[style]

(Original post by insanetothebrain)
Send them impure inbred cousin shagging cockroaches on a banana boat to Pakistan/Bangladesh I say because theyre useless!!. WE NEED A REVOLUTION!!!

err..ok then, you go ahead and get that revolution going, and aren't hindus in the hindu belt of india the poorest ones? in that case, kick them out too, and the christians and tamils dont contribute much either, I think?? lol and i didnt neg you, and im not indian/pakistani or whatever, so all those things you said to me made no sense.

[insanetothebrain]

(Original post by style)
err..ok then, you go ahead and get that revolution going, and aren't hindus in the hindu belt of india the poorest ones? in that case, kick them out too, and the christians and tamils dont contribute much either, I think?? lol and i didnt neg you, and im not indian/pakistani or whatever, so all those things you said to me made no sense.

Take it as a blessing innit, and if you arent indian or paki, why do you care.. your views will be biased/worthless.

[style]

(Original post by insanetothebrain)
Take it as a blessing innit, and if you arent indian or paki, why do you care.. your views will be biased/worthless.

er, if im not indian/pakistani, then my views are not biased, whilst yours are, and I was simply correcting you in you statement that the only muslim majority country indians move to is UEA,which was factualy incorrect, your the one who took it to offense somehow
And I have a feeling those comments were not a blessing, more like cursing in some south asian language.

[maths-enthusiast]

(Original post by insanetothebrain)
Hindus dont go to muslim terriroties for business lol, unless ur talking about Dubai... if you kick em out, its your loss anyway.

Funny, how exactly is it my loss? It's not even Dubai's loss as Hindus produce nothing useful for the world, that's just a fact, they are brainless and sanitationless people struggling to provide basic amenities to their citizenry.

No muslim country has the capability of scorching or nuking India, because none of them have nukes except for Pakistan, but it has been proven that India can fully eradicate Pakistan in seven minutes if nuclear weapons was to be used.

None of them have declared that they have nukes except Pakistan, not that they can't make it. DPRK has already made it, Pakistan has, India has, and the FZE has. It's because of political situation and western interference that countries like Iran don't publicly test a nuclear weapon as well as due to fatwas from the ruling clergy.

Even advanced countries like Germany and Japan don't have nuclear weapons, that doesn't mean they can't make them. If the need arises, richer Muslim countries like UAE, KSA, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, to not so rich countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Senegal etc can all chip in. Do you realize what that will turn India into?

It has been done in the past too. Indians have been ruled longer by nonbritish Muslims than by the British in fact. And fact remains that impotent Hindus could do nothing about it.

To our east is Bangladesh which dont even have a suitable military, Afghanistan is a failed state. The only threat to us is China.. you people just run to the U.S for help, then cry when you get raped by them. Also Israel pretty much has every single muslim country in the middle east on their knees, so i dont know who you're fooling bruv.

The FZE has nobody on their knees, it's obvious that India is the most illiterate country in the world with 1/3 of world's illiterates residing there. Maybe it has something to do with your Hindu venerance for cows or may be not, but your facts and your analytical skills are lacking.

[ForeverIsMyName]

(Original post by maths-enthusiast)
What are moderators doing?

Are all posters supposed to descend to such lowly standards of conduct?

Funny, how exactly is it my loss? It's not even Dubai's loss as Hindus produce nothing useful for the world, that's just a fact, they are brainless and sanitationless people struggling to provide basic amenities to their citizenry.

You hypocrite.

Still waiting for a response in the Sharia law thread. Should I presume that it's not coming?

[maths-enthusiast]

How am I a hypocrite, ForeverIsMyName?

That India alone has 1/3 of world's illiterates and have the largest number of sanitationless people in the world despite being freed from British rule 60+ years ago is a fact.

[ForeverIsMyName]

You don't think calling hundreds of millions of people 'brainless' is lowly conduct?

[Socrates]

It gets boring when every thread about India or Pakistan ends up being about both and how one is going to finish off the other.

No, the international community (by which we mean the US) will not force Pakistan to abandon its nuclear programme, because it is in the US's interest to maintain a weak Pakistan which remains dependent on it - whether it is civilian or military led is arbitary.

[neil44]

We're talking about PAKISTAN lol.
Do you honestly think their nuclear weapon is as good as everyone else's?
Its probably just a normal bomb in a box with a "warning this is nuclear" label on it lol.

[UGeNe]

(Original post by neil44)
We're talking about PAKISTAN lol.
Do you honestly think their nuclear weapon is as good as everyone else's?
Its probably just a normal bomb in a box with a "warning this is nuclear" label on it lol.

I hope they correctly read the instructions on how to assemble a nuclear weapon.

I would feel better if some country just sold a couple of nukes to Pakistan, and didn't give them the correct access codes to arm the damn things.

[style]

(Original post by neil44)
We're talking about PAKISTAN lol.
Do you honestly think their nuclear weapon is as good as everyone else's?
Its probably just a normal bomb in a box with a "warning this is nuclear" label on it lol.

I assume it doesnt matter how good a nuclear weapon it is, it still effectively does its job.

[UGeNe]

(Original post by style)
I assume it doesnt matter how good a nuclear weapon it is, it still effectively does its job.

Not really.

It's only as good as its delivery system.



This is a long exposure photo showing the paths of the multiple re-entry vehicles deployed by the missle. One Peacekeeper can hold up to 10 nuclear warheads, each independently targeted. Were the warheads armed with a nuclear payload, each would carry with it the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-sized weapons.

[Kolya]

I've had to move a lot of crap from this thread. Please stay on-topic and keep it civil, guys.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Socrates)
It gets boring when every thread about India or Pakistan ends up being about both and how one is going to finish off the other.

No, the international community (by which we mean the US) will not force Pakistan to abandon its nuclear programme, because it is in the US's interest to maintain a weak Pakistan which remains dependent on it - whether it is civilian or military led is arbitary.

I read it was in the US' favour to keep Pakistan weak so that it dismantles into 3 seperate states. It seems like a good idea for Pakistan to be split up because quite clearly they can't govern and handle their population of 120 million (I think?). If they split up into 3 then each could get on with their own business.

To be honest Pakistan has shown itself more than capable of handling a nuclear weapon, even with their most hated neighbors 10 minutes away.

[Darkel]

(Original post by Socrates)
it is in the US's interest to maintain a weak Pakistan which remains dependent on it - whether it is civilian or military led is arbitary.

That doesn't make any sense. Obama's new Af-Pak strategy calls for a strong Pakistan at peace with India. Only then can extremism in the wider geopolitical area be quelled. A weak Pakistan would see the Pakistani Taliban gain greater strategic and polical control of the only nuclear armed Muslim state. I don't think anyone wants that. Pakistan now recieves the greatest amount of US aid and they've been encouraging peace negotiations with India. These actions go against any indication that the US is trying to weaken Pakistan.

[Socrates]

(Original post by Elipsis)
I read it was in the US' favour to keep Pakistan weak so that it dismantles into 3 seperate states. It seems like a good idea for Pakistan to be split up because quite clearly they can't govern and handle their population of 120 million (I think?). If they split up into 3 then each could get on with their own business.

Its quite clear that the US is supporting the separatist movement in Balochistan, and is turning a blind eye to border problems on Pak/Afghan border.

To be honest Pakistan has shown itself more than capable of handling a nuclear weapon, even with their most hated neighbors 10 minutes away.

They would have used it in the last 35 years if they were going to use it. Relations with India may be tense, but nowhere near as bad as they have been in the past.

[Socrates]

(Original post by Darkel)
That doesn't make any sense. Obama's new Af-Pak strategy calls for a strong Pakistan at peace with India. Only then can extremism in the wider geopolitical area be quelled. A weak Pakistan would see the Pakistani Taliban gain greater strategic and polical control of the only nuclear armed Muslim state. I don't think anyone wants that. Pakistan now recieves the greatest amount of US aid and they've been encouraging peace negotiations with India. These actions go against any indication that the US is trying to weaken Pakistan.

I think we have different definitions of a 'weak' Pakistan. What I meant was that the US wants Pakistan to continue to be dependent on it, both politically and economically. A weak civilian government with a threat of the military taking over any minute means the civilian government remains dependent on US support.