Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
101

Spoken like a true apologist for ethnic cleansing.

Forget the terrorist campaign carried out by the Irgun and the Haganah. Forget the fact that the Jewish Agency had discussed the need to dispossess and expel the Palestinians from any future Jewish state as early as the 1930's. Forget the fact that the expulsions began long before any Arab armies invaded Israel. Forget the fact that the UN partition plan gave the Palestinians 45% of the total land when they made up nearly 70% of the population. Forget the fact that it would have economically devastated hundreds of Palestinian villages, by cutting them off from their farmland (and therefore the primary source of their livelihood). Those civilians practically forced the Zionists to ethnically cleanse them. Truly disgusting.

Since when? Several Romani nationalist organizations have put forward plans for Romani homelands, but to no avail. Perhaps they aren't morally bankrupt enough to believe that they have the right to dispossess and exile millions of people to establish a state?

The point was to counter this nonsensical idea that Jews were somehow unique among humanity in their lack of a homeland, which you continue to repeat ad nauseaum as a rationalization for war crimes and ethnic cleansing.

And retain a distinct ethnolinguistic identity from the majority populations in those countries even today, speaking a distinct Andalusian dialect of Arabic with heavy Spanish and Portuguese influences.

Like I said - Jews are not unique in terms of their history of oppression/exile,or lack of a "homeland" where they constitute a majority of the population, etc. Others have suffered similar fate without seeking the right to ethnically cleanse part of the world to create a nation.

I suggest you go and look-up what a Bantustan is. Based on what territory in the West Bank is under the administration of the Palestinian Authority today (and would likely constitute the proposed Palestinian state), we see several discontinuous tracts separated by swaths of Jewish settlements under Israeli control. Nor does the PA territory extend to the Jordan River...which means that the islands of PA territory are surrounded by Israel on all sides. Moreover, Israeli proponents of the two-state solution have made it clear that the Palestinian state would have no army, no control over its airspace, and could only conduct foreign trade under Israeli suzerainty. Some even believe that the Israeli military shouldn't completely withdraw.

That isn't an independent state - its an autonomous Israeli colony for Arabs.

Yes. But surely even you realize that the number of Jews who fled Palestinian territories is dwarfed by the number of Palestinians expelled from Israeli territory.

102

The Ottoman empire has fallen for a reason - it went along the road of many other empires. The non-Turkish provinces rebelled against the Turkish rule and kicked them out. This includes the population of the Levant. So, why should only the Jews be blamed for lack of respect toward the Ottoman imperial rule over the Levant in general and the Land of Israel in particular.

The the real legacy is the People of Israel, a nation that has survived outside of their home for all that time. It is not a myth, it is a reality.
You are right that usually **a people that gains independence inhabited the land continuously for some time prior to independence. However, it was not the case with Jews who were in double trouble. They have both lost their independence **and were dispersed out of their original homeland. Does not seem fair to hold this unfortunate circumstances against them.

It is quite understandable. In fact, it is hard to find a nation whose path to independence was not accompanied with hostilities, bloodshed, displacements and dispossession.

103

Actually, creation of an independent Polish state involved displacement, dispossession, and plain killing of large numbers of ethnic Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. The Italian wars of independence were not a picnic either for the mixed population of what's now Northern Italy. I can also mention creation of the independent Greek state and and independent Bulgarian state that resulted in mass exodus of Muslims from the respective areas. Let's not forget the close-to-home example of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was created by carving a big chunk out of India -- a processes that resulted in displacement and dispossession of roughly 15 million people. I can go on and on. As I've mention in another post, you can hardly find a nation whose path to independence was not accompanied by hostilities, displacements and dispossessions.

I should also remind you that in your original statement you have questioned the legitimacy of the Jewish state as a nation state of the Jews, because a nation state "paves the way for entrenched discriminatory policies". I've given you a few example of self-proclaimed nation states, whose legitimacy has never been questioned based on this argument. I can provide a very long list of such states if you wish.

Not entire world, not to mention the professionals. However, the fact that a whole lot of people have very distorted notion of what's happened there is no news to me.
In fact all the territories that ended up under the Arab control were 100% ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence. I guess the best example would be Jerusalem.
About half a century before the rise of Zionism the Jews already made up a majority of Jerusalem population. In fact in 1896, the year when Herzl first published his "The Jewish state", 2/3 of Jerusalem population (what is called East Jerusalem now) were Jews. The Muslims and Christians together made up another 1/3. Yet, when the Old Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan in 1948, all Jewish population of Jerusalem was expelled. It was the first time for over a millennium that the Jewish presence in the Old City of Jerusalem was eliminated. The Jordanians went on and destroyed or turned into stables around 50 ancient synagogues. The 2500-years old Jewish cemetery on the Olive mount was destroyed and the headstones were used for road pavement.
However, when 19 years later the Jews returned to the East Jerusalem the "international community" labeld them as "illigal settlers"! Oh, well...

I understand. It's called confirmation bias. People frequently tend to selectively trust and accept evidence, which confirms their preconceptions. This, in turn, makes their preconceptions even deeper.

104

What you forget to mention is that the bulk of the territory allocated to the Jewish state consisted of the Negev Desert. Most of the populated and fertile land was allocated to the Arab state.
BTW, are the UN resolutions of any significance only if the Arabs approve of them?

The Jewish Agency discussed various possible scenarios.

The primary activities of Haganah (means Defense) were defending Jewish villages and farms against constant raids by the Arab gangs and anti-Jewish riots, which plagued the Jewish community. Its role became critically imortant during the riots of 1929 and 1936-1939. Up until the end of the WWII the official policy of Haganah was "Havlagah" (Restrain). It meant defensive activities only, no counter-attacks and no active seeking out.
Until 1946, Haganah cooperated with the British at capturing the Irgun terrorists. A unit of Haganah participated in the WWII fighting along with the Brits. It was at the same time when the Palestinian Arab leader Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini was busy recruiting Muslims into Waffen-SS.

Toward 1947 Haganah started taking more pro-active measures conducting reprisal attacks, which usually followed by a reprisal attack from the Arabs, which led to another reprisal attack by the Jews and so on. Such a "slow burning" situation continued until the adoption of the Partition Resolution by the UN. The resolution provoked a wave of violence from the Arabs and the situation escalated to a full-blown civil war with battles erupting all over the place.
At this point the Jewish communities turned into your beloved bantustans under siege, withstanding constant attacks, cut off from each other as the Arabs controlled the roads. The main efforts of Haganah at that time was trying to assist the besieged communities, break the blockade and connect them with continuous areas under Jewish control to avoid suffocation.

This created the first wave of refugees who, however, were not expelled, but were trying to escape the hostilities. The main wave of refugees, including from active expulsions, started only after the Jews managed to stop the Arab offensive and went into offensive of their own in 1948.

Really? And what are you trying to say? Are you trying to justify the Arab attempts to push the Jews into the sea? That the Jews had no right to resist it? That the Jews had no right to serve the Arabs the same dish that the Arabs were serving them? That when faced with the choice of "expel or be expelled" those "morally bankrupt" Jews dared to choose the former? That the Jews are guilty because they won? So utterly hypocritical of you.

105

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

Alex:

[quote]
BTW, are the UN resolutions of any significance only if the Arabs approve of them?
[/quote]

Are the UN resolution of any significance only when establishment of Zionist apartheid regime is concerned?

I disagree.
This issue involves one of the holiest sites of Islam. Occupation of Makkah will be considered an Islamic issue. It won't be called a Saudi issue alone.

So yes it involves Arab people, but fundamentally it is a religious issue for all Muslims.

106

Again, which of the countries you named was formed though the dispossetion and ethnic cleansing of the majority ethnic community, who had lived on the land as a majority community for millennia past. It is not a remotely analogous situation. Moreover, unlike in this case, few people seem to justify and rationalize the actions of the Nazis and the Soviets, who were responsible for most of those deportations in Poland.

Another laughable example. Pakistan was carved only out of those areas of the Indian Subcontinent that had large Muslim majorities for centuries. It was also only created after most of the population in those areas were given the opportunity to vote on the issue, and overwhelmingly demonstrated their support for the formation of Pakistan at the polls. Horrific sassacres and poplation transfers did occur as a result of the breakdown of law and order, but unlike in Israel (which basically needed to disenfranchise and/or ethnically cleanse the Palestinians to form a "Jewish state"), they were not vital to the creation of either state - Pakistan would have had an overwhelming majority of pro-Pakistan Muslims, and Indian would have had an overwhelming majority of pro-India Hindus regardless of whether any population transfer had occured.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the past massacres of history do not justify modern day war crimes. That is an arguement of moral bankrupcy.

That's an outright, gratuitous** lie**, and nothing more.

Official census data from as late as 1945 shows that Jerusalem was 60% Arab. At this point, it appears that you're not just manipulating data, rather you (or whoever taught you this rubbish) are just lying through your teeth.

Uhhh...was any effort undertaken to ensure that only Jews who were legally present in Jerusalem before the war were "returning"? I think we both know that the answer to that is no. With the exception of those select people, all the other subsequent Jewish settlers (who at this point, likely comprise the overwhelming majority) are illegal settlers as far as international law and the world community is concerned.

No, actually it's called trusting impartial third party sources over the propaganda-laced anecdotes of a biased party with a clear vested interest, as posted on an anonymous internet forum. There's a big difference.

The Zionist state was actually given 2/3 of the coastline, exclusive access to the Red Sea, and most of the fertile land (including the Sharon Plains, and the Jezreel and Jordan Valleys in their entirety).

It's absolutely hilarious to see that you have the audacity to bring up the idea of compliance with UN resolutions, when Israel has made it abundantly clear that it will trample over any resolution that remotely goes against its territorial aspirations. Tell me, how much significance does Israel accord to Resolution 194, guaranteeing the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and monetary compensation for those who are unable to return.

The hypocrisy is utterly amazing.

Who started what is a matter of debate (there are Israeli Zionist historians who believe that the Irgun and the Lehi would engage in a pattern of provocatory acts of terrorism, sparking an Arab reprisal, and subsequent, generally disproportionate severe response from the Irgun/Lehi) - what is undisputed is that the Zionists were not above engaging in gratuitous acts of terrorism - blowing up hotels, restaurants, cafes, marketplaces, and trains, to accomplish their goals.

As for the remainder of your argument, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether people fled because the Israeli govenment officially ordered them to leave, or if they fled in fear for their lives after hearing of Zionist death squads massacring entire villages, and seeing their marketplaces and civillian neighborhoods deliberately mortared by the IDF. I agree, not all the Palestinian refugees were directly expelled by the IDF (though hundreds of thousands were, including the Death March of Lydda), but Israel is no less responsible for the campaign of psychological warfare that drove hundreds of thousands of others to flee their homes.

What are you babbling about?

Please show me the statements I have made in support of any attempts to massacre or exile Zionists. Unlike you with your morally bankrupt thought processes, I don't seek to justify any war crimes, regardless of who committed them, and I certainly don't believe that any historic war crimes justify similar behavior today (something you clearly do believe). Every time you've asked me what I think about the Jewish refugees of the '48 war, I've made it clear that I believe they were entitled to the very same rights as guaranteed by the UN. It is you, and your Zionist compatriots, who seek to justify the sub-human treatment meted out to the Palestinians by your government, and apparently believe that they can be dispossesed and moved around like cattle.

I question the legality (and the morality) of claiming a ethnoreligious nation by illegally immigrating to an area to form a demographically significant population, then accomplishing the rest through a campaign of ethnic cleansing. But although Israel was born out of neo-fascism, and the systematic dispossestion and expulsion of an entire people, I do not believe that gives anyone the right to massacre or disenfrancise anyone today.

107

Oh, yes - majority. Does it mean that displacement and dispossession are OK when they are performed by a majority to a minority, but not vice versa?
And all this majority issue makes a huge difference for the displaced and dispossessed people exactly how?

Nazis and Soviets? I’m talking about creation of the independent Polish state, which took place after WWI. On a more personal note I should mention that my grand-grandfather was hanged by the Poles during their glorious struggle for independence (in 1918).

It is not at all unlike Israel. Israel did not need any of it to form a Jewish state, and from the start the Zionist were prepared to have a Jewish state with a sizable Arab minority. However, it became necessary when it was painfully clear that the Arab world would not accept the Jewish state in any form and shape, and the Jews were faced with the “expel or be expelled” situation.

Really? According to the census of 1986 the population of Jerusalem included 28,110 Jews, 8,560 Muslims, and 8,750 Christians.

Note the UN figures from 1945. Even if you include all neighboring villages and Bethlehem, the Jews still make up 50%!
Now, who is manipulating data and spreading lies?

Umm, when we speak of the Palestinian right of return, what effort is undertaken to ensure that only Palestinians who were legally present in their respective villages in 1948 are entitled to “return”?

And the Arabs state was given all of the Judean hills, Samaria, 1/3 of the cost line, etc. So? It does not change the fact that the bulk of the prospective Jewish state was the dead Negev desert.

Israel has made it abundantly clear that it is skeptical about all of the UN resolutions, because they are merely an outcome of cynical political games. However, all kind of Israel bashers frequently appeal to the “international community”, “international laws” and the lack of Israeli compliance with the UN resolutions. However, when the Partition resolution is brought up, a whole lot of “buts” are immediately evoked. The hypocrisy is utterly amazing indeed.

Illegally?! By what law? Of the British colonial power?
BTW, isn’t it exactly the process that led to formation of a whole lot “ethnoreligious nations” in this world?

I’m “babbling” about the fact that the Jews had to resort to expulsion to prevent the Arabs from expelling them and throwing them into the sea - an action that your either ignore or plainly justify.

You seem to be all for the ethnic cleansing of the contemporary Jewish residents of the West Bank, despite the fact that most of them were either born there or live there from childhood. This is their home and the only home they now and they are in no way responsible that their home is considered illegal by the international law. Isn’t arguing for their expulsion is an attempt to justify ethnic cleansing by the crimes of the past?

What other political cliches with negative connotation can you throw in to support your arguments?

108

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

^gaurav??

109

No, they’re not okay. But Israel’s history does put it in a unique position, and your attempts to draw parallels to it from recent history pretty clearly failed.

And in what democratic nation would a majority community say to a minority group, “please, by all means, begin unfettered immigration to our country, and turn us into a demographically insignificant minority.” In order to be a “Jewish” state, Israel would have had to, at the very least, disenfranchise the Arab population, as their representatives certainly would not have authorized the racist immigration policies of the Zionist state.

According to actual census data, in 1945, Jerusalem District had 253,270 residents of which:
102,520 were Jews (40%)
104,460 were Muslim (41%)
46,130 were Christians (18%)

Which means an overall breakdown of ~40% Jews and ~60% Palestinians.

Palestinian refugees and their descendants are registered with the UN Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees. In any case, the point is moot - Palestinian refugees have never been given the right of return, whereas its completely clear that the Jews settling in the West Bank and East Jerusalem do not, by any stretch of the imagination have to be descendants of people expelled during the war.

It also doesn’t change the fact that, despite forming a minority of the population, the Zionist state received most of the state’s fertile land and most of its coastline, in addition to most of the Naqab desert.

Yes, we all know Israel sees ethnic cleansing as its birthright, and couldn’t care less about the opinions of the international community.

Yes…illegal immigration, massacres of entire villages of unarmed civilians, and ethnic cleansing are all considered illegal in the rest of the world.

And we’ve already demonstrated that processes that lead to the creation of Israel are fairly unique in the modern world.

Really? The unarmed civilians were expelled en masse because if they hadn’t been ethnically cleansed, they would have “thrown the Jews into the sea?” That explains why villages that had entered into peace agreements with neighboring Jewish settlements were massacred (Deir Yassein), and why the expulsions began in villages that had openly declared their neutrality in the conflict (Qisarya).

They know full well that they purchased homes on land that has been taken illegally from the Palestinians, and that outside of the Zionist govenment, no nation or major international body considers their presense there legal. In fact, many settled there precisely with the intention of illegally and irrevocably altering the demographics of the region.. They came to the West Bank because they’re militant Zionists who wanted to be actively lead the movement of seizing Palestinian lands in contravention of international law, and to ensure that no viable, contiguous Palestinian state could ever be formed from those territories. Tell me, how many of those extremists would even WANT Palestinian citizenship if it were offered to them?

I have precisely as much sympathy for their proprietary rights as I do for those of museums and private collectors who purchased works of ark knowing that they were likely stolen from victims of the Holocaust by the Nazis. If they wished to stay in a Palestinian majority state (in the unlikely event that one is ever made in those areas) then arrangements should be made for them to do so - perhaps after fairly compensating the desendants of the people whose land they stole.

110

My focus was the intent of the early Zionists - (was that phrase coined at the time?) - while the Ottoman empire was around. Though, I see your point. Again, the distinction I see was that the Jewish immigrants were settling inside Ottoman territory, and were not akin to Greeks, or other Balkan nations, who were conquered by the Turks.

However, given the outright scheming other European powers and Russia combined with disgruntled peoples who were subjects of the Ottoman empire, I simply don't want to overstate the above point with respect to fact that it was a Jewish-European diaspora that seemed to be spearheading the Zionist movement. That is, I see your point and recognize that the Jews were perhaps nothing but minor players looking out for their own interests and aspirations during the turmoil in the latter days of the Ottoman empire. I merely suggest that those aspirations do not emote with others, who simply think of the modern state of Israel as just that...a modern state with mythic origins...

[quote]

The the real legacy is the People of Israel, a nation that has survived outside of their home for all that time. It is not a myth, it is a reality.

[/quote]

My focus is on the "home" part...when does a home cease to become a home? Though the memory of the homeland lived on in the diaspora, it died amongst other peoples...hence my suggestion that outside of the Jewish community and certain fundamentalist Christian circles, the romanticism associated with Israel is understood as the stuff of mythology...

[quote]

However, it was not the case with Jews who were in double trouble. They have both lost their independence and were dispersed out of their original homeland. Does not seem fair to hold this unfortunate circumstances against them.

[/quote]

The thing is, those who had control of the land were neither the ones who kicked the Jews out in the first place, and had since erased any notion of Israel not through any direct malice, but simply because the concept of this territory bore no relevance to them. The point is, it's difficult to get an outsider to recognize this double trouble situation.

111

The term Zionism was first coined in 1890 and it was adopted as an official name of a political movement in 1897 at what has become known the First Zionist Congress.
I should mention that the Jewish purchases in Palestine started before that. They were mostly accomplished by “Hovevei Zion”, an organization dedicated to revival of the Jewish life in the Land of Israel, which had no political aspirations. In fact the modern Israeli cities of Rishon-LeZion, Rechovot and Hadera were founded by them.
The political goals were first put forward at the First Zionist Congress in 1897. The goal of the Zionist movement as stated by the Congress was,
“Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz*Israel (The land of Israel) secured under public law.”
Note that program did not specify at that point the exact political status of the “home”.
One of the means to attain this goal according to the Zionist program was,
"Preparatory steps toward obtaining the consent of governments, where necessary, in order to reach the goals of Zionism. "
Herzl actually went to the Sultan with his plan in order to get the mentioned consent and even offered to buy Palestine directly from the Sultan - an offer which was rejected.

Mythology is something that’s come from old stories and to which there is no objective proof. The Jewish origin in the Land of Israel is far from being a myth. The history might be old, but it is still history, objectively verifiable and scientifically validated. The ignorance amongst other people regarding the world history does not make it less so.
Besides, the notion that the Jews came from Palestine has always been rather a common knowledge, at least among Christians and Muslims. This is due to the fact that the Jewish history in Palestine has been reflected in their religious traditions.

I should also mention that before it became such a hot political issue, the rejection of Zionism by the Muslims and Arabs was far from universal. Let’s take for example the famous agreement between Emir Faisal (future king of Iraq) and the World Zionist Organization at the after-WWI peace conference in 1919. Here is the quote from Faisal’s letter,
“The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty** welcome home**.” Note the “welcome home” part.
And here is the map of the proposed Jewish home (red line), which Faisal regarded “moderate and proper”.

112

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

^^ emir faisal of iraq was a british dummy mr gaurav!!

113

Yes, it is a unique position, which by no means invalidates the Jewish plight for independence - just like displacements and dispossession did not invalidate independence of other nations. Your "majority over a specific period of time" rule has no rational or moral basis. Its only purpose is to selectively deny the Jewish people the right for independence.

Somewhat reminiscent of the current Muslim immigration to Europe. Yet, expressing this very sentiment in that context is deemed atrociously racist.

As I said, the Zionists were prepared to have a Jewish state with a sizable non-Jewish minority.

And what makes this data "actual"? I gave you a link with references.
Besides, Jerusalem District is not Jerusalem. The district included a much wider area - about half of the West Bank.

It is not at all completely clear. The point you make is indeed moot, since no one checks who is descendant of whom. Every Jewish Israeli in East Jerusalem is considered an illegal settler simply by virtue of being a Jewish Israeli.
It is interesting that the old city of Jerusalem, which had been practically a Jewish city prior to the war, had been completely ethnically cleansed of all Jews and no one seems to care. Moreover, the Arabs who took the place of the expelled Jews during the Jordanian occupation had never been "awarded" the title of "illegal settlers". Yet, when the Jewish presence was restored merely 19 years later, it was decried as a "war crime".

BTW, I'd like to draw you attention to the word "ethnic" in "ethnic cleansing". It is not "individual cleansing" or "familial cleansing". It is ethnic. This action is directed against an ethnic group as a whole, not just individuals. Therefore, its implications go far beyond some people losing their private property or inheritance. So, the whole "descendants" argumentation is totally inappropriate in this context.

No, the Arab state received most of the fertile land. After you exclude the Negev desert, the remaining territory allocated for the Jewish state was by far smaller than that of the Arab state.

Again. Illegal by what law? There was nothing illegal about Jewish immigration to Palestine (the British occupation laws notwithstanding).

The fact is that a great number of nations in this world have been created throw this exact process that you've mentioned - migration of an outside population into certain region until they become a majority and eventually have their own state their. For instance, this process is responsible for the fact that the Arab states are not limited to Arabia. Then, we have almost all of the states on the American continents, from Canada to Argentina. I can also mention the Turkish Cyprus and Kosovo in Europe, and I can go on.
Yet, I agree that the creation of Israel is indeed fairly unique. I can point out 2 major distinctions.
Usually, this nation formation process of that kind starts with a military conquest and then followed by moving in of the new population backed up by the military force of the conquering power. This is what happened in all the examples I've mentioned. However, the Jews came to Palestine "Indie style", not on the back of a military conquest, and the conquering powers actually resisted the Jewish immigration rather than assisted it.
The second important distinction is the fact that the land the Jews were coming to was not at all new to them. They were returning to the land where they used to be a dominant population for hundreds of years.
These facts make the creation of Israel even more justified than creation of most of the states in this world.

On the other hand, the Druze population was not harmed in any way by the Jews. Their towns and villages were not attacked and none of them was expelled from the Jewish state despite their "non-Jewishness". This is because they refused to side with the Arabs and really remained neutral.

I think I was clear. Most of these settlers were either born there or brought there as children. These settlements are their home, the only home. They did not purchase anything or steal anything. All their "fault" is that they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, you have no problem expelling them from their homes.

114

And what made him, a hero of the Arab revolt and a passionate Arab nationalist, a "British dummy" compared to other Arab leaders of that time?
BTW, is "gaurav" supposed to be an insult of some kind? If it is, it completely misses the target since I don't know what it means.

115

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

The word “Zionist” itself is an insult. It reminds people of apartheid, racist regime.

It’s good that this Zionist presented himself fully in this thread. Now every reader can see their two-faced racist ideology and why that apartheid state needs to be scrapped off the map. بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود

دوستو، میرے خیال میں تو ان صیہونیوں سے مغز ماری کرنے کا کوئ فائدہ نہیں ہوتا۔ صرف اپنا وقت ہی برباد ہوتا ہے۔اگر ان میں انسانیت ہوتی تو یہ لوگ وہاں آباد ہی نہ ہوتے۔ ان سے انصاف کی توقع رکھنا اپنے آپ کو بے وقوف بنانا ہے۔
ہمیں اپنا کام کرتے رہنا چاہئیے۔ پاکستان اور عالم اسلام کو ترقی دینی چاہیئے، اور اغیار پر تکیہ کرنا ختم کرنا چاہیئے۔
جب تک ہم یہ نہیں کر سکتے اس وقت تک یہ ظالم ایسے ہی ہمارا سر کچلتے رہیں گے، اور ہم احتجاج کے علاوہ کچھ نہیں کر سکیں گے۔

116

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

bhai Khoji,

do you even realize that the more you talk about israel and zionism, the more you associate yourself with global Jihad?

F the Z's and F the P's. Let them bring peace for each other, or destroy each other.

We have our own problems in Pak. Shias getting killed by Sunnis precisely because of the global Jihadi's hatred for other sects and religions.

It is time for us Paks to stop. Otherwise the death and destruction will only increase in Pakistan while we'd contribute nothing in the problem between Z's and P's.

Thank you

117

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

burqa:

[quote]
do you even realize that the more you talk about israel and zionism, the more you associate yourself with global Jihad?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Talking about Israeli occupation of Quds is in no way related to global fasad (not 'jihad').

[quote]
It is time for us Paks to stop.
[/quote]

Pakistani Muslims will stop talking about Islam's holy lands when they cease to be Muslims.
Pakistan's problems have nothing to do with it. Those are two separate issues. Kharijis will kill/hate shias and sunnis whenever they can. This is history. And this history goes beyond the last 60 years of sehooni existence.

We should not support terrorism and mass-murders even in the case of Israel. And this policy is 180º different from fasaadi policy of OBL AND racist apartheid regime.

There is another reason why I think global Qaeda-related terrorism and resistance to Zionist occupation are different. Qaeda's condemnation of Zionist entity is merely lip service. While they have come up with hundreds of plans against many Western targets all around the world, there hardly has been any attack from them against Zionist regime itself.

118

chalo ji,

Jaisy aap ki khushi.

Ummeed hai keh aaap ko pata lug jai-ay ga 15-20 saal baad (shaa-yad).

For Pakistanis there is just one holy land. And that is Pakistan.

If we cannot protect it, cherish it, and save it from potential dangers, then every other slogan of holy-poly-roly land is just that! bunch of hot air.

bunch of nara-bazi.
bunch of Mullah-bazi.

And if you want to continue that, then who am I to tell you otherwise.
Just like if someone tells you,

Do not "play" with fire and hatred, it will consume you first before hurting anyone else.

119

Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip

burqa:

[quote]
For Pakistanis there is just one holy land. And that is Pakistan.
[/quote]

Holy lands are what are related to religion. Please go read the meaning of the word 'holy'. I can post a link if you don't know where to find dictionary.
Pakistan is our beloved country.

[quote]
And if you want to continue that, then who am I to tell you otherwise.
[/quote]

Ok. Thank you very much. Now shooo. Go away.

[quote]
Do not "play" with fire and hatred, it will consume you first before hurting anyone else.
[/quote]

There is no hatred. Just some facts.

120

All this religious hatred, and you still don't see it?

Sad. Truly sad.

May be when Allah swt close down the ears and brains, the summun bukmun condition prevails and people cannot see all the death and destruction. Pakistan is burning down in the hands of Pakistani religious fundoos. And yet you refuse to see it. One sect imported the fire from Iran and then the second group imported even worse hate form Saudi.

Instead of saying goodbye to the holy $hite and holy land cr@p, and concentrating on rebuilding Pak, good people like you continue on with the same old same old.

And to make the matters worse, you want to stoke the fire with even more fuel this time imported in the name the fing Z's and fing P's.