Kashmir kaisay azaad hoga ? Khadim Hussain Rizvi nay bata dia

Qalandar

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)

Agar taqreer kar kay aur Twitter par tanz maar kar hi Kashmir azaad karanay ka plan hai to phir PTI aur ISPR say achi taqreer Khadim Hussain Rizvi hi kar leta hai. Is liye iski taqreer bhi siasat.pk par sunni chahiye taakeh josh ziyada ho aur twitter par pooray josh kay saath Modi ko galiyan nikalein aur India fatah karein
 

kakamuna420

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
what is the use of speech. Go and fight. Mullahs like politicians don't work in their lives..only live on other people's alms and taxes
 

fasi2003

Senator (1k+ posts)
Moron. I dont know how people listen to him feel sad on the state of our education system. Ghazva badr, Ghazva Khandak and ohad all were in self defense.
 

Aliimran1

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
AIK FAISLAKUN JANG HI IS KA HAL HAI
HINDU KO MITA DU YA KHUD MIT JAO
WARNA YEH HINDU WAISAY BHI TUMHEIN JEENAY NAHI DE GA
 

Qudsi

Minister (2k+ posts)
Pakistan cannot directly launch ground attacks in J&K as indian army will use kashmiris as human shields. Like Hitler did in WW2. So dont be a frog in pond planners and executers know very well what are options and what to do. They dont need to listen to every dumb ass
 

ammadk

Minister (2k+ posts)
For the states to compete in the international world, they have to follow he norms and values of the international order. It is unfortunate that we as muslims are still stuck in past, dream about the victories of the past, and want to realize those victories in the current international politics.
Pre-world war 2 international politics was based on the principles of hardcore realism in which states/empires would compete militarily, expand territories, physically colonize other nations, and enforce own ideologies with iron hand.
However, the current international politics is based on the principles of Liberalism. Unfortunately, liberalism has always faces rejection in the muslim world because of its cons, resultantly, sidelining its pros. This approach has had an immense toll on the development of the muslim world. If liberalism reinforced with Islamic principles, the muslim world can easily gain their lost legacy of the past. Liberalism in simple world advocates for non-military approach in international politics, more diplomatic endeavors in conflicts, economic strength maximization, provision of social justice, and uniform distribution of basic human rights. Also, liberalism accepts military use for defensive purposes, and this point,undoubtedly, coincides with the military use in Islam.
The bottom line is that the Islamic world,instead of only telling the stories of the past and trying to practically implement the strategies of the past, should focus on the new rules of the game, embellish them with Islamic guidelines, and try to excel by following them.
 

AdamA

Senator (1k+ posts)
For the states to compete in the international world, they have to follow he norms and values of the international order. It is unfortunate that we as muslims are still stuck in past, dream about the victories of the past, and want to realize those victories in the current international politics.
Pre-world war 2 international politics was based on the principles of hardcore realism in which states/empires would compete militarily, expand territories, physically colonize other nations, and enforce own ideologies with iron hand.
However, the current international politics is based on the principles of Liberalism. Unfortunately, liberalism has always faces rejection in the muslim world because of its cons, resultantly, sidelining its pros. This approach has had an immense toll on the development of the muslim world. If liberalism reinforced with Islamic principles, the muslim world can easily gain their lost legacy of the past. Liberalism in simple world advocates for non-military approach in international politics, more diplomatic endeavors in conflicts, economic strength maximization, provision of social justice, and uniform distribution of basic human rights. Also, liberalism accepts military use for defensive purposes, and this point,undoubtedly, coincides with the military use in Islam.
The bottom line is that the Islamic world,instead of only telling the stories of the past and trying to practically implement the strategies of the past, should focus on the new rules of the game, embellish them with Islamic guidelines, and try to excel by following them.

Is this the same 'liberism' enforced through the barrel of the gun in the Middle East and elsewhere?
 

ammadk

Minister (2k+ posts)
Is this the same 'liberism' enforced through the barrel of the gun in the Middle East and elsewhere?
I never said that states always blindly follow any political theory, because national interest is of paramount importance. If the middle eastern counties can become militarily strong to oppose the western invaders then they can defend themselves. The middle eastern leader are stuck in internal power politics, which has led to their own demise.
 

AdamA

Senator (1k+ posts)
I never said that states always blindly follow any political theory, because national interest is of paramount importance. If the middle eastern counties can become militarily strong to oppose the western invaders then they can defend themselves. The middle eastern leader are stuck in internal power politics, which has led to their own demise.

This is what you wrote:

...........Liberalism in simple world advocates for non-military approach in international politics, more diplomatic endeavors in conflicts, economic strength maximization, provision of social justice, and uniform distribution of basic human rights. Also, liberalism accepts military use for defensive purposes.......

This is a false premise of some utopia you are propagating. The reality of today and in the past is that a State or Nation who has military superioity will exercise her will on others by economic and military force.

 

ammadk

Minister (2k+ posts)
This is what you wrote:

...........Liberalism in simple world advocates for non-military approach in international politics, more diplomatic endeavors in conflicts, economic strength maximization, provision of social justice, and uniform distribution of basic human rights. Also, liberalism accepts military use for defensive purposes.......

This is a false premise of some utopia you are propagating. The reality of today and in the past is that a State or Nation who has military superioity will exercise her will on others by economic and military force.
Most respectfully sir you are intermixing everything.
if you have read my reply to your last post, then I mention that states do not always follow any one political theory blindly. In simple words, states keep their national interest as a top priority and ,thus, their approach in the international world is an intermix of multiple political theories.
Secondly,
a nation and a state are two different entities by definition. You can't put 'or' between them.
Finally, my point of argument was that how the muslim states can ensure their progress in this political architecture. What ever you have said, I agree with it, however, what you have said about reality is not necessarily correct. It is true that economics and military go hand in hand, but today economic might is the most influential aspect. If not then the USSR would not have disintegrated. They had the military might,but did not have the economic capacity to sustain it along with ensuring internal stability. Lastly, in your argument you have mixed multiple thing and you should review them yourself.
 

hammad78

MPA (400+ posts)
We all should come out of our drawing rooms and raise the voice against Indian aggression in the favor of our Kashmiris Brothers and sisters as I did in San Francisco.

 

AdamA

Senator (1k+ posts)
Most respectfully sir you are intermixing everything.
if you have read my reply to your last post, then I mention that states do not always follow any one political theory blindly. In simple words, states keep their national interest as a top priority and ,thus, their approach in the international world is an intermix of multiple political theories.
Secondly,
a nation and a state are two different entities by definition. You can't put 'or' between them.
Finally, my point of argument was that how the muslim states can ensure their progress in this political architecture. What ever you have said, I agree with it, however, what you have said about reality is not necessarily correct. It is true that economics and military go hand in hand, but today economic might is the most influential aspect. If not then the USSR would not have disintegrated. They had the military might,but did not have the economic capacity to sustain it along with ensuring internal stability. Lastly, in your argument you have mixed multiple thing and you should review them yourself.

I have covered everything.
 

ramdev

Councller (250+ posts)
We all should come out of our drawing rooms and raise the voice against Indian aggression in the favor of our Kashmiris Brothers and sisters as I did in San Francisco.


beimaan insaan ,
kabhi tu apne mulk ke hindu , sikh , masihi , qadiani, hazara , pashtun ,muhajir ke qatl e aam par apni bathroom se bahar aya ?
america me trump ke boot polish aur apne mulk me army ka boot polish kar aur sanfrnsico me 3 sikh se aur 2 yahudi ke sath mil kar jehad karo .
munafiq .

 

ramdev

Councller (250+ posts)

Agar taqreer kar kay aur Twitter par tanz maar kar hi Kashmir azaad karanay ka plan hai to phir PTI aur ISPR say achi taqreer Khadim Hussain Rizvi hi kar leta hai. Is liye iski taqreer bhi siasat.pk par sunni chahiye taakeh josh ziyada ho aur twitter par pooray josh kay saath Modi ko galiyan nikalein aur India fatah karein

is dagga maulvi ko pakistan ki kamaan de do ,
phir dekho tamasha ...... ? ? ? ?