yoda Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 US stupidity is going insane. How many people are they going to strip in an airport? This is not a US government decision, just some guy on a news channel blabbering.
coffee_rules Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 ^^ comeon thts not Nicole in foxnews.. She might as well be.
Desi Cartman Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 leave all PC-ness aside and think about it .. if all attackers so far have been Muslims, whom do you think they should search ..... jains ? Its a reality that all terrorists who have attacked the west have been muslims. Its better to search them more , its also necessary to do more searches after what happened recently.
yoda Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 leave all PC-ness aside and think about it .. if all attackers so far have been Muslims, whom do you think they should search ..... jains ? Its a reality that all terrorists who have attacked the west have been muslims. Its better to search them more , its also necessary to do more searches after what happened recently. Well some constitution and laws like in the US strictly prohibit discrimination based on religion, so you have some basic issues there.
DomainK Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 This is not a US government decision' date=' just some guy on a news channel blabbering.[/quote'] That's also US stupidity.
DomainK Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 They might as well plant a pole and make the stripped wymenz do pole dancing....great way of boosting your economy :idea: Or declare the airport as a nudist area. People will come naked and wear clothes in the flight.
ViruRulez Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 nice work GW. spent billions in Iraq when the real problem is places like Yemen' date=' Saudi, Pak, Egypt, Iran, ... Saddam for all the evil he may have done to his people, at least had the country prospering and didn't really hear about any Iraqi citizens planning to plot/bomb any embassy, ship, building, ...[/quote'] though I did not like Saddam myself but I would agree with you.. US is a BS country who only acts for their own gains and all their talks of peace are really BS.. though Iraq was against US but they had never done any attack or disturbed world peace in any manner .. if we exclude US then Saddam was friendly with most other countries including India.. AFAIK he also supported us openly in most issues including the Kashmir issue and that too as recently as a year before the US attacked them .. they were prospering under him and most people in his country were at least happy .. on the other hand, US has been supporting and funding a terrorist country like Pakistan for nearly half a century .. if they were really concerned about world peace then they should have attacked terrorist countries like Pakistan instead ... I really doubt the US intentions of world peace .. they are more concerned about themselves rather than the world and if a day would come when they have to destroy the world for their own benefit then I wont be surprised if they choose their own benefit instead Regarding Egypt and Iran I dont think there have been terrorists attacks etc. from there ... Egypt especially has not got any such record ... I think Yemen and Pak (especially Pak) are the epicenters of terrorists and they should be taken care of
Desi Cartman Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 though I did not like Saddam myself but I would agree with you.. US is a BS country who only acts for their own gains and all their talks of peace are really BS.. though Iraq was against US but they had never done any attack or disturbed world peace in any manner .. Kuwait ... Iran .. everybody knows about but he also fired ballistic missiles at Israel , Saudi Arabia &Bahrain. if we exclude US then Saddam was friendly with most other countries including India.. AFAIK he also supported us openly in most issues including the Kashmir issue and that too as recently as a year before the US attacked them .. they were prospering under him and most people in his country were at least happy .. on the other hand, US has been supporting and funding a terrorist country like Pakistan for nearly half a century .. He treated shia n sunni community on different rules , often threw people to feed his tigers .. his sons openly used pick up women n rape .. if they were really concerned about world peace then they should have attacked terrorist countries like Pakistan instead ... I really doubt the US intentions of world peace .. they are more concerned about themselves rather than the world and if a day would come when they have to destroy the world for their own benefit then I wont be surprised if they choose their own benefit instead Which country doesnt look after its own interest ? BTW they should have done something about pak but they cant since China supports Pak and US has had deent relationship with pak due to Afghanistan and India Regarding Egypt and Iran I dont think there have been terrorists attacks etc. from there ... Egypt especially has not got any such record ... I think Yemen and Pak (especially Pak) are the epicenters of terrorists and they should be taken care off dont know about Iran eqypt .. and I agree that they should have done something about pak long time ago
yoda Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 That's also US stupidity. Not really. That's like saying Indian Stupidity at statements from morons like Thackeray.
yoda Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 though I did not like Saddam myself but I would agree with you.. US is a BS country who only acts for their own gains and all their talks of peace are really BS.. though Iraq was against US but they had never done any attack or disturbed world peace in any manner .. if we exclude US then Saddam was friendly with most other countries including India.. AFAIK he also supported us openly in most issues including the Kashmir issue and that too as recently as a year before the US attacked them .. they were prospering under him and most people in his country were at least happy .. on the other hand, US has been supporting and funding a terrorist country like Pakistan for nearly half a century .. if they were really concerned about world peace then they should have attacked terrorist countries like Pakistan instead ... I really doubt the US intentions of world peace .. they are more concerned about themselves rather than the world and if a day would come when they have to destroy the world for their own benefit then I wont be surprised if they choose their own benefit instead Regarding Egypt and Iran I dont think there have been terrorists attacks etc. from there ... Egypt especially has not got any such record ... I think Yemen and Pak (especially Pak) are the epicenters of terrorists and they should be taken care of BTW Saddam was a friend of the US till he decided to attack Kuwait. I included Egypt cause Al Qaeda number 2 (Zahwari) is from there.
King Tendulkar Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Some form of racial profiling I am afraid is a must for security of all countries. USA should do it(am sure they already do) and India must also follow in this. The threat is from muslim fundies so they must be targeted in checks to prevent terrorism. To treat everyone as same risk threat is PC dream world stuff!
Zap_Brannigan Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Now what will we feel if they changed the criteria for profiling from "Muslims from certain countries" to "Brown People"?
Desi Cartman Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Now what will we feel if they changed the criteria for profiling from "Muslims from certain countries" to "Brown People"? If only brown people were bombing the world then I would accept it. Let me ask you another question , what do you suggest , check everybody and waste more time or if they MUST check then check more Muslims. I know its racist but what can we do ... if a black man kills someone and runs away in front of the cops .. how does the police find him ?should they also treat whites as suspects & waste time, money & energy? I dont think they should ONLY search Muslims or ALL Muslims but if there are 5 people who have the same name as a suspect then yea .. search all 5 of them and let the others go. I know its not comfortable for muslims but whats the other option ?
dial_100 Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 This a fight between two extremely aggressive races. They both need to understand that it is impossible to win this war... Drop your religious crap...war...and stupid policies.. Gio aur gine do bhai... chill ...let the new year be better than last.
Sooda Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 For a start they could strip search Muslim people who are actually ON their databases as known radicals and whose own families have warned the authorities about ...
Desi Cartman Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 For a start they could strip search Muslim people who are actually ON their databases as known radicals and whose own families have warned the authorities about ... lol so true ... and after that search people with the names on the list. btw my manager went to the US with his 2 year old daughter and the whole family got searched cuz their daughter had a name which was on the list ... even if its on the list , cant they use common sense
Sachinism Posted January 5, 2010 Author Posted January 5, 2010 For a start they could strip search Muslim people who are actually ON their databases as known radicals and whose own families have warned the authorities about ... :haha::haha:
ViruRulez Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 Kuwait ... Iran .. everybody knows about but he also fired ballistic missiles at Israel , Saudi Arabia &Bahrain. He treated shia n sunni community on different rules , often threw people to feed his tigers .. his sons openly used pick up women n rape .. I did not know about his attacks on Israel, Saudi and Bahrain. I knew he was not liked very much in the region because he was a tyrant but did not know about attacking other countries. Yes I know about his sons and his sectarian discrimination. But that is actually a matter of human rights and not of war on terror. And I was saying that US always find the reasons to attack only its enemies. It was not only that human right violation was going on in Iraq but US choose it only because it was its enemy. It was actually not a war on terror as it was termed but it was a war on human rights if you want to say... ultimately this war proved costly to the US as well as the world economy and was perhaps the single biggest reason of recession .. if US were really worried they should have attacked Pakistan etc. instead Which country doesnt look after its own interest ? BTW they should have done something about pak but they cant since China supports Pak and US has had deent relationship with pak due to Afghanistan and India dont know about Iran eqypt .. and I agree that they should have done something about pak long time ago I dont agree that US is not doing anything about Pakistan only because of its relationship with China or something else. US had always supported them since the last 50 years. In all the Ind-Pak wars too US had supported them. It was only in the last decade or so that US had become friendly with India after they saw us becoming a global power gradually .. but previously they always sided with Pakistan .. maano ya na maano US is a country which has always cared for itself rather than the world .. you are right that every country looks after its own interest but at the same time no other country tries to depict itself and moral police other countries like US does .. I was just saying that they dont care about world but simply show themselves to be caring and instead exploit situations around the world ... if they are really concerned they should act for human rights and all problems around the world and not only look for those in their enemy countries .. for example, when Russian communist govt. did anything wrong US would demonize them infront of the world but when Chinese communists do wrong they dont raise much voice because they have trade relations with them .. regarding the recent wars, I believe that if US would have attacked Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of Afghanistan and Iraq it would have been much beneficial to world peace .. Saddam had never taken shelter of religion to justify any of the wars they fought but Pakis surely do so .. human rights could have been taken care of later and US should have instead concentrated on eliminating terrorism if they were really concerned about the world and world peace .. I hated Saddam from the time he dropped oil into the ocean but he could have been taken care of later on .. If US had concentrated its energy on ending terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan instead then I would have been much happier .. these two countries count for nearly 80-90% of terrorism and maybe Pakistan alone counts for around 50-60% of world terrorism roots .. so for a peaceful world these two should have been taken care of instead of Iraq One more prime example. Pakistani generals as you know killed maybe upto millions of people in human rights violence in the 1971 Ind-Pak war and then the US sided with Pakis human rights violation .. if they would have been really concerned then they would not have supported Pakis and opposed India in that war .. AFAIK their then general maybe Zia Ul Haq (I am not sure the name is correct) was as much a culprit of human rights violation as was Saddam Hussein .. yet US was supported of that autocratic general
Desi Cartman Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 ^ when did I say US is right ? I agreed with you that they look after US first and foremost and I hope/wish our politicians did that
ViruRulez Posted January 5, 2010 Posted January 5, 2010 ^ when did I say US is right ? I agreed with you that they look after US first and foremost and I hope/wish our politicians did that but there is something called humanity which we Indians care and that is why we are much saner and cultural than the west even now .. we believe on morals and values in life which the West and US does not do regarding US, they do not care about their interest FIRST but they ONLY care about their interest .. US in the last century has been what British was in the colonial age
Recommended Posts