Pakistan, a British problem, but a German solution?

[KingMamba]

This is totally false but i dont want to derail the thread.Lets leave it here.

It is well known status quo favors India. Fine leave it.

 

[untitled]

You can't say that, just like those that said Chinese are all about fighting amongst each other and coward against foreigners.

......

You are right

But if some one tries to unite "Muslim World"

Some of the first questions that will be raised is, "Is the Sunni, Shia, Taliban ?"

Do you think Arab and Iranians can form a military alliance ? Both are muslims

 

[drunken-monke]

Pakistan has the 6th largest population in the world (and set to increase further), if Pakistan became an industrialized country it would be one of the most powerful countries on Earth.

China is still in the developing phase as well, when we become a developed country that will be an incredible day indeed.

LOL, you are making making fun by saying "CHINA DEVELOPING". Man China already developed... I have seen China last year... Hands down to its development...

 

[scorpionx]

For people that say these things I remind them the Muslim Caliphs, the Ottoman empire, the only people permanently stop the Mongols was muslim.
China had Mao, regardless of what people thinks, he took on the West plus Russia with no fear, then there is the Ancient dynasties, that took it to foreigners.

Come on Genesis, you are quoting wrong examples here. "Muslims" did not stop Mongols in the Middle East. It was the Mamluk Slav prisoners whom the Italian merchants bought from the Mongols were instrumental in stopping their expansion in Middle East because they knew Mongol tactics of fighting. I find it strange that you picked up Ottoman empire to incarnate "Muslim Unity". The Ottomans were regarded as Universal caliphate, but that did not stop them to fight the Arabs, neither they hesitate to invade the Safavids of Iran, quite irony isn't?

 

[Genesis]

You are right

But if some one tries to unite "Muslim World"

Some of the first questions that will be raised is, "Is the Sunni, Shia, Taliban ?"

Do you think Arab and Iranians can form a military alliance ? Both are muslims

Bismark

"The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"

Of course, when he said it, Iron meant the Iron cross and not bullets, but it could.

Sunni, Shia, Taliban, solve it however it needs to be, not all methods are peaceful and pleasant, you want power? Take.

It's never given.

You want unity? Make it happen.



What people don't know is Japan before Meiji was a loose confederation of Daimyo and Shogun, there was no concept of national, ti was the Meiji emperor and politicians and military that made that happen, it was the glory, the prosperity that made it happen.

Even German empire, you think that was easy? You look at Germany today and sees it united, but it was not always that way, what you didn't see is the blood and sacrifice the German people made that created what it was.


@scorpionx

Ok dude, not too familiar with that part of history, but Ottomans was a Muslim country. Either way not the point of that post.

 

[KingMamba]

Come on Genesis, you are quoting wrong examples here. "Muslims" did not stop Mongols in the Middle East. It was the Mamluk Slav prisoners whom the Italian merchants bought from the Mongols were instrumental in stopping their expansion in Middle East because they knew Mongol tactics of fighting. I find it strange that you picked up Ottoman empire to incarnate "Muslim Unity". The Ottomans were regarded as Universal caliphate, but that did not stop them to fight the Arabs, neither they hesitate to invade the Safavids of Iran, quite irony isn't?

Umm it was Muslims who stopped the Mongols, Battle of Ain Jalut and the Golden Horde not soon after pushed the Mongols back East. The Mamluks were ruling over Egypt and Mamluks were mostly Muslim Turks not slavs. Ottomans were the standard bearers of the unity by virtue of them being Caliphs yeah they invaded Arabs but in fighting among Muslims had been going on for centuries already. As for Safavids when Shah Ismail took over Persia the Ottoman Caliph congratulated him but he responded by invading Iraq which was ottoman controlled and that is why there was enmity between both nations, not to mention the forced shiism of Iran that Safavid practiced.

 

[Manindra]

The army of donkeys led by lion would butcher the army of lions led by donkeys any day.

Prussia was leader in Science & had decent leadership of Bismarc & what Pakistan got extremist mullahs.
There are no Ayub Khan Today.

 

[scorpionx]

Umm it was Muslims who stopped the Mongols, Battle of Ain Jalut and the Golden Horde not soon after pushed the Mongols back East. The Mamluks were ruling over Egypt and Mamluks were mostly Muslim Turks not slavs. Ottomans were the standard bearers of the unity by virtue of them being Caliphs yeah they invaded Arabs but in fighting among Muslims had been going on for centuries already. As for Safavids when Shah Ismail took over Persia the Ottoman Caliph congratulated him but he responded by invading Iraq which was ottoman controlled and that is why there was enmity between both nations, not to mention the forced shiism of Iran that Safavid practiced.

Let's go twenty years back of the battle of Ayn al-Jalut.When the Mongols retreated to Russia in 1242 after their failed invasion of Europe which brought nothing significant to their treasury as they thought it would have before their attack, the Mongol officers stationed in Crimea struck a deal with Italian merchants. In exchange of large amount of trade goods, the Mongols allowed their European prisoners to sale as slaves in the Mediterranean markets, most of them were sold to the Sultan of Egypt. Sultan's army were composed of Kipchaks (one particular clan of the Turks, who previously refused to fight the Mongols few years back) and the Slavs who had plenty of experiences in fighting the Mongols in Europe.

Why I criticized the examples of Ottomans brought here was the misconception of Muslim unity in spite of the age old rivalry and traditional political attrition among Muslims themselves. The points to bolster Op's arguments are weak and vulnerable due to historical facts. That was the context of my post.

 

[Kompromat]

@Genesis

OIC was a concept developed by our ancestors to do exactly what you have stated. All of those Muslim leaders were assassinated or brought down. Muslims want to rise up to their own expectations, though making OIC into something of a functional union is easier said than done.

One good thing that came out of 911 and the subsequent persecution of Muslims, is that it has united us. It doesn't matter if you are a Muslim from the Baltics or Pakistan, they feel the same way. We have great relations with the Middle east and Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia. If we stick together, we can achieve whats ours.

What it takes is leadership and a common vision.

 

[Hiptullha]

So basically you want Pakistan to unite with even more diverse and different Muslim countries to fight a country whose culture, history and heritage is intertwined with ours?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Genesis has a fertile imagination.But its totally different analogues he presents.Germany was 'unified' on the basis of 'nationalism' concept not religion.All germans states were ethnically same which is one of the basis of original 19th century nationalism.The federation ur proposing is vastly diverse both geographically AND more importantly ethnically.Why would a malaysian,iranian,arab take orders from pak.

Secondly u say pak will do this militarily.The day of annexing countries by force is over.Pak can't move a bit without USA shutting it down.Neither can any nation for that example.And where will pak expand?Into afghanisthan in the west? when even nato can't do it u think PA can hold that barren guerilla land?PA can't even defeat TTP at home.Or East towards india?U already admitted at top of thread it can't conventionally beat india.So that leaves north into china.

 

[Tameem]

So basically you want Pakistan to unite with even more diverse and different Muslim countries to fight a country whose culture, history and heritage is intertwined with ours?

No, He means in current scenario the huge "Indian Subcontinent/South Asia's" true potential is largely undermined on world stage due to the division of two basic nation states created by British Empire, in order to have a real impact close to its potential, one nation state/model needs to give way to the other to lead. In his opinion, due to religion/ummah concept Pakistan can create a far wider impact on world stage than the other one.

 

[scorpionx]

So basically you want Pakistan to unite with even more diverse and different Muslim countries to fight a country whose culture, history and heritage is intertwined with ours?

Excellent point of view. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Thirdfront]

If at all there is a muslim umma, SA needs to be the leader, not pakistan...

 

[halupridol]

gud read.......
but in a dog eat dog world,,,I dont see it happening....