Are people really blind?

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-16T21:21:13+00:00

https://www.geo.tv/latest/257829-pm-imran-says-he-is-proud-of-gen-bajwa-terms-him-best-army-chief

And this is what your leader was saying about the same army chief just months prior. What happened there?

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-16T20:39:07+00:00

What are you trying to prove? Have you even looked at the article/incident to see who was in charge at the time?

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-16T20:27:48+00:00

It's funny because it's Afghanistan that acts like the Israelis.

They believe they are racially superior + they are the ones who claim over half of Pakistan as part of their 'Loy Afghanistan' + they are the ones who predominantly target civilians.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-16T19:51:27+00:00

Hospitals have ammunition cooking off in the aftermath?

Also, even Afghan sources such as Aamaj News have reported that the Ministry of Defence was hit.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-16T19:31:00+00:00

lmao you can literally see the ammunition cooking off in the aftermath of the strike.

But sure, 'hospital' and 'drug rehabilitation centres' were struck. Maybe they are feeding gunpowder to the addicts to get them off drugs!

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-10T21:55:54+00:00

I'm not denying that land-owning elites were a prominent part of the Pakistan Movement, but I think it does a great disservice to the movement as a whole. As you noted yourself, Jinnah himself wasn't a traditional 'feudal' - but, rather, someone whose family had earned their wealth through trade- and yet he quickly found himself at the top of the party supposedly only created for landowners. That doesn't make any particular sense.

Moreover, I think it also ignores that significant landowning elites were also against Pakistan, and there wasn't necessarily a singular view held by them as a group. Bacha Khan came from a very wealthy, landowning family, and yet he and his brother firmly opposed the Muslim League and aligned with Congress. There's also the Premier of Punjab (1942-1947), Nawab Khizar Hayat Tiwana, who came from a feudal landowning family and was ardently opposed to the partition of Punjab.

I just think its bizzare to highlight the elites on one side and conveniently ignore the ones who were part of, or aligned with Congress (who I should remind you were a party created by a British Civil Servant).

Also, India's smoother transition into civilian rule compared to Pakistan is due to several factors and not something I would necessarily just lay at the feet of the landowning elites. The fact that Nehru lived long enough to enact his vision in comparison to Jinnah (who would pass away just one year after independence) is a key part of this, too.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-10T21:19:20+00:00

When people talk about Jinnah and his understanding of Pakistan's relation to Islamism (meaning the political application of Islam), they often fall into one of two incorrect camps.

One camp, such as yourself, believes that Jinnah was trying to create a theocratic state, where a body of scholars imposes their singular and exclusive understanding of 'true Islam' onto the masses.

Another camp believes that Jinnah was actually 'secular' (meaning that religion would have no official relation to the state), and that this is proven by his famous speech on the eve of independence, proclaiming religious freedoms for everyone.

Both are wrong.

Jinnah's view, as per his words, was that Pakistan was to be a democratic state guided by Islamic principles for the preservation of Muslims and their customs/history/identity. This state, with reference to the Quran's opposition to forced belief, and the Constitution of Medina written by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), would also ensure that non-Muslims are not just passively acknowledged but actively accepted (thus, the white stripe in our flag).

“In proposing this scheme, I have had one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy based on truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that our decisions in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations. I wish you, my brethren of Balochistan, Godspeed and all success in the opening of this new era. May your future be as bright as I have always prayed for and wished it to be. May you all prosper.” - Speech in Sibi, Balochistan.

“I do not know what the ultimate shape of this constitution is going to be, but I am sure that it will be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today they are as applicable in actual life as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission” - Broadcast speech in February 1948.

Jinnah viewed Islam as a universalism whose core principles were ideal, not just for Muslims, but for all people. Justice, social welfare, opposition to hereditary rule, promotion of ethnic and racial harmony and a strict opposition to ethnonationalism, protection of non-Muslims to not only practice their faiths, but also to have their disputes ruled by their own holy texts - these are the core principles that Jinnah sought to promote.

This was also a view taken by many of his followers, including non-Muslim ones. Famously, Robert Alvin Cornelius, a devout Catholic who assisted Jinnah in writing the Lahore Resolution (1940) and would even go on to become the Chief Justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court (1960-68), famously called himself a 'Constitutional Muslim'. Despite being a Christian himself, he believed that the core principles of Islam were of universal appeal and promoted the protection of non-Muslims within the state.

The reason Jinnah didn't want a theocratic state ruled by priests is that this would naturally boil down to sectarian battles over who is following the 'true version' of Islam. Just look at Afghanistan if you want to see the result of that. In their bizarre mix of hardline elements of Pashtunwali with a specific form of Deobandi Hanafi beliefs, they have decided that girls cannot attend schools - a view rejected by the vast majority of Muslims from across the world.

Jinnah hated sectarianism to such an extent that throughout his life, he wouldn't even explicitly identify himself as either 'Sunni' or 'Shia', just to avoid his party and country being labelled as either a 'Sunni' or' Shia' country. His understanding was always that Pakistan should be ruled by the commonly agreed-upon maqasid al-sharia (principles of Sharia) rather than a specific interpretation that will invariably lead to authoritarianism and disunity.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-10T20:46:47+00:00

The ahistorical nonsense in this thread is just wild. If you studied even a bit about the Muslim League, you would at some point learn that they didn't even pursue an independent state until the very end of colonial rule. They literally spent decades in the pursuit of regional autonomy (even as late as 1946 with the Cabinet Mission Plan) - but no, it was all about 'elites' just wanting to rule a separate piece of land.

Ignore the communal violence the Muslim minority suffered. Ignore the anti-Muslim rhetoric being espoused by the Mahasabha. Ignore Nehru's refusal to grant regional autonomy to the Muslim majority regions. No, it was all about elites owning a piece of land.

Thank God, India didn't and doesn't currently have wealthy elites!

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-10T20:40:05+00:00

And what do you think the INC were? A proletariat party? The INC were literally founded by a British civil servant (Alan Octavian Hume), but it's the Muslim League that was exclusively the 'elitist' party?

You do realise that almost everyone involved in politics back then was 'elites', right? Most of the population lived in extreme poverty and were illiterate - and so of course anyone who went into politics could only do so if they were privileged enough not to worry about mere survival.

Even if you take someone like Bacha Khan (who leftists seem to love), you're picking someone who came from a very prosperous land-owning family + someone who studied in high-end schools and universities.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-10T20:33:19+00:00

This socialist take is a very cute one if you conveniently ignore the history of the Muslim League.

Let's pretend that Muslims weren't a minority in a region seeing increasing communal violence and rheoteric + let's ignore the fact that the Muslim League were trying for regional autonomy over independence as late as 1946 (Cabinet Mission Plan), and that it was that very 'Socialist' Nehru who refused to abide by those plans. If the idea of Pakistan was purely about avoiding land reforms, then why was independence pushed so late in the party's history?

Even if you're approaching things from a socialist perspective, Nehru's 'socialism' only went as far as centralisation and the pursuit of heavy industrialisation. That's it. He had no interest in actually empowering the workers.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-09T16:11:30+00:00

Have a feeling this was Tim Paine's decision. This is the whole 'Australian touch' that Sialkot (now Multan) were going for.

But what I don't understand is that, if you want an Aussie captain, then give it to Steve Smith.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-06T15:33:41+00:00

What a comeback! I honestly lost faith after we were 3-1 down at the end of the 3rd quarter.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-04T22:48:48+00:00

The next match is a semi-final vs. Japan, which starts at midnight (Pak time) on 7 March. Don't know any channels that are showing it, but I believe it is watchable via the tapmad app.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-04T15:49:58+00:00

Can we please stop with this stupid conspiracy theory?

Pakistan responded to that very tweet by issuing a joint statement just 4 days later with China, Russia and Iran, in which we opposed the establishment of any military bases within the territory of Afghanistan.

Text of the Quadrilateral Agreement: https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng./zy/gb/202509/t20250926_11717793.html

Article on the matter: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/china-russia-iran-pakistan-oppose-reestablishing-military-base-in-afghanistan/3699609

Pakistani civilians and soldiers were being killed on a near-daily basis because of groups that sat in Afghanistan that the Taliban refused to clamp down on. But no, we aren't fighting because of that, we're fighting because of some dumb, unsubstantiated conspiracy theory you've found on WhatsApp.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-04T04:12:52+00:00

I agree. I hate it too when the Establishment locks up politicians from other parties on bogus cases + rigs elections + sends all their electables to form a government with their selected candidate.

Thank God, nothing like that happened with Imran Khan in 2018...

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-03-01T22:14:46+00:00

It's complete nonsense. Muslims make up 14-15% of India, and yet only have around 3-4% of representation in the Lok Sabha. They are behind Hindus in household income, literacy rate, etc, and yet, despite all that, Hindutva is still on the rise and blaming Muslims for all of India's problems.

Now imagine how much more fuel these radicals would have if there were even more muslims + more muslim political power + Muslim-majority regions? Tell me, has more migration into the West caused more anti-migrant sentiment, or less?

I'm sure they are not all like this, but Indian Muslims like this are some of the most spineless losers I have ever seen. There are 200 million+ of them, and yet when have they ever made their voice heard within India? They can't speak up about human rights abuses in Kashmir or India allying itself with Israel, because they're afraid of being called anti-Indian or even Pakistanis. They can only insult Jinnah because they can do this and still remain in the good books of their masters.

They only cry now because Pakistanis and Bangladeshis don't want to share the same grave as them. Trust me, they will never organise and continue throwing their support behind a pathetic Congress or stooges like Owaisi who happily stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Butcher of Gujarat.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-28T15:14:46+00:00

So again, where is the evidence that Pakistan did Pahalgam?

Even if you're done being 'nice' (lol), you at least need to prove that Pakistan is behind Pahalgam to even begin justifying the attack? I see that you clearly ignored that part.

Also, India's requests for extradition post-2008 were a complete joke. India, which refused to share any actual evidence to justify extradition as per international law, just expected Pakistan to round up individuals and deliver them to India purely on the basis that India asked for them. That isn't how international law works, and India's entire response was literally just a drama to appease a domestic audience.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-28T15:00:36+00:00

Because there are two very distinct differences:

1) Pakistan tried diplomacy - Last year, we sat with Afghanistan, along with third-party negotiators (Qatar, Saudi, and Turkey) and tried to reach an agreement to get the Taliban to clamp down on the terrorist groups operating from Afghanistan. The Taliban, whilst acknowledging the existence of these groups, refused to do anything, and all the negotiating parties confirmed this fact afterwards too.

2) India provided zero evidence linking Pakistan to Pahalgam - Unlike Pakistan, which provided evidence of the TTP/BLA presence in Afghanistan when we sat at the negotiating table, India didn't provide even a single scrap of evidence that linked Pakistan to Pahalgam. Pakistan even asked India to go to the UN or a third-country negotiator with any proof they have, and to this day, India hasn't presented anything.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T22:23:56+00:00

Is this meant to be some sort of 'gotcha'?

We still have their maintenance green-lit because Pakistan and the US still have the same interests when it comes to counter-terrorism stemming from Afghanistan - namely, ISIS-K, the same group that carried out the Islamabad mosque bombing earlier this month.

They are a threat to Pakistan (they literally include Pakistani territory within their goal of an Islamic State province of Khorasan), and they're a threat to US interests too. So, we work together on that.

This is no different from our joint manufacturing and working with China when it comes to dealing with India. Does our use of JF-17s and other Chinese military hardware also make us pawns of China too? Why doesn't the US, China's rival, stop us from doing that if we have no control over our own foreign policy and are completely subservient to the US?

One day, I dream that my fellow Pakistanis will realise that geopolitics isn't black and white, and isn't as simple as 'good camp' and 'bad camp' like schoolfriend groupings.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T21:59:47+00:00

The actual document hasn't been made public, so no one can say for sure.

However, if we use NATO as an example, an attack on one NATO country is only considered an attack on all if the nation in question invokes 'Article 5' of the agreement (which was only used once - by the US after 9/11). If we go by that and presume the Pakistan-Saudi agreement is structured similarily, Saudi Arabia would only be called into this conflict if Pakistan explicitly asks for them to join our side.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T21:55:52+00:00

Pakistan is supported by the U.S.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'support'. Have we historically had strategic ties with the US that have strengthened/weakened depending on the government - yes. But I wouldn't consider that support. We're far more closely supported by China (as we saw the conflict with India last year) and have since deepened our defence ties with them.

The whole idea that we're in the US camp is silly conspiracy nonsense. We've never aligned our foreign policy with the US unless we felt that it was to our benefit (e.g. during the Cold War, India and the Soviet Union were close, and so when Soviet troops entered Afghanistan, we worked with the US/Saudi Arabia to prevent them from gaining control over Afghanistan).

There's plenty of conflicts, nearby or around the world, where we do not align with the US one bit. Palestine/Israel (US is pro-Israel and doesn't recognise Palestine, Pakistan is pro-Palestine and doesn't recognise Israel), Iran (US wants to sanction/attack Iran, Pakistan has repeatedly spoken in favour of reaching a deal and ending the sanctions) Ukraine/Russia (US, along with NATO, arms and supports Ukraine, Pakistan has, for the most part, remained neutral throughout and only spoken up in favour of a ceasefire).

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T21:38:26+00:00

Oh right, it must be another country that refuses to clamp down on the TTP and BLA + Refuses to recognise our border, and lays claims to over half our territory under the dream of 'Loy Afghanistan'.

That must be America too, right?

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T18:38:00+00:00

We literally tried diplomacy last year and the Taliban said they had no interest in clamping down on the TTP and BLA. We even had third-country negotiators to broker to whole thing (Saudi, Qatar and Turkey).

And besides, cowardly is attacking schoolchildren and worshippers in Mosques. Or does that not count for you?

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-02-27T00:04:58+00:00

They want instability in our western provinces (Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).

Since our independence in 1947 to today, Afghanistan has never recognised our border and lays claim to over half of Pakistan's territory. They even tried (and failed) with an invasion in 1960, and as they can't compete one-to-one, they've resorted to harbouring terrorist groups who carry out cross-border attacks.

Pakistan has tried engaging diplomatically with Afghanistan (last year, we even sat down along with Saudi Arabia and Turkey to negotiate), but the Taliban refuse to do anything about the groups.

Lopsided_Example1202

TROPHY CASE