Whether India invites me or not, I will visit India. Nawaz Sharif

[Mani2020]

ab tumhe zardari bi acha lagay ga Pakistaniyo

 

[illusion8]

look, most of what you said is inflammatory and I'm going to mostly ignore it. All I will say on the matter is that I personally disagree that the ISI was involved, to this day no one has been able to that the ISI was involved in anyway. I don't even agree that it's only logical, because it's not.

Nawaz has always been sincere about making peace with India, it's the military that didn't agree. India should worry about more domestic threats than foreign, as attacks from foreign fighters have diminished drastically, while domestic terrorism has increased.

US confirms ISI role in 26/11 Mumbai attacks - Economic Times
Will probe ISI`s role in 26/11 attacks if back to power: Nawaz Sharif
ISI chief admits role in 26/11 : Neighbours, News - India Today

Of course, the US wouldn't want ISI to be seriously implicated for their acts till the Afg drawdown gets completed.

 

[That Guy]

US confirms ISI role in 26/11 Mumbai attacks - Economic Times
Will probe ISI`s role in 26/11 attacks if back to power: Nawaz Sharif
ISI chief admits role in 26/11 : Neighbours, News - India Today

Of course, the US wouldn't want ISI to be seriously implicated for their acts till the Afg drawdown gets completed.

Yeah, I just checked those links, and none of them show any concrete evidence, only speculations and allegations. Even the one where the DG ISI "admitted" the ISI's role is just an allegation, as it's being covered in a book which I'm pretty sure none of us have read. More than likely, it's been added in their as a marketing strategy to sell more copies.

By the way, all three of those links are Indian, thus they have an inherent bias.

I can show that the defense secretary has said that India supports terrorists and separatists in Pakistan.

India financed problems for Pakistan via Afghanistan: Chuck Hagel | Pakistan - geo.tv

India finances trouble in Pakistan: Hagel | Pakistan | DAWN.COM

India fueled unrest in Pakistan, says Chuck Hagel | AAJ News

Notice that all three of these links are Pakistan, so are inherently bias, just like the Indian news papers.

Now, does that mean that Hagel is right? We don't know, as no evidence has been provided. It's rather unfortunate that you're taking things at face value, rather than asking for evidence.

You could be right, but until I see ample evidence, I will remain skeptical and say that this is just the US trying to scapegoat Pakistan in order to blame Pakistan for everything, including the USA's own failures in Afghanistan.

To this day, no one has been able to show that the ISI was involved in the Mumbai bombs, if the Indians had evidence, they would have shown it to the world, instead of giving the evidence to the Americans. India has always made decisions independently, regardless of international pressure, why would they keep quiet about this because of the Americans? To me, nothing adds up.

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

First of all, nothing you've said has any merit.

As per.....?

First, explain to me what else Pakistan has, besides a few markets willing to cooperate with Pakistan? We got China, Iran and India, a few more markets here and there...and that's about it.

First, explain to me why you can't utilize something so easy as a Google search engine to learn Pakistan's primary and secondary trade partners

Google and even a half-assed research does wonders

Second, you seem to be confusing Keyani with the entire military. Keyani has shown maturity, if it was any other general, there would have been a coup.

You talk about merit, but then you make a sweeping assumption. Spend less chai aur rusk biscuit time with Ayesha Siddiqua. You being an expert on the "entire military" and all. . .

He's visiting India because he was invited by the leader of that nation, Pakistan and India don't have to be enemies and the fact that they remain so is because of people like you!

a state dignified burial was given to a convicted indian terrorist who killed Pakistani citizens was given just weeks ago....I can list at least 5 other things they've done in the past year alone which would constitute "hostile" action. Treachery.

People like you are the ones who are merely DELUSIONAL. Look up the word DELUSIONAL in a dictioary because I think you fit the description quite well. And I dont even know where you came from or who you are on this forum. Either way - I'm a pragmatist. No we shouldnt be enemies at all.

I've written entire ESSAYS on this forum about how economic regional integration would be the single-biggest bulwark against what one could call 'western domination'

But that only comes when there are grounds for such initiative. And those grounds will only be solid when bilateral issues are solved and political maturity, discipline and FRANKNESS are exhibited by BOTH sides.

Is that too much for your head to comprehend? If so, I most sincerely apologize.

I find it amusing how you're cutting my entire response and not addressing it in it's proper context. For example, of course the president was a civilian, you don't have to point that out, it's common knowledge. You make it seem like I'm against the military, when I'm not.

i could care less what your views are about the military....polls showing approval of the Pak Military alone speak volumes more than 1 single post on "Pakistan Defence Forum"

Nawaz picked a fight with the military and lost, I acknowledge that. He did not, however, send the plane into enemy territory, he just refused to let it land, which is why Musharraf had ordered his arrest.

As I very clearly stated in my last post, the (civilian) aircraft he was on had about 6-10 minutes of fuel left. Essentially it was running on jet fuel fumes.

That in itself is treachery - endangering the lives of hundreds of Pakistani citizens who had no idea what was going on.

Sharif did not send the plane into enemy territory because by then the Army had taken over the airport and the air traffic control (ATC) operations!!!

To send a serving Chief of Army Staff's aircraft into enemy territory is unprecedented in world history. It's treason, it's treachery, it's locustry.

And as October 1999 clearly proved, it would not be tolerated.

Show a bit of maturity, because you're just spouting nonsense.

If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with me. I could care less.

The fact is that he probably didn't know about the operation,

While it was treated as a clandestine and "need-to-know" basis operation -- Nawaz Sharif damn right did know about the operation. If you want me to expand on HOW it's obvious he did - I will be happy to. But "probablys" alone just dont suffice for me.

While I do have some criticisms which I wouldn't share here, I fully support the decision of Kargil War. And if given the option, I'd do it again. But at the same time, I will acknowledge if and when mistakes were made on the part of Fauj.

The men of NLI, AK, and the Kashmiri mujahideen gave their lives and i could only dream of dying for my country alongside my rifle. You wouldnt understand.

and EVEN IF HE DID, what could Pakistan do? hmmm? I'm listening?

Tehelka - The People's Paper

Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied - Indian Express

Risk sanctions?

Pressler Amendment was implemented and already in place.

Risk a drawn out war, which India would have inevitably won because of the sheer man-power and resources they possessed?

all options would be on the table

running to Bill Clinton (who was already dealing with a scandal of his own) like a sorry cochroach wasn't one of them -- it only won him ridicule and the fury of the nation.

You're making bad assumptions and assertions, don't assume that Pakistan would have won, because war is unpredictable.

that it is

He served two times PARTIALLY, and he was toppled two times before he could even get to work, the second time only being a YEAR in power. Get your facts straight.

Since you speak with such a conviction laugh why was he toppled the first time?

I didn't get a chance to vote, and even if I had the opportunity to vote I wouldn't have voted for him at all.

i really could care less; it's a right afforded to you to choose your candidate

That's right, I don't know you, and you don't know myself or anyone else on these forums. Again, don't you DARE assume to know me.

Uhh yeah --- that's what I said to you initially in the first place.

Why should I block you? That is a sign of a coward, one who can't handle an argument. I don't block people, I never have and I never will.

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. If I blocked YOU, i'd be the 'coward'.

Come up with with material that is more "debate-worthy" next time. I'll be happy to entertain them.

 

[That Guy]

As per.....?




First, explain to me why you can't utilize something so easy as a Google search engine to learn Pakistan's primary and secondary trade partners

Google and even a half-assed research does wonders




You talk about merit, but then you make a sweeping assumption. Spend less chai aur rusk biscuit time with Ayesha Siddiqua. You being an expert on the "entire military" and all. . .




a state dignified burial was given to a convicted indian terrorist who killed Pakistani citizens was given just weeks ago....I can list at least 5 other things they've done in the past year alone which would constitute "hostile" action. Treachery.

People like you are the ones who are merely DELUSIONAL. Look up the word DELUSIONAL in a dictioary because I think you fit the description quite well. And I dont even know where you came from or who you are on this forum. Either way - I'm a pragmatist. No we shouldnt be enemies at all.

I've written entire ESSAYS on this forum about how economic regional integration would be the single-biggest bulwark against what one could call 'western domination'

But that only comes when there are grounds for such initiative. And those grounds will only be solid when bilateral issues are solved and political maturity, discipline and FRANKNESS are exhibited by BOTH sides.

Is that too much for your head to comprehend? If so, I most sincerely apologize.



i could care less what your views are about the military....polls showing approval of the Pak Military alone speak volumes more than 1 single post on "Pakistan Defence Forum"




As I very clearly stated in my last post, the (civilian) aircraft he was on had about 6-10 minutes of fuel left. Essentially it was running on jet fuel fumes.

That in itself is treachery - endangering the lives of hundreds of Pakistani citizens who had no idea what was going on.

Sharif did not send the plane into enemy territory because by then the Army had taken over the airport and the air traffic control (ATC) operations!!!

To send a serving Chief of Army Staff's aircraft into enemy territory is unprecedented in world history. It's treason, it's treachery, it's locustry.

And as October 1999 clearly proved, it would not be tolerated.




If you don't agree with me, then you don't agree with me. I could care less.




While it was treated as a clandestine and "need-to-know" basis operation -- Nawaz Sharif damn right did know about the operation. If you want me to expand on HOW it's obvious he did - I will be happy to. But "probablys" alone just dont suffice for me.

While I do have some criticisms which I wouldn't share here, I fully support the decision of Kargil War. And if given the option, I'd do it again. But at the same time, I will acknowledge if and when mistakes were made on the part of Fauj.

The men of NLI, AK, and the Kashmiri mujahideen gave their lives and i could only dream of dying for my country alongside my rifle. You wouldnt understand.




Tehelka - The People's Paper

Near Tiger Hill, Point 5353 still Pak-occupied - Indian Express




Pressler Amendment was implemented and already in place.




all options would be on the table

running to Bill Clinton (who was already dealing with a scandal of his own) like a sorry cochroach wasn't one of them -- it only won him ridicule and the fury of the nation.




that it is



Since you speak with such a conviction laugh why was he toppled the first time?




i really could care less; it's a right afforded to you to choose your candidate




Uhh yeah --- that's what I said to you initially in the first place.




Yeah that makes a lot of sense. If I blocked YOU, i'd be the 'coward'.

Come up with with material that is more "debate-worthy" next time. I'll be happy to entertain them.

How sad that you're once again breaking up my points and not taking them in context and the accusing me of making sweeping claims, when it's you that is doing such a thing.

I asked you to tell me, I already know who Pakistan's trading partners are, but that doesn't mean that Pakistan doesn't need new partners to make gains. I don' think you understand how economics work.

You may have written entire "essays", but that doesn't mean you're right about this. All you seem to be doing is character assassinating me, which is the lowest and most cowardly thing to do.

Care to show me which polls you refer to in your little reply? Don't say google it, because that's a cop out and you know it.

Again, you're making baseless assertions and passing them off as facts, and then contradicting yourself. I quote

Sharif did not send the plane into enemy territory because by then the Army had taken over the airport and the air traffic control (ATC) operations!!!

To send a serving Chief of Army Staff's aircraft into enemy territory is unprecedented in world history. It's treason, it's treachery, it's locustry.

Did he, or did he not? Make up your mind.

You also make it seem like I support NS, I actually think he's incompetent and tries to pick fights with the military that he knows he can't win, which is why he was toppled the second time. The plane had a few minutes of fuel left? Bullshit, there is no evidence to suggest that.

Tiger hill was ours, that is indisputable, and I agree that giving it up was a dumb move, that we can agree on, but the rest of the operation was lost.

It's also pathetic how you try to steal my view and turn it around against me.

I was the one to say you shouldn't assume things about others on these forums, not you.

I think you should come up with better arguments that don't rely on your baseless assumptions, because you and I both know that you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Contrarian]

Tiger hill was ours, that is indisputable, and I agree that giving it up was a dumb move, that we can agree on, but the rest of the operation was lost.

No one denies Pakistan had those peaks.

But Pakistan had started losing peaks one after another after a point of time.
It was inevitable that all or almost all peaks would be recovered. Pakistan Army also saw the writing on the wall - that they were being evicted one by one.
Nawaz cannot be faulted for going to US.

Any military if it undertakes a major operation has to have a written authorization from the PM. If the military or PM wishes it to be a black ops(plausible deniability) then the the Military Chief has take full responsibility for the actions if it falls through.

The fact that Pakistan Army not only did not have a written authorization, the Chief Of Pakistan Army also refused to take responsibility for the losses and actions of PA...instead Musharraf blamed Nawaz for 'running' and India for 'over reacting'.

 

[That Guy]

No one denies Pakistan had those peaks.

But Pakistan had started losing peaks one after another after a point of time.
It was inevitable that all or almost all peaks would be recovered. Pakistan Army also saw the writing on the wall - that they were being evicted one by one.
Nawaz cannot be faulted for going to US.

Any military if it undertakes a major operation has to have a written authorization from the PM. If the military or PM wishes it to be a black ops(plausible deniability) then the the Military Chief has take full responsibility for the actions if it falls through.

The fact that Pakistan Army not only did not have a written authorization, the Chief Of Pakistan Army also refused to take responsibility for the losses and actions of PA...instead Musharraf blamed Nawaz for 'running' and India for 'over reacting'.

Most of what you said, I agree, but I don't agree that India was evicting Pakistani forces one by one. Indeed India recaptured a lot of the points, but some of them they failed in recapturing. A lot of the points were given up on because of a mutual peace deal between Pakistan and India to withdraw at the same time and not occupy the points, but the Indian side broke their end of the deal and tried to occupy some of the points after Pakistan left, for example, Point 5353, the Indian side tried to occupy it, but Pakistan found out and redeployed it's forces to recapture the point and fortify it, and it is still to this day in Pakistani control.

Here, an article about the event from an Indian perspective...

http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/30/stories/2004063006391100.htm

 

[HAIDER]

Actually Nawaz was Hindu just few generation ago, so blood calling blood....

 

[Contrarian]

Most of what you said, I agree, but I don't agree that India was evicting Pakistani forces one by one. Indeed India recaptured a lot of the points, but some of them they failed in recapturing. A lot of the points were given up on because of a mutual peace deal between Pakistan and India to withdraw at the same time and not occupy the points, but the Indian side broke their end of the deal and tried to occupy some of the points after Pakistan left, for example, Point 5353, the Indian side tried to occupy it, but Pakistan found out and redeployed it's forces to recapture the point and fortify it, and it is still to this day in Pakistani control.

Here, an article about the event from an Indian perspective...

The Hindu : National : Commander ordered capture of Point 5353 in Kargil war

I completely agree that IA was not successful in capturing all of the peaks. And those peaks that IA was unsuccessful were being tried on again and again.
Inevitably the last of those peaks that PA was successfully holding off would also have fallen, if for nothing else then atleast for the logistics.. The PA soldiers were by the end of the conflict surviving on simple sugar as rations had run out - IAF bombings coupled with IA arty had cut the supply lines. One can not but accept the immense determination of PA soldiers who were fighting with limited bullets and no food - yet chose to fight on in most cases..but determination can only hold the fort for so long.

Had the conflict continued, the results would by and large have been the same - PA would have been evicted from 99% of the peaks it had occupied - but the casualties larger.

So I dont buy what these many Musharraf apologists say - that Nawaz saved India because PA was holding peaks. They deliberately ignore the fact that by then the peaks had started falling - and at a steady pace as well because the IAF was constantly getting better at targeting the mountain tops.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Actually Nawaz was Hindu just few generation ago, so blood calling blood....

How many generations does it take for one to get hindu blood out of system

 

[That Guy]

I completely agree that IA was not successful in capturing all of the peaks. And those peaks that IA was unsuccessful were being tried on again and again.
Inevitably the last of those peaks that PA was successfully holding off would also have fallen, if for nothing else then atleast for the logistics.. The PA soldiers were by the end of the conflict surviving on simple sugar as rations had run out - IAF bombings coupled with IA arty had cut the supply lines. One can not but accept the immense determination of PA soldiers who were fighting with limited bullets and no food - yet chose to fight on in most cases..but determination can only hold the fort for so long.

Had the conflict continued, the results would by and large have been the same - PA would have been evicted from 99% of the peaks it had occupied - but the casualties larger.

So I dont buy what these many Musharraf apologists say - that Nawaz saved India because PA was holding peaks. They deliberately ignore the fact that by then the peaks had started falling - and at a steady pace as well because the IAF was constantly getting better at targeting the mountain tops.

I don't know about that, the Indians conducted multiple operations to evict Pakistan forces and the bombardments did very little in terms of damage, so I disagree that Pakistan would have been evicted. Pakistan air force wasn't even involved in the conflict, so imagine if they had been (if the conflict went on, they would have gotten involved), the Indian side would be even more hard pressed to evict Pakistan, because IAF bombing runs and artillery positions would have been targeted.

The very fact that Pakistan still occupies point 5353 proves that Pakistan could have very well repelled any Indian assault, but retreated because of pressure from Nawaz and the US.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Well well who's this young dashing fella

 

[Contrarian]

I don't know about that, the Indians conducted multiple operations to evict Pakistan forces and the bombardments did very little in terms of damage,

Initially. The bombardments did very little damage initially. As IAF strapped laser guided munitions and their practice improved over the course of weeks it started to do some serious damage.

Pakistan air force wasn't even involved in the conflict, so imagine if they had been (if the conflict went on, they would have gotten involved), the Indian side would be even more hard pressed to evict Pakistan, because IAF bombing runs and artillery positions would have been targeted.

PAF was in a very bad position wrt to IAF at that time. Zero BVR capability though some claim a few aircrafts were made BVR capable. PAF would have been very hard pressed in defending its own positions.

And secondly PAF could not intervene as Pakistan had disowned the personnel who were in Kargil.
Had PAF intervened, it would have meant an all out war.

And Pakistan would not have fared well at all there, it would have lost a lot more territory in other sectors in such a war - completely defeating the purpose of Kargil - a land grab and a way to force India out of Siachen.

The very fact that Pakistan still occupies point 5353 proves that Pakistan could have very well repelled any Indian assault, but retreated because of pressure from Nawaz and the US.

You also consider the fact that even India stopped attacking after they initially failed. Had ceasefire not been agreed, India would have continued to attack.
As I said, the position of PA jawans was not tenable.

 

[That Guy]

Initially. The bombardments did very little damage initially. As IAF strapped laser guided munitions and their practice improved over the course of weeks it started to do some serious damage.


PAF was in a very bad position wrt to IAF at that time. Zero BVR capability though some claim a few aircrafts were made BVR capable. PAF would have been very hard pressed in defending its own positions.

And secondly PAF could not intervene as Pakistan had disowned the personnel who were in Kargil.
Had PAF intervened, it would have meant an all out war.

And Pakistan would not have fared well at all there, it would have lost a lot more territory in other sectors in such a war - completely defeating the purpose of Kargil - a land grab and a way to force India out of Siachen.



You also consider the fact that even India stopped attacking after they initially failed. Had ceasefire not been agreed, India would have continued to attack.
As I said, the position of PA jawans was not tenable.

I completely disagree, and I could go on, but I'm already on notice for seriously derailing an entire thread, so I'd rather just end it here.

 

[livingdead]

I don't know about that, the Indians conducted multiple operations to evict Pakistan forces and the bombardments did very little in terms of damage, so I disagree that Pakistan would have been evicted. Pakistan air force wasn't even involved in the conflict, so imagine if they had been (if the conflict went on, they would have gotten involved), the Indian side would be even more hard pressed to evict Pakistan, because IAF bombing runs and artillery positions would have been targeted.

The very fact that Pakistan still occupies point 5353 proves that Pakistan could have very well repelled any Indian assault, but retreated because of pressure from Nawaz and the US.

In case of all out war, India would most probably have opened punbab/rajasthan front... kargil is difficult to take back because of terrain, whoever is on top will kill loads of people (if they have access to supplies). India actually faced heavy casualty.
The airforce was not really that helpful I think, most give credit to bofors guns.