[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
EDIT: Oh, another thought; isn't the Pakistan/Indian conflict also about religious beliefs?

It's more about the territorial mess Britian left behind

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
It's more about the territorial mess Britian left behind

I'm sure it hurts to not be able to blame the USA.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm sure it hurts to not be able to blame the USA.

... and the USA not regime changing the area before both sides developed the ability to fight back

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
... and the USA not regime changing the area before both sides developed the ability to fight back

They didn't harbor/support or continue to support the 9/11 hijackers or taliban, they have taken steps to help our WOT and don't oppress their citizens...why should we change their regimes?

[swrate]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Killing people is ok in their case. Hmmm... Are they also masquerading as Muslims? (Like the 9/11 hijackers who were financed by bin Laden and with the support of the taliban, whose supposed belief is Islam.)

Seems a lot of that is going around. I'd look into it if I were a real Muslim. People committing murder and acts of violence; killing innocent civilians in the name of Allah (pbuh) shouldn't be allowed or supported...in word or deed.

Glad to see you don't support the terrorists.

http://www.omaid.com/english_section...ess/ASM_EU.htm

Lets talk about Talibanic needs.

Ahmad Shah Massoud did not support terrorists either, he tried to warn the world, after the statues were destroyed.

``My message to President Bush is the following: If he isn't interested in peace in Afghanistan, if he doesn't help the Afghan people to arrive at their objective of peace, the Americans and the rest of the world will have to face the problems.'' He did not elaborate.

Massoud has since fiercely criticized the Taliban's interpretation of Islam as extreme -- a position the West finds increasing sympathy with

He said the future regime of Afghanistan must be decided by the Afghan people in free and fair elections with the participation of all Afghans, including women, observing that "only democracy" can preserve and guarantee social justice, peace and equality for all Afghans, regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds.

Rejecting all forms of terrorism under any name and ideology, Mr. Mas ud said Mr. Osama Ben Laden, the Saudi anti-American, anti-Western millionaire crusader the American accuses of terrorist activities, is in "symbiosis" with the Taleban ideology.

According to some information, Mr. Ben Laden has formed an army of his own in Afghanistan and enjoys paramount influence over afghan senior clerics around Mr. Omar.

Mr. Ben Laden is sought by the American Justice for the twin bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

He regretted that the new US Administration had not a clear policy for Afghanistan and warned that in case Washington and other peace loving nations do nothing for the restoration of peace in Afghanistan, "they will bear the consequences".

.....it's related over pages.




black or white
drowning in Lols
yet Us allows killing innocents in the name of democracy,
and we(the rest of the wheenie world) are supposed to support it.

Hypocritical Pentagon style democracy, drowned in prayers.
and the whole world is sinking in lols

Edited to add: out of control and derailed the topic was about Israel?

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Killing people is ok in their case. Hmmm... Are they also masquerading as Muslims? (Like the 9/11 hijackers who were financed by bin Laden and with the support of the taliban, whose supposed belief is Islam.)

Religion isn't such a big deal here. India vs. Pakistan is about a tiny chunk of land highly disputed by the countries whose growth is the highest in the world.

Seems a lot of that is going around. I'd look into it if I were a real Muslim. People committing murder and acts of violence; killing innocent civilians in the name of Allah (pbuh) shouldn't be allowed or supported...in word or deed.

Correct. *real* is the key here.

EDIT: Oh, another thought; isn't the Pakistan/Indian conflict also about religious beliefs?

Actually, there are Muslim Indians. Quite a few. There are also Hindu's in Pakistan. They are minorities in their countries, but they exist, they work, etc. etc. Provided they respect the other's culture/beliefs and do not offend (don't molest a cow, don't parade around naked with pigs... etc. etc.). Your good.

The dispute is over a tiny piece of land:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middl...puted_2003.jpg
That's from 2003. The map is constantly changing on that little chunk of land.

There's lots of conflicts like that. France and Germany spent the better part of their existance in such conflict. So have most nations. The US is one of very few who managed to get most/all the land they wanted (from sea to sea) rather quickly. Most was just purchased (Louisiana Purchase from France), some was fought (Mexican Annexation from the Spanish-American war). But it was all done rather quick.

Some nations literally spend several hundred years arguing over a few square miles of land.


Heck even the Vatican spent most of it's existance in bitter arguments with Rome over land, rights, etc. Their settlement is fairly modern.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by swrate:
Edited to add: out of control and derailed the topic was about Israel?

Was about the question of Israel being responsible to have nuclear weapons. I'd say the fact that Israel isn't even responsible enough to confirm, or deny, that they possess nuclear weapons (and thus be required to enter into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they do have them) suggests how responsible they will be with nuclear weapons.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
They didn't harbor/support or continue to support the 9/11 hijackers or taliban, they have taken steps to help our WOT and don't oppress their citizens...why should we change their regimes?

Because that's what we do. Don't do as your told, we'll invade your country. It could be a pre-emptive strike. They don't support the taliban NOW but a few years from now...who knows? And we have to protect American freedoms, values and our way of life. ...ha! Sorry I couldn't say that with a straight face.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Was about the question of Israel being responsible to have nuclear weapons. I'd say the fact that Israel isn't even responsible enough to confirm, or deny, that they possess nuclear weapons (and thus be required to enter into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they do have them) suggests how responsible they will be with nuclear weapons.

Why doesn't France just admit they sold nukes to Israel?

I mean, France sells a *lot* of weapons to a *lot* of people. It's their biggest export.

That explains why France is so reluctant to participate in armed conflict. Every missile they launch against the enemy is one less missile they're able to sell to another country.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Was about the question of Israel being responsible to have nuclear weapons. I'd say the fact that Israel isn't even responsible enough to confirm, or deny, that they possess nuclear weapons (and thus be required to enter into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if they do have them) suggests how responsible they will be with nuclear weapons.

You can't actually require a state to sign a treaty. Doing so could make the treaty ineffective as one signed under duress. Treaties are signed when the parties perceive them to be in their self-interest. The NPT is very much not in Israel's interests because if it signed on, it would be required to disarm -- which, given Israel's position, would be very foolish indeed.

Israel isn't under any mandate to disclose whether or not it has nuclear weapons. It is well known that it does. However, not confirming that suspicion is smart diplomacy. Openly professing to be a nuclear power would only fuel an arms race with its already-hostile neighbors. Allowing ambivience to continue while also allowing the knowledge that they have the weapons balances the needs of deterrance with the need not to be too provocative.

And macvillage, could you please get rid of that damned enormous graphic.