The first thing that you need to learn is to address other nationalities the way they are supposed to be as per the Forum Rules. Israeli are Israeli - British and British - American are American - and vice versa. Do not overuse labels like zionists - this is not professional.
Interesting, what terms have I substituted British and American with, when addressing other users?
As for Isra"el", to me as to many people that regime does not represent a legitimate one. Therefore I will not make use of the name Israel - which includes a Hebrew word for God, when referring to a usurpatory apartheid entity built upon ethnic cleansing (Al-Nakba), one which has kept oppressing a Moslem nation to this day by forcibly depriving said nation of its most basic rights. Quite similar to how I will not be uncritically endorsing the so-called "Islamic" State's self-designation (hence the quotation marks).
If this comes across as unprofessional, I do not lay claim to professionalism. Nor do forum rules require users to act professionally. By that token hardly a user would qualify so this begs the question why am I in particular being enjoined to opt for professional vocabulary, or shall we say vocabulary which conforms to the norms promoted by western regimes.
On this occasion, we may emphasize that the Pakistani government is not recognizing Isra"el", meaning that in the Pakistani context, legal nomenclature does not extend to the entity in question.
To speak of zionist regime instead of Isra"el" is therefore considerably more appropriate than to rehash - as some here are doing on a near daily basis, cheap slurs such as "mullah regime" and "mullahs" in reference to the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not least because these nouns have an anti-clerical if not borderline Islamophobic connotation, as opposed to the term zionist which covers a strictly political, not a religious nor a racial reality.
Those who consider the regime in Tel Aviv as a legal and legitimate political entity, are of course free to do so. For my part, I will prefer to take exception with this standpoint. And it will show in my lexical choices.
As for the "defending" aspect - some of your supposed refutations were not on merit but on nationalistic grounds.
This is your opinion, which you're entitled to. Personally I would certainly beg to differ.
If true however, then I will simply have followed in the footsteps of about every forum user. Singling me out in this regard seems surprisingly selective.
If the source is from a country that you do not like - it is automatically false? Iranians are the beacon of truth? This is not how a debate works.
Might I remind that you dismissed various points on grounds that according to you, they are but empty claims issued by the Iranian government for internal consumption.
Also I did not treat any source as being automatically wrong for originating from a country whose regime I dislike (note: my issue is with certain regimes, not with peoples). When a source ventures into publishing uncorroborated, bold claims without offering a shred of evidence though, especially when it exhibits political bias to boot, I shall call that out.
Approving declarations from anonymous zionist officials who pretend their F-35 has overflown Tehran yet fail to substantiate it with proof, is akin to categorizing the regime in Tel Aviv as a beacon of truth. I will say that prohibiting readers from questioning this sort of report is not how a debate works.
On a side note, the way in which the above quoted question is formulated tends to suggest you are making a wrong assumption about me. Indeed and as indicated above, I avoid as a matter of principle any and all blanket generalizations about peoples (nationalities, ethnicities, religious communities etc). If needed, I can gladly furnish ample proof to this effect, based on my past contribution at this forum. It cannot be said, by the way, of considerable amounts of forumers whose repeated, explicitly sectarianist and/or racist expletives are here for everyone to see. Thus, I wonder why I should be scapegoated about this.
I do not have unlimited patience to explain the basic tenets of acceptance of information. Your repeated failure to accept valid points was becoming a problem.
No offence, but I am not forced to accept your commentary on Iran or on the situation in Palestine, even if we assume it is valid beyond the shadow of a doubt. There is no regulation (at the level of the forum nor of common rules of debate) stipulating I must.
Moreover I argued against the points in question using logic and established data when available. I don't make blanket assertions.
So allow me to object to the above criticism. If the discussion in the other thread is becoming tiring, you can agree to disagree with me. But kindly do not prohibit or intimidate others from voicing contradicting views.
A debate looses its value in this manner. I have pointed out the flaws of the analysis of a child molestor in that thread and I do not feel the need to re-emphasize them.
Then don't. I will be the last person to request that you repeat yourself.
Speaking of child molesters, one Epstein with Mossad links is believed to have collected kompromats from numerous western establishment figures after inviting them to the sinister quasi-paedocriminal or downright paedocriminal sessions he staged. Unhindered, for decades, operating out of the city of New York. What kind of a regime will engage in such abominable practices, and what kind of a regime will allow the culprit to act freely from its soil for years?
People are not blind and you cannot brainwash everybody by casting legitimate protests in different countries as a zionist conspiracy or color revolution.
Is this also an established fact we aren't allowed to question?
I'd invite you to address concrete statements of mine in this area, rather than contenting yourself with the sweeping allegation that I'm bent on misleading people.
Through its media mouthpieces, the zio-American empire happens to enjoy a near monopoly across the global media landscape. It says a lot when those who believe in the narratives sponsored by the powers to be, display low thresholds of tolerance towards competing ones. Practically all media are repeating their line of thought, yet the slightest room made for alternative information appears to feel unbearable to them. And regimes they support are the ones that launch destabilization operations and wars in the name of "free speech", "democracy" and so on.
Free thinkers in every society and many are aware of how dictators work and rule. United Nations is wrong - you are right.
Depends what you'll subsume under the term United Nations. On occasions, UN institutions have been right in their declarations whilst on others they haven't.
Like you or any registered member of this website, I would think my ideas are right and opposite ones aren't. To my knowledge this does not represent a breach of forum rules either.
I have not asserted that the word zionist cannot be used in debates but there is a difference between using this word in contextual sense and to apply it on nationalities as a habitual practice to look down upon them - rule # 2 mentioned above is violated. WE understand what the term is, but you are advised to be mindful of Forum Rules.
I have not addressed Isra"el"i users personally as zionists in a systematic manner with the aim of hectoring them. This simply does not apply to me, and as underscored I will take responsibility solely for my own actions.