Pakistan pulls out of Bonn Conference

[tor_khan]

so what is the significance of Pakistan's supposed meddling?

What significance does it have to the situation, if any at all?

Read back a couple of posts Unknown. I explained my view of what the Pakistan strategy appears to have been.

[Michin Khel]

No, Iraq the homeland of the oldest civilization in the world is not a country....

But it is right that Kuwait and parts of Iran should be Iraqi land.

The only big group of people that are not native in Iraq are the Kurds but they have lived for centuries in northern Iraq and intermarried with Arabs so they are just as much a part of our culture as many others.

I think you need to read about Iraqi history a bit more.

Start with these two documentaries.

IRAQ: From Babylon To Baghdad - History Channel (2004) - YouTube[/URL]

History of Iraq (Mesopotamia) Part 1 تأريخ العراق - YouTube[/URL]

And I am sorry if I told the truth about Pakistan. Before 1947 there was no such word.

Sta pa mesopotemia k owayam...ever heard of indus valley civilization and gandhara civilization? ...as your country is not named mesopotemia but iraq so your country is not real...british created your country by turning you people against khilafat of ottoman...you people are traitors of ottomon khilafat and it is result of british conspiracy.

[unknownprince]

downfall of the Khilafa was bad, and all Arabs participated in it. Indian Muslims also joined the British to bring down the Mughal empire. These Indian Muslims then became todays Pakistanis. So, fault lines are all around. The Ottomans were not perfect, and the Arabs were not either (they invited and supported British war against the Ottomans).

but it appears Turkey as well as the Arab League and GCC is ready to do Western bidding now.

A colossal mistake.

[unknownprince]

Read back a couple of posts Unknown. I explained my view of what the Pakistan strategy appears to have been.

I have read the posts. This one is like a short form of what you are saying below.

Pakistan - a nuclear nation, massively under-developed, corrupt and insecure - is hellbent on destablising the neighbourhood. That should answer why Pakistan is not viewed favourably.

What i fail to understand is how on one hand you say that Pakistan is hellbent on "destabilizing" the neighborhood, and at the same time agree with my assessment that Afghans do not fight for Pakistan, that Afghans do not fight to place the Pakistani flag at Kandahar. What "destabilizing" are you then referring to? Pakistan has destabilized (and continues to destabilize) Afghanistan by supporting the US war and occupation. It is logically and morally wrong, and also a violation of Islamic law to support the war and occupation of any nation.

Pakistan, due to its support for the US occupation and war, can never be compared to what Russia or China was to the Viet Minh/Viet Cong.

Pakistan in fact has not much sway over the insurgent groups.

The only way Pakistan is destabilizing the neighborhood is by supporting the US war and occupation of Afghanistan, something Imran khan is rightfully, ending.

The US occupation is the barrier to peace in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the entire region. The US presence and meddling is destabilizing the region. It has been since 1953.

[Michin Khel]

downfall of the Khilafa was bad, and all Arabs participated in it. Indian Muslims also joined the British to bring down the Mughal empire. These Indian Muslims then became todays Pakistanis. So, fault lines are all around. The Ottomans were not perfect, and the Arabs were not either (they invited and supported British war against the Ottomans).

but it appears Turkey as well as the Arab League and GCC is ready to do Western bidding now.

A colossal mistake.

If you dont know much about history of subcontinent then dont make up things. Give me the exact historical refrence in which indian muslims joined british to go against mughal empire? ...remember indian muslims were the only one who started khilafat movement to save ottoman empire from british. Rest of muslims were either sleeping or were traitors like arabs.

[unknownprince]

If you dont know much about history of subcontinent then dont make up things. Give me the exact historical refrence in which indian muslims joined british to go against mughal empire? ...remember indian muslims were the only one who started khilafat movement to save ottoman empire from british. Rest of muslims were either sleeping or were traitors like arabs.

There is no point in having a selective version of history.

The Mughal Empire fell due to fragmentation and uprisings supported by the British and French. These "uprisings" were just as Muslim as they were Hindu.
"To recover Calcutta, Clive sails north from Madras in October 1756. The fort is back in British hands by January 1757. But Clive now decides to intervene further in the politics of Bengal.

"He aims to place a more compliant nawab, Mir Jafar, on the throne of Bengal, and he achieves his purpose after defeating Siraj-ud-Daula at Plassey in June 1757. For the next three years Clive virtually rules the rich province of Bengal, using Mir Jafar as his political puppet."

Read more: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...#ixzz1f8372G4Y

Yes, Indian Muslims as well as Hindus went against the Mughal Empire, allying themselves with either the British or French.

It is logical to realize that many of these Indian Muslims make up the present population of Pakistan.

Muslims have been manipulated by others for a long time. The Mughal Empire, like the Ottoman Empire was not great, but neither were the Muslims who joined with non-Muslims, and actively serve non-Muslim interests.


Perhaps the Khilafa movement was redemption?

[ScimitarXEdge]

^ Kurds hate Arabs. Highly doubt they inter married with Arabs. You are right Pakistan isn't a country but one of the oldest, if not the oldest civilisations of the world, ever heard of Harrapan and mohenjo daro?

don't know what you've been reading; but prior to the rise of Arab Nationalists in the 50's. Kurds did intermarry in Iraq. This is common in Mosul and Tikrit and other areas where Kurdish and Arab populations live in proximity.

[Michin Khel]

Dear i have very extensive study on history of subcontinent. You even dont know basics, even telling you basics would take me long time. Just simply remember that after death of aurangzeb, mughal empire scattered to pieces and within two decades it was reduced to just delhi..why mughal empire suddenly collapsed? It requires whole history session to mention the reasons , simply keep in mind that they were non-british. When mughals collapsed, various independant states came into being like bengal, mysor, hyberabad deccan, oudh, rohilkhand, marahata empire, and sikh states. British gained power in very late stages. They started with conquour of bengal and gradually defeated these states. They did'nt need to conquour delhi till 1857 which was only area mughal had. So plz dont try to be over smart on this part of history, stick to afghanistan.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Dear i have very extensive study on history of subcontinent. You even dont know basics, even telling you basics would take me long time. Just simply remember that after death of aurangzeb, mughal empire scattered to pieces and within two decades it was reduced to just delhi..why mughal empire suddenly collapsed? It requires whole history session to mention the reasons , simply keep in mind that they were non-british. When mughals collapsed, various independant states came into being like bengal, mysor, hyberabad deccan, oudh, rohilkhand, marahata empire, and sikh states. British gained power in very late stages. They started with conquour of bengal and gradually defeated these states. They did'nt need to conquour delhi till 1857 which was only area mughal had. So plz dont try to be over smart on this part of history, stick to afghanistan.

Luffy salamoona,

I think it depends on who we are talking about. About a year ago, I read a very informative and enlightening text about a wonderfully gifted Indian Muslim who subequently was a part of the early generation of Pakistanis. Abdullah Yusuf Ali has provided the West with the most prominent and probably distributed English translation of the Quran. Admin Khan and other Americans as well as Britishers can attest to the fact that every masjid has his translation in it and the Saudis even utilized his work as the basis for thier modified medinan standard translation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=q2uPX9hQfyEC

I think people will take deep exception to this comment, and some may even label Yusuf Ali as a heretic, but I strongly disagree. Whatever Yusuf Ali's view on interest was and however he may have tried to reconcile the dichotomy of his deep desire to be loyal to the crown with his Muslim roots, he does not let those view points seep into the actual translation he did of the Quranic text. He at most cites his personal views in the tafseer he provides.

Whatever the case is, Ali was brilliant and very gifted as an academic and an intellectual.

However, there appeared to be two divisions in British India at the time, based on my reading of the text. There were the Muhammad Jauhar faction types who were ready to be militant to secede from the British crown and were loyal to the Ottoman Khilafaath and then there were the Yusuf Ali types.

Yusuf Ali actually operated under the notion that if the British left the subcontinent the subsequent aftermath of a hindu majority nation would be disasterous for the Muslims. Therefore, he strived with his utmost to keep the British there and was an anglophile to the extent that he married two British women and suffered much pain from his life with them.

Ali worked for the British against the Ottomans. Contrast this behavior with that of convert, Marmaduke Pikthall who suffered the loss of his pension and many other benefits, but still refused to aid the British crown on subverting the Ottomans.

So via reading that biography, I would say that many prominent Muslims of the subcontinent also aided the British against the Khilafaath.

An additional proof of this is that Many conscripts into the British armed forces were Khattaks who were sent to die in Sudan fighting the German led powers that had forged an alliance with Turkey.

This does not take away from Yusuf Ali's brilliance and masterful command of English, nor does it take away from his supreme accomplishment of beautifying the Holy Book so that it is pleasant to the ears of English listeners (though it still does not match the grandeur and eloquence of the original).

He subsequently went to Pakistan and worked there as a Dean.