What's new

Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
.
. .
Well, you know Pakistan been sending its commandos, and pilots to fight Arab wars. What they paid back?

I think it's IK's way of paying back for their stance on Kashmir.

Well Pakistanis knows what they were paid back. After all, Israel is no State for Pakistan. Never recognized.

Kashmir or Palestine, the unarmed civilians are always terrorists but supporting Ukraine is moral and whatever definition they have. Why to press Pakistan? They are stronger and should get in the fight. Pakistan already fought USSR in Afghanistan. What was delivered in return? Pressler... Yes the Pressler with all sanctions. Then comes the WoT. What was returned? Terrorism with full backing of India in Afghanistan and even freezing CSF for the losses. Why should Pakistan now join anyone else's war. Even, denied UAE and KSA for Yemen. People in Kashmir and Palestine are killed. Where was moral police? Arming India and Israel, supporting them everywhere and providing every help.

Neutral and Pakistan centric policy, is the way forward.
 
.
It seems that Mariupol where Azov Batallion is based is a key target for the Russians, it was completely surrounded by the Russians, DPR, and Chechens from all sides and today attacked.
PDF.jpg
 
. .
Yes, the the humanist left wing is still opposing BDS and illegal settlements only in the name of humanity, and they don't have any personal gain from it.

But when Pakistan says "Not our War" and we have no gains to make, then it is simply following the the same right wing Trump ideology.
The Soviet war kind of stung a little in the long run as we had to fight the people our policy created so forgive us if we have lost the appetite for jumping in geopolitical battles led by the west
This time we will try sitting on the fence
 
. .
1646176973898.png

Allegedly a captured TOS-1… Bur what’s that on the bottom right hand side?
00C6FAA1-A131-42C4-87E0-15D8A1680AD5.jpeg

😷
 
.
False, Achemenid Persia was the first, followed by a string of others. And Islamic civilisation was about Islamism and not globalism. It was largely centralised and didnt not share any of values of western liberals. That's a false equivocation. Islam is an affront to western liberal values which is why western liberals have killed the most Muslims. This is why any self respecting Muslim should think twice about getting involved in this conflict, and if they do think thrice before joining the western narrative. It's borderline treachery for a Muslim to side with the west considering the past.


Thank you, brother!

Lets just agree to disagree.

Achamenid Empire was multiethnic and broadly tolerant to different faiths, although Zoroastrianism was the official state religion. But Achamenid empire was a ethno-cultural-linguistic empire. It was not a IDEOLOGICAL empire like Islam.

The Caliphate became decentralized after Abbasid revolution.

The caliphate was a PURELY IDEOLOGICAL empire, open for anyone to become muslim and accepted as fullworthy citizen simply on observing the Shahada. That means anyone regardless of skin color, ethnicity and culture could become a muslim, without abandonding the aforementioned identities. Even non-muslims could become a citizen, but they were characterized as dhimmies, which simply means protected. They were extempted from military service (which was mandatory in theory for every male muslim) but had to pay a poll tax.

Concerning the modern western liberal democracy, there is a need for defining what that really means. Because i imagine that you are mixing the post-modernism ideology with the term liberalism. Those two terms had nothing to do with eachother until recent 60 years or so. Classical liberalism has very much in common with Islam. In fact the western world didnt become postmodernist and LGBT oriented until recently, wich is mere a blink in its almost 1000 year long history.

What i am trying to explain to you is that its very hard for modern western world to lay out what is its own real identity. What makes western world western? Until recently it was no question, you had to be some form of christian and white. Today its usually respect for democracy and atleast some form of post-modernism. That is also the reason many westerners feel alianated when they meet a person of color, even though the colored person may be educated,tolerant towards sexual freedom and respecte democracy. Historically you had to be caucasian white and christian or else your life could be in danger. That was never the case in any islamic society. The major red line in islamic society was always blasphemy, if you could steer away from PUBLIC blasphemy, you were accepted as a islamicate citizen.

I could go on and on as this is a field of major interest to me. As much that i would say it has changed my life and world outlook forever.

This is my last but long post(excuse me) on this topic, which tbh is totally offtopic😅
 
Last edited:
. . .
Lets just agree to disagree.

Achamenid Empire was multiethnic and broadly tolerant to different faiths, although Zoroastrianism was the official state religion. But Achamenid empire was a ethno-cultural-linguistic empire. It was not a IDEOLOGICAL empire like Islam.

The Caliphate became decentralized after Abbasid revolution.

The caliphate was a PURELY IDEOLOGICAL empire, open for anyone to become muslim and accepted as fullworthy citizen simply on observing the Shahada. That means anyone regardless of skin color, ethnicity and culture could become a muslim, without abandonding the aforementioned identities. Even non-muslims could become a citizen, but they were characterized as dhimmies, which simply means protected. They were extempted from military service (which was mandatory in theory for every male muslim) but had to pay a poll tax.

Concerning the modern western liberal democracy, there is a need for defining what that really means. Because i imagine that you are mixing the post-modernism ideology with the term liberalism. Those two terms had nothing to do with eachother until recent 60 years or so. Classical liberalism has very much in common with Islam. In fact the western world didnt become postmodernist and LGBT oriented until recently, wich is mere a blink in its almost 1000 year long history.

What i am trying to explain to you is that its very hard for modern western world to lay out what is its own real identity. What makes western world western? Until recently it was no question, you had to be some form of christian and white. Today its usually respect for democracy and atleast sole form of post-modernism. That is also the reason many westerners feel alianated when they meet a person of color, even though the colored person may be educated,tolerant towards sexual freedom and respecte democracy. Historically you had to be caucasian white and christian or else your life could be in danger. That was never the case in any islamic society. The major red line in islamic society was always blasphemy, if you could steer away from PUBLIC blasphemy, you were accepted as a islamicate citizen.

I could go on and on as this is a field which is of major interest for me. As mich as i would say it has changed my life and world outlook forever.

This is my last but long post(excuse me) on this topic, which tbh is totally offtopic😅
Are you a Muslim? you have done research on these topics.
 
.
. .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom