gaurish
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 13, 2010
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 0
well u can talk straight forward Israel is a close friend of India and not hamas... so that is not something new , is it?
And i guess u are with HAMAS.....
Turkish Navy and PM to accompany more aid ships to Gaza
- Thread starter nawazshahzad
- Start date
well u can talk straight forward Israel is a close friend of India and not hamas... so that is not something new , is it?
And i guess u are with HAMAS.....
LegionnairE
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Al-zakir
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2008
- Messages
- 8,612
- Reaction score
- -8
- Country
- Location
Hamas is party of freedom fighter. They have been fighting against terrorist killer for last 60 years. They have all the right to defend their motherland.
When I see Bharati support Zionist then Maoist action justify against you bloody Terrorist.
khanz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 1
it's not about supporting hamas anyone with an ounce of humanity will support palestine.What the israelis have been doing is nothing short of genocide .
cabatli_53
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2008
- Messages
- 12,808
- Reaction score
- 62
- Country
- Location
I advice to the members who ranked Turkish army as unexperienced in previous pages, should Check How many national-international training operations Turkish army is participating annually, How modern Turkish training centers are, How many flying time records TuAF has breaked and How many real night surprise attack operations TuAF has performed in N. Irak against PKK.
Talking about a subject without having any idea do not make any sense in here. Anybody did not underestimate Israel but Our truths and capabilities are also known by everybody in forums.
Talking about a subject without having any idea do not make any sense in here. Anybody did not underestimate Israel but Our truths and capabilities are also known by everybody in forums.
rameez ahmed
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 16, 2010
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 0
the Holy Prophet (SA) said:
(Sahih Bukhari)
Muslims victory over jews has already been told by our Prophet (SA). So muslims should continue their struggle against Israel.
And by the way this saying is not for ALL THE JEWS.. Prophet Muhammad (SA) said this for only those jews who will fight muslims.. This means the struggle should only be against those jews that support Israel..
There are many jews who are against the illegal occupation of Israel. Islam don't say to consider them as enemies...
Please see the Documentary named Occupation 101" in this regard.
"surely you will fight the jews and surely you kill them. And on that day even the stones will speak O MUSLIM !!! there is a jew hiding behind me.So come and kill him"
(Sahih Bukhari)
Muslims victory over jews has already been told by our Prophet (SA). So muslims should continue their struggle against Israel.
And by the way this saying is not for ALL THE JEWS.. Prophet Muhammad (SA) said this for only those jews who will fight muslims.. This means the struggle should only be against those jews that support Israel..
There are many jews who are against the illegal occupation of Israel. Islam don't say to consider them as enemies...
Please see the Documentary named Occupation 101" in this regard.
gaurish
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- May 13, 2010
- Messages
- 481
- Reaction score
- 0
so why there are any reasons to BOMB Israel.. are there no people living there... are there no families there... so Will it be a humanitarian effort to bomb Israel?
India will have 10 reasons to bomb Pakistan
Pakistan will have 20 reasons to bomb India
Russia will have 100 reasons to bomb USA
Is it all worth????
What is this thread all about...
khanz
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,514
- Reaction score
- 1
who knows ? but what we do know is gaza is the world largest concentration camp and people who care will do whatever it takes to help them.
Maj. Gel. Tariq khan
BANNED
New Recruit
- Joined
- May 27, 2010
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
We will welcome israel for war thousand time but problem is this if they remain till reach to just our boder, coz if in 1973, sixteen of PAF pilots in YOM KIPPUR WAR. During the coflict, when a secret attack was planed to attack Syrian Dumayr airbase, PAF intercept the Israeli air defence and shot coming aircraft from Israel in Israel soil air, It was MIRAGE IIICJ, shoted down by Flt. Lt. Sattar Alvi using Mig29, Mig aircraft are new to PAF Pilots they didnt use it before, but still best flyed, pilot of downed Israeli Mirage was Capt. M. Lutz, who ejected and remaining Israeli fighter abort the mission. NUR KHAN, who was the wing commander, received praised from ISRAELI PERSIDENT EZER WEIZMAN, WHO WROTE IN HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY THAT: " HE WAS A FORMIDABLE FELLOW AND I WAS GLAD THAT HE WAS PAKISTANI NOT EGYPTIAN".
If they cant save them from us in 70's and If we can crush their airforce on their soil air in 70's, its 2010 you can think what we make of them now, specialy when they are in our soil for fight... Hahaa
If they cant save them from us in 70's and If we can crush their airforce on their soil air in 70's, its 2010 you can think what we make of them now, specialy when they are in our soil for fight... Hahaa
Marxist
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 2,894
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Turkey emerges as Middle East leader
The recent flotilla incident is the culmination of a steep decline in Israeli-Turkish relations that started with the Gaza war in 2008 and 2009. Relations between these two countries, after reaching a high point in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are now beyond repair, and it will probably take the better part of a decade for them to be resuscitated.
Turkey has also used its increasingly rancorous disputes with Israel to advance its status in the Middle East at the expense of traditional leaders across the region.
Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which came to power in 2002, was always conflicted in its relations with Israel. The party emerged from a hardcore anti-Western and anti-Israeli Islamist tradition that had close ties to Hamas and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
As it rose to power, however, the AKP distanced itself from these positions and even embraced the idea of joining the European Union. Still, it always maintained a critical stance when it came to Israel that was punctuated by occasional outbursts.
Turkey's relations with Israel improved when the AKP stepped into the vacuum created in the Middle East by the Bush administration's policies and orchestrated secret negotiations between Israel and Syria.
This effort fit well with the AKP's grand vision of its foreign policy -- Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party were intent in making Turkey an important international player.
After punching below its weight for far too long, Ankara thought now was the time to engage in an activist policy and capitalize on its economic prowess and strategic geopolitical location. It aggressively sought a role in international institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and engaged in all kinds of diplomatic efforts from the Middle East to the Balkans and the Caucasus.
Erdogan and Turkey received many kudos for the Israeli-Syrian talks. But they came to an abrupt end with Israel's Gaza war. Erdogan felt personally betrayed by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was in Ankara four days before launching the Gaza offensive. From then on, Turkish foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel was dramatically transformed.
We first saw this at the January 2009 Davos meetings in Switzerland when Erdogan publicly confronted Israel's President Shimon Peres and then walked off the stage. Positive reactions to his behavior in Turkey and in the Middle East provided Erdogan with the contours of Ankara's new foreign policy.
From then on, in almost every foreign policy speech, Erdogan would disparage Israel's policy in Gaza, calling the Gaza Strip an open prison. He then began to challenge Israel's nuclear arms while defending Iran against the West.
In a deliberate obfuscation of the issues, he argued that instead of criticizing Iran's peaceful nuclear program, it was Israel's not-so-secret nuclear arsenal that ought to be the object of censure.
This, of course, is a distortion of the truth as Iran was accused of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory while Israel is not. His singling out of Israel was purposeful but unfair; he never criticized Turkish ally Pakistan -- or India for that matter-- for having tested and deployed nuclear arms.
The flotilla crisis occurred in this atmosphere of great tension. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claims his government cautioned the Islamist charity that organized the flotilla not to cross into Israeli waters and that they were powerless to prevent an independent, non-government organization (NGO) from acting on its own volition. Yet there are many signs that the AKP and other Turkish Islamist parties were fully supportive of the NGO and its efforts.
Hamas itself interpreted the action as an Erdogan-led effort to breach the naval blockade of Gaza.
No one, including the Israelis, could have anticipated the extent of the fallout, although a cursory look at what the organizers were claiming should have made it obvious that the NGO was clearly trying to provoke Israel and elicit an strong response.
Ultimately, it is the incompetence of the Israeli decision-makers who failed to properly analyze the groups' intentions that in many ways handed the AKP, Erdogan and Hamas a public relations victory.
Erdogan has now become a hero in the Arab street. In two years, he has managed to do what few Arab leaders could do -- push Israel into a corner. Even though Arab countries have been mistrustful of Turkey in the past, Erdogan has successfully transformed himself into the leader of the Middle East.
He is not just the defender of traditional Arab concerns but also of Iran, as he is resisting the Obama administration's efforts to impose sanctions on Iran.
The emerging hostility in Israeli-Turkish relations puts the United States in a difficult quandary. Washington does not want to side with one ally over another, and Turkey has aggressively been pushing the United States to do just that.
Washington, however, has issues with both countries.
It is upset at Turkish efforts to protect Iran from further U.N. sanctions and at Israel for making its regional diplomacy so much more difficult, not only with the flotilla fiasco but also with its hard line on the settlements and negotiations with the Palestinians. Turkey may therefore emerge as an even more significant factor in an already complicated Middle East political tapestry.
Turkey emerges as Middle East leader - CNN.com
The recent flotilla incident is the culmination of a steep decline in Israeli-Turkish relations that started with the Gaza war in 2008 and 2009. Relations between these two countries, after reaching a high point in the late 1990s and early 2000s, are now beyond repair, and it will probably take the better part of a decade for them to be resuscitated.
Turkey has also used its increasingly rancorous disputes with Israel to advance its status in the Middle East at the expense of traditional leaders across the region.
Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), which came to power in 2002, was always conflicted in its relations with Israel. The party emerged from a hardcore anti-Western and anti-Israeli Islamist tradition that had close ties to Hamas and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
As it rose to power, however, the AKP distanced itself from these positions and even embraced the idea of joining the European Union. Still, it always maintained a critical stance when it came to Israel that was punctuated by occasional outbursts.
Turkey's relations with Israel improved when the AKP stepped into the vacuum created in the Middle East by the Bush administration's policies and orchestrated secret negotiations between Israel and Syria.
This effort fit well with the AKP's grand vision of its foreign policy -- Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his party were intent in making Turkey an important international player.
After punching below its weight for far too long, Ankara thought now was the time to engage in an activist policy and capitalize on its economic prowess and strategic geopolitical location. It aggressively sought a role in international institutions such as the U.N. Security Council and engaged in all kinds of diplomatic efforts from the Middle East to the Balkans and the Caucasus.
Erdogan and Turkey received many kudos for the Israeli-Syrian talks. But they came to an abrupt end with Israel's Gaza war. Erdogan felt personally betrayed by then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was in Ankara four days before launching the Gaza offensive. From then on, Turkish foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel was dramatically transformed.
We first saw this at the January 2009 Davos meetings in Switzerland when Erdogan publicly confronted Israel's President Shimon Peres and then walked off the stage. Positive reactions to his behavior in Turkey and in the Middle East provided Erdogan with the contours of Ankara's new foreign policy.
From then on, in almost every foreign policy speech, Erdogan would disparage Israel's policy in Gaza, calling the Gaza Strip an open prison. He then began to challenge Israel's nuclear arms while defending Iran against the West.
In a deliberate obfuscation of the issues, he argued that instead of criticizing Iran's peaceful nuclear program, it was Israel's not-so-secret nuclear arsenal that ought to be the object of censure.
This, of course, is a distortion of the truth as Iran was accused of violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory while Israel is not. His singling out of Israel was purposeful but unfair; he never criticized Turkish ally Pakistan -- or India for that matter-- for having tested and deployed nuclear arms.
The flotilla crisis occurred in this atmosphere of great tension. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claims his government cautioned the Islamist charity that organized the flotilla not to cross into Israeli waters and that they were powerless to prevent an independent, non-government organization (NGO) from acting on its own volition. Yet there are many signs that the AKP and other Turkish Islamist parties were fully supportive of the NGO and its efforts.
Hamas itself interpreted the action as an Erdogan-led effort to breach the naval blockade of Gaza.
No one, including the Israelis, could have anticipated the extent of the fallout, although a cursory look at what the organizers were claiming should have made it obvious that the NGO was clearly trying to provoke Israel and elicit an strong response.
Ultimately, it is the incompetence of the Israeli decision-makers who failed to properly analyze the groups' intentions that in many ways handed the AKP, Erdogan and Hamas a public relations victory.
Erdogan has now become a hero in the Arab street. In two years, he has managed to do what few Arab leaders could do -- push Israel into a corner. Even though Arab countries have been mistrustful of Turkey in the past, Erdogan has successfully transformed himself into the leader of the Middle East.
He is not just the defender of traditional Arab concerns but also of Iran, as he is resisting the Obama administration's efforts to impose sanctions on Iran.
The emerging hostility in Israeli-Turkish relations puts the United States in a difficult quandary. Washington does not want to side with one ally over another, and Turkey has aggressively been pushing the United States to do just that.
Washington, however, has issues with both countries.
It is upset at Turkish efforts to protect Iran from further U.N. sanctions and at Israel for making its regional diplomacy so much more difficult, not only with the flotilla fiasco but also with its hard line on the settlements and negotiations with the Palestinians. Turkey may therefore emerge as an even more significant factor in an already complicated Middle East political tapestry.
Turkey emerges as Middle East leader - CNN.com
H2O3C4Nitrogen
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,386
- Reaction score
- 0
How Do You Say "Frenemy" in Turkish?
Meet America's new rival in the Middle East.
BY STEVEN A. COOK JUNE 1, 2010
Recently, my colleague and good friend, Charles Kupchan, published a book called How Enemies Become Friends. In it, he argues that diplomatic engagement is decisive in transforming relations between adversaries. It is an interesting read, and the book has received some terrific reviews. Charlie might want to follow up with a new book called How Friends Become Frenemies. He can use the United States and Turkey as his primary case study.
It is hard to admit, but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors -- especially in the Middle East. This is the logical result of profound shifts in Turkish foreign and domestic politics and changes in the international system.
This reality has been driven home by Turkey's angry response to Israel's interdiction of the Istanbul-organized flotilla of ships that tried Monday to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. After Israel's attempts to halt the vessels resulted in the deaths of at least nine activists, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu referred to Israel's actions as "murder conducted by a state." The Turkish government also spearheaded efforts at the U.N. Security Council to issue a harsh rebuke of Israel.
Monday's events might prove a wake-up call for the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Among the small group of Turkey watchers inside the Beltway, nostalgia rules the day. U.S. officialdom yearns to return to a brief moment in history when Washington and Ankara's security interests were aligned, due to the shared threat posed by the Soviet Union. Returning to the halcyon days of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, however, is increasingly untenable.
This revelation comes despite the hopes of U.S. President Barack Obama, whose inauguration was greeted with a sigh of relief along both the Potomac and the Bosphorus. Officials in both countries hoped that the Obama administration's international approach, which emphasized diplomatic engagement, multilateralism, and regional stability, would mesh nicely with that of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party. The White House made it clear from the beginning that Turkey was a priority for Obama, who raised the idea of a "model partnership" between the two countries. Turkey, the theory went, had a set of attributes and assets that it could bring to bear to help the United States achieve its interests in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Naturally, as a longtime U.S. ally, Turkey was thought to share America's interests in these regions. That was the thinking, anyway.
A little more than a year after Obama addressed the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Washington seems caught between its attempts to advance this model partnership, and recognition of the reality that Ankara has moved on. This desire to restore close relations with Turkey is partially based on a rose-tinted view of the alliance's glory days; even then, the relationship was often quite difficult, buffeted by Turkey's troubled relations with Greece, Ankara's invasion of Cyprus, and the Armenian-American community's calls for recognition of the 1915 massacres as genocide. Back then, Turkey was a fractious junior partner in the global chess game with the Soviets. Today, Turkey is all grown up, sporting the 16th largest economy in the world, and is coming into its own diplomatically.
Nowhere is Turkey asserting itself more than in the Middle East, where it has gone from a tepid observer to an influential player in eight short years. In the abstract, Washington and Ankara do share the same goals: peace between Israel and the Palestinians; a stable, unified Iraq; an Iran without nuclear weapons; stability in Afghanistan; and a Western-oriented Syria. When you get down to details, however, Washington and Ankara are on the opposite ends of virtually all these issues.
For the first time in its history, Ankara has chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding that Israel take steps to ease the blockade of Gaza or risk unspecified "consequences." Well before the recent crisis, the Turks had positioned themselves as thinly veiled advocates for Hamas, which has long been on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In public statements, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared Turkey's Islamists and Hamas. Implicit in these declarations is a parallel to Erdogan's own Justice and Development Party, whose predecessors were repeatedly banned from politics.
This parallel is rather odd. Turkey's Islamists always sought to process their grievances peacefully, while the Islamic Resistance Movement -- Hamas's actual name -- has a history of violence. Ankara's warm embrace of Hamas has not only angered the Israelis, but other U.S. regional allies including Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia.
Even in Afghanistan, there's less to Turkey's vaunted cooperation than meets the eye. Turkey was the first ally to offer troops to U.S. efforts there in 2001, and more recently, it has doubled its contingent of soldiers to almost 1,700. However, Ankara has consistently -- like other NATO allies -- refused to throw these forces into the fight, even after the Obama administration's entreaties to do more as part of the Afghan "surge."
Ankara also took a lot of heat from George W. Bush's administration for its good relations with the Syrian regime, though the United States eventually reconciled itself to the logic of Turkey's interests in its southern neighbor. Turkey sees its ties with Syria as a hedge against Kurdish nationalism, believing that brisk cross-border trade will make everyone -- Turks, Kurds, and Syrians -- richer, happier, and less suspicious of one another. The close diplomatic ties have an added benefit for Washington: They give Syrian President Bashar al-Assad someone to talk to other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
Friends or Enemies? The U.S. and Turkey - By Steven A. Cook | Foreign Policy
Meet America's new rival in the Middle East.
BY STEVEN A. COOK JUNE 1, 2010
Recently, my colleague and good friend, Charles Kupchan, published a book called How Enemies Become Friends. In it, he argues that diplomatic engagement is decisive in transforming relations between adversaries. It is an interesting read, and the book has received some terrific reviews. Charlie might want to follow up with a new book called How Friends Become Frenemies. He can use the United States and Turkey as his primary case study.
It is hard to admit, but after six decades of strategic cooperation, Turkey and the United States are becoming strategic competitors -- especially in the Middle East. This is the logical result of profound shifts in Turkish foreign and domestic politics and changes in the international system.
This reality has been driven home by Turkey's angry response to Israel's interdiction of the Istanbul-organized flotilla of ships that tried Monday to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. After Israel's attempts to halt the vessels resulted in the deaths of at least nine activists, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu referred to Israel's actions as "murder conducted by a state." The Turkish government also spearheaded efforts at the U.N. Security Council to issue a harsh rebuke of Israel.
Monday's events might prove a wake-up call for the U.S. foreign-policy establishment. Among the small group of Turkey watchers inside the Beltway, nostalgia rules the day. U.S. officialdom yearns to return to a brief moment in history when Washington and Ankara's security interests were aligned, due to the shared threat posed by the Soviet Union. Returning to the halcyon days of the U.S.-Turkish relationship, however, is increasingly untenable.
This revelation comes despite the hopes of U.S. President Barack Obama, whose inauguration was greeted with a sigh of relief along both the Potomac and the Bosphorus. Officials in both countries hoped that the Obama administration's international approach, which emphasized diplomatic engagement, multilateralism, and regional stability, would mesh nicely with that of Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party. The White House made it clear from the beginning that Turkey was a priority for Obama, who raised the idea of a "model partnership" between the two countries. Turkey, the theory went, had a set of attributes and assets that it could bring to bear to help the United States achieve its interests in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Naturally, as a longtime U.S. ally, Turkey was thought to share America's interests in these regions. That was the thinking, anyway.
A little more than a year after Obama addressed the Turkish Grand National Assembly, Washington seems caught between its attempts to advance this model partnership, and recognition of the reality that Ankara has moved on. This desire to restore close relations with Turkey is partially based on a rose-tinted view of the alliance's glory days; even then, the relationship was often quite difficult, buffeted by Turkey's troubled relations with Greece, Ankara's invasion of Cyprus, and the Armenian-American community's calls for recognition of the 1915 massacres as genocide. Back then, Turkey was a fractious junior partner in the global chess game with the Soviets. Today, Turkey is all grown up, sporting the 16th largest economy in the world, and is coming into its own diplomatically.
Nowhere is Turkey asserting itself more than in the Middle East, where it has gone from a tepid observer to an influential player in eight short years. In the abstract, Washington and Ankara do share the same goals: peace between Israel and the Palestinians; a stable, unified Iraq; an Iran without nuclear weapons; stability in Afghanistan; and a Western-oriented Syria. When you get down to details, however, Washington and Ankara are on the opposite ends of virtually all these issues.
For the first time in its history, Ankara has chosen sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, demanding that Israel take steps to ease the blockade of Gaza or risk unspecified "consequences." Well before the recent crisis, the Turks had positioned themselves as thinly veiled advocates for Hamas, which has long been on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations. In public statements, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared Turkey's Islamists and Hamas. Implicit in these declarations is a parallel to Erdogan's own Justice and Development Party, whose predecessors were repeatedly banned from politics.
This parallel is rather odd. Turkey's Islamists always sought to process their grievances peacefully, while the Islamic Resistance Movement -- Hamas's actual name -- has a history of violence. Ankara's warm embrace of Hamas has not only angered the Israelis, but other U.S. regional allies including Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia.
Even in Afghanistan, there's less to Turkey's vaunted cooperation than meets the eye. Turkey was the first ally to offer troops to U.S. efforts there in 2001, and more recently, it has doubled its contingent of soldiers to almost 1,700. However, Ankara has consistently -- like other NATO allies -- refused to throw these forces into the fight, even after the Obama administration's entreaties to do more as part of the Afghan "surge."
Ankara also took a lot of heat from George W. Bush's administration for its good relations with the Syrian regime, though the United States eventually reconciled itself to the logic of Turkey's interests in its southern neighbor. Turkey sees its ties with Syria as a hedge against Kurdish nationalism, believing that brisk cross-border trade will make everyone -- Turks, Kurds, and Syrians -- richer, happier, and less suspicious of one another. The close diplomatic ties have an added benefit for Washington: They give Syrian President Bashar al-Assad someone to talk to other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah.
Friends or Enemies? The U.S. and Turkey - By Steven A. Cook | Foreign Policy
I don't think so. Turkey will keep barking. They do not have guts for direct military confrontation with Israel. Meanwhile, Turks should stop living in delusion. Days of ottoman are over.
Skeptic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,146
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
STFU.
The language used by you is entirely unacceptable and degrading.
War is not a child's play - where the country will jump in at drop of the hat. War is not about guts but strategy, and so is diplomacy.
Post Reported!!
fallstuff
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 9,441
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
Give you an example:
There used to be a Ruthless hindu regime in a country almost 1200 years ago.
They Burnt women alive along with their dead husband , they treated poor like dogs who couldn't even hear the voice of the elite if so they would be Punished .
They used to bury their female kids alive and felt ashamed of having one , they fought amongst themselves and Killed people majority of those "untouchables".
The Evil regime went on for thousands of years oppressing the poor and discriminating against them.
Then they were taken over by another Nation who believed in equality , Justice and harmony for a thousand years.
But the Evil regime came back again somehow now they are Killing mass amount of people in Kashmir , they still are doing what they were doing before.
Burning places of worship , Demolishing the mosques , Taking away the resources of those who are weak.
They support another Evil regime of Israel whatsoever , should i say worship them.
But the evil regimes are going to an end one day --by someone--
Similar threads
