Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
It was u indians who derailed the thread to Bengali genocide!
Are tHere Muslims In Indian Forces????
- Thread starter Mercenary_ali
- Start date
- Status
It was u indians who derailed the thread to Bengali genocide!
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
MUSLIMS IN INDIAN ARMY
After its projects to change Indian history to 'secular' history, the United Progressive Alliance govt seems to have launched a project to make the army 'secular'.
The Indian Army is an apolitical, professional body that is extremely proud of its dharma of loyalty to the nation and its Constitution. It does not believe in practising discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or colour.
I felt a tremendous sense of pride when at an Independence Day function in Pune in 2002 (in the aftermath of the horrible Gujarat riots) Qutubuddin Ansari, the tailor from Ahmedabad who became famous as the face of that tragedy, told me it was the Indian Army's timely arrival that had saved him and his family.
In an emotion choked voice, he said throughout his life he would pray for the success of the Indian Army. Many officers and men have told me how Muslims greeted the army's arrival by showering them with flowers. The army's impartial conduct in quelling riots is a matter of great pride to all soldiers.
'We are an apolitical and secular force'
The Indian Army is a traditional force and many battalions are organised on the basis of regions and caste. Thus we have the Sikh regiment, the Marathas, the Gorkhas etc. But this does not apply at the officer level. So it is no surprise to see a Mohammed Zaki commanding Garhwali troops or a Y N Sharma as commanding officer of the Grenadiers(which incidentally has Muslim soldiers).
As head of the family, which is what a commanding officer is, it is common for Zaki to conduct the puja on Janmashtami, celebrating the birth of Lord Krishna, or for Sharma to lead the namaz on Id Ul Fitr after Ramzan.
Faced with an insurgency in Kashmir that freely uses religion as a motivating factor, the army has has constructed combined prayer halls, called Sarva Dharma Sthal ( All Religion Place of Worship) where you have all the gods and symbols of all religions under one roof. These can be found at in Anantnag in Kashmir and even in Pune.
It is undoubtedly true that the number of Muslims in the Army is less than their proportion in the population. This is a historical legacy as the recruitment of Muslims in the armed forces in pre-Independence India was concentrated in Punjab, North West Frontier and Balochistan, all part of Pakistan today.
A similar argument can be also made on the basis of region. The states of Orissa or Gujarat or even Andhra Pradesh are not represented in proportion to their population. To assume any bias on this basis is to see evil where none exists.
The all-wise Sachar Committee has initiated an exercise that is fraught with great danger as it hits at the very notion of fair play. The basis on which this exercise is being carried out is a book by an American citizen, Omar Khalidi, (Khaki and Ethnic Violence in India). Khalidi works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States. As a matter of record, he had got in touch with me about two years ago seeking data on the Indian Army. It is another matter that seeing his intention, I and my colleagues refused any cooperation. But he obviously has won over Sachar and party.
We ought to smell a *** when the Sachar Committee approvingly quotes from Khalidi's book and makes it as the basis for its 'work.'
What every soldier finds most objectionable in the exercise is Sachar's notion of equating the armed forces with any other department of the central government. Could Mr Sachar please tell us in which other organisation is dying for the country part of the 'job'?
The committee also had the gall to say that the army made 'unnecessary fuss about this on grounds of regimental spirit and cohesion.' Do the Sachar committee members realise that the two factors -- regimental spirit and cohesion -- are the very soul of any army?
These are the factors that bind soldiers and officers to each other. People sacrifice their lives on the battlefield for the izzat (respect) of the regiment and save their comrades at the risk of their own lives.
Without these an army is merely a mob of armed violent men which would melt at the first sign of danger. When someone terms this as 'frivolous', it betrays a mindset that is not merely stupid, but dangerous.
Diary: Soldiers' God
Finally, a word about desertion during Hyderabad action (in 1948-1949) and Turtuk problem during the Kargil operations in 1999.
During the Hyderabad action, the Indian Army was in process of division between India and Pakistan on grounds of religion. To call these acts as desertion would label the entire Pakistani army as 'deserters.'
During the Kargil operations, the small population of Turtuk area was a complex issue. This area, right till 1971, was part of Pakistan and was captured during that war. The area had many ex-soldiers of the Pakistani army, still receiving pension. To expect them to become pro-India was not fair. So what was proposed (possibly) during the Kargil war, was not evacuation of Muslims, but evacuation of ex-Pakistanis from a sensitive battle zone. Are there any such reports regarding the Muslim population of Kargil, Dras etc?
Many former and serving soldiers believe that this data collection is the thin end of the wedge of introducing religion or caste-based reservations in the armed forces.
The Sachar Committee's bias has been clearly shown by their reliance on foreign research. It is time the government prohibits the Sachar Committee from dealing with the armed forces.
This does not mean that the government should not ask the army to conduct an exercise as to why the proportion of Muslims or Christians or Gujaratis is less in the armed forces.
Finally a counter question to the Sachar Committee: What is the proportion of Muslim employees in Muslim-owned companies like Wipro [Get Quote] and Cipla? If it is less than their proportion in population, do we take it that the Muslim owners of these companies are also against the minorities?
Is there no limit to 'vote bank' politics, for the sake of which a government is prepared to destroy the efficiency and cohesion of its armed forces and jeopardise the nation's security?
After its projects to change Indian history to 'secular' history, the United Progressive Alliance govt seems to have launched a project to make the army 'secular'.
The Indian Army is an apolitical, professional body that is extremely proud of its dharma of loyalty to the nation and its Constitution. It does not believe in practising discrimination on the basis of religion, caste or colour.
I felt a tremendous sense of pride when at an Independence Day function in Pune in 2002 (in the aftermath of the horrible Gujarat riots) Qutubuddin Ansari, the tailor from Ahmedabad who became famous as the face of that tragedy, told me it was the Indian Army's timely arrival that had saved him and his family.
In an emotion choked voice, he said throughout his life he would pray for the success of the Indian Army. Many officers and men have told me how Muslims greeted the army's arrival by showering them with flowers. The army's impartial conduct in quelling riots is a matter of great pride to all soldiers.
'We are an apolitical and secular force'
The Indian Army is a traditional force and many battalions are organised on the basis of regions and caste. Thus we have the Sikh regiment, the Marathas, the Gorkhas etc. But this does not apply at the officer level. So it is no surprise to see a Mohammed Zaki commanding Garhwali troops or a Y N Sharma as commanding officer of the Grenadiers(which incidentally has Muslim soldiers).
As head of the family, which is what a commanding officer is, it is common for Zaki to conduct the puja on Janmashtami, celebrating the birth of Lord Krishna, or for Sharma to lead the namaz on Id Ul Fitr after Ramzan.
Faced with an insurgency in Kashmir that freely uses religion as a motivating factor, the army has has constructed combined prayer halls, called Sarva Dharma Sthal ( All Religion Place of Worship) where you have all the gods and symbols of all religions under one roof. These can be found at in Anantnag in Kashmir and even in Pune.
It is undoubtedly true that the number of Muslims in the Army is less than their proportion in the population. This is a historical legacy as the recruitment of Muslims in the armed forces in pre-Independence India was concentrated in Punjab, North West Frontier and Balochistan, all part of Pakistan today.
A similar argument can be also made on the basis of region. The states of Orissa or Gujarat or even Andhra Pradesh are not represented in proportion to their population. To assume any bias on this basis is to see evil where none exists.
The all-wise Sachar Committee has initiated an exercise that is fraught with great danger as it hits at the very notion of fair play. The basis on which this exercise is being carried out is a book by an American citizen, Omar Khalidi, (Khaki and Ethnic Violence in India). Khalidi works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States. As a matter of record, he had got in touch with me about two years ago seeking data on the Indian Army. It is another matter that seeing his intention, I and my colleagues refused any cooperation. But he obviously has won over Sachar and party.
We ought to smell a *** when the Sachar Committee approvingly quotes from Khalidi's book and makes it as the basis for its 'work.'
What every soldier finds most objectionable in the exercise is Sachar's notion of equating the armed forces with any other department of the central government. Could Mr Sachar please tell us in which other organisation is dying for the country part of the 'job'?
The committee also had the gall to say that the army made 'unnecessary fuss about this on grounds of regimental spirit and cohesion.' Do the Sachar committee members realise that the two factors -- regimental spirit and cohesion -- are the very soul of any army?
These are the factors that bind soldiers and officers to each other. People sacrifice their lives on the battlefield for the izzat (respect) of the regiment and save their comrades at the risk of their own lives.
Without these an army is merely a mob of armed violent men which would melt at the first sign of danger. When someone terms this as 'frivolous', it betrays a mindset that is not merely stupid, but dangerous.
Diary: Soldiers' God
Finally, a word about desertion during Hyderabad action (in 1948-1949) and Turtuk problem during the Kargil operations in 1999.
During the Hyderabad action, the Indian Army was in process of division between India and Pakistan on grounds of religion. To call these acts as desertion would label the entire Pakistani army as 'deserters.'
During the Kargil operations, the small population of Turtuk area was a complex issue. This area, right till 1971, was part of Pakistan and was captured during that war. The area had many ex-soldiers of the Pakistani army, still receiving pension. To expect them to become pro-India was not fair. So what was proposed (possibly) during the Kargil war, was not evacuation of Muslims, but evacuation of ex-Pakistanis from a sensitive battle zone. Are there any such reports regarding the Muslim population of Kargil, Dras etc?
Many former and serving soldiers believe that this data collection is the thin end of the wedge of introducing religion or caste-based reservations in the armed forces.
The Sachar Committee's bias has been clearly shown by their reliance on foreign research. It is time the government prohibits the Sachar Committee from dealing with the armed forces.
This does not mean that the government should not ask the army to conduct an exercise as to why the proportion of Muslims or Christians or Gujaratis is less in the armed forces.
Finally a counter question to the Sachar Committee: What is the proportion of Muslim employees in Muslim-owned companies like Wipro [Get Quote] and Cipla? If it is less than their proportion in population, do we take it that the Muslim owners of these companies are also against the minorities?
Is there no limit to 'vote bank' politics, for the sake of which a government is prepared to destroy the efficiency and cohesion of its armed forces and jeopardise the nation's security?
notsuperstitious
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 10,473
- Reaction score
- -15
It was not us indians, it was the morons
It is so pathetic, I saw muslim Indian soldiers praying during the kargil war before fighting against PAK ARMY. What dio they think, that is so stupid
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
My first post was abt Muslims in IA!
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
Muslims in Army : Hiding what`s well-known
The reason for the Muslim under-representation in the Indian army, or the Sikh over-representation, is something that lies partly in history, and its public disclosure would harm nobody.
Theres something surreal about Indias debate on Muslim under-representation in the Indian army. If the defence minister says the army has done no head-count of its Muslims, how did the army give an exact Muslim figure of 29,093 last month? The figure is backed by a retired lieutenant-general who says the Muslims are 2 per cent.
Whatever the exact percentage, a huge Muslim under-representation in our army is a fact. So is a huge Sikh over-representation. See the contrast. Sikhs form 1.86 per cent of Indias population but number around 8 per cent in the Indian army. Muslims form 13 per cent of Indias population but are 2 per cent in the army. Why should this truth about Muslim under-representation be suppressed? Or that of Sikh over-representation? But an irrational love of secrecy causes Indian rulers to hide information whose public disclosure would harm nobody.
Just as Muslims are under-represented in the army, so are the Bengalis, Biharis, Oriyas, south Indians or Gujaratis. And just as Sikhs are over-represented, so are the Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gurkhas, Marathas, Pathans and Punjabis.
The reason for this disparity lies in history. The Indian armys recruitment pattern was set 150 years ago by Indias 1857 uprising. Traumatised by the rebellion, the British army adopted a recruitment policy that punished the groups which rebelled and rewarded the ones that stayed loyal. Because Muslims of Awadh, Bihar and West Bengal led the uprising, the British army stopped hiring soldiers from these areas.
Also blacklisted from these places were high-caste Hindus whose regiments in Bengal had also mutinied. In contrast, the British raised the recruitment of castes that had stood by the British to put down the uprising. These castes were the Sikhs, the Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gurkhas, Marathas, Pathans, plus Punjabis, both Hindus and Muslims. Honoured as martial races, they received preferential treatment in army recruitment for the next 90 years. Like any institution, the Indian armys a prisoner of the past.
Even today, it favours enlisting men from the martial races. Their over-representation in the Indian army is huge. Figures bear this out. Of 2.87 lakh jawans hired by the army in the last three years, a disproportionate 44,471 came from three martial states, Punjab, Haryana, and the mountain state of Uttaranchal. So these states which account for 5 per cent of Indias population provided 15 per cent of Indias army jawans.
In contrast, the fewest recruits came from non-martial West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat. These three states account for 30 per cent of Indias population, but they provided only 14 per cent of army jawans in this three-year period. So the Indian army has not only a religion-based disparity in recruitment, but also one based on caste and region. A glimpse of this discrimination was provided by a press release issued by a defence office in Jammu five years ago. Seeking recruits for the Indian army, the press release said: No vacancies for Muslims and tradesmen. Meaning that martial Dogras were welcome to apply, but not Hindu business castes like the Baniyas and the Khatris.
About the Muslim under-representation in the Indian army, the reasons are three. One was Partition. Before Independence, Muslims were around 25 per cent of the Indian army and 25 per cent of undivided India. But when India broke up and Muslim soldiers were asked to choose between India and Pakistan, they joined Pakistan en masse. So Muslim numbers in the Indian army dropped so drastically that they were only 2 per cent in 1953, according to Indias then minister of state for defence. Jawaharlal Nehru himself expressed concern that hardly any Muslims were left in the army. And Muslim numbers never really picked up in the last 60 years for a well-known reason.
Indias military establishment hesitates to hire Muslims as soldiers because it suspects Muslim loyalty to India. This discrimination is a natural outcome of India and Pakistans bitter hostility over 60 years. In similar situations, the same thing happens all over the world. The Israeli army doesnt trust its Arab soldiers in jobs related to defence security. The Buddhist Sinhalese army under-recruits its Hindu Tamils lest their sympathies lie with the Tamil Tigers. After 9/11, US army recruiters would probably screen a Muslim American volunteer more thoroughly than a Christian American. Thanks to our four wars with Pakistan, the same anti-Muslim animus works here in army recruitment.
Proof of it lies in an enormous mass of documentary and other evidence which expresses distrust of Muslims. Otherwise, why does India have separate regiments for the Sikhs, Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Mahars, the Nagas, even the Gurkhas, but not a single Muslim regiment? This is tragic but its a truth which shouldnt be suppressed. It should be acknowledged and dealt with.
Events have consequences. Muslim under-recruitment in the Indian army is a consequence of Partition. India and Pakistans hostility is seen in both countries in Hindu versus Muslim terms. So its natural for Indias Hindu army establishment to distrust a Muslim who wants to join as a soldier.
This prejudice itself discourages qualified Muslim youths from applying, which drives down Muslim numbers even more. Another reason for Muslim under-recruitment is the relatively poor education of Muslims. When they try to enlist as soldiers, they are simply out-competed by better-educated Sikh, Hindu, and Christian youths. So Muslim leaders are quite right that Muslim under-recruitment in the army deprives the community of a good, life-long source of employment. Its a sad situation not so easy to correct.
In life, however, one mans meat is another mans poison. The under-representation of Muslims and other caste or regional groups benefits the over-represented ones. The composition of the Indian army is totally askew numbers-wise. West Bengals population is eight times that of Uttaranchal. But Uttaranchal provided almost the same number of army recruits as West Bengal last year. Compare a martial Punjab with a non-martial Gujarat. Punjabs population is half that of Gujarat. But it provided four times as many people to the Indian army as Gujarat. The Indian army hired far more recruits in Rajasthan than in Tamil Nadu though Tamil Nadus population is higher. Essentially, the Indian army is dominated numbers-wise by Sikhs and Hindi-speaking Hindus of north India. The current status quo suits them perfectly.
The reason for the Muslim under-representation in the Indian army, or the Sikh over-representation, is something that lies partly in history, and its public disclosure would harm nobody.
Theres something surreal about Indias debate on Muslim under-representation in the Indian army. If the defence minister says the army has done no head-count of its Muslims, how did the army give an exact Muslim figure of 29,093 last month? The figure is backed by a retired lieutenant-general who says the Muslims are 2 per cent.
Whatever the exact percentage, a huge Muslim under-representation in our army is a fact. So is a huge Sikh over-representation. See the contrast. Sikhs form 1.86 per cent of Indias population but number around 8 per cent in the Indian army. Muslims form 13 per cent of Indias population but are 2 per cent in the army. Why should this truth about Muslim under-representation be suppressed? Or that of Sikh over-representation? But an irrational love of secrecy causes Indian rulers to hide information whose public disclosure would harm nobody.
Just as Muslims are under-represented in the army, so are the Bengalis, Biharis, Oriyas, south Indians or Gujaratis. And just as Sikhs are over-represented, so are the Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gurkhas, Marathas, Pathans and Punjabis.
The reason for this disparity lies in history. The Indian armys recruitment pattern was set 150 years ago by Indias 1857 uprising. Traumatised by the rebellion, the British army adopted a recruitment policy that punished the groups which rebelled and rewarded the ones that stayed loyal. Because Muslims of Awadh, Bihar and West Bengal led the uprising, the British army stopped hiring soldiers from these areas.
Also blacklisted from these places were high-caste Hindus whose regiments in Bengal had also mutinied. In contrast, the British raised the recruitment of castes that had stood by the British to put down the uprising. These castes were the Sikhs, the Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Gurkhas, Marathas, Pathans, plus Punjabis, both Hindus and Muslims. Honoured as martial races, they received preferential treatment in army recruitment for the next 90 years. Like any institution, the Indian armys a prisoner of the past.
Even today, it favours enlisting men from the martial races. Their over-representation in the Indian army is huge. Figures bear this out. Of 2.87 lakh jawans hired by the army in the last three years, a disproportionate 44,471 came from three martial states, Punjab, Haryana, and the mountain state of Uttaranchal. So these states which account for 5 per cent of Indias population provided 15 per cent of Indias army jawans.
In contrast, the fewest recruits came from non-martial West Bengal, Bihar and Gujarat. These three states account for 30 per cent of Indias population, but they provided only 14 per cent of army jawans in this three-year period. So the Indian army has not only a religion-based disparity in recruitment, but also one based on caste and region. A glimpse of this discrimination was provided by a press release issued by a defence office in Jammu five years ago. Seeking recruits for the Indian army, the press release said: No vacancies for Muslims and tradesmen. Meaning that martial Dogras were welcome to apply, but not Hindu business castes like the Baniyas and the Khatris.
About the Muslim under-representation in the Indian army, the reasons are three. One was Partition. Before Independence, Muslims were around 25 per cent of the Indian army and 25 per cent of undivided India. But when India broke up and Muslim soldiers were asked to choose between India and Pakistan, they joined Pakistan en masse. So Muslim numbers in the Indian army dropped so drastically that they were only 2 per cent in 1953, according to Indias then minister of state for defence. Jawaharlal Nehru himself expressed concern that hardly any Muslims were left in the army. And Muslim numbers never really picked up in the last 60 years for a well-known reason.
Indias military establishment hesitates to hire Muslims as soldiers because it suspects Muslim loyalty to India. This discrimination is a natural outcome of India and Pakistans bitter hostility over 60 years. In similar situations, the same thing happens all over the world. The Israeli army doesnt trust its Arab soldiers in jobs related to defence security. The Buddhist Sinhalese army under-recruits its Hindu Tamils lest their sympathies lie with the Tamil Tigers. After 9/11, US army recruiters would probably screen a Muslim American volunteer more thoroughly than a Christian American. Thanks to our four wars with Pakistan, the same anti-Muslim animus works here in army recruitment.
Proof of it lies in an enormous mass of documentary and other evidence which expresses distrust of Muslims. Otherwise, why does India have separate regiments for the Sikhs, Jats, Dogras, Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Mahars, the Nagas, even the Gurkhas, but not a single Muslim regiment? This is tragic but its a truth which shouldnt be suppressed. It should be acknowledged and dealt with.
Events have consequences. Muslim under-recruitment in the Indian army is a consequence of Partition. India and Pakistans hostility is seen in both countries in Hindu versus Muslim terms. So its natural for Indias Hindu army establishment to distrust a Muslim who wants to join as a soldier.
This prejudice itself discourages qualified Muslim youths from applying, which drives down Muslim numbers even more. Another reason for Muslim under-recruitment is the relatively poor education of Muslims. When they try to enlist as soldiers, they are simply out-competed by better-educated Sikh, Hindu, and Christian youths. So Muslim leaders are quite right that Muslim under-recruitment in the army deprives the community of a good, life-long source of employment. Its a sad situation not so easy to correct.
In life, however, one mans meat is another mans poison. The under-representation of Muslims and other caste or regional groups benefits the over-represented ones. The composition of the Indian army is totally askew numbers-wise. West Bengals population is eight times that of Uttaranchal. But Uttaranchal provided almost the same number of army recruits as West Bengal last year. Compare a martial Punjab with a non-martial Gujarat. Punjabs population is half that of Gujarat. But it provided four times as many people to the Indian army as Gujarat. The Indian army hired far more recruits in Rajasthan than in Tamil Nadu though Tamil Nadus population is higher. Essentially, the Indian army is dominated numbers-wise by Sikhs and Hindi-speaking Hindus of north India. The current status quo suits them perfectly.
Rabbit.Rabbit
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 0
Wow, you really are a troll.
Yeah, the Bengali genocide didn't happen. Its all a bunch of lies cooked up by hindus, the born liars that they are.
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
1. Indian Army Men used to change the Pak Army Uniforms and put it on there bodies to make Bengalis fool in there eyes they knew who they where. But in the Bengali eyes they where Pakistani Muslims.
2. Many Bengalis came in that trick of the Indian Policy.
3. Bangladeshis never had a significant proof of that Yahya Khan ever said to kill ''threee million bengalis'' the only truth is that there are some fake links on internet sites which are mostly based against Pakistani Army! And there some books where they say three million Bengalis where Genocied and a lot of raped to. But the Americans are confused wether it's 1 or 3 million who got raped by Indian Army.
4. Yayha Khan was a believer of Ismaili sect of Islam which is sevner believers of Islam i don't even think they are Muslims! And many Pakistanis did not supported him trust me there are many million in Pakistan who did not know what happened during 1971 Genocide. It's proved that the Pakistanis themself never supported there army against the Bengali Genocide.. It also prove us that the Genocide was done by Indian Army. Because no Muslims would never do such an disgust act against our Muslim brothers and sisters.
5. Many Bengalis did blamed that it was the Pakistani Muslims who genocided and raped a lot of the bengalis. But could they ever prove about that it was the Pakistani Muslims who actually did so???
godsavetheworld
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 0
Oh right!. What's this thread supposed to be? Another mouth-watering condition of Indian-Muslims debate Pakistnis love to indulge in?
Well, let me tell you one thing. The Army represents the country. It doesnt represent a caste, creed or religion as it might in Pakistan. Neither is it mandatory to serve like in Israel. They fight for India, not for Muslims or Hindus or Christians or Sikhs.
The world's second largest army doesnt need a lecture on secularism especially from citizens of a state who was brought up on the fact that "Hindus and Muslims cannot live together".
Well, let me tell you one thing. The Army represents the country. It doesnt represent a caste, creed or religion as it might in Pakistan. Neither is it mandatory to serve like in Israel. They fight for India, not for Muslims or Hindus or Christians or Sikhs.
The world's second largest army doesnt need a lecture on secularism especially from citizens of a state who was brought up on the fact that "Hindus and Muslims cannot live together".
indiatech
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 0
It is so pathetic, I saw muslim Indian soldiers praying during the kargil war before fighting against PAK ARMY. What dio they think, that is so stupid
You should ask the same to Pak soldiers fighting Talibans. Won't the prey ?
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
Mate, they r obviously not muslims and they aren't fighting for their religion and homeland! Wht a shitty comparison, u have shown ur level of knowledge
!
godsavetheworld
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 0
Proof? Be ashamed of the history you are accused of. You want the 3 million to send a dossier as kindly as we did? And if PA was so innocent, why did Musharraf goto Bangladesh to apologize? Why do Bangladeshis want a formal apology? And why did Pakistan respond so shamelessly by saying 'let bygones be bygones'? Atleast you could muster the courage and tell them on their faces 'give us evidence' rather than blaberring nonsense on a forum. Or even better went out an said it was the IA dressed in PA uniform..
Lockheed F-16
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,038
- Reaction score
- 0
Put ur nose in ur affairs, the RAW did enough to Bangladesh,too. You gtót no idea, come on, ur an Indian, apologize to Bengalis for killing their border jawans!
forcetrip
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2009
- Messages
- 4,316
- Reaction score
- 11
- Country
- Location
We agree to disagree ..
Muslims in India Battle Prejudice and Poverty - 2003-09-08
And I am appauled by someone suggesting that the Indian muslims should not do their duty when called upon fighting Pakistan .. Their faith does not suffer just cause the enemy believes in the same things as they do.. Right or wrong a country is where their loyalties should lie ..
indiatech
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2009
- Messages
- 753
- Reaction score
- 0
Mate, they r obviously not muslims and they aren't fighting for their religion and homeland! Wht a shitty comparison, u have shown ur level of knowledge
uhh ok. I am illiterate. Would you call me literate if i call PAK army kafir , for killing Taliban brothers, may be they don't belong to homeland but they are still keep the faith and you are killing them in dozens.
godsavetheworld
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 594
- Reaction score
- 0
Giving us a lecture on "Indian Muslims in the IA" is not your affair either. Try managaing the Talibs before telling us what our army needs to look like.
Have some shame. Your army massacred 3 million of your own brothers and raped thousands of your own sisters... and what we hear is 'let bygones be bygones'?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
