Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 1 minute ago, the don said: Well i am an agnostic personally but lets be honest if you actually read all books christianity , islam etc give women equal rights perhaps more than hinduism. Categorically false. Islam has certain inalienable rights, the body of which are greater than those directly mandated by the holy books of the Bible or the Gita. However, Islam also has decisively greater number of directly mandated religious law that give men greater rights than women. Kindly read those books before you hold such ideas and see for yourself. Your Koran forbids women and men from inheriting equally. Did you know that ? Nowhere in the bile or the hindu bodies of books, does it say that woman MUST inherit less than man. Or that woman CANNOT hold position of inheritance or control over property & enterprise so long as a male heir is present. The Hindu books/Christian books demonize women. There is a difference between demonizing and directly accorded (or denied) rights. I am not religious so i don't wanna be seen as defending ideas of the unknown by stone age men (that is what religion is) be it Hindus or Muslims or Christians. But if it were to be graded, hinduism comes ahead of Christianity, which comes ahead of Islam in terms of fundamental RIGHTS accorded to women. I am not saying they treated their women better P2P or socially. There is a subtle difference between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: First up, you've lost EVERY war you've fought with us. First up, lets get the definitions clear. A war is considered a 'victory', when either of the two happens (or both) WHEN peace is declared : a) conquest of enemy territory following military means b) achieving most of the military & strategic goals of the conflict c) preventing (b) from happening to the enemies (i.e., prevent MOST of their military and strategic objectives). Take 1947 as example. When India entered the war, the situation on ground looked like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947#/media/File:J%26K01low.jpg By 14th August, 1948, Pakistan was at its maximal extent, the LoC looking like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947#/media/File:J%26K07low.jpg When Ceasefire was declared, it looked like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1947#/media/File:J%26K10low.jpg At the time of ceasefire, Indian losses were roughly 1500 KIA, 3500 WIA, Pakistan's were 6000 KIA, 14,000 WIA. We won that war, as we achieved most of our objective : a) Control of most of Kashmir, b) Legal recognition over Kashmir as part of Republic of India. c) overall superiority on the battlefield. in 1965, we quite convincingly won the war too. As per Kashmir, UN resolutions, etc. PLEASE do yourself a favor, like qualified, educated people OWE themselves to and SEE this video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoYNQrOOu0&feature=youtu.be&t=228 I can link you to indian generals and think tank who fought in the war of 65 and others who would accept reality . You did not win 65 or 48 . Read general panags view regarding the disaster that was the indian think tank in 1965 India should have taken lahore but were held back by a very small resisting force led by courageous soldiers like aziz bhatti . Indian think tank was a failure during that war . Almost all indian analysts accept it as it is . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laaloo Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Asim said: meanwhile indian army to their media is like: yar yaqeen karo idher hi kaheen kia tha strike, mil nahi raha... you have gone senile asim. take care friend Adi_91 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) ^ Pak media on where Ind crossed LoC As Ind govt has implied - there was firing on LoC to distract Pak Army. While special teams crossed LoC at various points stretching 250 kms Edited October 2, 2016 by zen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, the don said: No it is pretty much indegenous . You have to understand the dynamics involved . Most of the guys who fuel the movement even from pakistan are those directly or indirectly involved in it . Mostly from kashmir origin people in pakistan or those with links . There are loads of them if you are unaware . Nobody is willing to fight till death untill there is a reason or resentment . If you mean most of the guys are ethnic Kashmiris, sure. Though there are significant # of Uzbeks & Chechens involved as well. And I can point to several US internal reports that confirm the FACT that Pakistan's initial wave of terrorism was caused by a non-Kashmiri majority terrorists. As for reason for resentment - the resentment exists in the form of military instability created by Pakistan in the region. Pakistan spends millions of dollars paying mouthpieces to demonize India in Kashmir, cause Hartaal, etc. to stir the pot in Kashmir,will cause an endless supply of rebels, especially since they are muslim and hammering on the 'islam vs kaffirs' button works wonders for recruitment of muslim jihadis. This disenchantment also exists also on Pakistani side, but the difference is, there is no Indian sponsorship of terrorists there, so nobody itching to pick a fight with Pakitsan, vetted and hosted in Indian side of the border. If Pakistan didnt cause this in the late 80s, as i said, Kashmir then would be having terrorism, rebellions, etc. since 1940s, not since 1987-88. I've been to Kashmir multiple times, in the 70s and 80s. Pahelgam and Gulmarg were my two favourite destinations. There was ZERO terrorism, upset Kashmiris, etc. in the 70s. It was tense near the borders, but the Kashmiris were just as nervous as me in the 'we are too close to the other side who are hostile' sense. Then late 80s-early 90s and the situation very quickly escalated by terrorist attacks. This is not how 'natives who have always been unhappy and fighting the bloody conquerors' narrative goes. Natives don't go about their business normally, mingling with the non-natives, etc. for decades and suddenly get all pissed off, if there is no incitement from a third party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewy Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 Ignorant dud pakistanis like above always make me chuckle trying to wiggle themselves with lies to explain how they didn't loose any war against India ,their brainwashed lives can only be described as pitiful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, the don said: I can link you to indian generals and think tank who fought in the war of 65 and others who would accept reality . You did not win 65 or 48 . Read general panags view regarding the disaster that was the indian think tank in 1965 India should have taken lahore but were held back by a very small resisting force led by courageous soldiers like aziz bhatti . Indian think tank was a failure during that war . Almost all indian analysts accept it as it is . Err, there is no credibility behind the idea that Pakistan won 1965. Individual engagements ? yes. Most thinktanks, even reputed ones from your former allies, like Federal Research division of the Library of Congress concluded that Pakistan had lost the war, since it fought a vastly technologically inferior Indian military (India only had superiority over Pakistan in the Navy. Army & Airforce, they had significantly better armaments than India), had the initiative (it attacked first) and they categorically concluded that had the war continued for another few months, Pakistan would've lost to India in both the air and ground decisively. 1965 was an overall successful (though not textbook) example of how to fight a defensive war against a technologically superior but numerically inferior enemy on the ground and air. I hope you realize that the conclusion India won 1965 war and India could've done so much better in 1965 and lost less battles are mutually exclusive conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 ^posted on other thread but goes here as well - Pak media on where and how Ind crossed LoC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 25 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: If you mean most of the guys are ethnic Kashmiris, sure. Though there are significant # of Uzbeks & Chechens involved as well. And I can point to several US internal reports that confirm the FACT that Pakistan's initial wave of terrorism was caused by a non-Kashmiri majority terrorists. As for reason for resentment - the resentment exists in the form of military instability created by Pakistan in the region. Pakistan spends millions of dollars paying mouthpieces to demonize India in Kashmir, cause Hartaal, etc. to stir the pot in Kashmir,will cause an endless supply of rebels, especially since they are muslim and hammering on the 'islam vs kaffirs' button works wonders for recruitment of muslim jihadis. This disenchantment also exists also on Pakistani side, but the difference is, there is no Indian sponsorship of terrorists there, so nobody itching to pick a fight with Pakitsan, vetted and hosted in Indian side of the border. If Pakistan didnt cause this in the late 80s, as i said, Kashmir then would be having terrorism, rebellions, etc. since 1940s, not since 1987-88. I've been to Kashmir multiple times, in the 70s and 80s. Pahelgam and Gulmarg were my two favourite destinations. There was ZERO terrorism, upset Kashmiris, etc. in the 70s. It was tense near the borders, but the Kashmiris were just as nervous as me in the 'we are too close to the other side who are hostile' sense. Then late 80s-early 90s and the situation very quickly escalated by terrorist attacks. This is not how 'natives who have always been unhappy and fighting the bloody conquerors' narrative goes. Natives don't go about their business normally, mingling with the non-natives, etc. for decades and suddenly get all pissed off, if there is no incitement from a third party. You are wrong about the pakistan side of kashmir . You should visit it to get a better picture . Pakistan has been smart in how they have handled it . Infact people from azad kashmir.will pick up arms against india if there is a war . They have their own regiment and India is seen in a negative light in view of the treatment of what they perceive are their "muslim" brothers. The kashmiri dispute has a lot to do with religion too as much as anything else. Islam is a unifying force for them and a lot of them believe in the two nation theory for whatever reason. You really are underestimating the role of the kashmiris here . The ones that came to pakistan from IOC are the ones who mainly set up the movement to collect funds and resources to fight for freedom and hence it all picked up. Deucalion 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Err, there is no credibility behind the idea that Pakistan won 1965. Individual engagements ? yes. Most thinktanks, even reputed ones from your former allies, like Federal Research division of the Library of Congress concluded that Pakistan had lost the war, since it fought a vastly technologically inferior Indian military (India only had superiority over Pakistan in the Navy. Army & Airforce, they had significantly better armaments than India), had the initiative (it attacked first) and they categorically concluded that had the war continued for another few months, Pakistan would've lost to India in both the air and ground decisively. 1965 was an overall successful (though not textbook) example of how to fight a defensive war against a technologically superior but numerically inferior enemy on the ground and air. I hope you realize that the conclusion India won 1965 war and India could've done so much better in 1965 and lost less battles are mutually exclusive conclusions. I never claimed that pakistan won 1965 . India saved kashmir. It was a stalemate because pakistan succesfully defended the international border as the war spread to the mainland .As far as air accounts go . Do read more on that. Edited October 2, 2016 by the don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, the don said: . Edited October 2, 2016 by the don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, the don said: I never claimed that pakistan won 1965 . India saved kashmir. It was a stalemate because pakistan succesfully defended the international border as the war spread to the mainland .As far as air accounts go . Do read more on that. The war was started by Pakistan The operational objectives of Pakistan failed. The operational objectives of India were met. Successful defence of Pakistani international border was not an objective of Pakistan or India, since the war started with the objective of invasion of India. If you invade someone then end up being kicked out but not losing territory, it is still a defeat. A pretty clear one at that, too. The air war was won by India- as in, we started out with the far lesser air force and ended up with far greater parity by attritional victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 So in 1965 who held more territory of the other? Before talks were ratified /p> India or Pakistan? Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The war was started by Pakistan The operational objectives of Pakistan failed. The operational objectives of India were met. Successful defence of Pakistani international border was not an objective of Pakistan or India, since the war started with the objective of invasion of India. If you invade someone then end up being kicked out but not losing territory, it is still a defeat. A pretty clear one at that, too. The air war was won by India- as in, we started out with the far lesser air force and ended up with far greater parity by attritional victory. Objectives change . India brought the war to the mainland . Attacked lahore with clear objectives . Was repelled . Ceasefire resulted . You are totally wrong about the air results Your own analysts have written loads about it including armymen who fought in that war . Take their word not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 2 minutes ago, the don said: Objectives change . India brought the war to the mainland . Attacked lahore with clear objectives . Was repelled . Ceasefire resulted . You are totally wrong about the air results Your own analysts have written loads about it including armymen who fought in that war . Take their word not mine. Sorry, but you are incorrect. As i said, this is common knowledge to non-Pakistanis, including the US congress. Need i remind you, this report is from the 70s, when USA was your ally and your own ally concluded you lost the war ? And no, objectives of war rarely change. And in this case, it didnt. Pakistan's objective was capture of Kashmir. It failed. India did not have an objective to occupy land in Pakistan- neither did the war progress to see sustained Indian aggression in mainland Pakistan. The Lahore sector was designed to relieve pressure in the Akhnoor sector, which worked, since Pakistan did not reinforce its advantageous position on Akhnoor and instead did so in the Lahore sector. As for the air war, i am sorry, but the consensus is unanimous that India won the air war, despite losing most engagements, because we were winning the war of attrition and the longer air war continued, the more Pakistan's position would erode relative to India in air power. That is the unanimous conclusion of all analysts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 13 minutes ago, G_B_ said: So in 1965 who held more territory of the other? Before talks were ratified /p> India or Pakistan? Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk At end of war, Pakistan held 550 sq kms in Rann of Katch, we held a total of 1800 sq kms in total, mostly in Kashmir and some in Lahore & Sialkot sectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the don Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Sorry, but you are incorrect. As i said, this is common knowledge to non-Pakistanis, including the US congress. Need i remind you, this report is from the 70s, when USA was your ally and your own ally concluded you lost the war ? And no, objectives of war rarely change. And in this case, it didnt. Pakistan's objective was capture of Kashmir. It failed. India did not have an objective to occupy land in Pakistan- neither did the war progress to see sustained Indian aggression in mainland Pakistan. The Lahore sector was designed to relieve pressure in the Akhnoor sector, which worked, since Pakistan did not reinforce its advantageous position on Akhnoor and instead did so in the Lahore sector. As for the air war, i am sorry, but the consensus is unanimous that India won the air war, despite losing most engagements, because we were winning the war of attrition and the longer air war continued, the more Pakistan's position would erode relative to India in air power. That is the unanimous conclusion of all analysts. Unanimous ?? It isnt even unanimous in India .65 was a missed opportunity at best for India. All indian accounts agree with the assesment Lets agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_B_ Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 So India had upper hand Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi_91 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 4 hours ago, the don said: Lol the US ?? They are holding talks with hikmatyar in afganistan . They are aware of every single proxy . Too be very honest the western countries are pretty tolerant . Most people there are not judgemental . Muslims have a bad name due to alqaeda and the isis mainly . Neither is a pakistani product Your country hosted OBL. The founder of Al Qaeda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adi_91 Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 4 hours ago, the don said: 3 hours ago, velu said: the same osama was living peacefully inside your military area For 11 years at that. With all amenities. May have even to the grocery store amidst the Pak army and awaam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts