fighters which greatly outnumbered and outgunned the Militias. But still we managed to hold 1/3 of Kashmir which is a great achievement.



No battleplan survives first contact. The fact that an outnumbered, outgunned and outmanned Pakistani Army fought the numerically superior Indians and held them at way when Indians decided to launch an attack into Pakistan shows that if both countries were on an even footing, India would have lost more badly than its defeat to China in 1962.




And just like in 1965, your generals would be dreaming of having Tea in Lahore.

We did not retreat, we withdrew our forces to a more strategic location. We held you guys at bay even though u guys threw everything at us.

Is it any wonder why India has lost so many wars.

1962 - total Indian defeat against China

1965 - an Army 3 times as big as Pakistan and yet could not defeat it

1987 - got badly mauled by LTTE and ran away like cowards

2002 - deployed troops at border but 700 died in accicdents

2008 - attack at mumbai and no response from India

you should have read my post regarding 62, 65 , srilanka which busted fiction from reality and your brother who said all above cant find answer to those....

 

[Mav3rick]

There were no british/ Indian troops in kashmir, once Indain army entered your spartans ran like nigerians in Olympic.

Why do you guys have to post stupid misleading statements? Upon partition, Pakistani military was commanded by a British, who refused to engage Indian Military in Kashmir upon Jinnah's orders. Our militia had to face the Indian military and were able to hold on to the area already liberated.

Our objective was to open the western front to pressurize pakistan in kashmir sector, we were sucessfull in doing so, in the end Over 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) of territory lost by Pak (primarily in Sialkot, Lahore, and Kashmir sectors) compared to 540 km2 (210 mi2) of territory won by pak (primarily in Rann of Kutch), Does that indicate successful 6-day war style blitz krieg that ayub khan had envisioned

Get out of Indian controlled Wikipedia and face facts, I have been posting this again and again that just because there are 7-8 Indians for every Pakistani it does not mean their stories become facts. It was your military commander that exposed the fact that your military had exhausted her war supplies and was not equipped to continue the war where as on the other hand, Pakistan could have continued to fight for a much longer period. Fact is, had India been in such a strong position as is posted on Indian sites or India dominated web then India would not have ended the war in a stalemate.

Personally, I would have taken even a stalemate as considerable insult as the adversary was 1/7th the size or even smaller. But where Indians are concerned, no insult is 'low' enough.

Kargil was a missed opportunity by India by all means, just like 65, india should have rolled down its armored corp down pakistan's throat for this misadventure, but this was BJP's coalition governments first term and the political establishment for the lack of better words were spineless.

If you want to know what happened in Kargil, all you have to do really is look at what happened later in 01/02. You may not have learnt your lesson as the lesson taught to you may have been very misleading but your Military had learned the lesson in '65 and so never really dared to cross the border either in '99 or in '01/'02. Big talk of invasion and surgical strikes proved to be hot air as usual.

As far as bravery of pak spartans (mix of army and so called NLI) with active shelling from P.A armed with anti aircraft weaponry with a nuclear blackmail is concerned, I wonder why only twoo of them received Nishan-e-haidar?
Btw, remind me if the spartans at Thermopayle, retreat???

Spartans at Thermopylae were not ordered to retreat, however they eventually perished 'heroes'. The rest of the post does not merit a response.

EDIT: I just noticed how easy it is to accumulate 'Thanks' when one starts bashing Pakistan. Another prime example of 7-8 Indians thanking every anti-Pakistan post as opposed to 1 Pakistani thanking a factual albeit pro Pakistani post.

 

[Executioner]

Seems like you are fond of my baby cousin and his glasses. Even he could teach you how to use a "rifle".

Say hello to Kaka Jatt.


Funny Indian trollers these days.

A kid holding a gun even he didn't belong any terrible area or any poor family or people who do this for living and don't you are preparing for Jihad, teach him do jihad for studies. But I think its make you happy, then stop sharing this

All Muslims Are Not Terrorist But Most Terrorists Are Muslim

 

[Paan Singh]

Is it any wonder why India has lost so many wars.

1962 - total Indian defeat against China

1965 - an Army 3 times as big as Pakistan and yet could not defeat it

1987 - got badly mauled by LTTE and ran away like cowards

2002 - deployed troops at border but 700 died in accicdents

2008 - attack at mumbai and no response from India

5

I had respect for ur post but now i hv doubts .

1)62...
It was not a full war..10000 indian soldiers fought against 80000 chinese and if u call 65 as stalemate then so does 62..we ended with having arunachal .

2)65

who thrown their resources fully on pakistan??..we dint..
u sent massive resources to kashmir region but left ur punjab exposed and we striked punjab so u had to go back and save punjab leaving kashmir aside and ur tanks even reached inside kashmir and u were better equiped with U.S tanks but had poor skills to use them and those tanks were sitting ducks ..and overall india was defensive and retained wat we had and india occupied 3 times more land than u got of india..but forces gone to their positions...

so wat was result??..

u tried for few objectives but couldnt get it..
and we din have any objective and even we returned occupied land too...
and ask gen musa who was heading ur army how it was ur failure...

3)87

we underestimated LTTE strength and it was first experience to send the forces..even U.S lost 60000 soldiers in vietnam without achieving anything..so?

4) 2002..

it poor trooling...2-3 soldiers got killed and 50 + got injured..as per report inside parliament..
so keep ur stuff inside ur brain..

5) 2008.
we have resources to give u respsonse from ur western border..so why shud we go for direct attack when we can do it indirectly, like poison who works slowly.its same tablet which u hav prepared for us few times ago

 

[RazPaK]

A kid holding a gun even he didn't belong any terrible area or any poor family or people who do this for living and don't you are preparing for Jihad, teach him do jihad for studies. But I think its make you happy, then stop sharing this

All Muslims Are Not Terrorist But Most Terrorists Are Muslim

You are an incredible Indian idiot.

Hats off to you for your assessment.

 

[karan.1970]

An interesting read on Kargil - A Pakistani Perspect

Kargil Debacle: Musharraf's Time Bomb, Waiting to Explode

Kargil Debacle: Musharraf's Time Bomb, Waiting to Explode

ISLAMABAD, August 3: Five years have passed since Kargil but it continues to be debated in Pakistan mainly because it led to the fall of Nawaz Sharif and the rise of General Musharraf, changing the fate of both on the same day, one going to jail and the other crowned the king.

Kargil, nevertheless, established a bitter fact that Pakistan Army will continue to exercise its domination over the vulnerable civilians, both in political and militarily domains irrespective of the losses in the process to the country and its unfortunate 140 million people.

The five years since Kargil have also established the fact that the truth will not come out until the Army rules the roost. A Kargil Commission will never be set up like the Hamoodur Rehman Commission, unless a genuinely elected political government takes over.

The controversy, however, rages on. In a fresh interview, exiled Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told an Indian magazine a judicial commission was inevitable to determine who was responsible for the disaster.

Nawaz Sharif sounded quite aggressive and threatening in his latest interview when he made it clear that whenever he regains power, he would not spare those who staged Kargil.

Earlier, ‘Battle Ready’, a new book by American General Anthony Zinni, who worked closely with former president Bill Clinton during the infamous Pakistan-India stand off, revived the five years old controversy in Pakistan.

Despite claims and counter claims both from the military and civilians, the situation is still blur as General Musharraf claims that Nawaz had cleared the plan and military could not be held responsible for the debacle.

In a series of political profiles of leaders of the Nawaz government who were actively involved in all Kargil decisions, this scribe tried to get to the bottom but could only go so far as leaders who know would not talk and those who talk don’t know.

Ch. Shujaat Hussain, the current Prime Minister who was leading the ruling PML-Q when I interviewed him, was the first political leader who had disclosed many inside stories leading to the Kargil crises.

His disclosures had unleashed a storm in the political and military circles. However, when this scribe met Ch. Nisar Ali Khan who had accompanied Nawaz Sharif to meet President Clinton on July 4, 1999, a different perspective of the situation emerged.

Ishaq Dar who was the then finance minister and directly pumping money for defence requirements, gave another account of these events.

But one potential witness to Kargil, Mushahid Hussain, otherwise considered to be a bold writer, had flatly refused to talk over the issue after becoming a senator on the ruling party ticket.

Despite my best efforts, I could not interview the then Foreign Minister Sartaj Aziz as he had refused to come on record though he confirmed to me that he knew much about Kargil. Likewise, General (Retd) Abdul Majeed Malik, who also knew a lot also shied away from talking on the subject.

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid, also an important member of the Nawaz cabinet had simply told this scribe, without going into details of Kargil, that he endorsed the views of Ch. Shujaat Hussain.

Shujaat Hussain was interviewed in April 2003 and he was at best evasive and did neither support Musharraf nor Nawaz Sharif. He rather narrated a tale of one such meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Defence in which Kargil issue was discussed.

Shujaat said a Brigadier was briefing participants of the meeting including Sartaj Aziz, Shujaat, Nawaz and General Musharraf who was then the COAS.

Shujaat claimed that at one stage Musharraf observed that Nawaz was not following what the Brigadier was trying to convey on Kargil. So Musharraf himself sprang from his seat, took the stick from the Brigadier and started to explain.

According to Shujaat, when at one stage of the briefing by General Musharraf, the dismal picture of Kargil and its implications sank home, Nawaz Sharif almost shouted at Musharraf by saying: ‘This means an open war with India’.

Nawaz genuinely complained to Musharraf as to why was he not told earlier that this kind of military activity on Kargil could lead to a war like situation with India, Shujaat continued.

“Upon this, Musharraf produced a pocket note book and started to give details of all those meetings in which, he claimed, Nawaz was given briefings about Kargil. But this further annoyed Nawaz. At this stage a cool and diplomatic interior minister (Shujaat himself) proposed that what had happened was past now. He proposed that it was better that a press release should be issued after the meeting saying that both the military and political leadership was on board on Kargil.

Shujaat said his proposal greatly annoyed Nawaz as he refused to do so. “Nawaz was so annoyed with me for making the proposal that when he left the meeting he did not even bother to look at him or shake hands.”

When this scribe met Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, he gave a different account of events leading to the fall of Nawaz. Nisar had clearly said during the Kargil crisis that Nawaz had decided to visit the US to protect the honor of the military endangered in face of Indian threats.


Ch Nisar held important ministerial portfolios in the governments of General Ziaul Haq and Mohammad Khan Junejo and was also a leading figure in both the tenures of Nawaz government from 1991 to 1993 and 1997 to 1999.

Nisar said, "Kargil was badly conceived, badly planned and badly executed". He said the timing was so bad that when the political leadership was told about this misadventure, the PM could not reverse or stop it even if he wished to because it would have had serious fallout, both for the army and the government.

Nisar said Nawaz and his team were told by military leadership only what was needed according to their requirements and perception. The nation, he said, should be told about the reaction of the then Naval Chief Admiral Fasih Bukhari and Air Chief Pervez Mehdi when like civilian leaders they came to know about Kargil for the first time.

Declining to discuss what these reactions were, Nisar said let the nation ask that question from the former naval and air chiefs and they should tell what their comments were about the possibility of war with India.

Nisar said if Nawaz had been aware of the Kargil adventure, he was not so foolish to invite the Indian prime minister to Lahore.

About Nawaz’s mad rush to Washington, Nisar said he received a call from Nawaz who asked him to get ready to go to the US. Nisar opposed his visit saying: "Mian sahib let those people face the music who had planned all these things without taking politicians into confidence." But, Nawaz replied: "No Nisar, I cannot see my army face humiliation at the hands of India".

Nisar said Shahbaz Sharif is a witness to his opposition to Nawaz dash to the US. He recalled: "ZA Bhutto, with his political wisdom, saved 90,000 Pakistani POWs but was later hanged by the military. The same happened with Nawaz after 27 years. Nawaz went to US risking the negative fallout but saved the military honor that was under serious danger because of Indian threats". Nisar lamented that the same army rescued by Nawaz sent the man to hell.

Ishaq Dar, who was the then Finance Minister, said he knew too much about the troubling issues between military and the civilian leadership of that time. Dar demanded that a judicial commission should be set up where he would give all the inside information and details that would shock the entire country.

He said that the most important details pertain to briefing of General Pervez Musharraf to Dar and Sartaj Aziz in the Military Operation Room of the GHQ towards the end of May 1999 and the meetings of the Defence Cabinet Committee (DCC) during May and June 1999 under the chairmanship of PM Nawaz in which Majeed Malik, Raja Zafar ul Haq and Mushahid Hussain also participated in addition to permanent members of DCC.

But, Dar said before Nawaz dashed to the US for the July 4 meeting with Clinton, two important meetings were held to review the situation. Nawaz had gone to US only to bail out the Pakistan Army. Dar said General Musharraf was very keen to involve US for mediation between India and Pakistan.

Was Nawaz Sharif on board about Kargil operations from the beginning? Dar categorically denied this by saying "not at all".

Most of the Corps Commanders, Air Force and Naval Chiefs were also not aware of the operation on day one. PM Nawaz was in fact informed on May 17, he claimed.

However Ishaq Dar revealed another interesting fact that supported the point of view of General Musharraf that Nawaz Sharif was informed about Kargil, although he might have not taken it seriously.

Dar revealed that many months before the Kargil operation, a strategic briefing on different locations including Kargil was held in Skardu. But, Dar hastened to add that this causal briefing could in no way be termed as an approval from Nawaz for the Kargil Operation.

He said Kargil was launched without meeting the required formalities and a proper approval. The then political leadership was approached for immediate rescue only when operational problems started to surface at Kargil. When Musharraf briefed Nawaz about troubling development, the first abrupt question Nawaz asked from his army chief was: why he was not informed in advance about the operation, Dar claimed.

Dar said Nawaz had gone to the US not on his own but on the personal request and insistence of Musharraf who saw Nawaz off at the Airport. Dar said Nawaz had sincerely tried to save the dignity and honor of Pakistan Army and to protect the Mujahideen on Kargil front lines for whom inadequate arrangements were made by the Army.

But, Dar was not ready to speak more on Kargil though he claimed that he knew much more. He said he would tell everything to a judicial commission if formed on the issue because he believes that such revelations would not be in the national interest.

So, no one, neither the military nor the political leadership, is ready to accept the responsibility of this disaster that not only brought two neighboring countries to the brink of war but also led to the dramatic fall of Nawaz and rise of Musharraf.


The writer is a senior journalist working for The News, Islamabad. E-Mail: klasra@hotmail.com

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

A kid holding a gun even he didn't belong any terrible area or any poor family or people who do this for living and don't you are preparing for Jihad, teach him do jihad for studies. But I think its make you happy, then stop sharing this

All Muslims Are Not Terrorist But Most Terrorists Are Muslim