Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ISLAMIC MILITARY HISTORY
#81
SOMEONE HAS GOT TO THE ASK THE QUESTION WHICH NO ONE WILL BE THANKFUL FOR. IT IS PERTINENT TO ASK  HAS WW3 BEEN DECLARED UNOFFICIALLY?  AS WE ARE NOT IN A NORMAL EMERGENCY BUT A GLOBAL EMERGENCY IN WHICH WE ARE A BUTTON AWAY FROM A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE. THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE SINCE THE CREATION OF NUCLEAR WEOPONS. WHAT IS DIFFERENT THIS TIME IS WHEN ONE NUCLEAR PARTY HAS OPENLY DECLARED THE PREPAREDNESS TO USE THEM. THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO INTELLIGENCE SOURCES ALERTING THEM TO THE OTHER PARTIES NUCLEAR PREPAREDNESS.


WE MUST NOT FORGET THAT MODERN WARFARE IS NOT JUST ABOUT VIOLENCE BEING LET LOOSE ON LAND, AIR,SEA, SPACE AND CYBERWORLDS BUT ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL WARFARE.


LET IT BE KNOWN THAT THE CURRENT SATANIC DAJALLIC IDEOLOGICALLY CONTROLLED WORLD ORDER ADMINISTERED AND EXECUTED BY NONMUSLIM POWERS WILL LITERALLY GO UP IN SMOKE . SEE SURAH DUKKAN - THE SMOKE. WHAT  DOES THE QURANIC CHAPTER THE SMOKE IMPLY? MAYBE HUMANITY IS ABOUT TO FIND OUT.

LET US SUM UP THE SITUATION. THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IS CONTROLLED  BY NONMUSLIMS AND NONISLAMIC IDEOLOGIES WHICH ARE THE CAUSE OF THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS. IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT NONMUSLIMS WITH NO CONSCIOUSNESS OF DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY IN ALL MATTERS ON EARTH AND HEAVEN. IT IS ABOUT THE REALITY THAT THE SYSTEMS IN MODUS OPERANDUS ARE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. IT HAS BEEN LIKE THAT DEFINITELY IN THE 20TH CENTURY AND MUCH LONGER. THE FACT THAT THESE POWERS THINK THAT IS THE NORM AND THAT WE ARE IN THE NEW NORM IS IN FOR A RUDE DEADLY SHOCK IN WHICH MANY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO AWAKE AS THEY WILL BE WITH THE DEAD.

ALSO THE DEMONIC NEW WORLD ORDER WHICH THINKS IT CAN HAVE A GLOBAL RESET AND NWO OUT OF ORDO AB CHAO IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGED. AS THE DIVINELY BASED NEW WORLD ORDER IS NOT GOING TO LAND ON HUMANITY'S LAP WITHOUT AN EXISTENTIAL STRUGGLE AKA THE LORD OF THE RINGS.  

THE CURRENT SITUATION PRECIPITATING THIS IS THE RUSSIAN-UKRANIAN CRISIS AND NATO AND THE USA. ALL OF THESE POWERS ARE NONMUSLIMS. ALSO IRONICALLY THEY ARE FIGHTING BECAUSE OF THE THREAT THE FREE WORLD AND ITS DEMOCRACY POSES TO THE FREEDOMS OF   ANOTHER BLOC. HOWEVER, SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT LOUD AND CLEAR ANY SYSTEM WHICH IS NOT BASED ON DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY IS INTRINSICALLY DEMONIC AND A DEMONOCRACY WHETHER EAST OR WEST.  DIVINE NATURAL JUSTICE ALLOWS THIS TO PLAY OUT BUT THEN ACCOUNTABILITY WILL DESCEND WITH A DEADLY VENGEANCE. AS ONLY WHEN THERE IS A PHYSCIAL CLEANSING OF ALL THINGS EVIL CAN THE DIVINELY BASED ORDER BE ESTABLISHED ON EARTH. HUMANITY HAS BEEN SHOWING 2 FINGERS UPWARDS AND IT IS TIME FOR A RECKONING ON WHO CALLS THE SHOTS.

GLOBAL ISLAM WHICH HAS BEEN SUFFOCATED BY THESE POWERS CAN ONLY RISE TO THE SURFACE AND LEAD THE NEW WORLD ORDER AFTER THEY ARE EXHAUSTED.  THEY HAVE HAD THEIR CHANCE FOR SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS AND SHOWN ALL THEY CAN OFFER IS A WORLD ON THE PRECIPICE OF EXTINCTION. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE AND THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE WHEN THEY ARE GONE.     ON THIS SPECIAL NIGHT OF THE PROPHETIC HEAVENLY MIRAJ IT IS ONLY PRAYERS TO THE DIVINE POWER THAT CAN DELAY THE INEVITABLE.




PUTIN PUTS RUSSIA's DETERRENT FORCES ON ALERT AGAINST UKRAINE US EUROPE





ENTIRE FORCES ARE ON HIGH ALERT AGAINST UKRAINE AND ENTIRE EUROPE



HOW RUSSIA IS PLAYING A BIG GAME AGAINST UKRAINE USING THE CHECHEN ARMY



US IS NOT READY TO HELP THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE AND ASK HIM TO LEAVE


UKRAINE IS DEMANDING SUPPORT FROM TURKEY AGAINST RUSSIA


ISRAEL YOUR NEXT , RUSSIA 
Kaiser Khan



HOW A TAXI DRIVER PUTIN BECAME THE POWERFUL PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA



INSIDE THE KREMLIN PALACE OF RUSSIAN PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN





EUROPE IN BIG TROUBLE 
Orya Maqbool Jan



UKRAINE AND RUSSIA CONFLICT

Orya Maqbool Jan





THE STAGE FOR WORLD WAR 3 HAS BEEN DESIGNED , WORLD HAS BEEN DIVIDED INTO 2 GROUPS, WHAT WILL BE NEXT







MUSLIM GENOCIDE IN INDIA HAS BEEN STARTED,
GHAZWA I HIND WILL START SOON, DREAM OF HINDUTWA






WHO IS THE FAVOURITE GROUP IN THE EYES OF ALLAH AND BETRAYED GROUP

Reply
#82
BATTLE OF ZENTA



BATTLE OF VIENNA  1683
(Ottoman Empire vs Holy Roman Empire)




BATTLE OF MOHACS  1526 
HOW THE OTTOMANS BROKE THE HUNGARIAN KINGDOM



BATTLE OF VARNA 1444:
EUROPE's LAST ANTI-OTTOMAN CRUSADE
Reply
#83
IN LIEU OF THE RUSSIA UKRAINE WAR WHICH HAS ERUPTED IN EUROPE IT IS TIMELY TO FOCUS ON THE BATTLEFIELDS OF THE WILD EAST. IN THE WESTERN MIND THE OPENING UP OF AMERICA IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE WILD WEST AND IS ROMANTICISED IN THE POPULAR MIND. THE WILD EAST LANDS WHICH WILL BE LOOKED AT WERE UNDER CONTROL OF NOMADIC TATAR MUSLIM PEOPLES WHO WERE A LEGACY OF THE GOLDEN HORDE. 

BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE BARRIERS AS WELL AS THE SOVIET COMMUNIST REVISIONIST HISTORY NOT MUCH IS REALLY KNOWN BY OUTSIDERS. SO THE RISE OF RUSSIA, UKRAINE, THE JEWISH KHAZARS  AND THE KHANATES WILL BE REVIEWED. THIS WILL PROVIDE DEEPER DIAGNOSIS ON THE FUTURE OF EASTERN EUROPE, EUROPE AND THE MIDDLE EAST WHICH ARE GEOPOLITICAL TECTONIC AREAS.  



UKRAINE SPECIAL : THE RELIGIOUS ROOTS OF PUTIN's INVASION 
Fr Cyril Hovorun & Clifford Longley



PATRIARCH KRILL
A FORMER KGB SPY AND SPIRITUAL GURU IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND PUTIN's UKRAINE WAR



RUSSIAN FM WARNS  OF NUCLEAR WEOPONS CAN PUT EVERYONE IN DANGER ZONE





PUTIN THE MOST DANGEROUS PERSON FOR SECRET SOCIETIES AND AGAINST THE NEW WORLD ORDER





UKRAINE , ZUL QARNAIN, KHAZARIA JEWS AND CURRENT SITUATION




RUSSIA AND UKRAINE WOO WORLD’s LARGEST ISLAMIC GROUP 
As Muslims Fight On Opposing Sides Of War




1917: RUSSIA's TWO REVOLUTIONS





HISTORY OF RUSSIA - RURIK TO REVOLUTION




THE COSSACK WORLD 




GREAT SCHISM: THE BITTER RIVALRY BETWEEN GREEK AND LATIN CHRISTIANITY




KHAZARS: HISTORY OF THE JEWISH TURKIC NOMADS






HOW THE MONGOLS LOST RUSSIA  




BATTLE OF KULIKOVO 1380 - RUS- MONGOL WARS 




HOW RUS SURVIVED MONGOLS AND CRUSADERS
RISE OF NOVOGOROD



DESTRUCTION OF KIEVAN RUS - MONGOL CONQUEST 




ANCIENT ORIGINS OF THE KYIVAN RUS :
FROM RURIKIDS TO MONGOLS 



THE BIRTH OF RUSSIA: KIEVAN RUS
Reply
#84
PAKISTAN AIR FORCE INTERCEPTS INDIAN BRAHMOS SUPERSONIC MISSILE



HOW PAKISTAN CAN STOP NUCLEAR MISSILES OF INDIA AND HOW TO REACT 




PAKISTAN AIR FORCE CAN DITCH  S-400 ANY TIME WHILE HAVING ADVANCE SYSTEMS




DG ISPR Press Conference - 10 Mar 2022




INDIA WILL USE NUCLEAR CAPABLE MISSILE TECHNOLOGY AGAINST PAKISTAN



INDIA ADMITS LAUNCHING SUPERSONIC BRAHMOS MISSILE
AT PAKISTAN
Reply
#85
MODERN FIGHTER AIRCRAFT J-10C INDUCTION IN PAF
PM Imran Khan in Ceremony at Minhas Air Base Kamra




POWERFUL SPEECH OF IMRAN KHAN
WHILE PAKISTAN AIR FORCE INDUCTED J-10C




CHINA IS PROVIDING THE MOST POWERFUL ANTI STEALTH RADAR YLC-8E TO PAKISTAN





CHINA UPGRADED J20 FIGHTER WITH DIRECT ENERGY WEOPON LASER TECHNOLOGY


 



PAKISTAN AND CHINESE AIR FORCE WILL COUNTER INDIA BEFORE 2024
Reply
#86
THE COINCIDING OF PAKISTAN DAY'S MILITARY PARADE WITH THE OIC AND THE PRESENCE OF THE CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT ON THE WORLD STAGE. IS THE SLUMBERING MUSLIM GIANT AWAKENING AT LAST. GLOBAL VISION 2000 IS WORKING ON THIS BREAKING STORY AND IT's SIGNIFICANCE AT A TIME WHEN GEO TECTONIC PLATES ARE COLLIDING.  

PAKISTAN DAY PARADE - 23 MARCH 2022




PM IMRAN KHAN DASHING ENTRY IN PAKISTAN DAY PARADE 23 March



INDIA IS GETTING ANGRY AFTER OIC MAKING STANCE ON KASHMIR AGAINST INDIA






CHINA IS NOW READY TO DOMINATE AGAINST INDIA IN ARUNACHAL AND LADAKH
Reply
#87
IRAN IS A FRONT LINE STATE AT THE HEART OF THE MIDDLE EAST. IT'S TRAJECTORY FOR IT'S MILITARY AND ECONOMY NEEDS REVIEWING AS IT HAS HAD TO DEVELOP ITSELF IN THE CONTEXT OF SANCTIONS.   ALSO SINCE THE SAFAVIDS IT HAS BEEN THE MAIN SHIA POWER IN THE REGION. THIS ALSO NEEDS TO BE REHEARSED.

IRAN MILITARY PARADE : RAISI WARNS ISRAEL ABOUT MAKING  “ SLIGHTEST MOVE ” AGAINST COUNTRY





RUSSIA -UKRAINE WAR : DID IRAN GIVE LETHAL BAVAR 373 MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM TO AID PUTIN’s FORCES?
Reply
#88
IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN UNITED STATES OF ISLAM ARMY IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PAKISTAN ARMY AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MUSLIM ARMIES IN THE WORLD WOULD PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE FOR MANY REASONS. ACCORDINGLY A DEEP CRITIQUE WILL ROLLOUT IN THE INTEREST OF THE UMMAH AS OPPOSED TO UNDERMINING IT. 

HOW IMRAN KHAN's REMOVAL AFFECTED CIVIL- MILITARY TIES IN PAKISTAN
As the military bristles at criticism directed at it since Khan’s exit, the ex-PM escalates his rhetoric against the powerful institution.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/19...s-pakistan



THE POWER AND INFLUENCE OF THE PAKISTAN ARMY



THE BIRTH OF THE PAKISTAN ARMY
https://www.dawn.com/news/1748721/histor...istan-army
Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh

"There are armies which guard their nation’s borders, there are armies which are concerned with protecting their own position in society, and there are armies which defend a cause or an idea. The Pakistan Army does all three,” writes Stephen P. Cohen in his article, Pakistan: Army, Society and Security.

Though presently ranked as the ‘seventh most powerful army in the world’ by the Military Strength Rankings 2023, the Pakistan Army had an extremely humble beginning. The very idea of the creation of a Pakistan Army went through sheer opposition from both British colonial rulers as well as the native army officers.

Once the idea was accepted, its implementation too witnessed a series of obstacles. Still, the will of the concerned people made it possible to surmount all those impediments and give birth to an army that was destined to attain world ranking. This article recounts the roots, challenges and the genesis of the Pakistan Army during its formative phase.

Field Marshal Gen Claude Auchinleck, the last Commander-in-Chief of the British Indian Army, supervised the creation of two separate armies for India and Pakistan as the Supreme Commander of both the armies

BRITISH INDIAN ARMY ROOTS
The roots of Pakistan’s army are in the British Indian Army (BIA). Three hallmarks of the BIA were unity and discipline in the rank and file, the highest degrees of professional competence acquired through the world class training, and unwavering respect for the chain of command.

The British had developed the Indian army as a ‘monolith’ unit in an otherwise highly fragmented Indian society. They did it by creating an isolated and controlled environment of cantonments. “The British Indian cantonments or military camps were self-contained units with everything the army needed: shops, housing, barracks and even brothels,” writes Shuja Nawaz in his book Crossed Swords. This saved the soldiers from unsavoury influences of divisions based on caste and creed.

Pakistan’s army faced a number of obstacles at the time of its coming into being. Unlike the Indian Army, which inherited the lion’s share of infrastructure and resources from the pre-existing British Indian Army, the Pakistan Army often had to contend with sabotage as well The Indian soldiers, on their part, proved to be a great asset for the British empire during both the world wars. In the Second World War, the British mobilised around 2.5 million Indian soldiers to fight on their side at various fronts all over the world, with a significantly large number of soldiers hailing from the regions comprising present-day Pakistan.

After the end of the six-year long Second World War, an economically weakened Britain agreed to grant “self-government” to India by June 30, 1948. Subsequently, the date was advanced to August 15, 1947, when the two “dominions” of Pakistan and India were to attain “autonomy and sovereignty.” Nevertheless, the British desired to retain the command of the joint army in the aftermath of the partition, “like jealous parents, reluctant to let go of the reins of power,” remarks Nawaz.

BRITISH RELUCTANCE
Emotionally and intellectually still engrossed in their past rivalry with Russia and the Soviet Union and fearing inroads of communism and Soviet influence in South Asia, the British ardently advocated a joint army for Pakistan and India, under their command. However, there were not many takers for their position among both sides of the Indian political leadership. In that situation, the British at least wanted to delay the handing over of commands for a couple of years. In his brief, the British Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck told Viceroy Lord Mountbatten that it would take “from five to 10 years to satisfactorily divide the Indian Army” quotes Ishtiaq Ahmed in his book Pakistan: The Garrison State.

Auchinleck was not alone in his aversion to the bifurcation of the Indian army into Pakistani and Indian parts. Mountbatten’s chief of staff, Lord Hastings Ismay, went to convince the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to favour the idea of the British retaining the joint command and control structure. But Jinnah remained unmoved.

According to Ahmed in The Transfer of Power 1942-47, Liaquat Ali Khan conveyed a message to the viceroy in unequivocal terms: “He [Liaquat Ali Khan] and Mr Jinnah were resolved that they would not take over the reins of government in Pakistan unless they had an army on the spot, and under their control.”

In the final outcome, it was agreed by all that most of the division of army would take place before the partition but that it would continue till the completion of the transfer of assets. Till that time, the administrative control of both the armies would remain with a joint headquarters under command of the British commander-in-chief, who would be designated as the Supreme Commander of both the armies. It was also decided that British officers would be retained in both the armies till the division was complete.

Governor General Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah at the Pakistan Army’s Presentation of Colours Ceremony, in February 1948 | Courtesy: UK’s National Army Museum

DISSENT WITHIN THE RANKS
Initially, many native officers too were against the division of the British Indian Army. For instance, the senior-most native officer, KM Cariappa, who later rose to the position of the Indian army chief in 1949, told Lord Ismay that the Indian army “should take over power” after the British left.
In response, Ismay told him that, “[the] proposal was not only wholly impractical, but highly dangerous, and that, throughout history, the rule of the army had always proved tyrannical and incompetent and that the army must always be servants and not masters,” Nawaz quotes from the letter Ismay wrote to Mountbatten.

Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, who served as India’s finance secretary, also recalled a similar conversation in his book The Emergence of Pakistan, when Cariappa and a Muslim army officer approached him voicing their disagreement with the military’s division plans. Instead, they favoured a jointly controlled army, arguing that, “It was better for the army to take charge of both the dominions than be divided.”

Perhaps the most notable opponent of the army’s division from present-day Pakistan was Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan, then a major who later rose to be Pakistan’s army chief and president. At the “break-up” party organised at the Staff College Quetta, where Khan served then, he asked his senior, Col SD Verma: “Sir, what are we celebrating? This should be a day of mourning. As a united country we could have been a strong and powerful nation. Now, we will be fighting one another.”

However, political events overpowered these sentiments and the division of the army became certain. In the closing days of the partition, Hindu and Sikh army officers arranged a farewell in Delhi in honour of their departing Muslim colleagues. Gen Cariappa, on behalf of the hosts, presented a silver trophy to the departing colleagues.

In his speech, he expressed his sentiments, saying, “We shall meet each other frequently as the best of friends and in the same spirit of good comradeship that we have had the good fortune to enjoy all these years.”  Just three days later, four Muslim officers, who had attended that farewell, were killed along with their families by Sikh rioters on their way to Pakistan.

DIVISION BLUES
One of the most hotly debated issues among the political and military leadership of British India then was Pakistan’s share in the combined military assets of the BIA. Auchinleck suggested that the division of assets might take place “either on the present Muslim and non-Muslim ratio in the armed forces or in proportion to the total population of Pakistan areas as compared to Hindustan.”

This was further elaborated by Mountbatten in his report, published on August 1, 1947.
He wrote: “I should explain that we have been working on the basis of communal proportions in dividing the fighting services, the smaller partner by far being, of course, Pakistan. In the case of the Army this was the obvious method of dividing the actual soldiers…, and it worked out at a rough proportion of 70:30. In the case of the Navy it worked out at about 60:40, but as India have a far bigger coastline with more harbours and a far greater proportion of the trade to guard, the actual ships were divided in the proportion of 70:30.”

Elucidating the situation in the case of the air force, he wrote: “When it came to the Air, the communal proportions worked out at 80:20. As there were ten squadrons to divide (2 transport and 8 fighters) the India representatives claimed 8… [but the] “Committee recommended that on the analogy of the naval partition, the proportions should be 70:30, since Pakistan had the North-West Frontier to guard.”

Under the division formulae, it was decided that the Muslim soldiers domiciled in the areas constituting Pakistan would become part of the Pakistan Army, while all the non-Muslim soldiers domiciled in the rest of India would become part of the Indian Army. In the case of Muslims from India, or non-Muslims from Pakistan, they were given the option to serve in either state, subject to the opted state’s concurrence. Deviation from this principle was to result in the soldier’s discharge from service.

Pakistan was the most disadvantaged in the case of fixed military assets, such as training institutes, military production factories and facilities, as well as workshops. For instance, out of 46 training institutes, only seven came in Pakistan’s share.

In the case of repair and maintenance workshops, the three most important ones, dealing with armoured fighting vehicles, radars and crystal-cutting were located in India. In the case of ordnance factories, Pakistan got only three from a total of 17 while, in the case of ordnance depots, Pakistan got only five smaller ones, as all the major ones were located in India. Then, while India inherited a fully functional army General Headquarters (GHQ) in Delhi, Pakistan had to transform the erstwhile headquarters of BIA’s northern command in Rawalpindi into its GHQ. It was very disadvantageous, as Pakistan’s political capital Karachi and its military capital Rawalpindi were separated by a long distance, while India had both these power centres located in Delhi, facilitating decision-making.

SABOTAGE AND SUBTERFUGE
As most of the moveable assets of the BIA, such as arms, ammunition, transport and equipment were stored in the facilities located in India, it required Pakistan’s share to be transported to it. But every move in that direction on the part of the British authorities was vehemently opposed by the Indians, compelling Auchinleck to complain of their “intolerable” behaviour, wrongly desiring the British officers to “do down Pakistan at all costs during the partition of the armed forces.”
With the passage of time, the situation only worsened, prompting Auchinleck to write another note on September 28, 1947 stating: “I have no hesitation whatever in affirming that the present Indian cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis.”

Elaborating further, he wrote: “Since 15th August... the situation has steadily deteriorated and the Indian leaders, cabinet ministers, civil officials and others have persistently tried to obstruct the work of the partition of the armed forces.”

After the dispute arose on Kashmir, India cast off even the semblance of fair play in honouring the division of BIA assets. In this regard, Indian army officer (later Lt Gen) S.P.P. Thorat wrote in his autobiography, From Reveille to Retreat, that as “We were sending trainloads... to Pakistan, each one of us was painfully conscious that we were indirectly helping Pakistan to kill our own men.” Thorat admitted that he tried his best to convince the British high command to stop or at least slow down the supply to Pakistan, but in vain. He then approached Deputy Prime Minister Sardar Patel who advised him not to be “too prompt in doing your duty.”

“From then onwards, there was a sharp decline in the quantities of arms and ammunition sent to Pakistan, but a corresponding increase in innocuous items to make up the tonnage,” Nawaz quotes Thorat.

Attaining the Character
All these difficulties notwithstanding, the Pakistan Army formally came into being in August 1947 with British Gen Frank Messervy taking over as the first army chief. In due course of time, the Army selected the number 786 as its identity, which numerically represented the Quran’s opening verse. This number was “emblazoned on all gate posts and vehicles, as a reminder that this was the army of a Muslim country,” notes Nawaz.

Since then, there has been no looking back. Building upon the legacy of the BIA in the areas of discipline, professional competence and chain of command, and adding to them the element of faith, its earliest leadership, having the experience of fighting two world wars, led the Pakistan Army from strength to strength. It proverbially rose from the ashes to claim its position in the world’s top-ranked armies, giving the nation a force it could be proud of.
Reply
#89
AT A TIME WHEN THE MUSLIM WORLD SEEMS DEFENCELESS AGAINST THE OPPRESSION BY OTHER POWERS. THE EVENTS IN JERUSALEM AND QUDS DURING RAMADAN AND THE ZIONIST FLAG DAY MARCH HIGHLIGHTS THIS. OTHER GEOPOLITICAL FLASHPOINTS CAN ALSO BE MENTIONED.

ACCORDINGLY THE UMMAH NEEDS TO SALUTE THE EFFORTS OF PAKISTAN IN BECOMING THE ONLY MUSLIM COUNTRY WITH A NUCLEAR ARSENAL. THIS WAS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE NUCLEAR TESTS CONDUCTED ON MAY 28 1998 IN RESPONSE TO INDIAN NUCLEAR TESTS. YAUM E TAKBEER AS IT IS KNOWN SHOULD BE KNOWN BY ALL MUSLIMS GLOBALLY.

IT IS THIS DETERRENCE WHICH HAS SAFEGUARDED THE DEFENCE AND SECURITY OF PAKISTAN.  THIS NEEDS TO BE CELEBRATED AND THE SACRIFICES BEHIND THIS ACHIEVEMENT NEED REHEARSING. AT A TIME OF AN UNDECLARED WW3 THE MUSLIM WORLD NEEDS TO BE ON HIGH ALERT TO DEFEND ITSELF.

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD

AND HERE'S A NEW SLOGAN FOR THE UMMAH- 

TAKBEER ALLAHU AKBAR  ISLAM ZINDABAD




VIDEO OF THE 1998 PAKISTANI NUCLEAR WEOPON TEST  






NATION OBSERVES 24TH ANNIVERSARY OF PAKISTAN's NUCLEAR TESTS 





STORY OF PAKISTAN BECOMING THE FIRST MUSLIM NUCLEAR POWER
Former Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad





PAKISTAN KE ATOMIC KI KAHANI 
Ex-Secretary Defense General Naeem Khalid Lodhi



DETERRENCE AND DIPLOMACY
Maleeha Lodhi
https://www.dawn.com/news/1744370

THE strategic choices most consequential to Pakistan’s future lie within. They involve dealing with recurrent economic crises, providing effective governance, defeating terrorism, making education accessible to all its children and generating jobs to absorb the population’s youth bulge to avert a potential demographic disaster. The implications of these internal challenges for national security are apparent and can be ignored only at great peril to the country.


But external security challenges have been no less imposing since the country’s inception, confronting it with enduring dilemmas. The burden of history and tyranny of geography — a volatile neighbourhood and the headwinds of geopolitics unleashed by big power competition — have consistently put security from external threats at the top of Pakistan’s national agenda. Contested borders inherited from colonial rule compounded this dilemma.


Few books have been written by Pakistanis about how the country’s enduring external security predicament motivated its quest for a nuclear capability. Feroze Khan’s Eating Grass was the first to chronicle Pakistan’s nuclear history and the challenges it faced to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.


The book’s concern with how Pakistan surmounted numerous obstacles to master the nuclear fuel cycle left a gap in the role of diplomacy and how its diplomats defended the country and promoted its interests in the nuclear domain.


A compelling new book now fills that gap. The Security Imperative: Pakistan’s Nuclear Deterrence and Diplomacy by Zamir Akram, deals with nuclear diplomacy with sharp insight and extraordinary breadth. Having dealt first-hand with nuclear issues and negotiations, Akram, an outstanding diplomat, is especially qualified to tell the definitive story of Pakistan’s quest for security by acquiring credible nuclear deterrence in which diplomacy played a crucial role.



Pakistan’s main challenges lie within but external security has also posed enduring dilemmas. The main theme of his well-researched book is the security-driven nature of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence. In the opening chapter, Akram describes how the country’s security compulsions were the consequence of history and geography. The legacy of disputes and hostility with India shaped its security paradigm.


Pakistan initially relied on an external balancing strategy including military alliances to assure its security. But this failed to prevent India’s aggression in 1971. That together with the 1974 Indian nuclear explosion convinced Pakistan to seek a nuclear capability as a security guarantor. Geography worsened Pakistan’s security predicament given its location in an unstable neighbourhood with challenges emanating from Afghanistan.


A key theme in the book is the discriminatory treatment meted out to Pakistan by the US-led West and how Pakistan’s diplomacy navigated through this while protecting and advancing its nuclear and missile programmes. Akram recalls how after India’s 1974 nuclear explosion the US ended up punishing Pakistan for what India had done.


“Through a series of legislative measures such as the Glenn, Symington and Solarz amendments, the US effort was essentially to prevent Pakistan from pursuing its own nuclear weapons capabilities.” Pakistan’s civilian nuclear cooperation agreements were cancelled under American pressure, first with Canada and then the Reprocessing Plant agreement with France. Thereafter Pakistan had to pursue a covert nuclear weapons programme. 


Pakistan used the period of its close relationship with the US following the 1979 Russian invasion of Afghanistan to build its nuclear capability, capitalising on what Akram calls the “strategic space” provided by this development. 


So long as it didn’t conduct a nuclear test, make a weapon core and share technology, US pressure was kept at bay, he writes. Waivers on American non-proliferation laws and adherence to the “tacit understanding” enabled Pakistan to receive assistance and also move forward to build its capabilities.

But no sooner had the Russians been forced to withdraw from Afghanistan when the US imposed sanctions on Pakistan in October 1990 under its Pressler law. Islamabad protested, pointing out that unilateral measures aimed only at Pakistan would not promote regional nonproliferation. It also pressed on with its nuclear plans, conducting “cold tests” and shifting from its uranium-based nuclear weapons capability to the plutonium route.


Akram outlines the diplomatic initiatives taken by Pakistan in the 1990s, offering a series of regional nonproliferation proposals to the US and India.


In the chapter ‘Roller Coaster’, he describes developments in which I was also intimately involved in our nuclear diplomacy as Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington. Pakistan-US relations had then plunged into crisis which only eased after prime minister Benazir Bhutto came to power, undertook an official visit to Washington and was able to convince president Bill Clinton that Washington needed to reassess its policy because its punitive approach had not worked. Clinton was to later publicly acknowledge that it was unfair to keep both Pakistan’s money and the F-16s it had paid for.


It was then that Senator Hank Brown informed me — as mentioned in the book — that he intended to move an amendment to the Pressler legislation to lift the ban on economic assistance to Pakistan and release all embargoed military equipment including the F-16s. Between then and the success of the Brown Amendment, for which the Pakistan Embassy lobbied hard, the Clinton administration tried to secure a unilateral nuclear concession from Pakistan in return for supporting the amendment. 


Pakistan refused, including the proposal to “cap” its nuclear weapons programme in exchange for release of the F-16s. I was present in meetings during the visit of army chief Gen Waheed Kakar to Washington when he flatly told the Americans that as “Pakistan’s national security was non-negotiable” they could keep the planes. In the end, the Brown Amendment was adopted, economic sanctions lifted and military equipment worth $368 million was released except the F-16s. 


Akram details the talks between the US and Pakistan before and after Pakistan’s nuclear tests that followed India’s in 1998. Later chapters again pick up the theme of nuclear discrimination, discuss the 2005 Indo-US nuclear deal and the implications for Pakistan of this “nuclear exceptionalism”.


Pakistan’s response and plan to achieve ‘full spectrum deterrence’, announced in 2011, is also appraised with clarity. Accounts of Pakistan’s bilateral and multilateral nuclear diplomacy contain many useful insights. Important as the nuclear capability has been to provide Pakistan with the means to deter external aggression, an important conclusion of the book is that nuclear deterrence cannot deal with internal challenges which Pakistan is facing. That in turn can weaken deterrence.
Reply
#90
EUROPE FACES CONFRONTING OLDER BURIED CONFLICTS RESURFACING. THE GREEK - TURKISH FAULTLINE WILL BE REHEARSED WHICH THREATENS TO DIVIDE AND DISRUPT NATO.  

ATHENS WARNS NATO, UN AFTER ERDOGAN's INVASION THREAT AS EUROPE FOCUSES ON UKRAINE


ERDOGAN: GREECE MUST STOP MILITARISING AEGEAN ISLANDS
GREECE 'TURNING INTO HUGE US BASE': GREEK MP

https://www.trtworld.com/europe/greece-t...k-mp-57991





GREECE Vs TURKEY



ATHENS WARNS NATO, UN AFTER ERDOGAN's INVASION THREAT AS EUROPE FOCUSES ON UKRAINE



GREEK AND TURKISH NAVIES FACE OFF IN THE AEGEAN


TURKEY’s POWER IN THE MEDITERRANEAN


MAPPING THE RISE OF TURKEY’s MILITARY REACH





HOW GREECE's MILITARISATION OF AEGEAN ISLANDS VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL LAW
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/how-gr...-law-58276

From the Montreux convention to Lausanne Peace Treaty, Greece is showing no regard for any international agreements, reversing all the diplomatic gains between Ankara and Athens and fanning regional tensions.


Earlier this month, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced suspension of bilateral ties with Greece over what he described as “militarisation” of islands on the eastern Aegean Sea in violation of international agreements. In hard-hitting comments, Erdogan later reminded Athens about the Turkish war of independence when the Turks had defeated the combined military of the occupying forces that included Greece.

Greece claims that its actions are within the purview of global norms and that it had the right to act in self-defence.On the other hand, Türkiye insists that Greece has violated international treaties and its obligations under international law. But what do the international treaties say about the demilitarised status of the islands? A closer look at the rules of international law and provisions of international treaties that regulate the demilitarised status of the islands disprove Greece’s claims and show that Athens is indeed violating international law.

For a clear picture, the group of islands can be grouped into three, considering the international treaties that regulate their legal status.North-eastern Aegean Islands and Central Aegean Islands.  As per Article 13 of the Lausanne Peace Treaty (1923), any naval base and fortification cannot be established on the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Nikaria. Considering these restrictions’ purposes, namely ‘ensuring the maintenance of peace’ and preventing attempts for aggressive preparations, Article 13 implies these islands’ demilitarisation, which includes not establishing an army base, naval base and air base.

In addition to those restrictions, Article 13 stipulates that “the Greek military forces in these islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service”. ‘Normal contingent’ implies that Greek military forces on these islands could consist only of people from these islands who can be conscripted for an officially determined duration, which is presently between 9 to 12 months.

Moreover, the number of police and gendarmerie will be in proportion to the number of those existing in the rest of Greece. Therefore, having police and gendarmerie forces is limited to the purpose of keeping peace on these islands.

Lemnos and Samothrace 
Article 4 of the Lausanne Convention Relating to the Regime of the Straits (1923) requires demilitarisation of the islands of Lemnos and Samothrace. Within the scope of demilitarisation, no fortifications, no permanent artillery organisation and no military aerial organisation are allowed on these islands. Moreover, no armed forces shall be stationed except the police and gendarmerie forces that are necessary for the maintenance of order.

Greece claims that the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits (1936) terminated the Lausanne Convention, and since the Montreux Convention does not have any provision regarding demilitarisation of Lemnos and Samothrace, the rule on demilitarisation does is no longer valid for these islands.

First and foremost, however,  the Montreux Convention does not have any explicit provision that indicates ‘termination’ of the Lausanne Convention.

Secondly, the subject and scope of the Montreux Convention are not the same as the Lausanne Convention’s. Therefore, since the termination of the Lausanne Convention would mean leaving some issues unregulated, it is difficult to infer ‘termination' of the Lausanne Convention from the wording of the Montreux Convention.

Finally, the Montreux Convention aims at regulating the status of straits and ensuring Türkiye’s security. Also, the legal status of Lemnos and Samothrace is determined differently under the Lausanne Peace Treaty than the legal status of the areas under Türkiye’s sovereignty. For these reasons alone, even if the Montreux Convention ended the demilitarised status of some areas under Türkiye’s sovereignty, it is reasonable to expect the continued demilitarised status of Lemnos and Samothrace.

The Dodecanese Islands
The Dodecanese Islands include Stampalia, Rhodes, Calki, Scarpanto, Casos, Piscopis, Nisyros,  Calimnos, Leros, Patmos, Lipsos, Symi, Cos and Kastellorizo. Article 14 of the Paris Peace Treaty (1947) sets forth that these islands shall be and shall remain demilitarised. The demilitarisation provision prohibits any naval, military, air installations, fortifications and armaments in the territory and territorial waters concerned.

Considering the relevant treaty provisions, it is obvious that Greece’s breach of these provisions is a violation of international law. Moreover, the Paris Peace Treaty establishes an objective regime regarding the demilitarised status of these islands. Therefore, contrary to Greece’s claims, Türkiye has the right to demand that the demilitarised status of these islands be respected.

Are Greece’s claims justified? 
Greece claims that provisions regarding demilitarisation of the islands lost their raison d’être and there is a change in circumstances. Therefore, the demilitarisation provisions are no longer applicable. Moreover, Greece claims that militarisation of the islands falls within its right to self-defence, therefore it is in compliance with international law. However, there is no legal basis for such claims.

Greece claims that there  was a change in the conditions when the  islands’ demilitarised status was determined. Because, afterward, Greece and Türkiye signed treaties of friendship and both countries joined NATO. Since those reduce the high risk of military confrontation and  constitute the raison d'être of demilitarisation, there is no justification in the clause that calls for disarming the islands.

However, Greece’s claims are not valid since the conditions necessary for ending the demilitarised status does not apply. Because, first of all, there has to be a fundamental change to end the demilitarised status of islands. But the fact that the relationship between the two countries is getting better is not a fundamental change. Similarly, NATO membership does not constitute a fundamental change that would eliminate the high risk of military confrontation. 

Second, such changes do not radically transform the extent of parties’ obligations as would be necessary.

Lastly, the existence of those circumstances did not constitute an essential basis for Greece and Türkiye to be bound by the Lausanne Convention and other treaties that include provisions to regulate the demilitarised status of islands. Because all of these were multilateral treaties and conventions that address not only relations between Greece and Türkiye but also bilateral issues between other signatory countries, such as Türkiye’s borders, Ottoman loans, or minorities. For these reasons alone, Greece cannot change the islands’ demilitarised status.

Claims on self-defence 
The exercise of the right of self-defence in international law is subject to limitations. As per Article 51 of the UN Charter, if an armed attack occurs against a country, a country has a right to self-defence until the UN Security Council takes measures. 

Considering this, Greece’s claims are not in compliance with international law. Athens bases its right to self-defence on alleged violation of the Greek air space and Türkiye’s maintenance of military units, aircraft and a landing craft on the coast of Asia Minor. However, it is not possible for these events to qualify as an armed attack since there is no physical hostility between the two countries.

The right to self-defence can be exercised for a limited time, i.e., until the UN Security Council takes necessary measures. Therefore, Greece, claiming to exercise the right to self-defence, cannot arm the islands with military might for an indefinite time.

For all practical purposes, Athens’ claims on the Aegean Islands hold no water. All evidence points to it.



ERDOGAN: TURKIYE AMONG 10 NATIONS ABLE TO LOCALLY BUILD AND MAINTAIN WARSHIPS

https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/erdogan-...hips-53663



Turkiye's first reconnaissance vessel, TCG Ufuk, is built with national engineering capabilities, Turkish President Erdogan says. The vessel can cruise non-stop for 45 days under severe climate and sea conditions, including through international waters. (AA) Turkiye is among 10 countries in the world with the national capabilities to design, build, and maintain a warship, the country's president has said.  Recep Tayyip Erdogan attended the commissioning ceremony of an indigenously built testing and training ship, the TCG Ufuk, at the Istanbul Maritime Shipyard on Friday.



"Our country's first reconnaissance ship, Ufuk, was built via national engineering capabilities," said Erdogan, adding that Turkiye had made a good start to the year with important advances in critical defence industry projects.Built by the Turkish defence industry, the TCG Ufuk is a corvette and the latest addition to the nation's security forces.The vessel can cruise non-stop for 45 days under severe climate and sea conditions, including through international waters.



Defence exports to exceed $4B



In his speech, Erdogan said that thanks to its defence industry purchases and advances, Turkiye had become "a playmaker in its region and a country that spoils the dirty games" of other actors. Emphasising that the number of countries using defence industry products made in Turkiye was increasing every year, Erdogan said, "We expect our defence and aviation exports to exceed $4 billion by the end of this year."  Until recently, the country imported vertical launch systems — the main weapon group of its frigates — but now has homegrown systems, Erdogan underlined.  So far, the country has exported 180 naval platforms to 25 countries, he added.





Navy to be further strengthened Erdogan said that four frigates built domestically under the country's national warship program MILGEM, including the TCG Istanbul, which is currently under construction, would be equipped with indigenous air defence missiles vertical launch systems.He also stressed that Turkiye would further strengthen its navy over the next two years, adding that bidding on its TF-2000 destroyer would begin soon.



"We're putting into service our amphibious ship Anadolu, on which we can conduct air operations with helicopters and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) that we will deploy, and which will have a striking effect on our sea and air power."  Touching on the country's space-related efforts, Erdogan said, "Our eyes are on space. We continue to work on developing both launch systems and satellite systems in space."





ERDOGAN: TURKIYE's FIRST INDIGENOUS FIGHTER JET TO ROLL OUT IN 2023



https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/erdogan-...2023-53384



The warplane, called Turkish Fighter, will take its maiden flight in 2025 and will be deployed in 2029, President Erdogan tells a gathering in capital Ankara.  Turkish fighter jet, or TF-X, is the first indigenous aircraft that aims to compete its fifth-generation class warplanes. (AA)



Turkiye's ambitious plans to expand its defence sector have taken a further step with the nation's president announcing the unveiling of the country's first indigenous combat aircraft in 2023.



President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who attended the opening ceremony for national technologies and new investments in Ankara on Thursday confirmed the timeline for the jet.The warplane, called Turkish Fighter or TF-X, will make its maiden flight in 2025, Erdogan said.



Sixteen factories will operate in the Space and Aerospace Industry Zone in the capital Ankara, an engineering hub for manufacturing the groundbreaking jet fighter.  "It will take its place in the skies in 2029 as the strike force of the Turkish Air Force, after successfully completing its test procedures," said Erdogan.  Some 2,300 engineers involved in the project will carry out their work at this hub, he added.



Country among elite club 





Turkiye is among the elite club of the 10 countries of the world that can design and build their own warships and is also among the top three drone producers, Erdogan said.  



Touting the growth of Turkiye's defence industry over the last two decades, under the rule of his Justice and Development (AK) Party, Erdogan said the number of its defence industry projects topped 750.


Erdogan said their budget also jumped to $75 billion and annual turnover rose to $10 billion.Separately, Turkey is developing its supersonic aircraft, Hurjet, which aims to have both advanced training and light combat capacities. The government is set to complete domestic design and development of the TF-X by 2029, which will replace the aging F-16 fleet of Turkish Air Force.Turkey is planning to keep the TF-X operational in the Turkish Air Force's inventory until 2070s, according to Turkish Aerospace Industry.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)