doppelganger
BANNED
![](/styles/default/xenforo/ranks/Brigadier.jpg)
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2013
- Messages
- 5,052
- Reaction score
- -6
- Country
- Location
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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?
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.
Lets see,
Muslims in Pakistan are fighting Muslims,
Muslims in Syria are fighting Muslims,
Muslims in Libya were fighting ... Muslims..
No unified cause or similar cause there.. NO UMMAH.
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.
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.
We had F-16s later.
@Zarvan ji, will the first volley be between Shia Iran and Sunni Pakistan?
No thanks. We really don't need Zia again.
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"
![]()
Then bear current government.
I said so because Pakistan was far better in his regime and not because of WAR.
you are basically agreeing to zarvan who says lets have ummah and fight non muslims.. no?
here is reply for you
![]()
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.
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 أمةwithin 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).