Why Is Pakistan More Legitimate than Israel?

[Indus Pakistan]

^
I rest my case. You see in your face they will be all brotherly but at every step they will chop Pakistan. I have spent lot of time with Gora and you find out from them what Indian's have been filling their heads up with. They obviously will not do it in front of you but they will cosy up with the Gora by feeding on the latent prejudice against Muslims.

 

[Hiptullha]

Well I told you why I concluded what I concluded.

Because of the name of the country.... this was your "professional assessment". Let me just further point out, Pakistan became an "Islamic state" in 1956 under an army man.

I also said this...

I am talking about your comparison that both countries were formed on the basis of religion.

 

[Levina]

Pakistan became an "Islamic state" in 1956 under military rule.

Right!

I am talking about your comparison that both countries were formed on the basis of religion.

Go on tell me your version of the story.

 

[kaku1]

feeding on the latent prejudice against Muslims.

I just say check who started the Anti Terrorist Squad in India, just check the name.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Countries are formed for variety of reasons and mostly there is no substance or rationale other than having been a historical determiniant at that point in time.

1. Pakistan - Religion.
2. India - British greed and lust for power.
3. Saudia Arabia - Greed of a warlord.
4. USA - Money.
5. Australia - Place for convicts.

 

[Levina]

@Hiptullha
read the above post^^
Seems Pakistan was, afterall, formed on the basis of religion. Can we rebuff this?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

^
Determinant not basis of. There is subtle but important differance that your mind will fail to arrest - whether it does so through choice or lack of intelect is moot point.

 

[Levina]

Lol
Some ppl suffer from alexithymia, and ergo find it difficult to express themselves. And then can you blame others for misunderstanding you?? Cogitate!!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Countries are formed for variety of reasons and mostly there is no substance or rationale other than having been a historical determiniant at that point in time.

1. Pakistan - Religion.
2. India - British greed and lust for power.
3. Saudia Arabia - Greed of a warlord.
4. USA - Money.
5. Australia - Place for convicts.

 

[Levina]

Here we go around the mulberry bush!!
Or should i say beating around the bush?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Just to clarify here India's border's are defined by the high water mark of British greed and lust. British guns cemented India, British blood built India.

The 1947 determinant that led to Sindh electing to form a federation with other organic provinces like Punjab when their term in the British Imperial prison came to a end was no more significant then the other historical determinant of 1843 and 1849 that had led to both peoples being imprisoned.

The only possible differance I suppose I could draw is that whereas the 1947 event was expression of democratic process and therefore diametric opposites of the 1843 and 1849 which were brazen rule of guns and brutality and cost the lives of 6,000 Sindhi's alone.

I won't bother bringing up the 260 British who died building British India at the Battle of Miani. Yet here we are in 2015 and people are still crying on about the legitimacy or otherwise of free expression yet nobody sheds a tear for trhe valiant Sindhi's who died fighting the British because they did most definitly not want to be part of British India.

Battle of Miani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tiger Genie]

Just to clarify here India's border's are defined by the high water mark of British greed and lust. British guns cemented India, British blood built India.

The 1947 determinant that led to Sindh electing to form a federation with other organic provinces like Punjab when their term in the British Imperial prison came to a end was no more significant then the other historical determinant of 1843 and 1849 that had led to both peoples being imprisoned.

The only possible differance I suppose I could draw is that whereas the 1947 event was expression of democratic process and therefore diametric opposites of the 1843 and 1849 which were brazen rule of guns and brutality and cost the lives of 6,000 Sindhi's alone.

I won't bother bringing up the 260 British who died building British India at the Battle of Miani. Yet here we are in 2015 and people are still crying on about the legitimacy or otherwise of free expression yet nobody sheds a tear for trhe valiant Sindhi's who died fighting the British because they did most definitly not want to be part of British India.

Battle of Miani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Brits were around only for 200+ years and India has been around much longer. Even the Mughal tribes were around only for 600 years (about 200 in real control) so obviously you're wrong about India being the result of Brits. OTOH you could say that about Pakistan because there was no such country as mulsim country even conceptually before 1947, the very idea having started as the lust for power of a few people in the mid 1930s.

BTW I've heard the dumb argument from many that what we call India was really a lot of kingdoms and so we couldn't really think of India before the Brits. That is factually wrong. It is quite well recorded in history that for a predominant majority of known history, the kings paid tribute and ruled and served at the pleasure of emperors. Who the emperor was changed depending upon which kingdom was more powerful. Ramayana and Mahabaratha clearly list which emperors ruled and which kingdoms paid tribute etc. More recently the Mauryas did that.

That concept is btw not unique. The Roman empire or the Macedonian empire were all that - the powerful emperor with vassal states.

The pragmatic thing is to forget what was and move on.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

There was India in the geographic sense like Iberia, Scandanavia, Europe, Balkans, Maghreb. That is a geographic construct nothing more nothing less. Don't jump from one concept to entirely another concept and use the dumb excuse of shared common name as proof of existance.

If my name is Alexander it does not follow that I am the same thing as Alexander Fleming or Alexander the Great. The modern Indian republic's claim on the historical geograhic India is same as other republics in South Asia like Bangladesh or Pakistan.

To conclude prior to 1947 there was no nation state called India as much as there was no nation state called Pakistan. The only pedigree India has is the name but as I mentioned if my name is Alexander it does not make me Alexander the Great anymore then you just because I share a name with that historical person.

If the British had not come along there is no way Pakistan would have existed and there is no way India would have existed. Yes, there would have been countries for sure but not in the way we know them. The British made them.

 

[Hiptullha]

Right!

Need I say more? Levina thinks North Korea is democratic, Pakistan and Israel are Islamic, who knows what else he thinks?

Go on tell me your version of the story.

My version of the story? What do you mean?
It's easy to point out, really.
Both the Jews of the world and the Muslims of the subcontinent believed that it would be safer and better to form their own state to safeguard their rights and freedoms. The results, we can debate in another thread. The Islamists, who you claim thought of the concept of Pakistan were actually in cahoots with the Indian National Congress working to oppose the "secular and Western" Pakistan movement.

There was India in the geographic sense like Iberia, Scandanavia, Europe, Balkans, Maghreb. That is a geographic construct nothing more nothing less. Don't jump from one concept to entirely another concept and use the dumb excuse of shared common name as proof of existance.

If my name is Alexander it does not follow that I am the same thing as Alexander Fleming or Alexander the Great. The modern Indian republic's claim on the historical geograhic India is same as other republics in South Asia like Bangladesh or Pakistan.

To conclude prior to 1947 there was no nation state called India as much as there was no nation state called Pakistan. The only pedigree India has is the name but as I mentioned if my name is Alexander it does not make me Alexander the Great anymore then you just because I share a name with that historical person.

If the British had not come along there is no way Pakistan would have existed and there is no way India would have existed. Yes, there would have been countries for sure but not in the way we know them. The British made them.

It's ironic how Indians claim Pakistanis adopted the invaders culture while India is the brainchild of the British empire. India - built on European greed and British railways

 

[KingMamba]

The only thing Pakistan and Israel share historically is their religious based foundations however the rest is just butchering history in order to try and make a cheap point.