Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Very sad !

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide attack, according to media reports.
Geo TV quoted her husband saying the politician had died following a bullet wound in the neck.


Bhutto is helped from her vehicle following the October 18 suicide attack on her motorcade.

1 of 2 The suicide attack left at least 14 dead and 40 injured, Tariq Azim Khan, the country's former information minister, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The attacker is said to have detonated a bomb as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.

Bhutto is said to have been leaving the rally when the attack occurred and was taken to a hospital in an unconcious state, the Geo TV report said.

Earlier, a spokesman for Bhutto told CNN she was safe and taken away from the scene.

Video from the scene of the blast broadcast from Geo TV showed wounded people being loaded into ambulances.

Up to 20 people are dead, the report said.

Earlier, four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Friday, local police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police added.

While President Pervez Musharraf has promised free and fair parliamentary elections next month, continued instability in the tribal areas and the threat of attack on large crowds has kept people from attending political rallies and dampened the country's political process.

Campaigners from various political groups say fewer people are coming out to show their support due to government crackdowns and the threat of violence.

At least 136 people were killed and more than 387 wounded on October 18 when a suicide bomber attacked Bhutto's slow-moving motorcade. The former PM returned to the country after eight years of self-imposed exile to a massive show of support in the southern port city of Karachi.

Bhutto called it "an attack on democracy" and vowed it would not deter her political campaign.

Today's violence come less than two weeks ahead of January parliamentary elections and as many days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a six-week-old state of emergency he said was necessary to ensure the country's stability.

Critics said Musharraf's political maneuvering was meant to stifle the country's judiciary as well as curb the media and opposition groups to secure more power

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/2...arif/index.html

I was about to make a thread about this.

She was assassinated while the suicide bomber made a diversion.
She was brave coming to Pakistan, and knowing her life was in danger.

I wonder how this will affect US relations with Pakistan.

I just heard the news...was it a bomb or someone actually shot her?

Updates?!

The Bomb was a distraction, and when it happened, she was shot in the neck, and later died. I think this a bad move for whoever did this, since the blame almost lies solely on the former dictator, even if he didn't so it, who believe him?

She was very brave, coming back to the country even though the risk was extreme.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I just heard the news...was it a bomb or someone actually shot her?

Updates?! Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was about to make a thread about this.

She was assassinated while the suicide bomber made a diversion.
She was brave coming to Pakistan, and knowing her life was in danger.

I wonder how this will affect US relations with Pakistan. Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The Bomb was a distraction, and when it happened, she was shot in the neck, and later died. I think this a bad move for whoever did this, since the blame almost lies solely on the former dictator, even if he didn't so it, who believe him?

She was very brave, coming back to the country even though the risk was extreme.

Suicide bomber kills Bhutto and 20+ others in the process.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645

They're certainly proving Islam is peaceful, one bombing at a time.

this is bigger than propaganda agaisnt a religion.


I woke up to this early morning.
I'm absolutely horrified.

Notice I said "they're", as in the extremist, as Bhutto had Muslim support, durr.

Yes, I'm sure you're horrified. Will you light a candle or similar action of rememberence?

First it was a gun shot one in the chest the other in the neck and then the bomb blast

what a sad day this is. she was an inspiration for many, regardless of her flaws.

Originally posted by The Grey Fox
The Bomb was a distraction, and when it happened, she was shot in the neck, and later died. I think this a bad move for whoever did this, since the blame almost lies solely on the former dictator, even if he didn't so it, who believe him?

She was very brave, coming back to the country even though the risk was extreme.
indeed, theyve been trying to get at her for months

Originally posted by Robtard
Suicide bomber kills Bhutto and 20+ others in the process.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22406555/?gt1=10645

They're certainly proving Islam is peaceful, one bombing at a time.

Could the same thing be said about American Catholicism by saying it's proving it's humble by doing one child at a time?

Fanaticism is the problem not Islam. It's fundamentalist sect is the issue. Which is like a single digit percent of the religions' practitioners.

I'm not Islamic but whomever considers Islam as a terrorist religion is asinine thinker.

typo

"is an asinine thinker", i meant.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Could the same thing be said about American Catholicism by saying it's proving it's humble by doing one child at a time?

Fanaticism is the problem not Islam. It's fundamentalist sect is the issue. Which is like a single digit percent of the religions' practitioners.

I'm not Islamic but whomever considers Islam as a terrorist religion is asinine thinker.
well said

Originally posted by coolmovies
Very sad !

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has died after a suicide attack, according to media reports.
Geo TV quoted her husband saying the politician had died following a bullet wound in the neck.


Bhutto is helped from her vehicle following the October 18 suicide attack on her motorcade.

1 of 2 The suicide attack left at least 14 dead and 40 injured, Tariq Azim Khan, the country's former information minister, told CNN in a telephone interview.

The attacker is said to have detonated a bomb as he tried to enter the rally where thousands of people gathered to hear Bhutto speak, police said.

Bhutto is said to have been leaving the rally when the attack occurred and was taken to a hospital in an unconcious state, the Geo TV report said.

Earlier, a spokesman for Bhutto told CNN she was safe and taken away from the scene.

Video from the scene of the blast broadcast from Geo TV showed wounded people being loaded into ambulances.

Up to 20 people are dead, the report said.

Earlier, four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Friday, local police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police added.

While President Pervez Musharraf has promised free and fair parliamentary elections next month, continued instability in the tribal areas and the threat of attack on large crowds has kept people from attending political rallies and dampened the country's political process.

Campaigners from various political groups say fewer people are coming out to show their support due to government crackdowns and the threat of violence.

At least 136 people were killed and more than 387 wounded on October 18 when a suicide bomber attacked Bhutto's slow-moving motorcade. The former PM returned to the country after eight years of self-imposed exile to a massive show of support in the southern port city of Karachi.

Bhutto called it "an attack on democracy" and vowed it would not deter her political campaign.

Today's violence come less than two weeks ahead of January parliamentary elections and as many days after President Pervez Musharraf lifted a six-week-old state of emergency he said was necessary to ensure the country's stability.

Critics said Musharraf's political maneuvering was meant to stifle the country's judiciary as well as curb the media and opposition groups to secure more power

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/2...arif/index.html

Thank God!
May that whore burn in hell for what she did

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Could the same thing be said about American Catholicism by saying it's proving it's humble by doing one child at a time?

Fanaticism is the problem not Islam. It's fundamentalist sect is the issue. Which is like a single digit percent of the religions' practitioners.

I'm not Islamic but whomever considers Islam as a terrorist religion is asinine thinker.

ZOMG no way! lulz.

So tell us, who is Islam's equivalent of Dalai Lama, Gandhi or Nelson Mandela?

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
what a sad day this is. she was an inspiration for many, regardless of her flaws.

Are you f*cking stupid or what?
She stole billions from Pakistan's state banks and was willing to give the US free reign in Pakistan to look for Bin Laden.
And she wanted to give many concessions to India.

She and her familiy are sell-outs and im glad she's dead

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Could the same thing be said about American Catholicism by saying it's proving it's humble by doing one child at a time?

Fanaticism is the problem not Islam. It's fundamentalist sect is the issue. Which is like a single digit percent of the religions' practitioners.

I'm not Islamic but whomever considers Islam as a terrorist religion is asinine thinker.

The religoin can be violent but the people dont have to be. islam was not created to make peace.

Originally posted by Mr. Bacon
well said

Read some Islamic history.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
ZOMG no way! lulz.

So tell us, who is Islam's equivalent of Dalai Lama, Gandhi or Nelson Mandela?

while ghandi practiced hinduism he respected islam equally, so i doubt he would have wanted to be included in such a point.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The religoin can be violent but the people dont have to be. islam was not created to make peace.



Read some Islamic history. I meant basically just the last sentence.

Originally posted by NASA

She stole billions from Pakistan's state banks and was willing to give the US free reign in Pakistan to look for Bin Laden.
And she wanted to give many concessions to India.

She and her familiy are sell-outs and im glad she's dead

Originally posted by NASA
Are you f*cking stupid or what?

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Could the same thing be said about American Catholicism by saying it's proving it's humble by doing one child at a time?

Fanaticism is the problem not Islam. It's fundamentalist sect is the issue. Which is like a single digit percent of the religions' practitioners.

I'm not Islamic but whomever considers Islam as a terrorist religion is asinine thinker.

Others are doing a decent job of picking this post apart logically, but I'll add my two cents.

Catholicism is generally a bit more humane and less extremist than many other Christian denominations. I'm not sure why you singled them out.

And no one religion may be violent. But the blind faith involved in religious belief creates an environment in which things like this can happen. So no, Islam may or may not be this violent (depending on the interpretation, I'm sure), but to absolve Islam (and religion/faith) of blame is equally as ridiculous.

The only reason the West support her is because she was willing to do whatever they asked her.
I'm of Pakistani decent myself and my family over in Pakistan has suffered because of her lies and corruption.

Originally posted by NASA
The only reason the West support her is because she was willing to do whatever they asked her.
I'm of Pakistani decent myself and my family over in Pakistan has suffered because of her lies and corruption.


wow, the evil **** was willing to help us get bin laden. you're lucky we dont carpet bomb your asses to get him.

Popeye's been suspiciously quiet.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was about to make a thread about this.

She was assassinated while the suicide bomber made a diversion.
She was brave coming to Pakistan, and knowing her life was in danger.

I wonder how this will affect US relations with Pakistan.

US will be p!ssed cozx their sellout puppet Benazir is dead and have to try something else.
And besides US is working with Israel & India to take out Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Pakistan should trust no one not even Iran & China

Originally posted by Schecter
wow, the evil **** was willing to help us get bin laden. you're lucky we dont carpet bomb your asses to get him.

Thats why i dont like her man, she is a sellout to her own people.
And besides Bin Laden is in 1 of the former Soviet republics not Paksitan

I dont know what to say really. Your all bad as far as im concerned....just varying degrees of evil. Everyone is just trying to exploit everybody else instead of real cooperation.

Originally posted by NASA
Thats why i dont like her man, she is a sellout to her own people.
And besides Bin Laden is in 1 of the former Soviet republics not Paksitan

no, it is widely speculated that he his hiding out in pakistan.

Originally posted by Schecter
no, it is widely speculated that he his hiding out in pakistan.

No he is in Tajikistan

because nasa knows better than the world leaders where he is

Originally posted by Mr. Bacon
because nasa knows better than the world leaders where he is

...and world leaders always tell the public the right information.

Originally posted by NASA
The only reason the West support her is because she was willing to do whatever they asked her.
I'm of Pakistani decent myself and my family over in Pakistan has suffered because of her lies and corruption.

Here's one for the books - a biased KMC member.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Here's one for the books - a biased KMC member.

.......

Poor woman

Originally posted by Alfheim
...and world leaders always tell the public the right information.
of course
Originally posted by Strangelove
Poor woman
indeed

Originally posted by NASA
US will be p!ssed cozx their sellout puppet Benazir is dead and have to try something else.

What??? So Musharraf is better is that what you are saying???

And besides US is working with Israel & India to take out Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

It's true that US is working with Israel but thats because of it's position in the middeleast, and I wonder why US is working with Indian against Pakistan, just as well as US is working against India could it have something to do with the anti nuclear treaty I wonder.

Pakistan should trust no one not even Iran & China

Certainly not Iran China I cannot speak for, I find them hard to judge.

Originally posted by Utrigita
What??? So Musharraf is better is that what you are saying???



It's true that US is working with Israel but thats because of it's position in the middeleast, and I wonder why US is working with Indian against Pakistan, just as well as US is working against India could it have something to do with the anti nuclear treaty I wonder.



Certainly not Iran China I cannot speak for, I find them hard to judge.

Yes Musharraf is better coz he aint no sellout like the rest and puts Pakistan always first

Originally posted by Schecter
while ghandi practiced hinduism he respected islam equally, so i doubt he would have wanted to be included in such a point.
And? That was not the question.

Dalai Lama preaches repsect for Chinese culture and the Chinese, same those who have burned his home and killed his people.

So, care to answer the question?

Tell me of a Muslim who equaly repsected Hindusim/Christianity/Buddhism/Judaism the way those men respected their arch enemies or the way that Islamic person respects his religion.

Originally posted by NASA
Yes Musharraf is better coz he aint no sellout like the rest and puts Pakistan always first

Yes he is better because Democracy isn't allowed to exist martiel law is imposed because he thinks the world sucks and the judges that where neutral was removed and replaced with his own people to assure that he would hold on to the power. Yes he surely picks Pakistan above anything els, after he has reinforced his reigme and used money ment for fighting terrorist in the north pakistan to enchancing his weapon system for a eventual war against Indian thus further increasing a arms race. he surely puts his country above all els

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And? That was not the question.

Dalai Lama preaches repsect for Chinese culture and the Chinese, same those who have burned his home and killed his people.

So, care to answer the question?

Tell me of a Muslim who equaly repsected Hindusim/Christianity/Buddhism/Judaism the way those men respected their arch enemies or the way that Islamic person respects his religion.

its really a stupid and pointless question since worldwide fame is its prerequisite, and the implied conclusion is that muslims are selfish and evil and eat babies. so no, i wont answer it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
And? That was not the question.

Dalai Lama preaches repsect for Chinese culture and the Chinese, same those who have burned his home and killed his people.

So, care to answer the question?

Tell me of a Muslim who equaly repsected Hindusim/Christianity/Buddhism/Judaism the way those men respected their arch enemies or the way that Islamic person respects his religion.


Muhammad, and because of his lingering influence the model for interacial-cultural-religious tolerance that was Islamic Spain. An empire that lasted even longer than the Roman Empire.

Jalaluddin Rumi, the thirteen century turkish muslim poet who used his talent to promote the idea of universal message of love; "I am neither of the East or the West, no boundaries exist in my breast."

Akbar the Great, the lengendary Mughal king was well known becaues of his interfaith tolerance. He had made a Hindu woman his Queen to drive his point about tolerance and acceptance home.

and et al.


ignorance is a prevalent disease. but a teeensy bit of research usually can cure it.

Originally posted by NASA
Yes Musharraf is better coz he aint no sellout like the rest and puts Pakistan always first

Does he support a Democracy in Pakistan, was/is he for making peace with India, like Bhutto ways?

BTW, Musharraf has on more than one occasion suspended the Pakistani Constitution, illegally jailed officials who questioned the validity of his presidency, suppressed human rights, and imposed a shut-out of the media. Yeah, he sure loves the people of Pakistan, oh, he also wears one of the worse toupees I've ever seen.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Muhammad, and because of his lingering influence the model for interacial-cultural-religious tolerance that was Islamic Spain. An empire that lasted even longer than the Roman Empire.

Jalaluddin Rumi, the thirteen century turkish muslim poet who used his talent to promote the idea of universal message of love; "I am neither of the East or the West, no boundaries exist in my breast."

Akbar the Great, the lengendary Mughal king was well known becaues of his interfaith tolerance. He had made a Hindu woman his Queen to drive his point about tolerance and acceptance home.

and et al.


ignorance is a prevalent disease. but a teeensy bit of research usually can cure it.

I believe it was Muhammad who preached Islam to be spread by the sword also, so I'm not sure if he practiced tolerance all the time.

Islamic Spain lasted roughly 700 years, Rome was close to 1200 in it's various phases.

Originally posted by Robtard
I believe it was Muhammad who preached Islam to be spread by the sword also, so I'm not sure if he practiced tolerance all the time.

Islamic Spain lasted roughly 700 years, Rome was close to 1200 in it's varies phases.

He never preached Islam by the sword. His wars were always fought in the defensive.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Muhammad, and because of his lingering influence the model for interacial-cultural-religious tolerance that was Islamic Spain. An empire that lasted even longer than the Roman Empire.

Jalaluddin Rumi, the thirteen century turkish muslim poet who used his talent to promote the idea of universal message of love; "I am neither of the East or the West, no boundaries exist in my breast."

Akbar the Great, the lengendary Mughal king was well known becaues of his interfaith tolerance. He had made a Hindu woman his Queen to drive his point about tolerance and acceptance home.

and et al.


ignorance is a prevalent disease. but a teeensy bit of research usually can cure it.

Thanks for that...I have never heard of Jalaluddin Rumi...and I probably should have.

Right now, the Sunni and Shiite muslims in Iraq could use a little bit of Jalaluddin's Message of Love and Jesus Christ's message of forgiving others and turning the other cheek.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
He never preached Islam by the sword. His wars were always fought in the defensive.

You know, a defense, would be if the Muslims defended their homeland/borders from invaders (which they did at times), spreading/conquering into Spain, Portugal adn France, was an OFFENSIVE move.

Not saying Muhammad personally did this, just food for though.

Originally posted by Robtard
You know, a defense, would be if the Muslims defended their homeland/borders from invaders (which they did at times), spreading/conquering into Spain, Portugal adn France, was an OFFENSIVE move.

Not saying Muhammad personally did this, just food for though.

But conquering doesn't equal to meaning the spread of Islam by the sword. The latter would be more accurate if the belief system was forced onto the peoples conquered. Which they never were. Did they invade and expand their territory? Yes. Did they let the conquered people practice their own faiths and treat them with respect and kindess? Heck yes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for that...I have never heard of Jalaluddin Rumi...and I probably should have.

Right now, the Sunni and Shiite muslims in Iraq could use a little bit of Jalaluddin's Message of Love and Jesus Christ's message of forgiving others and turning the other cheek.

mhmm. but the root of most problems in that region of the world today is backwardness and the lack of educational institutions. can't really be helped tho, what with the turbulent governments there. these terrorists aren't made becaues that is what their faith teaches them. they are made becaeus they do not possess the adequate education and knowledge to even understand the faith they so wrongly use to justify their actions.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
But conquering doesn't equal to meaning the spread of Islam by the sword. The latter would be more accurate if the belief system was forced onto the peoples conquered. Which they never were. Did they invade and expand their territory? Yes. Did they let the conquered people practice their own faiths and treat them with respect and kindess? Heck yes.

Fair enough, do explain the passage 9:5 in the Qur'an. The "slaying of idolaters wherever you find them", seems a bit intolerant and unrespectful to me.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
mhmm. but the root of most problems in that region of the world today is backwardness and the lack of educational institutions. can't really be helped tho, what with the turbulent governments there. these terrorists aren't made becaues that is what their faith teaches them. they are made becaeus they do not possess the adequate education and knowledge to even understand the faith they so wrongly use to justify their actions.
theyre raised from birth essentially to hate the governments

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough, do explain the passage 9:5 in the Qur'an. The "slaying of idolaters wherever you find them", seems a bit intolerant and unrespectful to me.

i am not familiar with that snippet of text you're quoting. i know that it was the people in his town that literally drove muhammd out of there, killed his daughter, his son in law but were met with nothing other than forgiveness on his part.

this "idolator" of a woman,would dump garbage down at him as he'd pass below her house every day. he wouldn't retaliate or get back at her because she was old so he'd just deal with it. one day she gets sick and can't go out to throw her trash on him. so he goes up to check in on her well being. upon finding out about her sickness, he stays and nurses her back to health. she is so impressed by him that she accepts his teachings then and there.

there are many examples from the way he lived life that are very contrary to such snippets of usually misinterpreted text.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
mhmm. but the root of most problems in that region of the world today is backwardness and the lack of educational institutions. can't really be helped tho, what with the turbulent governments there. these terrorists aren't made becaues that is what their faith teaches them. they are made becaeus they do not possess the adequate education and knowledge to even understand the faith they so wrongly use to justify their actions.

I've seen it among Christians too...the use of the "Word" to justify evil doings.

I try to put myself in the shoes of those two Muslim sects...what if my father and sister were blown up by a suicide bomber in the market from the other sect? Would I become angry, if up to that point I was neutral, at the opposing sect and seek my revenge against the people? Hell no. If I would seek the revenge, I would want to kill the bastard who did it, but he is already dead so I would want to go after the bastards who organized the attack...if that is even possible.

In the end, though, I probably wouldn't seek revenge because I probably wouldn't get satisfaction enough. (The killer is already dead.) I am a very vengeful person and I gain great satisfaction from it. I seem to think the my form of revenge, though, is just beating the shit out of someone, not killing them. I would nurse them back to health and then beat the shit out of them again IF they were still alive. Not all Sunnis are bad and not all Shiites are bad in Iraq. In fact, a lot of them are trying to put an end to that BS.

Back on topic...

I believe Islam is being exploited much too often for evil things. Sometimes, I wish religion in general, didn't exist.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
i am not familiar with that snippet of text you're quoting. i know that it was the people in his town that literally drove muhammd out of there, killed his daughter, his son in law but were met with nothing other than forgiveness on his part.

this "idolator" of a woman,would dump garbage down at him as he'd pass below her house every day. he wouldn't retaliate or get back at her because she was old so he'd just deal with it. one day she gets sick and can't go out to throw her trash on him. so he goes up to check in on her well being. upon finding out about her sickness, he stays and nurses her back to health. she is so impressed by him that she accepts his teachings then and there.

there are many examples from the way he lived life that are very contrary to such snippets of usually misinterpreted text.

It's a passage from the Qu'ran, verse 9:5. "Odolators" are people who worship "idols", i.e. false gods, not Allah.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a passage from the Qu'ran, verse 9:5. "Odolators" are people who worship "idols", i.e. false gods, not Allah.

In short terms every one els that is what extramist normally cut it downs too.

Normally the christians wouldn't fall under that catagory since we are not worshipping false gods they are only misguided believing Jesus to be the biggest prophet that's what I have learned at school from my teologi teacher, but I isn't that much into it, if someone have a better analyse please let me know

Originally posted by Utrigita
In short terms every one els that is what extramist normally cut it downs too.

Normally the christians wouldn't fall under that catagory since we are not worshipping false gods they are only misguided believing Jesus to be the biggest prophet that's what I have learned at school from my teologi teacher, but I isn't that much into it, if someone have a better analyse please let me know

If you're not aware, Christians worship Jesus as God, they're one and the same, to a Christian. Jesus would in a sense, be an idol/false god.

Stop going into religion!
This has nothing to do with religion at all

Originally posted by NASA
Stop going into religion!
This has nothing to do with religion at all

Bhutto's assassination was both politically and religiously motivated.

Originally posted by Robtard
Bhutto's assassination was both politically and religiously motivated.

Just politically that's all guv
Nawaz Shariff could be next and when that happens Musharraf is screwed for sure

Originally posted by NASA
Just politically that's all guv
Nawaz Shariff could be next and when that happens Musharraf is screwed for sure

That's right, because of the controversy over her trying to change/do away Zina & Hudood laws has absolutely no religious connection. As did her anti-Taliban/terrorist stances.

Is it bad that I've never heard of Bhutto before?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Is it bad that I've never heard of Bhutto before?

Not really.

I thought this was about the Popeye villain.

Originally posted by BackFire
I thought this was about the Popeye villain.

Bhutto, not Bluto.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're not aware, Christians worship Jesus as God, they're one and the same, to a Christian. Jesus would in a sense, be an idol/false god.

We worship God jesus and the holy spirit all connection into God.

And it is true that we see Jesus at Gods son but worship him as God not in the Protestantism

Originally posted by Robtard
Bhutto, not Bluto.

I know, I just didn't look at the title closely and just saw the "uto" sound and that was the first thing that came to my mind.

Originally posted by BackFire
I know, I just didn't look at the title closely and just saw the "uto" sound and that was the first thing that came to my mind.

Your gay friend VVD, implied the same thing a few pages back.

Originally posted by Utrigita
We worship God jesus and the holy spirit all connection into God.

And it is true that we see Jesus at Gods son but worship him as God not in the Protestantism

I know, it's what I said.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your gay friend VVD, implied the same thing a few pages back.

In a more gay, dick-loving way, I'd imagine.

No, in a ****ing brilliant way.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
No, in a ****ing brilliant way.

So it's true, all one has to say is "dick-loving" and by some cockguzzling-magic, you suddenly appear.

If that were true I'd never leave your side.

Too bad, I've always wanted a gimply-legged manservant.

R.I.P.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I love man-cum

Hahahaha

Don't remember saying that.

Oh well, must've.

It's nice that you trust me.

a picture of her right before she was killed

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y28/SleepingSoul/baa.jpg

Did this assassination actually surprise anyone?

Wait, am I to understand that a forum member is complaining that Bhutto allowed the U.S. to look for bin Laden in Pakistan?

Yep

Dont know her, dont care about her.

Well they got the police and army toady to restore order where was it yesturday ??

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
Muhammad, and because of his lingering influence the model for interacial-cultural-religious tolerance that was Islamic Spain. An empire that lasted even longer than the Roman Empire.

Jalaluddin Rumi, the thirteen century turkish muslim poet who used his talent to promote the idea of universal message of love; "I am neither of the East or the West, no boundaries exist in my breast."



ignorance is a prevalent disease. but a teeensy bit of research usually can cure it.

Er what they did in Islamic Spain was different to What Mohammed did. In Spain the muslims drew pictures and had dancing girls. This is something that Mohammed did not allow, so no Islamic Spain was not based on what Moahmmed did. Hell if they followed what Mohammed did they would have forced their beliefs on the inhabitants.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy

Akbar the Great, the lengendary Mughal king was well known becaues of his interfaith tolerance. He had made a Hindu woman his Queen to drive his point about tolerance and acceptance home.


Ermm doesnt it say in the Quran that mulsims cant marry pagans? Akbar may ahve been a tolerant muslim but he didnt follow the teachings of Mohammed.

Originally posted by Punkyhermy
But conquering doesn't equal to meaning the spread of Islam by the sword. The latter would be more accurate if the belief system was forced onto the peoples conquered. Which they never were. Did they invade and expand their territory? Yes. Did they let the conquered people practice their own faiths and treat them with respect and kindess? Heck yes.


Yeah? So why is it when the pagans asked Mohammed to keep his religon to himself and stop shoving it down their throats he refused to stop? Sounds pretty reasonable to me "you keep your religon to yourself i'll keep my religon to myself".....oh yeah what does it say about Abu Talib the guy who protected Mohammed from the pagans? Doesnt it say that he went to hell because he didnt accept Islam?

Oh yeah didnt Mohammed smash the idols of the pagans? Yeah Mohammed stated when he entered Mecca with is army that he was not going to kill them......and then proceeded to smash the idols of the gods that they had been worshipping for hundreds of years.

Smashing idols = letting people believe what they want.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The religoin can be violent but the people dont have to be. islam was not created to make peace.

Contrary to popular belief, Islam is a peaceful religion.

People assume it isn't cause of what CNN (the C.ommunist C.able N.etwork) and the Fox (Faux) News Channel shoves down viewers throats daily about how malevolent Islam and it's practitioners/supporters are based on like 1 percent of the religions pop. Yet there's hardly any focus on the 1 billion + Muslims on the planet that don't practice/support Islamofacism.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Contrary to popular belief, Islam is a peaceful religion.

People assume it isn't cause of what CNN (the C.ommunist C.able N.etwork) and the Fox (Faux) News Channel shoves down viewers throats daily about how malevolent Islam and it's practitioners/supporters are based on like 1 percent of the religions pop. Yet there's hardly any focus on the 1 billion + Muslims on the planet that don't practice/support Islamofacism.

The religon is what you make it, but Mohammed created Islam for his own personal desires not for the benefit of society.

Originally posted by Alfheim
The religon is what you make it, but Mohammed created Islam for his own personal desires not for the benefit of society.

This guy is obviously right because of the straight face at the end, no doubt.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This guy is obviously right because of the straight face at the end, no doubt.

......sorry what you trying to say?

Originally posted by Alfheim
......sorry what you trying to say?

Why is a straight face humorous?

I'll take "pwn3d with a straight face" for $400, Alex.

Nevermind.

I am unfamiliar with coffins in the muslim world, but doesn't that box they passed around outside the hospital, the one with her body in it, look like it was made from found boards and a cafeteria door? It's got a little window in it, so you could see someone coming with a tray.

As for the assassination, it seems like someone in Pakistan doesn't want us messing around in their country.

CNN told me that al-Qaida is taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and that the idea of freedom to them is disgusting... They also informed me that at this very moment a terroist could be under my bed with a box-cutter.

Originally posted by Utrigita
Yep
...Why?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
...Why?

Lack of far sight I believe shrug and the guy is from pakistan to so...

well, i dont make a habit of insulting the dead{unless sufficient time has passed} but bhutto stole more from pakistan than any other government{with the exeption of musharraf maybe} in the history of the company. her KNOWN exploits in cash alone easily reach over 5 billion dollars, and the real figure is much muhc much higher. she was an active force for corruption and discord and really, did nothing for her people, and also promoted many criminal organisation etc for personal benefits as well as taking inernational brides n what not. sum wud say that such a death was too easy a way for her to leave this world{specially, seeing that she died trying to get reelected and stealiong MORE resources from the country, kinda ironic}.

as far as the culprits go, it is probably the chaudri brothers. with sum involvement of musharraf possibly. dun really think america wud have a hand as the usually do, she was too pro america for that to happen.

Originally posted by Mark Question
CNN told me that al-Qaida is taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and that the idea of freedom to them is disgusting... They also informed me that at this very moment a terroist could be under my bed with a box-cutter.

I'm pretty suer that first thing wouldn't be to far fetched. It's not impossible that a group of extremists take control over Pakistan, and Pakistan is a nuclear power so that wouldn't really be good for anybody.

Originally posted by Mark Question
CNN told me that al-Qaida is taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and that the idea of freedom to them is disgusting... They also informed me that at this very moment a terroist could be under my bed with a box-cutter.

Whats a "box-cutter" or did you mean "bolt cutter"?

Pakistan is a bit on the chaotic side, and the military government is probably what has been holding it together like Saddam did in Iraq.

I wonder what will happen next, is a sort of civil war possible?

The way i see it. Pakistan was cut of from India so the Muslims can have their own "bit", now the real battle starts between the Extremists, Democrats and a behind the scenes string pulling ex military leader.

What a nightmare, especially for the normal civilians.

Just noticed an unusual twist to this story, aparently she died from banging her head on the sun roof, not from any gunshot or shrapnel wounds. Sounds a bit daft imo but nevertheless News link below.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071228/ts_afp/pakistanattacksbhuttoministry

Originally posted by Fishy
I'm pretty suer that first thing wouldn't be to far fetched. It's not impossible that a group of extremists take control over Pakistan, and Pakistan is a nuclear power so that wouldn't really be good for anybody.

I have a lot of problems with this statement. Before I even touch any of them, please answer this: Is the United States considered "extreme" for going into Iraq without fulfilling any requirements for a just war?

actually that story is false. she definately died from a gunshot and the gunshot is even seen in two different videos. thats just the government trying to take away responsibility from anything and avoiding a proper inquiry.

the military government isnt HOLDING anything together, they are the ones causing problems. oh hey does any1 know that over 87% of all national resources are used up by the pakistani military.

on the lighter side of things, my dad was out yestreday and he saw sumthing which has become quite usual. a group of idiotic teens stop a damn van by smashing the windshield, then go on to beat the people {civilians} inside. over 150 banks have officially been looted and set alight among the deaths of many people and complete discord. sumtimes i wonder if this country has any hop left or not, obviously these idiots have NUTHING to do with the death of bhutto but just hoodlums, who find an oppurtunity in instability and come out under the guise of "avenging her death" and loot and detsroy everything they see. its even a little funny.

Originally posted by chithappens
I have a lot of problems with this statement. Before I even touch any of them, please answer this: Is the United States considered "extreme" for going into Iraq without fulfilling any requirements for a just war?

...

You have a problem with me stating that extremists party's that hate our nations that could also get the control over nuclear weapons is a bad thing for the western world?

And yes I do think that the US was extreme for going into Iraq, but America isn't run by extremists that want to destroy the Muslim world. Huge difference there. America has already shown that it won't use it's nuclear arsenal for any reason since WWII and since the effects of such weapons are known. These extremists have not in fact they have shown that they are more then willing to die and throw their entire nation into chaos to hurt the US or other western nations.

^yes it is. bush and much of the right wing wud like nuthing more. srry, but evangelicals ARE extremists. and hey, wasnt it obama who said that america cud possibly bomb the muslim kaba at mecca?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^yes it is. bush and much of the right wing wud like nuthing more. srry, but evangelicals ARE extremists. and hey, wasnt it obama who said that america cud possibly bomb the muslim kaba at mecca?

Has Bush bombed Mecca? No he isn't a fool, has Osama attacked New York? Yes. Would he do so again given the chance? Probably. Nuclear weapons would give him that chance wouldn't they?

And Bush might be a religious nut he isn't somebody willing to kill for his religion he isn't somebody willing to overthrow other nations simply to spread the message of Christ.. Bush isn't an religious extremist.

I'm not saying what Bush did was all good, but I'd far rather have him in power of Nuclear missiles then some extremist terrorist idiot.

Originally posted by Fishy
Has Osama attacked New York? Yes.



wake up

...and the 9-11 attacks never happened, i guess.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
wake up

Oh yeah you're right it was probably the US itself that attacked their own damned city... Brilliant. Or wait, no it's not. Stop being an idiot.

Originally posted by Fishy
Has Bush bombed Mecca? No he isn't a fool, has Osama attacked New York? Yes. Would he do so again given the chance? Probably. Nuclear weapons would give him that chance wouldn't they?

And Bush might be a religious nut he isn't somebody willing to kill for his religion he isn't somebody willing to overthrow other nations simply to spread the message of Christ.. Bush isn't an religious extremist.

I'm not saying what Bush did was all good, but I'd far rather have him in power of Nuclear missiles then some extremist terrorist idiot.

Apparently you are not familiar with this term called "rhetoric." In basic terms, it means saying something without stating it explicitly.

There is a reason there was plenty of stereotyping going on now about people of Middle Eastern descent. Right after 9/11, people would stop what they were doing just to watch "one of those Arabs" and make sure they were not going to blow everyone up; I don't stay in New York, this was in Memphis, TN.

Terms like "Islamic extremists" don't pop up just because they can not find a different way to phrase it. You don't have to say, "I am a Christian and as such I have this and this policy." Oh and just so you know, terrorist actions can not be thwarted if an "organization" does not want them to be. People keep getting shot up in shopping malls in these smaller states.

Why couldn't the gov't stop them? Because they are random attacks. Seriously, anyone could walk in public venues and do these things. It doesn't take much organization to pull up in front of my house with a bomb attached and blow me up before I can post this reply. It is completely idiotic to think you can stop EVERYTHING. If terror is really meant to be applied we would be attacked all the time from everywhere. Not just in big cities, but also in Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho.

Just because you don't use a nuke doesn't mean you don't **** up an area with other sorts of bombs. THEY STILL KILL PEOPLE; however, as long as it not a nuke it's cool beans? Stupid.... man I need to stop.

Originally posted by chithappens
Apparently you are not familiar with this term called "rhetoric." In basic terms, it means saying something without stating it explicitly.

There is a reason there was plenty of stereotyping going on now about people of Middle Eastern descent. Right after 9/11, people would stop what they were doing just to watch "one of those Arabs" and make sure they were not going to blow everyone up; I don't stay in New York, this was in Memphis, TN.

And how does this make the possibility of terrorists having nukes any less bad? That people are so stupid doesn't mean we should give people that want to destroy our way of life the weapons to do it.



They are called Islamic extremists because they kill in the name of Allah, the Islamic God. They don't kill because of oil or weapons or money they kill because they believe that Allah wants them to kill other people with different idea's.

And of course there is a huge difference between somebody opening fire in a school or a mall and an organised terrorist organization. Anybody could create a bomb and blow up some store, this would create terror but the WTC bombing was another level. It was meant to destroy the American way of life completely in one blow. Destroy the government the economical center and the military power of the nation. Of course it didn't quite work out that way, but that doesn't change anything.



Like I already said any terrorist attack can happen and it can't be stopped. It's the bigger attacks that people start to create a large message with a larger goal then just killing a few innocent people that can be stopped because they have to be organized, because there has to be communication between the group and the group leader, there has to be planning and what not. That changes facts a lot. A small attack although it could arguably have larger results if done often does not take that much planning or organization and as such is far less likely to be stopped.

Small attacks also don't happen (often) and it's a lower priority for the government. Even if it was a high priority it wouldn't change much but still.



No it doesn't make everything okay. I never said the war in Iraq was justified or that NATO handled Afghanistan correctly. Nor would I ever say that the attacks on the WTC & Pentagon weren't bad. I'm just saying that no matter how bad those things are, it's nothing and I mean absolutely nothing compared to a few nuclear missiles on your head. And any smart nation would want to prevent their enemy's from getting those weapons at all costs.

At least with other enemy's like Russia you could be sure that they wouldn't use them because of the retaliation that would follow on their own nation. People willing or in fact wanting to die for their religion are a lot less level-headed when it comes to these things and would sooner use a nuclear missile then any other country. That is why we should hope that Pakistan will never be ruled by ISLAMIC extremists who want to die for Allah and want to destroy our nations and our way of life. Because they might just use those nukes if they get the chance.

Bhutto's Son Chosen As Eventual Party Chief
19-Year-Old's Father To Preside Until Then


By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, December 31, 2007; Page A01

KARACHI, Pakistan, Dec. 30 -- Pakistan's largest and most storied political party chose Sunday to continue its dynastic traditions, anointing the 19-year-old son of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to be her ultimate successor but picking her husband to lead for now.

The selections mean that the Pakistan People's Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who had largely been shielded from the spotlight by his mother and has not lived in Pakistan since he was a young boy, will lead the party when he finishes his studies at Oxford University.

Speaking briefly but forcefully at a news conference in the Bhutto family's ancestral home, he said he would strive to honor his mother's legacy. "The party's long and historic struggle will continue with renewed vigor," he said. "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge."

Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, whose reputation has long been tainted by corruption charges, will run the party for at least the next several years. He said Sunday that the succession strategy reflected the wishes of his wife, who died in a gun-and-bomb attack at a rally Thursday afternoon.

The party's new leaders -- neither of whom had been a major player in Pakistani politics -- take over at an especially turbulent time for the country, with elections on the horizon and President Pervez Musharraf clinging to power amid widespread unrest.

Asif Zardari quickly announced that the party will compete in the parliamentary vote scheduled for Jan. 8. Another opposition party, led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, indicated it will do the same.

But Musharraf allies strongly hinted that the election would be postponed, possibly for months. "Delaying the election is very much in the cards," said Tariq Azim Khan, information secretary for the major pro-Musharraf party. "If you ask me personally if I would go ahead, I would say it would be unfair to go out and campaign in these sad times."

Although the Bush administration pressed Pakistani leaders last week to keep to the election schedule, the State Department said Sunday that it had no objections to a slight postponement.

"If the people on the ground think this is not the time for an election, that is fine," said spokesman Robert McInturff. "But we would want to see an alternative date. We do not want to see an indefinite delay."

Bhutto's killing Thursday was followed by unrest across the country, as rioting broke out in major cities as well as small villages. The atmosphere remained tense Sunday, with army deployments in several key areas, but the violence eased. Still, Bhutto's legions of supporters continued to blame Musharraf for her death.

Zardari called Sunday for the United Nations to lead an international inquiry into his wife's killing, while conceding that he had declined to give Pakistani officials permission to conduct an autopsy. "Their forensic reports are useless," he said angrily, calling the suggestion of an autopsy "an insult to my wife, to the sister of the nation, to the mother of the nation."

The Bhuttos are often compared to the Kennedys because of their tendency toward charismatic leaders who meet tragic ends. Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, himself a former prime minister, was hanged in 1979 by the military dictator who overthrew him. Her two brothers died in mysterious and violent circumstances.

The young man representing the newest generation of Bhuttos -- who added the famous name for the first time Sunday -- indicated he is acutely aware of that record, saying the chairmanship of the Pakistan People's Party is a position "that often is occupied by martyrs."

Nonetheless, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said he planned to return to Pakistan after he graduates from Oxford "to lead the party as my mother wanted me to."

Asif Zardari, meanwhile, left no doubt Sunday that he will be in charge in the interim. He pointedly asked reporters not to address questions to his son, and he lashed out at Musharraf's allies, calling them "the killer party."

Zardari, who wed Benazir Bhutto in an arranged marriage in 1987, is a controversial choice to lead the party, and some insiders worry it could fracture. During his wife's two terms as prime minister in the late 1980s and 1990s, he was known as "Mr. 10 Percent" for his reputation for taking money off the top of government deals. He served an extended jail sentence under Musharraf that stemmed from the alleged corruption.

"Zardari is not very much liked in the party. He goes for big hotels, world's best addresses. He wants to live like a prince abroad," said Rafiq Safi, a longtime party activist.

Zardari also has many critics in Western capitals, including Washington, which could further complicate U.S. hopes that Musharraf and the PPP might form a coalition that would unify moderate forces in Pakistan against extremism. "The U.S. is not going to be excited about working with Zardari," said Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

But the pressure to keep the party's leadership in family hands was intense, reflecting the unorthodox nature of the PPP as a party for the impoverished masses that is largely run by a collection of wealthy landlords -- the Bhutto family being by far the most prominent.

For true believers in the magic of the Bhutto name, people who are not members of the clan are ineligible to lead. Even Zardari is viewed with suspicion because he came to the family through marriage, not blood.

"There's something wrong with the region," said former party official Makhdoom Khaleeq Zaman, referring to the South Asian tendency for political dynasties. "It's not very democratic."

While Benazir Bhutto was groomed to lead the party by her father, it is unclear whether her son went through the same training.

His birth in 1988 -- on the eve of elections that Bhutto won, making her the first female prime minister of a Muslim nation -- generated headlines around the world. But after that, she took great pains to guard his privacy. He largely grew up in exile in London and Dubai, and little is known about him outside the family.

In her autobiography, Bhutto described the birth of her first child, calling him "the most celebrated and politically controversial baby in the history of Pakistan."

"There were congratulatory gunshots being fired outside the hospital, the beating of drums" and cries of "Long live Bhutto," she wrote.

On Sunday, when Bilawal Bhutto Zardari was reintroduced to the world, dozens of emotional party activists repeated that cheer and added a new one: "Bilawal, move forward! We are with you."

Correspondent Emily Wax in Islamabad, staff writer Robin Wright in Washington and special corrondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar contributed to this report.

thewashingtonpost

Originally posted by Fishy
And how does this make the possibility of terrorists having nukes any less bad? That people are so stupid doesn't mean we should give people that want to destroy our way of life the weapons to do it.



What does that have to do with stereotyping? I was talking about people being stereotyped and that was your response. Besides, no one is certain of anyone nuclear capabilities in that region. If you would like to challenge me on this feel free, but it will be debunked swiftly.

Originally posted by Fishy

They are called Islamic extremists because they kill in the name of Allah, the Islamic God. They don't kill because of oil or weapons or money they kill because they believe that Allah wants them to kill other people with different idea's.



"In (the Christian) God We Trust" is on all U.S. capital. I fail to see a difference in how this works any differently.

Originally posted by Fishy


And of course there is a huge difference between somebody opening fire in a school or a mall and an organised terrorist organization. Anybody could create a bomb and blow up some store, this would create terror but the WTC bombing was another level. It was meant to destroy the American way of life completely in one blow. Destroy the government the economical center and the military power of the nation. Of course it didn't quite work out that way, but that doesn't change anything.



Like I already said any terrorist attack can happen and it can't be stopped. It's the bigger attacks that people start to create a large message with a larger goal then just killing a few innocent people that can be stopped because they have to be organized, because there has to be communication between the group and the group leader, there has to be planning and what not. That changes facts a lot. A small attack although it could arguably have larger results if done often does not take that much planning or organization and as such is far less likely to be stopped.

Small attacks also don't happen (often) and it's a lower priority for the government. Even if it was a high priority it wouldn't change much but still.





So the scary terrorists don't do small projects in the U.S, why?

Originally posted by Fishy


No it doesn't make everything okay. I never said the war in Iraq was justified or that NATO handled Afghanistan correctly. Nor would I ever say that the attacks on the WTC & Pentagon weren't bad. I'm just saying that no matter how bad those things are, it's nothing and I mean absolutely nothing compared to a few nuclear missiles on your head. And any smart nation would want to prevent their enemy's from getting those weapons at all costs.

At least with other enemy's like Russia you could be sure that they wouldn't use them because of the retaliation that would follow on their own nation. People willing or in fact wanting to die for their religion are a lot less level-headed when it comes to these things and would sooner use a nuclear missile then any other country. That is why we should hope that Pakistan will never be ruled by ISLAMIC extremists who want to die for Allah and want to destroy our nations and our way of life. Because they might just use those nukes if they get the chance.

The ends do not fit the means if you never solidify what the hell was the root of the problem anyway. How the hell did we get to terrorists with nukes anyway?

This went from trying to find Bin Laden to Iraq with "real" WMDs to a humanitarian effort and now we are sure someone like Pakistan or Iran will offer nukes to terrorists (although no one has proven they even have a functioning nuke program) so we must have a democracy in the region to help ease the tension... or some bullshit along those lines.

Point is, all of this is bullshit. The U.S. is just as "extreme" and as much of a bully as anyone.

dont be a blind idiot fishy. the western media has practically taken away you ability to assess things objectively. for comparison, bush's regime has officially killed 2.5 % of the entire civilian population of iraq{while the real figures can easily be 10 times that high}, lets not even go to afghanistan. it actively supports and funs israel, a terroris state who destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan in the current illegal war, cages people up like animal and kills thousands. bush's policy towards syria and iran is also openly proclaiming his sentiments towards a certain part of the world. all the above mentioned examples are of MUSLIMS, please do NOT claim that little mister texan redneck isnt a ****in relegious fundamentalist cause he IS. there are nearly as many muslim fundamentalists as there are christian fundamentalists and BOTH are EQUALLY harming the world. do not be biased.

oh and lets not forget people, america is the ONLY nation in the world who HAS ever used nuclear weapons against innocent civilians in hiroshima and nagasake, if there is any1 who shud be suspected of using nukes against their enemeis, its the US.

Originally posted by chithappens
What does that have to do with stereotyping? I was talking about people being stereotyped and that was your response. Besides, no one is certain of anyone nuclear capabilities in that region. If you would like to challenge me on this feel free, but it will be debunked swiftly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Declared_nuclear_states#Other_known_nuclear_powers


Pakistan has nuclear weapons you can say what you want about that. It's not something I would like to give to people that want to destroy our way of life.



The difference is that we are not willing to kill Muslims because they do not believe in our God. we are not willing to destroy Israel because it's filled with Jews. We are not willing to blow up Mecca simply because we can, if we were it would have been done already. Some of those people are willing to do so, only replace their city's with ours. See the difference?



Do I look like Osama Bin Laden to you? Go ask him.



That's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it happened, what matters is that it happened or might happen in this case. And that's the dangerous part. But I guess you just want them to have nuclear missiles because we made mistakes in the past. Or are still making them now. That's probably a great idea. We did something wrong so we are going to give our enemy's who have no regard for life their own or that of their country men nuclear weapons which they can use to create world war 3 and possibly civil wars all over the western world not to mention untold destruction upon our city's. That's probably a real good idea...

Or wait, let me reconsider that. Of course that's not a good idea.



Bin Laden does not have anything to do with this, except for the fact that he proved that Islamic extremists are willing to destroy their own country, their houses and their lives to hurt the US and the rest of the western world. If Al-Qaeda gets their hands on these nukes or some other organization it would make no difference. As long as they hate our way of life it's not a good situation to be in.



The US does not use nuclear weapons upon Muslim city's. The US is not actively trying to destroy the Muslim way of life. What they are doing is wrong but it is a completely different thing. The threat that comes from that does not even compare.

And even if it did, which it doesn't. It would make no difference because I would still rather that the US would do things like that then a state run by Muslim extremists who hate us. Call me selfish but I'd rather see Baghdad go boom then London, New York, Washington, Berlin, Paris or whatever.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
dont be a blind idiot fishy. the western media has practically taken away you ability to assess things objectively. for comparison, bush's regime has officially killed 2.5 % of the entire civilian population of iraq{while the real figures can easily be 10 times that high}, lets not even go to afghanistan. it actively supports and funs israel, a terroris state who destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan in the current illegal war, cages people up like animal and kills thousands. bush's policy towards syria and iran is also openly proclaiming his sentiments towards a certain part of the world. all the above mentioned examples are of MUSLIMS, please do NOT claim that little mister texan redneck isnt a ****in relegious fundamentalist cause he IS. there are nearly as many muslim fundamentalists as there are christian fundamentalists and BOTH are EQUALLY harming the world. do not be biased.

And yet again, what the US does is not right. I never claimed it is. The US however is not using nuclear weapons. And they aren't supporting Isreal because it isn't a jewish state. They are supporting Israel becaues it's a pro-western state. It's the same reason why the US marginally supports Egypt. In a lesser way but Egypt is a less important ally. The US also has ties with Turkey and relies on them a lot. They work with Turkey and with the exception of Turkey they are the one's trying most to get them into the European Union. A union that's filled with America's allies.

Both Egypt and Turkey are Muslim nations. So don't bullshit me about Christian extremism, perhaps he is a christian extremists, perhaps he honestly believes that all non christians will go to hell. But he certainly isn't trying to speed it up and he isn't working against the Muslim world with everything he can just to make sure that their country's remain ****ed up.



Both used in completely different circumstances. Both used in a time when the effects of Nuclear weapons were still unkown. Both used in a time when bombing entire city's and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was normal anyway. Has the US ever used their nukes since then? No.

And the chance that they will again is quite small as well. Somebody who is willing to destroy Israel no matter what the cost might not be so hesitant to use those nuclear weapons as the US is to use theirs now. Because let's be honest this entire war in Iraq could have been long over if the US was only half as cruel as you claim it is.

^the US still uses depleted uranium ammunition in iraq and afghanistan. bush does support israel because of the fact that he is a fundi, as do most other evangelical private foundations and churches{sending tens of billions in funding every year} and the bush regime takes ABSOLUTELY no notice of all the TERRORISM israel dishes out which is far more than all muslim terrorists of the region combined. and no, the us does NOT support egypt at ALL. it just doesnt mess with them much because of its position geographically and politically, just like it doesnt mess with north korea much irrespective of how bad they actually can be. and PLEASE think of a better muslim example than friggin TURKEY, its basically a secular conutry who wud do anything, even kiss the E.U's ass to get accepted in the E.U. the only other american ally that i know of wud be saudi arabia, not because the american government loves em, but because of all the oil and business relations. plus the nearly 8% contribution to american economy and letting america use their soil and the gulf for attacks and military presence.

do not BULLSHIT YOURSELF about christian extremism, it is every bit as arrogant and harmful to the world as muslim extremism and has compareable, if not greater, political power than muslim extremism. and yes, he is doing exactly that, although not perfect;y.


as for the second part, no it wasnt completely different circumstances, they were innocent civilians and a city, not a military target. the affect of nuclear weapons was QUITE well known, dont be ridiculous, as was teh affect of radiation, plus the yield of the bomb was known. do not forget that nukes were tested BEFORE ever being dropped on japan. even the crew of the enola gay was told that the wepon in question would crack the very crust of the earth itself, they knew DAMN well what they were droppiong so dont pull that shit. and just to impress the fact even more that america didnt give a SHIT then what got killed int he process. BEFORE teh nukes were dropped, the two major cities were napalm bombed which killed MORE people than the nukes later. it is no justification to say that this sort of thing was NORMAL then. it is still just as WRONG. and it doesn change the fact that america is still the only country EVER in history to have used nukes against people and civilians. not to mention it still RETAINS the biggest arsenal of nukes in the world so really i say that the world has more reason to be worried abotu CHRISTIAN fundies doing such a thing than muslim, or atleast equally worry abotu both{apparently you are SEVERELY misjusdging the level of fundamentalism found in the christian south of america}

as for the destroying israel comment. israel is equally motivated and taking PRACTICAL steps to distroy israel/lebona etc to take ovve rthe enitre new canaan region which they beleive belongs to them. israel also kills hundreds of times more people{not to mention tortures millions} than muslim terrorists kill in israel. as for the iraq comment, 2.5 % of the entire population of iraq is officially dead and unofficially, the figures normally rise about 8 to 10 times that amount as seen by experts. so your last argument is not true.

Glad we're all talkin' about Bhutto's death and not more Christian-Muslim Extremism/WMD Crap here....

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^the US still uses depleted uranium ammunition in iraq and afghanistan. bush does support israel because of the fact that he is a fundi, as do most other evangelical private foundations and churches{sending tens of billions in funding every year} and the bush regime takes ABSOLUTELY no notice of all the TERRORISM israel dishes out which is far more than all muslim terrorists of the region combined. and no, the us does NOT support egypt at ALL. it just doesnt mess with them much because of its position geographically and politically, just like it doesnt mess with north korea much irrespective of how bad they actually can be. and PLEASE think of a better muslim example than friggin TURKEY, its basically a secular conutry who wud do anything, even kiss the E.U's ass to get accepted in the E.U. the only other american ally that i know of wud be saudi arabia, not because the american government loves em, but because of all the oil and business relations. plus the nearly 8% contribution to american economy and letting america use their soil and the gulf for attacks and military presence.

And depleted Uranium ammunition and a nuclear bomb are pretty much the same thing right?

Turkey is still a Muslim country. An extremist would not deal with Turkey because it's filled with Muslims. Bush does give aid to Egypt, or at least the US does he deals with Muslims there. He does deal with Saudi Arabia, who are Muslims. The US has supported Israel for a long time even before Bush and that had absolutely nothing to do with Christian ideals. Or should I remind you that is the Christians who tried to wipe out the Jews several times and came for closer to doing it then the Muslims ever did. Christians however learned to accept that perhaps we were wrong on that regard, while Muslims aren't quite there yet.



Again Christian extremists although assholes and idiots are not yet ready to blow up Mecca or destroy Muslim nations. Well some might be but they aren't in power. If they were, we would have no middle east. Just oil drilling platforms and a lot of sand claimed in the name of the US.



You can't read. America hasn't dropped a bomb since Japan. America was not fully aware of the effects otherwise they would not have send their own troops in. America was fully aware that it would destroy the city, they knew that. But America, Canada, England, France, Germany, Russia they all blew up dozens of city's in World War II through whatever way they could. America just thought this bomb would send a larger message and it did.

Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous.



Israel isn't a nice country but they could have taken over all those other country's already if they would have wanted to. Just like the US. It's the fact that they don't want to or the unrest in other nations would be to big that prevents them from doing that. Two things that Muslim Extremists like the one's in Al-Qaeda don't notice. That they don't care about.

And my last comment still stands, if Israel would have wanted to they could have bombed their enemy's to shit. Blown up entire city's. The US could have used nuclear weapons and if they really wanted to Baghdad could have been nothing more then a smoking pile of dust right now. Filled perhaps with some American soldiers patrolling the rubble that covered what were once streets and shooting anybody still moving. They have that power, they have the weapons to do it. They aren't doing it. That means that they don't want to and can thus be easier trusted with those weapons then people who do want to do that only to Washington instead of Baghdad.

Originally posted by SoylentBlue
Glad we're all talkin' about Bhutto's death and not more Christian-Muslim Extremism/WMD Crap here....

Well in my defense, this debate did start when I mentioned the possible negative side effects of her death.

Originally posted by Fishy

Again Christian extremists although assholes and idiots are not yet ready to blow up Mecca or destroy Muslim nations. Well some might be but they aren't in power.

You can't read. America hasn't dropped a bomb since Japan.

Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous.

Israel isn't a nice country but they could have taken over all those other country's already if they would have wanted to. Just like the US.

And my last comment still stands, if Israel would have wanted to they could have bombed their enemy's to shit. Blown up entire city's.

All of this shows a complete misunderstanding for how "realpolitik" works.

sometimes you gotta take a step back and say it is better to cower now so you can live another day. i havent read every single thing about this bhutto incident but i believe her ppl was telling her to chill cuz its getting real hectic and she refused becuz she wanted to put on a brave face for her supporters, admirable though it may have been look where its gotten her. the same thing with MLK... he knew they were gonna get him but, he refused to lay low for a little bit, and look how that worked out.

Originally posted by chithappens
All of this shows a complete misunderstanding for how "realpolitik" works.

No it shows that you are a complete idiot who does not understand the difference between a nation filled with people that just want to survive and a nation filled or at least lead by people whose primary goal it is to destroy that way of life.

The first one can have nuclear weapons preferably not but it's not that big a deal. The second one creates a huge and imminent danger to the world.

I understand that you hate the US and want to think all their enemy's are justified in their believes. But that doesn't mean you can stop looking at what does enemy's could and likely would use to accomplish this goal or the effects that would have on your own way of life.

Originally posted by manjaro
sometimes you gotta take a step back and say it is better to cower now so you can live another day. i havent read every single thing about this bhutto incident but i believe her ppl was telling her to chill cuz its getting real hectic and she refused becuz she wanted to put on a brave face for her supporters, admirable though it may have been look where its gotten her. the same thing with MLK... he knew they were gonna get him but, he refused to lay low for a little bit, and look how that worked out.


Cowering would not have been an option, she was strong and powerful now. Her ability to change things would have been hugely compromised if she would have stepped back because of a risk to her own life. Nothing would have changed and in the end if she would have returned a later date it would not have made the same impact it did now. She made the right decision in staying, at least if she was willing to die for what she believed in and I honestly think she was willing to do just that, if it would have really meant something.

Let's just hope for the people that supported her that her death did mean something and that something will change in Pakistan, at least in the way they wanted it.

Do you honestly believe all of the "insurgents" are extremists? How about a bunch of these groups got more folks to work with them because this was an unjust war and they did go in and kill people's families and homes. All this "happy for democracy" crap is funny. I would be on the lines with a gun if they blew up all my shit and my family. Does anyone realize that for all the talk of reconstruction there is no discussion on how to help particular individuals who had all their stuff blown up?

You are brainwashed. You can't even coin another phrase other than that "destroy our way of life" crap.

I don't hate the U.S. I hate the habitually contradictory policies of the U.S. There is a very fundamental difference. Being a "patriot" does not mean walking the line blindly. You should be critically and not simply accept every answer given without looking at it carefully simply because you are a part of said country. U.S. history has shown loads of corruption and propaganda and puppet governments. To say otherwise is to be completely blind. This particular situation is no different.

Originally posted by chithappens
Do you honestly believe all of the "insurgents" are extremists? How about a bunch of these groups got more folks to work with them because this was an unjust war and they did go in and kill people's families and homes. All this "happy for democracy" crap is funny. I would be on the lines with a gun if they blew up all my shit and my family. Does anyone realize that for all the talk of reconstruction there is no discussion on how to help particular individuals who had all their stuff blown up?

And whose orders do those people follow? Not that of some hippy flower guy but of an Islamic Extremists who joined the Taliban and or Al-Qaeda years ago. Not somebody who will stop once the US is out of the country but who will want to get back at the US. And Al-Qaeda has a strong presence in Pakistan. Pakistan also has nuclear weapons.

You just don't see it do you, it doesn't matter if 95% of them will stop once the US leaves Afghanistan, 5% won't. And I very much doubt it's that little. They will want power they will want revenge, and with nuclear missiles in Pakistan they can get it. Better then ever. They didn't attacked the US in 2001 not because they were attacked recently but because of things that happened years earlier. Now those things may have justified an attack or a war, but certainly not the killing of innocent civilians, and what happened then is nothing compared to what the US has done to them directly now. The retaliation would be far larger, if they get the chance. I'm just saying don't give them the chance.

You seem to think that I believe every Muslim is an extremists everybody in Afghanistan or Pakistan want the western world to be destroyed. I don't. I just don't want the few that do to get their hands on the most terrible and powerful weapons mankind has ever developed and if you do then you really are an idiot.



What was the purpose of 9/11 except to destroy our lives? What was the purpose of the train bombing in Madrid, the Subway bombings in London and the more recent but failed attacks there, what was the point in blowing up that Disco in Bali? It was to hurt us, to make us believe that we are not safe that we are not secure that they can and will strike and it was an attempt to destroy our way of life. It's that simple. Give them nuclear weapons and destroying that way of life would become a hell of lot easier for them.



And I'm not contradicting that. I never did contradict that the US handled things badly, did things wrong and made huge perhaps even unforgivable mistakes. I never said that I do not understand why the terrorists did what they did. Although I think that is just as wrong as what the US did. I'm just saying give them the chance and they will do more. Give them nuclear weapons and they will do more. Personally I don't really want to see that happen. No matter what the cost I would not want to see that happen, even if it means a full scale attack on Pakistan. Which is highly unlikely and I am hoping that the government in power is either that of Bhutto her party or that of the current president because in both cases we won't have a lot of trouble from them.

So the question then becomes this: How much is too much? Where do you stop? (by this I mean doing things like knocking countries over for "harboring terrorists" as if they can't move to the next border; besides we fund plenty of foul regions but that's another issue).

I just don't see the ending point to this. It's an "all means necessary" mentality.

Originally posted by chithappens
So the question then becomes this: How much is too much? Where do you stop? (by this I mean doing things like knocking countries over for "harboring terrorists" as if they can't move to the next border; besides we fund plenty of foul regions but that's another issue).

I just don't see the ending point to this. It's an "all means necessary" mentality.

Afghanistan was somewhat understandable. Iraq was a huge mistake, we should never do things like that again.

However, if people who want to destroy us are close to getting their hands on nuclear weapons then even a full blown war is not something that I would stop at. Id rather blow my enemy to bits and worry about possible retaliation without nukes later then have a nuclear missile on my head in the first place.

Luckily there are probably easier ways, the current government would probably not like to see those weapons in the hands of Islamic extremists, the Pakistani military probably wouldn't like it either. A coupe might be a solution and if not that then moving the nuclear weapons to another country. China, India some western country I don't care. As long as they stay away from those extremists.

To answer the rest of your question, we shouldn't attack a country unless we have a good reason. With Afghanistan the reason was good enough, with Iraq it was not. With nuclear weapons at stake the reason is good enough. And these weapons are verified, so it's different then in Iraq where they were heavily debated even before the war and most people didn't believe they were there.

once Nuclearing testing begins in other country's however, like for instance Iran and they can not be persuaded to stop then an attack on Iran would even be justified. The same would go for North Korea by the way. Who were persuaded to drop their nuclear program and who were less likely to use them in the first place.

The next question would be, "Who is not an extremists to their own views? (does not mean religious, just means to whatever stance any nation-state chooses to take.)

Originally posted by chithappens
The next question would be, "Who is not an extremists to their own views? (does not mean religious, just means to whatever stance any nation-state chooses to take.)

Simply put: People who want to destroy another nation/way of life/group of people no matter what the cost. And consider it their duty either to God their nation or whatever else to carry out that mission even if they have to pay for it with their own lives or that of many other innocent people.

Al-Qaeda would definitely qualify.

In your mind, were either the Soviet Union or the U.S. extremists during the Cold War?

Originally posted by chithappens
In your mind, were either the Soviet Union or the U.S. extremists during the Cold War?

Yes, but not in the same way these people are. Neither one of those sides wanted a war. Both of them knew the consequences and both of them wanted to avoid it at all cost. I believe Al-Qaeda has already shown that they don't care about the consequences. They have attacked a nation that's more powerful then them with the ability to destroy them. Neither the US or the Soviet Union wanted to take that risk.

yea, considering both leave radioactive isotopes with extremely long half lives which cause all the radiation based damage outside the initial desruction. everyt third round of ammo fired by american gunships or heavey artillery contains depleted uranium in irq and afghanistan.


turkey is a muslim country pondeering BANNING the hijaab, with open alcohol, women in miniskirts{again not saying it is a BAD thing, i just happen to know that it damn well is against islamic laws and scriptures} and absolutely NO shariah laws. it doesnt count as a muslim country at all. the us gives SOME aid t egypt due to certain technical reason which ISNT directed towards strnegthening the government. saudia arabia i have already explained well enough. for nearly as long as israel has existed, it has been helped by christians and specially evangelicals. and even before bush, america being the DEMOCRATIC country it is, has to listen to over 40% of its screaming population, not to mention people in the parties. bush's CURRENT policy towards israel has a LOT to do with christian ideals. i am not defending the muslims here, i am just saying that as far as prophecy goes and common interests, jeews and fundy christians are friends{as can be seen by them even having common shurch sessions now as far as reclaiming the new canaan area goes and the rebuilding of the temple of solomon etc over the muslim dome of the rock. it is christian beleif that the land DOES divinely belong to jews}




yes they are, many of them, just like they are ready to pass laws to enslave or not legally protect the individual rights of gays. but you also have to understand that they arent EVERYBODY and america does have to follow SUM laws and look like SUM form of a stable nation and it DOES need oil. and again, most muslims are gaainst even recognising israel and many have the power to destroy it if they stick together, yet israel remains. am i to assume then that muslims are NOT ready to blow up israel???? utter nonesense.



oh my GOD, america hasnt dropped a nuke since then??? well guess what, NEITHER HAS ANY1 ELSE!!!!! and america has dropped more NORMAL bombs and directly killed more civilians since then in wars outside itse own land, than any other force since that time. america did fully understand the affects, radioactivity and its affects, as well as the remnant number of isotopes were well understood at the time.plus, as i said, they tested the nuke before, you are forgetting it, they had the data. and the last statement just proves my point that america did not CARE at the time{as it doesnt now even in today's more civilised world} about the livelyhoods of others, as long as THE AMERICAN WAY wasnt threatened by lowly bigots and cavement who dont deserve to be called HUMANS or are anything more thna savages, compared to the obviously superior and SIGNIFICANT american way.


Now again, America according to you is ruled by fundamentalists. Who still deal with Muslims and still don't use Nukes to destroy the Muslim way of life. They don't forbid the Koran they don't stop Muslims from praying and they don't burn down every Mosque that arises. They don't arrest people for being Muslim or praying towards Mecca. Several Muslim nations however do just that. They hate our way of life and want to destroy it. That just makes them a bit more dangerous.

no according to me, nearlt the entire right wing is fundamentalist. and if the above are examples of the FAVOURS america is doing to muslims{as you make basic rights seem} then most muslim countries are not doing it either. doesnt change the fact that america IS doing a lot of things against the muslims like bombing them to hell, killing 2.5% - 25% of the population of iraq etc etc etc. not to mention rampant propaganda and arresting and torturing people{mostly MUSLIMS} in guantanamo bay on no pretext or trial.

and PLEASE stop with the "our way of life" crap. it makes you sound unbeleiveably like people are "full of your own crap" . and that isnt true, they are not more dangerous than america.



no they cudnt have, they lost in lebonan as they have lost in other places. israel has always been beaten at gurilla warfare. same with the US, atleast after world war 2.



THEY DID! destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan. using nukes on the other hand in the current world is like suicide, that is why no1 uses them.{ever heard of mutually assured destruction?}, plus, can you imagine how the entire world would boycott america if they started using nukes, that is why it does all that it CAN. and again, 2.5-25 % of the entire population of iraq is dead. this isnt terminater were talking about, please do not give such ridiculous examples .

Originally posted by leonheartmm
yea, considering both leave radioactive isotopes with extremely long half lives which cause all the radiation based damage outside the initial desruction. everyt third round of ammo fired by american gunships or heavey artillery contains depleted uranium in irq and afghanistan.

Seriously, some bullets are as bad as a nuclear bomb? A bullet fired into somebody is not nearly as bad as an atomic bomb falling on a city. The effects are not even comparable. Besides show me some prove that depleted Uranium is still used in bullets. I thought that was stopped years ago.



An extremists Christian would not deal with Muslims. An Extremist Christian would not deal with Jews. Christians have been trying to kill Jews for century's. Okay that changed now but WWII wasn't the first time Christians tried to wipe out all of the Jews.

Now again, America isn't helping Israel because it's Jewish. America is helping Israel because Israel is an ally in a very important region of the world, where America needs all the power it can get. That's why it helps Egypt Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey. Three of which are Muslim country's.

Both Israel and America have the power to destroy all those nations easily, and yet they don't. Osama Bin Laden does not have that kind of power and yet he desperately seeks to destroy the Western World. That alone should tell you enough.



You are to assume just that. The last time the United Arab nations decided to attack Israel they lost. Then Israel got support from the US a nuclear power which they can not stand up against knowing what will happen. These people however are nation leaders they may be extreme but they are not willing to destroy their own land to take down another. Al-Qaeda is. That was there entire goal of the 9/11 attacks.

Not to mention Israel itself probably has Nuclear Missiles. Not a smart thing to attack a country with nukes if you want to survive. And the leaders of Iran do want to survive. Al-Qaeda members just prefer being alive, but not being alive probably isn't that big a deal for them with the whole 72 virgins and all.



And what of those powers were ruled by Extremists wanting to blow up the Western world again? Oh yeah that's right, none of them.



And yet still that's completely irrelevant. America did not use it's nuclear weapons. America doesn't want to destroy other country's above all else, they aren't willing to destroy themselves to stop Islam from spreading. Islamic extremists are willing to destroy themselves to stop the Western world from spreading.



Show me prove of the first statement, which you won't be able to. The effects of radiation were not known. They just thought they created a super bomb. In a time where nations were readily blowing up other city's just to make their enemy crumble a super bomb was a brilliant weapon. No more nuclear weapons were used by the US since then. They aren't blowing up entire city's anymore either. Baghdad isn't being bombed by B-52 bombers. Although if the US would have done so this entire war would likely have been over already.



Any nation following the Sharia isn't. According to you Islamic nations are not Islamic until they follow these laws. You said so yourself with Turkey. Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan before the war and Iran for instance all follow these laws. And they are all dangerous country. Surprisingly enough Saddam Hussein and Iraq did not.



I live in a western country, so it is my way of life I'm talking about here. And you are right they aren't more dangerous then America, because they don't have the arsenal America has. They are however far more likely to use whatever they have and if they get even half the power America does then we are screwed.

It's like comparing a tank to a hand gun. A tank would blow up a building in one shot, but if the tank driver does not want to do that then it just has power and isn't using it. A handgun would take far more shots and then still it would only kill the people inside the house. Yet if it's used it's still dangerous. And somebody shown to be willing to use that handgun even if the cops kill him for it shouldn't be given a tank.



You seem to think the population of those country's would need to survive in order to take them over? They wouldn't.



They used conventional weak weapons and tried to keep as much in tact as possible. And you are right they aren't using Nuclear weapons because of the effect it would have amongst others on the rest of the world. Do you think Al-Qaeda gives a damn about that? Do you think Al-Qaeda gives a damn about being destroyed. They lured the US into Afghanistan that was their goal in the first place. Their entire idea was to defeat them there, that there own country would be destroyed in the process would be a sacrifice worth making. Giving them Nuclear weapons is not a good idea. Mutual destruction won't bother them.

BTW: None of America's enemy's in the Middle east have nuclear weapons. Nobody there does with the exception of Israel. They can blow them up without worries about their own destruction through nuclear weapons. They would piss off the rest of the world, but nobody is going to attack a country shown to be willing to use nuclear weapons.

And let's be honest here, a lot of people in Iraq that died since the war started died because of their own country men. They have killed more then the Americans have. Now you can blame America for starting the whole thing, but American soldiers aren't blowing themselves up in markets.

The Thing is nearly every country has a nuclear weapon and they dont use it or they will wipe out earth for good. USA dident know how much impact the atom bomb will make untill they tried it.

Why cant we have world peace ??

Originally posted by Fishy
Seriously, some bullets are as bad as a nuclear bomb? A bullet fired into somebody is not nearly as bad as an atomic bomb falling on a city. The effects are not even comparable. Besides show me some prove that depleted Uranium is still used in bullets. I thought that was stopped years ago.

I apologize to anyone this offends.

The dangers of depleted uranium exposure are minimal at the very worst. leonheartmm, it would appear that you are victim to false propaganda. The dangers of depleted uranium are no radiological in origin, but rather toxicological. Damage that can occur would be things like chromosomal translocation which basically locates bits of chromosomes onto other chromosomes. The carcinogenic effects are still debatable. One could still argue that the studies done that clearly show the carcinogenic effects of DU exposure are suppressed by western military. That is a logical perspective to take right after reading my statements but plenty of studies have been done from all over the world to debunk that myth to the point to where holders of such a perspective look ridiculous at best. DU rounds are heavier than lead rounds and have great military application. It can also be used as armor. The argument about DU being inhumane or in violation of UN treaties is null. There are plenty of other things that are more serious to both a soldier's and civilians health to debate "humane use" about.

http://www.skylightview.com/img/bactrian-camel.jpg

Originally posted by dadudemon
I apologize to anyone this offends.

The dangers of depleted uranium exposure are minimal at the very worst. leonheartmm, it would appear that you are victim to false propaganda. The dangers of depleted uranium are no radiological in origin, but rather toxicological. Damage that can occur would be things like chromosomal translocation which basically locates bits of chromosomes onto other chromosomes. The carcinogenic effects are still debatable. One could still argue that the studies done that clearly show the carcinogenic effects of DU exposure are suppressed by western military. That is a logical perspective to take right after reading my statements but plenty of studies have been done from all over the world to debunk that myth to the point to where holders of such a perspective look ridiculous at best. DU rounds are heavier than lead rounds and have great military application. It can also be used as armor. The argument about DU being inhumane or in violation of UN treaties is null. There are plenty of other things that are more serious to both a soldier's and civilians health to debate "humane use" about.

untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.

also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.

Originally posted by Fishy
Stop being an idiot.

Watch your tongue, or you might wake up dead one day.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Watch your tongue, or you might wake up dead one day.

Is that a threat? Because if it is I'm really scared...

Or wait maybe not.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.

also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.

No. That is untrue. Do you even know what the primary radiation source is for a DU? Do you know how deep that can penetrate?

Like I said before, you are victim of DU propaganda. Look up information from sources OTHER than Anti US military sites and sites that DON'T believe in DU rounds being part of Gulf War Syndrome. That "myth" has already been debunked many times.

First, the Gulf War Veterans who had the HIGHEST exposure limits of DU.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/DU_speech.html

"Tier 1 is the highest exposure group, it includes soldiers who were in or near combat vehicles at the time DU rounds struck, or entered the vehicles immediately afterwards. Some of these soldiers were struck by DU fragments. Others inhaled DU particles, or had DU contaminate their wounds. CHPPM's preliminary estimate of worst case exposure, based on test data and assuming that the DU rounds impacted a DU protected, heavy Abrams tank, is that the estimated radiation exposure is about one years background radiation, about the same radiation dose as a person would get from living in the United States for ONE YEAR. We estimate there were 113 US troops in Tier 1."

Does that compute? 1 years worth of radiation from just living. If you are not familiar with radiation exposure, 1 years worth of radiation is not very much at all.

Here's an article

http://www.unep.org/cpi/briefs/Brief10Jan.doc

Just search about DU rounds and don't fall for the hype. They are usually ONLY used for their armor piercing capabilities and are not used in training except for the Navy. Even then, the radiation is so low that it should fall between 5-15 REM. (I couldn't verify that...but I am sure you could find something on that.)

Again, the myth has been virtualy debunked. If a military person is suffering from DU round exposure, then they would have exposure related kidney problems. NONE from the Gulf War have so far...NONE.

One of my old bosses is a golf war veteran...he had one of the highest exposure rates of anyone in the gulf war because he was one of those "tank" dudes. (I forgot what he called his title.) Basically, he inhaled a lot of that dust crap. Because of the hype around DU rounds, he was practically ordered to be medically reviewed 5 times over 5 years. Of course, nothing bad came back. He finds the Gulf War Syndrome to be too convenient of an excuse. (On a side note, he has some awesome war stories. He later served in Columbia fighting some of the bad guys there. His Columbia stories are the best.)

I love the "Durrr, Bush/America is an evil terrorist, who supports the Israeli/Jews, who eat Muslim babies, durrr..." mentality.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
untrue. the gulf war syndrom has been atributed to DU rounds. it is the US MILITARY'S stance{which no1 finds surprising cause they use this stuff in bulk} that it isnt harmful, however, there is TONS of contrary views which clearly state that the shattering particles and glass particles generated are extremely carcinogenic in nature and can be inhaled easily over long distances and have lonog half lives, containing numerous alpha/beta/gama emittors.

also, if they are as harmful as tehy are claimed to be then why are they stored with eavy plastic caps when being handled for loading and storage or by personel around????? depleted uranium is still radioactive and ganderous. i agree that its heavier but then, you can always find alternatives in the types of rounds used. just being better at military applications does not make the rounds any more jutsified for use. ofcourse, there is the fact that DU rounds can potentially COOK every1 in armoured vehiecles. doesnt matter, they are inhumane and it is wrong to use em.

So it's "inhumane" to kill everyone in a enemy tank with a DU round, but it isn't "inhumane" if you killed them all with a conventional concussive explosive? Sound pretty stupid, no?

I always love it when people get pissed because one side proves to be the more effective killer in a war, never mind that if the lesser-side had the ability to kill more/better they wouldn't hesitate for a moment to do so. Perfect example would be Israel vs Lebanon/Hezbollah '06.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

not as clear as you make it seem at all. and as a rule, i do not trust the government and military's OWN funded research on this. plus the whole withholding findings thing. same with the world health organisation.

the best way to lend time for this type of things is to obscure an issue by giving conflicting and wrong and biased evidence from ur organistion's side.

and robtard, i was not referring to the soldiers killed but the long term affects on civilians.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

not as clear as you make it seem at all. and as a rule, i do not trust the government and military's OWN funded research on this. plus the whole withholding findings thing. same with the world health organisation.

the best way to lend time for this type of things is to obscure an issue by giving conflicting and wrong and biased evidence from ur organistion's side.

and robtard, i was not referring to the soldiers killed but the long term affects on civilians.

I read the article, it seemed to be a bit one sided in favor of my argument so I did not cite it...it would not have been appropriate. I try to not use wikipedia to make my points too much because of the nature of where the articles come from.

Not that big of deal. Not like she was actually a good candidate.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Watch your tongue, or you might wake up dead one day.

OH NOES ONLINE TOUGHGUY!!! fear

Originally posted by Schecter
OH NOES ONLINE TOUGHGUY!!! fear LOL!!!

Someone should tell him that you can't wake up and be dead at the same time....

dadudemon=smartass

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Not that big of deal. Not like she was actually a good candidate.

Wow. Someone actually posted on-topic....