i would just lyk to clear some points or i would rather say mis conceptions tht brother shringhan01 has concerning
1965war, in 1965 india attacked pakistan border just for the sake of gaining some land tht during partition came to pakistan and they end up, running back to their land and couldnt got hold of single inch and they were beaten quite badly but again bcoz of our leaders pakistan lost the war on the table but won it in the feild, and tht was enough for indians to hype abt their false win which they never had
i can imagine how things would hav get down in history books as british gov stepd in and india got cance to twist the truth yet again
as far as statistic concern i hav no prb accepting tht it can be tru after all indians are 1.2 billion nd hav stronger economy
:salam2:
Thanks for clarifying, and Yes I know that, but IMO the actual conflict goes back to Pakistan infiltrating into Indian Occupied Kashmir in order to encourage uprising against India. The plan then would be a quick military campaign against Indian military in the vicinity and gain control of Kashmir and other desired lands, because Pakistani military (rightly so) believed Indian military was not capable of deterring a Pakistani ground invasion.
So this is what I learned from my readings.
If the above is true then the Indian preemptive attack make sense (not that i justified, speaking strictly from an academic perspective).
Allahu Alam, how much truth there is to it.
lol, Brother Podoskli,
If victory is guaranteed to the 'one who drops the bomb first', then there would be no need to have a huge nuclear arsenal and also
'NO, first strike policy'. China and India both have no first strike policy.
There would be no reason for nuclear state to have mobile launch pad, under ground launch pad, sub marine based ICBM, etc etc..Much of these preparations are done to launch a nuclear weapon after being hit by one.
I can go on and on about it, but you get the picture.
Yes, I do agree with you if it's Jihad then numbers will not decide victory nor will superior weapons. This is evident if one studies the conquest led by the Sahaba (RA's).
But, the problem is the likes of Zardari and Musharaf are light years away from resembling the Sahabas in any way or form whatsoever. What kind of Jihad would they be fighting? lol
If anything, one can safely assume their intention will not be for Islam, nor will it be for Allah's cause, rather they will be fighting a political war as political actors.
P.S. What's up with all these Pakistani brothers, getting all worked up with my comments? lol Relax. I love you guys too.
P.P.S. Brother, AL FAJR, NOW I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT YOU TYPED!
P.P.P.S. Historically, United States supported Pakistan and has been its ally (of course for their own interest, mainly the cold war, actually one can argue only because of the cold war). Russia has been India's Ally. China has been Pakistan's ally due to tensions/ regional rivalry with India.
It seems though the growing closeness of India and Israel is a recent phenomena, probably from the 80s, and it's really scary!
