EnterTheVoid Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Bhund vich paa ley. WTF you on about? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 yep gotta be some hardcore stuff LOL. but porn sites are going to ban in India :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 :facepalm::facepalm: Hitting the reset button matlab holding political establishments accountable. Cynical comments my a. All governments have blood on their hands. Their actions are directly responsible for cycles of violence which ultimately take away lives of innocents. And so I reiterate unless political establishments like the corrupt monarchs of Saudi, the CIA, the ISI, the Mossad etc etc are disintegrated we will forever witness cycles of violence which will always affect innocents worldwide. And how on earth did you arrive at your conclusion? Seriously are you high or something? Last i checked, the CIA/Mossad and every other western institution doesnt specialize in randomly blowing up civillians for no cause. The few times its happened, its been due to intelligence and equipment failure, not stated & deliberate policy of targetting civillians. That kind of action is the special reserve of demented individuals or followers of only one certian faith that legitimizes violence against non believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Last i checked' date= the CIA/Mossad and every other western institution doesnt specialize in randomly blowing up civillians for no cause. The few times its happened, its been due to intelligence and equipment failure, not stated & deliberate policy of targetting civillians. That kind of action is the special reserve of demented individuals or followers of only one certian faith that legitimizes violence against non believers. What happened in Iraq and how many lives were lost and destroyed there? :facepalm: If you think Iraq was an intelligence failure.... :nice: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 What happened in Iraq and how many lives were lost and destroyed there? :facepalm: If you think Iraq was an intelligence failure.... :nice: If you cannot differentiate between collateral damage and deliberate targetting of civillians, this conversation is a moot point. Without differentiation of that, there is then failure to differentiate between a Napoleon or a Shivaji and a Hitler or a Pol Pot. Not because the former two's actions have never resulted in death of innocents, but because unlike the latter, the former did not have stated policy of extermination of innocents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 :facepalm::facepalm: Hitting the reset button matlab holding political establishments accountable. Cynical comments my a. All governments have blood on their hands. Their actions are directly responsible for cycles of violence which ultimately take away lives of innocents. And so I reiterate unless political establishments like the corrupt monarchs of Saudi, the CIA, the ISI, the Mossad etc etc are disintegrated we will forever witness cycles of violence which will always affect innocents worldwide. And how on earth did you arrive at your conclusion? Seriously are you high or something? All pseudo-offence aside, you didnt answer my question, did you? :winky: Are u a Pakistani because the context will matter. With regards to Saudi, CIA, ISI, Mossad yada yada I have not heard an average American, or an average Israeli, or an average Indian, worried about the "reset" as you claim. The reset theory is strictly for Saudi/Pakistanis heck for most Muslim countries. This is not to say India is not corrupt, or US for that matter. But bulk of Indians, and most of Americans, are definitely happy with political structure. You obviously are not. Why? :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 If you cannot differentiate between collateral damage and deliberate targetting of civillians, this conversation is a moot point. Without differentiation of that, there is then failure to differentiate between a Napoleon or a Shivaji and a Hitler or a Pol Pot. Not because the former two's actions have never resulted in death of innocents, but because unlike the latter, the former did not have stated policy of extermination of innocents. What happened in Iraq was not collateral damage and is surely not hindsight - there were credible published sources with information that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and more specifically nothing indicated an imminent attack on the US, which was the basis of the preemptive strike doctrine. I am talking about neutral, credible sources here. Too bad you did not get a chance to read that analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 What happened in Iraq was not collateral damage and is surely not hindsight - there were credible published sources with information that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction and more specifically nothing indicated an imminent attack on the US' date=' which was the basis of the preemptive strike doctrine. I am talking about neutral, credible sources here. Too bad you did not get a chance to read that analysis.[/quote'] It still does not equate to deliberate murder or extermination of civillians. 'we thought Saddam had WMDs, so we invaded, obviously the oil serves as a big failsafe perk but he had no weapons of any kind' does not equate to a stated policy of targetting innocent civillians or non-believers. What happened in Iraq is most certainly a case of collateral damage. The stated intent was going after the state of Iraq- Saddam and his government. Whether for good or worse, the stated intent was NOT to kill random Iraqi civillians because they hate america. As i said, what happened in Boston can only be attributed to two types of people: the clinically insane & psychopaths such as Tim McVeigh/Ted Kazinsky types or the worshippers of a certain religion that has a 1500 year track record of legitimizing violence and murder of innocents on fuzzy 'god said so' principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Here is an update : Rush Limbaugh is upset as he believes liberal media and the 'regime' are politicizing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punjabi_khota Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 bombs were inside pressure cookers: https://twitter.com/AP/status/324195093206679552 gives it a desi angle, :hmmm: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 It still does not equate to deliberate murder or extermination of civillians. 'we thought Saddam had WMDs, so we invaded, obviously the oil serves as a big failsafe perk but he had no weapons of any kind' does not equate to a stated policy of targetting innocent civillians or non-believers. What happened in Iraq is most certainly a case of collateral damage. The stated intent was going after the state of Iraq- Saddam and his government. Whether for good or worse, the stated intent was NOT to kill random Iraqi civillians because they hate america. As i said, what happened in Boston can only be attributed to two types of people: the clinically insane & psychopaths such as Tim McVeigh/Ted Kazinsky types or the worshippers of a certain religion that has a 1500 year track record of legitimizing violence and murder of innocents on fuzzy 'god said so' principles. how much you know about Islam ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desi Cartman Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 bombs were inside pressure cookers: https://twitter.com/AP/status/324195093206679552 gives it a desi angle, :hmmm: Maybe mexicans cooking Rajma/beans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 how much you read about Islam ? Quite a lot. Probably more than you have. I know more Islamic history than most muslims do, so far the only muslims i've seen who know as much or more than me on this front are those who have graduated with a history degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 It still does not equate to deliberate murder or extermination of civillians. 'we thought Saddam had WMDs, so we invaded, obviously the oil serves as a big failsafe perk but he had no weapons of any kind' does not equate to a stated policy of targetting innocent civillians or non-believers. What happened in Iraq is most certainly a case of collateral damage. The stated intent was going after the state of Iraq- Saddam and his government. Whether for good or worse, the stated intent was NOT to kill random Iraqi civillians because they hate america. As i said, what happened in Boston can only be attributed to two types of people: the clinically insane & psychopaths such as Tim McVeigh/Ted Kazinsky types or the worshippers of a certain religion that has a 1500 year track record of legitimizing violence and murder of innocents on fuzzy 'god said so' principles. Stated intent? Means nothing compared to the actual intent. I'll ask you again - did you read the pre Iraq war analysis of the situation - if you did can you justify how war can be justified given that kind of analysis from neutral, well reputed sources, if not then you are too ignorant to talk about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swing_n_Speed Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 All pseudo-offence aside, you didnt answer my question, did you? :winky: Are u a Pakistani because the context will matter. With regards to Saudi, CIA, ISI, Mossad yada yada I have not heard an average American, or an average Israeli, or an average Indian, worried about the "reset" as you claim. The reset theory is strictly for Saudi/Pakistanis heck for most Muslim countries. This is not to say India is not corrupt, or US for that matter. But bulk of Indians, and most of Americans, are definitely happy with political structure. You obviously are not. Why? :winky: Do you define yourself as the the average Indian/American? If yes then I'm not surprised. Ignorance is bliss :winky: But lemme assure you most people out there recognize shortcomings of the system. So essentially according to you, anyone voicing alarm with the current political system is a dillusioned Paki? Geez way to give them credibility. But I guess by your logic we're all Pakis, we as in Ron Paul, the Libertarians etc etc and every other peace loving individual out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Stated intent? Means nothing compared to the actual intent. Unless you are God or some alien with a clairvoyance device, stated intent = actual intent, untill you can prove an ulterior motive. Lacking any evidence of 'kanspiracy', i will go with stated intent = actual intent in this case. I'll ask you again - did you read the pre Iraq war analysis of the situation - if you did can you justify how war can be justified given that kind of analysis from neutral, well reputed sources, if not then you are too ignorant to talk about the issue. Again, largely irrelevant. For whatever purpose a country A declares war on country B, there will be civillian casualties due to collateral damage. That is not the same as a stated intent of extermination of civillians. I dont care whether US attacked Iraq for its oil, or for WMDs or whether George Bush Jnr. was jealous of Saddam's manly moustache. What i do care about and the point i am making- is that the stated intent was never the extermination or random killing of Iraqi civillians. And i challenge you or anyone else to prove that was the real intent of the US administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 who they are ? :blink::blink: Yoda speak i do not do. Understand i shall maybe one day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Do you define yourself as the the average Indian/American? If yes then I'm not surprised. Ignorance is bliss :winky: But lemme assure you most people out there recognize shortcomings of the system. So essentially according to you, anyone voicing alarm with the current political system is a dillusioned Paki? Geez way to give them credibility. But I guess by your logic we're all Pakis, we as in Ron Paul, the Libertarians etc etc and every other peace loving individual out there. Oh no. Another libertarian. What is it with libertarians ? Is it simply fashionable to be one or something ? Out of every 10 self-declared libertarians i've come across (and they are mostly a university phenomenon for people who are 10+ years younger than me) maybe 1 of them actually knows what libertarian means and the tenets of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaFanatic Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 who they are ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Unless you are God or some alien with a clairvoyance device, stated intent = actual intent, untill you can prove an ulterior motive. Lacking any evidence of 'kanspiracy', i will go with stated intent = actual intent in this case. Stated intent of crusaders and jihaadists has been to bring peace to the world by making them believers. Surely you must buy that? Again, largely irrelevant. For whatever purpose a country A declares war on country B, there will be civillian casualties due to collateral damage. That is not the same as a stated intent of extermination of civillians. I dont care whether US attacked Iraq for its oil, or for WMDs or whether George Bush Jnr. was jealous of Saddam's manly moustache. What i do care about and the point i am making- is that the stated intent was never the extermination or random killing of Iraqi civillians. And i challenge you or anyone else to prove that was the real intent of the US administration. Any war ventured into will have civilian casualties and if the war is not justified based on irrefutable evidence those civilian casualties should be blamed on the perpetrator of the war - simple enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts