What's new

General Mobeen Khan tweets about Loy Afghanistan (IMPORTANT)

No. If we go West we will get tangled into 40-50 years even more conflict and gangus will invade first AK and GB then Punjab and Sindh. Because we have wasted all off our resources in the graveyard of empires. Later on even the Afghans get invaded by the Indians everyone loses.

Hence the Nuclear war with India is guaraanted to happen perhaps not now but few decades down the road hence we gotta prepare for it now.. The Afghans will back us in that one
No one wins a nuclear war
 
.
No one wins a nuclear war

Someone wins even despite a great cost but we have to make sure that it is us who do and not them.. Our future prospects lays on that..

A defeat will be the end of us including the Afghans will vanish with us If we lose on the east. Hence we can't afford to lose it.. If we rise to the occasion and win then we will definitely become the next superpower and inherit the world
 
Last edited:
.
That sounds forced, last part is "Baluchistan" but you can't use "stan" to represent it when the word in both contexts just means land, and then the repetitive usage of Afghanistan. Plus Iran and Tukharistan are not important enough to be part of a national name.

Forced attempt at giving it a dual meaning, it just means land of the pure.

Why did he say that in 1933 then?
View attachment 910220

Oh yes once again.. Ahmed Shah Abdali was founder of durrrani empire NOT Afghanistan... lol its the .. same like Maha bharat Bullshit.. we hear from indians..

Pakistanis like him because of what he did to Marathas. But he never fought for Pakistan, he fought for Afghans.

Whatever is left of Afghanistan is a remnant of HIS empire which is why he is the founder of Afghanistan.
 
.
Pakistanis like him because of what he did to Marathas. But he never fought for Pakistan, he fought for Afghans.

What is this? Why do you think He came? The North Indians and Pakistanis basically called upon him in distress that is why he rushed to safe them. It was not Afghans he was fighting for in the battle which happened little bit south of Delhi that is far from Afghanistan..

He had no interest in India or their internal politics but he just answered the distress call..

Also Pakistan's founding father is non other then Qutb-ud-din-Aibak it was definitely not Jinnah nor Ghorid but Qutb Ud-Din-Aibak decided to settle down and created the Delhi Sultanate it was the birth of Pakistan as his powerbase..

Pakistan was his powerbase together with Delhi. Cities like Multan, Lahore etc etc were his powerbase. He was buried in Lahore.
 
Last edited:
.
What is this? Why do you think He came? The North Indians and Pakistanis basically called upon him in distress that is why he rushed to safe them. It was not Afghans he was fighting for in the battle which happened little bit south of Delhi that is far from Afghanistan..

He had no interest in India or their internal politics but he just answered the distress call..

Also Pakistan's founding father is non other then Qutb-ud-din-Aibak it was definitely not Jinnah nor Ghorid but Qutb Ud-Din-Aibak decided to settle down and created the Delhi Sultanate it was the birth of Pakistan as his powerbase..

Pakistan was his powerbase together with Delhi. Cities like Multan, Lahore etc etc were his powerbase. He was buried in Lahore.
You Pakistanis are so confused… 😂
 
.
Why did he say that in 1933 then?


Pakistanis like him because of what he did to Marathas. But he never fought for Pakistan, he fought for Afghans.

Whatever is left of Afghanistan is a remnant of HIS empire which is why he is the founder of Afghanistan.
There was no afghanistan or pakistan back then for him to fight for... He fought for Afghans???OK then since Hazara Tajik and other small groups are not Afghans... he shouldn't be their leader . so how come he is founding father of today's nation state Afghanistan. He is only leader of the 40%..that brings us to misapropriation of khorasan and turkistan as "Afghanistan"...lol..



"Studies that associate the Abdālī-Durrānī with Afghanistan scarcely acknowledge the
fact that “Afghanistan” is rarely used as a geographic term in sources predating the
nineteenth century. This includes chronicles produced under the auspices of various
Timurid, Mughal, Safavid and post-Safavid rulers who exercised authority over the
territories comprising what is today Afghanistan in the pre-Durrānī era. The same is true of documents produced at the court of Aḥmad Shāh, which are noteworthy for not containing any references to “Afghanistan” despite the fact that the latter was widely regarded as the
country’s “founding father.”
19 On the other hand, geographic terms like Turkistan, Khurasan and Hindustan are regularly encountered in sources produced in the period under unvestogation.
Tarikh i Ahmed Shahi quoted in
The pearl of pearls.. Sajjad Nejatie


..I have already Rubbished the narrative that he wanted an Afghan state...... majority people in his empire were none Afghans. And his officers and soldiers were both Afghan and non afghan. He NEVER referred himself as afghan.. I think that should be clear enough.
 
. . .
Dog barks, Snake bites are natures undeniable facts that is Afghan Namak Harami is also a universally accept FACT, expect no better from these barbarians, even Nuclear mutation will not save these people.
 
.
I'm could be a war between Afghanistan and India.
What you just described is unicorn. Although Afghanistan has better chance of assisting india to finish Pakistan unless we are talking about Afghan Talibans which is within parameters of Pakistan given it is Pakistan establishment project to keep the enemy of Pakistan at bay.
 
.
Pakistan is not an acronym, it just means land of the pure. (Paak - pure, stan - land)

The idea of it being an acronym was forced after by coincidentally attributing ethnicities to the letters, but it doesn't make sense because where would Baloch and Sindh fall into it?
You got it the wrong way around. In 1933, PAKISTAN was an acronym [Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, balochISTAN] which coincidentally was later found to mean land of the pure.
 
.
You got it the wrong way around. In 1933, PAKISTAN was an acronym [Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, balochISTAN] which coincidentally was later found to mean land of the pure.
Are you by chance referring to the Rhemat Ali pamphlet?

1673179360289.jpeg
 
.
Lol u folks are so insecure...Again there was no pakistan back then. I take history as history not a win or lose for presentday Pakistan or Afghanistan... Abdali is considered hero because he went and fought maratahas in panipat on request of shah wali ullah who is very much revered in pakistan.. his army was mostly locals of present day pakistan ..many of whom were ex mughal soldiers including from his birthplace multan... . His army may have looted .This was a defacto act of power grab in the day just like those from other armies that were here including the local ones that looted locals.
Abdalis empire was more of a confederation with autonomous local kingdoms.. he only had suzeranity while the local Rulers remained local NOT outsiders. he first captured his own ethnic people from ghilzay and remnants of mughals.. kingdom of Kashmir for example.invited abdali to help them get rid of the cruel decadent mughal governors... abdalis more or less capitalized on the crumbling safavid and mughal empire and didn't see a great fight in most places until they crossed lahore.
so In a way he did a major cleanup of dead eye sore cruel remnants that were pass their shelf life.. Treating abdali as an outsider and not local means u still live in 1700s. Today pakistan has 18% pashtuns.. today we live in a nation state ..not tribal kingdoms in your minds...what will u say about how islam came here then..you are vouching for Imran who is pashtun grow up.
I think their point is to teach correct version of history and not the fairy tales that are taught in Pakistani schools.
Its not about disowning Islam or taking revenge from Afghans but people should know about the sufferings of their ancestors.
Afghans are actually quite proud of what they did to hindus and hindu hate of Muslims is largely due to that.
I don't thinks both these groups lie to their children about the ugly past so why should Pakistanis not do the same?
 
.
I think their point is to teach correct version of history and not the fairy tales that are taught in Pakistani schools.
Its not about disowning Islam or taking revenge from Afghans but people should know about the sufferings of their ancestors.
Afghans are actually quite proud of what they did to hindus and hindu hate of Muslims is largely due to that.
I don't thinks both these groups lie to their children about the ugly past so why should Pakistanis not do the same?

Pakistan was hijacked by mullah fanboy brigade and they warped Pakistani ideology to consolidate power. They were another form of TTP. That's why you have Pakistanis now bending over for all the invaders of the past because their propoganda education fake news tells them they are the same as their looters. Thats why you have deluded Pakistanis seeing battle of badr as if its their history. No dear its arabic history. Your part in their history is the slave :lol:

People like these will be the end of Pakistan. They are confused and will become disloyal as TTP sympathizers have proved. As Lal Masjid types have proved. Foreign agencies use them as fodder time and time again.

We create Jinnah's Pakistani, we mourn our dead, we accept our suffering, we accept our history authentically and vow to never let this happen again. Religions and ideologies will come and go but Pakistan will remain forever
:enjoy:
 
Last edited:
.
You got it the wrong way around. In 1933, PAKISTAN was an acronym [Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, balochISTAN] which coincidentally was later found to mean land of the pure.
Doesn't make sense.

You can't use "stan" to represent Baloch - it just means land and has nothing to do with them.

It's not an acronym it was forced to be one after trying to make it dual meaning
 
.
Back
Top Bottom