Re: LOC skirmishes
We can all keep arguing what happened and what not.
Frankly, I did not have time to read all the replies. But the question that comes to mind is :
Is it really worth for Pakistan to keep Fighting for Kashmir..? Lets face it, Pakistan is not doing very well with the amount of Land it has already.. !!
Re: LOC skirmishes
Lets tell us real history.
What was basic formula for areas to be part of Pakistan or India at the time of partition?
What happened to JunagaRh and Hyderabad and how did they become part of India?
What are the similarities between basis of Kashmir being part of India as JunagaRh / Hyderabad, being part of India?
All questions are compulsory? Open book examination. All the best 
Re: LOC skirmishes
We can all keep arguing what happened and what not. Frankly, I did not have time to read all the replies. But the question that comes to mind is :
Is it really worth for Pakistan to keep Fighting for Kashmir..? Lets face it, Pakistan is not doing very well with the amount of Land it has already.. !!
Well, Pakistan will continue to support Kashmiri people in their fight against the Indian occupier. Whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. And India is wrong.
Re: LOC skirmishes
I really dont think you have any clue what your talking about… “KING of Kashmir” !
You have very little substance in your argument. judging from the depth of your knowledge, i doubt your old enough to stay up as late as you would have to respond to all the posts pointing out your inaccuracy.
Your history “brother,” seems to be limited to what you pick up from bollywood films.
Re: LOC skirmishes
I think Indians should be careful when talking about Kashmir, as fact is that Kashmir is part of Pakistan that India has illegally occupied. However hard Indians try to change that fact, they cannot make Pakistan (specially, people of Pakistan) accept that the area India is occupying belongs to India or stay part of India. If any government in Pakistan would even try to give away Pakistani claim for whatever reason, people of Pakistan would hang that government and would still keep waiting for the day and leadership when Pakistan can liberate the area from Indians.
Now, why Indians should be careful when talking about Kashmir? Simply because there are many in Pakistan who have little care or value about this worldly life and they would not mind sacrificing that life. Bad news for Indians is that, while scarifying their life Pakistan would make sure to make India a waste land (all of it ... not just Kashmir but each part of India). Well, the place that may stay save could be Kashmir, as it is possible neither Pakistan would try to make it waste land nor Indians. With nuclear bombs on both sides of the border and both developing technologically advance delivery systems, either India learns to live a negotiated life and accept that they cannot keep other people’s area under their occupation forever or be ready to lose everything (complete inhalation).
In my opinion, it is much better for India that they do everything to get Kashmir issue solved amicably, as if it is not done, than future for both India and Pakistan would be becoming nuclear waste (all development Indians are trying to achieve may get lost forever), something neither Indians nor Pakistanis would like to happen, but as things are, this could happen and there are many Pakistanis who may not even mind if this happens (just like suicide bomber, who himself dies but take with him those he thinks as enemy).
Re: LOC skirmishes
Well, Pakistan will continue to support Kashmiri people in their fight against the Indian occupier. Whats right is right and whats wrong is wrong. And India is wrong.
Pakistan should first worry about it's own problems (There are many) and then worry about Kashmir.. ;)
Re: LOC skirmishes
This is a disgusting post. You are laughing at killing 180 million people. Really sick!!! and the last thing I want is a nuclear war between the two. Pakistan doesnt need to turn India into a wasteland but if God forbid such a thing happens a few heavily populated cities in India get hit the casualty figure will be higher than pakistan. Have you ever thought about that or just the thought of killing 180 millilon Pakistanis has excited you so much that you are oblivious to all the consequences not only of heavy loss of life but the affect it will have on generations to come. Remember Pakistan is so close to India that any fallout will affect lot of areas in India as well.
Re: LOC skirmishes
We don’t need Nuclear weapons to send India to stone ages.. one secret tunnel across the border to send the ones who want to explode themselves at your end of the tunnel will be enough. I just hope people like you remain confined to mental asylums in India.. for the sake of Indian prosperity. We at our end our pursuing and killing extremists like you.
Re: LOC skirmishes
Reading your post I can say with certainty that you have very little intelligence. But you need that, else if Indians had intelligence they would be wetting their pants all the time thinking what can happen to them in future … 
Anyhow, I did not mean that nuclear war is a must in subcontinent. I only meant is that, if Kashmir issue is not solved amicably than there is good chance of nuclear exchanges and that would destroy both countries. Anyhow, in reply you wrote thrash that has no knowledge or intelligence behind.
Reason is simple, that is, I wrote:
What it means?
It means that with time, both countries are becoming more lethal in their capability of destroying each other … and I wrote that if Kashmir issue is not resolved amicably than with time situation due to Kashmir would become more and more dangerous (longer this issue would continue, more lethal both countries would become and then destroying each other would be much easier).
You wrote that Pakistan would need 100s of Nuclear weapon to destroy India whereas India would need 1 or 2 … hmmm are you really grown up or still a kid dreaming?
Pakistan area is hilly and it is around one-forth of India (India’s 1.26 million sq mile to Pakistan 0.34 million sq mile), whereas most of India is flat land. It shows that per square mile, India needs more nuclear weapon to destroy Pakistan than Pakistan needs to destroy India.
Coming to nuclear weapons, Pakistan (with around 90-110 nuclear weapon Plus several times more short range nuclear tactical weapons) by all international reports have much more nuclear weapon than India (considered to have around 80-100 nuclear weapons). Pakistan also has much more advance and effective nuclear delivery system than India.
Most analyst also believe that Pakistan is increasing their nuclear arsenal much faster than India or any country in the world.
Both Pakistan and India is aggressively increasing their stock-pile of nuclear weapon … well, Pakistan is doing this stock-piling nuclear weapons much faster than India. Now, think what would be the numbers in 10 to 20 year time … as by then it is most likely that Pakistan would have over 1000 nuclear war-head (plus 1000s of short range nuclear tactical weapons)? Well, once that would happen than Pakistan would become capable of destroying India 10s time over.
You do not believe me … well, you can Google-search it yourself … anyhow, let me put down one report … not from India or Pakistan but from UK:
India and Pakistan ‘escalate nuclear arms race’ - Telegraph
India and Pakistan are reportedly both developing new, more sophisticated atomic missiles, leading to fears of a renewed nuclear arms race.
By Dean Nelson, New Delhi
8:05PM BST 05 Jun 2012
According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Pakistan has expanded its short-range missile capability while India is developing weapons systems which can fire nuclear warheads from land, sea and air.
The escalation in nuclear capabilities has caused alarm because, despite recent improvements in relations between the two countries, the threat of a nuclear conflict remains.
There were fears of a military clash in 2008, shortly after Pakistan-based terrorists launched a multi-target attack on Mumbai, while in 2002 there were real concerns that rising tensions could lead to a nuclear attack.
Those concerns are based on Pakistan’s development of “first-strike” tactical short-range warheads to counter India’s superior conventional forces and weak mechanisms to avoid misunderstandings between the two countries in a military build-up.
According to the Stockholm-based think tank Pakistan has expanded its arsenal of short-range tactical missiles, which can be used to strike smaller targets like bridges, tank columns and other installations.
“India and Pakistan are increasing the size and sophistication of their nuclear arsenals. Both countries are developing and deploying new types of nuclear-capable ballistic and cruise missiles and both are increasing their military fissile material production capabilities,” it said in its 2012 yearbook.
India unveiled its first nuclear-powered submarine earlier this year and is expected to launch its first nuclear-armed submarine some time next year to complete its land, sea and air capability.
Pakistan is believed to have slightly more nuclear warheads than India – 90 to 110 compared with New Delhi’s 80-100. But experts say the figures may not include Pakistan’s growing number of short-range tactical weapons.
Dr Anupam Srivastava, leading nuclear security expert and director of the Centre for International Trade and Security at Georgia University, said the concern over Pakistan’s build-up of tactical nuclear weapons is that it has a “first-use policy”. “In a conflict between India and Pakistan, Pakistan’s policy is that it can and will be the first to use nuclear weapons. Faced with India’s conventional military superiority, they’ve tried to build an additional layer of security for themselves to deter a conventional strike,” he said.
The danger is that the two countries have yet to develop the channels of dialogue between their military chiefs to ensure there are no catastrophic misunderstandings over troop movements and military exercises. “This doesn’t exist for tactical weapons between India and Pakistan,” he added.
Re: LOC skirmishes
^^^^oohohhohho we are so scared!!!!!
Re: LOC skirmishes
Proof my friend.. Where is your proof that there were Jihadis trying to infiltrate Occupied kASHMIR and thus forced the Indians to fire? There havent been such incidences for a very long time, yet here you are claiming that is exactly what happened without evwn a shred of evidence to back it up.
Its insane how you give blind support to your army. What other then the fact that they wear Indian uniforms, makes you so certain they were NOT the ones to instigated the entire thing? Until facts are ascertained, your claim is nothing more then the rantings of a blind nationalist.
I repeat my friend there is no scope for peace unless Pakistani civilian govt cuts Pak Fauj down to its size and sends them to Cantt. nuff said!!
Re: LOC skirmishes
You really wanted to go down that route? You know number states, I believe Hyderabad was one of them, that joined Pakistan, but India invaded them. You want to vacate those stats that joined Pakistan in 1947?
I did not know that (Hyderabad part).
Re: LOC skirmishes
Well to be fair, the Nizam did’t want to join either Pakistan or Indian. The state was majority Hindu and so was ideally a candidtate for union with india. However, the question remains, does India hold the will of the people as paramount or the will of their ruler, particularly an unelected ruler. Ofcourse, in the case of Hyderabad, its the will of the people, an obvious choice for a nation that prides itself on the robustness of its democracy… But then indians tell us the will of the Kashmiri people is irrelevant, and so the double standard and hypocrisy is clear for all to see. An injustice is an injustice and no amount of time and no amount soldiers can hide it. Kashmir is really an albatross around the neck of india. You cant be a great nation, a nation of freedom and democracy, that touts itself as the home of great philosophers of peace like Gandhi, and yet force people who dont want to be a part of your nation to remain with you against their will.
Its amazing how the irony of a people who fought so hard for their own freedom, should deny that same freedom to others. Although, irony seems to be lost on both our peoples in some ways.