Print Page | Close Window

Which is the strongest muslim country at

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14773
Printed Date: 18-Jan-2018 at 10:40
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Which is the strongest muslim country at
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Subject: Which is the strongest muslim country at
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 07:01

Everybody knows the strongest christian country, US.

Which is the strongest muslim country, in terms Quality, Quantity, Winnability, Bravery, Fighting skill, history etc...

Or rather which would be the top ten strongest muslim countries.
My list is :

1. Turkey
2. Iran
3. Egypt
4. Indonesia
5. Kazakhstan
6. Malaysia
7. Afghanistan
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Algeria
10. Pakistan

Your rankings please.






-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn



Replies:
Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 07:31
that would be Iran or Turkey.

-------------
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 )


Posted By: Anujkhamar
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 07:32
You place Pakistan so low? Lower than Algeria and Afghanistan? Think about what they've done. Remember their close ally China?


Posted By: Drizzt Do'urden
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 09:59
i agree with batu.
it must be Iran or Turkey.

p.s : tomorrow Minister of Defence of Turkey is going to deal for a armament production. i hope they will agree. cuz Turkey will be weak only with the machines which taken from israil & usa.

-------------



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 10:26
Pakistan has nukes. End of discussion.


-------------


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 11:29
Turkey has the most effective combat force in mountain warfare.and one of the most experienced air force in the world.nukes are nothing in war.they are for politics.


-------------
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 )


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 13:38
Turkey has the most powerful army,but Pakistan had nukes which can crushed turkish army very ease.


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 13:59
Iran.

-------------


Posted By: EGETÜRK
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 14:02
Türkiye of course,but kazakhstan have economic potential...

-------------
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...


Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 14:04
Saudi Arabia will be the strongest within the end of the decade.

They made some of the biggest military order of those times.

They will have, at least, Eurofighter Typhoon, La Fayette frigates, NH-90, Panthers, M1A2 Abrams.

Adding eventually Rafales, Eurocopter Tigers, Scorpene subs and FREMM. They'll be the most powerful muslim state on air, ground and see.


-------------
Vae victis!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 16:16
1. türkiye ottoman empire
2. iran
3. algeria  fighting with honours again the french how have more modern weapons than algeria
4. my brothers, pakistan
5. the new state cecenistan


-------------


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 17:21
Cecenistan hahahahahhahaha.
Only in your dreams.
Russians will kick chechens as they kicked ottomen.


Posted By: Laelius
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 17:39
nukes are nothing in war.they are for politics.
 
In modern warfare deployable nukes are the only thing that matters, Pakistan could turn the vaunted Turkish military to dust in the blink of an eye.


Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 18:21
Originally posted by Laelius

nukes are nothing in war.they are for politics.
 
In modern warfare deployable nukes are the only thing that matters, Pakistan could turn the vaunted Turkish military to dust in the blink of an eye.
 
What is hard about developing a nuclear warhead? In theory, even I can make one for you if I am provided with the necessary equipment, team and the suplies Big smile


-------------


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 21:14
And the supplies...that's the key. Where are you going to find the enriched uranium?

In terms of influence, Iran is definitely on the rise, Saudi Arabia on the decline, and Turkey not worth much. When the USA invaded Iraq they messed up the "balance of power" by removing Saddam, who was practically the only person who could keep the Shia in check. With him gone, Iran is going rampant (witness their nuke program.) Saudi Arabia has good influence over the states surrounding its east and south, and partially on Jordan, but without any counterbalance Iran is growing powerful very quickly.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 23:23

It's engineering the centrifuge cascades that's difficult but nothing new.



-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 16-Sep-2006 at 23:49
I am not sure nukes are the only reason pakistan is powerful. The Pakistani Air force is supposed to be amongst the best in the world and have recorded an overwhelming kill ratio against the Soviets and the Israelis. Before this they did quite well against the Indian Air force as well. In modern warfare the Army is least important and the Air force is most important so I would say that makes Pakistan rank higher than Iran in military might. Now the Iranian economy is a lot stronger because of rolling in oil revenue for decades but the Pakistani economy has twice as many people and a lot of (military)"handouts" given to it from the Saudis and the US.  


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 00:36
The naval force isnt bad with the AI propulsion subs. There's a rumour of nuclear subs also.
 
http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=2944 - http://thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=2944  
 
But the rest of the Army is the best part.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: maqsad
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 00:47
I don't know about that. Nobody really praises the pakistani navy or army in international publications so the army is probably nothing special but the paki air force send chills down everyone's spines. The navy has what..4 subs total?

And this nuclear sub seems pointless. Why have it? They are supposed to be noisier than deisel subs and with such a small coastline to defend and no "imperial" power projection on the agenda having nuke subs sounds completely pointless and perhaps even harmful. When it comes to subs the name of the game is stealth in sub to sub combat.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 01:25

5 subs and 3 mini subs. 2 of the 5 are older Agostas though the newer ones are good (can fit nukes). I dont see why they dont just make more of the Ai system subs. The army has good missiles.



-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 01:41
saudi arabia is nothing.Pakistan has nukes and tactical nukes are real big deal but pakistan hasnt got tactical nukes anyway.Iran will have nukes in 5 years so pakistan is sifted.Iran is strong but Iranian army contains many azeris so in a war against Turkey,Iran would be disgraced.Iran produces her own war equipment but those equipment are bad copies of Chinese which are bad copies of Russian which are bad copies of US.and Turkey uses NATO equipment and they have the second best commandos in the world.and in a highland like Iran or eastern Turkey,the battlefield would be the hell on earth for Iran.
   ( may be checenistan will never be founded my bulgarian friend,but you can be sure that Chechens are kicking some Russian as.es. )


-------------
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 )


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:00
Who has the second best commandos in the world?I didnt understand that one.And who are the best?
If russian weapons are bad copy of US then turkish army is a bad copy of ottoman.Russians has many weapons which are revolutionary and many times better than us.The fact that any muslim country dont posses such weapons is very sad but true.That doesnt mean that you must offend russian weapons.


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:00
I will say that americans are those who use foreign technologies and sell a poor copies to their muslims allies.During the cold war soviets sold perfect weapons.Bulgaria had balistic missiles SS-23 with range above 500km.Turkey never had such a weapons.And my friend i will add that SS-23 missiles were very powerful and we have enough to destroy every turkish base in europe part of turkey including whole istanbul.
    


Posted By: EGETÜRK
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:24
Originally posted by Desimir

Who has the second best commandos in the world?I didnt understand that one.And who are the best?
claret red berets,Under Water Demolition team(SAT),Under water Defence Team (SAS)(but Under water teams not only for water,they have ability of operation @Sea,Air or Land or where ever you want)


-------------
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...


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:28
Desimir what is your problem with "the Ottoman"?

Your comparison of Turkey and Bulgaria is ridiculous.We have an important airforce and lots of armored stuff, we can produce our own artillery and repair our tanks and planes.

When it comes land force and infantry Turkey shows its best already.


-------------


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:35
HAHAHAHA
Thats way we kick your as.es in the first Balkan war.
And tell me where turkey proove to has the best land forces and infantry.The best were germans and we all know that.
About the special forces SAS may be are the best.But i think that israelis and russians special forces are second.


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:36
About the airforce bulgarians were first to use plane as a bomber in a real military actions.And we used it against ottomans in the siege of Odrin.
    


Posted By: Dear Sir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:39
I think the top three are:
 
1}Turkey.
 
2}Pakistan.
 
3}Iran.
 
but Turkey is a Secular Country Ermm.


-------------
AHAM BRAHMASMI


Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 06:49
Turkey also have Nukes,there are hand-made mountains to throw nuke.But most of the bombs stolen!=)(isn't a joke)


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:19
lets say there would be a war between Bulgaria between Turkey.i f that happens,my bulgarian friend run to Switzerland.by the way first is Israel.a war between Bulgaria and Turkey would last 4 weeks or less.then you would kiss the hands of soldiers parading on the streets of Sofia.

-------------
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 )


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:48
You underestimate the will of bulgarians.There are many examples how bulgarians stood against much bigger forces and won.You say turkish forces are best in the mountains.Man we live in the mountains for centuries,this is our battle ground and no one can beat us there.


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 07:52
we are living in mountains for a long time too.and we beat you there many times then you did to us.Turkish Commandos are invinsble in mountains.i am not saying this to brag believe me,they are the best.20 years they are fighting in the mountains.

-------------
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 )


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 08:41
Thats why ottoman jannisarie,bashibozuks and zaptieta were afraid of bulgarian Haiduks and their Voevodas.Mountains are part of bulgarian folklor.It is part of our history,culture and of course warfare.

But i have to admit that among muslim countries turkey has the strongest army despite not having nukes.


Posted By: Turk Nomad
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 10:44
Originally posted by Turk Nomad

Turkey also have Nukes,there are hand-made mountains to throw nuke.But most of the bombs stolen!=)(isn't a joke)


Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 10:56
Originally posted by Timotheus

And the supplies...that's the key. Where are you going to find the enriched uranium?
 
Uranium reserves of Turkey:
 
"Exploration activities have been conducted since the mid-1950’s, resulting in the discovery of a number of deposits, mostly in western and central Anatolia.

Known onventional resources amount to 9 129 tonnes (in-situ basis), reported to be recoverable at US$ 80-130/kgU. "

Source:
http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp - http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/uranium.asp
 
A closer look to World uranium reserves:
 

Table 6.1 Uranium: proved reserves at end-1999

(conventional resources recoverable at up to US$130/kg)

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/ser/uranium/excel_files/uranium_6_1.xls -

Recoverable at

Total recoverable

 

< US$40/kg

US$40-80/kg

< US$80/kg

US$80-130/kg

at up to US$130/kg

 

thousand tonnes of uranium

Algeria

 

 

26.0

 

26.0

Central African Republic

 

 

8.0

8.0

16.0

Congo (Democratic Rep.)

 

 

1.8

 

1.8

Gabon

4.8

 

4.8

 

4.8

Malawi

 

 

11.7

 

11.7

Namibia

67.3

82.0

149.3

31.2

180.5

Niger

43.6

27.5

71.1

 

71.1

Somalia

 

 

 

6.6

6.6

South Africa

121.0

111.9

232.9

59.9

292.8

Zimbabwe

 

 

1.8

 

1.8

Total Africa

 

 

507.4

105.7

613.1

Canada

284.5

41.9

326.4

 

326.4

Greenland

 

 

 

27.0

27.0

Mexico

 

 

 

1.7

1.7

United States of America

 

 

105.0

244.0

349.0

Total North America

 

 

431.4

272.7

704.1

Argentina

2.6

2.6

5.2

2.2

7.4

Brazil

56.1

105.9

162.0

 

162.0

Peru

 

 

1.8

 

1.8

Total South America

 

 

169.0

2.2

171.2

India

 

 

 

52.7

52.7

Indonesia

 

 

0.5

5.8

6.3

Japan

 

 

 

6.6

6.6

Kazakhstan

320.7

115.9

436.6

162.0

598.6

Mongolia

10.6

51.0

61.6

 

61.6

Thailand

 

 

 

N

N

Turkey

 

 

 

9.1

9.1

Uzbekistan

65.6

 

65.6

17.5

83.1

Vietnam

 

 

 

1.3

1.3

Total Asia

 

 

564.3

255.0

819.3

Bulgaria

2.2

5.6

7.8

 

7.8

Czech Republic

 

4.1

4.1

2.9

7.0

Finland

 

 

 

1.5

1.5

France

 

 

12.5

1.8

14.3

Germany

 

 

 

3.0

3.0

Greece

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Hungary

 

 

 

14.7

14.7

Italy

 

 

4.8

 

4.8

Portugal

 

 

7.5

 

7.5

Romania

 

 

 

6.9

6.9

Russian Federation

64.3

76.6

140.9

 

140.9

Slovenia

 

 

2.2

 

2.2

Spain

 

 

3.1

3.6

6.7

Sweden

 

 

2.0

2.0

4.0

Ukraine

 

 

42.6

38.4

81.0

Total Europe

 

 

228.5

74.8

303.3

Iran (Islamic Rep.)

 

 

 

0.5

0.5

Total Middle East

 

 

 

0.5

0.5

Australia

 

 

571.0

99.0

670.0

Total Oceania

 

 

571.0

99.0

670.0

TOTAL WORLD

 

 

2 471.6

809.9

3 281.5



-------------


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:02
jannisarries werent afraid of bulgarians.who told you that?and we are talking about modern ages so i dont think that you still have voivodais right?


-------------
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 )


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:19
To everyone participating in this thread: no more "my country versus your country" dialogue. If the original topic is not stuck to, the thread gets closed.

-------------


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 11:23
sorry chief ( by the way i am now a Pasha :)

-------------
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 )


Posted By: Desimir
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:02
Ok i stop


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 12:31
Based on the will to fight and a geography to support such a will. I would say.
 
For the top three:
 
Based on a fanatical sacrificial fighting absorbing all sorts of casualties.
TURKS
Based on a entrenched long term fighting, on the basis of an underlying deeprooted sense of hostility due to nationalistic pride
IRANIANS
Based on the above by using religion as the primary motive.
PAKISTAN


-------------


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 13:30
Desimir, Ottoman Empire of 1900s was really weak and it was clear that she was collapsing, It would be abnormal if you couldn't have defeated herWink






-------------


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 13:53
hey Malizai! i agree.


-------------
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 )


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 17:58
Originally posted by malizai_

Based on the will to fight and a geography to support such a will. I would say.
 
For the top three:
 
Based on a fanatical sacrificial fighting absorbing all sorts of casualties.
TURKS
Based on a entrenched long term fighting, on the basis of an underlying deeprooted sense of hostility due to nationalistic pride
IRANIANS
Based on the above by using religion as the primary motive.
PAKISTAN
 
Pakistani military isnt strong because of religion. It's just got good equipment and according to the Americans are amongst the best pilots in the world training wise. From Yahya Khan to Mush, they've all been pretty moderate, and it more or less pervades through the ranks, as the incident with the fighter pilots recently showed.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 18:58
There are three main contenders, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran.
 
Now the bickering about Pakistan-Turkey is stupid as they are key allies and there people share a bond, in Turkey most people like Pakistani's the people don't hate each other, the governments don't, so war talk is ridiculous.
 
Pakistan have Nukes!!! makes them a BIGPOWER! have modern weapons, great scientists and technology , have some troops trained in Turkey.
 
Turkey has an extremly disciplined, established, powerfull millitary. Turks are renownd for being brave fighters. Not many people like to mess around with Turks in real life face-to-faceLOL
 
Iran looks like its developing Nukes and their National Guard can pack a punch!
 


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Amirsan
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2006 at 19:08
I would say Iran definitely is #1, look at what they did to Lebanon - now much of the arab world, especially the moderates fear Iran and their growing influence.

Second I say Turkey, for their relationship with the west, etc.

Third Pakistan, as many of you said because of its Nukes, though it is a big factor, I doubt the greatest, since it wouldn't ever dare use it on anyone. 

and right after them I have to say Saudi Arabia, controlling a large percent of the world's oil does have alot of leverage - don't you think there is a reason for many western countries to be so friendly to Saudi Arabia, even the US.     


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 03:32
Well My choice of the first two still seems to be clean. Most of the members are of the opinion that it is a Iran - Turkey tussle for the top spot.

Reasonably so. The turks have been one of the best fighting machines in the last few hundred years. They have the power of NATO on their side. They are important for the US. They have the best equipment  after the saudis. And off course the Turkish bravery & pride.

Iran on the other hand represents a totally different side. They are representatives of the resurgent islam. Great fighting experience against the Iraqis. They would have control over more than half of the present day iraq sooner or later. Very big country, very rich country. Another thing is that they have friendly relations with many of the Non aligned countries.
Their Nuke program is of their own, as against the pak program which is essentially a result of a lot of support from Other nations covertly, supported by illegal procurement of equipment & technologies from different corners of the world. they are pretty much self reliant & although they have the support of Shias all over the world, they realise that in any eventuality they will be on their own & are zealously prepared for the worst.

Much has been said of the nuclear bombs aquired by pak. everyone fails to understand one essential fact. even if Pak has nukes, it cannot use them. Any attempt by any country to use nukes will mean their certain destruction by the US & Europe, which already faced with the expanding war of terror is not going to tolerata any such nonsense. what use are those nukes then ? Even publically Pak always claims that its nukes are meant only for attacking India. And what objective would they achive by using them against a much bigger economy, much bigger country, much better technology, immensely more populated, commanding a much better PR in the world ? Even Militarily,  any such  act would  be suicidal as any military strategist can make out.

I rated the Afghans higher up in the list, because of their fighting skills & their experience. Although a very small country with hardly any organised military at present. The afghans have surely shown themselves to be invincible by anybody other than their own people. The country is rapidly changing and support from the US, west & India for the present government  only means muchbetter times to come.

Once organised, the Afghan army will undoubtedly be the most lethal in the Muslim world. Although without an air force & navy, I belive no body will deny this. Another fact that needs to considered is the Pushot speaking Afghans in NWFP province of Pakistan. Afghans are the second biggest population in Pakistan & the main force in their army. All the military successes which pak has had so far have been due to the these Afghans.  In any eventuality, these  brave Afghans  would be in real terms  an asset of Afghanistan, leaving the pak military devoid of its strongest power. The fact that the present Afghan Govt. is unhappy with pak does not help either.

Further theliking of the Balooch people for the Afghans & Iran as against pakistan & their continuing quest for independence from pak will possibly see a realignment of borders in any future conflict Pak has with anybody.

The Balooch people are very much like the Afghans, fierce, war like & difficult to control. even today the Pak government is not able ot effectively controol them & their writ runs large in most of interior & rural baloochistan. Another example is areas liek Wazirstan where the pak army has no control & the Afghans dominate.





 




-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 03:43
Countries like Kazakhstan, Indonesia & malaysia need to be placed higher up because of their inherent economic strengths. kazakhstan is one of the biggest countries in the world, very rich in terms of sresources & clout over the Central asian republics. It benefits from all that the Russians gave & will continue to give since its 50 % population is russian. It still has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the muslim world, albiet under russian control.

Indonesia & Malaysia are peacefull countries, but that does not mean they have weak militaries. They are economically the strongest of all, & will easily beat countries like Saudi which are totally reliant on Others. They also have huge populations & infrastructure both human & material to match.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:14





Originally posted by Batu

Turkey has the most effective combat force in mountain warfare.and one of the most experienced air force in the world.nukes are nothing in war.they are for politics.
Nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are a crucial deterrence. It's highly unlikely that nations with nuclear weapons and ICBMs will be attacked by a foreign power. Experienced airforce? Israel comes to my mind, but of course no nation in the world comes even close to the might of the US Airforce. Oh and by the way, Turkey's military is a lot stronger than Iran, we have a far more modern military. Iran doesn't deserve the respect that so many Turks have for that nation. Turkey is clearly much more powerful thanks to the Mullah regime :D
In the 70s, Iran had a much stronger military than Turkey though.
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:42
edit
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:42
Iran is ore self reliant & a better economy than the Turks, bigger country, with the backing of Shias worldwide. Just one point of difference. 

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:44
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Iran is ore self reliant & a better economy than the Turks, bigger country, with the backing of Shias worldwide. Just one point of difference. 
Totally rubbish. Turkey has a stronger economy than Iran (do I really need to explain this?) and Turkey does not even possess any natural resources.

Secondly, the stuff Iran makes is "third world" crap, thus utterly useless against modern militaries. And Iran is not a "bigger" country than Turkey either, I don't know where you get your information from mate. :)
    
    
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:52
Originally posted by YASASIN_KAZIM_KARABEKIR

1. türkiye ottoman empire2. iran 3. algeria  fighting with honours again the french how have more modern weapons than algeria 4. my brothers, pakistan5. the new state cecenistan
"Cecenistan" ? What the hell is that? Did you mean Kurdistan?

You see, this is something I don't understand. Many fellow Turks want the Chechens to create an independent state in Russia, but they are fiercely against the Kurds doing the same in Turkey, Iraq or Iran.

Is this the "your terrorist is my freedom fighter" attitude ?????    
    
    
    
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:54
Maybe I a am wrong. Iran is about 16.50 lakh sq km. plus more than 5 lakhs of Iraqi shia territory. would I think make it bigger. On other points you maybe right.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 04:59
What does territory have to do with anything? I was thinking about population, oh well..
    

-------------




Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:15
Originally posted by Batu

may be checenistan will never be founded my bulgarian friend,but you can be sure that Chechens are kicking some Russian as.es.
Yeah, just like the PKK is kicking some Turkish asses for over 22 years now. Let's be realistic here and put aside our "national pride" for a moment, and analyze things objectively.

It's extremely difficult to beat guerilla fighters. It happens to all nations.. the US in Iraq, Israel vs Hezbollah, PKK vs Turkey, Taliban vs NATO and so on..
    
    
    
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:20
Or the terrorists. They are worse. Gurillas are at least not cowards. They fight in the open.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:24
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Or the terrorists. They are worse. Gurillas are at least not cowards. They fight in the open.


Guerillas, by definition, do exactly the opposite unless given no choice.


-------------


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:35
The gurillas kill military in surprise ambush like Shivaji did. The terrorists kill civilians in surprise attacks like 9/11 & numerous others

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:39
That's right, they tend to differ just in who they target, but are often similar in how they go about it.

-------------


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 05:39
Originally posted by Bulldog

There are three main contenders, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran.
 

Now the bickering about Pakistan-Turkey is stupid as they are key allies and there people share a bond, in Turkey most people like Pakistani's the people don't hate each other, the governments don't, so war talk is ridiculous.

 

Pakistan have Nukes!!! makes them a BIGPOWER! have modern weapons, great scientists and technology , have some troops trained in Turkey.

 

Turkey has an extremly disciplined, established, powerfull millitary. Turks are renownd for being brave fighters. Not many people like to mess around with Turks in real life face-to-face[IMG]height=17 alt=LOL src="http://www.allempires.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17 align=absMiddle>

 

Iran looks like its developing Nukes and their National Guard can pack a punch!

 
If it hadn't been for NATO and our relations with the West and the equipments we buy from them (and Israel), we would have had a weak military though. And all that "bravery" talk (LOL) sounds nice and all, but in the end advanced technology is what matters. Bravery is futile against cluster bombs, B-52s, daisy cutters, bunker busters, ICBMs, tomahawks or Popeye Turbos (to name a few). It's not too hard to understand that the US could wipe out virtually any nation by using conventional weapons ONLY.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

-------------




Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:06
That's why I didnt give any importance to the nuke bombs assembled by Pak over the economy & fighting capability of some other countries.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:15
Originally posted by Pacifist

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Iran is ore self reliant & a better economy than the Turks, bigger country, with the backing of Shias worldwide. Just one point of difference. 
Totally rubbish. Turkey has a stronger economy than Iran (do I really need to explain this?) and Turkey does not even possess any natural resources.

Secondly, the stuff Iran makes is "third world" crap, thus utterly useless against modern militaries. And Iran is not a "bigger" country than Turkey either, I don't know where you get your information from mate. :) 
 
Indian military HQ Big smile 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:24
Originally posted by Jagatai Khan

Desimir, Ottoman Empire of 1900s was really weak and it was clear that she was collapsing, It would be abnormal if you couldn't have defeated her
Well, the same goes for the Byzantine Empire when the Ottomans conquered it. No excuses please. :D
    

-------------




Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:33
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by Pacifist

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Iran is ore self reliant & a better economy than the Turks, bigger country, with the backing of Shias worldwide. Just one point of difference. 
Totally rubbish. Turkey has a stronger economy than Iran (do I really need to explain this?) and Turkey does not even possess any natural resources.

Secondly, the stuff Iran makes is "third world" crap, thus utterly useless against modern militaries. And Iran is not a "bigger" country than Turkey either, I don't know where you get your information from mate. :) 
 
Indian military HQ Big smile 



Yes indeed, Indian HQ.  Whatever I have mentioned so far is fully correct. I had already rated Turkey at the top, if you care to look at my first list, which started this debate.

I also maintain that Iran is a close no. 2. & much more experienced than turkey, more accepted in the Islamic world, A leader of the Shias. An oil rich country. Having home grown nuclear technology as opposed to the pakistani collection & assembly. All these are strong factors which make iran very near to tureky in my list.

And my claim regarding the size of the country is correct. Go to google & search.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:34
Well first for pakistan army: I don't find them strong enough to be in the first 3 positions. Look the army quarrel in Afgan borders with the tribes. 348 dead pakistan soldiers in what... 2 months? Fighting rebels. This is not strong army. I believe Turkey has strong army. At least one of the biggest... second in NATO after USA. None knows about Iran. Only speculations...but according to my opinion Egypt has a very good organised and strong army. I think Egypt, Iran and Saudi & Turkey are the strongests. Saudi Arabia spends the year 16 bilion dollars for weapons!!!!

As far as Tsetsens is for laghing.

ps. The strongest navy marines (underneath water)in mediteranean are Greeks. Also the best trained tank divitions in the region are the Greek Black beres. For air force Turkish air force is good only for fighting Kurds. Because we all know what is happening in Aegean. Thats way Turkish air force come in agreement with Israelis for mutual air force training. But it is True that Turkey has really strong ground forces. They are well trained in mountains of Kurdistan.
They have evolved a lot since Cyprus.
    
    

-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 06:42
Perikles, Pakistan Army isnt using it's full might. It deliberately took things very easy in Waziristan so not to end up killing too many people - Waziris are Pakistani citizens after all.
 
Someone mentioned tactical nukes before. I dont know the exact definition of one, but would imagine the Pak missile Babur could be deployed as one.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 07:06
Originally posted by perikles

Well first for pakistan army: I don't find them strong enough to be in the first 3 positions. Look the army quarrel in Afgan borders with the tribes. 348 dead pakistan soldiers in what... 2 months? Fighting rebels. This is not strong army. I believe Turkey has strong army. At least one of the biggest... second in NATO after USA. None knows about Iran. Only speculations...but according to my opinion Egypt has a very good organised and strong army. I think Egypt, Iran and Saudi & Turkey are the strongests. Saudi Arabia spends the year 16 bilion dollars for weapons!!!!

As far as Tsetsens is for laghing.

ps. The strongest navy marines (underneath water)in mediteranean are Greeks. Also the best trained tank divitions in the region are the Greek Black beres. For air force Turkish air force is good only for fighting Kurds. Because we all know what is happening in Aegean. Thats way Turkish air force come in agreement with Israelis for mutual air force training. But it is True that Turkey has really strong ground forces. They are well trained in mountains of Kurdistan.
They have evolved a lot since Cyprus.
    
    



Guess you are right Perikles. They had to deploy their entire availaible army to fight them & the baloochis. Why  the baloochis even claim that the paki army had used chemcal weapons to attack the ailing infirm balooch leader bugti hiding in a cave.

Also most of the power of the pak army comes from the numerous afghan tribes who are a powerfull & mean fighters. they are the most numerous in the pak army too. All this Afghans have more sympothy for thier motherland Afghanistan rather than Pak, but find themsemlves on the wrong side of the border due to the durand line.

In any eventuallity most Afghans would simply prefer Iran or Turkey or saudis for that matter, leaving the pak military virtually dissolved.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 07:18
Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Guess you are right Perikles. They had to deploy their entire availaible army to fight them & the baloochis. Why  the baloochis even claim that the paki army had used chemcal weapons to attack the ailing infirm balooch leader bugti hiding in a cave.

Also most of the power of the pak army comes from the numerous afghan tribes who are a powerfull & mean fighters. they are the most numerous in the pak army too. All this Afghans have more sympothy for thier motherland Afghanistan rather than Pak, but find themsemlves on the wrong side of the border due to the durand line.

In any eventuallity most Afghans would simply prefer Iran or Turkey or saudis for that matter, leaving the pak military virtually dissolved.
 
Nope, Pakistan Army was fully deployed in 1965 when it beat the Indian Army. Since then it's never been fully deployed.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:03
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by malizai_

Based on the will to fight and a geography to support such a will. I would say.
 
For the top three:
 
Based on a fanatical sacrificial fighting absorbing all sorts of casualties.
TURKS
Based on a entrenched long term fighting, on the basis of an underlying deeprooted sense of hostility due to nationalistic pride
IRANIANS
Based on the above by using religion as the primary motive.
PAKISTAN
 
Pakistani military isnt strong because of religion. It's just got good equipment and according to the Americans are amongst the best pilots in the world training wise. From Yahya Khan to Mush, they've all been pretty moderate, and it more or less pervades through the ranks, as the incident with the fighter pilots recently showed.
 
Military might in terms of armament alone is not enough, The WILL to fight and SACRIFICE is a what keeps armies going. U can see it in Vietnam, present day Afghanistan, Iraq.
 
I find that the turks find this strength to maintain morale and unity through the sense of turkish nationhood. The Iranians through self view through the prism of historical greatness and  sense of nationalism. Pakistan can sustain that nationalism through the sense of muslim unity as for the purpose of its creations by invoking their sense of muslim pride and duty. It is a nation of numerous ethnicities incorporating Altaic, iranic, indic and semite groups as well. Religion is the thread that keeps all of them together. The support of the people is paramount in the sustainability of any conflict.
 
The list in not in a particular order. It also depend on the stimuli for any conflcit affecting these countries.


-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:13
I dont really agree Malizai. Will to fight comes from being in the right as a famous Chinese military tactician once suggested. It's far more important than nationalism or bonding between people.
 
Iraqis feel they've been invaded. Afghanis the same. It's not religion that motivates them to fight. It's the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Iraqis are fighting a much stronger adversary now than the Iranians, but they're not giving up as easily. 
 
Pakistan is a classical nationalistic scenario. The nationalism comes from the Indian threat. It's odd, but this threat has benefitted Pakistan quite a bit.  this is what binds the nation in my opinion - anti Indian nationalism, and if it goes, I would worry about the existence of Pakistan.


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:24
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

Originally posted by Vivek Sharma

Guess you are right Perikles. They had to deploy their entire availaible army to fight them & the baloochis. Why  the baloochis even claim that the paki army had used chemcal weapons to attack the ailing infirm balooch leader bugti hiding in a cave.

Also most of the power of the pak army comes from the numerous afghan tribes who are a powerfull & mean fighters. they are the most numerous in the pak army too. All this Afghans have more sympothy for thier motherland Afghanistan rather than Pak, but find themsemlves on the wrong side of the border due to the durand line.

In any eventuallity most Afghans would simply prefer Iran or Turkey or saudis for that matter, leaving the pak military virtually dissolved.
 
Nope, Pakistan Army was fully deployed in 1965 when it beat the Indian Army. Since then it's never been fully deployed.



Funny. Their are several pictures on the net of Indians standing guard outside Pak bases after conquering them.

Infact I know one person who was in the plattool that blasted its way through the Ichhogil canal & was waiting withing 5 Km of Lahore for oders from the Indian politicians to invasde & capture Lahore. They had destroyed all Paki defences in the line. He says they needed only 8 hours to capture the Assemblu in lahore because they was no one left to obstruct them. But the Indian politicians as always wanted to place peacekeeper game & called them back.

And who doesnt remember Khem karan, bangladesh to name a few, where the paks were utterly routed or the Bangladesh where 90000 pak soldiers were at the mercy of Indians.
 
Or the fact that the pak has still been unable to annexe Kashmir & has to resort to terrorism & wasting the lives of its Afghan population & using them.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:32
Khemkaran was won by Pakistan.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 08:41
You are tight dear, All wars were won by Pakistan. Only thing is that after winning the khemkaran war, the pakistani government, to recover its war expenses, sold hundreds of Patton tanks desttroyed by Indians  to Indians for a princely sum & the Indians put those tanks at one place and turned the battlefield ointo a tourism spots.

One of those Patton tanks (its remains) also stands at my college displayed as a monument of the bravery of Pak soldiers who won the Khemkaran battle.

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 09:02
[QUOTE=perikles]Well first for pakistan army: I don't find them strong enough to be in the first 3 positions. Look the army quarrel in Afgan borders with the tribes. 348 dead pakistan soldiers in what... 2 months? Fighting rebels. This is not strong army. I believe Turkey has strong army. At least one of the biggest... second in NATO after USA. None knows about Iran. Only speculations...but according to my opinion Egypt has a very good organised and strong army. I think Egypt, Iran and Saudi & Turkey are the strongests. Saudi Arabia spends the year 16 bilion dollars for weapons!!!!

As far as Tsetsens is for laghing.

ps. The strongest navy marines (underneath water)in mediteranean are Greeks. Also the best trained tank divitions in the region are the Greek Black beres. For air force Turkish air force is good only for fighting Kurds. Because we all know what is happening in Aegean. Thats way Turkish air force come in agreement with Israelis for mutual air force training. But it is True that Turkey has really strong ground forces. They are well trained in mountains of Kurdistan.
They have evolved a lot since Cyprus. 
    
I would like you to first reserch properly before making any more ignorant statements like the one above. First, the fighting was for 2 and a half years.  There were two phases. In the South, its was a short bitter struggle against foreign militants. The total casulties there were 340, and that means killedm, wounded, missing etc. Not just fatalities. The second phase was in the north, which was a local rebellion by Afghani Taliban comprised of people who had moved to Pakistan after 1979 and have become the majority there.
 
The Losses total were about 1000, KIA and WIA. Boths ops. Finally it was not Pakistan Army which was deployed (except for commando and artillry units and IIRC 10 Cavalry) it was paramilitary.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 09:25
Good points Sparten. I knew the judgement of Pak Army on the basis of Waziristan was daft, but I didn't realize how quite so much. It was more a guerilla war there from what i can tell anyhow, which are always a bit messy, unless you want to flatten the place of course.

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 09:39
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

I dont really agree Malizai. Will to fight comes from being in the right as a famous Chinese military tactician once suggested. It's far more important than nationalism or bonding between people.
 
Iraqis feel they've been invaded. Afghanis the same. It's not religion that motivates them to fight. It's the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Iraqis are fighting a much stronger adversary now than the Iranians, but they're not giving up as easily. 
 
Pakistan is a classical nationalistic scenario. The nationalism comes from the Indian threat. It's odd, but this threat has benefitted Pakistan quite a bit.  this is what binds the nation in my opinion - anti Indian nationalism, and if it goes, I would worry about the existence of Pakistan.
 
Most of what u say is not far from what i am theorizing.
 
Yes the Chinese man is right also, but the will to fight also comes from an existential threat werther perceived or actual (especially in case of external threat). Pakistani nationalism is based upon a religious identity much like the Israeli one, that is what binds a baluchi to pathan or punjabi. The indian threat is as much a Hindu threat to a muslim Pakistan. I am not generalizing but being specific to each of the three countries.
 
I used the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of lesser armed group sustaining warfare against a better armed one on the basis of will and sacrifice. I did not discuss the basis of their will.  I did for the other three countries, where each one draws on a different source to strengthen their resolve.
i.e, I hypothesize that if u were to listen to the poets of the three groups they would each try to stir the passions of their troops with verses that may begin something like this:
 
Turks: O turks ye son of warriors.....
Iranians: O ye sons of sassanians......
Pakistanis: O ye the vanguard of islam.....


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 09:55
Malazi, my generation especially is beginning to see a Pakistani identity, compleletly seperate from islam.


-------------


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 10:09
Originally posted by Sparten

Malazi, my generation especially is beginning to see a Pakistani identity, compleletly seperate from islam.
 
Funny you say that, because that is exactly what the Israelis are hoping to achieve too. But if u ever want to rent asunder a country then nationalism on the basis of ethnicity is the most explosive force around. Identities can be constructed as well as deconstructed.Wink


-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 10:12
Originally posted by malizai_

Originally posted by TeldeInduz

I dont really agree Malizai. Will to fight comes from being in the right as a famous Chinese military tactician once suggested. It's far more important than nationalism or bonding between people.
 
Iraqis feel they've been invaded. Afghanis the same. It's not religion that motivates them to fight. It's the presence of foreign troops on their soil. Iraqis are fighting a much stronger adversary now than the Iranians, but they're not giving up as easily. 
 
Pakistan is a classical nationalistic scenario. The nationalism comes from the Indian threat. It's odd, but this threat has benefitted Pakistan quite a bit.  this is what binds the nation in my opinion - anti Indian nationalism, and if it goes, I would worry about the existence of Pakistan.
 
Most of what u say is not far from what i am theorizing.
 
Yes the Chinese man is right also, but the will to fight also comes from an existential threat werther perceived or actual (especially in case of external threat).
 
This is what I'm saying above. Foreign threat gives the will to fight, pride or religion or fanatical historical pride only gives some temporary impetus but not a basic will to fight. Being proud of your history won't for example help you attack another country if you don't feel it's right.
 
Pakistani nationalism is based upon a religious identity much like the Israeli one, that is what binds a baluchi to pathan or punjabi. The indian threat is as much a Hindu threat to a muslim Pakistan. I am not generalizing but being specific to each of the three countries.
 
 
I disagree with this. It's true that Pakistan was formed as a safe haven for Muslims, however Pakistani nationalism is in my opinion, in no way based on religious identity. A Baloch or a Pathan is bound more to someone from Afghanistan on the basis of ethnic and religious identity than to a Punjabi. This disproves the notion that the what binds the people of Pakistan is religious identity. What binds the Pakistani Pathan to the Pakistani Punjabi is the existence of India - ironic but very true. If you ask a tribesman from the frontier, tribal district who his enemy is, he will say immediately that India is, and then a couple more. This is what a Punjabi would say also, and this is what binds them together.
 
I used the examples of Iraq and Afghanistan in the context of lesser armed group sustaining warfare against a better armed one on the basis of will and sacrifice. I did not discuss the basis of their will.  I did for the other three countries, where each one draws on a different source to strengthen their resolve.
i.e, I hypothesize that if u were to listen to the poets of the three groups they would each try to stir the passions of their troops with verses that may begin something like this:
 
Turks: O turks ye son of warriors.....
Iranians: O ye sons of sassanians......
Pakistanis: O ye the vanguard of islam.....
 
I know what you're saying, and I don't agree is all. What motivates a Pakistani is the threat from India, it's not Islam. This might have been the raison d'etre for Pakistan, but that was the theory, in principal it's worked out much differently. To stir the passions of the troops, Pakistan only would need to mention - India is attacking Pakistan. You can see this in the national anthem of Pakistan. Count how many times it mentions "land" and how many times it mentions Islam.
 

Blessed be sacred land,
Happy be bounteous realm,
Symbol of high resolve,
Land of Pakistan.
Blessed be thou citadel of faith.
The Order of this Sacred Land
Is the might of the brotherhood of the people.
May the nation, the country, and the State
Shine in glory everlasting.
Blessed be the goal of our ambition.
This flag of the Cresent and the Star
Leads the way to progress and perfection,
Interpreter of our past,
glory of our present,
Inspiration of our future,
Symbol of Almighty's protection.




-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 10:16
Originally posted by Sparten

Malazi, my generation especially is beginning to see a Pakistani identity, compleletly seperate from islam.
 
Totally agree again Sparten


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: EGETÜRK
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 11:32
Originally posted by perikles

Well first for pakistan army: I don't find them strong enough to be in the first 3 positions. Look the army quarrel in Afgan borders with the tribes. 348 dead pakistan soldiers in what... 2 months? Fighting rebels. This is not strong army. I believe Turkey has strong army. At least one of the biggest... second in NATO after USA. None knows about Iran. Only speculations...but according to my opinion Egypt has a very good organised and strong army. I think Egypt, Iran and Saudi & Turkey are the strongests. Saudi Arabia spends the year 16 bilion dollars for weapons!!!!

As far as Tsetsens is for laghing.

ps. The strongest navy marines (underneath water)in mediteranean are Greeks. Also the best trained tank divitions in the region are the Greek Black beres. For air force Turkish air force is good only for fighting Kurds. Because we all know what is happening in Aegean. Thats way Turkish air force come in agreement with Israelis for mutual air force training. But it is True that Turkey has really strong ground forces. They are well trained in mountains of Kurdistan.
They have evolved a lot since Cyprus.
    
    
Just remember Kardak(İmia)...Your Strongest!!!!! Greatest!!!!Glorius!!!!! Navy were helpless against our only 1 SAT team...Just remember that...Even I don't talk about what happened to your Chief of the General staff!!!


-------------
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...


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 11:54

Tele, i am not entirely convinced by your arguement and i will leave it at that we agree to disagree.

I will however point out that the land u refer to is "sacred" land. Y is it sacred. It is a "citadel of faith". "brotherhood" "flag of crecent and star" "symbol of almighty's protection", the religious connotations are obvious i would have thought. I c the indian threat translated as hindu threat, u c it as indian threat(i think).



-------------


Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:11
Originally posted by perikles



ps. The strongest navy marines (underneath water)in mediteranean are Greeks. Also the best trained tank divitions in the region are the Greek Black beres. For air force Turkish air force is good only for fighting Kurds. Because we all know what is happening in Aegean. Thats way Turkish air force come in agreement with Israelis for mutual air force training. But it is True that Turkey has really strong ground forces. They are well trained in mountains of Kurdistan.
They have evolved a lot since Cyprus. 
     
 
LOLYes, we all know what's happening


-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 13:14
And all that "bravery" talk (LOL) sounds nice and all, but in the end advanced technology is what matters. Bravery is futile against cluster bombs, B-52s, daisy cutters, bunker busters, ICBMs, tomahawks or Popeye Turbos (to name a few).
 
 You can blitz a country to bits but still cannot take it over and rule it if the people don't give inWink Bombing is just the first part, if the people are brave and take up arms and would rather die than be ruled by enemies well its extremely difficult for any country to take that land.


-------------
      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine



Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 14:55
yep! and Turkish marines are the best in Mediterrian.SAT(underwater assault team) proved it in the crisis of Kardak.



-------------
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 )


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 15:23
Originally posted by malizai_

Tele, i am not entirely convinced by your arguement and i will leave it at that we agree to disagree.

I will however point out that the land u refer to is "sacred" land. Y is it sacred. It is a "citadel of faith". "brotherhood" "flag of crecent and star" "symbol of almighty's protection", the religious connotations are obvious i would have thought. I c the indian threat translated as hindu threat, u c it as indian threat(i think).

 
You're reading it wrong in my opinion. You can clearly see the anthem is talking about Pakistan's land being sacred, blessed, glorious. This is mild I would say for any national anthem. It's just not the sort of "vanguards of all things Islam" that you mentioned. I don't see it - Vanguards of the "sacred" land of Pakistan, sure.
 
Sure it mentions that Pakistan is a sacred land, glorious and a bounteous realm, but it's standard as far as anthems go? This is a way of saying that Pakistanis should or are defenders of the land. The anthem is mildly religious in tone, but you compare it with the Indian one and say which one has the greater religious tone -  the Turkish one has a slight religious tone also, nevermind the Iranian one (though it's difficult to say which one they use).
 
Pakistan Anthem (focus on land IMO)
 
Blessed be the sacred land,
Happy be bounteous realm,
Symbol of high resolve,
Land of Pakistan.
Blessed be thou citadel of faith.
The Order of this Sacred Land
Is the might of the brotherhood of the people.
May the nation, the country, and the State
Shine in glory everlasting.
Blessed be the goal of our ambition.
This flag of the Cresent and the Star
Leads the way to progress and perfection,
Interpreter of our past,
glory of our present,
Inspiration of our future,
Symbol of Almighty's protection.

Indian National Anthem (focus on God)


Thou are the ruler of the minds of all people, dispenser of India's destiny.
The name rouses the hearts of Punjab, Sind, Gujurat and Maratha. Of the Dravid and Orissa and Bengal.
It Echoes in the hills of Vindhyas and Himalayas, mingles in the music of Yamuna and Ganga and is chanted by the waves of the Indian Sea.
They pray for your blessing and sing thy praise. The salvation of all peaople is thy hand, thou dispenser of India's destiny. Victory, Victory, Victory to thee.
 
Turkish National Anthem 
Fear not, the crimson flag, waving in these dawns will never fade
Before the last hearth that is burning in my nation vanishes.
That is my nation's star, it will shine;
That is mine, it belongs solely to my nation.
 
Oh coy crescent do not frown for I am ready to sacrifice myself for you!
Please smile upon my heroic nation, why that anger, why that rage?
If you frown, our blood shed for you will not be worthy.
Freedom is the right of my nation who worships God and seeks what is right.
 


-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Scorpius
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 15:48
Originally posted by TeldeInduz

  the Turkish one has a slight religious tone also, nevermind the Iranian one (though it's difficult to say which one they use).
 
If we read the rest of turkish national anthem , it is clear that it contains the elements of religion and love of the country and the sacrifice for both of these concepts. Below is the rest of the anthem:
 
Turkish National Anthem   (continued from the post of TeleInduz)
 
I have been free since the beginning and forever will be so.
What madman shall put me in chains! I defy the very idea!
I'm like the roaring flood; powerful and independent,
I'll tear apart mountains, exceed the heavens and still gush out!

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.
Recognize your innate strength! And think: how can this fiery faith ever be killed,
By that battered, single-toothed monster you call "civilization"?

My friend! Leave not my homeland to the hands of villainous men!
Render your chest as armor! Stop this disgraceful rush!
For soon shall be come the day of promised freedom...
Who knows? Perhaps tomorrow? Perhaps even sooner!

See not the soil you tread on as mere earth,
But think about the thousands beneath you that lie without even shrouds.
You're the noble son of a martyr, take shame, hurt not your ancestor!
Unhand not, even when you're promised worlds, this paradise of a homeland.
 
What man would not die for this heavenly piece of land?
Martyrs would gush out if you just squeeze the soil! Martyrs!
May God take all my loved ones and possessions from me if he will,
But may he not deprive me of my one true homeland for the world.
 
O Lord, the sole wish of my heart is that,
No infidel's hand should touch the bosom of my temple.
These adhans, the shahadah of which is the base of the religion,
Shall sound loud over my eternal homeland.
Then my tombstone - if there is one - will a thousand times touch its forehead on earth (like in salah) in ecstasy,

O Lord, tears of blood flowing out of my every wound,
My corpse will gush out from the earth like a spirit,
And then, my head will perhaps rise and reach the heavens.
 
So flap and wave like the dawning sky, oh glorious crescent,
So that our every last drop of blood may finally be worthy!
Neither you nor my nation shall ever be extinguished!
For freedom is the absolute right of my ever-free flag;
For freedom is the absolute right of my God-worshipping nation!
 
Edit: HTML tags.
 


-------------


Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 15:54
Cool lyrics... i like the second paragraph especially where civilization is involved.

-------------
The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon
Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao


Posted By: Jagatai Khan
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 16:05
Turkish Army looks to the nukes behind Ataturk's "Peace in country, peace in world" saying:

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/diger_konular/kitleimhasilahlari.htm - http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/diger_konular/kitleimhasilahlari.htm


-------------


Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 19:00

I think the Turksih anthem although it is the first time i have read it is quite supportive of the reasons i drew. Their anthem is heavy(understatement) on perserving a martial tradition,  being brave and sacrificing all. Smile Nice anthem by the way.



-------------


Posted By: TeldeInduz
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 20:14
It's heavy on warrior tone, sacrifice, true, it's also heavier on religion - it's altogether a more passionate anthem..

-------------
Quoo-ray sha quadou sarre.................


Posted By: Pacifist
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2006 at 21:46
Originally posted by Bulldog

You can blitz a country to bits but still cannot take it over and rule it if the people don't give inWink Bombing is just the first part, if the people are brave and take up arms and would rather die than be ruled by enemies well its extremely difficult for any country to take that land.
I agree, on the other hand, a technologically advanced nation can "wipe out" a technologically weak nation.

Secondly, a technologically advanced nation cannot be taken over by other nations.. Israel is a classic example.. ;)  technology truly is tremendously important.




-------------




Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 02:55
In imia the Turkish marines come from an existing boat. THe Greeks marines had trapped the west island where the turkish commandos went. But the orders of the Headquarters was not to attack them,because the BIG DADY did.t want to. I also would like to remembind you that the half of the Greek fleet was there the other half was heading up to nothern Aegean. The turkish fleet was present at the region by its 3/4. I also would like to remind you that the Imia are at Turkish Greek borders. The turkish fleet is really close. The Greek ships start their Jpurney from Salamina (At least the maojority).

Don't speak about Imia. The mighty Turkish grandound tank division was stuck in the River Evros. After the tens you were tring to unstuck them for a week. Don't speak about Imia because you don't know.
Turks are strong but not superpower. It is a strong well armoured Islamic country. No comparison with the strong Europeans or Israel. I hade wrote my opinion

-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.


Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 02:57
Technolgically advance nation can loose by a week ones. The examples are many. USA vs Vietnam
USSR vs Afghanistan, Italy vs Greece. etc


-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 03:17
How can the pakis claim islam as the basis of their nationality & the fact that Pak was formed as safe heaven for the muslims is pure rubbish. India has much more muslims than pakistan has.

The pakis use the Hindu propoganda to whitewash the minds of ther population. India is a truly secular country with a muslim president, who was fielded by the so called nationalist party of India the BJP.

The muslims in India are also more well off than those in Pak.

The real reason is that Pak has no tradition of democracy. Every few years some dictator siezes power & starts crying India India to keep the people off the real issues.

Its just an inferiority complex & a political tool that pais cannot get over with.

They try to claim Islam as an identity only because without that Pak has no reason to exist as a nation. (There being more Indian muslims)



-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 03:28
In reality pak was created due to two reasons, none of them being Islam. :

1. The Brits had already decided to grant independence to india before the war. But they wanted to have a say in the region even after leaving. So they came back with their concept of divide & rule. they started  promoting the Muslim League. becaaue they knew that the Hindus  will never  be with them. The Indian freedom struggle was predominantly Hindu.

The british found a good answer in Jinnah, a western educated rich aristocratic, liquor drinking & pork eating muslim who was popular in the community as an alternative to Nehru.

However although Jinna becam popular with the muslims, he could not becoms a national leader as he never participated  in the freedom struggle & was always with the British.

When a new government of the free nation was being discussed, Jinna wanted to be prime minister. But nobody would have accepted him as the PM since he was pro british. So jinna worked out on carving a separate nation for himself where he could become the prime minister.

Thus pakistan was born.

The tragedy of Pakistan is that the self acclaimed Pious, holy, islamic state was founded by an un islamic, unholy, non paractising, liquor drinking & pork eating  person who was successful in playing religiously divisive politics to suit his & britishers interests.




-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 05:44
Vivek it is clear that your only source of history is Bollywood.


-------------


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 06:11
Yes its based on a reality show called " munh me alla, table pe mulla"

-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn


Posted By: perikles
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 06:15
I haven't understand the reason of the anthems!!!
why you presented them?
Open a different thread.I think them oftopic.
If no then we should all write the anthems of our countries or anthems we know.

-------------
Samos national guard.

260 days left.


Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2006 at 06:35
Originally posted by perikles

I haven't understand the reason of the anthems!!!
why you presented them?
Open a different thread.I think them oftopic.
If no then we should all write the anthems of our countries or anthems we know.


You are right Perikles. Even I cannot think of the logic why these are here !!! But I will open a new thread anyway so Telde brother can put his collection their & I remain in History as the creator of that thread.


-------------
PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com