Benazir Bhutto assassinated

[j2k4]

This sure doesn't help.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318510,00.html

[clocker]

sheesh.

Gonna go from bad to worse fast...

[chalice]

That's some scene of devastation.

She should never have returned to Pakistan. This was always going to happen.

[tralalala]

And yet again.. Radical Muslims with their problem-free solution to everything.. If you don't like it - bomb it.

Hardly surprising.

[Biggles]

One wonders if they will have anything left to bomb at the rate they are going. They really have a bizarre take on life death

[FatBob]

i think the president did this to avoid elections

[tralalala]

@Biggles: That's their solution to overpopulation on earth I guess..

[Evil9]

Thats tragic, and definitely makes more of a problem.

[j2k4]

And yet again.. Radical Muslims with their problem-free solution to everything.. If you don't like it - bomb it.

Hardly surprising.

No, not surprising at all.

How about supremely and stupifyingly dismaying?

We look about for signs of change and see none.

Surely you - of all of us, Rafi - should avoid such jaded thoughts.

[SAM]

Benazir Bhutto assassinated because the elections and it's very easy to see that the president had something to do with her assassination .
radical Muslims won't gain any thing from such act.
in every muslim's opinion radical or not ;
Benazir Bhutto was better than this president who is nothing but a toy in usa hands .

[tralalala]

And yet again.. Radical Muslims with their problem-free solution to everything.. If you don't like it - bomb it.

Hardly surprising.

No, not surprising at all.

How about supremely and stupifyingly dismaying?

We look about for signs of change and see none.

Surely you - of all of us, Rafi - should avoid such jaded thoughts.

I'm afraid that over the years, in my experience living in a conflict area, such thoughts are the default of most people who go through a war, suicide bomber attacks, rocket attacks and whatnot. This act of stupidity, or whatever else you think it should be called, is just another wake up call for the rest of the world to the state radical Muslims are getting the world into. A constant threat on millions of peoples' lives, thinking twice before going places, talking to certain people.. It's all a new state of mind people are having to adapt to because some people in this world think that by taking a bomb, wrapping it round your body, and shoving all possible pieces of shrapnel in it, then trying to kill as many people as possible - is the right way of life.

It's been going on for too long, and to be entirely honest I've had enough. I've had my share of this shit. Whenever I see the pictures of the WTC having a plane penetrate it's floors, I can't help but think why on earth would someone want to do such a thing? I can't help but think I'd like to meet the person who hijacked the plane, and torture him for all the death, injuries, pain and fear he implemented in to so many people's lives for nothing. For no good reason.


I want you, j2k, to really take a moment and think if you can really see yourself going to talk eye-to-eye with Bin Laden, Khaled Masha'al, Hassan Nasrallah, etc. Can you really imagine yourself sitting down in the same room with them trying to have a polite and calm conversation about their way of life, and their solutions to the areas problems?

I can't. Even after trying for so long. I can't.

[ilw]

in your eyes have the israelis done anything at all to deserve the hatred of the palestinians and if so what?

[tralalala]

We're talking about radical Muslims round the world right now ilw. We can go and talk about the "Israel or Palestine" topic later on.

I can't help but feel you're being too easy-going with these particular things being done. You've never experienced living in an area with shit going on like it does round my hood (as far as I know.). So.. that's about it.

[ilw]

fair enough, you just really get my back up when you pretend that Israelis are the victims in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

[tralalala]

Both sides have victims.. I never said there aren't any Palestinian victims. I was one of many who has had their house almost bombed because of Hizbollah attacks last summer.. Just to name a specific case.

But anyhow, it's the radical Muslims in general I'm talking about.. I mean, there was something on the BBC World Service today about Malaysia prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" by any non-Muslims... I may have misheard, cos I was like WTF, who the hell are they to call the shots of what someone can and can't say? That's taking it a little too far in my mind.
It just seems that of all religions, it's the radical Muslims that have taken everything a step and a half forward to the "over the top" stage of everything (violence, execution methods, etc..).


But that's just me.

[ilw]

Both sides have victims.. I never said there aren't any Palestinian victims. I was one of many who has had their house almost bombed because of Hizbollah attacks last summer.. Just to name a specific case.
wow thats really brought the reality of the situation home to me. Almost.



But anyhow, it's the radical Muslims in general I'm talking about.. I mean, there was something on the BBC World Service today about Malaysia prohibiting the use of the word "Allah" by any non-Muslims... I may have misheard, cos I was like WTF, who the hell are they to call the shots of what someone can and can't say? That's taking it a little too far in my mind.

Britain has (or recently had) a blasphemy law...
and 'they' are the people making the laws in Malaysia, who the hell are you to question whether they should or should not be able to make this law?


It just seems that of all religions, it's the radical Muslims that have taken everything a step and a half forward to the "over the top" stage of everything (violence, execution methods, etc..).

But that's just me.
judaism &christianity were just as retarded back in the day, its just that they have modernised...

[j2k4]

judaism &christianity were just as retarded back in the day, its just that they have modernised...

One rightfully infers, then, that you believe Judaism and Christianity to have modernized themselves so as to forestall practice of the brutish characteristics advocated by the current iteration of Islam.

Would you, in future posting, regularly set aside a wee bit of space in order to advocate the modernization of Islam, which (one presumes) would allay our current concerns, rather than continuing to scorn Christianity and Judaism, et.al. :whistling

Happy New Year to you all, BTW. :D

[ilw]

judaism &christianity were just as retarded back in the day, its just that they have modernised...

One rightfully infers, then, that you believe Judaism and Christianity to have modernized themselves so as to forestall practice of the brutish characteristics advocated by the current iteration of Islam.
'so as to' implies intent, organised religion is a very conservative establishment, hence the main bits of it nearly always needs to be dragged along kicking and screaming. The current thing about gays and women in the protestant church is a case in point.




Would you, in future posting, regularly set aside a wee bit of space in order to advocate the modernization of Islam, which (one presumes) would allay our current concerns, rather than continuing to scorn Christianity and Judaism, et.al. :whistling


As i'm sure you're aware i scorn all religions and their indoctrinated adherents equally. I will add something to my signature.
Happy new year.

[tralalala]

judaism &christianity were just as retarded back in the day, its just that they have modernised...

That's the key point. You seem to acknowledge the fact that quite a bunch of Muslims, and that quite a bunch of Muslim laws are fitted for the middle ages. Problem is, these laws are taken and practiced as "full country laws", unlike the somewhat weird Jewish laws, and somewhat weird Christian laws, when I can do whatever the hell I like. That's one of my main argument points. Radical Islam has to quit thinking that killing and spilling blood all over the walls is going to be the way to get what they could achieve anyways by sitting down and talking to the certain people they crave to wipe of the earth so much.

Oh, and what were you to say if you were part of a small non-religious group living in Malaysia about such a law, and a "so-called" democratic country? Hardly a democratic law to me. I mean, even Israel, which has it's religious laws (no business can operate on the Sabbath for instance) doesn't reach such ridiculous ideas for laws.

Then, one can come and offer the argument about the "Mohammed teddybear". I must ask you ilw: Who the hell are the people in the Sudan to demand the stoning (and as a result the killing of) that (may I say moronic) British woman? I mean.. Calling a fluffy toy Mohammed.. A reason to kill?



If that's not extremism I'm not sure I know what is...

[maebach]

And yet again.. Radical Muslims with their problem-free solution to everything.. If you don't like it - bomb it.

Hardly surprising.

word. Theres this one case near where I live, where some father strangled his daughter because she wore skirts and not a burka. Her friends told the press that her dad hated the way she dressed and threatened her. A week later, some muslim organization got together and came to a consensus that it wasnt over the burka but something else. Everyone knows that was the reason, but they deny everything.

http://www.blogher.com/canadian-muslim-girl-strangled-death-father
It was on teh front page of almost every paper


Back on topic: I tihnk all of teh west was rooting for Bhutto to bring change and democracy to a new level. RIP

[ilw]

judaism &christianity were just as retarded back in the day, its just that they have modernised...

That's the key point. You seem to acknowledge the fact that quite a bunch of Muslims, and that quite a bunch of Muslim laws are fitted for the middle ages. Problem is, these laws are taken and practiced as "full country laws", unlike the somewhat weird Jewish laws, and somewhat weird Christian laws, when I can do whatever the hell I like. That's one of my main argument points. Radical Islam has to quit thinking that killing and spilling blood all over the walls is going to be the way to get what they could achieve anyways by sitting down and talking to the certain people they crave to wipe of the earth so much.
you've changed your point, I can pretty much agree with what you say above.





Oh, and what were you to say if you were part of a small non-religious group living in Malaysia about such a law, and a "so-called" democratic country? Hardly a democratic law to me. I mean, even Israel, which has it's religious laws (no business can operate on the Sabbath for instance) doesn't reach such ridiculous ideas for laws.

Then, one can come and offer the argument about the "Mohammed teddybear". I must ask you ilw: Who the hell are the people in the Sudan to demand the stoning (and as a result the killing of) that (may I say moronic) British woman? I mean.. Calling a fluffy toy Mohammed.. A reason to kill?

If that's not extremism I'm not sure I know what is...
I wasn't sure what you were talking about here, but then i realised it might be a translation problem. I'm not sure 'who the hell' is the phrase you're looking for, I think you mean something more like 'what are they like' (english slang for expressing disbelief at the stupidity of others).
'Who the hell are they to do that' means something more like 'what gives them the right to do that' and the people in sudan and malaysia surely have the right to do almost anything in their own country

[tralalala]

That's what international law is as far as I figure.

Its ridiculous to let go cases like this, which show us how radical (and ridicule) religion can get (in this, and many other cases, Islam). Stop and think for a moment - If you bought a teddy bear, and named it Jesus for a laugh, then the next day an angry mob would knock against your door demanding you get stoned to death.. Wouldn't you think it's the mob that should stand to trial rather than you? Don't you think it's cases like these that should bring us to think what are we meant to do so that the next generation of Muslims doesn't get even worse than the current one? At their rate of reproduction, we'll have an Al-Quaeda state within the next 10-15 years, easy. In my mind, if nothing is done to calm these radical gits down, within the next 30 years or so some shit is gonna drop. Something way heavier than 9/11. It's only the simple and obvious way to look at it.

[ilw]

what are you suggesting we do? and whats an al-qaeda state?

[tralalala]

Al Quaeda state? Exactly what it sounds like. Radical Muslims take over a Muslim state (say for the same of argument - the Sudan), government - All Al Quaeda people. In other words, instead of being a group, they excel to being a proper state with an ideology behind them etc..

And what do I suggest we do? To be honest, I'm ill right now (seriously.. been vomiting all day, what a way to start 2008 :( ), I'll give it some thought and post back sometime this week :)

[ilw]

didn't the taliban (and probably others) already do the whole radical muslim state about 10 years ago?

as for what we should do I think you'll have trouble coming up with stuff because people in general are bloody-minded and whatever you try to support will be more likely to fail because you're supporting it. Although i did see an interesting article which went someway along Marxist lines and suggested that support for radical islam generally results from poverty and anger initially directed at the corrupt elite that control many muslim countries. So the article was perhaps suggesting that we have all the wrong friends in the world (e.g. the Saudi royal family), and i thought the idea had some merit.

[tralalala]

So I'm sensing that you feel we should try do do as little as possible in order to reduce the amount of "stuff" radical Muslims do worldwide? :unsure:

I mean, there's a couple ways to look at it - First, you could let stuff ride as it is now, then within some 15 years have a nuclear war against some terror group, kill a billion people on earth, then someone may stand up and say "hey.. are these Muslims that claim to be Allahs fighters really doing us a favor by blasting the hell out of everyone in sight?", and I suppose then a couple years would pass till quietness is restored in the world. Second option would be to try and get this type of sense into peoples minds now, rather than later. It's funny seeing how people seem to take Muslim terrorist acts so light-minded, it's only going to explode in your face sooner or later.

[ilw]

no, not as little as possible, I just think you're going to have to be a bit more intelligent than killing the bad guys and funding the good guys. To be honest i was hoping you'd suggest things because its a fkload easier to shoot ideas down than to make them up and i've never really considered what i'd do. Thinking about it on the spot though there are a number of 'worldwide' things that could be tried (I'll skip thinking about things to do within england):
1) change the way we deal with the corrupt leaders of various countries most notably Saudi Arabia, where we're propping up a dodgy dodgy regime in a country which supplied half the 9/11 terrorists. Maybe forge a closer alliance with Jordan as they seem to be a more forward looking and stable nation
2) invest more heavily in fusion research, as once we don't need oil we're in a much better position to deal with the middle east.
3) Maybe a muslim US president would be interesting, at the very least someone who isn't stupid enough to believe in good and evil would be nice
4) Push for making kashmir a separate state or a co-owned state with a fair degree of autonomy
5) Put pressure on Israel to roll back to 1967 borders (approximately) and make jerusalem an autonomous and protected city. Facts on the ground should carry no weight in the negotiations otherwise it sets the worst possible precedent. Enforce the existing UN resolutions that apply to the region.
6) The liberalisation (?) of Islam is basically happening in the west, I'm not sure how it can be encouraged to spread, perhaps encouraging Muslims who grew up in the west to return to their parent's home nations (at least those nations which aren't in the shit right now)
7) Stop the war on drugs and instead legalise & control it and turn addiction back into a medical problem (to help stabilise afghanistan)
8) Reign in the arms trade worldwide, in particular put as much pressure on reducing the manufacture and supply of small arms (i.e. a total cessation of these arms from the west and as much of a clampdown on the small scale manufacture of stuff like ak47s as possible)
9) A push for a worldwide reduction in child bearing across all religions & races as population explosion will scupper just about anything.
10) Big increases in the funding for education of the poor worldwide

[orfik]

I have to say, when the extremists want someone dead, they don't fuck around. Almost 180 casualties to kill one woman. Have these people ever heard of sniper rifles?

[maebach]

So I'm sensing that you feel we should try do do as little as possible in order to reduce the amount of "stuff" radical Muslims do worldwide? :unsure:

I mean, there's a couple ways to look at it - First, you could let stuff ride as it is now, then within some 15 years have a nuclear war against some terror group, kill a billion people on earth, then someone may stand up and say "hey.. are these Muslims that claim to be Allahs fighters really doing us a favor by blasting the hell out of everyone in sight?", and I suppose then a couple years would pass till quietness is restored in the world. Second option would be to try and get this type of sense into peoples minds now, rather than later. It's funny seeing how people seem to take Muslim terrorist acts so light-minded, it's only going to explode in your face sooner or later.
I can somewhat agree with your position.

no, not as little as possible, I just think you're going to have to be a bit more intelligent than killing the bad guys and funding the good guys. To be honest i was hoping you'd suggest things because its a fkload easier to shoot ideas down than to make them up and i've never really considered what i'd do. Thinking about it on the spot though there are a number of 'worldwide' things that could be tried (I'll skip thinking about things to do within england):
1) change the way we deal with the corrupt leaders of various countries most notably Saudi Arabia, where we're propping up a dodgy dodgy regime in a country which supplied half the 9/11 terrorists. Maybe forge a closer alliance with Jordan as they seem to be a more forward looking and stable nation
2) invest more heavily in fusion research, as once we don't need oil we're in a much better position to deal with the middle east.
3) Maybe a muslim US president would be interesting, at the very least someone who isn't stupid enough to believe in good and evil would be nice
4) Push for making kashmir a separate state or a co-owned state with a fair degree of autonomy
5) Put pressure on Israel to roll back to 1967 borders (approximately) and make jerusalem an autonomous and protected city. Facts on the ground should carry no weight in the negotiations otherwise it sets the worst possible precedent. Enforce the existing UN resolutions that apply to the region.
6) The liberalisation (?) of Islam is basically happening in the west, I'm not sure how it can be encouraged to spread, perhaps encouraging Muslims who grew up in the west to return to their parent's home nations (at least those nations which aren't in the shit right now)
7) Stop the war on drugs and instead legalise & control it and turn addiction back into a medical problem (to help stabilise afghanistan)
8) Reign in the arms trade worldwide, in particular put as much pressure on reducing the manufacture and supply of small arms (i.e. a total cessation of these arms from the west and as much of a clampdown on the small scale manufacture of stuff like ak47s as possible)
9) A push for a worldwide reduction in child bearing across all religions & races as population explosion will scupper just about anything.
10) Big increases in the funding for education of the poor worldwide

1) agree
2)somewhat agree. fusion research would take billions. that would need to be a project worked on by all of the world
3)NEVER! Are you fckin crazy?
4)fuck the muslims in kashmir. we (india) gave them pakistan they should be content with that. I totally disagree with giving them pakistan in the first place. but since we did, they should leave if they dont like kashmir. Its like what happened to teh natives here in canada, white people came, asked for help, got it, then killed them. that's whats happening to india, they asked, we gave, and now they want more.
5)stupid. its like asking a dog and cat to sleep together
6)meh
7)again, that would take international co-operation because every country has problem with drugs
8)agree
9)yes, especially africa. fckin stupid how they're such shit and still having kids
10) join with 9. we were taught at school that the more educated a woman is, the less children she has because she understands the circumstances she will face.

[ilw]

I can somewhat agree with your position.

no, not as little as possible, I just think you're going to have to be a bit more intelligent than killing the bad guys and funding the good guys. To be honest i was hoping you'd suggest things because its a fkload easier to shoot ideas down than to make them up and i've never really considered what i'd do. Thinking about it on the spot though there are a number of 'worldwide' things that could be tried (I'll skip thinking about things to do within england):
1) change the way we deal with the corrupt leaders of various countries most notably Saudi Arabia, where we're propping up a dodgy dodgy regime in a country which supplied half the 9/11 terrorists. Maybe forge a closer alliance with Jordan as they seem to be a more forward looking and stable nation
2) invest more heavily in fusion research, as once we don't need oil we're in a much better position to deal with the middle east.
3) Maybe a muslim US president would be interesting, at the very least someone who isn't stupid enough to believe in good and evil would be nice
4) Push for making kashmir a separate state or a co-owned state with a fair degree of autonomy
5) Put pressure on Israel to roll back to 1967 borders (approximately) and make jerusalem an autonomous and protected city. Facts on the ground should carry no weight in the negotiations otherwise it sets the worst possible precedent. Enforce the existing UN resolutions that apply to the region.
6) The liberalisation (?) of Islam is basically happening in the west, I'm not sure how it can be encouraged to spread, perhaps encouraging Muslims who grew up in the west to return to their parent's home nations (at least those nations which aren't in the shit right now)
7) Stop the war on drugs and instead legalise & control it and turn addiction back into a medical problem (to help stabilise afghanistan)
8) Reign in the arms trade worldwide, in particular put as much pressure on reducing the manufacture and supply of small arms (i.e. a total cessation of these arms from the west and as much of a clampdown on the small scale manufacture of stuff like ak47s as possible)
9) A push for a worldwide reduction in child bearing across all religions & races as population explosion will scupper just about anything.
10) Big increases in the funding for education of the poor worldwide

1) agree
2)somewhat agree. fusion research would take billions. that would need to be a project worked on by all of the world
3)NEVER! Are you fckin crazy?
4)fuck the muslims in kashmir. we (india) gave them pakistan they should be content with that. I totally disagree with giving them pakistan in the first place. but since we did, they should leave if they dont like kashmir. Its like what happened to teh natives here in canada, white people came, asked for help, got it, then killed them. that's whats happening to india, they asked, we gave, and now they want more.
5)stupid. its like asking a dog and cat to sleep together
6)meh
7)again, that would take international co-operation because every country has problem with drugssort of ring fence the
8)agree
9)yes, especially africa. fckin stupid how they're such shit and still having kids
10) join with 9. we were taught at school that the more educated a woman is, the less children she has because she understands the circumstances she will face.

2) fusion research is already a global thing and does cost billions and the law of reducing gains naturally applies to any increased investment, but personally i'd be willing to spend more, a lot more. Maybe i'm just being impatient but i don't want to have to wait 50 years...

3) lol, muslims aren't your enemy. Whats the worst that could happen.

4) i didn't suggest giving away kashmir, and why do you care, you don't live there do you? Are you just expressioning some nationalistic feelings?

5) there are currently no good solutions, ultimately i favour a one state non-racist solution (i.e. not a jewish state, just a state for all the people across all the land)

7) yes it sort of would, although if we could get all of europe on board i think that would be a sufficiently large area and would allow you to be independent of the rest of the world

10) true but religion screws it up. The vatican in particular have a lot to answer for in Africa because of their bullsh t about contraception

[maebach]

I can somewhat agree with your position.


1) agree
2)somewhat agree. fusion research would take billions. that would need to be a project worked on by all of the world
3)NEVER! Are you fckin crazy?
4)fuck the muslims in kashmir. we (india) gave them pakistan they should be content with that. I totally disagree with giving them pakistan in the first place. but since we did, they should leave if they dont like kashmir. Its like what happened to teh natives here in canada, white people came, asked for help, got it, then killed them. that's whats happening to india, they asked, we gave, and now they want more.
5)stupid. its like asking a dog and cat to sleep together
6)meh
7)again, that would take international co-operation because every country has problem with drugssort of ring fence the
8)agree
9)yes, especially africa. fckin stupid how they're such shit and still having kids
10) join with 9. we were taught at school that the more educated a woman is, the less children she has because she understands the circumstances she will face.

2) fusion research is already a global thing and does cost billions and the law of reducing gains naturally applies to any increased investment, but personally i'd be willing to spend more, a lot more. Maybe i'm just being impatient but i don't want to have to wait 50 years...

3) lol, muslims aren't your enemy. Whats the worst that could happen.

4) i didn't suggest giving away kashmir, and why do you care, you don't live there do you? Are you just expressioning some nationalistic feelings?

5) there are currently no good solutions, ultimately i favour a one state non-racist solution (i.e. not a jewish state, just a state for all the people across all the land)

7) yes it sort of would, although if we could get all of europe on board i think that would be a sufficiently large area and would allow you to be independent of the rest of the world

10) true but religion screws it up. The vatican in particular have a lot to answer for in Africa because of their bullsh t about contraception


I understand that there arent many ways of fixing our problem (birth rate/terrorism/isreal), and you have created good ideas. The only thing I have to stand by is number 4. I must say that I am a nationalist to some extent. It just angers me that muslims are so self-centered.

http://amboytimes.typepad.com/the_amboy_times/2007/10/muslims-blow-up.html
http://dhammatimes.blogspot.com/2007/09/attack-on-giant-pakistan-buddha-statue.html

If only when they could respect other religions will I return the favour. Im not Buddhist, but even this upsets me. Not only is it religion, but it is art as well. Im sure if I drew a picture of allah Id have a fatwa on me. But blowing up statues is alright.

[tralalala]

^ I abso-bloody-lutely agree with everything you just posted.

[ilw]

so you're willing to deny 10 million people the right to self determination because you don't like muslims and you like the idea of ruling other people?
Theres nothing at all in Kashmir that you actually want?

[maebach]

so you're willing to deny 10 million people the right to self determination because you don't like muslims and you like the idea of ruling other people?
Theres nothing at all in Kashmir that you actually want?

I never said that. Im just saying Im dissappointed in their judgement to stay in a country that they dont like. You see, I only have a problem with the people you dont like living in Kashmir and want it as a muslim state. I should have pointed that out earlier. I have no problem with the muslims who are living in peace, have a job, go to a mosque and pray. Its the ones who wake up everyday and hope that Kashmir is there's (muslim state). Or the ones who think they should open up the borders or loosen security, becasue you cant trust the Pakistanis. Look what happened to Bhutto. I find it difficult to befriend a nation that hates something so much to that they will destroy it even though many people believe in it. I know it wasnt the government, it was an organization, but even the organization must have supporters to be able to carry out acts like this. Whatever organization did it, I hope they know Im going to draw a very mean picture of Allah.

So you see what I mean by they should be content. When Pakistan says to India that Kashmir is equally there's they should get the finger and a reply saying, "what you are living on was given to you by us." Its like helping someone on work, and then them turning around and asking you to finish it for them.

Also, doesnt it strike you that one of the most corrupt police forces in the world can say they have intelligence that it was Al Queda behind the attacks days after she was killed?

[tralalala]

On the same topic of radical Islam, I must ask you, ilw, how you feel about the bounty put on the head of that chap from Norway (I think) who drew a caricature of Mohammed with a bomb or whatever.. Don't you think that just shows how pathetic and childish radical Muslims have become? I mean from Christs sake, can't you even laugh about yourself? There were worldwide riots because... because, of a bloody caricature!! Jews, Christians - We can all laugh the hell out of each other and tell some mean jokes, but nah, post one image out of order regarding Muslims, and you'll get your head chopped off.

[poffin]

so you're willing to deny 10 million people the right to self determination because you don't like muslims and you like the idea of ruling other people?
Theres nothing at all in Kashmir that you actually want?

I never said that. Im just saying Im dissappointed in their judgement to stay in a country that they dont like. You see, I only have a problem with the people you dont like living in Kashmir and want it as a muslim state. I should have pointed that out earlier. I have no problem with the muslims who are living in peace, have a job, go to a mosque and pray. Its the ones who wake up everyday and hope that Kashmir is there's (muslim state). Or the ones who think they should open up the borders or loosen security, becasue you cant trust the Pakistanis. Look what happened to Bhutto. I find it difficult to befriend a nation that hates something so much to that they will destroy it even though many people believe in it. I know it wasnt the government, it was an organization, but even the organization must have supporters to be able to carry out acts like this. Whatever organization did it, I hope they know Im going to draw a very mean picture of Allah.

So you see what I mean by they should be content. When Pakistan says to India that Kashmir is equally there's they should get the finger and a reply saying, "what you are living on was given to you by us." Its like helping someone on work, and then them turning around and asking you to finish it for them.

Also, doesnt it strike you that one of the most corrupt police forces in the world can say they have intelligence that it was Al Queda behind the attacks days after she was killed?

So that's the main reason I see...Well I hope you know that It's not God's fault that those radicals get ideas like killing Benazir Bhutto. Allah didn't told them things like "Go kill Mrs. Bhutto". They've come up with those ideas themselves. So you shouldn't go blame Allah for this just because some muslim radicals did it.

[tralalala]

So how can you call them Muslims? I thought somewhere in the Koran it said Jews shouldn't be harmed, that Islam is the religion of peace..? How on earth can you call these particular people Muslims if they do exactly the opposite of what their holiest book tells them to do?

[poffin]

I cannot judge about that, it's mainly because they pray and worship Allah. Also that's one of the many things like a real muslim would do. But still they do have some radical ideas. Maybe it's because they have suffered themselves at time of war and seen many of their people suffer horrible things so now they gained much hatred against their enemys and want revenge. And so they do all the bombing and stuff. You should also not forget how inoncent people are a victim to bombing, not only bombings from the radical-muslim side but also from the american side. Like when the americans bombed an area in afghanistan where they apparently thought the taliban occupied, so they went on and bombarded it. After that it turned out there was no taliban in there and at that moment there was a wedding going on. 40 inoncent people died and 100 others injured. It happend a long time ago( 2002 or 2003) and after that there had been many "mistakes" like this made whereas many inoncent died from. But one specially was still in my mind, because it's just unbelievable. Now to get to the point. After this action I am 100% sure that many(in Afghanistan or other muslim state) people would gain hatred against how america acts. But there will also be people who are very radical who would join organizations like taliban and get their revenge for this. So basically these radicals have their rather radical ideas and want to live up to it.

[poffin]

I cannot judge about that, it's mainly because they pray and worship Allah. Also that's one of the many things like a real muslim would do. But still they do have some radical ideas. Maybe it's because they have suffered themselves at time of war and seen many of their people suffer horrible things so now they gained much hatred against their enemys and want revenge. And so they do all the bombing and stuff. You should also not forget how inoncent people are a victim to bombing, not only bombings from the radical-muslim side but also from the american side. Like when the americans bombed an area in afghanistan where they apparently thought the taliban occupied, so they went on and bombarded it. After that it turned out there was no taliban in there and at that moment there was a wedding going on. 40 inoncent people died and 100 others injured. It happend a long time ago( 2002 or 2003) and after that there had been many "mistakes" like this made whereas many inoncent died from. But this one especially was still in my mind, because it's just unbelievable. Now to get to the point. After this action I am 100% sure that many(in Afghanistan or other muslim state) people would gain hatred against how america acts. But there will also be people who are very radical who would join organizations like taliban and get their revenge for this. So basically these radicals have their rather radical ideas and want to live up to it.

[tralalala]

^ Have you actually stopped and thought what brought the US to reach the point they'd be in a situation to make such a mistake? 9/11 jumps to mind immediately.. Source of a bunch of problems since the turn of the century in my opinion..

[poffin]

^ Have you actually stopped and thought what brought the US to reach the point they'd be in a situation to make such a mistake? 9/11 jumps to mind immediately.. Source of a bunch of problems since the turn of the century in my opinion..

I've thought about that as well, but what the US did after the attack was totally wrong and stupid. Just because Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and the taliban(also a radical group for your information) didn't wanted to turn him in. They raided the WHOLE country. Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever thought about that some men attack the WTC tower and the next morning bush with his stupid act attacks your country and kills your relatives and friends?

[tralalala]

So once again, I must ask - What would you have done? You couldn't have "let it slip".. 3000 innocent people were killed, billions of dollars worth of damage was done, a nation was attacked. What would you have done, had you been in power as US president back then?

[poffin]

I would have taken action. But I wouldn't attack a whole country because the man who attacked me was hiding there. I would've act smart and not making any silly moves. Look now my friend, you know that afghanistan wanted Bin Laden to leave Afghanistan after 9/11? And that they wanted to negotiate with the US about the whole thing, but the US ignored it? They ignored the negotiation offer and raided afghanistan. Now look, what are the results? few thousand inoncent deaths and Bin Laden still not captured. The last one makes me laugh somehow. Because you would think that a power like US with all the technology available to them could catch a single man. But no even after seven years still no results but death of inoncent people. Now that's what I call an act of stupidy.

[tralalala]

I'm sorry but your post seems to make little sense to me.

First, I'm positive it was the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan until the US reached Kabul which was quite a bit after 9/11.. So how can you claim a radical group tried to talk sense with the US? And even if they did, why would the US accept such talks after a terrorist attack like that? It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?".

Second, how could the Afghani so-called "government" at the time, want Bin Laden out, if he was part of them? They supported him all the way as far as I remember..


I just don't see how your post adds up..

[poffin]

I'm sorry but your post seems to make little sense to me.

First, I'm positive it was the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan until the US reached Kabul which was quite a bit after 9/11.. So how can you claim a radical group tried to talk sense with the US? And even if they did, why would the US accept such talks after a terrorist attack like that? It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?".

Second, how could the Afghani so-called "government" at the time, want Bin Laden out, if he was part of them? They supported him all the way as far as I remember..


I just don't see how your post adds up..

1. It wasn't the Taliban who took part with the WTC attack. It was Al Qaeda which is a totally other organization. Also the taliban then were not that much radical or terrorists. And high ranked people who were inside the government wanted to negotiate with US, they were not members of taliban. So this statement: It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?". doesn´t makes any sense.

2. Bin Laden was in no way part of government. It was the taliban radicals who supported Bin Laden.

[pokkin]

Pakistan's in mayhem over her death..........the topics been discussed so often its become highly overrated and not to mention how dull..........everyone says the same thing: either Musharaaf, the US, her husband or two of the three, if not all three had her killed.........and the useless cover up of her hitting her head against the lever is all obviously junk; there remains no doubt that she was indeed shot...........but, on the subject, I would like to ask; has anyone ever considered that she may have wanted to die?......Honestly, what would cause someone who is secured inside a bulletproof van (obviously for security) to stick her head out.......no one becomes a popular politician or the first woman to govern an Islamic country with that kind of sense.......think about it......I'm not saying that is the reason, but it can be considered as one likely possibility from among the numerous possibilities........

[poffin]

Wow almost same name as me lol :P Anyway I don't think she wanted to die since she (most likely) becoming P.M. and the fact that she wanted to bring democracy in Pakistan for such a long time. She died because she had minimum security, and the police was ordered not to give her maximum security. Because mainly she was the biggest opponent of Musharraf and if she still was alive she would be the prime minister after the elections. And in that way musharraf is also a big suspect.

[tralalala]

I'm sorry but your post seems to make little sense to me.

First, I'm positive it was the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan until the US reached Kabul which was quite a bit after 9/11.. So how can you claim a radical group tried to talk sense with the US? And even if they did, why would the US accept such talks after a terrorist attack like that? It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?".

Second, how could the Afghani so-called "government" at the time, want Bin Laden out, if he was part of them? They supported him all the way as far as I remember..


I just don't see how your post adds up..

1. It wasn't the Taliban who took part with the WTC attack. It was Al Qaeda which is a totally other organization. Also the taliban then were not that much radical or terrorists. And high ranked people who were inside the government wanted to negotiate with US, they were not members of taliban. So this statement: It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?". doesn´t makes any sense.

2. Bin Laden was in no way part of government. It was the taliban radicals who supported Bin Laden.

Could you back your statement that the Taliban wanted to run talks with the US with some legitimate proof..? Would be interesting to see that as I haven't once come across such an article.

I never said Bin Laden was in the government, but his organization and the Taliban share the same ideals.. That's where the root of the problem is.

[poffin]

1. It wasn't the Taliban who took part with the WTC attack. It was Al Qaeda which is a totally other organization. Also the taliban then were not that much radical or terrorists. And high ranked people who were inside the government wanted to negotiate with US, they were not members of taliban. So this statement: It's like running someone over, then going back just to say "sorry.. can we be friends now?". doesn´t makes any sense.

2. Bin Laden was in no way part of government. It was the taliban radicals who supported Bin Laden.

Could you back your statement that the Taliban wanted to run talks with the US with some legitimate proof..? Would be interesting to see that as I haven't once come across such an article.
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terroristische_aanslagen_op_11_september_2001
Most likely you can't read that so I will translate it: At first Bin Laden denied any contribution to the attacks. The US asked afghanistan(where Bin Laden was occupied for a long time) to turn him in. After an ultimatum of the US hundreds of Taliban members(high ranked members) came together to discuss this issue. People asked bin laden to leave afghanistan and asked the US to negotiate with them. The US denied.

I never said Bin Laden was in the government, but his organization and the Taliban share the same ideals.. That's where the root of the problem is.

[tralalala]

No English source..? I don't mean to be picky, but like, in Wikipedia anyone can edit that type of stuff... A source like Sky, BBC, CNN.. You know, something a little "higher up" than just a free online encyclopedia.

[poffin]

Ok if you want english source: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070227235042773
But this was a pretext rather than the real reason for attacking Afghanistan---as illustrated by the fact that when the Bush administration had an opportunity to take bin Laden alive, it showed no interest. A week after 9/11, the Taliban said that it would hand OBL over---if the United States presented proof of his involvement in 9/11. But Bush refused to provide any such evidence, saying that there would be no negotiations or even discussion.101 Again, four weeks after the U.S. attack on Afghanistan began, a Taliban spokesman said: "We will negotiate. But . . . [w]e are not a province of the United States, to be issued orders to. We have asked for proof of Osama's involvement, but they have refused. Why?"102
(It's at point 4 alinea 3)
btw, OBL= Osama Bin Laden.

I found this in a hurry, will try to find more from BBC or CNN. But this could be rather reliable about 9/11.