What's new

Two billion Muslims do nothing Shame. Retired General Asim munier is only man in 2 billions with atomic bomb

... I have never seen Muslim leadership from Arab states. I consider Al Qaida and ISIS political extremists and the people who forcibly took over the Masjid in Makkah were religious extremists.

I searched Arab League and Gaza. They make some joint statements which nobody listens to and they repeat this over and over for years.
 
Atomic bombs are not meant for actual use; they serve as a deterrent. The mere possession of such weapons demonstrates power and instills fear in your enemies. When you have a 600,000-strong army, a population of 250 million, and the capability to manufacture your own weapons, you have little reason to be afraid. Look at Iran—the world isn’t even sure if they have an atomic bomb, yet the entire West, including the United States, is wary of them. They are even willing to negotiate because of the doubt and fear Iran has created.

Imagine what we could achieve. When we stand firm, our actions will be more significant than ever before. So, when I mention atomic bombs, remember this: possessing them, alongside a formidable army and a large population, can strike fear into any enemy during negotiations. Our diplomats may be doing their part, but there’s one thing we lack—linear and dedicated leadership. Unfortunately, our country is led by a retired general who has already committed treason by delaying and manipulating elections. He has broken the constitution, and you cannot expect loyalty from someone who has already betrayed his own country and people. This traitor is nothing more than a foreign asset.
Remember February 27th, when Imran Khan ordered the Air Force to retaliate against India's misadventure, resulting in the destruction of three Indian jet fighters? When India planned to launch an attack on Pakistan with six missiles, Imran Khan received the intelligence and instructed the army to retaliate with 18 missiles, which created significant chaos within the international community. The world realized that a full-scale conflict between Pakistan and India would be catastrophic.

These are the kinds of realities our diplomats must understand. However, I must reiterate that we are currently led by a retired general who has proven to be a traitor. He was the first to turn the people against their own army, and now his actions are turning army personnel against their own institution, which is a disaster for Pakistan and its people.

Excellent thoughts, but my question remains "can Pakistan withstand the consequences of such a decision even if considered?". Any leader, retired general or popular demagogue, needs to consider the consequences of their decisions as well. Please let me know what you think might happen if Pakistan threatens Israel with its nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly. Would Pakistan be ready for it? After all, if one threatens an enemy, it is wise to consider how said enemy would react and to be prepared for the reaction.

That's why I said fojan sirf mojaan astey reh gayia ney

Please see the above and add your views too.
 
... I have never seen Muslim leadership from Arab states. I consider Al Qaida and ISIS political extremists and the people who forcibly took over the Masjid in Makkah were religious extremists.

I searched Arab League and Gaza. They make some joint statements which nobody listens to and they repeat this over and over for years.
Well I see from my side. Crusades and Zionism from Australia and west killing people since world war1 around 1 billion people got killed by these two terrorist extremist entities
 
Well I see from my side. Crusades and Zionism from Australia and west killing people since world war1 around 1 billion people got killed by these two terrorist extremist entities
Arab states buy hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons from the West, Russia, or China to kill Arabs and Muslims. Never seen anything else from them.

Do you think Arab states would be the venue of unending bloody conflicts if they were majority Muslim? I don't. There must have been 150 to 200 wars and conflicts in Arab states in the last 120 years.
 
Medinah was in unending civil war for over a hundred years. The Prophet's rule ended the tribal wars, then Medinah became a city of peace from within, which lasts to this day. We can conclude the majority in Medinah became Muslim, but the same cannot be said with surety about the larger Arab world.
 
I don't think these two are examples of Muslim values. Among Arabs only King Faisal and Morsi had recognizable Muslim faith and values and both were killed. The rest are secular, nationalistic, or anti religion.

I don't think these two are examples of Muslim values. Among Arabs only King Faisal and Morsi had recognizable Muslim faith and values and both were killed. The rest are secular, nationalistic, or anti religion.
These two individuals have been appointed to very powerful positions. As American assets, they hold crucial posts. For example, the Egyptian military dictator is vital in defending Israel, as he controls the Palestinian border from the Rafah side. Egypt, the largest Arab Muslim nation with a significant military presence and the Suez Canal, is extremely important to the West. This is why they installed this puppet, who overthrew a democratically elected president with the western support. He controls Egypt, and if Egypt were to rise, Israel would not stand for long.

The second key figure is Pakistan’s General Asim Munir, who controls the second-largest Muslim population, a 600,000-strong army, and a nation with nuclear capabilities. The U.S. and its Western allies have played their cards well because they understand that the rest of the Arab world heavily depends on these two countries for defense. By controlling these nations, they effectively control the Muslim world, even though Saudi princes and Emirati royals are also their pawns. These two generals are mostly controlled directly or indirectly via Emirati and Saudi slaves.
 
Excellent thoughts, but my question remains "can Pakistan withstand the consequences of such a decision even if considered?". Any leader, retired general or popular demagogue, needs to consider the consequences of their decisions as well. Please let me know what you think might happen if Pakistan threatens Israel with its nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly. Would Pakistan be ready for it? After all, if one threatens an enemy, it is wise to consider how said enemy would react and to be prepared for the reaction.


.
My answer to these questions is straightforward, and I can explain it with two examples. First, let's look at Islamic history: 1,400 years ago, Muslim Arabs started with nothing, yet they created one of the greatest empires in history. They faced immense challenges but overcame them through unity, faith, and strong leadership. This historical example shows that when a nation is determined and united, it can achieve greatness despite seemingly insurmountable odds.

Secondly, consider more recent examples. Afghanistan, a small nation, managed to defeat two of the world’s largest military powers—first the Soviet Union, and then the American-led NATO forces. Despite the overwhelming might of these empires, the Afghan people stood their ground and ultimately triumphed. Similarly, Vietnam, though small and under-resourced, successfully resisted and defeated the United States during the Vietnam War. These examples illustrate that size and power are not the only factors that determine the outcome of conflicts; determination, resilience, and the will of the people are equally, if not more, important.

Now, addressing the question of whether Pakistan can face the consequences of standing up to Israel: With a population of 250 million and the fourth-largest army in the world, Pakistan has the strength to withstand significant pressure. If the people are united and stand behind their leadership, they can endure any diplomatic or economic challenges that may arise. As Sultan Tipu famously said, "One day's life of a lion is better than a hundred years ' life of a jackal."

Moreover, it's important to understand that I'm not suggesting Pakistan should threaten Israel directly. What I'm saying is that Pakistan can leverage its power in diplomacy. A nation with such resources should not be afraid to assert itself on the global stage. In any major conflict, whether it is diplomatic, economic, or military, a nation must have leadership with the heart of a lion. In History, both Islamic and Western worlds are full of examples of brave leaders who led their nations to victory, and they are remembered with pride. We must choose between bravery and slavery because, in the end, nothing is permanent. If we must die, why not live like lions rather than as jackals?

About diplomatic pressure. Your diplomacy derives its power from your military might and economic strength. Military power bolsters your economy, which in turn strengthens your diplomatic efforts. For example, American diplomacy generates its power from its military dominance and uses that power to create opportunities for its businesses worldwide. This is how the West flexes its muscles and continues to dominate the global stage.

Pakistan has the basic ingredient of military might but lacks a qualified diplomatic corps to capitalize on and create opportunities for economic growth. Unfortunately, while Pakistan has a strong army, it is led by a jackal—a foreign asset who is turning his own people against the institution. This is not just a betrayal but the work of a foolish man.

As for standing up against diplomatic and economic pressure, Pakistan can build alliances with other nations that share its interests. By strengthening ties with other Muslim-majority countries and fostering partnerships with nations that are wary of Israeli aggression, Pakistan can create a diplomatic buffer. Economically, Pakistan can work towards self-reliance and diversify its trade partnerships to reduce dependence on Western powers. This way, even if sanctions or other economic pressures are applied, the country can maintain its stability and continue to assert its sovereignty.

In my opinion Pakistan has the potential to withstand and overcome the consequences of standing up for its principles, provided if it has strong, courageous leadership and the unwavering support of its people. But I am afraid USA will allow Pakistan to have rightful person in office. They will use asim munir as toilet paper, they will use him and throw him in a bin. Reason why they disposed and prison imran khan. Man is lion heart. You can disagree with his politics but man is truly fighting for his country and people and understands west more then anyone else in Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
These two individuals have been appointed to very powerful positions. As American assets, they hold crucial posts. For example, the Egyptian military dictator is vital in defending Israel, as he controls the Palestinian border from the Rafah side. Egypt, the largest Arab Muslim nation with a significant military presence and the Suez Canal, is extremely important to the West. This is why they installed this puppet, who overthrew a democratically elected president with the western support. He controls Egypt, and if Egypt were to rise, Israel would not stand for long.

The second key figure is Pakistan’s General Asim Munir, who controls the second-largest Muslim population, a 600,000-strong army, and a nation with nuclear capabilities. The U.S. and its Western allies have played their cards well because they understand that the rest of the Arab world heavily depends on these two countries for defense. By controlling these nations, they effectively control the Muslim world, even though Saudi princes and Emirati royals are also their pawns. These two generals are mostly controlled directly or indirectly via Emirati and Saudi slaves.
Muslim leaders act by Quran and Sunnah which none of them do. They should not be called Muslim leaders.
 
UN apparently did not get that memo from you. Please let them know immediately. Thanks.
How can you call a country where you don’t have indigenous population, 99 percent of Israelis are dul nationals. How can you call a country who built upon stolen land. Think and about it then tell me…
 
How can you call a country where you don’t have indigenous population, 99 percent of Israelis are dul nationals. How can you call a country who built upon stolen land. Think and about it then tell me…

You and I can think whatever we want, but as long as UN recognizes Israel as a member country, as well as 164 of its 192 member states, that definition of Israel as a country seems pretty robust.
 
Back
Top Bottom