What's new

Pan-Islamic rally urges Pakistan to liberate Jerusalem

I will give a little history lesson. The USSR wanted access to the Arabian sea.
Myth created by Pakistanis to enhance their own self-importance.

There were only 2 options: invade Afghanistan then Iran or Invade Afghanistan then Pakistan. Since Pakistan was much weaker than Iran USSR would have targeted us. Now comes the role of ISI
Soviets got involved in Afghanistan for ideological reasons.. to protect the communist regime there..
If Russia wanted direct access to the Arabian sea, Iran would be a better option..
 
.
Myth created by Pakistanis to enhance their own self-importance.


Soviets got involved in Afghanistan for ideological reasons.. to protect the communist regime there..
If Russia wanted direct access to the Arabian sea, Iran would be a better option..
What ever helps you sleep at night :pop:
 
.
The Afghan Taliban was formed by the USA to fight off the Russians, they were funded by the CIA and trained by ISI. This is were CIA and ISI worked together.
Another Pakistani myth.. Taliban was mid-wifed by ISI in mid-1990's, long after the Soviets and US had lost interest in Afghanistan. Ex-DG ISI Retd. Gen. Hamid Gul is called the father of Taliban for that reason.
The US and Saudi's aided the anti-soviet Afghan resistance mujaheddin between 1980 and 1986...
 
.
My this post was in reference to your post where you quoted an author trying to explain Pakistan Army's "way of war."

The author suggested that Pakistan Military has a different rationale for seeing strategic issues than most of the militaries around the world.

Keeping that in mind, I wrote my post to show that how/why Afghan war could have made sense to Pakistani commanders at that time while to the wider world, it didn't make sense as to why Pakistan harmed herself in order to fight a war that wasn't even happening in Pakistan's soil.

Not all militaries are generic one's like that of India's or say Algeria's etc. Some militaries are ideological militaries with a different view of strategic issues and hence such militaries act differently than one observer would expect them to.

Example: Pakistan and Israel's militaries.

Both militaries are ideological militaries with central role in the existence of their nation-states which are Pakistan and Israel--and both of whom are based on religion.

Hope you follow what I said.
Thanks for the post and your patience with me. I think I'm now getting the point you are trying to make.
So, what you are saying is that Pakistan's military doctrine is based on ideological one and not the conventional one like most other countries. I suppose that ideology is rooted in the theory that Pakistan is the citadel of Islam and protector of the ummah for all Muslims all over the world. Pakistan has taken over this role upon itself, whether rest of the Muslim world acknowledges it or not. Pakistan military's performance is evaluated based on what happens to Muslims anywhere in the world.
Pakistan army won because many Muslim country's broke away from USSR when the soviet union fell and Pakistan was wholly responsible for that fall. 1971 was not a defeat because Bangla Muslims didn't come under the subjugation of infidels/kafirs. Pakistan is winning because India has not been able to invade Pakistan etc. etc...
Is Pakistan military's inability to 'liberate Kashmir from bania occupiers' then an admission of defeat?
What about Muslim Uighur oppression in East-Turkestan/Xinjiang at the hands infidel Hans? Rohingyas in Burma?
Does US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq constitute Pakistan military defeat?
Based on your own admission, isn't it the duty of Pakistan to liberate Palestine from the Zionist occupiers?
 
Last edited:
.
So, you are saying that Pakistan's military doctrine is based on ideological one and not the conventional one like most other countries.

Both. Pakistan military is just like any other military but with an ideological aspect to it...so it makes it a little different than other random-*** militaries around the world.

I suppose that ideology is based on the theory that Pakistan is the citadel of Islam and protector of the ummah for all Muslims all over the world.

No, its not based on that.

Basically it is based on the idea of defying india any significant hegemony in the region...
Pakistan military's performance is evaluated based on what happens to Muslims anywhere in the world.

Wrong.

Pakistan army won because many Muslim country's broke away from USSR when the soviet union fell and Pakistan was wholly responsible for that fall.

Pakistan was "primarily" responsible for propping up resistance in Afghanistan and defeating Soviet in Afghan war..... Soviet debacle in Afghanistan was one of the most critical reasons, among others, for the Soviet fall.
1971 was not a defeat because Bangla Muslims didn't come under the subjugation of infidels/kafirs.

Bangladesh was not a military defeat even by conventional means. Indian Army generals have themselves accepted it. It was a political defeat of W.Pakistan. Militarily, it is not possible to fight enemy when your own country has turned against you...Civil wars aren't 'military conflict' ...
Pakistan is winning because India has not been able to invade Pakistan etc. etc...

Pakistan won because it survived as an independent nation-state and didn't go back to India or became an indian satellite like Nepal/Bhuttan etc.

Pakistan won because it cut-off Indian land access to Central Asia...and contained India within ganges plains..
Is Pakistan military's inability to 'liberate Kashmir from bania occupiers' then an admission of defeat?

India, despite being 7 times larger, couldn't liberate the Kashmir under Pakistani control. It is a bigger defeat for india then, isn't it?

Kashmir is a stalemate..
Does US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq constitute Pakistan military defeat?

:lol:

Are you retard?

Based on your own admission, isn't it the duty of Pakistan to liberate Palestine from the Zionist occupiers?

Pakistan supports Palestine in U.N... It is an Arab-issue. What poor guys like you don't realize is that Israel-Palestine is a local issue to Arab world, not a issue of Muslim World.

You must be wondering why? Let me educate you..

Why the land is holy to Muslims? Due to Al Aqsa Mosque, right? Guess who has sovereignty over Al Aqsa Mosque as we speak?

Hint: Not Israel :azn:

Peace-deal between Jordan and Israel was signed on this very basis. Jordan established peace with Israel and in return, Jordan gained the complete sovereignty over Al Aqsa Mosque. So Muslims already have all they wanted from that land. We don't care much about rest of Israel or that land...

We, however, do support Palestinians on humanitarian basis and accept their rights to the land as indigenous people.
 
.
No, its not based on that.
Basically it is based on the idea of defying india any significant hegemony in the region..
Is that the motto and mission statement of Pakistan Army?
 
. .
Pakistan was "primarily" responsible for propping up resistance in Afghanistan and defeating Soviet in Afghan war..... Soviet debacle in Afghanistan was one of the most critical reasons, among others, for the Soviet fall.
From your previous post, I got a feeling that Pakistan took credit for liberating all the Muslim states in central Asia from Soviet Russia.

Bangladesh was not a military defeat even by conventional means. Indian Army generals have themselves accepted it. It was a political defeat of W.Pakistan. Militarily, it is not possible to fight enemy when your own country has turned against you...Civil wars aren't 'military conflict' ...
Then, why was there a Indo-Pak war in 1971 at all? why did 93,000 Pakistani soldiers have to undergo the humiliation of surrendering to Indian Army?
 
.
From your previous post, I got a feeling that Pakistan took credit for liberating all the Muslim states in central Asia from Soviet Russia.

Dude, stop being an idiot and make ONE post where you reply to my post as a whole.

You can reply to me by quoting different parts of my posts and replying to them..but do it in one post.

Stop cuting one part of my post..then reply..then cutting another part..and then replying etc.

You look like an utter idiot in this manner.

Reply to my post as a whole in one post...Otherwise, I'm out.
 
.
India, despite being 7 times larger, couldn't liberate the Kashmir under Pakistani control. It is a bigger defeat for india then, isn't it?
The part of Kasmir that is under Pakistani control was lost by maharajah of Kashmir, even before India got involved in Kashmir.
 
. .
I suppose that ideology is based on the theory that Pakistan is the citadel of Islam and protector of the ummah for all Muslims all over the world.
No, its not based on that.
Basically it is based on the idea of defying india any significant hegemony in the region...
So, what exactly is the ideology on which military doctrine of Pakistan army based on - Just defying India? Islam has nothing to do with it?
 
.
Dude, stop being an idiot and make ONE post where you reply to my post as a whole.

You can reply to me by quoting different parts of my posts and replying to them..but do it in one post.

Stop cuting one part of my post..then reply..then cutting another part..and then replying etc.

You look like an utter idiot in this manner.

Reply to my post as a whole in one post...Otherwise, I'm out.

He's intentionally doing it since he has no other purpose in his life but to bash Muslims. These people aren't stupid, they just have a terrible irrational attitude. Unfortunately, we need to sink as low as them to get them to behave differently.
 
.
He's intentionally doing it since he has no other purpose in his life but to bash Muslims. These people aren't stupid, they just have a terrible irrational attitude. Unfortunately, we need to sink as low as them to get them to behave differently.

I would advise both you and @AUz to leave this dude be he is a troll.
 
. .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom