Joint Defense Agreement: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, news & updates

Desert said:
I think the last time Egypt had war war with Turkey was in 1840 right? When we invaded southern Turkey and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians .. Right?

And anyone can pass from suez becuase we dont have war with u currently but you paid for the crossing : ))

Have a good night
Click to expand...

Classic deflection.
First of all, it wasn’t “Türkiye.” It was the Ottoman Empire. And for roughly 735 years, in one form or another, the land was under Turkish rule. You only got your so-called independence when that empire was already in its deathbed, after Western powers trained what was left of your forces.
And no, you didn’t “When we invaded southern Turkey *Ottoman* and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians” Let’s correct the fairy "desert" tale:
  • The army you’re so proud of wasn’t even a national Egyptian army. It was built by Muhammad Ali (Kavalalı Mehmed Ali), an Albanian Ottoman governor, not an Egyptian or Arab.
  • That army was modernized by hiring French officers left over from Napoleon’s campaigns. So the “Egyptian military success” of the time was basically French doctrine used by an Albanian vassal against his own weakened overlord.
  • Meanwhile the Ottomans had just abolished the Janissaries in 1826 and were still trying to build a new modern army (Asakir-i Mansure). It was incomplete, undertrained, and lacked a settled command structure.
  • On top of that, Sultan Mahmud II died in 1839 right in the middle of the crisis, leaving the state in both military and political chaos.
So your big historical flex is: An Albanian governor, using French officers, beat a dying empire that was mid reform and without a sultan… and then the European powers still stepped in and forced him back to Egypt. If you look at it from the perspective of historical facts, not the flex you think it is mate

Anyway, still waiting for you to address the actual topic: your modern army’s record and the economy your military has been running into the ground for decades.
 
WARSIDT said:
Classic deflection.
First of all, it wasn’t “Türkiye.” It was the Ottoman Empire. And for roughly 735 years, in one form or another, the land was under Turkish rule. You only got your so-called independence when that empire was already in its deathbed, after Western powers trained what was left of your forces.
And no, you didn’t “When we invaded southern Turkey *Ottoman* and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians” Let’s correct the fairy "desert" tale:
  • The army you’re so proud of wasn’t even a national Egyptian army. It was built by Muhammad Ali (Kavalalı Mehmed Ali), an Albanian Ottoman governor, not an Egyptian or Arab.
  • That army was modernized by hiring French officers left over from Napoleon’s campaigns. So the “Egyptian military success” of the time was basically French doctrine used by an Albanian vassal against his own weakened overlord.
  • Meanwhile the Ottomans had just abolished the Janissaries in 1826 and were still trying to build a new modern army (Asakir-i Mansure). It was incomplete, undertrained, and lacked a settled command structure.
  • On top of that, Sultan Mahmud II died in 1839 right in the middle of the crisis, leaving the state in both military and political chaos.
So your big historical flex is: An Albanian governor, using French officers, beat a dying empire that was mid reform and without a sultan… and then the European powers still stepped in and forced him back to Egypt. If you look at it from the perspective of historical facts, not the flex you think it is mate

Anyway, still waiting for you to address the actual topic: your modern army’s record and the economy your military has been running into the ground for decades.
Click to expand...

Also worth keeping in mind it was the Ottoman Turks who put that Albanian slave in power to begin with.

The "egyption" army was also mostly comprised of Turks, no different wo when the Ottomans faced off against the Mamelukes.

Once the egyption state had to revert to using her own ethnic kin, we've seen the results time and time again.
 
KingQamaR said:
The problem I see. The new alliance is far from being like NATO since there is no UNIFIED COMMAND, no integrated air defence network, no permanently assigned joint standing forces, at least not yet. There is no bloody geographic continuity, which might change if Iran Iraq join, it might evolve into something like NATO, and become a new version of the old Central Treaty Organisation ( CENTIO)
Click to expand...
You also need a clear cut leader e.g. america for NATO or soviet union for Warsaw pact. Not having clear cut leader can cause some issues with direction and goals down the line.
 
Yasser76 said:
After Kuwait I know think Bahrain are keen....

www.dawn.com

Bahrain FM congratulates Dar on Makkah defence pact, expresses desire to visit Pakistan

DPM Dar reiterates Pakistan’s "firm commitment to promoting dialogue and diplomacy to achieve peace and stability in the region and beyond".
www.dawn.com
Click to expand...
Bahrain is a very small island. People go there to do illegal activities that they can’t do in Saudi Arabia (drinking , clubs etc). It’s just over the bridge from Saudi Arabia. I saw that place 12 years ago.

It’s such a tiny country that its presence or absence will make no difference to the organisation’s strength however it might be a good thing for the whole block, politically.
 
Mr X said:
Bahrain is a very small island. People go there to do illegal activities that they can’t do in Saudi Arabia (drinking , clubs etc). It’s just over the bridge from Saudi Arabia. I saw that place 12 years ago.

It’s such a tiny country that its presence or absence will make no difference to the organisation’s strength however it might be a good thing for the whole block, politically.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all Saudis and many Western expats in Saudi go there for "fun".

If it adds another government and more funding, as you say, why not?
 
WARSIDT said:
Classic deflection.
First of all, it wasn’t “Türkiye.” It was the Ottoman Empire. And for roughly 735 years, in one form or another, the land was under Turkish rule. You only got your so-called independence when that empire was already in its deathbed, after Western powers trained what was left of your forces.
And no, you didn’t “When we invaded southern Turkey *Ottoman* and you had to ask for russian and english help to fight the Egyptians” Let’s correct the fairy "desert" tale:
  • The army you’re so proud of wasn’t even a national Egyptian army. It was built by Muhammad Ali (Kavalalı Mehmed Ali), an Albanian Ottoman governor, not an Egyptian or Arab.
  • That army was modernized by hiring French officers left over from Napoleon’s campaigns. So the “Egyptian military success” of the time was basically French doctrine used by an Albanian vassal against his own weakened overlord.
  • Meanwhile the Ottomans had just abolished the Janissaries in 1826 and were still trying to build a new modern army (Asakir-i Mansure). It was incomplete, undertrained, and lacked a settled command structure.
  • On top of that, Sultan Mahmud II died in 1839 right in the middle of the crisis, leaving the state in both military and political chaos.
So your big historical flex is: An Albanian governor, using French officers, beat a dying empire that was mid reform and without a sultan… and then the European powers still stepped in and forced him back to Egypt. If you look at it from the perspective of historical facts, not the flex you think it is mate

Anyway, still waiting for you to address the actual topic: your modern army’s record and the economy your military has been running into the ground for decades.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that the army that invaded turkey ( ottomans) was of french soldiers and officers ?


Disbanding his mercenary
army, he created a fleet and an army of Egyptians conscripted from the peasant class.
-------------------
From Khaled Fahmy's historical analysis ("All the Pasha's Men"):
"The transition to a regular army in Egypt was achieved by implementing mass conscription among the local Egyptian fellahin (peasants).
Click to expand...
---------------------
Is for the modern Egyptian army , well, no country occupies egyptian land now, unlike turkey that has its islands being under greek rule TO THIS DAY.
3995992329.png


 
Last edited:
Desert said:
So are you saying that the army that invaded turkey ( ottomans) was of french soldiers and officers ?


Disbanding his mercenary
army, he created a fleet and an army of Egyptians conscripted from the peasant class.
-------------------
From Khaled Fahmy's historical analysis ("All the Pasha's Men"):

---------------------
Is for the modern Egyptian army , well, no country occupies egyptian land now, unlike turkey that has its islands being under greek rule UNTIL THIS MOMENT.
3995992329.png
Click to expand...

Israel occupies Sinai essentially. Egyptian forces are not permitted heavy equipment there, what would you call that?
 
GoatsMilk said:
Also worth keeping in mind it was the Ottoman Turks who put that Albanian slave in power to begin with.

The "egyption" army was also mostly comprised of Turks, no different wo when the Ottomans faced off against the Mamelukes.

Once the egyption state had to revert to using her own ethnic kin, we've seen the results time and time again.
Click to expand...
Muhammed ali wasnt put in power in Egypt by ottomans .. I think you need to read a little.

He was a leader among albanian patch that came to help Egyptians against the french campaign and later was choosrn by mass egyptians as leader after a revolt against khorshid.

Have a good day.
 
krash said:
What evidence did they provide for that? The "general Islam" was grandfathered into the Muslim League when it emerged from the Aligarh Movement. Non-sectarianism was an explicit doctrine of the movement which was predominantly shaped by Sunni Muslims. It was then codified by Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar, who was also a Sunni, in The Green Book (The founding charter of the All India Muslim league in 1907). The league itself was also predominantly Sunni. They were educated elitists who weren't particularly concerned or involved with sectarianism, its problems in the common masses, or even with their problems in general. It was Jinnah who changed that last bit in 1937. Again, this is not to ignore the League's explicit and continuous stance of representing the collective Muslim minority in British India since the Aligarh Movement.
Click to expand...

Well, you have got it exactly backwards, and both your claims in this post can't stand scrutiny....


First, you are talking about rank and file, Devji about summit/leadership..... Sunnis were around 85% of Indian Muslims, so a Sunni-majority membership is a statistical inevitability that explains nothing........ What needs explaining is why that Sunni-majority body kept placing Ismaili Imams, Bohra industrialists, Shia Rajas and a Khoja barrister at its head and its treasury for 40 years straight, that's the entire lifespan of ML (pre-partition)...... and Devji's answer is that the sect-blind "general Islam" was the one formula under which those men could lead at all.... ML may have emerged from the Aligarh movement, but its leadership, the ones calling the shots from day 1, were from the minority sects....


Second, the actual Sunni religious establishment fought Jinnah's general Islam tooth and nail...... Madani's Deoband, the biggest Sunni clerical body in India, wrote whole treatises declaring the two nation theory un-Islamic and put up candidates against the League in the 45-46 elections..... Maududi, another Sunni stalwart, called a League made Pakistan a kafir government of Muslims and declared voting itself haram..... The Ahrar coined Kafir-e-Azam for Jinnah and after losing in 46 openly said "Madhe Sahaba" should be used as a weapon against the League, a direct sectarian attack on his Shia background.....


So the custodians of Sunni orthodoxy didn't produce the League's sect blind Islam, they declared war on it, and attacked its leader sectarianly, which proves Devji's point better than anything....


The "general Islam" of the ML was a lay identity built against the clerical establishment, led by an Ismaili Imam, financed by a Shia Raja, and consummated by a Khoja barrister, while the Sunni masses voted for it over their own muftis' fatwas..... That's not a Sunni clerical doctrine grandfathered in, that's the double minority thesis in action....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 36 (members: 6, guests: 30)

Pakistan Defence Latest

Country Watch Latest

Latest Posts

Share this page

Back
Top