The Need for Greater Pakistan

[Cookie Monster]

I wrote above that **Rag tag militias can't exist wothout external support**.


We haven't invited you.

And I told u which countries(in this theoretical scenario) will be providing the external support. Thus Pak will find itself in the same conundrum. Do u disagree that India will not provide support? Do u disagree that Iran(in this scenario where Pak takes over sistan balochistan) would be anti Pak as well and along with India support the insurgency? Do u disagree that Israel may also covertly and indirectly be willing to support those elements?

There's no scenario where Pak goes marching to invade countries creating potential unrest among those invaded population(for whatever issue ranging from identity to economic difficulties)...and other countries(anti Pak ones) wont fund/support that unrest to try their best at destabilizing Pakistan. There will never be a scenario where Pak occupies another country's territory and the whole world supports Pak wholeheartedly. Any country with an opposing agenda will try their best at supporting any insurgency they can find within their enemy country...hence there will almost always be external support.

 

[Sine Nomine]

And I told u which countries(in this theoretical scenario) will be providing the external support. Thus Pak will find itself in the same conundrum. Do u disagree that India will not provide support? Do u disagree that Iran(in this scenario where Pak takes over sistan balochistan) would be anti Pak as well and along with India support the insurgency? Do u disagree that Israel may also covertly and indirectly be willing to support those elements?

There's no scenario where Pak goes marching to invade countries creating potential unrest among those invaded population(for whatever issue ranging from identity to economic difficulties)...and other countries(anti Pak ones) wont fund/support that unrest to try their best at destabilizing Pakistan. There will never be a scenario where Pak occupies another country's territory and the whole world supports Pak wholeheartedly. Any country with an opposing agenda will try their best at supporting any insurgency they can find within their enemy country...hence there will almost always be external support.

1. There is no cake walk anywhere.They day we would march into Sistan Balochistan without fighting with Iran means already no Iran.In current sitution that's not going to happen until US attacks,and after US attacks Iran would be no longer left in position of supporting an insurgency.
2. Any support cover/overt would be meaningless without having actual land contact of supporters.
3. You are not invading any country,just annexation of willing tribal population with your state.
4. If US makes an exit Afg would be huge mess,with another civil war and scores of terror org's close to durand line,Pak may be compelled to exercise that option.
5. Nobody supports anyone,until you go and tell them through diplomatic channels.
6. India would do that,but it's up to us,how to counter it using our allies.
7. Soft power is only way.

 

[Manidabest]

I know very well how much of SAINTS they actually were.

People are only convinced with the outwardly veil of peace, love, nirvana BS. But when you read their actual books you find glorification of the graves, calling out and asking from dead buried in graves, worshipping the graves, "saints" calling themselves "annal haq" which is a statement exclusive to Allah as he said these words only for himself in Quran. Making men so called "saints" intermediaries between oneself and God. Saints claiming all sorts of wild and crazy things that I have become a vizier of Rasool Allah S.A.W. And just a whole lot of made up mumbo jumbo which has nothing to do with Quran, hadis and sunnah.

A lot of it is only using the label of Imam Abu Hanifa when the actual teachings being followed are that of Ibn Arabi and the teachings found in Kashf al mahjoob written by Ali Usman Hajveri.

Most dangerous tho is the made in India Islam of Deobandis(Ashraf Ali Thanvi) and Sheikh Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi. These guys have written books that include clear cut shirk/kuffar in form of SIHR/MAGIC instructing people how to split a husband and wife. As proven from ayaat of Surah al Baqarah verses 102:"...they learn how to split a husband and wife..." among other weird spells and chillas.

In Summary:
Sufism and it's many weird/perverted branches are nothing but a ridiculous attempt by Iblees and his human agents to create a religion within Islam along lines of Jewish Kabbalah. Where the jewish Kabbalists believe that the Torah, Talmud, Zohar etc etc have a secret hidden knowledge in addition to that revealed by God in these books.

And Kabbalah is essentially magic. The sufis/peers/faqirs MOSTLY use the same Kabbalah/Jewish magic system i.e numerology which associates a number with every letter of hebrew/arabic(in case of sufi/Indian/Pakistani magician/peer).

Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi magician who is not sufi/deobandi/barelvi/shia or is at a very high degree of these same sects. Those ones have indications of satanic symbols and worship of satan.

The desecration of Quran, glorifying jin kind, calling other than Allah for help is common between the two types.

I really could go on n on n on n on about these "SAINTS". Because I have been through this avenue in life. My whole family has suffered at hands of these "saints".
I pray no one falls into this kuffar and shirk. As they are now boldly teaching people how to do magic openly using google, youtube etc and labelling their evil as noori, roohani BS.

I can clearly see a saudi influence in ur speech wowwwww... hahaha...

It doesn't matter from which areas muslim saints migrated, the people living in those areas 500 or 600 years ago had totally different personalities and culture than what is practiced there today.

indeed but it doesnt mean our difference r soo grave that we cant get t ogether for a common defence and single market

 

[Armchair]

The terrain favors such a takeover. If you look at the maps of Sistan-Baluchestan, it is arid, desert area that would make penetration by Iran difficult, with PAF providing top cover. This topographic context would help annex the territory and keep it separate.

If you look at the neighboring Afghan territories, they are remote, not very populated, and there is a clear ridge line that would provide a natural defence and barrier.

Annexing the northern tip to connect to central asia is a no brainer and would never present a problem as there is literally no population there and it is mostly inaccessible to Afghans.

The total population we would absorb in such a venture would be about 2 million people. That is a drop in the 220 million Pakistani population. There is no demographic or cultural mismatch in such an absorption.

Added bonus - we would then have one of the formerly secret Soviet bases in the northern tip of Afghanistan, that is built deep into the mountain and provides a safety beyond the triad nuclear deterrence present.

 

[SoulSpokesman]

@nahtanbob

you want to conquer Central Asia, Kashmir, Iran and Afghanistan. start with easier goals - like not having to stand in front of IMF every 5 years

You have it bass ackwards, sir. Once Pak conquers all these countries, there will be no need to stand in front of IMF, the conquests will pay for themselves. Like in the past.

Regards

 

[sohail.ishaque]

I said it before and i say it again. Pakistan in its current shape only needs Kashmir that India has occupied. Other then that we are good. We have enough resources, rivers, agri land, factories, all kind of resources and in good quantity. Afghanistan will only bring burden and no resources as that land is arid. Our resources to people ratio is pretty good, all we need is good management. But with afghanistan, we'll suffer on that ratio an the same resources will be shared with more people.

 

[Placemat]

There are 2 types of Afghan
1) Pashtun has some sense of humanity and islam.
2) Non pashtun animals. With no sense of humanity/islam. Ready to sell his soul to gora. Along with usual vice of bacha bazi(naoozbillah).

Pashtun is the fellows who do all the bad stuff. Afghan talibani.

 

[Meengla]

Ambitious OP. But it's not nice to covet others' lands.

Problems in Pakistan's west are the stupidities of the Afghan and Iranian rulers: A deeply tribal Islamic country going for radical hard communism too fast and a Westernized country becoming another Saudi Arabia--respectively--in the late 1970s. They are themselves to blame for their current mess!! Otherwise, right up to 1979 there were almost no major issues on Pakistan's western borders.

But time to move on.

By moving on--the big brothers like China and Russia need to cobble together regional countries into integrated economic and security setups. If India doesn't come on board then leave India out. THAT is the way forward. Both of these powers have the economic and military resources to pull that off and it's in their strategic interests to do so. And if you follow the online media of these two then you'd see that they are often complementing each others' policies--much like what the UK does for the USA.

 

[Placemat]

I said it before and i say it again. Pakistan in its current shape only needs Kashmir that India has occupied. Other then that we are good. We have enough resources, rivers, agri land, factories, all kind of resources and in good quantity. Afghanistan will only bring burden and no resources as that land is arid. Our resources to people ratio is pretty good, all we need is good management. But with afghanistan, we'll suffer on that ratio an the same resources will be shared with more people.

Pakistan and north india with 700million hindus and 400 million muslims should merge and leave us gujart and below , alone.

 

[Armchair]

@nahtanbob

you want to conquer Central Asia, Kashmir, Iran and Afghanistan. start with easier goals - like not having to stand in front of IMF every 5 years

You have it bass ackwards, sir. Once Pak conquers all these countries, there will be no need to stand in front of IMF, the conquests will pay for themselves. Like in the past.

Regards

That is true, but first thing first - we aren't proposing conquest of all of Iran, Afghanistan, and none of Central Asia. We are looking for a small portion of Iran (Sistan-Baluchestan) and a small portion of Afghanistan (bordering Pakistan in places). We are seeking access to Central Asia.

And you are right the conquests will pay for themselves. The Chabahar port alone is worth at least 100 billion USD. Let alone the gold, coper, Iron, other ore in Sistan Baluchestan. Access to CA is worth billions annually.

Pakistan and north india with 700million hindus and 400 million muslims should merge and leave us gujart and below , alone.

That is an interesting perspective. We've never had problems with South Indians and they have been prosperous and a progressive part of the world, throughout history.

 

[Solomon2]

To all the aspiring would-be imperialists here: for a century the aspiration in international affairs has been, "No more empires." Because empires are bad and lead to wars, since time has shown that empires can only expand or shrink: "you either grow big, or you lose."

Rather, nation-states are much more stable and peace-oriented. This is what much of the international community has been trying to achieve since WWI. It's had some success but in other cases it has been artificial. A regime that turns to naked conquest rather than nation-building - isn't that regime therefore an enemy of world civilization?

 

[Placemat]

That is true, but first thing first - we aren't proposing conquest of all of Iran, Afghanistan, and none of Central Asia. We are looking for a small portion of Iran (Sistan-Baluchestan) and a small portion of Afghanistan (bordering Pakistan in places). We are seeking access to Central Asia.

And you are right the conquests will pay for themselves. The Chabahar port alone is worth at least 100 billion USD. Let alone the gold, coper, Iron, other ore in Sistan Baluchestan. Access to CA is worth billions annually.



That is an interesting perspective. We've never had problems with South Indians and they have been prosperous and a progressive part of the world, throughout history.

Thats probably because the north bore the brunt of islamic invasions. South is less aggressive compared to north. In a way the north is culturally and genetically more similar to Pak. South of vindhyas the people ate very different. Even the muslims here ate not similar to pak muslims.

 

[nahtanbob]

@nahtanbob

you want to conquer Central Asia, Kashmir, Iran and Afghanistan. start with easier goals - like not having to stand in front of IMF every 5 years

You have it bass ackwards, sir. Once Pak conquers all these countries, there will be no need to stand in front of IMF, the conquests will pay for themselves. Like in the past.

Regards

you can keep trying

 

[CrazyZ]

USA, western nations and GCC backed an Iraqi land grab against Iran in the 1980's. The Iraqi's never executed there advance well and ultimately stopped thinking Iran would sue for peace. Never happened. Iranians counter attacked until they reclaimed all there lands and threatened Iraqi territory. USA used Saddam stupidity to bleed both sides.

So you folks think you can take Sistan Baluchistan and stop.....you are in for a rude awakening. You have to march to Tehran to end any conflict. Not an easy task. Many dead on all sides. A delusion in my assessment. USA would use it as an opportunity to bleed both sides.

Sit and wait at this piont.

 

[nahtanbob]

USA, western nations and GCC backed an Iraqi land grab against Iran in the 1980's.

That is not the truth. Iraq made some gains at the start given the mess of the Iranian revolution. From 1983 to 1987 Saddam was fighting for his life and survival. Iran occupies small amounts of Iraqi lands. Iran went for the knockout blow and failed. In 1988 Iran had to accept peace. Iraq readily accepted peace. Iraq had small amount of Iranian territory when the war ended