Nuclear MAD Scenario and possible effects in Indo Pak China context

[safriz]

I must also clarify here to both of you here.

1) That there is no such entity called an Irani Parsi

2) That Parsis are those Zoroastrian Persians who never converted. And settled in India around 1300 to 1000 years ago.

Those Zoroastrian Persians who came and settled in India much later (and who speak Dari and not Gujarati) over the past 300 odd years, and by land and not sea, and who run most of the ubiquitous Irani cafes in India, are called Irani Zoroastrians. As we are called Parsi Zoroastrians.

I will of course choose to not get into the docile and non-malignant implied peaceful mass conversion of Zoroastrian Persia that most Muslims are wont to propagate. Especially most Muslims who are descendants of peoples converted under the sword of Islam.

Only the Arabs make no bones about how it was done. Though even there their Abbasids chose to weave many myths in the 300 years post Al Qadisiya.

I do not want to make this a religious thread, but made the post only to clarify a point directly related to my people.

There are close to 150,000 Parsis around the world today. India ceased to be the largest Parsi population sometime when I was growing up. Now the center of Parsis in the world is the USA and Canada, with the second largest population still in India.

There are around 25 million crypto-Zoroastrians still living in Iran. Persians. But who are nominal Muslims in the outside world.

There are another 3-5 million Zoroastrians still living in other once-Zoroastrian nations (Azerbaijan and other central Asians -an's ...).

Of the 7 holiest fires, 5 are housed in India, and 2 still burn in Iran. There are no equivalent fires anywhere else in the world.

Cheers, Doc

yup the sword of Islam is a rubbuish statement. Try converting someone to any religion under threat of being killed and on surface they will convert but wont practice.
In Islam it is understood that even if someone is forced to convert to Islam fearing for their life, they will never be true Muslims.
Also you forgot the Parsi holy fire of Azerbaijan. Plus you should also read how Khusrow of Persian empire being drunk in his power threatened the brand new religion of Islam and waged war against them. Only to be defeated by a sparsely armed, far lower in numbers army of Muslims. Only after that you can give your verdict of "Islam under sword".
It was same as Afghanistan defeating USA and taking over Washington.

 

[vsdoc]

yup the sword of Islam is a rubbuish statement. Try converting someone to any religion under threat of being killed and on surface they will convert but wont practice.
In Islam it is understood that even if someone is forced to convert to Islam fearing for their life, they will never be true Muslims.
Also you forgot the Parsi holy fire of Azerbaijan. Plus you should also read how Khusrow of Persian empire being drunk in his power threatened the brand new religion of Islam and waged war against them. Only to be defeated by a sparsely armed, far lower in numbers army of Muslism. Only after that you can give your verdict of "Islam under sword".
It was same as Afghanistan defeating USA and taking over Washington.

As I said, I am not interested in debating militant imperialist Islam of Muhammad and his followers.

Was just clarifying about Parsis.

Cheers, Doc

 

[safriz]

As I said, I am not interested in debating militant imperialist Islam of Muhammad and his followers.

Was just clarifying about Parsis.

Cheers, Doc

No you must be interested specially when you are making such blatant "Accusations". Militancy is a covert war. While the Islamic invasions were military invasions not Militant Invasions. i. e. open invasions not covert.
To this date the infidels could not swallow the fact that the thousands of years old super power the Persian empire was defeated by a few thousand starving Muslims Who had little military experience and sparely armed,.
However the Parsi / Zoroastrian migration figures you write are correct.
Also the large population of under cover zororastrians retend Muslims of Iran is also correct. Thats the main reason why Irani form of Shia faith despite calling themselves Muslims, obsessively hate Hazrat Omar,the very Muslim Caliph who defeated Zoroastrian Persian empire of Iran.

 

[Kshithij Sharma]

No you must be interested specially when you are making such blatant "Accusations". Militancy is a covert war. While the Islamic invasions were military invasions not Militant Invasions. i. e. open invasions not covert.
To this date the infidels could not swallow the fact that the thousands of years old super power the Persian empire was defeated by a few thousand starving Muslims Who had little military experience and sparely armed,.

Actually, Persia was defeated by byzantine and were weakened. Also, Christianity had taken roots in persia which was patronized by a few high ranker nobility which caused fissure internally.

The twin factor was responsible for fall of persia.

 

[_Anonymous_]

No you must be interested specially when you are making such blatant "Accusations". Militancy is a covert war. While the Islamic invasions were military invasions not Militant Invasions. i. e. open invasions not covert.
To this date the infidels could not swallow the fact that the thousands of years old super power the Persian empire was defeated by a few thousand starving Muslims Who had little military experience and sparely armed,.

Muslim conquest of Persia - Wikipedia

Islamization of Iran - Wikipedia


While the capitulation of Iran to the Arabs was complete in 2-3 decades , full scale conversion to Islam was more gradual lasting about 2 centuries. Wiki is not usually the best source but a decent one as a primer , in case you're really interested in knowing the entire history .

Arguably , in the history of the world , Iran stands out as an exception as there were three known instances where Iran inexplicably collapsed in spite of being the dominant power to external forces in a replay of the David vs Goliath story .The first was Alexander's invasion where his troops were outnumbered by anywhere between 3 to 5 times by the Persian army and in a span of 3-5 years folded up , bringing an end to the glorious Achaemenean saga. That was even more inexplicable than what happened against the Arabs - given the paucity of original material again due to this event occurring in antiquity .

The second being the Arab conquest and Islamisation of Iran and the 3rd being the conversion of the whole populace to Shi'ism during the rule of the Safavids.

The last event is extensively documented though it still remains largely inexplicable by historians about the full conversion of a whole mass of people under duress initially & mostly to a sect of Islam .

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia

However the Parsi / Zoroastrian migration figures you write are correct.
Also the large population of under cover zororastrians retend Muslims of Iran is also correct. Thats the main reason why Irani form of Shia faith despite calling themselves Muslims, obsessively hate Hazrat Omar,the very Muslim Caliph who defeated Zoroastrian Persian empire of Iran.

While Omar is said to have been assassinated by a Persian convert , this practise of cursing the first 3 Caliphs is a Shia tradition which in turn owes itself to the Safavids . Shi'ites were always present in Arabia right from the time of the Caliphs and were always distrusted , frequently persecuted too but were always a marginalised group nowhere near the center of power in the Islamic world till the arrival of the Safavids in ME proper and it's successor state of Iran in modern times .

 

[vsdoc]

No you must be interested specially when you are making such blatant "Accusations". Militancy is a covert war. While the Islamic invasions were military invasions not Militant Invasions. i. e. open invasions not covert.
To this date the infidels could not swallow the fact that the thousands of years old super power the Persian empire was defeated by a few thousand starving Muslims Who had little military experience and sparely armed,.
However the Parsi / Zoroastrian migration figures you write are correct.
Also the large population of under cover zororastrians retend Muslims of Iran is also correct. Thats the main reason why Irani form of Shia faith despite calling themselves Muslims, obsessively hate Hazrat Omar,the very Muslim Caliph who defeated Zoroastrian Persian empire of Iran.

Look bro, I am not interested. I repeat.

Especially not interested to discuss this with the descendants of Indic converts.

Who personally I call the secondary or second-hand converts. And are therefore really not in any position to be commenting on the virtues of peaceful conversion under the sword of Islam.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Narendar Singh]

How does India invade a nuclear armed country and not get annihilated in return? Is Kashmir really that important?

I tried to answer tht question in Nuclear Option- Calling the Pakistani Bluff. Yes, Kashmir is very important for India.

 

[vstol Jockey]

I tried to answer tht question in Nuclear Option- Calling the Pakistani Bluff. Yes, Kashmir is very important for India.

Strategic vision is something completely alien to our policy planners. British decided to create Pakistan as they wanted to retain a bit of India as a future safeguard against Communist USSR which had become far bigger in strength after WW2. The part of Great Game was extended to cold war and Allied forces wanted to deny access to warm water ports to USSR to contain them. Pakistan was created as part of that strategy.
Why did Mountbatton allow Indian forces to recapture Kashmir while his own officers as part of Gilgit Baltistan merged it with Pakistan exactly within 48hrs of J&K acceding to India?
The answer is clear. Thru Gilgit Baltistan, India would have gained direct access to USSR and USSR to India. So they created that break in the geography which joined India with USSR. Our Politicians have till date not realised the potential of Central Asia to India's fuel security and how they can help us reduce our energy bills. The cost of a war with Pakistan with all destruction accounted for will be recovered in less than ten years if we go ahead and librate Gilgit-Baltistan and make them part of India.
Members here are well aware of my views regarding recreating the south Asia of 1880 Circa by dissolving Durrand line and swapping the wakhaan corridor with Afghanistan in lieu by dismembering Pakistan.
We have had traditional relations with those central Asian lands for over ten thousand years and our energy security will come from there only. Wars are not fought only to defend or reclaim lands but also for security of caravan routes and businesses. The day we reclaim Gilgit-Baltistan, Arab world and so also Russia will come begging to our door as they will lose all the oil dollars and their economy will be in shambles. Imagine the price of oil if energy rich Central Asian republics make a direct pipeline to India? Even Dollar will take a massive hit as a consequence.