Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Muslims suicide bomb Swedish shopping centre Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    There's a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "leaving Islam", in an Islamic state defecting from the state is a crime. If you switch allegiances from the Islamic state to another state then that's a crime. Read this article, it goes into detail: http://web.archive.org/web/200804152...rticle02.shtml
    I have just skimmed that piece, and it doesn't really fit with the picture you presented during the so-called Islamic 'golden age', where people can question and challenge Islam.

    Perhaps the Islamic 'golden age' occured, to the extent to which it did, because Muslims didn't really follow Islam at the time. They were more relaxed about things, so free thought was encouraged.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    No, not really. No one would take you seriously if you said the UK is a monarchy, and the same goes if you claim the UK is a Christian state. We have a queen, but she is just a historic relic. The same goes for the Anglican church.



    People who say the UK is a Christian country are usually referring to its, at least nominally, Christian majoriy population and Christian heritage. They don't mean it is a Christian country in the same sense that Muslims mean when they are referring to an Islamic state.
    agreed
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Muslims are like cigarettes. They have the potential to kill you if you are around them. Preventing Muslims from migrating to the UK is no different then enforcing a smoking ban. So perhaps going with the same logic, Muslims shouldn't be allowed in public places? Seems like sound logic to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yeah brilliant response. I can't actually believe people think the US can easily invade Pakistan- the Pakistanis will definitely suffer more casualties but firstly their army is pretty strong and highly trained and the guerilla fighting afterwards in the North East alone will be a hellish version of Vietnam. I mean at least 200,000-300,000 US troops will die in the first year alone in my opinion. Also when the army is defeated, the troops will just melt away and join the guerilla fighters.
    Possibly, although I doubt it.

    The number of American military personal on active duty numbers around the same as the collective number of military personal in Pakistan. And that's only ready on active duty. With another 900,000 ready and waiting and then adding the fact that the President (with Congress' permission) can enact the Conscription Act, which means all American males 18-25 must sign up. So, with one and a half million in active military service, another million and a half enlisted and a Conscription act at the ready, the number of armed personal far outweighs that of the Pakistani's.

    America has 16,000 battle ready tanks in both active service and on the ready-line. Pakistan has 1,050. Pakistan's Main Battle Tank is the Al-Khalid, which doesn't even rate on the World's Top Ten Battle Tanks, and seen as there's only 15 real variations, it rates somewhere between 11 and 15. There are more types, but the 15 are the "main" ones used. The American Main Battle Tank rates 2nd - to - 3rd, somewhere before or after the Challenger II and after the Leopard II of Germany.

    America has over 5,500 manned combat aircraft and 180 unmanned combat aircraft. With the world's best fighter, (the F/A-22) strategic bombers / ground attack (The B-2, F-117, A-10, B-1, AC-130), recon (U-2) and strategic (C-130, C-5A/B Galaxy) aircraft.
    The Pakistani Air Force on the other hand has 850 aircraft. Mainly made up of old C-130 and F-16 aircraft. And both, whilst good, can't match up to the current C-130 model and the F/A-22 which will, quite literally, dominate the air over Pakistan should such a war occur. Also, America has 330,000 pilots, with most being on active duty at any one time, (the world's largest Air Force after all), whereas Pakistan only has 3,000. And over half are off-duty at any one time.

    The Navy once again is stronger with the USA. Again, over 330,000 active personal, operating around 300 ships and 3,700 aircraft. America's combined naval tonnage is equivalent to that of the next 13 in the world combined. They also have the most Aircraft Carriers in the world at 11, and a further, larger one under construction.
    Pakistan has 24,000 active personal. Has under 100 ships and barely any Naval aircraft. They also have no aircraft carriers. And seen as Pakistan only has a 650 mile coastline, the USN could simply anchor a ship every few miles for air cover and radar, easily send in waves of landing craft and even more easily send in aircraft attacks.

    In regards to the guerilla tactics you mentioned, are also, I'm afraid, pointless. The American Marines Corps will simply mount up in APCs and along side helicopter support, hunt down the forces. If that fails, they'll simply carpet bomb any place they believe the Pakistani forces to be hiding. With very, very fast infiltrating units being carried around by faster aircraft and helicopters, the resistance they put up will be met fiercely, then tracked and slaughtered even more mercilessly.

    Trust me, an American invasion of Pakistan would almost certainly result in them winning. I studied Military Tactics, Strategies and Logistics so I could also tell you that America has superior tactics for such conflicts. They really learnt their lesson from Vietnam. And now, with more advanced technology and weapons that don't jam every 3 rounds, they're far more suited to even that kind of warfare.

    A bloody fight, agreed. But one that will see blood drawn more from the Pakistani's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    I have just skimmed that piece, and it doesn't really fit with the picture you presented during the so-called Islamic 'golden age', where people can question and challenge Islam.

    Perhaps the Islamic 'golden age' occured, to the extent to which it did, because Muslims didn't really follow Islam at the time. They were more relaxed about things, so free thought was encouraged.
    The article was about leaving Islam. Anyway, the point you made doesn't make sense because the Islamic state existed as a result of the inception of Islam which occurred only decades before and as a result it would have been ruled in a manner much closer to Islam than what currently exists. More rules, more restriction and more punishment doesn't necessarily mean they're following Islam better. In fact, some of the harshest regimes in the Middle East have been secular, see Saddam Hussein's Iraq as an example. I think the key factor to its success was stability and peace (in contrast to the warring and tribalism that existed before), shared knowledge and resources as well as social welfare and investment in educational institutions (the oldest university in the world for example was built in the caliphate). Obviously after the decline of the Caliphate and due to the Cold War the Middle East became highly unstable and badly governed much like Latin America in fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wacp)
    What links?
    When I told you to 'see above' I meant the entire post. Go back and look again.

    (Original post by Wacp)
    No, they do not. The actual figure is more like 50 per cent for the general population. Among Muslims, however, support rises to around 63 per cent.

    [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/patriotic-respectful-and-homophobic-a-portrait-of-british-muslims-state-of-mind-1681062.html[/url

    And, in any case, that's not really relevant. We are comparing mainstream Christianity (which, in the United Kingdom, is Anglicanism and Catholicism) and mainstream Islam. As I said before, both the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church are pretty much strongly opposed to the death penalty
    I was told different from another source. Regardless, it still means that there are a large number of people in this country who are in favour of capital punishment who are not Muslim, so I do not see why Muslims should be singled out.

    Also the whole point of a democratic society is that we allow people to hold whatever opinions they want.


    (Original post by Wacp)
    Denying scientific facts like evolution per se is not a threat to democracy; however, it is a symptom of the problem.
    Democracy means that people are entitled to believe in creationism if they want. It also means that people are free to worship whatever religion they want. A country that questions whether a group of people should be allowed into the country because of their beliefs is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what those beliefs are. Muslims who live here should accept that this is a democracy where gays, atheists, Christians and Muslims all have the same rights and it isn't going to change for them (and the majority of them do accept that). Likewise, people who do not agree with Islam should accept that in a democracy, any belief is allowed, and just because they personally disagree with it, it is not a reason for it to be banned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CharlieBee_90)


    *Some* is the whole point. Why deport all the law abiding Muslims? (But yes I agree with your sentiment).


    Oh I totally agree. My point was more geared towards those I have seen (especially on facebook groups) who have actually said that Sweden basically deserves this for the offensive pictures of Mr.Mo etc. I fail to see what their argument is as to why the Swedish culture of freedom of speech should be overturned by foreign religious defensiveness....in Sweden.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planeteuropa)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11977524

    one person has been killed and two others injured in two explosions that rocked the centre of the swedish capital, stockholm.

    A car blew up near the busy shopping street of drottninggatan and another blast followed nearby minutes later.

    Swedish press attributed the second blast to a suicide bomber but police said no cause had yet been determined.

    Foreign minister carl bildt said a "terrorist attack" which could have been "truly catastrophic" had failed.

    Tweeting on the blasts, he described them as "most worrying".

    A local news agency, tt, said it had received a threatening e-mail shortly before the blasts, which called for "mujahideen", or islamist fighters, to rise up in sweden and europe.

    Attacking the country over caricatures of the prophet mohammed drawn by swedish artist lars vilks as well as sweden's military presence in afghanistan, the e-mail promised swedes would "die like our brothers and sisters".

    Sweden has 500 soldiers deployed in afghanistan as part of the international peacekeeping force.

    In november, the country raised its terror alert level from low to elevated because of a "shift in activities" among swedish-based groups that could be plotting attacks.
    'pipe bombs'
    a police forensics officer examines the area around the man killed in stockholm, 11 december police forensics officers examined the area around the body

    both blasts hit central stockholm as the streets were busy with people out christmas shopping.

    The car exploded at 1700 (1600 gmt) and the second blast occurred 10 to 15 minutes later on a street about 300m (300yds) away, police spokesman kjell lindgren said.

    A man was found dead near the site of the second explosion and two people with minor injuries were also found nearby.

    Asked if the dead man had somehow blown himself up, mr lindgren said: "it is possible."

    unconfirmed reports in sweden's aftonbladet newspaper said the man was carrying pipe bombs, as well as a backpack full of nails.

    Another police spokesman, ulf johansson, told the bbc police would not rush to judgement.

    "we need more investigation and of course we need more witnesses to give us the information of what actually has happened," he said.

    He said the car had contained gas canisters and had "exploded with a series of minor explosions".

    The identities of the dead man and those injured have not been released.
    'stomach injury'

    a former employee of the associated press news agency, gabriel gabiro, was close to the second blast.
    Continue reading the main story
    “start quote

    there was a man lying on the ground with blood coming out in the area of his belly”

    end quote gabriel gabiro witness

    "i saw some people crying, perhaps from the shock," he told the agency.

    "there was a man lying on the ground with blood coming out in the area of his belly, and with his personal belongings scattered around him."

    a trained medic named only as pascal also said the man appeared to have a stomach injury.

    "it looked as if the man had carried something that exploded in his stomach," he said on the website of newspaper dagens nyheter.

    "he had no injuries to the face or body in general and the shops around were not damaged."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    stop all muslim immigration now, before its too late

    i agreestop all immigration.
    The english should go back to the continent from where they belong.
    The land the english sit on is welsh and cornish.

    English immigrants out! Out with the anglo saxons!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Referring to an earlier post and please correct me if im wrong, but are we not in Afghan under Nato Article 5? (An attack against one country.etc.etc). Not there just to look big on the world stage
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Possibly, although I doubt it.

    The number of American military personal on active duty numbers around the same as the collective number of military personal in Pakistan. And that's only ready on active duty. With another 900,000 ready and waiting and then adding the fact that the President (with Congress' permission) can enact the Conscription Act, which means all American males 18-25 must sign up. So, with one and a half million in active military service, another million and a half enlisted and a Conscription act at the ready, the number of armed personal far outweighs that of the Pakistani's.

    America has 16,000 battle ready tanks in both active service and on the ready-line. Pakistan has 1,050. Pakistan's Main Battle Tank is the Al-Khalid, which doesn't even rate on the World's Top Ten Battle Tanks, and seen as there's only 15 real variations, it rates somewhere between 11 and 15. There are more types, but the 15 are the "main" ones used. The American Main Battle Tank rates 2nd - to - 3rd, somewhere before or after the Challenger II and after the Leopard II of Germany.

    America has over 5,500 manned combat aircraft and 180 unmanned combat aircraft. With the world's best fighter, (the F/A-22) strategic bombers / ground attack (The B-2, F-117, A-10, B-1, AC-130), recon (U-2) and strategic (C-130, C-5A/B Galaxy) aircraft.
    The Pakistani Air Force on the other hand has 850 aircraft. Mainly made up of old C-130 and F-16 aircraft. And both, whilst good, can't match up to the current C-130 model and the F/A-22 which will, quite literally, dominate the air over Pakistan should such a war occur. Also, America has 330,000 pilots, with most being on active duty at any one time, (the world's largest Air Force after all), whereas Pakistan only has 3,000. And over half are off-duty at any one time.

    The Navy once again is stronger with the USA. Again, over 330,000 active personal, operating around 300 ships and 3,700 aircraft. America's combined naval tonnage is equivalent to that of the next 13 in the world combined. They also have the most Aircraft Carriers in the world at 11, and a further, larger one under construction.
    Pakistan has 24,000 active personal. Has under 100 ships and barely any Naval aircraft. They also have no aircraft carriers. And seen as Pakistan only has a 650 mile coastline, the USN could simply anchor a ship every few miles for air cover and radar, easily send in waves of landing craft and even more easily send in aircraft attacks.

    In regards to the guerilla tactics you mentioned, are also, I'm afraid, pointless. The American Marines Corps will simply mount up in APCs and along side helicopter support, hunt down the forces. If that fails, they'll simply carpet bomb any place they believe the Pakistani forces to be hiding. With very, very fast infiltrating units being carried around by faster aircraft and helicopters, the resistance they put up will be met fiercely, then tracked and slaughtered even more mercilessly.

    Trust me, an American invasion of Pakistan would almost certainly result in them winning. I studied Military Tactics, Strategies and Logistics so I could also tell you that America has superior tactics for such conflicts. They really learnt their lesson from Vietnam. And now, with more advanced technology and weapons that don't jam every 3 rounds, they're far more suited to even that kind of warfare.

    A bloody fight, agreed. But one that will see blood drawn more from the Pakistani's.
    An excellent response but I wasn't for a second saying the militaries of the two countries compare. However you know quite a lot about this so you must also know that the Pakistani military is still relatively strong and FAR stronger than the respective militaries of Afghanistan (didn't really have one admittedly) and Iraq put together. If there's an INVASION then surely there will be some extensive guerilla warfare (and that's both in urban and rural areas). This resistance in my opinion will be far more deadly and better organised than that of the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents.

    There's little doubt that the US military will defeat the Pakistani military as well as the fact that Pakistanis would suffer more casualties. But the human cost and the economic cost for the US as well would be far more severe than that for Afghanistan and Iraq combined which surely makes a future invasion highly unlikely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "muslims" take that out of the title you stupid prat.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    An excellent response but I wasn't for a second saying the militaries of the two countries compare. However you know quite a lot about this so you must also know that the Pakistani military is still relatively strong and FAR stronger than the respective militaries of Afghanistan (didn't really have one admittedly) and Iraq put together. If there's an INVASION then surely there will be some extensive guerilla warfare (and that's both in urban and rural areas). This resistance in my opinion will be far more deadly and better organised than that of the Taliban or Iraqi insurgents.

    There's little doubt that the US military will defeat the Pakistani military as well as the fact that Pakistanis would suffer more casualties. But the human cost and the economic cost for the US as well would be far more severe than that for Afghanistan and Iraq combined which surely makes a future invasion highly unlikely.
    Oh, agreed. It is strong in comparison to other Middle-Eastern countries, and definitely a more dangerous challenge then that of Afghanistan and Iraq, no question.
    Guerilla tactics in both environments against, say, the Mujahadeen would be easily won. However, that's fighting guerilla soldier with guerilla soldier. With an army the size of the US's using Shock and Awe, things would very quickly fall apart for the Pakistani's, however, its not for the Afghanistan Terrorist and Militia Cells that operate now. Odd, definitely odd.

    Agreed, it would be far more severe then that of the Afghan war. However, as far as popular support went, they'd definitely enjoy that. With an enemy the US could get a grip of and thoroughly beat rather then chasing it around and not really achieving much in the way of blood drawn, I'm sure the people would appreciate that more.
    An invasion on a whim of Nuclear War would be possible. No country wants to unleash its nuclear arsenal if not absolutely necessary.

    If it did become an invasion, however, NATO would be drawn into it. If that was the case, then a military occupation would happen in a tenth of the time it'd take the US, and casualties on the Coalition's side would number probably no more then a couple-thousand. They'd merely bomb it into submission and simply cordon off the coast with a naval blockade. So when it does, and NATO performed a strong military attack, such a war would be over in months.

    Lets just hope it never gets to that, eh? :p:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    burn all moslems
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Problem is, if you guys have ever traveled, you will see Muslims in many different countries, all leaving Muslim countries to go to non Muslim countries to have a better life and to escape the fanatical mullahs etc in their homeland, then complaining that the country they chose to go to is non Muslim.

    Now, they can protest on the streets of European countries with the full backing of the law as long as its peaceful, I know what would happen if a group of Christians were to protest on the streets of a Muslim country, they would be lynched.

    I'm originally from England but I have lived overseas for many years, ( Thank God), when I see what has happened to England, it's a place I don't wanna be.

    I was last there 10 years ago for 2 weeks, when I arrived at Heathrow and saw the customs and immigration officers, I thought I had landed somewhere else, it was difficult to spot anyone who was white.

    Try landing in India or Pakistan, you won't see one white face in customs or Immigration, try ****ging their countries off and see what happens.

    Switzerland used to be a lovely virtually crime free country, not anymore though, why ?

    Lax Immigration policy has landed them with all sorts of undesirables who should never be there, they commit crimes without fear because prison time in Europe is like a holiday camp, in their own countries they would probably be shot or locked away for 30 years.

    We as westerners have bought this upon ourselves, it's too late now though, it's too ingrained, the cancer is spreading, and its malignant. Do you older guys remember when a chalkboard was called a blackboard, when we had a robinsons golly, this and so much more are now considered racist and we have had to change to suit Immigrants, try emigrating to their countries and see how they'll change for you, you'll be locked away or beaten to death by a lynch mob.


    There are groups of Nigerians in nearly every prosperous country in the world, what are they doing in such far flung places, many are cheating people, selling drugs or running African prostitutes, I know, I've lived in Japan and Thailand for years.

    If a group of white men were to do the same in Nigeria, they wouldn't live too long, but we accept it because we are accused of racism if we speak out. I was talking to an Austrian guy who was walking in the streets of Vienna and was being hassled by Nigerians to buy drugs, he told them to F off, they complained to the Police that he was racist and he was warned.

    I know not everyone is the same, but I don't see too many white guys strapping explosives to themselves and walking into Harrods to kill a hundred people.

    Ok guys, it's 4.20 am here in Thailand and I am tired and half drunk, so i'll bid you goodnight.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DH-Biker)
    Oh, agreed. It is strong in comparison to other Middle-Eastern countries, and definitely a more dangerous challenge then that of Afghanistan and Iraq, no question.
    Guerilla tactics in both environments against, say, the Mujahadeen would be easily won. However, that's fighting guerilla soldier with guerilla soldier. With an army the size of the US's using Shock and Awe, things would very quickly fall apart for the Pakistani's, however, its not for the Afghanistan Terrorist and Militia Cells that operate now. Odd, definitely odd.

    Agreed, it would be far more severe then that of the Afghan war. However, as far as popular support went, they'd definitely enjoy that. With an enemy the US could get a grip of and thoroughly beat rather then chasing it around and not really achieving much in the way of blood drawn, I'm sure the people would appreciate that more.
    An invasion on a whim of Nuclear War would be possible. No country wants to unleash its nuclear arsenal if not absolutely necessary.

    If it did become an invasion, however, NATO would be drawn into it. If that was the case, then a military occupation would happen in a tenth of the time it'd take the US, and casualties on the Coalition's side would number probably no more then a couple-thousand. They'd merely bomb it into submission and simply cordon off the coast with a naval blockade. So when it does, and NATO performed a strong military attack, such a war would be over in months.

    Lets just hope it never gets to that, eh? :p:
    Yeah lol, also don't forget that the Pakistanis can strategically use nuclear weapons against US ground forces or even the Navy for that matte though the latter would probably wipe out a massive amount of ocean life and cause an enormous Tsunami or something.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ministerdonut)
    Like attacking a sleepy great dane, gentle creatures by nature, but if it turned nasty you would not want to be in the same room as it. At the moment we are half asleep in that politicians took us in too two 'wars', but they are afraid to fight them the way wars ought to be fought,like the war in WW2. There is not the will there. The media is much to blame, during ww2, they completely supported britain 100 percent in the war against fascism. But now the media is a nest of communist vermin, most of whom should be put against a wall and shot.

    If we are at war, we should fight it like one, conscription, carpet bombing, if needs be we should turn afghanistan into a nuclear wasteland.We should not care about a dead muslim woman or child in these countries,we should kill them all. The interesting thing is,during the troubles in NI, we have more troops looking after a smaller area than we do in afghanistan. Again, it is a disgrace to our troops that we are killing them like this, when our politicians and ourselves will not commit to fight this like a war and not a police action. We are at war with islam,so we should intern all uk muslims, as we did in ww2, with the germans living here.And as the US did, with the japanese.We should place them is mass camps, and negotiate with muslims countries regarding their deportation, they should be detained for the protection of the state and for their own protection against those who might want to harm them. The ironic thing,is the us president then roosevelt was very left wing a democrat president,but even he knew ,we had to do the unthinkable to beat fascism . How different from the red diper doper babies in charge now.So called conservatives.... bush.... camerooon. I feel sorry for the soldiers, having to fight wars in a way to satisfy the PC whims of politicians, who are frightened of a the left wing media vermin.

    If we are not prepared to fight these wars like wars ,we should come to terms with the islamists and give them exactly what they want. surrender, because I'd rather that, then innocent western civilians getting killed. My thoughts to sweden. And you know, I do think its's cowardly to attack a country like sweden, I don't hear them supporting Israel, or has large numbers of troops in afghanistan. Scum.I hope instead of those 7 yr old virgin girls, they want, they end up with large strap on wearing pigs.

    LOLZ!!! Fox news is hiring. Give it a go!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I'am sorry you just ignored my post and repeated what you said before and talking about breeding ground for terrorists, I'am fairly sure the Maoists control huge swathes of the Indian countryside. Here read these responses carefully:

    1) The fact that the Indians are despised by the majority of Kashmiris is NOT Pakistani propaganda- it's true whatever source you consult. The murder of 89,000 Kashmiris- almost universally without trial or proof- is also a fact recorded by many human rights organisations such as Amnesty, HRW and what not. Also a definite FACT is the countless incidences of torture, murder and rape still taking place by Indian troops.

    It is a FACT basically that most Kashmiris want India to **** off and support the FREEDOM FIGHTERS who are fighting against oppression- these people are the ones the ISI supports.

    2) You tell me about disregarding wikileaks and yet there's an article in there where a US diplomat is quoted as saying that although Pakistan is deifnitely NOT a failed state, it still has many problems. I suggest you find it.

    3) Pakistan accepted that the terrorists came from Pakistan not that the ISI was responsible- India still hasn't presented viable evidence to support its case so if anyone's belieiving biased state propaganda- it's you.

    4) The ISI and army are definitely always called Pakistan's only stable functionin instiutions- you can read that on the BBC or whatever where I have repeatedly come across the phrase. They're certainly better, less corrupt etc. that the government.

    5) No one knows what the ISI is up to because they are a SECRET agency. Which is exactly the reason why no one knows what the CIA or MI6 are up to either.

    Read through my points carefully and answer them all just to avoid any misunderstandings. :rolleyes:
    Listen to yourself *sigh*
    Difference between me and you son, is that I speak facts but you speak your biased opinion and are not willing to accept the reality. I say something, you ignore it and bring up another issue.
    1. Difference is the Maoists attack India, they want their own state, country ect. Nothing to do with this son, stay relevant.
    2. Whether or not Kashmiris like being part of India is irrelevant, the majoirty want to be part of India contrary to what you believe, they are free to leave and head to Pakistan. How can you bring up history 20 years ago, this is has nothing to do with the discussion stay relevant. The ISI has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of India, they should really concentrate in elimination hostilities before trying to gain more territory.
    3. You find an article, I can find a dozen. If you believe Pakistan is a successful country, well :\ Your disregarding Wikipedia and numerous sources again for what you want to believe.
    4. No one cares if its the most stable entity within Pakistan, what has that got to do with anything? If Hitler was stable does it justify his actions? Listen to yourself. I'm getting tired of this and its getting late.
    5. When I said no one really knows what the ISI is up to I mean NO-ONE, not even its government.

    Your deviating from the argument and bringing others in because you cannot argue for the initial points any more. You fail to admit any flaws with the ISI, thats how I know your biased and you support terrorist activity against India.
    Even President Bush said "Who is in charge of the ISI?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yeah lol, also don't forget that the Pakistanis can strategically use nuclear weapons against US ground forces or even the Navy for that matte though the latter would probably wipe out a massive amount of ocean life and cause an enormous Tsunami or something.
    Oh, they've got Nuclear weapons, but then again, the USA has about 4,500 'more' then the next country in terms of nuclear weapons. I think that, if a nuclear weapon or two were fired, the country would soon find itself shadowed by a wave of oncoming nuclear ICMBs. By the time the dust settled, there'd be nothing left of poor Pakistan but a smoking crater.
    Whilst there's always the fear of nuclear war, conventional warfare will always be used first. And that will usually do the job.

    Then the countries that fired the Nuclear Weapons would be sitting there, thoughtful faced at the predicament of explaining why there was once a country, but now there's not.

    If it comes to that, I'll personally walk to your house and apologize. Though, given the disadvantages of Pakistan using nuclear weaponry to dislodge the naval blockade and invading ground forces far outweigh the advantages.
    Still, I hope it doesn't. The world will quickly start blaming and pointing fingers. Although these fingers will be 10 meters long, have a nuclear symbol on the side, be stored in silos and subs and be very, very ominous when they start jabbing. :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PlanetEuropa)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11977524

    One person has been killed and two others injured in two explosions that rocked the centre of the Swedish capital, Stockholm.

    A car blew up near the busy shopping street of Drottninggatan and another blast followed nearby minutes later.

    Swedish press attributed the second blast to a suicide bomber but police said no cause had yet been determined.

    Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said a "terrorist attack" which could have been "truly catastrophic" had failed.

    Tweeting on the blasts, he described them as "most worrying".

    A local news agency, TT, said it had received a threatening e-mail shortly before the blasts, which called for "mujahideen", or Islamist fighters, to rise up in Sweden and Europe.

    Attacking the country over caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed drawn by Swedish artist Lars Vilks as well as Sweden's military presence in Afghanistan, the e-mail promised Swedes would "die like our brothers and sisters".

    Sweden has 500 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan as part of the international peacekeeping force.

    In November, the country raised its terror alert level from low to elevated because of a "shift in activities" among Swedish-based groups that could be plotting attacks.
    'Pipe bombs'
    A police forensics officer examines the area around the man killed in Stockholm, 11 December Police forensics officers examined the area around the body

    Both blasts hit central Stockholm as the streets were busy with people out Christmas shopping.

    The car exploded at 1700 (1600 GMT) and the second blast occurred 10 to 15 minutes later on a street about 300m (300yds) away, police spokesman Kjell Lindgren said.

    A man was found dead near the site of the second explosion and two people with minor injuries were also found nearby.

    Asked if the dead man had somehow blown himself up, Mr Lindgren said: "It is possible."

    Unconfirmed reports in Sweden's Aftonbladet newspaper said the man was carrying pipe bombs, as well as a backpack full of nails.

    Another police spokesman, Ulf Johansson, told the BBC police would not rush to judgement.

    "We need more investigation and of course we need more witnesses to give us the information of what actually has happened," he said.

    He said the car had contained gas canisters and had "exploded with a series of minor explosions".

    The identities of the dead man and those injured have not been released.
    'Stomach injury'

    A former employee of the Associated Press news agency, Gabriel Gabiro, was close to the second blast.
    Continue reading the main story
    “Start Quote

    There was a man lying on the ground with blood coming out in the area of his belly”

    End Quote Gabriel Gabiro Witness

    "I saw some people crying, perhaps from the shock," he told the agency.

    "There was a man lying on the ground with blood coming out in the area of his belly, and with his personal belongings scattered around him."

    A trained medic named only as Pascal also said the man appeared to have a stomach injury.

    "It looked as if the man had carried something that exploded in his stomach," he said on the website of newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

    "He had no injuries to the face or body in general and the shops around were not damaged."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    STOP ALL MUSLIM IMMIGRATION NOW, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE
    apparently the suicide bomber is an iraqi who studied at the university of hertforshire.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jaggedspike)
    Listen to yourself *sigh*
    Difference between me and you son, is that I speak facts but you speak your biased opinion and are not willing to accept the reality. I say something, you ignore it and bring up another issue.
    1. Difference is the Maoists attack India, they want their own state, country ect. Nothing to do with this son, stay relevant.
    2. Whether or not Kashmiris like being part of India is irrelevant, the majoirty want to be part of India contrary to what you believe, they are free to leave and head to Pakistan. How can you bring up history 20 years ago, this is has nothing to do with the discussion stay relevant. The ISI has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of India, they should really concentrate in elimination hostilities before trying to gain more territory.
    3. You find an article, I can find a dozen. If you believe Pakistan is a successful country, well :\ Your disregarding Wikipedia and numerous sources again for what you want to believe.
    4. No one cares if its the most stable entity within Pakistan, what has that got to do with anything? If Hitler was stable does it justify his actions? Listen to yourself. I'm getting tired of this and its getting late.
    5. When I said no one really knows what the ISI is up to I mean NO-ONE, not even its government.

    Your deviating from the argument and bringing others in because you cannot argue for the initial points any more. You fail to admit any flaws with the ISI, thats how I know your biased and you support terrorist activity against India.
    Even President Bush said "Who is in charge of the ISI?"
    What are you actually on about?

    1) Human rights abuses are STILL occuring in Kashmir, they didn't just occur 20 years ago sunshine. And that's not Pakistani propaganda, it's backed up by Amnesty, Human rights watch etc. etc.

    2) Most Kashmiris want independence, the majority of others prefer Pakistan and the least amount like India. That's not propaganda, that's according to various polls taken which you'll find through a simple google search.

    3) Why are you repeatedly bumming wikipedia? You haven't even posted a single article here and you're repeatedly accusing me of not reading it or whatever.

    4) As I said the ISI is a SECRET INTELLIGENCE AGENCY which is why no one knows what they are up to.

    And as for your PM about me not answering your points etc. It's you in fact who refuses to answer my points, refuses to admit the murder, torture and rape of thousands in Kashmir, refuses to acknowledge that ordinary Kashmiris despise Indian presence etc. etc.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.