Sri Lankan cricket team captain Kumar Sangakara thanked Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and The Art of Living for helping the Sri Lankan cricket team to come out of trauma after the Lahore attack http://******/aiZom
Then why other nations "not of their religion" are not facing any attacks against them. To my knowledge, China, Russia, many African nations, Korea, Japan and on and on are all "not their religion" countries and yet those nations have almost no attacks against them. Yet, US, as on the top list, and some European nations with imperialism and siding with Zionists have the most fear of attacks. That is something to think about if it is the religion only or if there are some causes behind it......
The bush war of terror created more terrorists then it removed
and when bush cheney started`torturing people and hold people
without trial's they became terrorists themselves, mindless ideological sheep
conservatives Posted by pythoncharly at 1:38 PM : Mar 3, 2009 + report abuse + permalink
*************Well i dont think liberals svcking arab **** faired any better than torture as a matter of fact might be making it worse..NOW THEY ARE EMBOLDENED..they asks this wuestion..
I think what happened and what is happening is that Bush declared "war" and thus put a terror and fear cast in reverse onto those nations and several parts of the world. In case of Pakistan which has been so allied with US and yet treated as a "low" object by the US. Continous attacks on their villages, homes, cities and towns have fueled more and more, and very well unending terrorism. The Pakistani government in order to appease the US, is actually repressing and oppressing its own people in a false disguise of fighting terrorim. I also believe violence begets more violence. Thus, "they" find no justice and have no voice, and therefore they resort to these kinds of acts in order to send a message of "back off." Please let me know if that is not the case.
Also, note that so many times we have heard that "they" will root out terrorism and all of that after each and every attack... well, does anyone see any success anywhere in any shape or form? (it is an honest question)
Such attacks have only increased in the past 7 years after the "Big Boss" announced it would get rid of all of them in just couple of years or so. That country had hardly ever faced so many attacks and with so much brazen and loss and would never have if the "big bosses" did not go to "extremes" as they have. Bottomline, terrosim has no face and no uniform and can never be defeated by counter violence. It may be wise to work towards justice and voice for all if the world is serious about eliminating or at least minimizing attacks.
It make me laugh when I read this, ""We will flush out all these terrorists from this country," and "from over there and there....... " it surely sounds desperate and that means terrorist have won.
This attack has been hardly highlighted,if at all mentioned,in the morning TV news in America.Only BBc has given a full account of the incident.This is yet another indication of the shortsightedness of the America media.
Islamabad should consider law enforcement against sexual Felons. Why tolerate electronic child pornography, the kiddie prostitutes, and forcible rape and impregnation of Women? The Military is not that important. Thermo-nuclear warheads changed the need for a large, standing army. Pakistan would reform under a police state. Then, NATO will have no moral argument.
O.K. O.K. I get it. Let us all agree that everything that happens is Bush's fault. I propose that from now on that will be an accepted postion of CBS news. Terrorists attack a cricket team; Bush's fault. Guy smokes a cat in a bong, Bush's fault. A lady has 23,000 kids; Bush's fault. Make it part of the rules of engagement, CBS. And add a "Hail, Obama!" automatically at the end of all posts.
The assault was one of the worst terrorist attacks on a sports team since Palestinian militants killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics
"Indian Raw terrorist Agency may be involved in this attack," a Pakistani intelligence official in Lahore told Bokhari on condition of anonymity.
"Indian Raw Agency" was involved in planning the attack."
Western diplomats warned, however, that Pakistani officials would likely draw comparisons between the two attacks. The Pakistani government accused elements in India's intelligence
Pakistan didn't,"hit Mumbai", terrorists operating out of Pakistan did that.
Your Obama comment is what makes you a ****, though. Really, are we in full,"Rush", mode? Making statements that you can't back up, and that have no place other than to incite anger?
And you can blame GW and his cronies for this. The U.S. had no reason to invade Iraq, and EVERY reason to stay the course in Afghanistan.
The state that Pakistan is in now is directly related to our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan, and the subsequent abandonment of that campaign in order to invade Iraq. Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:33 AM : Mar 3, 2009
Pakistan is just as guilty for allowing such groups (those who perpetrate terror in India and elsewhere) to operate. It's appalling that Pakistan has allowed those Madrassa schools that brainwash their young men and then they go out and implement what they've been taught, hate.
I don't agree with you about Afghanistan either, Bush would have had to invade Pakistan to stop the problems in Afghanistan. The Taliban that is in Pakistan is not just from Afghanistan, it is full of Pakistani 'taliban lovers". The Taliban was beat back and OBL escaped in December of 2001, Iraq was in 2003. Your theory revolves around parking our men and women on the mountainous border to create a wall to protect Afghanistan. This doesn't take care of the problem, which is Pakistan, it only makes our military occupiers and a "police" force to protect the tribes. Would you have supported Bush invading Pakistan in 2003 instead? It probably would have been prudent in our war on terror, but I don't believe liberals would look at it that way.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
http://******/aiZom
Then why other nations "not of their religion" are not facing any attacks against them. To my knowledge, China, Russia, many African nations, Korea, Japan and on and on are all "not their religion" countries and yet those nations have almost no attacks against them. Yet, US, as on the top list, and some European nations with imperialism and siding with Zionists have the most fear of attacks. That is something to think about if it is the religion only or if there are some causes behind it......
and when bush cheney started`torturing people and hold people
without trial's they became terrorists themselves, mindless ideological sheep
conservatives
Posted by pythoncharly at 1:38 PM : Mar 3, 2009
+ report abuse + permalink
*************Well i dont think liberals svcking arab **** faired any better than torture as a matter of fact might be making it worse..NOW THEY ARE EMBOLDENED..they asks this wuestion..
"Bush is gone so who is going to stop us now??"
I think what happened and what is happening is that Bush declared "war" and thus put a terror and fear cast in reverse onto those nations and several parts of the world. In case of Pakistan which has been so allied with US and yet treated as a "low" object by the US. Continous attacks on their villages, homes, cities and towns have fueled more and more, and very well unending terrorism. The Pakistani government in order to appease the US, is actually repressing and oppressing its own people in a false disguise of fighting terrorim. I also believe violence begets more violence. Thus, "they" find no justice and have no voice, and therefore they resort to these kinds of acts in order to send a message of "back off." Please let me know if that is not the case.
Also, note that so many times we have heard that "they" will root out terrorism and all of that after each and every attack... well, does anyone see any success anywhere in any shape or form? (it is an honest question)
It make me laugh when I read this, ""We will flush out all these terrorists from this country," and "from over there and there....... " it surely sounds desperate and that means terrorist have won.
O.K. O.K. I get it. Let us all agree that everything that happens is Bush's fault. I propose that from now on that will be an accepted postion of CBS news. Terrorists attack a cricket team; Bush's fault. Guy smokes a cat in a bong, Bush's fault. A lady has 23,000 kids; Bush's fault. Make it part of the rules of engagement, CBS. And add a "Hail, Obama!" automatically at the end of all posts.
"Indian Raw terrorist Agency may be involved in this attack," a Pakistani intelligence official in Lahore told Bokhari on condition of anonymity.
"Indian Raw Agency" was involved in planning the attack."
Western diplomats warned, however, that Pakistani officials would likely draw comparisons between the two attacks. The Pakistani government accused elements in India's intelligence
Your Obama comment is what makes you a ****, though. Really, are we in full,"Rush", mode? Making statements that you can't back up, and that have no place other than to incite anger?
And you can blame GW and his cronies for this. The U.S. had no reason to invade Iraq, and EVERY reason to stay the course in Afghanistan.
The state that Pakistan is in now is directly related to our response to 9/11 in Afghanistan, and the subsequent abandonment of that campaign in order to invade Iraq.
Posted by gravyboat63 at 6:33 AM : Mar 3, 2009
Pakistan is just as guilty for allowing such groups (those who perpetrate terror in India and elsewhere) to operate. It's appalling that Pakistan has allowed those Madrassa schools that brainwash their young men and then they go out and implement what they've been taught, hate.
I don't agree with you about Afghanistan either, Bush would have had to invade Pakistan to stop the problems in Afghanistan. The Taliban that is in Pakistan is not just from Afghanistan, it is full of Pakistani 'taliban lovers". The Taliban was beat back and OBL escaped in December of 2001, Iraq was in 2003. Your theory revolves around parking our men and women on the mountainous border to create a wall to protect Afghanistan. This doesn't take care of the problem, which is Pakistan, it only makes our military occupiers and a "police" force to protect the tribes. Would you have supported Bush invading Pakistan in 2003 instead? It probably would have been prudent in our war on terror, but I don't believe liberals would look at it that way.