Coming World War3. And The Role Of Iran And Pakistan

[doppelganger]

They would have to invade the entire C.Asia before that. They have learned their lesson.

From where? Georgia? How many days/weeks did that take?

 

[Kompromat]

From where? Georgia? How many days/weeks did that take?

I don't know about that, what i do know for a fact is that we killed them for ten years before they got from the other side of the Oxus river to Kandahar.

 

[doppelganger]

I don't know about that, what i do know for a fact is that we killed them for ten years before they got from the other side of the Oxus river to Kandahar.

You were not a nuclear power then.

 

[Kompromat]

You were not a nuclear power then.

We had a bomb from 1984-85 onwards.

 

[ashley.1965]

Lets see,

Muslims in Pakistan are fighting Muslims,
Muslims in Syria are fighting Muslims,
Muslims in Libya were fighting ... Muslims..

That's a fantastically superficial reading of the geopolitical realities behind these conflicts - in reality the khawarij are fighting Muslims in Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and the khawarij are (according to scholarly interpretation of various ahadith) already outside the fold of Islam.

No unified cause or similar cause there.. NO UMMAH.

Lack of unity does not imply that the ummah does not exist! Any more than Britain and Germany fighting each other in two world wars did not annul the reality of both nations being European.

The word أمة (ummah, meaning "nation" or "community") is mentioned six times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions is directly in relation to the divine description for the world community of believing Muslims. The community exists so long as Islam exists, and one denies the existence of the ummah at the risk of denying a Qur'anic concept itself - food for thought for secularized Muslims.

Had you instead referred to unity (the proper word here would be وحدة not أم&#1577 within the ummah in Pakistan, Syria, etc., then you would have a point in that this is barely visible at present between Muslims when we are divided into nation states. But that too would be ignoring the ground realities about who or what are the forces behind today's internecine khawarij movements, and how they differ fundamentally from the first khawarij miscreants who caused havoc in the community at the time of Caliph Uthman (RA).

 

[doppelganger]

We had a bomb from 1984-85 onwards.

Gun type nukes without delivery vehicles? Seriously Aeronaut?

The rules of engagement are different now. You are a recognized nuclear power. That comes with responsibilities and riders. Some upsides of course. Some downsides as well.

Your nuclear arsenal is India-centric. Period.

Start waving it around any further, and you will quickly realize the genesis of the axiom - pissing in the wind.

 

[Kompromat]

Gun type nukes without delivery vehicles? Seriously Aeronaut?

The rules of engagement are different now. You are a recognized nuclear power. That comes with responsibilities and riders. Some upsides of course. Some downsides as well.

Your nuclear arsenal is India-centric. Period.

Start waving it around any further, and you will quickly realize the genesis of the axiom - pissing in the wind.

We had F-16s later.

 

[HRK]

So we agree then.

Coming back to @Aeronaut 's assertion, the same could be done to you by 3 other nuclear powers.

Nuclear powers you do not have the ability or means to hit back at as yet. Leave alone MAD inventories and delivery capabilities.

Excluding USA which other power have "ability to operate alone" in this complex strategic region of Asia having 4 confirm Nuclear States.....

 

[PWFI]

We had F-16s later.

A-5C fantan were for that very purpose.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

@Zarvan ji, will the first volley be between Shia Iran and Sunni Pakistan?

Clown Pakistan doesnt have any secterian issues.. google shia PMs,presidents,COAS etc.. also the second largest shia county (wrt population) after Iran.. See the improving Pak-Iran relations aswell.

 

[faisal6309]

No thanks. We really don't need Zia again.

Then bear current government.

No more war pleaseeeeeeeee

Fight war on your Wii, XBox, PC

India needs to stay out of War. Any War

"Only the dead have seen the end of wars"

I said so because Pakistan was far better in his regime and not because of WAR.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Then bear current government.

If it wasn't for Zia. Bhutto dynasty and Mian sb would never have been in government in the first place.
Had democracy have ran it's course from the 70's till now, we may actually have been somewhere as a country...

And those mistakes that Zia made, those have cost us dearly. We don't need another Zia.

There's a lot more to politics than just foreign policy.

I hate it when we Pakistanis cry about our miseries and then ask for some God given leader to swoop down from heaven and save our lazy behinds. They praise Zia, and they claim that their source of misery lies elsewhere, the irony is bitter sweet.
Matey, Pakistan doesn't need a leader, nor does it need divine intervention, God's blessing is what's needed, as such...
Pakistanis should stop looking for a leader, start looking for governments, competent and honest.

I said so because Pakistan was far better in his regime and not because of WAR.

That's true. His term was much better, we had growth, good relations, we progressing on the look of it.
But when you look down to the roots of what was going on. Zia had us set up for long term disaster.

If he was alive, he'd be around to see his own failure and mistakes today.

 

[SQ8]

you are basically agreeing to zarvan who says lets have ummah and fight non muslims.. no?

I do wish for an Ummah. But I disagree with his idea that it is alive and kicking in the sense he wishes it to be.
I also dont see his idea that even 10% of Muslims in the world think there is an Ummah except a few romantics.

here is reply for you

This is no reply for me, This is you burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid the reality that there is only a romance with the Ummah while a normal Saudi or Lebanese will walk over your screaming and writhing in the street without a care and go save the American first who only cut his finger.

 

[Dillinger]

I do wish for an Ummah. But I disagree with his idea that it is alive and kicking in the sense he wishes it to be.
I also dont see his idea that even 10% of Muslims in the world think there is an Ummah except a few romantics.



This is no reply for me, This is you burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid the reality that there is only a romance with the Ummah while a normal Saudi or Lebanese will walk over your screaming and writhing in the street without a care and go save the American first who only cut his finger.

True but should Muslim majority nations intervene in the internal affairs of other nations? If the Muslim populace of UK feels that its demands are not being met for example, should such an Ummah then have the right to intervene in any manner to side with said section of the populace?

 

[SQ8]

That's a fantastically superficial reading of the geopolitical realities behind these conflicts - in reality the khawarij are fighting Muslims in Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and the khawarij are (according to scholarly interpretation of various ahadith) already outside the fold of Islam.



Lack of unity does not imply that the ummah does not exist! Any more than Britain and Germany fighting each other in two world wars did not annul the reality of both nations being European.

The word أمة (ummah, meaning "nation" or "community") is mentioned six times in the Qur'an, and one of those mentions is directly in relation to the divine description for the world community of believing Muslims. The community exists so long as Islam exists, and one denies the existence of the ummah at the risk of denying a Qur'anic concept itself - food for thought for secularized Muslims.

Had you instead referred to unity (the proper word here would be وحدة not أم&#1577 within the ummah in Pakistan, Syria, etc., then you would have a point in that this is barely visible at present between Muslims when we are divided into nation states. But that too would be ignoring the ground realities about who or what are the forces behind today's internecine khawarij movements, and how they differ fundamentally from the first khawarij miscreants who caused havoc in the community at the time of Caliph Uthman (RA).

Its all excellent references to theology and scripture that is not incorrect at all. But who defined the Khawarij today? Are you blanket defining the Khawarij as one entity based on sect? Or anyone who does not follow legitimate government. I am quite aware of the concept of Ummah, so read again my statement earlier.. an Ummah there may be, but there is no Ummah in the eyes of this Ummah.