Why an Indian threat to Pakistan is a myth

[Xeric]

^^ Isnt it strange that the advocators and aspirants of Akhund Bharat, now feel 'threatened' by a country 1/3 their size?

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

^^ Isnt it strange that the advocators and aspirants of Akhund Bharat, now feel 'threatened' by a country 1/3 their size?

Pakistan is already a part of Akhand Bharat.


About being threatened part , an age old saying:enemy big or small ,never underestimate them

 

[SMC]

Answer is simple... If we didn't have our men and resources at our border Pakistan would have attempted several kargil's through out the LOC and IB. India must and should counter Pakistani threats along the IB by investing in more technologically advanced military and intelligence equipment.

So you think Pakistan is going to attempt Kargil at this point in time? FYI, Pakistan only has 100,000 troops along Indian border.

Its 66% if i recall.
Pakistan is the only evergreen military threat out there.
last example being Kargil.

It's 80% total military, and 100% offensive corps. As for Pakistan attempting Kargil, read my above sentence.

 

[DGMO]

Dude, why so much self-pity? Do you see any remorse from Indians for supporting Mukhti Bahni? All of them play it up and say that it was the right thing to do. You see how proud they feel about creating Bangladesh. So why these double standards? Why should we not at the very least try to return the favour back by supporting Kashmiri separtists? Obviously they (the bharatis) are full of a double standards and they can't clearly see their hypocrisy when they criticize Pakistan for supporting Kashmir and Khalistan movements. But you should be able to see through their garbage.

Btw, don't fall for the bharati nonsense that the groups that we were supporting are now attacking us. That's the bubble they live in where they've deluded themselves into believing many things that suits their worldview. When did we support TTP? When did we support BLA? When did we support LeJ?

TTP is more or less CIA creation, which was confirmed from the fact that they give shelter to TTP in Afghanistan and how Raymond Davis was in contact with TTP.

As for Bharat not being a threat, what exactly does 100% of their offensive resources being on Pakistan border mean? I am not sure what they can do with that other than start a full-fledged war. Surgical strikes certainly don't demand all that.

Self pity? Why would there be self-pity? The only thing I bank upon is realism, seeing the current landscape for what it is, questioning whether our policies are taking us forward as a nation and if perpetual conflict, confrontation and emnity with India benefits us, and if so, how?

Living in the past will not get us anywhere, and for that, I don't care about Mukhti Bahni. Our policies in East Pakistan led to its creation. They didn't rise from nowhere. If I look at East Pakistan in any shape way or form, I ask myself could we hold on to a people so different and distant than us? That brings us down to your somewhat bizarre question of:

'Why should we not at the very least try to return the favour back by supporting Kashmiri separtists?'

Ask yourself why? Will it give us Kashmir? Do you honestly believe that the flawed of policy of 'a death by a thousand cuts' can work or will work? We are totally isolated on the policy of backing an armed insurgency in Kashmir on the international stage. Whether that's covertly or overtly. Any sympathy that existed was washed away with 9/11. More importantly, militancy has faded away as has the appetite for it in that region.

You ask when did we support LeJ, but I don't know if you're being serious with that question. Of course we have supported them. Do you think the ISI haven't? Rana Sanaullah is out campaigning with them and he's our Law Minister in our largest province!

India have no aims to invade us, to occupy our territory as they know they won't be able to. They'd be able to defeat us conventionally, cripple our defences, but they'd want to exit straight after. We kid ourselves to think there's a legitimate and real threat there. The only threat as I have highlighted seems to come from Pakistan against India.

Our policies have failed us in so many ways, and we have been harmed by that. India took a different route, and empowered itself with education. By no means are they a total success story, but they sure have made strides that we should not only envy, but try hard to emulate.

The bottom line is if you play with matchsticks, you will get burnt. And we've been burnt a few times, but don't seem to quite learn. We need to put the matchsticks back in the box, and broach peace seriously with India.

That starts with tackling Mumbai and dealing with the culprits and their backers / sympathisers. We can bleat about history all we can, but that will lead us nowhere. Our only option is to embrace peace with India to help the poor of both nations prosper. I'd like to hear your alternative, but I doubt it will be as positive or as productive.

However I hope you can prove me wrong.

 

[toxic_pus]

So you think Pakistan is going to attempt Kargil at this point in time? FYI, Pakistan only has 100,000 troops along Indian border.

All of IA is not deployed along the Indo-Pak border. They are in their barracks far away from the borders. What else do you expect GoI to do? Dismantle it's war machine just because PA is temporarily busy shoveling it's own $hit. What happens when PA is done fighting it's Frankensteins? Unless there is demonstrable evidence that GoP has moved away from it's psychotic, paranoia driven irrational policies, there will be no dismantling of IA, if that's what you are hinting at.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

India has started to prepare a new "massive exercise" just 5 kms away frm Pak border n has 100% of its assets n 80% army facing Pakistan............. n the threat is still a myth? BS.

 

[toxic_pus]

Dude, why so much self-pity? Do you see any remorse from Indians for supporting Mukhti Bahni? All of them play it up and say that it was the right thing to do. You see how proud they feel about creating Bangladesh. So why these double standards? Why should we not at the very least try to return the favour back by supporting Kashmiri separtists? Obviously they (the bharatis) are full of a double standards and they can't clearly see their hypocrisy when they criticize Pakistan for supporting Kashmir and Khalistan movements. But you should be able to see through their garbage.

Where propaganda is school curriculum, what more can one expect. '71 didn't happen in vacuum. There was a precursor to it. 1965. Remember how you attacked India, first at Sir Creek and then in Kashmir, unprovoked, at one of our weakest moments, and how you followed it up giving refuge to Naga and Mizo rebels in Chittagong Hill District of erstwhile East Pakistan?

I must however applaud you for your honesty. It is not everyday that we see a hoity-toity Pakistani admitting that Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri 'Freedom Fighters' is driven entirely by it's desire to extract revenge, something that we Indians already know.

 

[SMC]

Self pity? Why would there be self-pity? The only thing I bank upon is realism, seeing the current landscape for what it is, questioning whether our policies are taking us forward as a nation and if perpetual conflict, confrontation and emnity with India benefits us, and if so, how?

Living in the past will not get us anywhere, and for that, I don't care about Mukhti Bahni. Our policies in East Pakistan led to its creation. They didn't rise from nowhere. If I look at East Pakistan in any shape way or form, I ask myself could we hold on to a people so different and distant than us? That brings us down to your somewhat bizarre question of:

You could use the same argument that you're using for why East Pakistan was created for Kashmir. Because local population was/is oppressed in both places. But how many bharatis do you see defending separation of Kashmir? The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of bharatis are GPA 4.0 hypocrites when it comes to these things.

'Why should we not at the very least try to return the favour back by supporting Kashmiri separtists?'

Ask yourself why? Will it give us Kashmir? Do you honestly believe that the flawed of policy of 'a death by a thousand cuts' can work or will work? We are totally isolated on the policy of backing an armed insurgency in Kashmir on the international stage. Whether that's covertly or overtly. Any sympathy that existed was washed away with 9/11. More importantly, militancy has faded away as has the appetite for it in that region.

Whether or not it will give us Kashmir is not the point. Fact of the matter is that bharatis heavily supported separatists in our country, so we should do the same. I don't see any issue with that.

You ask when did we support LeJ, but I don't know if you're being serious with that question. Of course we have supported them. Do you think the ISI haven't? Rana Sanaullah is out campaigning with them and he's our Law Minister in our largest province!

I don't remember any history of support to LeJ. Nevertheless, we have never supported TTP or BLA, the two biggest terrorist organizations at this point. I am afraid to see that the bharati delusion is catching up with you. You'll frequently hear them say that Pakistan is fighting the same groups that it created. When you look only a little bit into this, it becomes obvious that this is utter nonsense.

India have no aims to invade us, to occupy our territory as they know they won't be able to. They'd be able to defeat us conventionally, cripple our defences, but they'd want to exit straight after. We kid ourselves to think there's a legitimate and real threat there. The only threat as I have highlighted seems to come from Pakistan against India.

So then why do they have 80% of their military on Pakistani border, despite under current circumstances?

 

[SMC]

All of IA is not deployed along the Indo-Pak border. They are in their barracks far away from the borders. What else do you expect GoI to do? Dismantle it's war machine just because PA is temporarily busy shoveling it's own $hit. What happens when PA is done fighting it's Frankensteins? Unless there is demonstrable evidence that GoP has moved away from it's psychotic, paranoia driven irrational policies, there will be no dismantling of IA, if that's what you are hinting at.

Well 80% of it is, which is the number I quoted. By no means I said all. And yes, those 80% ARE ON PAKISTANI border. They can move them away from Pakistani borders, you know. Not exactly an einstein though. What happens when PA is done fighting is irrelevant. At this point in time, there's no good explanation you can give for why 80% of the military is on Pakistani borders, unless the explanation is that it's there to start a war.

 

[SMC]

Where propaganda is school curriculum, what more can one expect. '71 didn't happen in vacuum. There was a precursor to it. 1965. Remember how you attacked India, first at Sir Creek and then in Kashmir, unprovoked, at one of our weakest moments, and how you followed it up giving refuge to Naga and Mizo rebels in Chittagong Hill District of erstwhile East Pakistan?

I must however applaud you for your honesty. It is not everyday that we see a hoity-toity Pakistani admitting that Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri 'Freedom Fighters' is driven entirely by it's desire to extract revenge, something that we Indians already know.

Apples to oranges comparison, dime a dozen from bharatis. The territory you listed was/is disputed. Bangladesh wasn't.

 

[toxic_pus]

Well 80% of it is, which is the number I quoted. By no means I said all. And yes, those 80% ARE ON PAKISTANI border. They can move them away from Pakistani borders, you know. Not exactly an einstein though. What happens when PA is done fighting is irrelevant. At this point in time, there's no good explanation you can give for why 80% of the military is on Pakistani borders, unless the explanation is that it's there to start a war.

Now provide documented evidence that 80% of IA are deployed at Pak border. We will talk after that.

 

[toxic_pus]

Apples to oranges comparison, dime a dozen from bharatis. The territory you listed was/is disputed. Bangladesh wasn't.

You are forgetting that previously, a UN agreement was signed where both the countries agreed to a ceasefire. By attacking Kashmir, Pakistan unilaterally broke that ceasefire agreement. Same with Sir Creek. Maybe once in a while instead of being a typical Pavlov, try to use some brains.

Also, which part of Mizoram and Nagaland was disputed and with whom. Or do you know how to read a map?

 

[SMC]

LOL. Desperate time eh. 25 out of your 33 regular divisions are on Pakistani border. 3 out of 3 mechanized divisions, 3 out of 3 armoured divisions are on Pakistani border. This was discussed in an interview with Musharraf by a bharati journalist (quite a famous interview now) and they both agreed with these numbers. The only contention the bharat journalist had was if these numbers add up to 80%. He didn't contend the division figures. And obviously doing the math, 80% is in fact putting it very mildly. More around 85-90%, especially considering the armoured and mechanized divisions.

 

[SMC]

You are forgetting that previously, a UN agreement was signed where both the countries agreed to a ceasefire. By attacking Kashmir, Pakistan unilaterally broke that ceasefire agreement. Same with Sir Creek. Maybe once in a while instead of being a typical Pavlov, try to use some brains.

Also, which part of Mizoram and Nagaland was disputed and with whom. Or do you know how to read a map?

it still doesn't matter, complete difference between attacking a soverign country and attacking an area that is disputed, whether breaking ceasefire or not.

As for supporting rebels, well same time bharat was also supporting baloch rebels, so guess what that means.

 

[toxic_pus]

LOL. Desperate time eh. 25 out of your 33 regular divisions are on Pakistani border. 3 out of 3 mechanized divisions, 3 out of 3 armoured divisions are on Pakistani border. This was discussed in an interview with Musharraf by a bharati journalist (quite a famous interview now) and they both agreed with these numbers.

Don't you know the difference between 'being deployed' and 'being in the barracks'. And yes, I know it. That is not your original thought. Musharraf was the one who started peddling this flawed line of logic and you, like many others, have swallowed it hook, line and sinker without sparing thought.