Nuclear proliferation
-
I am in full agreement with you. In fact, India and Pakistan have jointly initiated talks to solve the problem and are making progress. Trade has resumed, buses, trains, and planes are now going from one country to the other, cultural exchange is taking place, etc. Note that India had broken all ties with Pakistan two years back after the Pakistani sponsored attack on our parliament building. But fortunately politicians realised that this is not a solution to the problem, and things are now going to get better, hopefully. I want a peaceful solution too. I am of the opinion that hatred breeds more hatred. But if I see someone making unjustified claims about my country, taking advantage of the fact that others don't know enough one way or the other, I need to stand up and say hello to the guy. :) I also don't understand why a Pakistani needs to say "but look at India, they slaughter their people by the millions, they are the terrorists, not us" whenever someone says something about them. Clearly they don't have anything to say in their defense. All they can do is distract people by changing the topic. Regards, Rohit Sinha Browsy
Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person. - Mother Teresa
Rohit Sinha wrote: India, they slaughter their people by the millions Thats the fact which you yourself admit.. You are NOT killing so called "Your own people" .. u r killing people of Kashmir which was supposed to be a part of Pakistan ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS which gives people of kashmir the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. you are depriving them from their right of freedom. Just in last 12 year , INDIA has killed more than 15,000 people in Kashmir and there have been severe Human rights violations in kashmir reported by nuetral human right bodies like Amnesty International.. u want people to have blind eye on that??? Life of 15,000 people doesnt mean ANYTHING to you?? :mad: Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
-
Brit wrote: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. I wish all of them have nuclear bombs and they declare it .. so that there is peace in US's dumb ASSSS.. if US has right to have Nuclear bombs then y dont any other country has the same right??? everyone has a right to defend itself.. US couldnt find even single WMD in Iraq. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, US would have never invaded it because of fear. So now NUKES are becoming necessary for one's sovereignity.. Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: if US has right to have Nuclear bombs then y dont any other country has the same right??? everyone has a right to defend itself.. US couldnt find even single WMD in Iraq. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, US would have never invaded it because of fear. So now NUKES are becoming necessary for one's sovereignity.. I agree with you on this. No country in world even with Largest miltary might can invade another country which has Nuclear weapons. Deepak Khajuria
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: India, they slaughter their people by the millions Thats the fact which you yourself admit.. You are NOT killing so called "Your own people" .. u r killing people of Kashmir which was supposed to be a part of Pakistan ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS which gives people of kashmir the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. you are depriving them from their right of freedom. Just in last 12 year , INDIA has killed more than 15,000 people in Kashmir and there have been severe Human rights violations in kashmir reported by nuetral human right bodies like Amnesty International.. u want people to have blind eye on that??? Life of 15,000 people doesnt mean ANYTHING to you?? :mad: Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS which gives people of kashmir the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. you are depriving them from their right of freedom. How can you talk of this when you cannot choose you own president ? For how long your country had democratically elected head for last 50 yrs ? J&K has fully democratically elected gov. Further Resolution says that plebiscite should be held in whole of J&K ? What about POK and part of it acceded to China ? Are you going to ask China to return it ? Deepak Khajuria
-
Yes, you're right. Why shouldn't the world's most volatile region have nukes? Just because it's ruled by a rotating sequence of dictators, theocracies, and extremists is no reason they shouldn't have nukes. Just because Saddam Hussein kills hundreds of thousands of his own people doesn't mean he can't be trusted with nukes. Just because Syria killed 30,000+ people in the city of Hama[^ doesn't mean they aren't responsible leaders. Here in the US, we allow people to have guns. But we don't allow felons to have guns. Now, I'm sure that, just like you, the felons are complaining "This is bullshit. Other people get to have guns." You don't have to be a brain surgeon to realize how straight forward and levelheaded the "felons cannot have guns" idea is. Yet, when it comes to the idea of nukes in the Middle East, you all want to say, "This is bullshit. Other people get to have nukes." And it sounds just as stupid as when the felons say it. If you'd pull your head out of your ass long enough to notice that you're only acting on nationalistic tendencies, rather than any approximation of logic you'd know that nuclear proliferation is a problem and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is the biggest part of that problem. ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Brit wrote: But we don't allow felons to have guns. You don't?, then all those killings by guns each year are performed by law abiding citizens?, wow... Ok, I am certainly not for nuclear weapons, but it IS hypocrasy to ban other countries from having nukes while at the same time abstaining from getting rid of you own. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: India, they slaughter their people by the millions Thats the fact which you yourself admit.. You are NOT killing so called "Your own people" .. u r killing people of Kashmir which was supposed to be a part of Pakistan ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS which gives people of kashmir the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. you are depriving them from their right of freedom. Just in last 12 year , INDIA has killed more than 15,000 people in Kashmir and there have been severe Human rights violations in kashmir reported by nuetral human right bodies like Amnesty International.. u want people to have blind eye on that??? Life of 15,000 people doesnt mean ANYTHING to you?? :mad: Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: You are NOT killing so called "Your own people" .. u r killing people of Kashmir which was supposed to be a part of Pakistan ACCORDING TO UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS which gives people of kashmir the RIGHT OF SELF DETERMINATION. you are depriving them from their right of freedom. So according to you, their right of freedom means being assimilated by the Pakis. Besides, I don't understand why the Pakis keep whining about the UN resolution after they signed the Simla agreement. Remember the Simla agreement? Or is it more convenient for you to forget about it now? And how about the right of self determination of the people living in the Pak occupied Kashmir, huh? As far as the right of self determination of our people is concerned, they made their choice by voting for a democratically elected government in their state. Despite efforts by the Hurriyat to make the elections a failure by threatening anyone who goes out to vote, there was a turnout of up to 60%. How about that? Still think people want to join the beggar ass of Pakistan who can't even manage to go a few weeks without US aid if they don't want to starve their people terrorists people? M.Shoaib Khan wrote: Just in last 12 year , INDIA has killed more than 15,000 people in Kashmir and there have been severe Human rights violations in kashmir reported by nuetral human right bodies like Amnesty International.. The actual figure is something like 48,000 and they have been killed by the Paki terrorists trained inside the Paki territory in the training camps run and setup by the Paki government. All this started after the Paki govt. realised in the 1990's that the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) wanted Kashmir to be an independent state/country rather than being assimilated by Pakistan. So the Paki government financed and encouraged the setup of Hizbul Mujahideen which is a terrorist organisation responsible for all these killing and operates from Lahore and Islamabad (in Pakistan). Hizbul Mujahideena and many other such organisations, also financed, supported and formed by the Paki government, have been declared terrorist organisations by the US. The comment about neutral human right bodies is a lie and another part of your typical Paki propaganda to mix lies with the truth. Of course there have been violations. But the ones responsible for these violations are your people terrorists. One incident that still ma
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil. At least we only stroked ourselves into a group-think (what ever that is) as opposed to you who seems to have been stroking inside the underpants or maybe smoking the insides of your underpants. Saddam was bad but not the worst dictator going around. He was convenient in that even the rednecks knew his name when they heard it due to Georgie Senior back in 90/91. He was in a part of the world with oil which is what y'all really give a shit about. And he hadn't been able to get back anywhere near full strength militry or wacko wise meaning he was easier to beat than many of the other dictator lead regimes elsewhere in the world. I still want to see the WMD, and you come up with some new material. It's old, like watching Jackie Gleason reruns. Michael Martin Australia "I suspect I will be impressed though, I am easy." - Paul Watson 21/09/2003
Michael Martin wrote: we ... stroked ourselves into a group-think An admission vrs. Michael Martin wrote: as opposed to you who seems to have been stroking inside the underpants or maybe smoking the insides of your underpants. A simple insult. Good of you to either admit to engaging in group-think or in admitting you are too ignorant to understand what group-think is. Michael Martin wrote: Saddam was bad but not the worst dictator going around. I'm sure you are right. There are probably plenty of other dictators who dumped nerve gas on their own villages and killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens, invaded or attacked 4 of their neighbors and attempted to assasinate a former president of the US. Michael Martin wrote: He was in a part of the world with oil which is what y'all really give a sh*t about. Access to petroleum is a national security interest of all industrialized nations. I see you are trying to insult all Americans by interjecting the words "redneck" and "y'all" in places. Good to see you taking the high-road here! Michael Martin wrote: And he hadn't been able to get back anywhere near full strength militry or wacko wise meaning he was easier to beat than many of the other dictator lead regimes elsewhere in the world. We went after Saddam to gain a ground-force foothold in the heart of the middle east from which we can bring diplomatic and military pressure to bear on Syria and Iran. You can cry all you want but, even with a billion people like you in the world who act as advocates for people like Saddam Hussein, you won't stop the middle east from turning into a region that is free, democratic and intolerant of terrorism. You will benefit from this - even while you bitch and mewl about the process that will make this possible. I'm sure you'll get some great scores for your post though! Since you were engaging in childish flaming against an anti-Saddam person, you will be richly rewarded.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it -
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil. Perhaps if you read the article, you might discover its point --- which is that Pakistan has been the main facilitator of nuclear proliferation yet its role has been largely ignored. You need to learn to sing more than one note. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Perhaps if you read the article, you might discover its point --- which is that Pakistan has been the main facilitator of nuclear proliferation yet its role has been largely ignored. You need to learn to sing more than one note. Perhaps if you read my reply - comma - you might discover that what I said isn't inconsistent with Pakistan's behaviour. John Carson wrote: You need to learn to sing more than one note. Since my post declared that a large number of people here believe Saddam had no WMD - are you agreeing with me or not? Your changing of the subject makes you seem to have a vocal range of 1 note as well.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
USA! USA! USA!
After catching SmackDown on the telly last night* it seems apparent that a nice loud totally-out-of-place patriotic chant will calm most people down when the sovereignty of their government is so clearly threatended. You should write to them for a job, with talent such as yours you will go far!! * I was waiting for something else to start, I only strayed for a few minutes :-O
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
All I said was that a lot of people here think Saddam had no WMD and that the USA is evil. I think you help make my point.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Terry O`Nolley wrote: You forget: Most people here have stroked themselves into a group-think opinion that Iraq has no WMD and that the USA is evil. The question of whether Iraq recently had WMD, had long-term intentions of getting them, and has sought to aquire them are three different questions. What I find surprising in the story is this quote: It was a Dubai middleman claiming to represent Dr. Khan who in 1990, on the eve of the Persian Gulf war, offered Dr. Khan's aid to Iraq in building an atom bomb. So, after Iraq invaded Kuwait, after condemnations by the UN and nations around the world, after assembling a multinational force to evict Iraq from Kuwait, Dr Khan offered help to Iraq to build a nuclear device? Did Dr Khan step right out of a James Bond movie? Is there anyone at all that he won't help to build a nuclear device? ------------------------------------------ Law of Nazi Analogies: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. In any debate, Hitler's opinion on the subject is automatically the evil one, so it had better be contrary to the side you're arguing.
Brit wrote: The question of whether Iraq recently had WMD, had long-term intentions of getting them, and has sought to aquire them are three different questions. True! And whether Saddam thought mustard gas was groovier than nerve gas, what color chemical munitions Uday liked best, and what size petri dish is best for growing anthrax are three different questions. I merely pointed out that many people here believe Saddam had no WMD. In other words, they believe that France, USA, Iraqi defectors, Saddam Hussein and the UN were all wrong. They believe that Saddam could have had the sanctions lifted 12 years ago but chose instead to live under sanctions.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long ?, as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody, simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. The USA is not evil, just a lot of people within the USA are pretty damn stupid. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long Well, I guess since they haven't stumbled across a truck buried in the desert, the UN, France, US, Saddam himself and defecting Iraqi scientists were all wrong and/or lieing. THus, anything that you can't find must not exist. Christian Graus wrote: as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody The same guy who your earlier point proves was lieing? Now you want to believe him? Christian Graus wrote: simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. Irrelevant and wrong. If Bush wasn't elected according to the process spelled out in the US constitution then he would not be the president at this time.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Stan Shannon wrote: the only group using political power to force a moral agenda onto our culture is the left itself Say what???? We have the spectacle of the Bush Administration forcing a moral agenda on the western world (either you're with us or you're against us). Are you trying to tell me that GWB is a leftist? Stan Shannon wrote: the guy who the left hates the most, GWB, is doing the most to defend it Well obviously you're not. So which is it Stan? Is GWB NOT forcing a moral agenda onto western culture? When GWB says that any state that harbours a terrorist is subject to the might of US power isn't that forcing a moral agenda on that state? When Tom Sawyer holds the new kid down and punches his lights out is he demonstrating moral superiority? Or is he merely demonstrating muscles? So are you advocating a Pax Americana at the point of a gun or do you really want an equitable peace. It's time you came out and said what your goals are. Notes to self: Of course Stan will come out with the arguments against a 'Furner' daring to have an opinion on such an important matter as the US's 'divine' right to control the future of humanity. Just point him at the success of the Australian experiment. Rob Manderson http://www.mindprobes.net **Paul Watson wrote:**What sense would you most dislike loosing? Ian Darling replied. Telepathy Then I'd no longer be able to find out everyones dirty little secrets The Lounge, December 4 2003
Rob Manderson wrote: So are you advocating a Pax Americana at the point of a gun or do you really want an equitable peace. They are one and the same until such time the UN is willing to act as the world's policeman and not allow pissant little shit dictator and terror supporting nations to define its agenda. Do you live in a big city? What stops crime? POLICE. Or, to paraphrase your alarmist little quip: Pax Police-ana at the point of a gun. I know people in other countries can't help feeling uneasy because most of those countries have inferiority complexes. So they spread fear about how America will take over the world if they aren't stopped by France or some other wannabe power. The first part of Pax Americana is PEACE. After we get our peace then we can talk about changing the Americana to the UN.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Stan Shannon wrote: If we were going to fight a war against the source of 9/11 type terror (which, lets face the truth, effectively means a war on Islam itself How do u relate 9/11 and islam?? Islam strongly condemns killing innocent people as in 9/11 case. According to islam a killer of innocent person (be it christian or muslim) is sentenced to death.. btw who in this world give this right that US can have nuclear weapons which she can use against Japan ( a terrorist act), but Pakistan, Iran or any other state can't have??? you call Iran terrorist because she is against Israel???? Why US helps Israel in its terrorist acts agaisnt palestinian people??? isnt it the terrorist act of US that it invaded Iraq despite it couldnt find ANY SINGLE WMD?? Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: btw who in this world give this right that US can have nuclear weapons which she can use against Japan ( a terrorist act), but Pakistan, Iran or any other state can't have??? HA!!! Good one! You don't actually believe that shit do you? I mean, you are obviously smart enough to at least spell out words and type. In WWII, all involved countries used mass bombing of civilian targets as a strategy. More people were killed in conventional carpet bombings of cities in 1 night then were killed in either of the atomic bomb attacks. Look, if you want to look back in history to dredge up things which are not acceptable today, then I'm sure you can do better than that. Who gave us the right? We invented them. If Pakistan had the technology of the USA in WWII and the USA did not participate in WWII then I believe that at least 3 billion less people would be alive today. Unlike the USA, Pakistan would have used their nukes to wipe out India, Russia, China and every other non-Islamic country they could reach with their bombers. You would have medieval idiots shouting "Allah Ahkbar!" as they nuked city after city of infidels. If you don't believe this then you are a poor, blind, self-delusional frog.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
Brit wrote: Looks like Dr. Khan (father of the Pakistani nuclear program) is connected to the nuclear programs of North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, and Libya. I wish all of them have nuclear bombs and they declare it .. so that there is peace in US's dumb ASSSS.. if US has right to have Nuclear bombs then y dont any other country has the same right??? everyone has a right to defend itself.. US couldnt find even single WMD in Iraq. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, US would have never invaded it because of fear. So now NUKES are becoming necessary for one's sovereignity.. Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: US's dumb ASSSS.. Yeah, we are so DUMB that we created the nuclear bopmbs that have all of your terrorist friends masturbating like crazy to get their grubby little fingers on. M.Shoaib Khan wrote: if US has right to have Nuclear bombs then y dont any other country has the same right??? everyone has a right to defend itself.. Only evil countries need fear the US. If you are part of the government in an evil country then I hope you are very afraid because one day we will come for your nations leaders and all of their soldiers and government officials. If your country isn't some backwards-ass religious theocracy or dictatorship then your fear is stupid and laughable.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out! -
All I said was that a lot of people here think Saddam had no WMD and that the USA is evil. I think you help make my point.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: I think you help make my point. Whatever floats your boat Terry, glad I could be of help. :cool:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
Christian Graus wrote: While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long Well, I guess since they haven't stumbled across a truck buried in the desert, the UN, France, US, Saddam himself and defecting Iraqi scientists were all wrong and/or lieing. THus, anything that you can't find must not exist. Christian Graus wrote: as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody The same guy who your earlier point proves was lieing? Now you want to believe him? Christian Graus wrote: simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. Irrelevant and wrong. If Bush wasn't elected according to the process spelled out in the US constitution then he would not be the president at this time.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: THus, anything that you can't find must not exist. That's a bit weak and a long way from the justification for war, which was 'we know he has them and we know where they are'. Terry O`Nolley wrote: The same guy who your earlier point proves was lieing? Now you want to believe him? The point is not that if he says now he didn't have them that I'd believe him, but that there's a good chance that if he had them, he'd be able to be co-erced into saying where they are. Terry O`Nolley wrote: If Bush wasn't elected according to the process spelled out in the US constitution then he would not be the president at this time. I guess you need to believe that, don't you ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: btw who in this world give this right that US can have nuclear weapons which she can use against Japan ( a terrorist act), but Pakistan, Iran or any other state can't have??? HA!!! Good one! You don't actually believe that shit do you? I mean, you are obviously smart enough to at least spell out words and type. In WWII, all involved countries used mass bombing of civilian targets as a strategy. More people were killed in conventional carpet bombings of cities in 1 night then were killed in either of the atomic bomb attacks. Look, if you want to look back in history to dredge up things which are not acceptable today, then I'm sure you can do better than that. Who gave us the right? We invented them. If Pakistan had the technology of the USA in WWII and the USA did not participate in WWII then I believe that at least 3 billion less people would be alive today. Unlike the USA, Pakistan would have used their nukes to wipe out India, Russia, China and every other non-Islamic country they could reach with their bombers. You would have medieval idiots shouting "Allah Ahkbar!" as they nuked city after city of infidels. If you don't believe this then you are a poor, blind, self-delusional frog.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Look, if you want to look back in history to ... History always repeats itself...NOT a single muslim state has done such a destruction. and BTW there was no single muslim state directly involved in WWII and that destruction.. Now talking of current situation, u dont see supressed people (muslims) of Palestine, Bosnia and Kashmir... thousands of people killed in kashmir (approx. 15000, exact figure i dont remember)in just few years and many others in these states just because they are muslims, and yet you say that if Pakistan had NUKES at time of WWII then it will wipe out cities INDIA.. FYI Pakistan has close ties with China .. infact some people beleive that China has got Nuclear Centrifuge technology from Pakistan. i guess if US had the right to have nuclear weapons and use them (According to u) then Japan also has the same right to do the same to US.. simple LOGIC US killed thousands of people in Afghanistan in missile attacks, bombings etc.. Do u beleive all that only Taliban were killed in those attacks..??? majority were civilians having no relationship with such bull shit.. U people attacked Iraq when it was suppresing people but how about INDIA.. there are killings thousands of people in kashmir.. its BECOZ US got interest in Oil in Iraq .. so it invaded to capture that OIL but there is no such interest in ISREAL or INDIA.. u got double standards... SO I WISH PAKISTAN HAS INTER CONTINENTAL NUCLEAR MISSILES to target these evils.. and btw research is going on such technology in KRL labs and my univ which is closely associated with Dr. A.Q.Khan (father of Pakistan nuclear program) and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. ;) Currently Pak has got nuclear missile with range of 3,500 KM.. Why can ISRAEL have NUKES but IRAN can't?? Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
-
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: Islam strongly condemns killing innocent people as in 9/11 case. According to islam a killer of innocent person (be it christian or muslim) is sentenced to death.. You guys keep saying that, but the murderers of 3000+ Americans, who did their killing in the name of your religion, are probably somewhere in your country. Have you spent any time trying to find them? I can assure you that if a religious fanatic who had killed 3000 of your countrymen in the name of my religion were hiding somewhere in my country I would be demanding that the government find them and punish them. But then, I'm a Christian. You Muslims talk the talk, but you don't seem to have enough manhood to walk the walk. M.Shoaib Khan wrote: btw who in this world give this right that US can have nuclear weapons which she can use against Japan ( a terrorist act), but Pakistan, Iran or any other state can't have??? We did. And the world is a better place for it. M.Shoaib Khan wrote: Why US helps Israel in its terrorist acts agaisnt palestinian people??? Because a billion Muslims are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. M.Shoaib Khan wrote: ??? isnt it the terrorist act of US that it invaded Iraq despite it couldnt find ANY SINGLE WMD?? No, it was an act of cleaning up a mess that your "civilization" should have taken care of long ago. Millions of westerners died to stop a western tyrant named Hitler. When will a million Muslims have the courage to stand up and destroy the evil spewing out of your culture? Until you do that, don't expect me to have any respect for you or your religion. Talk is cheap, and bible (or Koran) thumpers are a dime a dozen.
Stan Shannon wrote: who did their killing in the name of your religion, are probably somewhere in your country .Have you spent any time trying to find them? Pakistan + US Agencies are jointly searching for any such suspects in Pakistan and large number of such suspects have already been captured.. so think before u speak. (if u got something in your head US has got control of afghanistan .. if US cant search for OSAMA BIN LADEN despite of its all latest inventions, technology and powerfull satellites then how can Pakistan find any terror suspect??? Stan Shannon wrote: Because a billion Muslims are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. yeah Muslims should.. becoz ISRAEL is a terrorist state. They have illegally captured holy land from muslims and are suppresing innocent people of Palestine.. Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
-
While others believe that Iraq has something that an occupying power has been unable to prove despite having free run for how long ?, as well as the guy they claim hid them in custody, simply because the person who was not elected to run their country told them so. The USA is not evil, just a lot of people within the USA are pretty damn stupid. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: The USA is not evil, just a lot of people within the USA are pretty damn stupid. Oh yeah! Well, Phhhppppppttt!!! ;P BW CP Member Homepages
"...take what you need and leave the rest..."
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Look, if you want to look back in history to ... History always repeats itself...NOT a single muslim state has done such a destruction. and BTW there was no single muslim state directly involved in WWII and that destruction.. Now talking of current situation, u dont see supressed people (muslims) of Palestine, Bosnia and Kashmir... thousands of people killed in kashmir (approx. 15000, exact figure i dont remember)in just few years and many others in these states just because they are muslims, and yet you say that if Pakistan had NUKES at time of WWII then it will wipe out cities INDIA.. FYI Pakistan has close ties with China .. infact some people beleive that China has got Nuclear Centrifuge technology from Pakistan. i guess if US had the right to have nuclear weapons and use them (According to u) then Japan also has the same right to do the same to US.. simple LOGIC US killed thousands of people in Afghanistan in missile attacks, bombings etc.. Do u beleive all that only Taliban were killed in those attacks..??? majority were civilians having no relationship with such bull shit.. U people attacked Iraq when it was suppresing people but how about INDIA.. there are killings thousands of people in kashmir.. its BECOZ US got interest in Oil in Iraq .. so it invaded to capture that OIL but there is no such interest in ISREAL or INDIA.. u got double standards... SO I WISH PAKISTAN HAS INTER CONTINENTAL NUCLEAR MISSILES to target these evils.. and btw research is going on such technology in KRL labs and my univ which is closely associated with Dr. A.Q.Khan (father of Pakistan nuclear program) and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission. ;) Currently Pak has got nuclear missile with range of 3,500 KM.. Why can ISRAEL have NUKES but IRAN can't?? Muhammad Shoaib Khan http://geocities.com/lansolution
M.Shoaib Khan wrote: dont see supressed people (muslims) of Palestine, Bosnia and Kashmir... Indeed. I agree with you here. In the Paki occupied Kashmir, if someone even talks about an independent state, he/she is considered a traitor by the Paki law. Your "constitution" was amended in 1964 to make this possible. Right to self determination, eh? Practise what you preach, anyone? M.Shoaib Khan wrote: thousands of people killed in kashmir (approx. 15000, exact figure i dont remember)in just few years and many others in these states just because they are muslims Your hatred for India has made you blind. I'll tell you the figure. In the past 10 years or so, approximately 48,000 people have been killed in India (that includes those living in Kashmir) in terrorist attacks sponsored and initiated by the Pakis. But you can expect to see a decline in these numbers as now we have started shooting every sneaky bastard that tries to cross the border with arms and bombs. There was a time, not too long ago, when the motherfuckers killed at least five people everyday. Not any more. Now we have a nice graveyard on the border where the bodies of all the sons of Paki bitches trying to cross the border are dumped. And know what, your president General Parvez Musharraf admitted in a press conference today that the Paki government has been involved in terrorism and that he'll now start taking steps to stop it. Whether or not he lives up to his words remains to be seen. Also, your ex president, Benazir Bhutto openly admitted the same thing just a few days ago during a visit to India. This has been going on for decades, according to her. How about that? Don't think anyone is getting fooled by your propaganda. Open your eyes and as I said in an earlier thread, try to take your head out of your butt and breathe some fresh air. It might give you a new perspective and a chance to taste something else than the shit your mullahs have been feeding you in your madrasas. Accusing India of violence committed by your people is the lowest you can get probably. Thickhead. Thickhead wrote: some people beleive that China has got Nuclear Centrifuge technology from Pakistan. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Pakistan, who can't manufacture a piece of cloth to wipe their arse, will give technology to China? :laugh: You are dumb indeed. *wipes tears from eyes* Regards, Rohit Sinha
-
John Carson wrote: Perhaps if you read the article, you might discover its point --- which is that Pakistan has been the main facilitator of nuclear proliferation yet its role has been largely ignored. You need to learn to sing more than one note. Perhaps if you read my reply - comma - you might discover that what I said isn't inconsistent with Pakistan's behaviour. John Carson wrote: You need to learn to sing more than one note. Since my post declared that a large number of people here believe Saddam had no WMD - are you agreeing with me or not? Your changing of the subject makes you seem to have a vocal range of 1 note as well.
Have you answered an MTQ? Check out the stats!
What's the latest butt-scratch count? Check it out!Terry O`Nolley wrote: Perhaps if you read my reply - comma - you might discover that what I said isn't inconsistent with Pakistan's behaviour. Depends on what you mean by inconsistent. A major point of the article was that Pakistan was not getting the attention it deserved, considering its importance in nuclear proliferation. By bringing the subject back to Iraq (which has already received massive attention) and totally omitting any reference to Pakistan, you were exhibiting the same lack of proportion that the article was highlighting. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Since my post declared that a large number of people here believe Saddam had no WMD - are you agreeing with me or not? A large number of people here believe that at the start of the war and for some time prior to it Saddam had no WMD. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell