Views of Pakistanis regarding 1965 war

[Shabz Nist]

It would not have been published if it was biased. It is the Carnagie Mellon in Washington DC that printed it, & these are their claims. If it weren't their claims, they would have mentioned at the start of the article that these are the author's sole claims, & not the views of Carnegie Mellon.

Not really. You really need to come up with better arguments than that.

There were skirmishes in both in Rann of Kutch & elsewhere for sometime, but it was India that initiated the war, & the BBC article proves that.

And now suddenly BBC is a credible source to you? I could have sworn you leveled numerous accusations against the BBC in some other thread.

 

[Bhairava]

It would not have been published if it was biased. It is the Carnagie Mellon in Washington DC that printed it, & these are their claims. If it weren't their claims, they would have mentioned at the start of the article that these are the author's sole claims, & not the views of Carnegie Mellon..

This is a very naive claim and infact very misleading.

All the think tanks that ask people to write for them, don't endorse the articles themselves. This is just like how various columnists write in ET,DAWN etc and more often than not many are contradictory to other columnists.It does not mean either ET or DAWN endorse those views.

They are the author's personal views and the Carnegie,ET,DAWN etc are just medium and it is understood by common sense that they do not necessarily endorse it.

 

[Ambitious449]

I think Pakistani Army wanted to convince their people that we are some worth. It's not like that we have zero success and use 1965 as their report card . 4 wars and not a single convincing victory is something they won't like to live with. Thatsy this propaganda.

 

[Bhairava]

There were skirmishes in both in Rann of Kutch & elsewhere for sometime, but it was India that initiated the war, & the BBC article proves that.

Operation Gibralter where 1000s of SSG personnel infiltrated Indian defences and started the fighting with tanks,fighters used was no "skirmish".

Do you know the meaning of the word "Skirmish" ?

 

[53fd]

At the end of the day, I have given sources from Washington DC that claim Pakistan won more territory than India, an Indian quoted the Time saying otherwise. The words of neither sources are written in stone.

 

[Bhairava]

At the end of the day, I have given sources from Washington DC that claim Pakistan won more territory than India, an Indian quoted the Time saying otherwise. The words of neither sources are written in stone.

Its not from Washington DC. Its from a Pakistani, a rather disgraced one, Hussain Haqqani.Was tthe Time news report by an Indian ? No. It was a news report filed way back during the war.

So your claim of putting them on the same plane is just ridiculous. There are numerous articles written by Indian analysts on Kashmir on international fora. Will you accept them ?

BTW since you said Washington, let me quote you from the official website of the State Dept.

After Pakistan's loss in the 1965 war against India, Ayub Khan's power declined.

Pakistan

 

[53fd]

I think Pakistani Army wanted to convince their people that we are some worth. It's not like that we have zero success and use 1965 as their report card . 4 wars and not a single convincing victory is something they want to live with. Thatsy this propaganda.

1999 war:

Indian troop strength: 30,000
Pakistan troop strength: 5000

Indian troops losses: 527
Pakistan troops losses: 626

India's injuries figures: 1,363 wounded
Pakistan's injuries figures: 665 wounded

 

[Shabz Nist]

1999 war:

And HOW is this is related to 1965 war....

 

[Omar1984]

^ All you indians are in such denial that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore, Pakistan. We kicked you out, kept your soldiers as war prisoners and kept your tanks.

Pakistan was the ultimate winner because the aggressor 8 times our size couldn't achieve its objective of capturing our territory.

---------- Post added at 11:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:46 PM ----------

1999 war:

Indian troop strength: 30,000
Pakistan troop strength: 5000

Indian troops losses: 527
Pakistan troops losses: 626

India's injuries figures: 1,363 wounded
Pakistan's injuries figures: 665 wounded

Yes we had captured Kargil but that time the coward Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister and gave into US pressure after one phone call from Bill Clinton.

 

[Bhairava]

1999 war:

Indian troop strength: 30,000
Pakistan troop strength: 5000

Indian troops losses: 527
Pakistan troops losses: 626

India's injuries figures: 1,363 wounded
Pakistan's injuries figures: 665 wounded

You seem to have a very simplistic view about wars.

Its not about numbers, its about objectives. If it was about numbers then US is the clear victor in Afghanistan.

BTW Carnegie has this wonderful article about LeT. Let us know if you agree with it or not.

Bad Company

 

[Shabz Nist]

^ All you indians are in such denial that you crossed international borders and invaded Lahore, Pakistan. We kicked you out, kept your soldiers as war prisoners and kept your tanks.

Pakistan was the ultimate winner because the aggressor 8 times our size couldn't achieve its objective of capturing our territory.

Either your'e delusional or you live in some other dimension and accidentally ended up in this website due to some inter-dimensional anomaly. I do not think i have the time to waste on you, except this comment. Sorry.

 

[53fd]

I think Pakistani Army wanted to convince their people that we are some worth. It's not like that we have zero success and use 1965 as their report card . 4 wars and not a single convincing victory is something they won't like to live with. Thatsy this propaganda.

Pakistan won 40% of Kashmir (including Aksai Chin & Azad Kashmir) in 1948.

Statistics from the 1948 war:

India's troops: 30,000
Pakistan's troops: 5000

India's/Pakistan's troop ratio: 30,000/5000 = 6

Part of Kashmir Pakistan should have won: 100/6= 16.67%
Part of Kashmir India should have won: 100 - 16.67 = 83.33%

Amount of Kashmir Pakistan won in 1948: 40%

Net amount of Kashmir won by Pakistan: 40 - 16.67 = 23.33%

 

[Bukhari.syed]

Pakistan started the war, and we won it which was obvious from their leadership as they wanted to start negotiation. If India would be winning they would never do so.

 

[Sliver]

^ the question is.. why did you capture kargil when the Indian PM was invited to Pakistan for peace talks? what sense does that make?
- back to topic : It is obvious that most political parties put a "spin" on the actual happening of a war to cover thier backs. Its up to the people to realize how bizarre or real they are.

 

[Bhairava]

Pakistan won 40% of Kashmir (including Aksai Chin & Azad Kashmir) in 1948.

Statistics from the 1948 war:

India's troops: 30,000
Pakistan's troops: 5000

India's/Pakistan's troop ratio: 30,000/5000 = 6

Part of Kashmir Pakistan should have won: 100/6= 16.67%
Part of Kashmir India should have won: 100 - 16.67 = 83.33%

Amount of Kashmir Pakistan won in 1948: 40%

Net amount of Kashmir won by Pakistan: 40 - 16.67 = 23.33%

I'll quote my post again.

You seem to have a very simplistic view about wars.

Its not about numbers, its about objectives.

If it was only about numbers then US is the clear victor in Afghanistan.

In 1948, it was a different story. Pakistani tribals did not invade the Indian state of Kashmir. They invaded the then Independent princely state of Kashmir ruled by a Maharaja. This prompted the Raja to accede to India which then went to capture about 65% of the territory. From then on none of Pakistan's advances met with any victory and were repulsed effectively.