Pakistan Army | News and Discussions

[Yasser76]

Okay, so you DON'T want Pakistan to have:

1. Energy independence
2. Direct access to Central Asia
3. Kashmir and, from there, upstream water control?

....and you're going to 'control' your borders by not controlling what's on the other side of the border that's causing the instability, or hosting the anti-Pak elements, or collaborating with our adversaries?

No wonder why Pakistan's leadership is so cuck-brained.

You are the only cuck round here.

So let me see your grand strategy here champ, we invade either Iran, India or Afghanistan?

Sounds like a winning formula, sure the boys at GHQ will be over the moon to be told this and kick themselves they had not thought of it first.

Now you can even add "Think Tank Expert" to your profile like some of the others and complete the picture heh Generallisimo?

 

[Yasser76]

How am I the cuck when I'm the one calling for Pakistan to pursue its national interests with the means it has at its very disposal?

I'm saying we should go and 'take it' and you're the one who's okay for letting others 'take us.'

How about you put the mirror to the side of your monitor and actually read the points?

Let's start with Afghanistan. It's time to put an end to the bullsh!t once and for all.

They want the Durand Line gone, then yes, we'll make it go away, along with their country as they know it.

We'll establish the Had on their criminals, their nationalists, and show them what Shariah looks like when they're not the ones in charge. That's how sh!t gets done.

But why am I talking to you? Go back to watching my guy.

You are a classic cuck. Sitting behind a keyboard, in Canada asking Pakistani fighting men to play out your little grand fantasies.

If someone were to properly war game anyone of your little jerk off fantasies they would die from laughter.....

Get back to the XBOX now....

 

[puttputt]

You are a classic cuck. Sitting behind a keyboard, in Canada asking Pakistani fighting men to play out your little grand fantasies.

If someone were to properly war game anyone of your little jerk off fantasies they would die from laughter.....

Get back to the XBOX now....

What's the "little grand fantasy" of eliminating the source of the instability, terrorism, backstabbing, etc, and then ensuring it never returns?

What do you have against Pakistan securing direct access to Central Asia?

What do you have against Pakistan expanding its own territory so that its people have more places to reside, farm, and develop?

What do you have against exploiting Afghanistan's minerals and other resources?

Why is it that you're so opposed to the idea of Pakistan raising itself above the lines the white people have set for us?

I am 100% sure you're the type of guy who'd be against Pakistan developing nukes today.

I am literally calling for greatness by taking over a land whose inherent lawlessness and dependency on others (including Pakistan) have been a problem.

These guys have their hands out all the time, asking us for access to the sea, or space for refugees, or this and that, and we get NOTHING...NOTHING from it that actually builds OUR country and supports OUR national interests.

See what I'm doing? I am talking about OUR national interests, OUR rise to greatness, and SOLVING ROOT problems WITHOUT compromising OUR needs.

 

[puttputt]

So much bullshit, so little facts. Blah blah blah. OK, carry in Mini Hitler Cuck....

I bet you would've said "Yes sir!" to Gen Gracey when he refused to send troops to Kashmir in 1947-48.

So, again, why are you against...

• Pakistan securing direct access to Central Asia
  
  
• Pakistan expanding its own territory so that its people have more places to reside, farm, and develop?
  
  
• Exploiting Afghanistan's minerals and other resources?
  
  
• Pakistan raising itself above the lines the white people have set for us?

 

[Watandar]

I bet you would've said "Yes sir!" to Gen Gracey when he refused to send troops to Kashmir in 1947-48.

So, again, why are you against...

• Pakistan securing direct access to Central Asia
  
  
• Pakistan expanding its own territory so that its people have more places to reside, farm, and develop?
  
  
• Exploiting Afghanistan's minerals and other resources?
  
  
• Pakistan raising itself above the lines the white people have set for us?

Pakistan does not have the resources to do any of this in the first place, and would be walking straight into the trap that India, and I suspect the US, has set for it in Afghanistan. Militarism isn't the answer to any of the country's problems.

 

[puttputt]

Pakistan does not have the resources to do any of this in the first place, and would be walking straight into the trap that India, and I suspect the US, has set for it in Afghanistan. Militarism isn't the answer to any of the country's problems.

Here's the problem:

We don't go into Afghanistan, and these India and US-backed forces continue planning and executing their ops from within Afghanistan. They continue to bleed us, and nothing substantively changes on the ground.

This is our situation today, and it's objectively getting worse by the day. There's no denying this. And top of that, Russia and China are engaging with the IEA.

So, here's the alternative...

We enter Afghanistan and confront the problem directly. It doesn't mean we have to go all-in, all at once. No, this can be done gradually; we chip away at territory (starting with the Wakhan Corridor) and flip the local powerbrokers (e.g., rural warlords) to our side until the IEA is cornered.

In the meantime, we use the incremental gains through Afghanistan to directly trade with Central Asia, identify and exploit natural resources, and start shifting our population to the newly taken lands. If Afghans can settle in Karachi, then Punjabis can settle in Kandahar.

Now, one major point of all this is that we push all the attention back into Afghanistan. If we 'encroach' then, by consequence, the Afghans and their backers need to re-focus on throwing out. In other words, everything they'd need to do has to be done within Afghanistan (against our presence there), NOT Pakistan.

Where it differs for us vs. others is that WE ARE NATIVE to this region. We are NOT outsiders. We HAVE a Pakhtun population of our own that can TAKE THE LEAD in shifting societal grassroots opinion in Afghanistan to OUR SIDE, especially if we deliver rapidly on stability, development, etc.

 

[Watandar]

Here's the problem:

We don't go into Afghanistan, and these India and US-backed forces continue planning and executing their ops from within Afghanistan. They continue to bleed us, and nothing substantively changes on the ground.

This is our situation today, and it's objectively getting worse by the day. There's no denying this. And top of that, Russia and China are engaging with the IEA.

So, here's the alternative...

We enter Afghanistan and confront the problem directly. It doesn't mean we have to go all-in, all at once. No, this can be done gradually; we chip away at territory (starting with the Wakhan Corridor) and flip the local powerbrokers (e.g., rural warlords) to our side until the IEA is cornered.

In the meantime, we use the incremental gains through Afghanistan to directly trade with Central Asia, identify and exploit natural resources, and start shifting our population to the newly taken lands. If Afghans can settle in Karachi, then Punjabis can settle in Kandahar.

Now, one major point of all this is that we push all the attention back into Afghanistan. If we 'encroach' then, by consequence, the Afghans and their backers need to re-focus on throwing out. In other words, everything they'd need to do has to be done within Afghanistan (against our presence there), NOT Pakistan.

Where it differs for us vs. others is that WE ARE NATIVE to this region. We are NOT outsiders. We HAVE a Pakhtun population of our own that can TAKE THE LEAD in shifting societal grassroots opinion in Afghanistan to OUR SIDE, especially if we deliver rapidly on stability, development, etc.

You sound identical to the way Zionists speak about Palestine and Lebanon and your plan will have the same pitfalls. This is not the thread topic but if you want to discuss this plan you can start a new thread.

 

[puttputt]

You sound identical to the way Zionists speak about Palestine and Lebanon and your plan will have the same pitfalls. This is not the thread topic but if you want to discuss this plan you can start a new thread.

Zionists want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from THEIR (Arab) land. Zionists are outsiders from Europe who have been inserted, artificially, to the reigon.

Pakistan and Pakistanis are NATIVE to their region, and I want to BUILD A STATE that RECONNECTS the people ALREADY on the land.

I want to build a dominion that DENIES space to Indians, Americans, Russians, Chinese, etc., to plot and interfere in the affairs of our people (i.e., the people on the land already).

It's 2 different philosophies.

 

[Pakistan First]

Here's the problem:

We don't go into Afghanistan, and these India and US-backed forces continue planning and executing their ops from within Afghanistan. They continue to bleed us, and nothing substantively changes on the ground.

This is our situation today, and it's objectively getting worse by the day. There's no denying this. And top of that, Russia and China are engaging with the IEA.

So, here's the alternative...

We enter Afghanistan and confront the problem directly. It doesn't mean we have to go all-in, all at once. No, this can be done gradually; we chip away at territory (starting with the Wakhan Corridor) and flip the local powerbrokers (e.g., rural warlords) to our side until the IEA is cornered.

In the meantime, we use the incremental gains through Afghanistan to directly trade with Central Asia, identify and exploit natural resources, and start shifting our population to the newly taken lands. If Afghans can settle in Karachi, then Punjabis can settle in Kandahar.

Now, one major point of all this is that we push all the attention back into Afghanistan. If we 'encroach' then, by consequence, the Afghans and their backers need to re-focus on throwing out. In other words, everything they'd need to do has to be done within Afghanistan (against our presence there), NOT Pakistan.

Where it differs for us vs. others is that WE ARE NATIVE to this region. We are NOT outsiders. We HAVE a Pakhtun population of our own that can TAKE THE LEAD in shifting societal grassroots opinion in Afghanistan to OUR SIDE, especially if we deliver rapidly on stability, development, etc.

Sorry to say, it will be end of us. A two front war. Why would India not attack from east when our forces are getting into death trap in west ?

Some facts: PAk - Afghan border is 2800 kms filled with villages, rivers, mountains, caves, rough terrain. How we are going to stop Afghans utilizing the terrain and entering with AK47s, RPGs, FPV drones and indian supplied other ammunition to avenge the invasion ?

Also for context, Israeli - lebanon border is only 120 KMs. Yet Hizbullah which don't even controls the country of lebanon still be able to inflict pain to israelis using FPV drones and ATGMs attacks. Taliban on other hand officially controls whole of Afghanistan. They have resources of whole country in their hand and entry places to do suicide attacks, RPGs, ATGMs, FPV or one-way drones into Pakistan are way too many (2800 km border).

Also invading afghanistan means, we are essentially making all afghans (both taliban and anti-taliban) united as a single front against Pakistan.

Afghanistan is not a small country. It has over 30,000 towns and villages. We will get tired after taking 20 and price will be too heavy. There's ZERO incentive to invade Afghanistan. Had Afghanistan be rich with oil and gas then it would make some sense to do such a gamble. You want us to use super expensive missiles, ammo, over a barren land of Afghanistan where they have absolutely no shortage of man-power then what will be left in our stocks to takecare for primary front india ?

Honestly, you and me come to forums as time pass activity, but there are people in national security and military who are paid to think on such possibilities as their main job. If invading AFG had any chances of success or any advantages then we would have done that long ago.

What we should do instead is to send our spies and agents in that country to merge and infiltrate into ranks of taliban. That will be much more beneficial then sending military with extremely limited resources and creating biggest mess of our history,

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Okay, so you DON'T want Pakistan to have:

1. Energy independence
2. Direct access to Central Asia
3. Kashmir and, from there, upstream water control?

....and you're going to 'control' your borders by not controlling what's on the other side of the border that's causing the instability, or hosting the anti-Pak elements, or collaborating with our adversaries?

No wonder why Pakistan's leadership is so cuck-brained. It's insane to see how we've gone from Babar to uncs who 'sit and watch' while everybody takes turns on their nation.

Forget Napoleon, I'd rather be on the path of Rasul'Allah (SAW), or Abu Bakr (RA), or Umar (RA), or Uthman (RA), or Ali (RA), or Khalid (RA), or Sa'ad (RA), or ibn Qasim (rrh), or Khalji (rrh), or Babar (rrh), and so on.

I swear, if for you types of people, we would not even have nukes, because "oh, pipe down Einstein."

I by no means lack vision you are mistaken here, but there are realistic limits a state must take with its actions and there are priorities that matter like consolidating existing territories.

Pakistani leaders may be soft and inactive, but trying to go on imperial conquests isnt one of them, they need to consolidate Pakistan first.

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Sorry to say, it will be end of us. A two front war. Why would India not attack from east when our forces are getting into death trap in west ?

Some facts: PAk - Afghan border is 2800 kms filled with villages, rivers, mountains, caves, rough terrain. How we are going to stop Afghans utilizing the terrain and entering with AK47s, RPGs, FPV drones and indian supplied other ammunition to avenge the invasion ?

Also for context, Israeli - lebanon border is only 120 KMs. Yet Hizbullah which don't even controls the country of lebanon still be able to inflict pain to israelis using FPV drones and ATGMs attacks. Taliban on other hand officially controls whole of Afghanistan. They have resources of whole country in their hand and entry places to do suicide attacks, RPGs, ATGMs, FPV or one-way drones into Pakistan are way too many (2800 km border).

Also invading afghanistan means, we are essentially making all afghans (both taliban and anti-taliban) united as a single front against Pakistan.

Afghanistan is not a small country. It has over 30,000 towns and villages. We will get tired after taking 20 and price will be too heavy. There's ZERO incentive to invade Afghanistan. Had Afghanistan be rich with oil and gas then it would make some sense to do such a gamble. You want us to use super expensive missiles, ammo, over a barren land of Afghanistan where they have absolutely no shortage of man-power then what will be left in our stocks to takecare for primary front india ?

Honestly, you and me come to forums as time pass activity, but there are people in national security and military who are paid to think on such possibilities as their main job. If invading AFG had any chances of success or any advantages then we would have done that long ago.

What we should do instead is to send our spies and agents in that country to merge and infiltrate into ranks of taliban. That will be much more beneficial then sending military with extremely limited resources and creating biggest mess of our history,

This is the exact reason we invented nuclear weapons. If it gets to a point where they must be utilised for our security, they should be used.

Especially against Afghanistan. Thats something we will have to contend with and deal with the blowback of.

If Afghans try to encircle us we will nuke them.

 

[puttputt]

Sorry to say, it will be end of us. A two front war. Why would India not attack from east when our forces are getting into death trap in west ?

Some facts: PAk - Afghan border is 2800 kms filled with villages, rivers, mountains, caves, rough terrain. How we are going to stop Afghans utilizing the terrain and entering with AK47s, RPGs, FPV drones and indian supplied other ammunition to avenge the invasion ?

Also for context, Israeli - lebanon border is only 120 KMs. Yet Hizbullah which don't even controls the country of lebanon still be able to inflict pain to israelis using FPV drones and ATGMs attacks. Taliban on other hand officially controls whole of Afghanistan. They have resources of whole country in their hand and entry places to do suicide attacks, RPGs, ATGMs, FPV or one-way drones into Pakistan are way too many (2800 km border).

Also invading afghanistan means, we are essentially making all afghans (both taliban and anti-taliban) united as a single front against Pakistan.

Afghanistan is not a small country. It has over 30,000 towns and villages. We will get tired after taking 20 and price will be too heavy. There's ZERO incentive to invade Afghanistan. Had Afghanistan be rich with oil and gas then it would make some sense to do such a gamble. You want us to use super expensive missiles, ammo, over a barren land of Afghanistan where they have absolutely no shortage of man-power then what will be left in our stocks to takecare for primary front india ?

Honestly, you and me come to forums as time pass activity, but there are people in national security and military who are paid to think on such possibilities as their main job. If invading AFG had any chances of success or any advantages then we would have done that long ago.

What we should do instead is to send our spies and agents in that country to merge and infiltrate into ranks of taliban. That will be much more beneficial then sending military with extremely limited resources and creating biggest mess of our history,

I see, so you’re saying that had Afghanistan been more rich in resources, we should go in, otherwise, it’s not worth it. I can respect that, but what about a limited take over, like Wakhan?

 

[Pakistan First]

I see, so you’re saying that had Afghanistan been more rich in resources, we should go in, otherwise, it’s not worth it. I can respect that, but what about a limited take over, like Wakhan?

Should not attempt at even Wakhan. Reason is simple, Terrorism in Pakistan will increase many times and all afghan segments including anti-taliban will have a cause to join against us. It will be costly (mis)adventure.

We can do Wakhan adventure only when time is at our side. Meaning we have achieved Complete control and peace within own country, eliminated TTP heads, our people infiltrated into Taliban ranks or we have intelligence from the ground on happenings within Kabul & Kandahar, we should have complete knowledge of what indians are doing / planning in afg. In other words, we should be top of intelligence game within afg. Secondly, there should be solid monetary benefits confirmed from China and Tajiskitan and they should be completely onboard / agreed upon this adventure. Otherwise, what if they stalled doing anything for connectivity despite us doing an illegal annexation and taking a massive risks, what if they say its disputed territory and so we are not willing to put our investments into such thing. Lastly, before getting into any military adventurism into foreign territory we should have a solid economy because we never know when things can go south.

Right now we are far from ideal conditions doing such. Imagine China has a million times better conditions to take taiwan or snatch several islands of philippines but yet its taking steps very very slowly and waiting for right times. We are in no position. We have lot more worries already.

Even better scenario is make good terms / relations with afghan regime, i know it looks highly unlikely but not impossible. Ties can be rebuilt, find common benefits or win-win scenarios. A friendly govt in Kabul is all what we need and you won't worry about spending billions of dollars on security at border or taking wakhan. We will be able to do trade with central asia, we will have secure border without spending a dime. We can focus all our energies to primary front.

 

[hasssanali8998]

You sound identical to the way Zionists speak about Palestine and Lebanon and your plan will have the same pitfalls. This is not the thread topic but if you want to discuss this plan you can start a new thread.

kinda funny how many times u have used this "huh u sound like zionist arguement " .

 

[Hopefully Pessimistic]

Theres a civil war going on in this channel