udm

Asked if kidnapping was acceptable, Eitan replied; "Yes. Any way to bring him for trial in The Hague is a possibility." So... he did say it's okay to kidnap Ahmadinejad. I don't get what you all are going on about. The only thing HisSelf got wrong was saying he wanted him to be brought to trial in Israel as opposed to The Hague. I don't see how that makes it any better a thing to say. Kidnapping is the issue, not the location of the trial.

Wow. I don't even know how to react to this. The book came out in 2006. That's an old article talking about it before it was released. I don't understand how you didn't figure that out, the article is dated September 23, 2006. You're a complete and utter idiot. I didn't read the rest of your post, partly because I don't have the time, but mostly because you're an idiot.

Musharraf's book, 'In the Line of Fire', is the source of the bold statement I made, you can read about it in this article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2021516.cms But see, the problems at the border weren't there before the war started. We go in there, mess up Afghanistan and spill the war into Pakistan, and then have the nerve to ask the Pakistani government to control their own borders. This "if you don't like it, you can leave" argument is really original, you should be proud you came up with it. You should try and recognize the purpose people like me have in society. Unions. Abolitionism. Civil rights. Women's rights. Gay rights... If it were up to people like you and we all just settled for what we have, you wouldn't have all these things you take for granted. And yeah, let's talk about the good points of capitalism. While we're at it, want to talk about the positive aspects of slavery? There's quite a few positive things it, I'm sure. Anyway, I won't have time in the next few days to keep following up on this, so this will likely be last post in the topic. That should be alright, I've gotten across what I've wanted to. As a final comment: What happened on September 11, 2001, was not the fault of the Afghan people. 3,000 innocent people died that day. Almost 30,000 innocent people have died in Afghanistan since then. This war isn't a "good war", as opposed to the war in Iraq. There is no "good" war. The motives here are just as misconstrued, the people of Afghanistan are not al-Qaeda or the Taleban.

Actually, we (the developed world) don't necessarily use the religion of Islam as the basis to to pick on people, i.e. South America, a very Christian place. Pakistan has been given more than $7 billion dollars since 2001 and been forced to take part in the "war on terror". Musharraf was literally called up and told, if he didn't comply, Pakistan would be 'bombed back into the stone-age'. So the "war on terror" has been TOUCHING Pakistan since it began. Please don't reply to me comments without actually reading my posts. This attack occurred after Musharraf's resignation, but hundreds of suicide attacks took place during his reign. To reiterate, fifty-six took place of them in 2007, at an average of more than one a week. My own crap eh? Here, I'll own up; Canada also has a hand in this because of our military's involvement in Afghanistan. But yes, I do have a country full of pissed of dirt poor people. In fact, I have many countries that in that condition, a very large horrible amount. You do as well. You do live on planet earth don't you? Just because these people that are entrenched in poverty don't live in your country... and/or have a different skin-tone, and/or practice a different religion, and/or implement a different system of economics and government... or anything... doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about them. It doesn't mean that their problems are theirs to fix or make worse, even though we were the cause of those problems and are actively involved in making them worse. It's disturbing how people are so extremely closed-minded and short-sighted. It's all about self-interest. Capitalism and the free market are really very great aren't they? Yes, they are very very great for us, no reason to worry about how this system subjugates the third world into living a lesser way of life just so it can sustain ours. The fact that you can buy sneakers for $3 at Walmart is great news, there's no reason to be concerned about the plight of the children who make them.

Right. I'm wrong about all this because I called it the 'American "war on terrorism"' rather than the 'Righteous Free World's "war on terrorism"'. The Americans started the war, there's nothing wrong with me calling it theirs. But, I don't see how this even matters. If you're going to try and find irrelevant details like this to try and disprove my position... don't... just don't... I was the first one to point out the issue of secular violence in Pakistan, and I've mentioned it more than once. But if there are other issues that may relate to bombings and violence of such kind before the "war on terror", please bring any number of these historical issues to my attention, instead of just saying that they exist. Yes, the CIA and the Saudis financed al-Qaeda, and the ISI trained them to fight against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They weren't taking part in suicide missions inside Pakistan at the time. Please divulge further into these many factors. Suicide bombings in Pakistan were simply unheard of before the "war on terror", and now they are numerous and abundant. The government was even able to work out a truce with certain regional leaders following General Musharraf's departure from the presidency. Certain regional leaders, a select, particular, amount of them. Reading. Comprehension. While it's not right to compare Israel, a country, to disoriented groups of militants, I'll humour you for a bit. To all your questions to do with wars and conflicts in the past: In those wars, just like the conditions we are in today, there were two sides to the conflict and they fought against each other. Jews did engage in in bloodshed directed towards the Germans during the Holocaust, and rightly so, they were defending themselves. ... I don't know, I think that covers that... As to Jews engaging in bloodshed directed at Muslims and the Israel-Palestine conflict: Not all Jews engage in bloodshed directed at Muslims, just as not all Muslims engage in bloodshed directed at Jews. However, in "protecting itself", Israel murders hundreds of Palestinian civilians for every Israeli that is killed by Palestinian militants. Israel has implemented an illegal blockade of Gaza, cutting off 1.5 from basic needs. The human-rights catastrophe is well documented by the UN. It's plain to who the bad guy is. I'd rather I didn't go further into this, this discussion isn't about Israel and Palestine, it's about the recent upsurge in violence in Pakistan. Let's try to keep things on track from here on in. First of all, it's so very wrong of you to use the word 'Palestinians' here, as this infers that all of them are militant aggressors fighting Israel. This, my friend, is called racism. I really hope you apologize for this. Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by free pass. What are you saying? I really don't get it. What do you want to do? Kill them all? Kill all the terrorists? Is that possible? Finally, once again, lets try and stay on topic. This is to everyone else that's gotten into talking about Israel as well. I'm sure there are other places to talk about that.

Is this No an answer to my question? You don't believe the "war on terror" has anything to do with the rise of violence in Pakistan? If so, could you please provide evidence to support your view. The evidence you tried to show earlier turned out to actually help prove my point, so... If this is going to turn into a "I think you're wrong because I think you're wrong" debates from your end... then we can just stop it right here. Do quote me as to where I have since admitted that this can't be the case.

Do you honestly believe that the "war on terror" taking place has little or no correlation with the rise in suicide attacks and bombings inside Pakistan? Last year, there were fifty-six suicide attacks in Pakistan. That's an average of more than one a week. Violence at a scale like this didn't ever take place before the "war on terror". Occasional attacks used to occur between rival religious and ethnic groups. Now, the list of those who qualify as targets has expanded, as have the means in which the attacks take place, and the number of attacks has gone up astronomically.

You talk to the tribal leaders in Northwest Pakistan, i.e. 'the cowards who sent them'. The tribal leaders are willing to talk to the Pakistani government. The government was even able to work out a truce with certain regional leaders following General Musharraf's departure from the presidency. You can call them "killers" all you want, but like I said, we're the ones dropping bombs on their children. And as for "cowards", once again, we're the ones attacking them using drones, and writing the deaths of innocents off as collateral damage. Progressing further with violence will only nurture more anti-Americanism -- and hatred towards the west in general -- and cause more acts of terrorism such as this one. I already mentioned that attacks in the form of sectarian violence were relatively common in Pakistan even before the "war on terror": If you'd actually read anything on that website, you would've realized that the first listing of a suicide bombing on it is post-9/11: And let me show you how else it supports what I have already said: Thanks for the help bush_cheney2004.

I was talking about suicide attacks in Pakistan...

It's true that sectarian violence has a long history in Pakistan. However, attacks -- suicide attacks in particular -- on government and neutral civilian targets a very recent phenomenon. The origin of attacks such as this can easily be traced to the American "war on terror". Now, to think about how to deal with this issue: Violence is what brought about these circumstances, it's not going to help fix them. We need to sit down and talk to these people. It may seem outrageous to do so, because these people are "murderers" and "killers", but we're the ones dropping bombs on their children. Why shouldn't they hate us? Why shouldn't they want to hurt us?