london attacked !!!

[NitnayLion]

Well.... this will continue until the US finally decided to squash Pakistan. Everyone knows that most terrorsit organisations are still in Pak..... But the US continues protecting them.

The CIA themselves confirmed this recently

So what are you saying ? That this attact is the US's fault ? Or is it Pakistan's ? And just how is the US protecting them ?
Sometimes I just don't get it. My country is damned when they do go into a country and clean it up. Then it gets damned again when we don't.

 

[Nikhil]

no offence..... really...... but it is a fact that Pakistan is not doing enough to stop terrorism..... and the US is just mollycoddling and supporting them.

If the US attacked Pak(which it will not as Pak is a nuclear state), then it would be true and will have the backing of most of the world(except the Islamic countries, obviously).

And while I supported the US' attack on Afghanistan, what I did not like was the way they preached abt Restraint and Self Control when India was being attacked EVERY DAY but they are attacked ONCE and they immediately go to war against a poor country and kill thousands of innocents.

But I do support the Afghanistan war as there were more terrorist camps there( not the Kashmir ones but the Al Qaida ones) than in pakistan. Today most of those camps have shofted from Afghanistan into Pakistan. and still the US continue to support Pakistan and give it new aircraft and everything.

But I was totally against the war on Iraq. There was no SHRED of evidence. It was just a personal vendetta of Bush against Saddam. Yes. He did a good thing by getting rid of Saddam, but see how many innocent people are dying there??? Under Saddam, if they did not show any resentment towards him, all Iraqis had a good life. They had 24 x 7 elecricity supply, good roads, water, everything. They were a relatively propsperous nation.

But today they have nothing. It is getting worse everyday.

So, you see, I am not blindly against the US. It is just that I do not like(that is to put it mildly) some of their policies.

 

[NitnayLion]

Simply put you are not presenting the corect facts.

 

[Shripad]

The problem lies in the people who misuse the concept of Jihad in Kuran to their own extremist actions. Thats where the problem is. Unfortunately Kuran has that word in it and people have been misusing it for decades for terrorist acts in the name of god.

About the Pakistan. THe problem lies in the pakistan leadership and not the people. It has been for over 50 years. Everyone in this world knows where terrorism in kashmir and rest of India originates. EVeryone known who supports it behind the curtains.
Obviously Pakistani janta is made to believe whats going on is a freedom operation.

The fact is what you gain using force is temperory. What you get by peace is forever. Thats how we indians and pakistanis got our freedom. Its unfortunate to see where we are now after 58 years.

 

[Safin]

To say that muslims are responsible for everything is obnoxious.
you can't blame a religion if a minority become extremists. Its very easy to sit here or anywhere in the world and say tht the muslims are barbaric people and this and that. The fact of the matter is that all over the muslim world, there is oppression and no democracy. No free will. And its not that people don't want it, but the dictators don't.

Also no one can imagine the plight of the people in palestine and the wretched conditions that exist. The people have no life there. So some have taken up arms and i won't blame them. Its for the majority to guide them if someone is going wrong. its easy to criticise sitting in a remote corner. having said that, i am not saying Israel is at fault. No one can tolerate terrorism.. and whats happening is that only. The fact is a peaceful settlement with both sides showing restraint is the way forward. But blowing oneself up or attacking and assassinating people won't help.. whoever does it.

Terror is no ones friend. many people say that india suffered terror attacks and no one helped... well whats big deal in that. U have to fight your own wars and your own battles. Get the facts right, America is fighting its own war. Don't chide yourself thinking its a global war or anything. With or without global support, america will go for the terrorists or those who want to harm its people. You can't blame them for that. Its the most natural thing that anyone will do.

I agree with nitnay, US is blamed whether it acts or even if it doesn't act. The prob is people tend to think that US is gonna fight for them. I guess this is the single most important reason you have all the problems. Why US is helping pakistan.. cos for US taliban is the threat.. not pakistan. (Ok one can argue that taliban is of pakis making but one thing is this.. with pakistan, here is one country US can exert the pressure. With dictator there US knows it has the control. thats not the case in afganistan) Why US attacked Iraq? cos saddam was working against US. No country would sit around if some people are planning to kill its people. US has the power today to act anywhere and thats what its doing.
In between US goes and does something good,, gives aid, or say fight in balkans..and some people start hoping... aha.. now they need to help us too..the prob is false hopes. The fact is US has NO obligation to fight others war. If it does, its either for themselves or maybe out of goodwill.

someone said they preach india restraint if we are attacked... hmm.. so what others should say.. go and attack? Seriously.. this is an hopeless argument. They preached restraint to US also.. or anywhere else... Its for that country to decide what it has to do. again the same thing.. people expect some one else will come and say.. "very bad.. go and finish xyz" ... no that never happens.

Let it be clear, India cannot attack pakistan and get outta it like US attacking Iraq. there must be no doubt that our military and the imbalance between us and pakistan is nowhere near as much so that we can do boom boom baam and think we won't be affected. let me tell you, if we had the kind of military superiority like US, we would have fought and attacked pakistan and finished it off once and for all in 99. And why us, had iraq got a good air power, US itself might have tht twice about attacking it.. see north korea.
Btw i found an interesting quote

But I was totally against the war on Iraq. There was no SHRED of evidence. It was just a personal vendetta of Bush against Saddam. Yes. He did a good thing by getting rid of Saddam, but see how many innocent people are dying there??? Under Saddam, if they did not show any resentment towards him, all Iraqis had a good life. They had 24 x 7 elecricity supply, good roads, water, everything. They were a relatively propsperous nation.

to say iraqis were living a good life under saddam is a preposterous idea. And it just highlights what people think and the kind of propaganda people and news channel do. anyone would be dragged from his home and killed.. whole families were killed. There was no free spech and you can't even say anything about saddam. His two sons were famous for raping.. you call that good life?? even a life of slave is better than a life of fear of being killed or gassed or tortured.
someone may say who the wize guy i am to know this,, well this wize guy can only say that i know lots of friends there and i know s5traight from them what they feel... and if you wanna know, then just pm albert on this board.. you won't make that kind of a statement ever again.

I unequivocally supported Iraq war. US did what was right. What i completely dissagreed was the charade they tried to pull off saying WMD's and all. I think world would have supported them had they just said the facts, that he is killer, tormenting his people. For the same reason i would support an invasion of North Korea too but for the right reasons of liberty.

Ok another point,, Iraq is suffering now... sure it is,, but by whom? America.. or are these freedom fighters fighting for iraq.. well they are foreign fighters and terrorist doing bloodshed there. No Iraqi wants its police to be killed. Who doesn't want democracy? On that point whats america doing wrong in trying to build tht nation? Ok they may want it to have favourable ties with them and have some of their companies in Iraq.. but so what? Didn't they fight for their independence. Didn't 2k US soldiers die for the cause. Isn't Us spending 1billion a day in Iraq? whatever one may feel, but right now the motive of US is democracy in Iraq... can anyone doubt that? for people to rule?

For whatever the motive, If Iraq is a success in becoming a democracy, we would have a revolution in arab world. And as people demand rights, the cruel dictators would go. And so would terror.(it won't go but the new recruits will)

Anyway point is just stop blaming US for everything. Remember every country is in it alone. same for Us same for UK same for Iran same for India. Every country has to fight its own problems. if others help.. well and good, if not.. well don't expect any.

 

[~HeadShot~]

Very well said, SN!
That's the best way to put it! :hap2:

 

[Nikhil]

To say that muslims are responsible for everything is obnoxious.
you can't blame a religion if a minority become extremists. Its very easy to sit here or anywhere in the world and say tht the muslims are barbaric people and this and that.

Pefect SN!!! That is exactly what I have been trying to tell some people..... Why blame the community as a whole??? EVERY religion has it's share of fanatics.

but I do not agree with you on some of the other aspects. But that is just my view. and I will not start arguing here coz' I don't think I will evert agree with your views abt the Iraq war.

And ok.... I do take back my words abt the life of Iraqis under Saddam. What I meant was not that they had a good life but they had a reasonablly better life than they have now. I mean, even now, they are scared of getting blown up in a market or mosque or something. What has changed??? At least earlier, as a country, they were somewhat prosperous...

But I am NOT supporting Saddam here(far from it... he was a butcher of the worst order). But under him, Iraq did progress a lot. That is fact. What they were 30 yrs back and what they were 2 yrs ago.

 

[Safin]

And ok.... I do take back my words abt the life of Iraqis under Saddam. What I meant was not that they had a good life but they had a reasonablly better life than they have now. I mean, even now, they are scared of getting blown up in a market or mosque or something. What has changed??? At least earlier, as a country, they were somewhat prosperous...

scared of being blown up by terrorists...thats what US is fighting.. I think its better to support US now rather than ask them to go away. No one wants A terror state in Iraq which is what you will get if the terrorists have their way

 

[TheBroker]

I condemn all acts of such Cowardice and Human Killing be it Kashmir,London,New York or for that matter anywhere else in the name of jihad or security......What London has faced it due to its support to Bush for the so called WAR AGAINST TERROR....

They(Bush and Allies) become real terrorists...Iraq frankly was better without US intervention......the US and its allies frankly now live in a constant fear and security of jihadis and this will continue so.....and such terrorist attacks will always continue in places which are Economic Capitals and such places where the after-impact of the blast will be more than the real impact

All this will continue atleast till Bush and Blair are in power in their respective offices

 

[Shripad]

exactly some few lamers are using this jihad word to do unethical acts. But those few make bad name for whole community.
About India and pakistan

Indian leaders made 3 mistakes and 1 correct thing is these 58years.
Mistake 1 : went to and Accepted UN resolution in 1947
Mistake 2 : Came out empty handed in 1972 war that was the only chance for india to end all disputes as 1965 war was basically a no result fluke war. In 1972 Pak had its back to the wall.
Mistake 3 : Allowd pakistani leadership to get away with all this 3 times.

Only correct thing done was in case of siachin. To be honest India still has muscle power to overcome Pak. It always had it after 1965 war. Even with nukes pakistan will never dare to use them no matter what. They cant basically. No country will now. Everyone knows that if they use nuke they will get that in return and badly affect its reputation, and future of themselves. So whole nuke fiasco is pointless IMHO. Having or not having nukes dosent mean much in todays world. How you dominate in air and ground is what matters.
Does that mean we can resolve our issues with pakistan this way? No. If we use force it will only make things bad. But ya if in future any agression is shown against us then hopefully our leaders wont miss that chance

 

[Nikhil]

Hey Funky....

I agree 100% with your views abt the mistakes of India. I believe that first of all, we should not have accepted partition at all. The British had to leave soon. The situation was changing dramatically and it could not have retained control over India for much longer. So, if Gandhi and Nehru had not accepted the partition, the British may have left in 1948 or 49 instead of 1947. That is all. It would have saved lakhs of lives.

And even after partition, the king or ruler or Kashmir wanted special status to Kashmir. Nehru being a Kashmiri Pandit was in favour of that and so, did not send troops into Kashmir inspite of getting reports that Pakistan was rerady to attack.

Sardar Vallabhai Patel(who in my opinion should have been the 1st PM of India except for Gandhi's favouritism) was urging Nehru continously to send the troops but Nehru refused. And when he finally woke up it was too late and 1/3rd of Kashmir became PoK. This was the BIGGEST mistake of all.

And as you say Siachen was the only good thing India did. And in the 71 war, we should have pushed all the way. We were already at Lahore and in spite of that we could not capitalise. In a way, that was a loss instead of a win for India.

 

[Safin]

I condemn all acts of such Cowardice and Human Killing be it Kashmir,London,New York or for that matter anywhere else in the name of jihad or security......What London has faced it due to its support to Bush for the so called WAR AGAINST TERROR....

They(Bush and Allies) become real terrorists...Iraq frankly was better without US intervention......the US and its allies frankly now live in a constant fear and security of jihadis and this will continue so.....and such terrorist attacks will always continue in places which are Economic Capitals and such places where the after-impact of the blast will be more than the real impact

All this will continue atleast till Bush and Blair are in power in their respective offices

care to elaborate?

1) how is or was Iraq better off without Us intervention?
2) the US and allies were in fear cos of terrorist same like India. Infact 9/11 happened before war on terror even started. If anything US is lot safer now than before after destroying the taliban.. and so is the world
3) and continuing of attacks till bush and blair are in power.. again missing the point. Both are elected representatives and they are in power cos the people elected them and they have duty to protect themselves. Neither nor me can object..

to say that there are terrorist strikes in Uk cos they supported US and won't have been had they not supported is absurd. Clinton was and so was bush at the start of presidency light on terrorism. Infact you ha taliban roaming free. What happened.. they attacked. Terrorists won't spare you just cos you wish to appease. They will go after you come what may. Trying to placate won't help and world is witness to this time and again.

and about kashmir... well truth is bitter but its a fact that both in 47 and even now, given a choice kashmiris would want independence(and i mean even POK)
Not that either India or Pakistan gonna agree to it. the best solution is loc as border... but again it would be wrong to assume that terror would end even if that issue is sorted out.

Terrorists hate advances and civilization. there are teeming number of people being taught religious hatred by a small minority and they will find another ssue to hurt and stop India or the whole world..

thats why the age old saying... "when you going up, there are 10 people trying to pull you down"

 

[Shripad]

I can agree afganistan. People were living in terrible conditions there.
But iraq, nope. HAve you seen the pre war ireq coverage of ireq and people had to say?
Iraq was one of the most modern countries in region. People had all freedom. People had jobs. People had security. They were provided with good educational facilities. Good life. BBC covered this when speculations started that US might attack Iraq, complete 1 hour documentry was broadcasted over BBC.

Now? whats condition of people there?
Their condition is worse than what was after 1991 war.
What single truth was found on the besis US started that war.
It was total fiasco by US regarding iraq.

And about Kashmir. India never forced Kashmiris to join to india. Its insurtion of Pakistani forces in kashmir that led to Kashmir being officialy deciding to get dissolved in India. Pakistan forced it.
And even then, now and in future that part is politically and economically cannot be a seperate country.
There is a nice coverage regarding Kashmir on BBC website.

 

[TheBroker]

care to elaborate?

1) how is or was Iraq better off without Us intervention?
2) the US and allies were in fear cos of terrorist same like India. Infact 9/11 happened before war on terror even started. If anything US is lot safer now than before after destroying the taliban.. and so is the world
3) and continuing of attacks till bush and blair are in power.. again missing the point. Both are elected representatives and they are in power cos the people elected them and they have duty to protect themselves. Neither nor me can object..

The 1st question is answered in the post above me.......Iraq was better without US intervention......Also no countrty has the moral right to attack another in the name of Security......we had been forced to put a sign on the CTBT a few years ago by the big countries........why dont they sign them themselves before they tell others and be a Moral Police.....Look whats happened to Iraq now........it will take more than 2 decades to return to its normal self and be rules by its own people

9/11 is not the work of a single mind,there are surely some insiders involved in the attack..........4 planes getting hijacked on a same day is really absurd surely something wrong is going inside which the world doesnt know

Thats the thing the people of US and UK have voted them back to power what does it signify........they support them........such high handed acts have to be stopped......such people should be thrown out of power......what relevance does it make if innocent people are killed...such people shud be killed who make the world and unsafer place for people

 

[Safin]

But iraq, nope. HAve you seen the pre war ireq coverage of ireq and people had to say?
Iraq was one of the most modern countries in region. People had all freedom. People had jobs. People had security. They were provided with good educational facilities. Good life. BBC covered this when speculations started that US might attack Iraq, complete 1 hour documentry was broadcasted over BBC.

have i seen the coverage.. Nope.. i have talked to real people..
Iraq was modern country yes... till iran iraq war. But once saddam invaded kuwait for no reason but to satisfy his own ambitions the condition of the people was steadily deteriorating.
And btw i made this point before.. Whats modern about Iraq? You think people coming at night, taking afamily member and killing him is modern? Thats wht has been happening in Iraq from the time saddam came.

People had all freedom. People had jobs. People had security.

You leave me speechless. Thats a flattering statement and i am afraid you are plain wrong. Even the most hardened of supporters won't say people had freedom in Iraq. You gave some examples off BBC documentry. Didn't you see an even better documentry shown on discovery and bbc also on the day saddam took power. People wete taken from the room where saddam was giving lecture and shot dead. That some freedom...
Security...yeah right.. you grab anyone who even hints at dissagreeing with you and torture him to death, you don't even leave your blood relations (remember what he did to his brothers) and you call that modern state and better off..

Again about the reason given for war, I agree the reasons were wrong.. motive wasn't. But just to garner support US tried that strategy(and in between it got some bad intelligence from likes of chalabi who had their own axe to grind but thats a separate issue)... But if saddam is gone, we owe it to US. Left to UN saddam would be still here and Iraq's invasion oof kuwait haad shown that you can nevr tell what he may plan next. appeasement is no answer and someone had to do something.

Anyway go and ask any ordinary Iraqi.. no one will say they want saddam rule back. Everyone is thankful he is gone. I agree not all(infact most aren't) happy with america either. they want america as the super power to flush the terrorists and leave their country to themselves. Can't agree more, but then its not easy in Iraq when you have extremists from all over coming to fight there. If US goes now, Iraq will be plunged in another Saddam rule.

Look whats happened to Iraq now........it will take more than 2 decades to return to its normal self and be rules by its own people

to becomea democracy...return to normal self.. i hope not.. For everyone in the world, a democracy in Iraq is what we want.

Again, i can say this, I know people who have suffered... and i know that while they all want US out from Iraq, they all thank US for getting rid of Saddam.

9/11 is not the work of a single mind,there are surely some insiders involved in the attack..........4 planes getting hijacked on a same day is really absurd surely something wrong is going inside which the world doesnt know

Thats the thing the people of US and UK have voted them back to power what does it signify........they support them........such high handed acts have to be stopped......such people should be thrown out of power......what relevance does it make if innocent people are killed...such people shud be killed who make the world and unsafer place for people

hyeah: sorry i didn't get that.. you mean terrorists must be thrown out or Bush and Blair.. if its the former.. you are right on.. if its latter... ummm

Also no countrty has the moral right to attack another in the name of Security

hmm..then why say attack Pakistan after attacks on Indian parliament?
you mean to say every country sit around and let there be more attacks

And about Kashmir. India never forced Kashmiris to join to india. Its insurtion of Pakistani forces in kashmir that led to Kashmir being officialy deciding to get dissolved in India. Pakistan forced it.
And even then, now and in future that part is politically and economically cannot be a seperate country.
There is a nice coverage regarding Kashmir on BBC website.

Infact i agree with you. but tell me who are you and me to come to that conclusion. If you have seen BBC then you must have sen a survey that given a choice people certainly don't want to go with pakistan, more want to go with India but overwhelming want independence. Whether they can live as a new country is academic. When India got its freedom from UK, mountbatten said India cannot survive on its own.. we certainly prooved him wrong... kashmiris might say the same thing about this statement we have just made and agreed to.

 

[TheBroker]

sorry i didn't get that.. you mean terrorists must be thrown out or Bush and Blair.. if its the former.. you are right on.. if its latter... ummm

Both of them are a threat to humanity

hmm..then why say attack Pakistan after attacks on Indian parliament?
you mean to say every country sit around and let there be more attacks

Attack ur enemy only to teach them a lesson so that it serves them right..........they wudnt mess up with u again........Say for example if i punched u ..u will surely punch me so that i realise that ur not a person to be messed up with .........and theres a tit for tat

What Bush did was out of his insecurity and maybe to avenge wht happened in the history(cant say what cud be the reason)

to becomea democracy...return to normal self.. i hope not.. For everyone in the world, a democracy in Iraq is what we want.

Again, i can say this, I know people who have suffered... and i know that while they all want US out from Iraq, they all thank US for getting rid of Saddam.

Yes but then look what happened to Bangladesh.........it supported 1971 war with India but now look.....it holds an Anti-India Wave and if u remember a few years ago 16 BSF javans how brutally were killed and Bangladesh had even occupied 1 km of Indian Territory.....itll take time for the dust to settle down on the Iraqi horizon.......

 

[Safin]

Both of them are a threat to humanity

k.. they are your views.. I may agree to some extent but may add they may say same thing about us.. fact is both are elected

What Bush did was out of his insecurity and maybe to avenge wht happened in the history(cant say what cud be the reason)

bush attacked cos America percieved a threat from Iraq later... and a threat to its ally israel. actually in dateline london(BBC) an interesting point was why Iraq when more immediate threat is from Korea. the reason that a lady from UK proposed was that Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons, korea has. there is no choice with Korea. You can't attack it and not expect retaliation.. with Iraq there was still time as Saddam didn't have a bomb.

Yes but then look what happened to Bangladesh.........it supported 1971 war with India but now look.....it holds an Anti-India Wave and if u remember a few years ago 16 BSF javans how brutally were killed and Bangladesh had even occupied 1 km of Indian Territory.....itll take time for the dust to settle down on the Iraqi horizon.......

well you are right,,, but i never said that a democracy in Iraq will be favourable for US. If Shia's do come to power, then it would be closer to Iran than US. But irrespective of that, atleast you will have a country where people have their say and world is proof that there are fewer terrorists coming out of such places.

 

[Hacker]

Even with nukes pakistan will never dare to use them no matter what. They cant basically. No country will now. Everyone knows that if they use nuke they will get that in return and badly affect its reputation, and future of themselves. So whole nuke fiasco is pointless IMHO. Having or not having nukes dosent mean much in todays world. How you dominate in air and ground is what matters.

I assume gen mushraf told you that he wont use nukes. You cannot trust pakistan, what if the gen is killed in a coup by some hardcore militants. You are talking about nuclear bombs as if they are diwali crackers. The world doesnt care if you dominate the air or ground, if you have a nuclear bomb the world will think twice about attacking you.

Btw if you say that havin nukes doesnt mean muh then why the hell is each n every developing country n some african countries trying to get nukes.

The whole nuke fiasco is pointless acc to you but what is there is 1% chance that it does occur, what will you do then. N bcoz of this 1% chance you dont go n attack a country with nuclear warheads.

if we had the kind of military superiority like US, we would have fought and attacked pakistan and finished it off once and for all in 99. And why us, had iraq got a good air power, US itself might have tht twice about attacking it.. see north korea.

All i can say is go brush up your history lessons, why 99 we could have taken over pak in 65 or 71(east pak) but we didnt.

Us thinked twice over attacking north korea bcoz it may or maynot have nukes, Even the Us is not sure. N as i said earleir you dont go bang bang in a nuclear enabled country

ell whats big deal in that. U have to fight your own wars and your own battles. Get the facts right, America is fighting its own war. Don't chide yourself thinking its a global war or anything. Why US attacked Iraq? cos saddam was working against US.I unequivocally supported Iraq war. US did what was right.

lol dude, can you please tell me where you get all this info. Iraq never ever threatened the Us. It did not attack Us nor there was a proxy war with US.
There were no terrorist on iraq soil before the US invasion. Its all about oil baby, nothing else. war on terrorism had nothing to with iraq.

Bush jr only did what bush sr could not do.

 

[guru]

UK probably deserved that,not that innocents deserved to die but UK has been turning a blind eye to neo-Pakistani and Kashimiri muslim extremists in their country.Even some rabid Pakistanis are MPs there.Its an eye-opener for them.
Its funny how western "experts" distinguish between terrorists in Kashmir and AL-Qaeda when they are one and the same thing.Just different names.

why do you blame them. How has our government dealt with pakisthani terror? by giving them biriyanis and safe passge to pakisthan meh.

If our own govt [whose most basic duty is to protect citizens] doesn't care about our security and then why should outsiders care?

 

[Safin]

All i can say is go brush up your history lessons, why 99 we could have taken over pak in 65 or 71(east pak) but we didnt.

hmm.. i am pretty clear with my lessons,, thank you
sure taken over... have you read any books dude. U had Us breathing down our backs in both cases. I told 99 as an example.. point was we never had the power to take on and finish pakistan,, not in 99 nor earlier.

Us thinked twice over attacking north korea bcoz it may or maynot have nukes, Even the Us is not sure. N as i said earleir you dont go bang bang in a nuclear enabled country

read the posts before you post around.. thats exactly what i said earlier

lol dude, can you please tell me where you get all this info. Iraq never ever threatened the Us. It did not attack Us nor there was a proxy war with US.

hmmm.. threatened the us,, well maybe not, but it was a threat to Israel which is as much dear to Us as anything.

There were no terrorist on iraq soil before the US invasion. Its all about oil baby, nothing else. war on terrorism had nothing to with iraq.

Bush jr only did what bush sr could not do.

i would say when you have a terrorist in saddam himself,, why you need more.. was Kuwait attack not terrorism?
And dear hacker... you better start speaking with respect. this thread is about debate. You wanna make your point do so. Don't try to act comments like history lessons or the thread will get closed.