South Asia News
Dec 2, 2008, 15:38 GMT
Indo-Pakistan tensions rise after Mumbai attacks (2nd Roundup)
And Also
Similar articles
- Pakistani groups behind Mumbai attacks off scene but active (Feature)
- Pakistan's support to terrorism harming South Asia: Singh
- India says Pakistan blocking Mumbai-attack probe
- Interpol issues notice seeking militant behind Mumbai attacks
- India will keep providing evidence to Pakistan on Mumbai attack
Latest Headlines in South Asia
- 1. Report: Obama offering closer cooperation with Pakistan
- 2. PREVIEW: Obama wants long term plan for leaving Afghanistan
- 3. Cracked fields, broken lives: the changing monsoon season (Feature)
- 4. Pakistani troops kill eight militants in tribal region
- 5. Bangladesh ferry accident death toll rises to 51
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
page: 1
What? No knee jerk reaction to bomb Pakistan, kill any opposers and then take over their country?
How un-American.
Pakistan's a hair away from being a failed state with a nuclear arsenal. The government has little or no control over its own territory. Corruption is total, everyone is playing both sides.
But yeah, Lance, you can't hold their government responsible. And since what's left of their government is the only thing holding back a full-scale nuclear jihad, let's give 'em the benefit of the doubt.
I'm just wondering, though...at what point WOULD you actually hold them responsible? Say the radical religious elements take power in Islamabad next year and a group of pakistanis slip into mumbai with a nuclear bomb, which would obviously have been provided by their government. At that point, is retaliation justifiable? What if there was a note attached and the Pakistani government claimed credit for it. Would invasion be justifiable then?
Is it ever justifiable, in your view? Or are you of the mind that it's better to be attacked over and over, and ultimately to die, rather than fight back?
Blame Pakistan if you like but I blame Islam and that liar and psycopath called Muhammed.
muslim are as muslims do..
Being a muslim today is an embarrassment to humanity, and a disgrace to mankind. Appently pakistan will protect this criminal group. This pathetic religion sticks together like dirt to an anal cavity.
Like I always say, and the comments above prove:
This is a war of christian v.s. muslim. For the most part: Christians hate muslims and the main strategy christians use to get their way is: hypocrisy.
They kill muslims using jesus-bombs with the left hand, while extending the offer of food and charity with the right hand; while all the time ignoring what they do with the left hand and only talking up right-handed actions.
Hypocrisy through and through. It is the hypocrisy of christians that promotes the problems and injustices of the world.
Lance, I'm an atheist, and you didn't answer any of my questions.
'Lance, I'm an atheist, and you didn't answer any of my questions.'
Atheist do the same thing.
Hypocrisy is not limited to one form of 'faith', and for certain: Atheism is a faith: The faith that something does not exist. I am always humored by atheist that think they are better than christians. Mainly atheist think they have achieved enlightenment because they perceive reality the way it is, but little do they understand that their reality is based on the faith that something does not exist. It is an unprovable proposition.
Sure, atheist can and do use hypocrisy as a tool for power as well.
I find it ironic that the U.S. government has a 'faith based initiative' that excludes atheists as atheism is a faith and any institution based on atheism should be included in a 'faith based initiative', including secularism which is a faith that neutrality of religion is right. The real interpretation of 'faith based initiative' is an initiative to promote the values of the religion that people doing the promoting consider to be a faith. Faith in jesus as our lord and savior is the faith they refer to. Double talk and hypocrisy through and through. They say they want freedom of religion but what they really mean is freedom to be christian ... and freedom to do away with pagans.
'Would invasion be justifiable then?'
I really think you are taking the wrong approach and asking the wrong questions. Infact, your approach and your outlook is self-fulfilling. Your future and your destiny is one of conflict, war and intolerance.
It is a fact that the very people you partner with have provided the nuclear weapons for the destruction you speak of. You are your own worst enemy.
Well, Lance, thanks for the diatribe wherein, without knowing me at all, you act like you understand my beliefs and then spend three paragraphs equating atheists (lit: people who don't believe in God -- does not specify what they do believe in) with Christians and then insinuating that everybody who isn't you is either stupid or corrupt.
You've proven that you're insane.
What you didn't do was answer the simple question I asked: What level of attack should a country be willing to suffer before it retaliates against a neighboring country which harbors and arms its attackers?
That's a pretty simple, straightforward geopolitical question. If you can't answer it, all your blowhard posturing and off-topic raving isn't worth much.
it is none sense to say harsh thing about any religion rather its is Islam or christian its about terrorism or humanity the people who talk about religion in this case are extremist
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story