tonyhp32 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Has anyone noticed the Arab or Muslim trait of claiming victory after being defeated. We all remember 'Comical Ali' who was Saddam's information minister and gave daily press briefings. Here's some examples of his work-; http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=s27Oq5ot0ZI After the 2006 Lebanon war Hezbollah claimed a victory even though Israel had destroyed the terrorist infrastructure. Now after the Gaza conflict the Hamas leader was in Damascus claiming a great victory over Israel. The Syrian leader also congratulated him on his great victory over the Zionists! After the Iran-Iraq war both sides claimed victory even though they had been fought to a standstill. After the first Gulf war Saddam also claimed a victory over the Americans. Is it just a Arab trait or a Muslim trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 "After the 2006 Lebanon war Hezbollah claimed a victory even though Israel had destroyed the terrorist infrastructure." You must be joking LMAO Man I wished I could pay you a trip to Lebanon for you to see for yourself. Anyways I am not surprised by your post.Then again Robert Baer knows the situation way better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amardeep Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Israel invaded Gaza with the intention of destroying hamas which they failed to do, ie Hamas won the war as they are still active and going. I think the same thing can be applied to Guru Gobind Singh and the letter of victory zafarnamah, where Guru Gobind Singh lost his entire family, friends and litterary works, yet came out as the victor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Israel invaded Gaza with the intention of destroying hamas which they failed to do, ie Hamas won the war as they are still active and going. I agree here because Israel failed in theier objectives. But then again, Hamas' objective - to destroy Israel (accoerding to western media) hasn't been reached either.....so can they really declare victory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hamas' aim is to destroy Israel as political entity not necessarily on a military level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaheediyan Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Geographical level? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 we could argue all this yug and the next, in the meantime civvies are suffering from both sides by both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 In Israel there are more people dying fron car accidents than from Kasam rockets.So equating both sides knowing that it is Israelis that have stolen the land. If they only trie to integrate in the Middel East instead of thinking that they're the West's extention in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 One can't really say which side won. IDF is a modern fighting force probably the best in the world after the US forces. Pound for pound they are the strongest in the Middle East, in fact they can probably beat all the Arab armies in a conventional war as they have done in the past. But the fight with Hamas and Hezbollah is not a conventional war. It is a modern army(IDF) fighting an unconventional fighting force which the west may describe as a "terrorist" organisation depending on your definition of terrorist because even the IDF originally started off similarly when the British were in charge of Palestine. As the old saying goes, one man’s terrorist is another man’s hero. One thing is for certain, the way Hezbollah and Hamas openly move around with so much freedom, they would never do this if they had to face an Arab army because unlike a western army following western ethics, an Arab army would probably use very questionable tactics to put down revolts and armed resistance groups like the Hezbollah or Hamas. We all know how Saddam Hussain dealt with the Shia and Kurdish rebellions in his country even though now they may act very tough against the Americans. Hezbolloh was also very quiet when the Syrian army occupied Lebanon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 The destruction of Hamas was unrealistic and was not a part of Israel's plan initially but was imputed on the Israelis later by western commentators. The Israelis aren't stupid, they know that a terrorist organisation cannot be destroyed, what can be done is to show that organisation that if it shots one rocket into Israel then 100 rockets will come in the opposite direction. Israel has achieved that aim. It's unlikely that Hamas will fire off any more rockets into Israel. The fact that accidents kill people in Israel than Qassam rockets isn't relevant. The fact is that no government can allow even one rocket to be fired into its territory. What irks the Arabs, and Bahadur no doubt, is that Jews are fighting back and not accepting the place allocated for them in Islamic jurisprudence of being docile dhimmis. Dhimmi status is what Bahadur has in mind when he advises Israelis to 'integrate' with the Middle East! As for Hezbollah their leader shares similar living quarters to our friend Osama! He can't be seen in public and has even stated in an interview that had he know the Israeli response he would not have authorised the operation to kidnap the Israeli soldiers. The same is true of Hamas, they have lost many of their terrorists and some of their leadership. Even though there is a ceasefire they know that if Israel can locate their leaders then Israeli will try and kill them. Israel is not stolen land, the UN agreed to partition, the Arabs tried their luck to destroy Israel and were beaten and lost more land. If you want to talk of stolen land, most of the middle east is land stolen by Arabs from the original Christians. Maybe the Arabs should be giving back Egypt to the Copts, Iraq to the Assyrians and Turkey to the Greeks! If there is anything that this war has thrown up which is detrimental to Israel it is that the left wing socialist workers type fools have again made common cause with Islamists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 So if I understand you correctly tonyhp32...if the UN decides that your house and land should be given to someone else you would accept. WOW As for the dhimmi status: I always advocated a multireligious state in Palestine not an Islamic state given the high percentage of Jews and Christians. Turkey was conquered by Turks Einstein not Arabs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 one thing ive always felt about this issue is the parallel with the division of panjab, and the forced removal of the Sikhs from western panjab. ie the loss of Nankana Sahib etc which as we all know hapned in 47. a new islamic state comes into existence, pakistan a year later the muslim world loses a country and i think it was, correct me if im wrong in 67, when the islamic world lost control of jerusalem , which is the 3rd holiest place for Muslims. Whenever i have any discussion with pakistanis about the division of panjab and the forced removal of the sikhs, i ask them about thier thougts on jerusalem, and then they seem to understand about our loss. But never before the "jerusalem card " is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 What irks the Arabs, and Bahadur no doubt, is that Jews are fighting back and not accepting the place allocated for them in Islamic jurisprudence of being docile dhimmis. Dhimmi status is what Bahadur has in mind when he advises Israelis to 'integrate' with the Middle East!. You do have a good point there Tony Jee. Israel is not stolen land, the UN agreed to partition, the Arabs tried their luck to destroy Israel and were beaten and lost more land. If you want to talk of stolen land, most of the middle east is land stolen by Arabs from the original Christians. Maybe the Arabs should be giving back Egypt to the Copts, Iraq to the Assyrians and Turkey to the Greeks! Again you make a good point here Tony Jee. I always hear of people saying "what if your were forced off you land" remark, but that is what the muslims have always done in history as well. We as Sikhs who lost west Punjab and our Holy Shrines know of this first hand. Greeks lost Turkey, Serbs lost Kosovo. When people fight back against Muslims they are demonised, but if they take it quietly the media doesn't seem to demonise the Muslims as much. All over the world, many historical non Islamic shrines were forcibly converted to Masjids, especially in India. Now that some of those historical shrines are being taken back the media begins to show the Muslims as the victims. I ask you, if a Gurdwara were to be converted into a Masjid by force, is it not the right of the Sikhs to take it back using force? then why are the Hindus demonised for trying to take back Ayodhya? why is that act wrongly compared with operation bluestar by our uninformed/blind Hindu-phobic Panthic media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Nice to see that Mithar is also one of those who would accept to give up his land and house if the UN were to vote so.I'd love to see your face when some unknown guy knocks to your door tells you that you have 30 minutes to pack you things and leave because the UN gave hinm permission to have your house. Greeks lost Turkey? Greeks were a minority in Turkey, the majority was made of Aramaic Christians who were treated as second class citizens by the Greeks. That is one of the reasons why they converted to Islam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Nice to see that Mithar is also one of those who would accept to give up his land and house if the UN were to vote so.I'd love to see your face when some unknown guy knocks to your door tells you that you have 30 minutes to pack you things and leave because the UN gave hinm permission to have your house. Greeks lost Turkey? Greeks were a minority in Turkey, the majority was made of Aramaic Christians who were treated as second class citizens by the Greeks. That is one of the reasons why they converted to Islam. Bahadur, at least the Jews had some UN resolution, Muslims on the other hand don't even require any UN resolution when they do the same thing to the Kafirs. That is what they did to the Sikhs in 46-47 in west Punjab. My family lived there for centuries and were forced off their land. What the Sudanese are doing to the people of Darfur and Southern Sudan is the same. BTW, the Greeks were the majority on the Coastal regions of Turkey. Istanbul was their capital then known as Constantinople. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 "Bahadur, at least the Jews had some UN resolution, Muslims on the other hand don't even require any UN resolution when they do the same thing to the Kafirs. That is what they did to the Sikhs in 46-47 in west Punjab. My family lived there for centuries and were forced off their land. What the Sudanese are doing to the people of Darfur and Southern Sudan is the same. BTW, the Greeks were the majority on the Coastal regions of Turkey. Istanbul was their capital then known as Constantinople." 1. The Zionists received UN approval not Jews. 2. It was Britain that partitionned India not "the Muslims" 3. Same thing could be said about Muslims who had to leave East Panjab. I bet you they're saying that "Sikhs and Hindus stole our land". 4. Does stealing someone's land with UN approval make it any better? 5. Turkey is not just make of costal regions my friend unless fo course you're a German or British tourist. 6. Greeks still lived there under the Ottoman empire and conserved their religion. Again I see that you would agree to strangers stealing your home and land if the UN gave them a resolution to do so. I am impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Are you kidding me???? The Muslims were innocent victims who did not want any partition, it was all the fault of the British blah blah blah!!! I've heard it so many times, especially from India's leftist education system. But those of us who went through the barbarity of the Muslim separatists know it first hand, how they would hold their Muslim league rallies demanding a partition in Hindu-Sikh areas of west Punjab. They left the British no choice but the partition once the violence started. What the Muslims didn't expect was the level of retaliation from the side of the Sikhs which still gives the Muslims shivers down their spine. Bahadur, once the forcible removal of Sikhs from their homes, massacres of entire Sikh villages and abduction of Sikh women had started especially in the Pothohar region, Sikhs of East Punjab weren't just going to take it quietly. Retaliation was bound to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Bla Bla Bla You seem to forget a bit of of the Congres- Muslim League relations history, especially Jinnah's membership in Congress before he left when he saw the increasing Hinduisation of the Congress because of Gandhi's mixing of Neo-Hinduism with politics. Had the Congress party remained a secular party things would probably not have turned that way. In any case there is nothing Islamic or dharmic in massacring innocent people on both sides. As for the "shiver down the spine effect"...I can't say I am impressed in the same I way that I am not impressed when Pakistanis brag about killing Hindus and Sikhs. Just another "who's got the biggest danda" game...In which of course Pakistanis and Indians are bound to lose anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Bahadur like the proverbial snake oil salesman sells us the same old Islamic lies of how life was so dandy living under the sharia system. He might be able to sell his rosy theory to other goray whose ancestors had not lived under this discriminatory system but not to Sikhs. Care to try and convince the Serbs, or Greeks or any others who have been under sharia law in their history. The UN members did not just wake up one day and decide 'I know let's partition Palestine!' There was a grave situation in Palestine. Jews had always lived in Palestine and they had started to migrate there even during the Turkish rule. During the British mandate and after world war 2 this migration increased. During this time they had brought up large amounts of land from the absentee landlords. This led to violence from the Arabs who did not appreciate the Jews coming into Palestine and buying up land and settling there. The land was very unproductive and it was only the genius of the Jews that made the land fruitful. It was a bit like the way the Sikhs from East Punjab were able to make the lands of the canal colonies in West Punjab bloom. The Arabs of the middle east never had any special attachment to Palestine. What many people forget is that the Jews were not just refugees from Europe but more Jews had to flee the Arab states after the creation of Israel than the number of Arabs who fled Israel! They left behind their lands and their businesses. Some estimates place their loss of land as equivalent to 100,000 sq km as opposed to the 20,000 sq km they got as Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Ach der Tony weint uns ein kleines Klageliedchen... 1. There were alread Jews living in Palestine. And they opposed the Zionist Jews who came from Europe. 2. The Zionists via the Ergun terrorist group (the first ones to introduce suicide bombing in the region...) terrorised the local orthodox Jews as as the British mandate forces. 3. When they obtained the UN mandate they invades several Arab towns and villages and eliminated the local Arab population i.e. Muslims and Christians.I know several Palestinian Christian families who described how the Zionists butchered whole localities, took pictures and flew over other Arab towns throwing leaflets showing the horror saying: Leave or the same will happen to you. 4. Orthodox Judaism opposes a Jewish state as God has condemned Jews to exile for disobeying his law. There is no theological justification for Israel to even exist.Zionists were able to impose their views after the orthodox leadership had been eliminated by the Nazis, quite often with Zionist collaboration. Even Zionist rabbis say that if it weren't for the Torah saying that the land belongs to Jews, Zionist would have to be considered genocides and thieves: http://www.dailymotion.com/bookmarks/Bahad...uple-lu-ce_news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SURYADEV Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Morghe Sahar What I'd like to know is what have the rest of the Arab and muslim countires done to help the Palistinian People - not their Cause.? Therre are many Muslim and Arab countries that are very vocal against Israelis and Zionist, but in terms of hard action I have not seen anything been done. It seems that most people are using the Palistinians plight for domestic political point scoring. Yet when it comes to REALLY helping the people they conviently forget them and even close borders off to them. With all their wealth and resources they still are unable or unwilling to help these people who are born, exist (-can hardly call it LIVE) and die as Refugees. Yet they call them fellow bretheren? In the meanwhile the individuals, elderly, families and children on the ground still suffer. Oh well......let it be! I'm off to buy my black "FREE GAZA" T-shirt with a Palistine flag logo on the reverse. Some local businessman in Alum Rock has spent a lot of money making them ; least I could do is support him and his bank balance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chatanga1 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Zionists were able to impose their views after the orthodox leadership had been eliminated by the Nazis, quite often with Zionist collaboration. bahadur, can you back this this up with any evidence ? 3. When they obtained the UN mandate they invades several Arab towns and villages and eliminated the local Arab population i.e. Muslims and Christians.I know several Palestinian Christian families who described how the Zionists butchered whole localities, took pictures and flew over other Arab towns throwing leaflets showing the horror saying: Leave or the same will happen to you. were these zionists simply aping the actions of the arabs who did pretty much the same thing to them in the 1929 pogroms against the jews, years before all the jews from europe staring to return to palestine/israel, 20 years before the establishment of the zionist state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyhp32 Posted January 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 It never fails to amaze me when a follower of a totalitarian ideology like Islam starts to claim human rights violations against other followers of this totalitarian ideology. What would the Arabs have done had they been able to defeat the Jews in 1948? Kill all the men and enslave the women and children. Some of the women after being sexually molested as advised by Mohammed could have been ransomed to the Jews in the USA. If the Muslims wanted they could have married the Jewish women even if their husbands had survive because according to the 'mercy to mankind' a non-Muslim woman's marriage become automatically void once she is captured by Muslims! It would be up to the leader of the Muslims to decide whether they should be ransomed or not. All the captured women and children would become the property of the Muslims. and Bahadur is complaining because the Jews dropped leaflets frightening Arabs to flee Palestine and some ignorant Sikhs have been joining pro-Hamas protests not knowing why the Israelis are so strident in wanting to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Chatanga1 you can get all the information you want from the following Jewish websites: http://www.nkusa.org/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/ http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/zanda.cfm I leave Tony32hp to his rape fantasies. Just one thing: Stop using the word Jews for Zionists. I love Jews too much to seem them being confused with that scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morghe Sahar Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 Here is another link on Nazi support for Zionism: http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemi...nazisupport.cfm from a Jewish website endorsed by orthodox rabbis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts