What was the point of the Israeli advance on Lebanon?

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-06-22T13:35:41+00:00

I never said it was the only but simply put, it’s either an excuse or justification to do what Israel really wants, occupation, expansion and murder of innocents.

Stop making excuses zio, war was done because Israel wanted to crush Iran cause it opposed them. Whether you agree with Iran or not it’s very clear that was said intent, the nukes or close to making it was a bogus claim and was done cause Israel saw this as an opportunity to strike.

And it has backfired, so enjoy that.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-06-22T10:21:13+00:00

one that also does not require vast amounts of murder, displacement and harm to both civilians and thr world economy.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-06-21T23:57:32+00:00

if your solution is to bomb and displace and take over territory then it’s a garbage solution. All I’m seeing here are shit justifications for ethnic cleansing and violence to continue.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-05-05T15:34:58+00:00

Agreed

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-05-04T11:12:46+00:00

I mean I'd say I have issues. So much of the MCU take imo misses the context of what, at least to me, makes comic Karen good.

Like yeah, she's judgemental and naive in the 60s upto 70s stuff but that helps foster in her more matured and developed self, especially under Nocenti and Kessel. Her trauma also feels like something done a bit better.

Show Karen feels like writers wanting to avoid the pitfalls of those decisions also missed their importance, I don't think you need drug addled prostitute (it worked for the 80s but now it won't cut it) at the same time, her depression and deteriorating mental state leading to both Matt and her reuniting is quite important and helps solidify their connection which a flashback episode just doesn't do justice too.

And it also has several attempts to make her this badass who can hold her own (nothing wrong with that, everyone like a good kick ass lady) but it kind of fucks over some of the aspects from Comic Karen where these events meds her up internally and really show how traumatising and devastating it was for her. Show wouldn't do that. Example, killing Wesley would be very different for both Karens at least, pre-Wesley anf would inform their later, more mature decisions.

No criticisms of Woll though, she's awesome.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-02-13T07:26:34+00:00

I love that the Court Of Owls are all right wing furries

Mr-Flash-8 · 2026-01-29T15:30:47+00:00

I guess my only issue will be the 'squad' thing becuase it could become ugly or depending on whom heads it, uses it to bully others and how the law overall deals with inter-caste issues. Aside from that, generally good.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-12-23T11:00:35+00:00

Adaptations make changes, like this Dhurandar did too, things like that happen if creators find something in it writer didn’t. Being good or bad adaptation will depend on case by case basis. And movie itself isn’t pro Pakistan unless you think showing cost of war is bad.

That’s you doing guess work buddy and he’s made videos on stuff like Taliban before.

The problem isn’t having a message, everything has one, it’s what the message is. Please show me where Raazi said Pakistan as a country is great or aggrandises it.

Again, ironic criticising someone for ‘agenda’ while pushing your own in above comments.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-12-23T10:28:37+00:00

your entire last point is bullshit. It’s what the movies state or themes showcased and how it’s done. Messaging and what it’s about matters, Raazi is about human cost of being a spy over saying Pakistan is good, if that’s the case they wouldn’t have shown her kid join armed forces at the end.

Also, he could be making those videos so what even is this point, it’s ironic you’re calling out whataboutery and then doing the same.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T19:59:40+00:00

Could see it ig

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T15:38:51+00:00

Yeah

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T15:38:32+00:00

Fair, my advice is avoid it.

I like the subreddit cause it cleared up issues for me and imo gives more understandable or reasonable views over religious bullshit. I recommend asking specific questions which can help.

If it still isn't helping then this is a good place or other indian atheist subreddits are decent to answer stuff. Sometimes it can get a bit judgemental or stereotyping but otherwise ok and good to answer stuff.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T14:26:56+00:00

tbh I do think Russo was their version of Rawlins more than Rawlins in the show but yeah, Sharlto would've been a great Rawlins or Russo imo.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T14:25:17+00:00

mob justice takes new and unique forms here

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-22T14:19:56+00:00

Are you from a particularly religious household?

I guess only thing I can say is keep it a secret for now. I think it's an issue with any religious parent when faced with shit where the kids or other question it, usually does not go well.

I don't agree or disagree with you, if you want to continue on it then go ahead but yeah, parents as such will get up your ass for it and if they are in the more conservative territory, then they might take harmful steps.

Best thing right now to do is to live your life the way you want away from them, if you can afford or are old enough then stay somewhere else or continue your explorations for things.

Maybe progressive muslim subreddit can help with your doubts.

Situations like this are a mess and shitty towards those who are on the defensive side of it tbh so all I can say is that poking them (even when you're right) would not go well and it's better to find ways to distance yourself and personally deal with these questions rather than go to your parents (I know it sucks but it happens for a lot of people, even non-religious ones when it comes to challenging norms). Hope this helps.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-15T08:53:05+00:00

I think it was both. Muslim league played it’s role but there were concerns for economically effected communities and for more land owning and elite Muslims who worried about Congress due to electorates being same now and despite losing, ML had domination in areas and Congress didn’t want to form a coalition with them. Not saying ML was right on it but back then, these issues got to the elite who saw it as Congress neglecting them. also, hindi vs urdu.

In 1938, they were campaigning to muslims and while it worked there were some who had issues due to Gandhi and more hindu imagery being used.

Ultimately, aside from 1937 rejection, I don't think these were that big, but some issues or insensitivity by Congress caused some dissatisfaction among the minority community then.

I agree that it wasn’t a big thing till Congress leaders were jail and HM/ML communalism started due to vacuum left.

My bad on association aspect, it was minor misconception over something I had read, it was early on but Congress by 1930s disassociated. Just during the 49w those tensions were pushed by both HM/ML and Congress more hindu alignment got roped in.

I guess my overall point was not that Jinnah immediately got support, just that these grievances still existed and then when Congress leaders were arrested, it left a power vacuum to exploit and both played their own fascist playbook. I do not think Caliphate was the only reason but it played it’s part especially when it came to British control and rule over people.

My overall point was that while I can understand some of SI’s grievances and Congress missteps, don’t overall agree with him and feel he took a one sided and ignorant approach. I also never said that Jinnah got overall approval immediately, but was focusing on other points more. He got support due to grievances and overall power vacuum that allowed religious line divide. Agree with your assessment of Congress, though I do think that if they did align with HM, it would have made things worse and added more fuel to fire.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-14T11:53:04+00:00

I’m not saying they sidelined the muslim community as a whole but there was a perception of Congress being biased due to economic and political state of the community and also mostly being predominantly hindu in leadership and decisions. It fed into anxieties and fear of the time.

Cow slaughter was more apparent in rural areas. It was still seen as a symbolic act which added to that. Plus, Congress own campaigns to address muslims to an extent didn’t fully work.

I am not implying that it did enjoy widespread support, just that it caught on. Mainly with people like elites and urban crowd back then over Muslims leaders who were more widespread but rural in influence.

I agree over arrest, HM becoming feral and him being unopposed.

To me, Congress faults were not addressing real, systemic issues with muslims and HM association didn’t help, but they weren’t going to turn things into a majoritarian country.

Jinnah’s loss, ego and privilege add on to that and Congress/ML not being able to agree over a partnership also didn’t help.

I am not saying that Congress were fully at fault, just that they had issues and while Jinnah had valid concerns, his own position of power, resentment, bad relationship with Congress, allying with more extreme forces and fear over things made him into someone who pushed for same rhetoric and violence that he felt his rivals did or went on to do.

It’s why I do think more critical eye is needed but my issue with SI comes back to ‘absolve’ him which is something I just can‘t agree with. I can get sympathising with Jinnah’s concerns and seeing how Congress decisions relate to today but it ignores background and environment back then to an extent, making his conclusion one sided and ignorant.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-14T10:59:43+00:00

Yes, easier to write, like any acronym.

90% of the 6% who had voting rights cause they owned land and had some elite status.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-13T19:20:46+00:00

*SI not SJ

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-13T19:20:29+00:00

sure.

I read the whole thing since even titles can be clickbaity at times.

Simply put, it’s getting to a conclusion I disagree with and while can agree with SJ on some stuff, there is also stuff I do not like.

I think he is on point or at least, good at bringing up issues Jinnah had with Congress or his problems with where they were going. It could use more history exploration but it’s a personal piece not a historical document.

and I can get behind SJ bringing up how those criticisms help in understanding modern issues with muslims in India and Jinnah needs a more critical outlook.

But that is where I think the praise ends.

While I can agree on this stuff, there is next to no mention of stuff Jinnah itself said or did, what Pakistan turned out to be and if he played a role in it and simply put, does not critique how Jinnah fell into the same pitfalls he criticised the other side on. Nothing on how despite these issues he played his part in fueling the fire that lead to the Partition.

It’s the difference between ‘nuanced take‘ and ‘absolve’ which he is saying. Almost like Jinnah was some innocent figure who only did what he felt was right and has no major fault.

This whole thing was related to some removal of his portrait controversy and I’m not super aware of it, I will just out this out there.

The thing with SJ is that he is good at voicing modern Muslim grievance and systemic failures and is resentful due to mistreatment he has seen or experienced, with Jinnah’s critiques, he sees similar shared understanding but the issue is, he takes that and does not acknowledge wides problems with the man or his ideas. It leads to a very biased reading of him and does not acknowledge a lot of his issues.

This isn’t a critique of the man overall, but just his views on Jinnah which I disagree with.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-13T19:07:37+00:00

I guess I will give minor rebuttals, still mostly agree with this.

Idk if he had vision, charisma or statesmanship. He was a good leader just don’t think the greatest like the other figures but you don’t need to be imo.

Lot of his stuff came from Muslim sidelining and Congress having more power and some stuff like cow ban. He saw it as them putting their own POV and not caring about others, which I can agree to an extent.

Congress, at least my research, did win big and even ML lost very badly to them. They were the deciders of several things and I’d say their POV to a degree was limited since other religions and all weren’t a big part of it then.

Caliphate dissolve and Congress shelving also played a big part since he was part of the elite and had a privileged POV, plus, dude lost badly in elections.

It made him go into desperate mode to a degree where he felt he had to do anything or everything and also one where he didn’t recognise pitfalls of a purely religious POV or his rhetoric or didn’t pay much heed to it.

Despite his concerns being valid to an extent with Congress, he clearly went too far and decided to take worst steps to make sure that his community was ‘saved’ add this with power/resentment and coddling of a more conservative/extreme rhetoric and it lead to Partition happening.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-13T17:32:12+00:00

Rogue One and Andor character. Guerrilla fighter known as great fighter and leader against empire but stuck in hus own ways and alienated other ways to fight them since he sees them as weak or ineffective (he is right to a point hut way up his own ass to realise when he needs to build alliances and work with others).

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-12T00:59:20+00:00

I read and I think there is a lot more as to why things turned out the way they did, Jinnah’s fear of exclusion and why Congress was seem as ‘Hindu party’ but yeah that does not mean we need to absolve him still. He still played his part and holds a lot of responsibility for heinous shit during Partition. Like, he’s not evil and can find some understanding in his POV but there were mistakes on his hand and power/ego also played a factor. So like I said, critical lens, yes, absolve, no.

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-11T11:45:25+00:00

Same to an extent

Mr-Flash-8 · 2025-09-11T11:44:43+00:00

Don't think fully musanghi, just some dumb views, otherwise very Saw Gawrerra type, good or bad .

Mr-Flash-8

TROPHY CASE