Only ParodyTV (Press TV) is legitimate source!
WTF are you on about? No one even mentioned PressTV, dimwit.
As for the rest, it is interesting that the hasbara mills have, once again, failed to comment on thread. Instead they stry to divert bny mentioning Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
As for the rest, it is interesting that the hasbara mills have, once again, failed to comment on thread. Instead they stry to divert bny mentioning Sudan or Saudi Arabia.
As a matter of curiousity, no trolling or offence intended, do Pakistanis , Bangladeshis etc support Hamas and condemn Israel because they see Israel as an aggressor against Muslims or do they delve into the real issues before leaping to condemnation of Israel? I ask this since I haven't noticed any outright condemnation of the slaughter of Muslims in countries such as Syria etc by members here as the outright and immediate condemnation of Israel when it comes to the Palestine issue
Firstly, there's no opposition between delving into the issues in depth and condemning Israel. It's in fact Israel's uninformed supporters -- among whom I find many PDF Indians -- who hang on to superficial, media-supported accounts of the start of the conflict (that all started with Hamas missiles). One needs to research things in more depth to find out that it was Israel who initiated the the whole thing because, before Gaza's missiles, Israel passed some few days making unprovoked incursions into Gaza and killing at Gazan civilians (to that Chinese weirdo ephone, read
this).
And I don't know what you're on about with Syria. Many PDF members, including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, have thoroughly discussed Syria. Just have a look on the Middle East/Africa sob-forum. Don't know if they're more interested in Palestine, but assuming this is the case, there's a very plausible explanation for that: in Syria, we have an intra-Arab, intra-Muslim affair -- the role of religious or ethnic prejudice is thus minimal. This is not true in regards with the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict: in it, Israel's attacks against Palestinians
are of religious and ethnic issues. Just see this: if Palestinians were Jewish, there would be no occupation of the West Bank and no siege of Gaza; Palestinian refugees would be allowed to return to homes under Israel's Return Law, and there would be no territorial conflict between the two sides; in fact, there wouldn't even be "two sides" but only one. And most likely there wouldn't even be this whole affair because European Jews wouldn't need to expel the native, non-Jewish population from their lands in 1948 to create their Jewish state. Palestinians, therefore, are targeted
because of their non-Jewishness, and that's what attracts the sympathy from other non-Jews, specially Muslims.
This is very natural and not restricted to Muslims. Christians barely speak of the Rwandan genocide because both ethnic groups involved in it were majority-Christian. Now, if they aggressors were Muslim, and the victims Christian, things would be very different. and they would mention it everytime, memorials would be held in Christian countries and the genocide would be employed for political means -- for example, to justify invading and occupying more Muslim countries. This is because wars play a role in forming our identity, and among all wars, those that pit differents, rather than equals, against one another, are the ones that most incite passion from any given human group, because they involve people's identities (religious, national, ethnic or otherwise).
This, of course, is assuming you were right. What I see is the inverse: Muslim powers (the Arab League and Turkey, for example) are far more pro-active and vocal in regards to Syria than to Gaza.
