President Putin: I Support Israel

[KingMamba]

Did you ever heard about a "Palestinian nation" before that ?.I sure didn't.There was an international partition between Arabs and Jews and the Arabs decided to attack.It didn't work out so well for them.

That is some bs, the concept of nation state itself a European concept so why would it have existed in the middle east before it eventually arrived which was sometime between the end of ww1 and the end of ww2. What we know for a fact is that the Romans administered the area jointly with their Syrian domains as Provincia Syria Palæstina after which it has been known as Palestine by every subsequent administrator. The Muslim language version of Palestine is Filistine and historically whenever the region was not administered separately it was instead a part of Syria, which is why Syrian nationalists believe in Bilad al Sham or Greater Syria which covers the whole of Levant.

Palestine as a region,not a nation.Palestine was under Jews,Romans,Byzantines,Arabs,Turks,British than Jews again.No Palestinian nation ever.

No Jewish "nation" ever either until 1948.

 

[1971+]

And there is nothing glorious if you were able to get your nurses back- dont over act just because they let your nurses go free because you indians are not relevant there- whats difficult to comprehend?-

Lets be honest- aint you butt hurt that indians are just jumping up and down uselessly thinking they are the main players just because isis freed your nurses?- you mean nothing over there-
In Iraq or in Gaza conflict-
You do realize you dont even have to choose any sides in the conflict- thats how irrelevant indians are there- kindly accept the reality and stop sticking your butt where it has no value-

So by your logic if someone frees kidnapped citizen of some country then country is not relevant in that region?? Then why the hell kidnapping was done at first place and they were kept as hostage, if they were to be released without any negotiations ??

And it's glorious for us that our government doesn't abandon her citizen like Pakistan.

We are certainly more relevant than Pakistan when it comes to Israeli cause in middle east . Ask @500 about that and stop being silly.

Yes ISIS and Iraqi government can beat shit out of each other we don't care until our citizens are out of harms way.

 

[NKVD]

**** israel and everyone who support this illegal state. We will continue our fight against these jewish scums .
**** narendra modi ,**** putin,**** obama .

That,s why i don,t hate Hitler actually the innocent fuhrer was just trying to make peace.

Yeah guy who considered south Asians sub humans(inferior race) great

 

[BDforever]

May I add your English Teacher as well. Your spelling stinks!

humty dumty ? lol

 

[Areesh]

So have u done to Baluchistan, does that make to sail in the same boat as us ?

Baluchistan legally joined Pakistan. Try to come up with better analogy. Work hard next time.

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

Baluchistan legally joined Pakistan. Try to come up with better analogy. Work hard next time.

Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army had to subdue insurgents based in Kalat who rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.

History of baluchistan

Better luck next time kid

 

[Areesh]

Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army had to subdue insurgents based in Kalat who rejected the King of Kalat's decision to accede to Pakistan.

History of baluchistan

Better luck next time kid

King of Kalat was the one who mattered not some insurgents. It is the Khan of Kalat who gave us the legitimacy not the insurgents. Neither we need it from them. Looks like you don't know the meaning of legal and legitimate.

You don't seem to be good enough to even work hard. Kid.

 

[Falcon29]

He's saying this for Israeli neutrality on Ukraine. Morons here don't understand politics, it isn't about what's morally right. If it was about that the terrorist state of Israel would cease to exist.

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

King of Kalat was the one who mattered not some insurgents. It is the Khan of Kalat who gave us the legitimacy not the insurgents. Neither we need it from them. Looks like you don't know the meaning of legal and legitimate.

You don't seem to be good enough to even work hard. Kid.

same way kid, kashmir was given to India
better come with a good argument next time

King of Kalat was the one who mattered not some insurgents. It is the Khan of Kalat who gave us the legitimacy not the insurgents. Neither we need it from them. Looks like you don't know the meaning of legal and legitimate.

You don't seem to be good enough to even work hard. Kid.

Insurgents ?? those were local population !

 

[agamdilawari]

King of Kalat was the one who mattered not some insurgents. It is the Khan of Kalat who gave us the legitimacy not the insurgents. Neither we need it from them. Looks like you don't know the meaning of legal and legitimate.

You don't seem to be good enough to even work hard. Kid.

Waao...so tell me Mr. why doesn't the same logical apply to "Legal" accession of Kashmir to India since King of Kashmir really mattered and not some insurgents as per ur own analogy ?

 

[Areesh]

same way kid, kashmir was given to India

People of Kashmir revolted again Kashmir much before. So legitimacy of the raja of Kashmir is itself debatable let alone the accession to India. This never happened with Khan of Kalat. Kalat was muslim majority state anyways. So being with Pakistan was the only option for it.

better come with a good argument next time

I already have.

Waao...so tell me Mr. why doesn't the same logical apply to "Legal" accession of Kashmir to India since King of Kashmir really mattered and not some insurgents as per ur own analogy ?

Already explained.

 

[$@rJen]

Do not make up blatant bull shit.

Don't bullshit me when you know nothing of the history... go learn first

 

[Areesh]

Insurgents ?? those were local population !

It was brother of Khan of Kalat. Who had no legitimacy in the affairs of the state of Kalat. Local population mostly was with the Khan of Kalat and his decision..

 

[Mr.S.Singh]

People of Kashmir revolted again Kashmir much before. So legitimacy of the raja of Kashmir is itself debatable let alone the accession to India. This never happened with Khan of Kalat. Kalat was muslim majority state anyways. So being with Pakistan was the only option for it.
.

Raja of kashmir is debatable but of baluch isnt
i like your sense of humor

 

[Areesh]

Raja of kashmir is debatable but of baluch isnt
i like your sense of humor

I have facts to back myself unlike you. This is even more humorous for me.