Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhich is the strongest muslim country at

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 17>
Author
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Which is the strongest muslim country at
    Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 05:45
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


They might be have more nos. but are nowhere in comparison to the Afghans on the battlefield. All the tactical victories gained by pak are due to the Afghans. Whenever the punjabis went to fight Pak was defeated. That's why they are no longer used for fighting armies, but only for killing infirm Old persons like Bugti.


And where do you get this from? Are you saying eyeball to eyeball the panjabi paki is physically and neurogically weaker and slower than the pashtoon afghan? Or just not reared as a ferocious fighter? Is there anything concrete you can use to back this up? Confused
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 05:53
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


They might be have more nos. but are nowhere in comparison to the Afghans on the battlefield. All the tactical victories gained by pak are due to the Afghans. Whenever the punjabis went to fight Pak was defeated. That's why they are no longer used for fighting armies, but only for killing infirm Old persons like Bugti.


And where do you get this from? Are you saying eyeball to eyeball the panjabi paki is physically and neurogically weaker and slower than the pashtoon afghan? Or just not reared as a ferocious fighter? Is there anything concrete you can use to back this up? Confused


Look at the history of wars of Pak & Afghans & the relative successes of the forces fielded by you & you will realise.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 05:55
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


They might be have more nos. but are nowhere in comparison to the Afghans on the battlefield. All the tactical victories gained by pak are due to the Afghans. Whenever the punjabis went to fight Pak was defeated. That's why they are no longer used for fighting armies, but only for killing infirm Old persons like Bugti.



Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


 Through this website I came to know that he is Niaji Pathan and immedaitely struck to my mind the name of another Niaji Pathan, the General Niaji who surrendered with more one lakhs of his troops in 1971 war to the Indian army.




Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 06:01
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


Look at the history of wars of Pak & Afghans & the relative successes of the forces fielded by you & you will realise.


The last 100+ years panjabis defeated afghans under sikh as well as british command. Panjabis were also outnumbered greatly on the afghans home turf. You think Afghanistan just gifted the NWFP to britain?
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 06:17
No my dear sir, on the contrary the opposite is true.

It was the Indian Punjabis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh led by Hari Singh Nalwa who defeated the Afghans, not the pakistani Punjabis (or muslim punjabis)

And in the Afghan - British wars,  the winning  british army was led by The Bengal Sappers. It was this Bengal Sappers (comprising of residents of UP & Bihar) who were successfull in capturing the seemingly invincible Kabul fort. The infantry also consisted of Rajputana rifles, the Madras regiment amongst others. Anything but the pakistani punjabis.

The fact that the attackers were outnumbered by the Afghans is true, but the attackers were not muslim punjabis.

The Afghans were also defeated by an invading force led by the maratha General Ragunath Rao Bhatt  in similiar times. He captured Attock & the adjoining regions, but again the attackers were not Punjabi muslims but Maratha Indians.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 06:20
And in 1972, although the Commander of pak military was an Afghan, the soldiers were mostly punjabis. None of the traditional Afghan militia were involved that much. This is because of the typical thought process of the pak establisment. Send Afghans to attack, (so that the casualties are not to the punjabis) Send Punjabis to occupy (so that they enjoy the fruits of the Afghan attack ).
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
perikles View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 373
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:11
Why the Pakistanian army can not prevail the Afghans tribes? You claim that pak army is the strongest. They fight tibes not a well organized army and still no success
    

Edited by perikles - 20-Sep-2006 at 07:12
Samos national guard.

260 days left.
Back to Top
EGETRK View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 16-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:23
Trk army educate Afghans,Pakistanis and Beghaldesh armies...
 
to perikles:You understood what does they means...Wink
The lands of the of the West may be armored with walls of steel,
But I have borders guarded by the mighty chest of a believer...
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:27
Originally posted by perikles

Why the Pakistanian army can not prevail the Afghans tribes? You claim that pak army is the strongest. They fight tibes not a well organized army and still no success
    


They need a whole war machine to kill an infirm old sick person hiding in a cave. Whenever theri is danger or a battle to be won (when they have time to plan it), they use the Afghans for that.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:33
Originally posted by perikles

Why the Pakistanian army can not prevail the Afghans tribes? You claim that pak army is the strongest. They fight tibes not a well organized army and still no success
    


I claimed the paki air force is the strongest, not the paki army. The paki airforce has been independently rated as among the best in the world during combat in 1970s and 1980s.


Soviet Union fought these same tribes for 10 years without caring for civilian deaths(they killed 3 million civilians remember) and they did not win. Paki army does not have the morale to attack its own civilians and they follow rules of engagement that makes it very tough.  Beyond this I don't know much.
Back to Top
perikles View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2006
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 373
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:35
Originally posted by EGETRK

Trk army educate Afghans,Pakistanis and Beghaldesh armies...

to perikles:You understood what does they means...DIV]

    As the matter of fact no. Why you are not telling that. I am just a bad educated Greek and i can't understad. please tell me if you have the guts! If you are shy send pm.

    

Edited by perikles - 20-Sep-2006 at 07:36
Samos national guard.

260 days left.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:37
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by perikles

Why the Pakistanian army can not prevail the Afghans tribes? You claim that pak army is the strongest. They fight tibes not a well organized army and still no success
    


I claimed the paki air force is the strongest, not the paki army. The paki airforce has been independently rated as among the best in the world during combat in 1970s and 1980s.


Soviet Union fought these same tribes for 10 years without caring for civilian deaths(they killed 3 million civilians remember) and they did not win. Paki army does not have the morale to attack its own civilians and they follow rules of engagement that makes it very tough.  Beyond this I don't know much.


Which proves my statement that the Afghans are better fighters.
And the air force, it did no combat in the 80s, so how can it be rated ?
In the 72 war, India had the air supremecy despite its old, outdated aircraft. So much for the claim.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:41
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

No my dear sir, on the contrary the opposite is true.

It was the Indian Punjabis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh led by Hari Singh Nalwa who defeated the Afghans, not the pakistani Punjabis (or muslim punjabis)


Jatt Panjabis who were Sikhs at the time with many of them from the modern pakistan area. They are about as "Indian" as 1% of the population of India and are genetically related more to the paki panjabis(especially jatts and rajputs) and to an extent to the paki pathans and kashmiris. Very similar stock.

They were chosen by the British to fight the afghans because of religion. Paki panjabis would be too soft and sympathetic attacking their fellow muslim sunnis. Sikhs on the other hand had a fanatical zeal for vengeance against any remnants of the mughal empire, anti british feelings asides.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


And in the Afghan - British wars,  the winning  british army was led by The Bengal Sappers. It was this Bengal Sappers (comprising of residents of UP & Bihar) who were successfull in capturing the seemingly invincible Kabul fort. The infantry also consisted of Rajputana rifles, the Madras regiment amongst others. Anything but the pakistani punjabis.


Didn't know that. Haven't read much into these battles at all.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The fact that the attackers were outnumbered by the Afghans is true, but the attackers were not muslim punjabis.


Evidently not, I will take your word for it at this point.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The Afghans were also defeated by an invading force led by the maratha General Ragunath Rao Bhatt  in similiar times. He captured Attock & the adjoining regions, but again the attackers were not Punjabi muslims but Maratha Indians.


There were no muslims allowed in the British Army...were there? I am curious...except the Hunza Rifles and the Pathan Regiment later on perhaps after the conquest of NWFP?
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 07:47
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


Which proves my statement that the Afghans are better fighters.
And the air force, it did no combat in the 80s, so how can it be rated ?
In the 72 war, India had the air supremecy despite its old, outdated aircraft. So much for the claim.


No it doesn't prove your point since the pakis never fought a guerrila war in their own territory. They don't even have mountains so its not the same terrain either. The only thing you can compare it with is some stray incidents in which paki civilians attacked invading Indian tanks and immobilized them.

80s the PAF had something like a 12 to 1 kill ratio against the afghan air force + soviet airforce. Whoever they were in random dogfights. 70s it was something like a 10 to nothing kill ratio against the Isreaili air force.

And as far as your "supremacy" I will let one of the experts talk to you about that since I have not heard of a superior kill ratio in the air in any Indian war.
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 08:14
Ratios ! Whom did the pak fight in the 80s ?

And 1972, why did the pak air force not support its ground forces ? Because they were not able to take off after the Indian raids on 16 air bases.

And I really admire your civilians destroying tanks with their hands. Where were these civilians when the Icchhogil canal was blasted & Indian forces were camping 6 KM from Lahore, waiting for the go ahead to capture Lahore,(which unfortunately did'nt come as Niazi surrendered to India with 100000 pak soldiers.)

PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 08:27
Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


No my dear sir, on the contrary the opposite is true.

It was the Indian Punjabis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh led by Hari Singh Nalwa who defeated the Afghans, not the pakistani Punjabis (or muslim punjabis)


Jatt Panjabis who were Sikhs at the time with many of them from the modern pakistan area. They are about as "Indian" as 1% of the population of India and are genetically related more to the paki panjabis(especially jatts and rajputs) and to an extent to the paki pathans and kashmiris. Very similar stock.

Very funny indeed. I belive you ae also a follower of telde's theory of genetic mutations engineered by the british in 47. Anyway what are you trying to prove by this statement ?


They were chosen by the British to fight the afghans because of religion. Paki panjabis would be too soft and sympathetic attacking their fellow muslim sunnis. Sikhs on the other hand had a fanatical zeal for vengeance against any remnants of the mughal empire, anti british feelings asides.

Again you got it wrong dear. Go & read history. They were not chosen by the brits. The british were nowhere in sight at that time. This was an Indian retaliation on Afghanistan for their persecution of Hindus. The British appeared much later. Please clear your confusion about time periods.


Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


And in the Afghan - British wars,  the winning  british army was led by The Bengal Sappers. It was this Bengal Sappers (comprising of residents of UP & Bihar) who were successfull in capturing the seemingly invincible Kabul fort. The infantry also consisted of Rajputana rifles, the Madras regiment amongst others. Anything but the pakistani punjabis.




Didn't know that. Haven't read much into these battles at all.

Then read it. The sappers have their HQ near my place. It was an all infantry assault with very little artillery being used. The Sappers were successful in blasting the gates to the kabul fort which paved the way for the regiments covering them from behind.

The Afghan King was taken prisoner & exterminated to India with his family.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The fact that the attackers were outnumbered by the Afghans is true, but the attackers were not muslim punjabis.


Evidently not, I will take your word for it at this point.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The Afghans were also defeated by an invading force led by the maratha General Ragunath Rao Bhatt  in similiar times. He captured Attock & the adjoining regions, but again the attackers were not Punjabi muslims but Maratha Indians.


There were no muslims allowed in the British Army...were there? I am curious...except the Hunza Rifles and the Pathan Regiment later on perhaps after the conquest of NWFP?


Again you get the facts wrong dear, The Marathas were not acting under the British. They were against the Mughals. The British had not arrived even at this time.

And no it was not that the Muslims were not allowed in the British army. Infact majority of the British army consisted of Muslims. Because  the muslims were always more prominent in Military service. This also explains the fact why Indian army at the time of independence was smaller than the Paki army, since the  muslims went to the Pak army.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Sep-2006 at 09:55
Afghan army today was trained by Turkish Army

A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
Vivek Sharma View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 05:28
While their enemies the taliban are recruited, trained, financed & guided by pakistan.
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn
Back to Top
Batu View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 31-Aug-2006
Location: Barad-dur
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 405
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Sep-2006 at 09:12
correct me if i understood it wrongly,somebody said that Afghanistan the strongest muslim country?
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )
Back to Top
maqsad View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 25-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 928
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Sep-2006 at 03:33
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Originally posted by maqsad

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


No my dear sir, on the contrary the opposite is true.

It was the Indian Punjabis of Maharaja Ranjit Singh led by Hari Singh Nalwa who defeated the Afghans, not the pakistani Punjabis (or muslim punjabis)


Jatt Panjabis who were Sikhs at the time with many of them from the modern pakistan area. They are about as "Indian" as 1% of the population of India and are genetically related more to the paki panjabis(especially jatts and rajputs) and to an extent to the paki pathans and kashmiris. Very similar stock.

Very funny indeed. I belive you ae also a follower of telde's theory of genetic mutations engineered by the british in 47. Anyway what are you trying to prove by this statement ?



Genetic mutations? Mutation is a process whereby a cell CHANGES and becomes DIFFERENT from what it was before. When I say that east panjabis and west panjabis are the same stock I am implying the exact opposite. You were the one who said that east panjabi jatts were different from "pakistani muslims" and I countered by saying they are from the exact same roots and that there are no people in India who are closer to the "India Sikhs" (who you seem to have such affection for, along with the pathans for some reason) genetically, linguistically and geographically than the paki muslim jatts and rajputs  are. In fact your current Prime Minister is a paki sikh is he not? Think Vivek Think! Before you post.

They were chosen by the British to fight the afghans because of religion. Paki panjabis would be too soft and sympathetic attacking their fellow muslim sunnis. Sikhs on the other hand had a fanatical zeal for vengeance against any remnants of the mughal empire, anti british feelings asides.

Again you got it wrong dear. Go & read history. They were not chosen by the brits. The british were nowhere in sight at that time. This was an Indian retaliation on Afghanistan for their persecution of Hindus. The British appeared much later. Please clear your confusion about time periods.


Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


And in the Afghan - British wars,  the winning  british army was led by The Bengal Sappers. It was this Bengal Sappers (comprising of residents of UP & Bihar) who were successfull in capturing the seemingly invincible Kabul fort. The infantry also consisted of Rajputana rifles, the Madras regiment amongst others. Anything but the pakistani punjabis.




Didn't know that. Haven't read much into these battles at all.

Then read it. The sappers have their HQ near my place. It was an all infantry assault with very little artillery being used. The Sappers were successful in blasting the gates to the kabul fort which paved the way for the regiments covering them from behind.

The Afghan King was taken prisoner & exterminated to India with his family.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The fact that the attackers were outnumbered by the Afghans is true, but the attackers were not muslim punjabis.


Evidently not, I will take your word for it at this point.

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma


The Afghans were also defeated by an invading force led by the maratha General Ragunath Rao Bhatt  in similiar times. He captured Attock & the adjoining regions, but again the attackers were not Punjabi muslims but Maratha Indians.


There were no muslims allowed in the British Army...were there? I am curious...except the Hunza Rifles and the Pathan Regiment later on perhaps after the conquest of NWFP?


Again you get the facts wrong dear, The Marathas were not acting under the British. They were against the Mughals. The British had not arrived even at this time.

And no it was not that the Muslims were not allowed in the British army. Infact majority of the British army consisted of Muslims. Because  the muslims were always more prominent in Military service. This also explains the fact why Indian army at the time of independence was smaller than the Paki army, since the  muslims went to the Pak army.


Look if I am referring to the British and the Sikhs and panjabi soldiers then obviously I mean battles fought by the Panjabi soldiers when it was under British command and invaded deep into Afghanistan. I do believe they used sikhs to fight against the afridis, capture the khyber, sack charsai, in fact they also defeated the hunzakuts. I am sure that panjabi soldiers were involved in those battles, why would they not be? The jatts were one of the most ferocious panjabi tribes and the British recognised that.

Also the british considered the Jatts, the Hunzakuts and the Pathans to be the physically strongest groups in the subcontinent along with the marathas and gurkas so there is no way they would NOT have Jatt Sikhs in their shock attack troops because number one many Jatts were Sikhs and would not lose Morale fighting their "fellow muslim brothers" and secondly the Sikh Jatts were present in huge numbers and thus easy to recruit and thirdly of course they(sikhs) wanted to smash the remnants of the mughals into smithereens. No way would the brits leave sikh jatts out of the equation and many of them were from the paki side...it was their old homeland.

So once again...what is your point..that the british would leave out "west panjabi" soldiers from their ranks when attacking afghanistan? Lol your reasoning isn't making any sense at all to me. Oh and one more thing...Ranjit Singh was a paki too. He was born in Gujranwalla lol. Now are you telling me because he was from a "paki muslim" area that he was too weak to lead and fight also?  Remeber Vivek....before 1947 there was no state of Pakistan!

At least back your pseudohistory and your quack theories up with some verifiable facts. Its too easy(yet very tedious and unchallenging) to dispute you otherwise.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 56789 17>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.