Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

Med911 · February 20, 2009, 12:04pm

Swat deserves peace no matter what...

But regardless of where you see it in Pak, we happen to see it in your soldiers pants.:D

Med911 · February 20, 2009, 12:07pm

What exactly did you see in KArgil and Siachin?

We see Indians constantly being embarrased by the incompetance of their soldiers...

Much like the Urinating soldier in this pic.

Must be the difference in strength oweing to the malnourishmnet of many Indians.

Med911 · February 20, 2009, 12:09pm

The collective urination in Mumbai only complimented to the general aversion of the public to toilets :D

Med911 · February 20, 2009, 12:10pm

LOL... I bet those khakis your soldier is wearing were also black when he started out:D

Punjabee_in_USA · February 20, 2009, 3:39pm

Obviously he does not have a link ;)

I am sure these photoshopped pics are used as a tool to motivate Pak fauj. Othewise, after the humiliation that they suffered last 4 times, they would not even come to the border with India. :p

Lord · February 20, 2009, 6:32pm

about which humiliation are u talking abt?

champ · February 20, 2009, 6:55pm

Re: Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

^^ Comeon Lord, Lets not awake him from dream's , lets just keep him dreaming,

-CHamp

Salahuddin_Ayyubi · February 20, 2009, 7:08pm

:D LOL.... 4 times..... would be 400 times if we include all the bijays (it vijays for normal ppl) starting 711AD...

Punjabee_in_USA · February 20, 2009, 7:15pm

1948, 1968, 1971 & 1999 :p

That enough for you ??

Lord · February 20, 2009, 7:22pm

Re: Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

Pakistan won 1948 war, 1965 (not 1968. by changing year u cannot change reality), in 1971 we won from western Pakistan side but due to "ghaddars" we lost it from eastern side. 1999 was indian defeat, not Pakistani.

Just do some research urself. Stop relying on western media.

Punjabee_in_USA · February 20, 2009, 7:24pm

Is twisting facts & dates the best response you can give ?

Anyways, here is some education for you -

The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.
The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.
After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub’s cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.
On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.
The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country’s air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.
The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.
By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.
**Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy–on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan’s army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country’s military defeat by “Hindu India” and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government. **
Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend’s betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.
Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India’s side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante. The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan’s security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the “triangular tightrope”–a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.

champ · February 20, 2009, 7:31pm

Re: Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

[quote]
1948, 1968, 1971 & 1999

That enough for you ??
[/quote]

1948 - Kuch tu Khuda ka Khuf Karo, We took half of Kashmir with No Weapons , & it was a humiliation, Just look at the mirror & ask our self.

1965- you were defeated badly All you aggression was Stooped & you failed to achieve even a single bit of your objective, Now that my Friend is not our Humiliation,

1971- As always you attacked us from behind & had no courage to fight face to face, so you uses Poor BD as a shield, Even then with just 60,000 men we stoped your Coward army of more that 7 Divisions backed by more then 500,000 MB for 3 weeks, This is my friend is not called Humiliation, & guess what BD now hates you Guys, Now this is Called a humiliation.

1999- just 600 men Were able to Hold of you whole 3 brigade & killed almost 3000 of them & injured twice as that & you call it humiliation.

I dont know from academy you have been brain Washed , but i am sure they Didn't told you that Some people Actually know the reality.

Lord · February 20, 2009, 7:32pm

Re: Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

Punjabee myn khudaa ka khof hota to aisi batyn na karta.
Punjabee. Stop believing these unreliable and anti-pakistani sites. You trying to prove urself true on the basis of these unreliable sites. All article u wrote is on the basis of this site.
This is known as propaganda. As the time passes u people trying to fade out the truth.
With the passage of time u people loosing ur thinking power and just believe whatever is shown to u.

champ · February 20, 2009, 7:34pm

Re: Brave and Proud Indian Amry !!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord
Pakistan won 1948 war, 1965 (not 1968. by changing year u cannot change reality), in 1971 we won from western Pakistan side but due to “ghaddars” we lost it from eastern side. 1999 was indian defeat, not Pakistani.

Just do some research urself. Stop relying on western media.
Is twisting facts & dates the best response you can give ?

Anyways, here is some education for you -

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...o-pak_1965.htm

The second Indo-Pakistani conflict (1965) was also fought over Kashmir and started without a formal declaration of war. The war began in August 5, 1965 and was ended Sept 22, 1965.
The war was initiated by Pakistan who since the defeat of India by China in 1962 had come to believe that Indian military would be unable or unwilling to defend against a quick military campaign in Kashmir, and because the Pakistani government was becoming increasingly alarmed by Indian efforts to integrate Kashmir within India. There was also a perception that there was widespread popular support within for Pakistani rule and that the Kashmiri people were disatisfied with Indian rule.
After Pakistan was successful in the Rann of Kutch earlier in 1965, Ayub Khan (by nature a cautious person) was pressured by the hawks in his cabinet (led by Z.A. Bhutto) and the army to infiltrate the ceasefire line in Kashmir. The action was based on the incorrect premise that indigenous resistance could be ignited by a few saboteurs. Ayub resisted the idea as he foresaw India crossing the international frontier in retaliation at a point of its choosing. The Bhutto faction, which included some prominent generals, put out the canard that Ayub’s cowardice stemmed from his desire to protect his newly acquired wealth. It was boasted at the time that one Pakistani soldier was equal to four Indian soldiers and so on.
On August 5, 1965 between 26,000 and 33,000 Pakistani soldiers crossed the Line of Control dressed as Kashmiri locals headed for various areas within Kashmir. Indian forces, tipped off by the local populace, crossed the cease fire line on August 15.
The initial battles between India and Pakistan were contained within Kashmir involving both infantry and armor units with each country’s air force playing major roles. It was not until early Sept. when Pakistani forces attacked Ackhnur that the Indians escalated the conflict by attacking targets within Pakistan itself, forcing the Pakistani forces to disengage from Ackhnur to counter Indian attacks.
The largest engagement of the war occurred in the Sialkot region where some 400 to 600 tanks squared off. Unfortunately the battle was indecisive.
By Sept 22 both sides had agreed to a UN mandated cease-fire ending the war that had by that point reached a stalemate.
Overall, the war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy–on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan’s army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country’s military defeat by “Hindu India” and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.
Pakistan was rudely shocked by the reaction of the United States to the war. Judging the matter to be largely Pakistan s fault, the United States not only refused to come to Pakistan s aid under the terms of the Agreement of Cooperation, but issued a statement declaring its neutrality while also cutting off military supplies. The Pakistanis were embittered at what they considered a friend’s betrayal, and the experience taught them to avoid relying on any single source of support. For its part, the United States was disillusioned by a war in which both sides used United States-supplied equipment. The war brought other repercussions for the security relationship as well. The United States withdrew its military assistance advisory group in July 1967. In response to these events, Pakistan declined to renew the lease on the Peshawar military facility, which ended in 1969. Eventually, United States-Pakistan relations grew measurably weaker as the United States became more deeply involved in Vietnam and as its broader interest in the security of South Asia waned.
Iran, Indonesia, and especially China gave political support to Pakistan during the war, thus suggesting new directions in Pakistan that might translate into support for its security concerns. Most striking was the attitude of the Soviet Union. Its post-Khrushchev leadership, rather than rallying reflexively to India’s side, adopted a neutral position and ultimately provided the good offices at Tashkent, which led to the January 1966 Tashkent Declaration that restored the status quo ante. The aftermath of the 1965 war saw a dramatic shift in Pakistan’s security environment. Instead of a single alignment with the United States against China and the Soviet Union, Pakistan found itself cut off from United States military support, on increasingly warm terms with China, and treated equitably by the Soviet Union. Unchanged was the enmity with which India and Pakistan regarded each other over Kashmir. The result was the elaboration of a new security approach, called by Ayub Khan the “triangular tightrope”–a tricky endeavor to maintain good ties with the United States while cultivating China and the Soviet Union. Support from other developing nations was also welcome. None of the new relationships carried the weight of previous ties with the United States, but, taken together, they at least provided Pakistan with a political counterbalance to India.

Do you seriously want me believe this, ?? This my Friend is Written by an Indian Author , & i stooped believing indian’s a long time ago. you see actually we kind off learned something from our past, that NEVER TRUST INDIANS

Punjabee_in_USA · February 20, 2009, 7:34pm

champ:

1948 - Kuch tu Khuda ka Khuf Karo, We took half of Kashmir with No Weapons , & it was a humiliation, Just look at the mirror & ask our self.

1965- you were defeated badly All you aggression was Stooped & you failed to achieve even a single bit of your objective, Now that my Friend is not our Humiliation,

1971- As always you attacked us from behind & had no courage to fight face to face, so you uses Poor BD as a shield, Even then with just 60,000 men we stoped your Coward army of more that 7 Divisions backed by more then 500,000 MB for 3 weeks, This is my friend is not called Humiliation, & guess what BD now hates you Guys, Now this is Called a humiliation.

1999- just 600 men Were able to Hold of you whole 3 brigade & killed almost 3000 of them & injured twice as that & you call it humiliation.

I dont know from academy you have been brain Washed , but i am sure they Didn't told you that Some people Actually know the reality.

Read the article I have posted above for facts about 1965. Just dont rely on your made up history.

You can also look up the other 3 wars at the same website, if you want to come out of your illusion.

Taliban terrorists ko control nahin kar sakte, Indian army se ladne ke khwab dekh rahe ho....

chintu_bhopali · February 20, 2009, 7:34pm

10 MA***** with guns enter hotel/terminal and start shooting innocents.After that they hide like a rat in the hotel and then been killed like dogs. Usme kiski kya nikelegi? And you feel very proud of their act. shame on u..

chintu_bhopali · February 20, 2009, 7:35pm

HAHAAHA G*** main dum nahin hum kisi se kum nahin totally fits on ur army.

Lord · February 20, 2009, 7:38pm

I make my website and then tell u to go there and see facts. is that ok to u?

Lord · February 20, 2009, 7:40pm

India ko achi tarah pata hy ky Pakistani army myn kitna dam hy or kitna nahi hy. Indian bichary kafi sabaq seekh chuky hyn. abb un myn itna dam nahi ky dubara Pakistani army ko challenge kar sakyn. bichary bary koshish kar rahy hyn pressurize karny ki lakin Pakistani politicians ky ilawa wo kisi ko bhi impress karny myn nakaam hyn. chintu tum dua karo ky indian army bhi mature ho jay. shabash mera bhai

Regards
Lord

Punjabee_in_USA · February 20, 2009, 7:42pm

ROTFL