That India-Pakistan thing
- Thread starter Twin_Moose
- Start date
I read everyone of them, I also read the ones you or anyone posts before commenting that's how you stay on topic
That doesn't change that it was the UK that put the border where it is.
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/confrontation/hintervention.html
During the 19th century the British Empire had parliamentary governments spanning the entire globe controlling their interests and their nationalist ideals. By the late 19th century the Indian people had become tired of the British rule and revolutionaries banded together to create the Indian National Congress. The Congress was originally created for the idea of making reforms within the British parliamentary government by placing greater prevalence on such issues as a better educational system and greater representation of the Indian population within the parliamentary government. During this period, many Indian revolutionaries terrorized government institutions as well as confronted the British military. These revolutionary groups attempted to force the Indian ideas of self-government upon the British parliament. By the early 20th century the British government was attempting to subdue the Indian uprisings by granting the Congress more political power. But the British had taken too long to share its political power and Indian extremists were demanding a complete independence from British rule. In 1916 several Indian nationalist groups united to support the British in World War I, but overall most of the nationalist groups had become frustrated with the unattained goal of self-rule that had been proclaimed years earlier, to be the eventual goal of the British rule within the region.
Many of the Indian nationalist groups were demanding immediate and complete self-government for India by the early 20th century, but the British were refusing to let go of their economic interests quickly. In 1919 the British parliament passed several laws restricting political activity of the Indian nationalist groups and committed acts in which they violated the civil rights of both the revolutionary groups and the general Indian public. These civil right violations incited many of the Indian people and helped press the demands of the Congress. With the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi in the 1920's the Indian Congress became a very threatening power. Also during the 1920's the Muslims were strongly resenting the political hold that the Hindus had gained because of the Congress and staged a Muslim withdrawal from the Congress in protest of the religious dominance.
As India pressed for its independence the Miislims began to separate themselves from the Hindu political organi7ations. In 1907 the Muslim community created its own nationalist organization the Muslim Icague. By 1910 there were two dominant and completely separate revolutionary factions within Jndia that not only fought against the British rule but each other. As the British rule was becoming more threatened by revolutionaries and the Hindu dominated Congress became more powerful. the Muslim League pressed for the senaration of Muslim people from the British ruled India The Muslim League and the Congress constantly clashed on important issues and weakened the political strength that the Indian people were buildin~ within the British parliament. But even with the conflicts between the two religions one thing was clear all of the Indian people were demandina self-rule for the whole of the Indian sub-continen4. The tension between the British rule and both the Congress and the League were escalating into confrontation within both the political and social arenas. At the end of the World War, Britain was drained economically and unable to maintain its rule over its vast empire. So in 1946 Britain gave tip control of the Indian sub-continent and the Con~ess and League voted to partition the country into two senarate nations based on religion separation. The nations of India and Pakistan were formed in 1947 where the nation of India was religiously senarated for the H indu population and Pakistan was for the Muslim people.
The shift from British rule to separate independently ruled nations of India and Pakistan was to occur within six months after the nlebiscite and resulted in a violent collision of uprooted Muslims and Hindus Millions of neonle were forced from their respective homes because of religious boundaries between the nations Refugees from either border were not the only problem that the new governments were forced to deal with, they also had to somehow divide up military, financial, and natural resources. There also needed to be draw boundaries between the two countries.
As refugees moved from one nation to their new homes, confrontations broke out, and in rapidly growing numbers. Before long, there was full-fledged fighting along the boarder of the nations. Both newly formed governments struggled to preserve law and order while continuously bickered with each other over the splitting of resources. Pakistan demanded a greater share of the resources while India protested that Pakistan was demanding an unfair split of resources. The primary source for the boundary debate, was a region of the sub-continent that separated the northern border of India and the southeastern border of Pakistan, called Jammu and Kashmir.
During the early British imperial expansion efforts, the British government sold the Kashmir territory to the Hindu Prince Ghulab Singh and this family controlled the region for nearly a hundred years. As the British began to remove its influence from the region the maharajah was offered the chance to join either the Indian nation or the Pakistani nation. There were many other regions controlled by local principals that were also given the option to join one of these two nations, and in general the Hindu states joined with India and the Islamic states joined with Pakistan. At this time Kashmir was being ruled by a Hindu maharajah but the general population was Muslim, and this gave pause to the decision to join either India or Pakistan. At the hesitation to join either side a popular uprising moved through the capital and forced the maharajah to flee for his life. The maharajah quickly made his way to India where he signed an agreement to turn the state over the India in return for personal protection. India quickly moved troops into Kashmir to quiet the revolutionaries, while Pakistan responded with troops of their own to help keep their religious brethren from falling under the control of the Hindu controlled Indian government. For the next three years the Indian and Pakistani troops fought over the territory where thousands of military and civilians were tortured and killed by both sides. In 1949 a cease-fire was called and Kashmir was divided up into two unequal parts, an eastern portion which is controlled by India and a much smaller territory to the west which is controlled by Pakistan.
You headline shows you are on the wrong path so no solution will come from it. If you want me to show you that it is wrong I will, as it is I pointed you to a different reason that you still have to research before you can dismiss it. Who did the splitting that it was done to create conflict rather than eliminate it?
The Himalayan region of Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan and the two fought three wars over it since it was split between them in 1947.
Hoid never posts any link.....You're supposed to take his word as gospel for everything!
Mig-21 splashes F-16 seems to be lost in the 'fog of war' or is that intentional to save the West's arms industry from folding like a house of cards?
Oh and your article was explaining your path? What has this part of your article have to do with it's the Brit's fault"
The Brit's were releasing India to be free but the 2 religions couldn't agree on living together so the Brit's drew a line on the map both didn't entirely disagree but the Muslim's wanted most of the resources not an even split like the Hindu's were asking. Millions died not because of the Brit's but because the Mussies were too greedy. It says so right in your article never mind it saying it in the article's that I posted.
This part of your post
Is also proven false in your own article in the post that I quoted
Where earlier in your article the Brit's sold the Kashmir to maharajah who was Hindu and he was reluctant to join India due to the large Muslim population, he tried to stay neutral until the Muslims started rebelling, and he fled to save his life
Kinda tough when your own article turns on you aint it?
Last edited:
The MiG-21 Bison fighter jet of the Indian Air Force that shot down and advanced American origin F-16 of the Pakistani Air Force on 27/02/2019 was a highly upgraded version of the Soviet era jet . India's first MiG-21 arrived from the Soviet Union in 1963 and four years later Hindustan Aeronautics Limited started making these jets at home under license from Soviets . The MiG-21 Bison upgrade was launched in 1990s and the last upgrade for 110 MiG-21 jets to Bison happened in 2006 turning them in to capable modern fighter jets fitted with beyond visual range missiles
I don't have a path, what I have is a document that shows the root cause of hostilities goes back to the days when the UK was the power in the land. Why the hell would you be able to admit to anything but the shallow answer you already supplied? (glib and superficial charm)
Basically nothing other than confirm that they put the border where it would create the most conflict.
The UK is a war machine, since 1815 they have done nothing but create hardship everyplace they went. The price you pay for becoming a Lackey fit the World Bank.. You want to be educated in that area as well?? The US replaced them at the end of WWII. When the US is stabbed in the back the UK will go with the EU and again be in good graces with their Masters.
Speak English retard, 'neither side agreed with' where the line was drawn so that is why it will never be moved.
My original article did, you keep pointing to 1947 when I'm pointing to whole different century so all you are doing is showing you have no other mode than troll mode, just like the rest if the fuktards around here. You do notice you did just what you accused me if doing nut in your world you are a 'good troll' rather than a 'bad troll'. That thinking is so fukked-up it isn't even funny..
' By the late 19th century'
Then post a link to it, I'm using the link you did post, hard to discuss with you when you are arguing with the voices in your head
All the voices agree that this place is full of fuktards and when I came back it was 'open season'. How do you like me so far??
God will forgive the Jews, you fuks, not so much and that really will hurt for a very long time. Karma at it's finest, Right??.
God will forgive the Jews, you fuks, not so much and that really will hurt for a very long time. Karma at it's finest, Right??.
Last edited:
Another selfi, worse than JT as everything has to be about you doesn't it.
Bang, the bottom just fell out of NATO's air superiority
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-MiG-21-defeat-an-F-16
Yes, a MiG-21 can defeat the F-16 provided it has been upgraded to today’s technologies. Sometime back several years ago, the Russians went ahead and modernised their MiG-21Bis to become the MiG-21–93. It was equipped with a modern radar, advance cockpit setup, Helmet cueing and surprisingly the deadly R-77 Adder. If the MiG got further upgraded by adopting the R-77ER which can fly 160km could be a game changer. If the F-16 was equipped with current weapons today, it would be a difficult situation for anyone to think what will the outcome of a modern MiG-21 fighting against the F-16.
The MiG-21 can beat the F-16 if the F-16 was attacked by 2–4 MiG-21s. Many nations still have a sizeable fleet of Fishbeds and modernising them could be the cost effective way when budgets are limited. The F-16 pilot will be no dummy. The Pilot knows what he/she is up against and need to employ tactics to make sure he/she has the advantage. The pilot takes note that the MiG pilot has modern BVR and SRAAM with helmet cueing. The only possible advantage for the Falcon pilot is shooting down his enemy from behind. If tangling the Fishbed pilot, the MiG pilot is able to shoot the Falcon off axis.
The F-16 would carry in air combat probably 4 x AIM-120C Amraam and 2 x AIM-9X Sidewinder with Helmet mounting sight. The MIG-21–93 would carry a smaller war load of 2 x R-77ER Adder and 2 x R-73 Archer short range missiles equipped with Russia’s latest Helmet Mounted systems.
Bang, the bottom just fell out of NATO's air superiority
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-MiG-21-defeat-an-F-16
Yes, a MiG-21 can defeat the F-16 provided it has been upgraded to today’s technologies. Sometime back several years ago, the Russians went ahead and modernised their MiG-21Bis to become the MiG-21–93. It was equipped with a modern radar, advance cockpit setup, Helmet cueing and surprisingly the deadly R-77 Adder. If the MiG got further upgraded by adopting the R-77ER which can fly 160km could be a game changer. If the F-16 was equipped with current weapons today, it would be a difficult situation for anyone to think what will the outcome of a modern MiG-21 fighting against the F-16.
The MiG-21 can beat the F-16 if the F-16 was attacked by 2–4 MiG-21s. Many nations still have a sizeable fleet of Fishbeds and modernising them could be the cost effective way when budgets are limited. The F-16 pilot will be no dummy. The Pilot knows what he/she is up against and need to employ tactics to make sure he/she has the advantage. The pilot takes note that the MiG pilot has modern BVR and SRAAM with helmet cueing. The only possible advantage for the Falcon pilot is shooting down his enemy from behind. If tangling the Fishbed pilot, the MiG pilot is able to shoot the Falcon off axis.
The F-16 would carry in air combat probably 4 x AIM-120C Amraam and 2 x AIM-9X Sidewinder with Helmet mounting sight. The MIG-21–93 would carry a smaller war load of 2 x R-77ER Adder and 2 x R-73 Archer short range missiles equipped with Russia’s latest Helmet Mounted systems.
The MIG-21–93 is equipped with new radar, new cockpit instruments, new canopy and a wrap around windscreen, helmet mounted system (Similar to the Israelis), new avionics and carry modern weapons such as the R-77 Adder and R-73 Archer as seen here. India is one nation that is operating over 250 MiG-21Bis Fishbed-N models which was made in the 80s. 126 jets have been updated to the “BISON” model which is the Indian version of the MiG-21–93 model. If i have a choice between 100 MIG-21–93 or 10 F-16C, i would have gone for the MIG-21–93 if my air force objective is for defensive of air space and interception.
The Israelis have one of the best F-16 in the middle east, modified locally to meet Israeli Air Force requirements. Among the Arab nations, most are equipped with the Fishbed-N series while some are older. Some have gone through minor upgrades but are still lacking major technologies that is on par with the Israeli F-16s. The most modified MiG-21 is from India based on the MiG-21–93 and this is the most lethal MiG-21 model in the world. If the MiG-21–93 did employ the R-77 ER Adder model (It is said that the R-77EF have a range fo 160km while the Amraam in Pakistani service have a mere 65km range. The Adder would be able to intercept the F-16 prior to that jet launching their AIM-120C Amraam.
Pakistan has over 90 F-16 of various models (all MLU’d to Block 52 status) in service. The most up to date model being the Block 52+.However Pakistani pilots are one of the most highly trained fighter pilots in the world and have been seconded to countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Qatar, Kuwait and Syria.
Are you trying to rewrite the article where the Pakistan F-16 shot down the India MiG-21? And then somehow NATO lost air superiority?
Do you ever have the temptation to accept the psychiatrist's invitation to examine your mind?
Do you ever have the temptation to accept the psychiatrist's invitation to examine your mind?
Not at all, it is a breaking story. Fly a Bi-plane that has the latest missile and you too can tap the best that NATO produce.
This video shows you that Why IAF picked MiG-21s to take on Pakistani F-16s on Wednesday.
Keyboard warriors, armchair analysts and even experts have questioned the rationale of using the MiG-21 aircraft in Combat Air Patrol (CAP) Wednesday, when India lost at least one fighter against Pakistan’s F-16s. However, sources in the Indian Air Force defended the use of the MiG-21, saying it was one of the fighters in its inventory and that aircraft are rotated based on operations, time and threat level.
What happened Wednesday
At around 1005 hours Wednesday, three F-16s of the Pakistan Air Force violated Indian air space and entered into the Nowshera sector. They targeted four military installations and dropped bombs.
The Indian Air Force, which was on high alert, swung into action. At least two MiG-21 Bisons, which were on CAP duty, chased the F-16s and were even able to shoot down one of them.
Pakistan claims the Indian fighters crossed the LoC and were engaged by it, though it hasn’t clarified if they were engaged by its aircraft or air defence systems.
India has confirmed that it lost one MiG-21 Bison and that the pilot is ‘missing in action’. Pakistan claimed to have downed two fighters and captured two pilots, but later clarified the number to be one pilot — Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman.
News of Abhinandan’s capture confirmed that it was a MiG-21 Bison that went down, after initial speculation about a MiG-29.
Read Full Article On: https://theprint.in/