Pervez Hoodbhoy & Ammar allegedly gave extra marks to PTM supporters 2020

[Taimoor Khan]

Your selective blindness is impressive, more so than your comprehension skills. Academics talk on social issues everywhere. He's just voicing his opinion, and having open discussions. If he's so wrong, why cant you refute him on his face?? Embarrass him in front of everyone, he wont be able to "poison" anyone anymore.

Whatever I said was crystal clear, not bothered a bit if its not going through your thick skull.

You see, the problem with your kind, the hoodboys of this world, they live in their self created hype, the pseudo intellects of Pakistan I would say. Most of them haven't even step outside Pakistan to see how world work, in particular their overlords and ideals in west. Let me repeat, since you very conveniently ignored, "ACADAMICS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INDULGE IN ANY POLITCAL DEBATE". As a teacher, talk politics in front of class, get a boot from the education institution right away. Infact teachers can get reported even if they talk politics in staff rooms. And you know the best bit? If you apply for any teacher job in any educational institution here in UK. You need to get this certificate first:

https://www.gov.uk/request-copy-criminal-record

Its called DBS check. And you know who grant it? The UK police. The long arm of the "establishment". woh boot wallay LOL . If they put any negative comment in your certificate, you career as a academic is over. Period. No ifs and buts. Even parents can raise issue about a teacher if their children complain. There was an instance in my Mrs school, when a cover teacher, hired for a day, started preaching his religion to the students and was reported to the police.



And here we are, the hoodboys and his minions questioning about the existence of the state itself!!! I don't know who is paying his salary, tax payers who gave allegiance to the state or the NGOs?


He has been given shutup call by the top intellects of the Pakistan, but its not working. So who is going to put the sock in his mouth?

QUESTION THE STATE?? THE HORROR!!!!!!Hes been poisoning and corrupting everyone all these years, and the best the "State" can do is get him fired?? cant even prosecute him for his "TREASON"??

Refer above.

He's not, quit Huffing and Puffing..

Refer above.

Thats your opinion, and while its a very stupid and baseless one, shared by hindutva zombies, you are entitled to it.

Oh please spare me the BS, the likes of hoodboys are in huge demand among the Hindutva maggots across the border. In case you are wondering where the pearl of wisdom was coming out from Hoodboy mouth, the location was the land of Hindutva.

Oh ofc. My experience debating with Uber Nationalist Zombies(from india) is that u just need to let them kids win. So U win Buddy. You are the most awesomist and bestest and wisest of all.
P.S Allah ne Pakistan ko andh bhakt to india jese he die han, shukar ha foji india jese nai die

GOTCHA!! Akhir tumhare under ka keera bahar nikal diya main nay. LOL

oh yes , boot wallay,

Waisay, when you talk about freedom of expression and a fundamental right of every Pakistani, the likes of you, should also advocate, rather passionately, to remove the wrong and illegal clause in the oath of "boot walla" , when he say the day he pass out from kakul:

[Article 244]
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

821[
May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).


That bold part, that is against the principal of "freedom of speech and expression".

Now chop chop, spend some energy towards this injustice as well.

 

[Amaa'n]

I don't want to read or listen to what they preach sir, I have heard enough of it to reach a conclusion. They are involved in anti-state activities, inciting their students to pick up arms against the state and protecting them....

I disagree with you, I used to think this way before I had the fortune to read up on parts of our history that are intentionally left out. I think I got lucky, I certainly don’t see myself as being more capable than others in this regard.

These two guys may have dissenting opinions from the mainstream narrative, I would ask you to kindly read their banned material, and evaluate for yourself the work on three different levels:

1. Do these arguments and viewpoint hold any weight? Do I agree with them? If not, you will probably have counter-arguments that form the basis of a healthy debate.
2. Are what they are saying very morally objectionable? We should all try to empathise with the other side when making this determination.
3. Is there (or should there be) a legal basis for banning this particular material or censoring it? We must keep in mind that we’re a democracy, unwelcome views shouldn’t necessarily be illegal.

I think if you read their material (non selectively), you will find that they both talk about a breadth of subjects in social sciences. And I’m sure on the first point you will find things you don’t agree with, that’s fine, I also don’t agree with AAJ on a bunch of things. His preference for socialistic forms of economic organisation I think is particularly idealistic and based on incomplete analysis. Also, for the accusation of brainwashing students and making them pick up arms, I’m more familiar than most about their work. I seriously doubt any of this is even remotely true. So I’m calling it out until I see some evidence, which is reasonable. Innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof lies upon the claimants, who I this case are their critics and those who ban them and their work.

On three points... 1) I’m sure you’ll disagree with them on some points, but that’s normal. I’d look forward to hear your counter arguments. 2) I think you may find some parts morally objectionable, but that can’t be true of everything, like I said I actually think you’ll see some reason in their arguments too. 3) I think if you do an honest accounting of their work, you will find that our objection to banning these works is understandable. And maybe you yourself won’t agree with this form of censorship.

And let’s remember, all this is predicated upon what I’m calling looking at their work ‘non selectively’ and giving an honest accounting. Meaning you have to read their views and then discuss them, instead of cherry picking by quick googling a few out of context quotes with which to prove in a confrontational debate that your preconceived opinion of their work is valid.

Honestly, we can start by taking a video lecture or book published by either men. And you and I can have a civil, honest, and in-depth discussion about what they’ve said. It’ll be a lot more valid than me saying they’re right about everything and you saying they’re wrong.

Apologies for any grammatical errors or issues, I typed this out quickly on mobile.

 

[steelTalons]

Whatever I said was crystal clear, not bothered a bit if its not going through your thick skull.

You see, the problem with your kind, the hoodboys of this world, they live in their self created hype, the pseudo intellects of Pakistan I would say. Most of them haven't even step outside Pakistan to see how world work, in particular their overlords and ideals in west. Let me repeat, since you very conveniently ignored, "ACADAMICS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO INDULGE IN ANY POLITCAL DEBATE". As a teacher, talk politics in front of class, get a boot from the education institution right away. Infact teachers can get reported even if they talk politics in staff rooms. And you know the best bit? If you apply for any teacher job in any educational institution here in UK. You need to get this certificate first:

https://www.gov.uk/request-copy-criminal-record

Its called DBS check. And you know who grant it? The UK police. The long arm of the "establishment". woh boot wallay LOL . If they put any negative comment in your certificate, you career as a academic is over. Period. No ifs and buts. Even parents can raise issue about a teacher if their children complain. There was an instance in my Mrs school, when a cover teacher, hired for a day, started preaching his religion to the students and was reported to the police.



And here we are, the hoodboys and his minions questioning about the existence of the state itself!!! I don't know who is paying his salary, tax payers who gave allegiance to the state or the NGOs?


He has been given shutup call by the top intellects of the Pakistan, but its not working. So who is going to put the sock in his mouth?

Refer above.



Refer above.




Oh please spare me the BS, the likes of hoodboys are in huge demand among the Hindutva maggots across the border. In case you are wondering where the pearl of wisdom was coming out from Hoodboy mouth, the location was the land of Hindutva.




GOTCHA!! Akhir tumhare under ka keera bahar nikal diya main nay. LOL

oh yes , boot wallay,

Waisay, when you talk about freedom of expression and a fundamental right of every Pakistani, the likes of you, should also advocate, rather passionately, to remove the wrong and illegal clause in the oath of "boot walla" , when he say the day he pass out from kakul:

[Article 244]
(In the name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.)

I, ____________, do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever and that I will honestly and faithfully serve Pakistan in the Pakistan Army (or Navy or Air Force) as required by and under the law.

821[
May Allah Almighty help and guide me (A'meen).


That bold part, that is against the principal of "freedom of speech and expression".

Now chop chop, spend some energy towards this injustice as well.

I already told you that u are the most smartest and wisest. You know everything, poor Pakistanis could'nt handle your intelligence so now u spread ur radiance in uk. Anyone who hurts your feelings by disagreeing with u is mean and hurtful.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

I already told you that u are the most smartest and wisest. You know everything, poor Pakistanis could'nt handle your intelligence so now u spread ur radiance in uk. Anyone who hurts your feelings by disagreeing with u is mean and hurtful.
P.S that last part only applies to members of the armed forces .u really are the most specially intelligent person on the planet.

Dil pay laygaya bhai lol


There is no hurt at all, I am just frustrated with the state itself, not the filth within, for not removing the dirt and allowed this cancer of Hoodboy to spread in the society and seeing the likes of you as the result of that infestation.


Yes, the last part, Don't you think its against the basic principle of freedom of expression and speech that "boot wallay" are not allowed to do the politics specially when hoodboy and his ilk with their "dayr gaz ke lambi zuban" are spreading their pearl of wisdom everywhere? What say you?

 

[steelTalons]

Dil pay laygaya bhai lol


There is no hurt at all, I am just frustrated with the state itself, not the filth within, for not removing the dirt and allowed this cancer of Hoodboy to spread in the society and seeing the likes of you as the result of that infestation.


Yes, the last part, Don't you think its against the basic principle of freedom of expression and speech that "boot wallay" are not allowed to do the politics specially when hoodboy and his ilk with their "dayr gaz ke lambi zuban" are spreading their pearl of wisdom everywhere? What say you?

You wish buddy.

I just dont have the time to bother debating with pig headed brutes who are guided by emotion rather than reason. Who cloak tyranny and ignorance and call it patriotism. It is pathetic and disgustisting and the main thing holding Pakistan back.

When Hoodboy says 2 Nation theory is a failure. You want to hang him, call him a traitor. I say prove him wrong or stfu. Ive lived at Kamra Air base all my life. I am from the foji boot background too lmao, but I try to see things objectively and reasonably. This is the main difference between us.

Rahi bat wo article wali bat ki, it exists in UK armed forces, and any major armed forces in the world, and it exists for a reason. That reason is obvious as daylight for any adult in Pakistan. Ha to sahi, lekin konsa follow hota aya ha aj tk?

 

[RAMPAGE]

I disagree with you, I used to think this way before I had the fortune to read up on parts of our history that are intentionally left out. I think I got lucky, I certainly don’t see myself as being more capable than others in this regard.

These two guys may have dissenting opinions from the mainstream narrative, I would ask you to kindly read their banned material, and evaluate for yourself the work on three different levels:

1. Do these arguments and viewpoint hold any weight? Do I agree with them? If not, you will probably have counter-arguments that form the basis of a healthy debate.
2. Are what they are saying very morally objectionable? We should all try to empathise with the other side when making this determination.
3. Is there (or should there be) a legal basis for banning this particular material or censoring it? We must keep in mind that we’re a democracy, unwelcome views shouldn’t necessarily be illegal.

I think if you read their material (non selectively), you will find that they both talk about a breadth of subjects in social sciences. And I’m sure on the first point you will find things you don’t agree with, that’s fine, I also don’t agree with AAJ on a bunch of things. His preference for socialistic forms of economic organisation I think is particularly idealistic and based on incomplete analysis. Also, for the accusation of brainwashing students and making them pick up arms, I’m more familiar than most about their work. I seriously doubt any of this is even remotely true. So I’m calling it out until I see some evidence, which is reasonable. Innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof lies upon the claimants, who I this case are their critics and those who ban them and their work.

On three points... 1) I’m sure you’ll disagree with them on some points, but that’s normal. I’d look forward to hear your counter arguments. 2) I think you may find some parts morally objectionable, but that can’t be true of everything, like I said I actually think you’ll see some reason in their arguments too. 3) I think if you do an honest accounting of their work, you will find that our objection to banning these works is understandable. And maybe you yourself won’t agree with this form of censorship.

And let’s remember, all this is predicated upon what I’m calling looking at their work ‘non selectively’ and giving an honest accounting. Meaning you have to read their views and then discuss them, instead of cherry picking by quick googling a few out of context quotes with which to prove in a confrontational debate that your preconceived opinion of their work is valid.

Honestly, we can start by taking a video lecture or book published by either men. And you and I can have a civil, honest, and in-depth discussion about what they’ve said. It’ll be a lot more valid than me saying they’re right about everything and you saying they’re wrong.

Apologies for any grammatical errors or issues, I typed this out quickly on mobile.

Not withstanding the results, I applaud your attempt to appeal to his reason. I am struck by the contrast between the moral integrity you displayed by so eloquently reasoning with him and its utter absence in his unwillingness to reevaluate his preconceived beliefs.

 

[Jungibaaz]

I don't want to read or listen to what they preach sir, I have heard enough of it to reach a conclusion. They are involved in anti-state activities, inciting their students to pick up arms against the state and protecting them....

Fair enough if this is your opinion, but still I encourage you to give them a chance. I think space should be given to dissenters in a democracy, where we have had issues with dissenters in the past, we’ve paid the price for not giving them legitimate space to air their views.

IMO assuming bad intent in someone shouldn’t be done lightly or without a big burden of proof, it’s just tragic when people who mean well are accused of being anti-state in this way.

Not withstanding the results, I applaud your attempt to appeal to his reason. I am struck by the contrast between the moral integrity...

Thanks for your comments. It’s good to see a few likeminded persons on such matters. The reason I am appealing to the reason of others is because I have been in their frame of mind and of their opinions before. I also wrongly assumed malintent in people and I deeply regret it. Have had my eyes opened since. I know that the people here who are criticising PH and AAJ also mean well in their criticism, in their mind they are defending the state from traitors. I’m sure if they knew a little more about the person and what they’re saying, they’d easily reach where we are.

 

[RAMPAGE]

Fair enough if this is your opinion, but still I encourage you to give them a chance. I think space should be given to dissenters in a democracy, where we have had issues with dissenters in the past, we’ve paid the price for not giving them legitimate space to air their views.

IMO assuming bad intent in someone shouldn’t be done lightly or without a big burden of proof, it’s just tragic when people who mean well are accused of being anti-state in this way.


Thanks for your comments. It’s good to see a few likeminded persons on such matters. The reason I am appealing to the reason of others is because I have been in their frame of mind and of their opinions before. I also wrongly assumed malintent in people and I deeply regret it. Have had my eyes opened since. I know that the people here who are criticising PH and AAJ also mean well in their criticism, in their mind they are defending the state from traitors. I’m sure if they knew a little more about the person and what they’re saying, they’d easily reach where we are.

On good days, I am also as optimistic about the ability of people to learn. Because today is not a good day, I will say that not everyone posesses the kind of openness that led you to correct yourself. It takes an immense amount of moral courage to reevaluate your beliefs by subjecting them to sincerely formulated opposing arguments. Unfortunately, the people who teach the kind of dialectical thinking you offered him are passionately hated by those who need it most - as is evident by the subject of this thread.

 

[JamD]

I disagree with you, I used to think this way before I had the fortune to read up on parts of our history that are intentionally left out. I think I got lucky, I certainly don’t see myself as being more capable than others in this regard.

These two guys may have dissenting opinions from the mainstream narrative, I would ask you to kindly read their banned material, and evaluate for yourself the work on three different levels:

1. Do these arguments and viewpoint hold any weight? Do I agree with them? If not, you will probably have counter-arguments that form the basis of a healthy debate.
2. Are what they are saying very morally objectionable? We should all try to empathise with the other side when making this determination.
3. Is there (or should there be) a legal basis for banning this particular material or censoring it? We must keep in mind that we’re a democracy, unwelcome views shouldn’t necessarily be illegal.

I think if you read their material (non selectively), you will find that they both talk about a breadth of subjects in social sciences. And I’m sure on the first point you will find things you don’t agree with, that’s fine, I also don’t agree with AAJ on a bunch of things. His preference for socialistic forms of economic organisation I think is particularly idealistic and based on incomplete analysis. Also, for the accusation of brainwashing students and making them pick up arms, I’m more familiar than most about their work. I seriously doubt any of this is even remotely true. So I’m calling it out until I see some evidence, which is reasonable. Innocent till proven guilty. The burden of proof lies upon the claimants, who I this case are their critics and those who ban them and their work.

On three points... 1) I’m sure you’ll disagree with them on some points, but that’s normal. I’d look forward to hear your counter arguments. 2) I think you may find some parts morally objectionable, but that can’t be true of everything, like I said I actually think you’ll see some reason in their arguments too. 3) I think if you do an honest accounting of their work, you will find that our objection to banning these works is understandable. And maybe you yourself won’t agree with this form of censorship.

And let’s remember, all this is predicated upon what I’m calling looking at their work ‘non selectively’ and giving an honest accounting. Meaning you have to read their views and then discuss them, instead of cherry picking by quick googling a few out of context quotes with which to prove in a confrontational debate that your preconceived opinion of their work is valid.

Honestly, we can start by taking a video lecture or book published by either men. And you and I can have a civil, honest, and in-depth discussion about what they’ve said. It’ll be a lot more valid than me saying they’re right about everything and you saying they’re wrong.

Apologies for any grammatical errors or issues, I typed this out quickly on mobile.

Fair enough if this is your opinion, but still I encourage you to give them a chance. I think space should be given to dissenters in a democracy, where we have had issues with dissenters in the past, we’ve paid the price for not giving them legitimate space to air their views.

IMO assuming bad intent in someone shouldn’t be done lightly or without a big burden of proof, it’s just tragic when people who mean well are accused of being anti-state in this way.


Thanks for your comments. It’s good to see a few likeminded persons on such matters. The reason I am appealing to the reason of others is because I have been in their frame of mind and of their opinions before. I also wrongly assumed malintent in people and I deeply regret it. Have had my eyes opened since. I know that the people here who are criticising PH and AAJ also mean well in their criticism, in their mind they are defending the state from traitors. I’m sure if they knew a little more about the person and what they’re saying, they’d easily reach where we are.

Thank you for these excellent posts. It is my opinion that part of this has got to with our (or people's in general) tendency to view things as black and white. I know that sounds like a cliche but it seems to be true. If you support person A and oppose person B, everything person A does is right and you will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove person A is right, and everything person B does is wrong and you will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove person B is wrong. I see this way too often on the forum. You are either a "patwari" or a "youthia", a "liberal" or "mullah", a "traitor" or "patriot" etc. Nuance is something entirely lost on us. We need to repeat "nobody is right 100% of the time" everyday to ourselves in the mirror. The best policy is to assume everything is a shade of gray. Words like traitor, liberal, mullah have serious connotations in Pakistan and should not be thrown around as lightly as they are.

Coming to the thread at hand. PH might have views that are incorrect and opposed to what you think but that doesn't automatically make him "anti-national" (as the term used in India) and "traitor" (the term used in Pakistan). It is way too easy to call someone a traitor and disregard everything they are saying that we don't want to hear. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's our loss and their's.

I was especially disappointed by the same polarization of thought on the OBL "shaheed" thread. It should be ok to accept that IK may have some views/policies that are problematic even if you're a PTI supporter. IT IS OKAY! When you do mental gymnastics to defend objectively wrong things you will corner yourself into indefensible/hypocritical positions, which most people find themselves in. And at that point, there is no discussion since the discussion has devolved into a shouting match with no objectivity.

 

[Mumm-Ra]

It is that weak and has been that weak since political freedoms were curtailed. It's been incredibly damaging in our history.

People in Pakistan criticizing our students and professors for being political or dissenting have no idea about student politics and role of academia in the outside world. Here in the UK, students are all unionised. I myself was a member of multiple unions. Student marches, agitation and political movements are very very common here. My own experience on UK university campuses included seeing women's marches, marches against government's economic policy, solidarity with Palestine/pro BDS, student organisations against campus policies or government policy on student loans etc.

However, despite this, that's not to say that professors ever brainwashed us. Never once did they discuss politics, or misuse their authority. Any allegations of this needs a burden of proof and investigation.

It is literally the job of academic institutions to instill critical thinking and analysis. This invariably means you will have people who challenge the status quo, who question everything they deem worth questioning. If you want to have a democracy, you need basic civil liberties and freedom. That includes some degree of free speech, free association (political freedom), and the rights of students to form unions etc.

IMO ban of student unions should not exist, and dissenting voices should be given a space. These guys were banned because their opposition to traitor dictators was not acceptable, any other reason given is pure bs.

If these dissenting voices are pointing to not existent problems? Fine debate them, ignore them etc. If they're pointing to real problems? You'd better allow for the space for discussions to address those problems. Otherwise they'll fester and become something worse, or you'll make no progress.

dont take loan from banks they will kill you man . only elites can take loan and then did not return it while enjoying .

The right to student union was taken away as the student union were getting more and more militant. A biproduct of the Kalashnikov and Heroin culture from the 80s, these student unions tended to become violent entities that not only harmed the academic performance of their parent institutions but also led to deteriorating characters of the student. They were more prone to violence that towards debate. They were used by various political parties as breading grounds for their militant wings. The MQM is one big example. hence, instead of reaping the benefits of such student unions where students can be trained for debate and politics, these student unions basically churned out gangsters.

The interaction between the student body and the faculty was also flawed. Instead of agreeing on any mechanic to resolve any student grievances, the faculty resorted to give preferential treatment of many union leaders at the expense of other students.

In FC College Lahore, there was a very strong student union body and they would routinely disrupt classes, have fights with other unions of various colleges and mostly be a nuisance all around. Many of them were a characterless lot. Most were very happy to see the back of them when they were all thrown out by the Police.

Thank you for these excellent posts. It is my opinion that part of this has got to with our (or people's in general) tendency to view things as black and white. I know that sounds like a cliche but it seems to be true. If you support person A and oppose person B, everything person A does is right and you will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove person A is right, and everything person B does is wrong and you will do all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove person B is wrong. I see this way too often on the forum. You are either a "patwari" or a "youthia", a "liberal" or "mullah", a "traitor" or "patriot" etc. Nuance is something entirely lost on us. We need to repeat "nobody is right 100% of the time" everyday to ourselves in the mirror. The best policy is to assume everything is a shade of gray. Words like traitor, liberal, mullah have serious connotations in Pakistan and should not be thrown around as lightly as they are.

Coming to the thread at hand. PH might have views that are incorrect and opposed to what you think but that doesn't automatically make him "anti-national" (as the term used in India) and "traitor" (the term used in Pakistan). It is way too easy to call someone a traitor and disregard everything they are saying that we don't want to hear. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's our loss and their's.

I was especially disappointed by the same polarization of thought on the OBL "shaheed" thread. It should be ok to accept that IK may have some views/policies that are problematic even if you're a PTI supporter. IT IS OKAY! When you do mental gymnastics to defend objectively wrong things you will corner yourself into indefensible/hypocritical positions, which most people find themselves in. And at that point, there is no discussion since the discussion has devolved into a shouting match with no objectivity.

I think such polarization is a the global phenomenon now. Just look at the state of the US politics. There is a high degree of polarization between the supporters of Trump and Baiden. I think it is the cult of strong man personalities that the world is facing due to the enormous difference in wealth and living standards across demographics. Its the struggle of the Haves and the Have nots and both these camps exhibit tribal behavior. The last time such cults came, we ended up with a world war. let's see where these new generation of strong men take us.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

You wish buddy.

I just dont have the time to bother debating with pig headed brutes who are guided by emotion rather than reason. Who cloak tyranny and ignorance and call it patriotism. It is pathetic and disgustisting and the main thing holding Pakistan back.

When Hoodboy says 2 Nation theory is a failure. You want to hang him, call him a traitor. I say prove him wrong or stfu. Ive lived at Kamra Air base all my life. I am from the foji boot background too lmao, but I try to see things objectively and reasonably. This is the main difference between us.

Rahi bat wo article wali bat ki, it exists in UK armed forces, and any major armed forces in the world, and it exists for a reason. That reason is obvious as daylight for any adult in Pakistan. Ha to sahi, lekin konsa follow hota aya ha aj tk?

No emotions sunshine, just plain , to the point, straight facts and realities.

I am not here to give anyone certificate of patriotism, certainly not to imbeciles.

You see, every creation has a purpose. You were created to worship Allah, that is your main purpose of existence, if you don't fulfil that criteria to the satisfaction of your lord, you have failed your own existence. Pakistan was created by two nation theory with Islamic credentials. If you take out that reason for the creation, you are basically saying Pakistan have not right to exist as a state. In nutshell, denying the right for Pakistan to exist. And no, boot wallay are not the only guardians of this , its a responsibility of every Pakistani to defend the reason of your state to exist, its the least your state expect of you.

Now I understand the likes of Hoodboy and ilks didn't have the say when Pakistan came into being, and they happen to born in these lands, but you see, that was the case with the Kuffar of Mecca as well, it was their ancestral lands, but when Mecca was conquered, they were given the choice to either submit to the new order or fk off to the lands outside the jurisdiction of the state of Madina. No bloodshed, not certificates of "patriotism", a very civilized way of dealing with things, so if the likes of Hoodboy do not agree with two state nation theory, here is the Arabia sea, sail as far as you can, to the better pastures.

Glad to you know your military background , good news is, you are still haven't reached the Gul Bukahri level, YET.


I have already asked you to listen to Javid Jabbar, he has debunked and spanked Hoodboy, why keep on asking me the same thing over and over again, like a kid who dropped his candy?


Lastly, for boot wallay, its not the issue if it exsist in UK US or any other western country as law, from purely point of "freedom of expression and freedom of speech" as human being, its their fundamental rights. If they cant exercise their right, cannot speak about issues political or apolitical, who the Fuk are you and the likes of Hoodboy to be given the same right? Equality of all!! Tumharay koi surkhab kay par naheen lagey howay hain.

 

[airmarshal]

You don't see it, but we know what has happened....Not one solution fits every problem...

It will interesting to know whst going on. Is the state really upto something regarding these atheists and commies.

 

[tarrar]

Rented journalists l, they are wh**es barking for the highest bidder

 

[truthfollower]

PH & AAJ both are a sleuth, brainwashing their students into picking up arms - that's the reality

OK good state took action against such people calling for arms against the state.
But what about cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz from lal masjid who is openly calling for khilafat in Pakistan and given free hand to brainwash students? Or he is a sleuth on government payroll? Or force is also not an option here
what about the blood of brave lieutenant colonel Haroon Islam?

 

[Amaa'n]

OK good state took action against such people calling for arms against the state.
But what about cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz from lal masjid who is openly calling for khilafat in Pakistan and given free hand to brainwash students? Or he is a sleuth on government payroll? Or force is also not an option here
what about the blood of brave lieutenant colonel Haroon Islam?

Maulana has been confined to masjid, he is eating grass...he will die in there