Operation Ghazab Lil Haq (Pakistan - Afghanistan War)

[Starlord]

Yep, afghan is cuck of hindu India and use it as insult as well. Ironic

Here afghan remember his hindu ancestors

Their negative IQ cheer leaders in Pakistan thinks they will be fighting Dajjal and liberate Jerusalem lol

 

[hydrabadi_arab]

TTA betray TTP? Drama or real?

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Their negative IQ cheer leaders in Pakistan thinks they will be fighting Dajjal and liberate Jerusalem lol

afghandus are the MOST failed, inferior, backward and prostitute race on the planet.

 

[Master Chief]

Both Afghans and Indians mock the fact that Pakistani Muslims were forced to accept Islam by Afghan invaders when Pakistanis say "we looted" or "invaded" Lahore or Sindh. Indian Hindus ask the same question: "Who is 'we' here?"

You really think we needed "forcing"?

Have you seen Varanasi lately? Never mind that, come to Southall or Toronto to observe the mahaal and ronak your qom has brought with it. We gladly chose to advance ourselves beyond this sprawling idolatry. But why even bring up theological differences here? Are you angling to get us both thread banned?

Let us keep it simple. What were Afghans before they were Muslims? Perhaps they believe they sprang forth from the Garden of Eden itself?

 

[White Privilege]

TTA betray TTP? Drama or real?

That is Afghan media, trying to soW doubt in our resolve as we best them hard. These scums only understand LGB language.

 

[SteppeWolff]

It's shocking that an extremist impoverished shit stain regime is so bold in their open threats against Pakistan. There's no logical reasoning to support it except that they too have realised that our responses range from extremely weak to downright "We dont care and keep suicide bombing us" despite the glaring power assymetry between Pakistan and IEA.

Even the jeets initiate limited wars after a few of their random jeets get smoked in IIOJK. Inaction of our establishment against IEA is treasonous.

 

[hasssanali8998]

It's shocking that an extremist impoverished shit stain regime is so bold in their open threats against Pakistan. There's no logical reasoning to support it except that they too have realised that our responses range from extremely weak to downright "We dont care and keep suicide bombing us" despite the glaring power assymetry between Pakistan and IEA.

Even the jeets initiate limited wars after a few of their random jeets get smoked in IIOJK. Inaction of our establishment against IEA is treasonous.

also when when we do act its after captain and Lts die
not after suicide bombing in mosques , not after a ambush on fc/police or ambush on soldiers but only after Lts and captains die

in short telling IEA , what ever u do is fine with us till u kill captains/Lts ( that limit might even go up as command gets used to this , which they have repeatedly done in the past 6 years )

only chance we act will be if IEA starts chimping on the border again , which they did today (kurram sector)
and even bln has been put on high alert
imagine talis having more balls you do and being more proactive

 

[SteppeWolff]

also when when we do act its after captain and Lts die
not after suicide bombing in mosques , not after a ambush on fc/police or ambush on soldiers but only after Lts and captains die

in short telling IEA , what ever u do is fine with us till u kill captains/Lts ( that limit might even go up as command gets used to this , which they have repeatedly done in the past 6 years )

only chance we act will be if IEA starts chimping on the border again , which they did today (kurram sector)
and even bln has been put on high alert
imagine talis having more balls you do and being more proactive

Bhai wo bhi multiple shahadats hogyi officers ki, warna imma dukka to un becharo ki bhi hoti hain and no higher level response comes.

But with a war happening at home front, the **** tabqa wants to fight in Yemen, and wants to forget about Afghanistan like those cavemen will let you.

Treasonous lot

Edit: Damn saying f*j*et gets censored here now

 

[Oscar]

Both Afghans and Indians mock the fact that Pakistani Muslims were forced to accept Islam by Afghan invaders when Pakistanis say "we looted" or "invaded" Lahore or Sindh. Indian Hindus ask the same question: "Who is 'we' here?"

Considering that Islam started in India in the South with little invasion involved because pre-Islamic Arab traders had connections there - the only Indians that mock it are Hindutva terrorists.

 

[Oscar]

@hydrabadi_arab

Hydra bro,

Why do you guys name your missiles after Afghan heroes?

Regards

This is a historical issue that ties with Muslim identity crisis post end of Mughal rule.
Because the identity issue especially for the muslim ruling/elite class in that time was - empire collapsed, status canno longer come from actually ruling India.
So it shifted to lineage with Syed, Mughal, Pathan, “we came from outside.” Foreign blood became prestige. Local roots became something you downplayed.

Then it was further reinforced(through devolved rather than direct messaging) post 2-nation theory because grassroots messaging had to link it to being "outsiders" who came in conquering from Ghazni or Ghor.


There is reason why Iqbal actually pushed back against this in his couplet on why
yuuñ to sayyad bhī ho mirzā bhī ho afġhān bhī ho
tum sabhī kuchh ho batāo to musalmān bhī ho

The idea being the muslim aspect has little to do with so called ancestry claims and more to do with your character and practices.

My own(limited) theory is that Muslim rule in India barring Tipu Sultan(awkward exception because he was a territorial ruler of Mysore) was largely the rule of elites who either came from outside the subcontinent or insisted they did and Pakistan’s military national story picked the ghazi from the frontier.

So to conclude that Pakistanis love Afghans or Afghanistan is incorrect - what you have is an inheritance of post mughal elite, sir syed and then a grassroots messaging that needed to overcome the shock of losing status by enforcing that they were "better" than the locals even thought they were also "locals" for the most part.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

Considering that Islam started in India in the South with little invasion involved because pre-Islamic Arab traders had connections there - the only Indians that mock it are Hindutva terrorists.

Islam’s spread in the Indian subcontinent was not primarily through peaceful southern trade.

While early Arab traders did establish coastal contacts in the south, the large-scale expansion across Sindh, Punjab, and northern India occurred through successive military campaigns, beginning with Muhammad bin Qasim’s conquest of Sindh in 712 CE and continuing under the Ghaznavids, Ghurids, and the Delhi Sultanate.

When Pakistani voices use collective language such as “we looted Lahore” or “we invaded Sindh,” they are asserting a shared historical ownership of those conquests. Asking “who is ‘we’?” is a legitimate historical question, not an expression of extremism. Both Afghans and Indians who raise this point are responding to that same collective framing.

Labelling all such critics as “Hindutva terrorists” is a deflection rather than an engagement with the historical record.

 

[Oscar]

Islam’s spread in the Indian subcontinent was not primarily through peaceful southern trade. While early Arab traders did establish coastal contacts in the south, the large-scale expansion across Sindh, Punjab, and northern India occurred through successive military campaigns, beginning with Muhammad bin Qasim’s conquest of Sindh in 712 CE and continuing under the Ghaznavids, Ghurids, and the Delhi Sultanate.

When Pakistani voices use collective language such as “we looted Lahore” or “we invaded Sindh,” they are asserting a shared historical ownership of those conquests. Asking “who is ‘we’?” is a legitimate historical question, not an expression of extremism. Both Afghans and Indians who raise this point are responding to that same collective framing.

Labelling all such critics as “Hindutva terrorists” is a deflection rather than an engagement with the historical record.

What historical record?
Pakistan is 1947 -
Which of these invaders did it for any Islamic causes in the first place?
Yes, Muhammad bin Qasim took Sindh in 712. Yes, the Ghaznavids raided. Yes, the Ghurids and the Delhi Sultanate built states. Nobody serious denies that. The sleight of hand is treating those campaigns as the reason tens of millions of people in Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal became Muslim.

Before 1947 the heaviest Muslim majorities were in eastern Bengal and western Punjab well away from Dehli. The Gangetic plain had centuries of Sultanate and Mughal rule and remained overwhelmingly non Muslim. If armies converted India, the wrong places converted. The reason the frontier belts converted was because of sufi preachers, settlement and social belonging.

So your entire victim argument which hindutva feeds you is that somehow Bin Qasim's small emirate in 712 which left the temples alone and non-muslims payed Jizya instead of converting - suddenly led to mass conversion. It helps your victimhood argument because that is the reality you want - not what actually happened.

Most of the Afghan invaders if you must whine about it - did it for monetary purposes.

If Pakistanis assert shared ownership of those conquests, they are also forgetting that most of the Muslim population here formed much later, under different states, through conversion, intermarriage, and emigration.
There is no continuous “we” from 712 to 1947.

You can reject Pakistani conqueror cosplay without accepting that mythology.
Both can be wrong at the same time.

 

[Aghor Warrior]

What historical record?
Pakistan is 1947 -
Which of these invaders did it for any Islamic causes in the first place?
Yes, Muhammad bin Qasim took Sindh in 712. Yes, the Ghaznavids raided. Yes, the Ghurids and the Delhi Sultanate built states. Nobody serious denies that. The sleight of hand is treating those campaigns as the reason tens of millions of people in Punjab, Sindh, and Bengal became Muslim.

Before 1947 the heaviest Muslim majorities were in eastern Bengal and western Punjab well away from Dehli. The Gangetic plain had centuries of Sultanate and Mughal rule and remained overwhelmingly non Muslim. If armies converted India, the wrong places converted. The reason the frontier belts converted was because of sufi preachers, settlement and social belonging.

So your entire victim argument which hindutva feeds you is that somehow Bin Qasim's small emirate in 712 which left the temples alone and non-muslims payed Jizya instead of converting - suddenly led to mass conversion. It helps your victimhood argument because that is the reality you want - not what actually happened.

Most of the Afghan invaders if you must whine about it - did it for monetary purposes.

If Pakistanis assert shared ownership of those conquests, they are also forgetting that most of the Muslim population here formed much later, under different states, through conversion, intermarriage, and emigration.
There is no continuous “we” from 712 to 1947.

You can reject Pakistani conqueror cosplay without accepting that mythology.
Both can be wrong at the same time.

The historical record is not in dispute on the basic sequence: military conquests opened the door.

Muhammad bin Qasim’s campaign in 712 established the first permanent Muslim political presence in Sindh. Subsequent Ghaznavid raids, Ghurid conquests, and the Delhi Sultanate created the political framework, tax systems (including jizya), and patronage networks that allowed Islam to take root. Sufi preachers and social processes of conversion and intermarriage were real and important, but they operated inside territories already brought under Muslim rule by force of arms. Without the initial military openings, those later processes would not have had the same scale or political protection.

The geography of conversion does not disprove the role of conquest. Frontier zones and areas of new settlement often saw faster demographic change than the densely populated, long-established Hindu heartlands of the Gangetic plain. That pattern is common in many historical expansions and does not erase the military starting point.

A continuous ethnic or national “we” from 712 to 1947 is indeed modern projection. But when contemporary voices claim collective ownership of those invasions (“we looted,” “we conquered”), they invite the corresponding historical question. Rejecting that cosplay does not require accepting a pure-victim narrative, nor does acknowledging the military foundations of early Muslim rule require denying later conversion dynamics.

Both the conqueror mythology and the “only peaceful Sufis” mythology can be incomplete at the same time. The record includes both conquest and conversion.

 

[Oscar]

The historical record is not in dispute on the basic sequence: military conquests opened the door.

Muhammad bin Qasim’s campaign in 712 established the first permanent Muslim political presence in Sindh. Subsequent Ghaznavid raids, Ghurid conquests, and the Delhi Sultanate created the political framework, tax systems (including jizya), and patronage networks that allowed Islam to take root. Sufi preachers and social processes of conversion and intermarriage were real and important, but they operated inside territories already brought under Muslim rule by force of arms. Without the initial military openings, those later processes would not have had the same scale or political protection.

The geography of conversion does not disprove the role of conquest. Frontier zones and areas of new settlement often saw faster demographic change than the densely populated, long-established Hindu heartlands of the Gangetic plain. That pattern is common in many historical expansions and does not erase the military starting point.

A continuous ethnic or national “we” from 712 to 1947 is indeed modern projection. But when contemporary voices claim collective ownership of those invasions (“we looted,” “we conquered”), they invite the corresponding historical question. Rejecting that cosplay does not require accepting a pure-victim narrative, nor does acknowledging the military foundations of early Muslim rule require denying later conversion dynamics.

Both the conqueror mythology and the “only peaceful Sufis” mythology can be incomplete at the same time. The record includes both conquest and conversion.

Great AI rehash but - whats the point?
You're agreeing with what I have said but deciding to rephrase it so it looks like you came up with the idea.

Which means there is NOTHING MORE TO DISCUSS ON THIS.

You now admit conversion was later and social. You admit there is no continuous “we” from 712 to 1947. You admit both mythologies are incomplete. That was the argument. Relabeling it “conquest opened the door” does not make it yours.

If you have a claim about the present, make it about the present. If you don’t, this is done.