Pakistan and the Islamic Coalition

[Valar Dohaeris]

Yes, so is it one or not up to that level yet?

We sincerely hope that it might, but current scenarios dont offer suitable atmosphere for Caliphate all the way neither is there any need for that. Even a consolidated union based on common interest is more than enough to give enemy its due share of insomnia.

Details: the hindian is trolling

I know.

 

[BATMAN]

A true coalition for now is a pipe dream. And until and unless Iran, Iraq and Syria are included, and the war in Yemen ended immediately, this will never be a real coalition that lives up to its name.

If the stated purpose is to fight terror and ISIL in particular, then it's a welcome move, but one has to wonder the allegiance of local powers to other unsavoury organisations such as Al Nusrah, and all their support for sectarian factions, as well as the aforementioned war in Yemen. The situation in Syria and the coalition members support for rebel groups and involvement is another affront to any real notions of a coalition.

Pakistan should remain strictly neutral on any attempted sectarian shit-shovelling that can and will go on, and steer clear of any stated support for any faction or party in either Syria or Yemen. Those are not our conflicts, and the problems the Saudis and other Arabs have with the Iranians, and vice versa, are not our problems.

Also, I'm not sure why the author of the article keeps citing the US' clear failure in the war on terror, and why he keeps citing the disapproval of Muslims in the region to US hegemony as motivation for this coalition. That's a great joke, this coalition as with any coalition the Saudis are involved with comes with Uncle Sam's stamp of approval, they probably played some role in setting it up for all we know. Of course there isn't anything wrong with that per se, depending on your opinions on the matter, but let's not kid ourselves here.

Coalition... apparently is moving forward day by day. While, you are... surely having wrong opinion about it.

It's sole purpose is to address the Isis threat, it's purely natural for its master minds to have troubles with it.


Pakistan is in state of sectarian black mail, this is why thus far no active service officer is deputed. Hence, technically you are wrong here as well.


Once formulized.... i don't see why coalition forces should, exclude those areas from their operational limits, which are strongholds of Isis. i.e. Iraq, Syria, Yemen.


Article is published in Hilal Magazine, which is read keenly by the CIA/RAW/.... etc. etc. so you need not to invoke uncle SAM.

BTW.... author is thorough professional and has no parallel in Pakistan, otherwise, i don't know what’s your beef with him.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Details: the hindian is trolling

Not conducive to a fair discussion.

We sincerely hope that it might, but current scenarios dont offer suitable atmosphere for Caliphate all the way neither is there any need for that. Even a consolidated union based on common interest is more than enough to give enemy its due share of insomnia.


I know.

Okay. Let's see. To be honest, if that succeeds, we may see a third power (greater than PR China) in the world.

 

[Valar Dohaeris]

Okay. Let's see. To be honest, if that succeeds, we may see a third power (greater than PR China) in the world.

This is beyond any doubt.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

This is beyond any doubt.

Truth be told, that sounds like the deathknell for at least two countries, if the experiences of the past Caliphate is kept in mind/taken into account. Anyway, let's see, time will tell. Good morning/night. Signing out.

 

[BATMAN]

I mean, is there going to be a religious framework for this Union(Caliphate?) or is this just a NATO like collaboration?

This coalition is there from long time... but if you are so ill informed as you show.. google it or write on appropirate thread.
If you have objection to gen. Raheel Shareef's role, than this is the right place and we are listening!

Details: the hindian is trolling

You see... allowing Indian trolling on this subject... is in interests of mods.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

If you have objection to gen. Raheel Shareef's role, than this is the right place and we are listening!

On the contrary. Pakistan is the only military power in the coalition. Arabs have (thankfully) forgotten to fight.

You see... allowing Indian trolling on this subject... is in interests of mods.

Why do you assume that? Imagine my flags are 'American' or 'Puerto Rican'.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Coalition... apparently is moving forward day by day. While, you are... suerly having wrong opinion about it.
It's sole purpose is to address the Isis threat, it's puerly natural for its master minds to have troublets with it.

Pakistan is in state of sectarian black mail, this is why thus far no active service officer is deputed., hence technically you are wrong here as well.

Once formulized.... i don't see why should coalition forces, exclude those areas from their operational limits, which are strongholds of Isis. i.e. Iraq, Syria, Yemen.

Article is published in Hilal Magazine, which is read keenly by the CIA/RAW/.... etc. etc. so you need not to invoke uncle SAM.
BTW.... author is thorugh professional and has no parallel in Pakistan, otherwise, i don't know what's your beef with him.

You've not addressed any of the issues I've raised here, if your objection is with my less than supportive stance or scepticism, then our differences are ideological.

The issues I raised were with the author on two parts, he claims that this has nothing to do with sectarianism. If that is the case, then Iran, Iraq and Syria would be invited. They are not, the author states 'security' concerns of regional Arab countries. And that's fair, but he of course knows well that the root of those is sectarian in part.

Evidence of that is below:

Explaining the rationale for this set-up, they say the proposed alliance would fight terrorists in “Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan” – thereby suggesting a wider field of its operations and against terrorist outfits of all descriptions.

On the other hand, Hakeem Azameli, a member of the Security and Defense Commission in the Iraqi parliament qualified the initiative as “a sectarian coalition”.

http://www.euronews.com/2015/12/15/...ink-about-saudi-arabia-s-coalition-initiative

The second point I disagree with is how he's framed this coalition as a response to a dislike of the US' methods, I'm telling you that the US is probably going to be heavily involved and probably has already given it, its seal of approval. So the author makes no sense here.

And evidence of that is here:

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter welcomed the announcement after arriving at Incirlik airbase in Turkey on Tuesday at the start of a regional tour designed to drum up support for the U.S.-led campaign against Islamic State.

"We look forward to learning more about what Saudi Arabia has in mind in terms of this coalition," he told reporters.

"But in general it appears it is very much in line with something we've been urging for quite some time, which is greater involvement in the campaign to combat ISIL (Islamic State) by Sunni Arab countries," Carter added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-security-idUSKBN0TX2PG20151215

So two parts of the article I take issue with, it's comments about this being nothing to do with sectarianism, that's a dismissal that's too easily done, and the second part is distancing the US from it.

Try to actually read what I wrote here and in the previous post, your reply didn't make sense me in the context of my previous post either.

 

[BATMAN]

On the contrary. Pakistan is the only military power in the coalition. Arabs have (thankfully) forgotten to fight.


Why do you assume that? Imagine my flags are 'American' or 'Puerto Rican'.

Pak army has been indeed the best in the world... Arabs have strong military setups, but again this allaince includes, Asian nations, African nations and Turkey as well.

For the second part, you may have American flag, but obsession with Pakistan and your english cannot change.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

but obsession with Pakistan and your english cannot change.

It's not obsession mate. It's self preservation. If there is a Caliphate coming up, more powerful than the one we have seen before, it is a source of serious concern for us. History bears witness. That's all.

 

[La ResistanceZ]

A true coalition for now is a pipe dream. And until and unless Iran, Iraq and Syria are included, and the war in Yemen ended immediately, this will never be a real coalition that lives up to its name.

I believe keeping in view the recent geopolitical realignment and forming of axis, such as Russia China and Pakistan, as well as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia. Then General (retd) Raheel Sharif is chosen as a neutral, Who’s been tasked to resolve the outstanding trust deficit between the two states of Saudi Arabia and Iran and bring them both on the same page.

Pakistan is already on the same page with both Russia and China, Going by the Trilateral Meeting that was held recently on regional issues.

Both Saudi Arabia, Iran as well as China and Russia want to resolve the Middle East as well as Afghan conflict. Pakistan is already a close Trusted ally of Saudi Arabia, however keeping in view of the bigger picture, Pakistan rightly decided to remain neutral in the Yemen Conflict it may have annoyed the Saudi but nevertheless they still believe in Pakistan, Also by showcasing our neutrality in the Yemen Conflict we showed the Iranians we can be trusted to be mediators between the two states.

General (retd) Raheel Sharif as the head of the Islamic Coalition will no doubt be acceptable by all sides (Including Saudis and Iranian) As a Professional,experienced and trustworthy person to lead the coalition, which I have no doubt will include Iran, Syria and Iraq in the near further, Ones the trust deficit is resolved. So all the stakeholders can be on the same platform and have equal say in the regional issues and truly fight the foreign funded groups that are sent to destabilise the Eurasia region.

 

[Hiptullha]

And until and unless Iran, Iraq and Syria are included, and the war in Yemen ended immediately, this will never be a real coalition that lives up to its name.

And why would we need Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen to make this an 'Islamic' coalition? What sort of characteristics and features are you using to define which country is 'Islamic' or not? I'm getting the impression that you and many other users seem to believe this can only be an Islamic coalition if it accommodates every country with a sizeable number of Muslims. If this is the case, wouldn't this be an illegitimate coalition until it includes India, with almost 200 million Muslims?

Pakistan should remain strictly neutral on any attempted sectarian shit-shovelling that can and will go on, and steer clear of any stated support for any faction or party in either Syria or Yemen. Those are not our conflicts, and the problems the Saudis and other Arabs have with the Iranians, and vice versa, are not our problems. And though the author may deny it, often times such things reek of sectarianism, and this could still turn out to be a sectarian shit show. Take this for instance:

I disagree, especially with Yemen. The coalition fighting in Yemen is fighting on behalf of the internationally-recognized leader of Yemen who essentially asked the Saudis to intervene in the country. The only 'sectarian shit-shoveling' involved is Iran backing the Houthis because they happen to radical Shias who despise the Jews and the US, just like their backers in Tehran.

Also by showcasing our neutrality in the Yemen Conflict we showed the Iranians we can be trusted to be mediators between the two states.

I recall Pakistan offering to mediate between KSA and Iran in 2015/2016, and just like any other foolish attempt by us to mediate between two bitter enemies, it failed because Iran doesn't take us seriously. How can a state which publicly uses our citizens to fight its foreign wars take us seriously? Pakistan is a joke to them, and it will always be a joke if we don't start taking harsher measures.

 

[Jungibaaz]

And why would we need Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen to make this an 'Islamic' coalition? What sort of characteristics and features are you using to define which country is 'Islamic' or not? I'm getting the impression that you and many other users seem to believe this can only be an Islamic coalition if it accommodates every country with a sizeable number of Muslims. If this is the case, wouldn't this be an illegitimate coalition until it includes India, with almost 200 million Muslims?

Perhaps you've misunderstood my argument.

An Islamic coalition would be one open for any Muslims, not exclusive to one power block like the GCC, not exclusive to one sect. Remember, we're not just talking about Iran here, but all shia representation is absent. And that on its own may not be damning, but if part of the cause is to oppose Iran and its allies. Then there's a sectarian colour and this sectarianism is what has characterised the last 35 years of hell in the Muslim world.

I'm making the case that only sunni nations are coalition partners, and the rhetoric used is sectarian. Therefore calling it an Islamic coalition is a farce. Iran could just as easily set up its own Islamic coalition to oppose this one, including other states that weren't invited like Iraq. And then we'd have two power blocks, both unironically named 'Islamic coalitions' fighting each other, Islamically of course. Do you see the absurdity in this scenario?

Maybe this isn't sectarian, but you must surely understand my utter disdain for any hints of sectarianism in coalitions like this?

I believe keeping in view the recent geopolitical realignment and forming of axis, such as Russia China and Pakistan, as well as Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia. Then General (retd) Raheel Sharif is chosen as a neutral, Who’s been tasked to resolve the outstanding trust deficit between the two states of Saudi Arabia and Iran and bring them both on the same page.

Pakistan is already on the same page with both Russia and China, Going by the Trilateral Meeting that was held recently on regional issues.

Both Saudi Arabia, Iran as well as China and Russia want to resolve the Middle East as well as Afghan conflict. Pakistan is already a close Trusted ally of Saudi Arabia, however keeping in view of the bigger picture, Pakistan rightly decided to remain neutral in the Yemen Conflict it may have annoyed the Saudi but nevertheless they still believe in Pakistan, Also by showcasing our neutrality in the Yemen Conflict we showed the Iranians we can be trusted to be mediators between the two states.

General (retd) Raheel Sharif as the head of the Islamic Coalition will no doubt be acceptable by all sides (Including Saudis and Iranian) As a Professional,experienced and trustworthy person to lead the coalition, which I have no doubt will include Iran, Syria and Iraq in the near further, Ones the trust deficit is resolved. So all the stakeholders can be on the same platform and have equal say in the regional issues and truly fight the foreign funded groups that are sent to destabilise the Eurasia region.

I agree, I would say however, I think you're being too optimistic.
I don't see it getting better anytime soon, last of all I see the Saudis and the Iranians moving on with each other. We'll have to wait and see, but I think a strict neutrality on anything with even a hint of sectarianism is probably Pakistan's best bet, which is why I liked the position we took on Yemen.

 

[PaklovesTurkiye]

Perhaps you've misunderstood my argument.

An Islamic coalition would be one open for any Muslims, not exclusive to one power block like the GCC, not exclusive to one sect. Remember, we're not just talking about Iran here, but all shia representation is absent. And that on its own may not be damning, but if part of the cause is to oppose Iran and its allies. Then there's a sectarian colour and this sectarianism is what has characterised the last 35 years of hell in the Muslim world.

Azerbaijan (A shia country) will join coalition too...Oman has already joined after being neutral regarding KSA and Iran since long time...

 

[Jungibaaz]

Azerbaijan (A shia country) will join coalition too...Oman has already joined after being neutral regarding KSA and Iran since long time...

Azerbaijan hasn't joined yet, it might do in the future. And Oman is not a Shia country, they are Ibadi, different from both sunni and shia.

Anyway, I've said that if this coalition isn't sectarian then it's good, I hope Iran, Iraq and others are eventually included.