Wednesday, 13 August 2025 »  Login
in

No matter who attacks Pakistan, Pakistan will attack India

Welcome to the largest Hyderabadi forum on earth! Start discussions about anything from cool eat-outs and value gyms to terrorism, seek help, plan outings, make friends, and generally have fun!

Moderator: The Moderator Team

No matter who attacks Pakistan, Pakistan will attack India

by ***** » Sun May 14, 2006 9:38 pm

Oh, I mean ISRAEL. An ex- Paki chief says that he suggested Iran to attack Israel in case Iran is attacked no matter by who, just as they, the Pakis thought they would attack India, no matter who attacked India.



So , let us approach Pakis carefully where we do not get into any trouble? We cannot afford to be wiped off of the map, like they say they will do to Isreal.



baanchanu, ayya, we want to survive, please, leave us alone. whatever you want we will give you, we will live by your standards, baanchanu, ayya !







http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 2FShowFull
Take Israel hostage if attacked'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan

Pakistan's former army chief says Iranian officials came to him for advice on heading off an attack on their nuclear facilities, and he in effect advised them to take a hostage - Israel.

Retired Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg said he suggested their government "make it clear that if anything happens to Iran, if anyone attacks it - it doesn't matter who it is or how it is attacked - that Iran's answer will be to hit Israel; the only target will be Israel."

Since Beg spoke in an interview with The Associated Press, echoes of his thinking have been heard in Iran, though whether they result directly from his advice isn't known.

Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander, was quoted last week as saying that if "America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel." The threat was disavowed the next day by Brig. Gen. Alireza Afshar, deputy to the chief of Iran's military staff, who said it was Dehghani's "personal view and has no validity as far as the Iranian military officials are concerned."

And on Tuesday, Israel's vice premier, Shimon Peres, warned that "Those who threaten to destroy are in danger of being destroyed."

In the AP interview that took place several weeks before these threats were exchanged, General Beg said a delegation from the Iranian Embassy in Pakistan had come to his office in January, seeking advice as Western pressure mounted on Iran to abandon its nuclear effort. Beg said he offered lessons learned from his experience dealing with India's nuclear threat.
He said he told the Iranians, whom he did not identify, that Pakistan had suspected India of collaborating with Israel in planning an attack on its nuclear facilities. By then, Pakistan had the bomb too. But both countries had adopted a strategy of ambiguity, he said, and Pakistan sent an emissary to India to warn that no matter who attacked it, Pakistan would retaliate against India.

"We told India frankly that this is the threat we perceive and this is the action we are taking and the action we will take. It was a real deterrent," he recalled telling the Iranians.


He said he also advised them to "attempt to degrade the defense systems of Israel," harass it through the Hamas government of the Palestinian Authority and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, and put second-strike nuclear weapons on submarines.

Beg also detailed nearly 20 years of Iranian approaches to obtain conventional arms and then technology for nuclear weapons. He described an Iranian visit in 1990, when he was army chief of staff.

"They didn't want the technology. They asked: 'Can we have a bomb?' My answer was: By all means you can have it but you must make it yourself. Nobody gave it to us."

Although Beg insisted his government never gave Iran nuclear weapons, Pakistan now acknowledges that Khan sold Iran centrifuges to produce weapons-grade uranium, though without his government's knowledge.

In a televised confession Khan insisted he acted without authorization in selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea, saying the proliferation took place between 1989 and 2000.

Beg became army chief of staff in 1988, a year after Pakistan confirmed CIA estimates that it had nuclear weapons capability. He served until 1991 and now runs his own think tank. He speaks freely and in detail about the nuclear issue, but many critical blank spots remain and the subject remains one of great sensitivity, clouded by revelations in 2004 that A. Q. Khan, who pioneered Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Khan has been pardoned by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and Pakistan has refused to hand him over to the United States or the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency for questioning.

According to Beg, Iran first sent emissaries to Pakistan in the latter years of its 1980-88 war with Iraq with a shopping list worth billions of dollars, mostly for spare parts for its air force. It offered in return to underwrite the development plan of Gen. Zia-ul Haq, then Pakistan's ruler.

"Gen. Zia did not agree," he said.

Much of what Beg says cannot be independently confirmed, and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency did not respond to repeated requests for comment on Beg's version of events.
*****
Registered User
 

Re: No matter who attacks Pakistan, Pakistan will attack Ind

by ustaad » Sun May 14, 2006 11:31 pm

those poor bastards.



Indian Army/Navy/Air Force is way too superior to Pakistans or Irans.



The only challenge we might face is from China...and that will be a close finish.



And definitely not any radical muslim nation-with-2nd-hand-technology and hand me downs from other rogue nations.



http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0765614979/104-1270294-6787920?v=glance&n=283155
Prose for hos!

Image
ustaad
Registered User
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:48 am
Location: ATL

by The Jackal » Mon May 15, 2006 12:30 pm

AFAIK the Chineese have more firepower than us.The russians sell them more stuff to them than to us(Example:Sukhois).So we just cannot assume that we would give a tight fight.I really doubt it.

It would be interesting though.I am usually on the forums at ATS(http://www.abovetopsecret.com) and this types of discussions go on there regularly.I dont khnow much about this topic,but from what I learnt on ATS,China dominates us in the military segment.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by The Jackal » Mon May 15, 2006 12:37 pm

Do you guys know that there is a loophole in the UN laws.Well anyway,the UN passed a resolution that whichever country posesses nuclear weapons should notify the same to the world.Anyway I read that Isareal seperates the components of a weapon and when the time is right or if they have to use the weapon,they just bring the components together and voila Isareal is a nation which has nuclear weapons.



And I am sure that the Mossad will squash and attack attempt over isareal.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by Lucifer » Mon May 15, 2006 2:01 pm

To give a counter-point to Jackal's argument.



It does not matter how superior your firepower is. More than that, what matters is whether you have the jigra in you to slug it out. A case in point is Vietnam. US, with chemical weapons, was brought down to its knees by a race that literally fought with sticks and stones. In the 1971 war with Pakistan, Indian spitfires down the much touted F-series planes.



Correct me if I am wrong, but throughout history I have not come across a single regiment of the Indian Army that has surrendered, no matter what odds were stacked against them.
Nothing travels faster than light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
-- Douglas Adams
http://artfilm.fullhydblogs.com/
User avatar
Lucifer
Level 3 Star User
Level 3 Star User
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Hades

by CtrlAltDel » Mon May 15, 2006 4:47 pm

i sorta agree with luci. what ultimately matters is not firepower but the zeal to win. but again, we must not imagine that the chinese have less zeal than indians
wtf? i no longer care if my posts hurt yr feelings :roll:
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me :D
User avatar
CtrlAltDel
God!
God!
 
Posts: 14824
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:02 pm
Location: by the Workshop

by Portuguese Man-Of-War » Mon May 15, 2006 4:56 pm

What ultimately matters is nukes. You have a few missiles and nuke warheads to adorn them with, you don't need anything else, including guts.
User avatar
Portuguese Man-Of-War
Registered User
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Hyderabad

by Sharjeel » Mon May 15, 2006 5:04 pm

The only thing that saved us Indians from the Chinese were the Himalayas.
"Consequences, shmonsequences! So long as I'm rich!" - Daffy Duck.
User avatar
Sharjeel
Level 2 Lord
Level 2 Lord
 
Posts: 3851
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:09 pm
Location: Hyderabadi in Nagpur (and vice-versa)

by The Jackal » Mon May 15, 2006 8:25 pm

Lucifer wrote:To give a counter-point to Jackal's argument.

It does not matter how superior your firepower is. More than that, what matters is whether you have the jigra in you to slug it out. A case in point is Vietnam. US, with chemical weapons, was brought down to its knees by a race that literally fought with sticks and stones. In the 1971 war with Pakistan, Indian spitfires down the much touted F-series planes.

Correct me if I am wrong, but throughout history I have not come across a single regiment of the Indian Army that has surrendered, no matter what odds were stacked against them.
Touche....Forgot the Vietnam point.When any american brings up "nam" I remind them that they lost that war.

My history is a little bit rusty but correct me if I am wrong,I read somewhere that we surrendered to China back in the 70ies.Or was it Nehru who ran to the UN for help????Not sure.Can someone clarify this blur in my head?
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by The Jackal » Mon May 15, 2006 8:30 pm

Portuguese Man-Of-War wrote:What ultimately matters is nukes. You have a few missiles and nuke warheads to adorn them with, you don't need anything else, including guts.
I am sure that every Nuclear Power knows the consequences of using N-Weapons.They would be used only if its absolutely necessary.Example Russians in Afganisthan and the United States in Vietnam(As told by Lucifer).And isnt there is some treaty in UN that prohibits the useage of Nuclear Weapons.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by Lucifer » Mon May 15, 2006 11:56 pm

Jackal first:



I think you are referring to the war with China in 1962. The Indian Army did not surrender any position - they were ambushed in a few but they fought till the last man. The Indian government did sign a truce with China that brought the war to an end. But unlike their American counterparts, the Indian Army chose not to lay down their arms and surrender even when the enemy was much much superior. Nam is replete with stories of battalions of the American Army surrendering. And we all know of the now legenendary incident of a fully equipped 90,000 strong force of the Pakistan Army surrendering to a few thousand Indian Armymen in the 1971 war.



PMoW:



Nukes, eh? There is a reason why MAD translates to Mutually Assured Destruction. :D



CAD:



True, there is no reason to underestimate Chinese grit. Similarly, there is not reason to estimate Indian grit to be any lower. After all, the Siachen is among the toughest battlefields where the Indian Army routinely fights battles.
Nothing travels faster than light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
-- Douglas Adams
http://artfilm.fullhydblogs.com/
User avatar
Lucifer
Level 3 Star User
Level 3 Star User
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Hades

by Militaryman HP » Tue May 16, 2006 1:23 am

^^^^^^^Most of what you guys have written above makes sense. But one thing that I found missing from this discussion, and a very important thing, is the morale in the forces.



India might be superior to Pakistan in terms of firepower, but the morale in the forces is at an all time low owing to controversies like the tehelka scam; the ousting of an erstwhile navy chief not too long ago and the likes.



In the '48 attack by Afghan militia, the '65 and '71 wars with Pak and the '65 war with the chinese, Indian military morale was right up there at the top. And that was the reason why we were able to counter superior firepower. The case in Vietnam was similar. The vietcong were brimming with morale and the americans were clueless about what was happening.



This makes morale a very crucial factor in any armed combat and in case of India-Pak, it might even turn out to be the most crucial factor.



Having said this, let me also add that I have no inkling about how the morale factor is in the paki camp. Just hope that its worse than ours so that we can kick paki @$$ anytime and everytime they look this way.
In un foro nella terra, viva un hobbit
User avatar
Militaryman HP
Level 1 Lord
Level 1 Lord
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:28 am
Location: Omnipresent

by Mayavi Morpheus » Tue May 16, 2006 3:03 am

HP,



How do you know that the scams have lowered the morale of the jawan on the front?
May the Fries be with you!
User avatar
Mayavi Morpheus
Level 2 Lord
Level 2 Lord
 
Posts: 3201
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West

by PWOW » Tue May 16, 2006 6:36 am

Portuguese Man-Of-War wrote:What ultimately matters is nukes. You have a few missiles and nuke warheads to adorn them with, you don't need anything else, including guts.




As far as jigar is concerned, these muslim nations are fanatic idiots, one incitement and we are gone. It wont take them long to use nukes. US is scared of using nukes (after the nam war). As far as countires like India, China etc are concerned, they are far mature and ofcourse know the repurcussions of using the nukes.
PWOW
Registered User
 

by Portuguese Man-Of-War » Tue May 16, 2006 10:13 am

PWOW wrote:
Portuguese Man-Of-War wrote:What ultimately matters is nukes. You have a few missiles and nuke warheads to adorn them with, you don't need anything else, including guts.


As far as jigar is concerned, these muslim nations are fanatic idiots, one incitement and we are gone. It wont take them long to use nukes. US is scared of using nukes (after the nam war). As far as countires like India, China etc are concerned, they are far mature and ofcourse know the repurcussions of using the nukes.


Precisely what I was trying to say.



Jackal, who said all nuclear powers will be responsible countries? You're almost indirectly saying that only responsible countries turn nuclear powers. Remember, Pakistan has steadfastly refused to sign a no-first-use agreement, while India has.



Remember that Pakistan is full of Jihadis who do not mind laying down their lives. If they get access to the nukes, they'll kill India, even if they know we'll nuke right back, since they are anyway prepared to die.
User avatar
Portuguese Man-Of-War
Registered User
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: Hyderabad

by CtrlAltDel » Tue May 16, 2006 10:58 am

Militaryman HP wrote:Having said this, let me also add that I have no inkling about how the morale factor is in the paki camp. Just hope that its worse than ours...
from what i read in the Pak media, it looks like their army's morale is not exactly high at the moment. they are fighting a violent insurgency in Balochistan (may be instigated by india) and angry pathan tribals in Waziristan (afghan border). this is one of the reasons why mushie wants peace with india for the moment since he needs his forces elsewhere. and this peace would rankle any self respecting paki army man, who would most likely be anti-mush. they are having their hands full at the moment.
wtf? i no longer care if my posts hurt yr feelings :roll:
Love me or hate me, u cant ignore me :D
User avatar
CtrlAltDel
God!
God!
 
Posts: 14824
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 5:02 pm
Location: by the Workshop

by Lucifer » Tue May 16, 2006 12:28 pm

Jihad or fanaticism (and I use the term intechangeable because, frankly, there is not much difference between the two) can only sustain a few sporadic violent incidents. It cannot sustain a full-scale war.



The six day war that Israel fought with the entire Arab world in 1967 is a very good case in point. You cannot have more jihadi forces in any other part of the world. And they were all united in their cause against Israel. A country as small as Israel took on the might of the entire Arab world and won! Israel won the war in six days. That is all it took to bring the Arab world down to its knees.



The morale factor is dependent directly on the cause you are fighting for. If you believe in the cause, you inevitable do not face problems of low morale. But if you don't, then a Nam happens.
Nothing travels faster than light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
-- Douglas Adams
http://artfilm.fullhydblogs.com/
User avatar
Lucifer
Level 3 Star User
Level 3 Star User
 
Posts: 1525
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Hades

by The Jackal » Tue May 16, 2006 3:17 pm

Portuguese Man-Of-War wrote:
PWOW wrote:
Portuguese Man-Of-War wrote:What ultimately matters is nukes. You have a few missiles and nuke warheads to adorn them with, you don't need anything else, including guts.


As far as jigar is concerned, these muslim nations are fanatic idiots, one incitement and we are gone. It wont take them long to use nukes. US is scared of using nukes (after the nam war). As far as countires like India, China etc are concerned, they are far mature and ofcourse know the repurcussions of using the nukes.

Precisely what I was trying to say.

Jackal, who said all nuclear powers will be responsible countries? You're almost indirectly saying that only responsible countries turn nuclear powers. Remember, Pakistan has steadfastly refused to sign a no-first-use agreement, while India has.

Remember that Pakistan is full of Jihadis who do not mind laying down their lives. If they get access to the nukes, they'll kill India, even if they know we'll nuke right back, since they are anyway prepared to die.
Come on I am sure that even pakisthan knows that if they use the N-weapons,the consequences would be deadly.When we tested those beapons in pokhran in 1997 alone,our entire external funding stopped and we were given sivere warnings.ANd more over even we have some weapons(The rumor is that we have around 30-40),why the hell would be scared to use them if they started it.

Of course if an islamic radical group gets hold of one then no one in the cities are safe.Especially cities in countries which are pro-west.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by The Jackal » Tue May 16, 2006 3:25 pm

Lucifer wrote:Jackal first:

I think you are referring to the war with China in 1962. The Indian Army did not surrender any position - they were ambushed in a few but they fought till the last man. The Indian government did sign a truce with China that brought the war to an end. But unlike their American counterparts, the Indian Army chose not to lay down their arms and surrender even when the enemy was much much superior. Nam is replete with stories of battalions of the American Army surrendering. And we all know of the now legenendary incident of a fully equipped 90,000 strong force of the Pakistan Army surrendering to a few thousand Indian Armymen in the 1971 war.

PMoW:

Nukes, eh? There is a reason why MAD translates to Mutually Assured Destruction. :D

CAD:

True, there is no reason to underestimate Chinese grit. Similarly, there is not reason to estimate Indian grit to be any lower. After all, the Siachen is among the toughest battlefields where the Indian Army routinely fights battles.
Thanks for clearing that up.And regarding your last statement:who doesnt.I keep the wallpaper where the pakistani general signed the surrender form with the Indian army every repulic day/independence day.(My pakistani friends get irritated)
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d'enculé de ta mère.:Merovingian,TMR
User avatar
The Jackal
Level 1 Deity
Level 1 Deity
 
Posts: 6556
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:16 am
Location: Lat 17° 22' 31N /Long 78° 28' 28E

by Militaryman HP » Tue May 16, 2006 6:09 pm

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:HP,

How do you know that the scams have lowered the morale of the jawan on the front?




I know that because I come from a military education background and many of my cronies are now officers in the armed forces. We have alumni fora where we interact and I have gathered this from my interaction with more than a hundred officers of the forces working with different wings.
In un foro nella terra, viva un hobbit
User avatar
Militaryman HP
Level 1 Lord
Level 1 Lord
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:28 am
Location: Omnipresent

by ***** » Tue May 16, 2006 8:59 pm

Nam happened and America lost because of low morale of American troops.



Anti-war marches during the war is the supposed reason for the low morale mostly amongst the very young soldiers who were fighting a very tough war, against a very tough old, young and very young suicide killers style (the present day muslim fanatics/jihadists) enemy.
*****
Registered User
 

by Mayavi Morpheus » Tue May 16, 2006 10:36 pm

HP,



Thanks. I am not from military background nor do I have aquiantances in army, but I heard the exact opposite from many who are in similar position as you. The most recent was from a respected HT Journalist who toured Siachen.



Jackal:



Heard of the telugu saying 'Picchodi chetilo raayi'? Pakistan with nukes is the perfect example, Islamists at the helm or not. Infact I do not remember any Jihadist party in Pakistan calling for nuking India, it was Musharraf and some of his generals who gave press statements that they would nuke India.
May the Fries be with you!
User avatar
Mayavi Morpheus
Level 2 Lord
Level 2 Lord
 
Posts: 3201
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 7:42 am
Location: 30° 27' North ; 91° 08' West

by Militaryman HP » Wed May 17, 2006 12:11 am

Mayavi Morpheus wrote:HP,

Thanks. I am not from military background nor do I have aquiantances in army, but I heard the exact opposite from many who are in similar position as you. The most recent was from a respected HT Journalist who toured Siachen.




This is just an assumption. Maybe the armymen would not be as comfortable sharing their views on the subject to a mediaperson as they would be while sharing them with a friend who they know understands the subject well.



There have been numerous issues which have led to this state of affairs among the forces. First of all, the political intervention and the scandals that have been dogging the forces. I already mentioned the Tehelka scam and the ousting of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. You can add the long list of the coffin scam, the war room leak and the unnecessary dragging of the Bofors controversy. The list goes on and on and you're very well aware of it.



Secondly, the living conditions. The forces are no longer a financially rewarding career. People may argue that its not the money involved that matters but the thrill, but the fact remains that all these men are human beings just like us and money is a prime factor in a successful life.



Another issue to consider here is that most of our firepower comes from the erstwhile USSR. And a majority of this stuff is out of active production. The spares are extremely expensive and that makes maintenance a big challenge. The loss of airworthiness of the MiG's and the numerous crashes they have suffered in recent times are ample testimony to that.



These are more than enough reasons for a low morale.
In un foro nella terra, viva un hobbit
User avatar
Militaryman HP
Level 1 Lord
Level 1 Lord
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:28 am
Location: Omnipresent

by PWOW » Wed May 17, 2006 12:16 am

Militaryman HP wrote:
Mayavi Morpheus wrote:HP,

Thanks. I am not from military background nor do I have aquiantances in army, but I heard the exact opposite from many who are in similar position as you. The most recent was from a respected HT Journalist who toured Siachen.


This is just an assumption. Maybe the armymen would not be as comfortable sharing their views on the subject to a mediaperson as they would be while sharing them with a friend who they know understands the subject well.

There have been numerous issues which have led to this state of affairs among the forces. First of all, the political intervention and the scandals that have been dogging the forces. I already mentioned the Tehelka scam and the ousting of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. You can add the long list of the coffin scam, the war room leak and the unnecessary dragging of the Bofors controversy. The list goes on and on and you're very well aware of it.

Secondly, the living conditions. The forces are no longer a financially rewarding career. People may argue that its not the money involved that matters but the thrill, but the fact remains that all these men are human beings just like us and money is a prime factor in a successful life.

Another issue to consider here is that most of our firepower comes from the erstwhile USSR. And a majority of this stuff is out of active production. The spares are extremely expensive and that makes maintenance a big challenge. The loss of airworthiness of the MiG's and the numerous crashes they have suffered in recent times are ample testimony to that.

These are more than enough reasons for a low morale.




I hate Rajiv Gandhi. How could he sell bofors like that? IDIOT.
PWOW
Registered User
 

by Below the belt HP » Wed May 17, 2006 12:42 am

PWOW wrote:I hate Rajiv Gandhi. How could he sell bofors like that? IDIOT.




Don't you hate your father for having kept you in his womb for 9 months?
In un foro nella terra, viva un hobbit
User avatar
Below the belt HP
Level 1 Lord
Level 1 Lord
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 4:28 am
Location: Omnipresent

Next         

Return to The Hyderabadi Planet!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
ADVERTISEMENT
SHOUTBOX!
{{todo.name}}
{{todo.date}}
[
]
{{ todo.summary }}... expand »
{{ todo.text }} « collapse
First  |  Prev  |   1   2  3  {{current_page-1}}  {{current_page}}  {{current_page+1}}  {{last_page-2}}  {{last_page-1}}  {{last_page}}   |  Next  |  Last
{{todos[0].name}}

{{todos[0].text}}

ADVERTISEMENT
Follow fullhyd.com on
Copyright © 2023 LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. All rights reserved. fullhyd and fullhyderabad are registered trademarks of LRR Technologies (Hyderabad) Pvt Ltd. The textual, graphic, audio and audiovisual material in this site is protected by copyright law. You may not copy, distribute or use this material except as necessary for your personal, non-commercial use. Any trademarks are the properties of their respective owners.