LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Interesting, what terms have I substituted to British and American when addressing other users?
As for Isra"el", to me as to many others that regime is not 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), which has kept oppressing a Moslem nation to this day by forcibly depriving it 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 conforming to norms promoted by western regimes.
On this occasion, we can emphasize that the Pakistani government is not recognizing Isra"el", meaning that in the Pakistani context, legal nomenclature does not apply to the entity in question.
To speak of zionist regime instead of Isra"el" is therefore considerably more appropriate than rehashing as some here do 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 strictly covers a 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.
This is your opinion, which you're entitled to. I would certainly beg to differ.
If the assertion is true however, then I will simply have followed in the footsteps of the bulk of forum users. Singling me out in this regard seems surprisingly selective.
Might I remind that you dismissed various points on grounds that according to you, they are but 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, tendentious claims without offering a shred of evidence, especially when it exhibits political bias to boot, I shall call it out.
Approving claims by anonymous zionist officials who pretend the F-35 has overflown Tehran yet fail to prove the contention, 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 will gladly furnish ample proof to this effect, based on my past contribution at this forum. This 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 in this respect.
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. There is no regulation (at the level of the forum or of common rules of debate) stipulating that I must.
Moreover I argued against the points in question using logic and established data when available. I never 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 others from voicing contradicting views.
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 members of western regime establishments by inviting them to the sinister (quasi-)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 on its soil for years?
Is this also an "established fact" that we aren't allowed to question?
I'd invite you to address concrete statements of mine in this area, rather than being content with the sweeping contention that I'm allegedly bent on misleading people.
Through its media mouthpieces, the zio-American empire happens to enjoy a near monopoly across the global media landscape. Thus it says a lot when believers in narratives sponsored by the powers to be, display low thresholds of tolerance towards competing views. Practically all media are repeating their line of thought, yet the slightest room made for alternative information feels 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.
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 rulers either.
I have not personally addressed Isra"el"i users as zionists in a systematic manner with the aim of looking down on them. This simply does not apply to me, and as underscored I will only take responsibility for my own actions.
You will respect Forum Rules or you will be booted from this forum. Your call.
Iranian Chill Thread
I think pakistan need America support against India so some of admins here don't want comments against America. I can understand them. They haven't many choices @LeGenD is Saddam of this forum. And it is no joke, neither an insult. He openly praises Saddam Hussain لعنت الله علیه
pdf.defence.pk
I will not remind you again and again.