Everything is cool. Tikka Khan was cool. Tiger Niazi was cool too…
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Everything is cool. Tikka Khan was cool. Tiger Niazi was cool too....
[/QUOTE]
You Looser you know nothing about A.K.Niazi's story and how the higer-ups forced him into this foolish operation, he fought bravely and defended his countrys honour and he did what any sane commander would do, when he saw that his troops would be massacared he conceded to the enemy, the first attack left the cream of the Pakistani Infantry wiped out.. Now if you know anything about military tactics, you tell me how can a commander rally his troops after such a act? Not even patton could achive such a mammoth task...
Hats of to him... And next time why dont you read "The origins of war in South Asia: Indo-Pakistani conflicts since 1947
Sumit Ganguly " before you go shooting your mouth off in every direction and without a clue of what your saying!!
Niazi surrendered with 90,000 troops in hand. History cannot rewritten, even by the ISI.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Niazi surrendered with 90,000 troops in hand. History cannot rewritten, even by the ISI.
[/QUOTE]
Then you know nothing about what really happend on that day, if you continue to belive this rot! Without supplies and logistical supplies even alexanders mighty army whould have collapsed, remember an army fights with bullets but lives on its stomach!
It was the army's fault to be without supplies and to make a part of their nation into enemy territory.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Niazi surrendered with 90,000 troops in hand. History cannot rewritten, even by the ISI.
[/QUOTE]
90,000 troops, who had no viable end-game other than surrender or death. You have to give Niazi a lot of credit - he chose to sacrifice his honour rather than than throw away the lives of 90,000 good men for no strategic benefit in a futile house-to-house battle to the death. Many generals throughout history have not been so selfless.
Pakistan had no need for its own version of the 1945 siege of Budapest.
In his book "The betrayal of east Pakistan", Niazi writes that he had only 42,000 regular troops to defend Bengal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT: *
he chose to sacrifice his honour rather than than throw away the lives of 90,000 good men for no strategic benefit in a futile house-to-house battle to the death.
[/QUOTE]
strategic benefit??? He lost half of the country. It would be better if those soldiers have deceased in war than surrendering to the enemy. It sounds brutal but are we not taught by our mothers that it was far better to live like a lion for a day than to live like a jackal for a hundred years.
I was speaking with some Bengali people recently. They so wish Bangladesh stayed as part of Pakistan.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gupta: *
I was speaking with some Bengali people recently. They so wish Bangladesh stayed as part of Pakistan.
[/QUOTE]
BD should have never been part of Pak to begin with. They were too far apart with enemy in the middle. Only military/economic/political powers can afford such a setup. Even then stability is a major factor wihout stability it can become a headace for big boys too. If today they beg us to take them back I would ask them for mercy.... I think they are better off without us and we without them...
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
BD should have never been part of Pak to begin with. They were too far apart with enemy in the middle. Only military/economic/political powers can afford such a setup. Even then stability is a major factor wihout stability it can become a headace for big boys too. If today they beg us to take them back I would ask them for mercy.... I think they are better off without us and we without them...
[/QUOTE]
why dont you join with iran and afganistan if they accept
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
BD should have never been part of Pak to begin with. They were too far apart with enemy in the middle. Only military/economic/political powers can afford such a setup. Even then stability is a major factor wihout stability it can become a headace for big boys too. If today they beg us to take them back I would ask them for mercy.... I think they are better off without us and we without them...
[/QUOTE]
Strategic dept, strategic benefit, that is all that matters to the brilliant minds of Pakistan army. Maybe one of you guys with army connections can convince them Sindh has nothing of strategic value to Pakistan.
Who will offer fateha for the one nation theory?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
strategic benefit??? He lost half of the country. It would be better if those soldiers have deceased in war than surrendering to the enemy. It sounds brutal but are we not taught by our mothers that it was far better to live like a lion for a day than to live like a jackal for a hundred years.
[/QUOTE]
Every single one of those soldiers trapped at Dhaka and Chittagong could have fought until he used his last bullet and was killed and it would not have affected the outcome of the conflict one bit. Niazi knew that full well and had the courage to sacrifice his own honour, reputation and career by taking the one action that would allow his men to avoid a completely and utterly futile death and return to their families and loved ones.
At the end of the day, Pakistan needed 90,000 live combat ready soldiers far more than it needed 90,000 dead corpses from a worthless last stand.
I believe actual troop levels were quite low..lets not forget if they had held out a ceasefire might have come in force which would have allowed a troop withdrawal.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
Strategic dept, strategic benefit, that is all that matters to the brilliant minds of Pakistan army. Maybe one of you guys with army connections can convince them Sindh has nothing of strategic value to Pakistan.
Who will offer fateha for the one nation theory?
[/QUOTE]
hey genius, perhaps you can be the first to negate the two nation theory.... How about walking right back to where you belong... Now I know talk is cheap but you are not one of them..right . comon! what you say... I know you can do it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdali: *
hey genius, perhaps you can be the first to negate the two nation theory.... How about walking right back to where you belong... Now I know talk is cheap but you are not one of them..right . comon! what you say... I know you can do it.
[/QUOTE]
How can I negate the two nation theory when it was already done by yahya khan and his ilk?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
How can I negate the two nation theory when it was already done by yahya khan and his ilk?
[/QUOTE]
Imad, NEWS Falsh! Yaya's gone and so has BD, i dont know which idiot started this post... and why! General Niazi is dead please let him rest in peace! and as for you imad, perhaps we should send you to muhajjar Colony and watch those goons do dirty deeds with you, only then will you learn a lesson! You God Damn Twit!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by shawaiz: *
It would be better if those soldiers have deceased in war than surrendering to the enemy. It sounds brutal but are we not taught by our mothers that it was far better to live like a lion for a day than to live like a jackal for a hundred years.
[/QUOTE]
Its easy to throw out flippant quotes like "live like a lion for a day" from behind the safety of a keyboard. Its a little different when you're actually staring down the business end of a gun.
What could possibly have been accomplished by 90,000 pakistani soldiers fighting to the death? They were outnumbered, low on supplies and with no hope of reinforcments. Very few Generals in history have had the courage to sacrifice their own reputation and career for the benfit of their soldiers.
Look at Van Paulus (the German general at Stalingrad in 1942). He sacrificed 500,000 of his own men because he didnt have the courage to stand up to the Fuhrers nonsensical insistance that the German Army hold Stalingrad. Instead his men had to fight to the death for his own personal weakness. And for what? Their sacrifce accomlished nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Imdad Ali: *
How can I negate the two nation theory when it was already done by yahya khan and his ilk?
[/QUOTE]
Just as I thought genius in reverse....Now go do your home work and try to understand what is two nation theory based on.
^ yeah, it is based on a three nation theory. :D