# Bhutto assisinated.



## Guest (Dec 27, 2007)

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday after addressing a large









The bomb explodes near Bhutto's vehicle following a political rally in Rawalpindi.

Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck, the Pakistani Interior Ministry said. The attacker then blew himself up. The bomb attack killed at least 22 others, doctors said.

*John Moore, a photographer for Getty Images, said Bhutto was standing through the sunroof of her vehicle, waving to supporters, when two shots rang out.

Bhutto fell back into the vehicle, and almost immediately a bomb blast rocked the scene, sending twisting metal and shrapnel into the crowd, he added.*

*Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto's vehicle. *

Bhutto was rushed to Rawalpindi General Hospital -- less than two miles from the bombing scene -- where doctors pronounced her dead.

Her body was removed from the hospital -- carried above a crowd of supporters -- late Thursday night, about six hours after the assassination.

Chaos erupted at the hospital when former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif arrived to pay his respects to Bhutto less than three hours after her death.

Hundreds of Bhutto supporters crammed into the entrance shouted and cried, some clutching their heads in pain and shock. Sharif called it "the saddest day" in Pakistan's history. "Something unthinkable has happened," he said. 
Sharif said his party will boycott Pakistan's January 8 parliamentary elections in the wake of the assassination.

President Pervez Musharraf said the killers were the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against, and announced three days of national mourning.

Police warned citizens to stay home as they expected rioting to break out in city streets in reaction to the death.

Rioters burned tires and blocked roads in Karachi and other cities, police sources said. Police fired on an angry mob, killing two people, in the city of Khairpur in the Sindh province, Geo TV reported.

Bhutto's husband issued a statement from his home in Dubai saying, "All I can say is we're devastated, it's a total shock." He arrived in Pakistan late Thursday.

*President Bush said those responsible "must be brought to justice" and praised Bhutto as a woman who had "fought the forces of terror." He said: "She refused to allow assassins to dictate the course of her country."*

The number of wounded was not immediately known. However, video of the scene showed ambulances lined up to take many to hospitals.
Don't Miss

The assassination happened in Rawalpindi's Liaquat Bagh Park, named for Pakistan's first prime minister -- Liaquat Ali Khan -- who was assassinated in the same location in 1951.

The attack came just hours after four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Thursday, Pakistan police said.

Several other members of Sharif's party were wounded, police said.

Bhutto, who led Pakistan from 1988 to 1990 and was the first female prime minister of any Islamic nation, was participating in the parliamentary election set for January 8, hoping for a third term.

A terror attack targeting her motorcade in Karachi killed 136 people on the day she returned to Pakistan after eight years of self-imposed exile.

CNN's Mohsin Naqvi, who was at the scene of both bombings, said Thursday's blast was not as powerful as that October attack.

Thursday's attacks come less than two weeks after Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf lifted an emergency declaration he said was necessary to secure his country from terrorists.

Bhutto had been critical of what she believed was a lack of effort by Musharraf's government to protect her.

Two weeks after the October assassination attempt, she wrote a commentary for CNN.com in which she questioned why Pakistan investigators refused international offers of help in finding the attackers.

"The sham investigation of the October 19 massacre and the attempt by the ruling party to politically capitalize on this catastrophe are discomforting, but do not suggest any direct involvement by General Pervez Musharraf," Bhutto wrote


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Shocked but not surprised. This is bad for everybody.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

She was our only hope for a secure and stable Pakistan.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

wouldn't be surprised if G.B had something to do with this.


----------



## Guest (Dec 27, 2007)

Why G.B?

I know he's friends with Musharef but Bhutto was trying to install a democracy.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

face2006 said:


> wouldn't be surprised if G.B had something to do with this.


I think most would be surprised...


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

face2006 said:


> wouldn't be surprised if G.B had something to do with this.












Next time open the garage door before you spray paint and then want to post...


----------



## sadboy (Jan 6, 2005)

not a sad day for me...... My day is going just fine indeed...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

BioTeAcH said:


> wouldn't be surprised if G.B had something to do with this.












Next time open the garage door before you spray paint and then want to post...
[/quote]

x10 to Bio and Danny. the situation in Pakistan is uncertian, indeed.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Why G.B?
> 
> I know he's friends with Musharef but Bhutto was trying to install a democracy.


 exactly danny. GW had nothing to do with this. if anyone is was Musharif. that guy is slimy as hell. he's turning in to a poor man's Saddam.lol

but seriously. i came home last night at like 4 or 4:30am and this was on the news, but they said that Bhutto had made it away from the blast area before the bomb hit. i woke up this morning to headlines that she is dead and was thinking that ANOTHER assassination attempt had been made right after the other one.

i kind of doubt that it was the "terrorists". i really do think it's musharif's cronies. he didnt want her even running in these elections, and the whole world knew it. but then you ask the question...would he really be that dumb to off her when ppl know how much he disliked her? it would seem a bit obvious. maybe it was indeed the terrorists, or maybe it was another person running in the election (if there is even anyone else.lol) trying to frame musharif so that he can take over...something more sinister than usual is brewing over there.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Puff said:


> Why G.B?
> 
> I know he's friends with Musharef but Bhutto was trying to install a democracy.


 exactly danny. GW had nothing to do with this. if anyone is was Musharif. that guy is slimy as hell. he's turning in to a poor man's Saddam.lol

but seriously. i came home last night at like 4 or 4:30am and this was on the news, but they said that Bhutto had made it away from the blast area before the bomb hit. i woke up this morning to headlines that she is dead and was thinking that ANOTHER assassination attempt had been made right after the other one.

i kind of doubt that it was the "terrorists". i really do think it's musharif's cronies. he didnt want her even running in these elections, and the whole world knew it. but then you ask the question...would he really be that dumb to off her when ppl know how much he disliked her? it would seem a bit obvious. maybe it was indeed the terrorists, or maybe it was another person running in the election (if there is even anyone else.lol) trying to frame musharif so that he can take over...something more sinister than usual is brewing over there.
[/quote]

while i'm inclined to to agree with you the possibility it was just some nut can't be discounted. makings for a suicide bomb and a gun aren't hard to come by, in that corner of the earth.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

face2006 said:


> wouldn't be surprised if G.B had something to do with this.


Great Britain had nothing to do with this


----------



## BAMBINO (May 29, 2004)

who the hell is bhutto?


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

diddye said:


> She was our only hope for a secure and stable Pakistan.


I also agree...

She was willing to stand up to Mushariff and bring Pakistan back to democracy, not a military dictatorship as it is now...

It is a very sad situation indeed!!


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

mdrs said:


> Why G.B?
> 
> I know he's friends with Musharef but Bhutto was trying to install a democracy.


 exactly danny. GW had nothing to do with this. if anyone is was Musharif. that guy is slimy as hell. he's turning in to a poor man's Saddam.lol

but seriously. i came home last night at like 4 or 4:30am and this was on the news, but they said that Bhutto had made it away from the blast area before the bomb hit. i woke up this morning to headlines that she is dead and was thinking that ANOTHER assassination attempt had been made right after the other one.

i kind of doubt that it was the "terrorists". i really do think it's musharif's cronies. he didnt want her even running in these elections, and the whole world knew it. but then you ask the question...would he really be that dumb to off her when ppl know how much he disliked her? it would seem a bit obvious. maybe it was indeed the terrorists, or maybe it was another person running in the election (if there is even anyone else.lol) trying to frame musharif so that he can take over...something more sinister than usual is brewing over there.
[/quote]

while i'm inclined to to agree with you the possibility it was just some nut can't be discounted. makings for a suicide bomb and a gun aren't hard to come by, in that corner of the earth.
[/quote]

totally agreed. but at the same time you just never know in that part of the world. but you're very right, the likelihood that it was just some nut is pretty great, but that area of the world is still so corrupt that we can never know what truly happens behind the scenes.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

C0Rey said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....

Pac


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

BAMBINO said:


> who the hell is bhutto?


The leader of the opposition in Pakistan and a former P.M. (first female one in the short history of that nation and the first one in an Islamic state).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

She wasn't exactly straight and narrow.


----------



## Dezboy (Apr 2, 2006)

i cant imagine GWB doing something like that......................stupid comment IMO


----------



## Devon Amazon (Apr 3, 2005)

Very sad but unsuprising, she spend most of her adult life under serious threat of assasination.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2007)

It's just Muslims doing what they do best.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

BioTeAcH said:


> i cant imagine GWB doing something like that......................stupid comment IMO


followed by another ^^^^^














...lol


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists. It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. Ignorant BLIND mofo's.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists. It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. Ignorant BLIND mofo's.










...lol....







no no no our president would never do that....







....







....you da man Badfish....


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

face2006 said:


> Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists. It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. *Ignorant BLIND mofo's*.


:rasp: ...lol....







no no no our president would never do that....







....







....you da man Badfish....
[/quote]

There is a difference between not seeing things because you are blind, and not seeing things because they don't exist...ingorance is in the eye of the beholder (especially in this case).


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

BioTeAcH said:


> Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists. It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. *Ignorant BLIND mofo's*.


:rasp: ...lol....







no no no our president would never do that....







....







....you da man Badfish....
[/quote]

There is a difference between not seeing things because you are blind, and not seeing things because they don't exist...ingorance is in the eye of the beholder *(especially in this case).*
[/quote]

or you? huh you a Moderator? eeoohwwwwwwwwwwwww you know everything...







yeah ok, see what I mean its hard to stay sucka free around here....but it's all good ...learn not to take thingz so personal, it's not that serious







....see the bold's, you say it best, you must live in Fairy tale land..with unicorns, leprican's and ranbow's..lol


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2007)

face2006 said:


> or you? huh you a Moderator? eeoohwwwwwwwwwwwww you know everything...
> 
> 
> 
> ...











You are going to have to articulate yourself better if you have a point you want to make.

Personally, I do not believe the U.S. goverment is competant enough to pull off a political assassination like this.

Either way, since Musharraf is somewhat cooperative when it comes to fighting Al Queda, this is an issue Bush will have to handle delicately.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Truth is nobody really knows, but you cannot eliminate that just because you like the President. Any proof that it wasn't him?


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2007)

face2006 said:


> Truth is nobody really knows, but you cannot eliminate that just because you like the President. Any proof that it wasn't him?


How about you give us some legitimate, no bullshit reasons why Bush would be involved. Please include why he would risk that kind conspiracy, what exactly we gain from her death, and why it makes more sense then less complicated (yet more practical and pragmatic) scenarios?

You better go get a band aid, I just Occam's Razor'd your ass.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Bullsnake said:


> or you? huh you a Moderator? eeoohwwwwwwwwwwwww you know everything...
> 
> 
> 
> ...











You are going to have to articulate yourself better if you have a point you want to make.

Personally, I do not believe the U.S. goverment is competant enough to pull off a political assassination like this.

Either way, since Musharraf is somewhat cooperative when it comes to fighting Al Queda, this is an issue Bush will have to handle delicately.
[/quote]

WOW, you do not think the U.S. goverment is competant enough? apparently you cannot read? Did you read anything Badffish wrote? anything... Do you even know what aticulate means? You think that with the two sentences you wrote out is enough to support what you wrote. Then you tell me to articulate.....


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Truth is nobody really knows, but you cannot eliminate that just because you like the President. Any proof that it wasn't him?


*How about you give us some legitimate, no bullshit reasons *why Bush would be involved. Please include why he would risk that kind conspiracy, what exactly we gain from her death, and why it makes more sense then less complicated (yet more practical and pragmatic) scenarios?

You better go get a band aid, I just *Occam's Razor'd your ass.
[/quote]*

do you how







that sounded..lol... is that the saying you kids are using now a days? or in the back woods? how many hours do you spend on p-fury, man get out read a book, newspaper, take a deep breathe outside, get a life?... read the bold ok...you give me some legitimate no bullshit reason WHY NOT?..see how it works both ways...you dropping the soap on purpose? I think you are..







you like that huh?..All I said is that I would not be surprised if G.B. had anything to do with it....any you and your buddy had a fit...


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Bro. Dont argue with kids. The ONLY obvious thing here is that they are "sheeple". What they know of this government is what their daddy tells them. "GUNG-HO" Americanos huh? Pathetic idiots. Im a TRUE proud American and will be the FIRST muther fukker to grab MY M-16 if some bastards come into MY country to take my freedom. I NEVER bought YOUR presidents lies and NEVER will. Poor kids are loosing their lives for the selfish benefits of the GREEDY! NOT for my freedom. The ONLY arseholes taking my freedoms are the IDIOTS in THIS government. WAKE THE FUK UP CHILDREN. DO THE MATH! DO THE RESEARCH! Its that fukking simple. If you idiots are so "GUNG-HO", to ride your leaders NUTS. Why aren't YOU out there in Iraq and EVERY other country EXPLOITED by this one??? Pinches PENDEJOS!







Salud!


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

face2006 said:


> or you? huh you a Moderator? eeoohwwwwwwwwwwwww you know everything...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me being a moderator has nothing to do with this (you evidently have issues with people that have any sort of perceived "power")...and I believe I would live in P-fairy land (your words on another forum, not mine). If you want people to take your "theories" seriously, then try not to insult those that think otherwise.

Look in the mirror...you're the one that evidently needs to lighten up and not get your panties in a bunch if someone disagrees with you. My first post was poking fun...the subsequent post turned badfish's and your comments back at you. Evidently I hit a nerve and you take your postings more serious than you think, otherwise a reply like mine wouldn't have set you off and caused the prolific use of the "ghey" emoticon!


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

BioTeAcH said:


> or you? huh you a Moderator? eeoohwwwwwwwwwwwww you know everything...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me being a moderator has nothing to do with this (you evidently have issues with people that have any sort of perceived "power")...and I believe I would live in P-fairy land (your words on another forum, not mine).* If you want people to take your "theories" seriously, then try not to insult those that think otherwise. *Look in the mirror...you're the one that evidently needs to lighten up and *not get your panties in a bunch *if someone disagrees with you. My first post was poking fun...the subsequent post turned badfish's and your comments back at you. Evidently I hit a nerve and you take your postings more serious than you think, otherwise a reply like mine wouldn't have set you off and caused the prolific use of the "ghey" emoticon!








[/quote]

hmm I wonder who used that first?... no problem here, its apparent that you got spy's, don't bother me none, GG and I had this conversation already, but if you feel that you need to post things like this so I get ganged up on.. go ahead, I know this is not a serious thing, I do not insult those that think otherwise(changed my old habits), you were the one who threw the first button against me, sh*t I don't care if he did it or not, don't care if your a mod or not, I'm just telling you and BUllsnake do not know everything. I only used that emoticon for the rainbow, a reply has facts towards the topic, your reply was just instigating, with nothing relating to the topic. I could see where this is leading to and I will not take the bait, it's the internet guys, a fish site.... follow your own advice,


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Bro. Dont argue with kids. The ONLY obvious thing here is that they are "sheeple". What they know of this government is what their daddy tells them. "GUNG-HO" Americanos huh? Pathetic idiots. Im a TRUE proud American and will be the FIRST muther fukker to grab MY M-16 if some bastards come into MY country to take my freedom. I NEVER bought YOUR presidents lies and NEVER will. Poor kids are loosing their lives for the selfish benefits of the GREEDY! NOT for my freedom. The ONLY arseholes taking my freedoms are the IDIOTS in THIS government. WAKE THE FUK UP CHILDREN. DO THE MATH! DO THE RESEARCH! Its that fukking simple. If you idiots are so "GUNG-HO", to ride your leaders NUTS. Why aren't YOU out there in Iraq and EVERY other country EXPLOITED by this one??? Pinches PENDEJOS!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


same goes here bro, you got it.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't understand why Bush would be involved.

If Musharraf wanted to take out Bhutto, he certainly wouldn't need Bush's help. And Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack, do you really think Bush would outsource Al-Qaida to do that ?


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> I don't understand why Bush would be involved.
> 
> If Musharraf wanted to take out Bhutto, he certainly wouldn't need Bush's help. And Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack, do you really think Bush would outsource Al-Qaida to do that ?


I think so man the tactics he used to try to capture Osama were weak and obviously not the best, G.B. is very resourceful, but you are right nobody really knows.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.







Im through with this topic. Its starting to get under my skin!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

baddfish said:


> I don't understand why Bush would be involved.
> 
> If Musharraf wanted to take out Bhutto, he certainly wouldn't need Bush's help. And Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack, do you really think Bush would outsource Al-Qaida to do that ?


I think so man the tactics he used to try to capture Osama were weak and obviously not the best, G.B. is very resourceful, but you are right nobody really knows.
[/quote]

I really doubt that Bush is in kahoots with bin Laden.
The military's chain of command and bureaucracy are the reason why Osama wasn't caught. I think we did have him cornered in Tora Bora, but the decision was made (at level below Oval Office) to outsource Afghani troops instead of using our rangers and Afghani troops were bought with bin Laden's money.


----------



## Guest (Dec 28, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Source?


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> I don't understand why Bush would be involved.
> 
> If Musharraf wanted to take out Bhutto, he certainly wouldn't need Bush's help. And Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack, do you really think Bush would outsource Al-Qaida to do that ?


I think so man the tactics he used to try to capture Osama were weak and obviously not the best, G.B. is very resourceful, but you are right nobody really knows.
[/quote]

*I really doubt that Bush is in kahoots with bin Laden.
The military's chain of command and bureaucracy are the reason why Osama wasn't caught. I think we did have him cornered in Tora Bora, but the decision was made (at level below Oval Office) to outsource Afghani troops instead of using our rangers and Afghani troops were bought with bin Laden's money.*
[/quote]

Exactly but that I believe is something he was very much involved in. Planned to say so that he did escape, I know first hand, I was there and so where some of my buddies and we kept getting the response that it was coming down from G.B. If you ever go to the desert, (god forbid you go over bullshit like this or some of the bullshit in the past) you will see Bin laden on allot of the buildings and things we use out there. Wonder where all that money is going?...


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Source?
[/quote]

Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, *the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists.* It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. Ignorant BLIND mofo's.

there you go.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Man, badfish you really don't know your politics. First of all bhutto was even more adamant about killing off the terrorists and ridding her country of islamic radicals. Her return was partly engineered by the US and it was the US that convinced Musharraf to let her back in. The terrorist wanted to kill her off even more then Musharraf b/c she is more "western friendly". She went to two American schools have lived in England for a while. They saw that if she won, she not only had the backing of the people, but that her election was a step towards legit democracy. Face it, if Bhutto won, it would HELP bush more then keeping Musharraf in power. He already stepped down as head of the military wing.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

From what Ive read, there are a lot of people that wanted her dead for various reasons. Bush supports Musharraf and his fight against terrorism since the 9/11 attacks so if people believe that it was Mush that did it then why wouldnt the US support him. According to documents, since the 90's we have sent over 20 billion in support to Pakistan, over 18 bllion has gone to the militray and not the civilization and government. So who runs the military? Mush, so we are in heavey support of him and his military. Al-Qaeda has admitted to the assassination, but skeptics believe that this is not a "typical" AQ attack. AQ is noted for there random mass killings ala London and NY. To single out a political leader is something that they are not known for doing. There are a lot of evidence that supports US aid in the 9/11 bombing and AQ admitted to that attack, whats the difference between that situation and the one in Pakistan if the US had a role in the attack. AQ was Bushes scapegoat in 9/11 and may very well be one for this incident.. But who knows?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

face2006 said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.
[/quote]

Who's Suddan?


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Newyear said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.
[/quote]

Who's Suddan?
[/quote]

Suddam, ex-president of Iraq......


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Oh, Saddam. Gotcha.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

OK. Im back for the LAST time. I got a great one for you. Let me show you how much i DONT KNOW about the BS and THIS Government! LOL. GWB was part of the plan on the 9-11 attack on the twin towers! Figure that one out!!! NOW IM DONE. BURROS!!!







DO THE RESEARCH!

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Not this bullshit again.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

baddfish said:


> OK. Im back for the LAST time. I got a great one for you. Let me show you how much i DONT KNOW about the BS and THIS Government! LOL. GWB was part of the plan on the 9-11 attack on the twin towers! Figure that one out!!! NOW IM DONE. BURROS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Aside from your great sources(sarcasm), aren't you forgetting this thread is about bhutto and bush's link to her murder? I still don't how you've backed anything up.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

baddfish said:


> OK. Im back for the LAST time. I got a great one for you. Let me show you how much i DONT KNOW about the BS and THIS Government! LOL. GWB was part of the plan on the 9-11 attack on the twin towers! Figure that one out!!! NOW IM DONE. BURROS!!!


in the face of advanced logic and superb articulation like this al one can do is give up all argument.



> From what Ive read, there are a lot of people that wanted her dead for various reasons. Bush supports Musharraf and his fight against terrorism since the 9/11 attacks so if people believe that it was Mush that did it then why wouldnt the US support him. According to documents, since the 90's we have sent over 20 billion in support to Pakistan, over 18 bllion has gone to the militray and not the civilization and government. So who runs the military? Mush, so we are in heavey support of him and his military. Al-Qaeda has admitted to the assassination, but skeptics believe that this is not a "typical" AQ attack. AQ is noted for there random mass killings ala London and NY. To single out a political leader is something that they are not known for doing. T*here are a lot of evidence that supports US aid in the 9/11 bombing* and AQ admitted to that attack, whats the difference between that situation and the one in Pakistan if the US had a role in the attack. AQ was Bushes scapegoat in 9/11 and may very well be one for this incident.. But who knows?


if there is show some. and no conspiracy sites, but credible evidence. i'd love to see proof that an entire government would plan, implement, and coverup any involement in an attack that would have required thousands of manhours to pull off. i'd love to see OUR government do anything that efficiently.



> don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. *There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.*


does this make any sense to you? what does this mean?


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

In a letter months ago, she wrote that if she were to die of an assisination, Mushareff was to blame.

I thought he would do it too.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Dawgz said:


> In a letter months ago, she wrote that if she were to die of an assisination, Mushareff was to blame.
> 
> I thought he would do it too.


I believe that you've misinterpreted. I'm pretty sure that the implication was that he was responsible because he didn't provide proper security, not that he ordered the code red.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Al-Qaeda spokespeople are reportedly taking credit.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/27/...=rss_topstories


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

mdrs said:


> OK. Im back for the LAST time. I got a great one for you. Let me show you how much i DONT KNOW about the BS and THIS Government! LOL. GWB was part of the plan on the 9-11 attack on the twin towers! Figure that one out!!! NOW IM DONE. BURROS!!!


in the face of advanced logic and superb articulation like this al one can do is give up all argument.



> From what Ive read, there are a lot of people that wanted her dead for various reasons. Bush supports Musharraf and his fight against terrorism since the 9/11 attacks so if people believe that it was Mush that did it then why wouldnt the US support him. According to documents, since the 90's we have sent over 20 billion in support to Pakistan, over 18 bllion has gone to the militray and not the civilization and government. So who runs the military? Mush, so we are in heavey support of him and his military. Al-Qaeda has admitted to the assassination, but skeptics believe that this is not a "typical" AQ attack. AQ is noted for there random mass killings ala London and NY. To single out a political leader is something that they are not known for doing. T*here are a lot of evidence that supports US aid in the 9/11 bombing* and AQ admitted to that attack, whats the difference between that situation and the one in Pakistan if the US had a role in the attack. AQ was Bushes scapegoat in 9/11 and may very well be one for this incident.. But who knows?


*if there is show some. and no conspiracy sites, but credible evidence. i'd love to see proof that an entire government would plan, implement, and coverup any involement in an attack that would have required thousands of manhours to pull off. *i'd love to see OUR government do anything that efficiently.



> don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. *There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.*


does this make any sense to you? what does this mean?
[/quote]

Im not going to go through all this again. Look on the internet and you will find a lot of evidence that are not on any "conspiracy sites." Thousands of man hours is your reason why it didnt happen? You act like they planned to do this overnight. How about this, on the flip side, give me some proof that our government didnt have involvement.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Im not going to go through all this again. Look on the internet and you will find a lot of evidence that are not on any "conspiracy sites." Thousands of man hours is your reason why it didnt happen? You act like they planned to do this overnight. How about this, on the flip side, give me some proof that our government didnt have involvement.


i LOVE it when people argue this way. i hear "i'm not doing this, or look on the internet you will find a lot of evidence" but without any data to back it up. right after steadfastly REFUSING to provide any data to back up your "informed" opinion, you ask ME to prove that the accepted view is accurate. i'm on the side of the VAST majority, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove a view shared by less than 15% of Americans, not me. if you won't do so, then drop it.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

First, I didnt want to get into it because this is not the right thread to do it and will derail this thread. Second, I dont need to prove or explain anything to you, believe what you want. Just because your on the "vast majority" does not make you right.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)




----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

8o8P said:


> OK. Im back for the LAST time. I got a great one for you. Let me show you how much i DONT KNOW about the BS and THIS Government! LOL. GWB was part of the plan on the 9-11 attack on the twin towers! Figure that one out!!! NOW IM DONE. BURROS!!!


in the face of advanced logic and superb articulation like this al one can do is give up all argument.



> From what Ive read, there are a lot of people that wanted her dead for various reasons. Bush supports Musharraf and his fight against terrorism since the 9/11 attacks so if people believe that it was Mush that did it then why wouldnt the US support him. According to documents, since the 90's we have sent over 20 billion in support to Pakistan, over 18 bllion has gone to the militray and not the civilization and government. So who runs the military? Mush, so we are in heavey support of him and his military. Al-Qaeda has admitted to the assassination, but skeptics believe that this is not a "typical" AQ attack. AQ is noted for there random mass killings ala London and NY. To single out a political leader is something that they are not known for doing. T*here are a lot of evidence that supports US aid in the 9/11 bombing* and AQ admitted to that attack, whats the difference between that situation and the one in Pakistan if the US had a role in the attack. AQ was Bushes scapegoat in 9/11 and may very well be one for this incident.. But who knows?


*if there is show some. and no conspiracy sites, but credible evidence. i'd love to see proof that an entire government would plan, implement, and coverup any involement in an attack that would have required thousands of manhours to pull off. *i'd love to see OUR government do anything that efficiently.



> don't think you will get a response from him, unless you pm him. *There is more to the matter then what we have infront of us. That in no way is to assume badfish does know his politic's. Suddan went to school and was trained in the U.S. To assume that she would have done this or that is not accurrate.*


does this make any sense to you? what does this mean?
[/quote]

Im not going to go through all this again. Look on the internet and you will find a lot of evidence that are not on any "conspiracy sites." Thousands of man hours is your reason why it didnt happen? You act like they planned to do this overnight. How about this, on the flip side, give me some proof that our government didnt have involvement.
[/quote]

Which credible sites contain the evidence ?


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

im so staying out of this one...just read first 3 pages. took me days to click on this thread because i knew it would get heated instead of just interesting reporting.

and by G.B. are we talking about great britan or george bush?


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

cliff notes anyone?


----------



## Guest (Dec 29, 2007)

face2006 said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Source?
[/quote]

Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, *the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists.* It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. Ignorant BLIND mofo's.

there you go.
[/quote]

SOURCE?


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Jewelz. At this point you seem to be the only one willing or at least trying to see some reason. There is just SO much out there to be known about this government. Did you know that as we speak, the gov is trying to "cut out" our internet access? Can you believe that? Probably not. They're starting to see more and more of their "crap" coming out into the open. If you think they cant accomplish this, think again. Unfortunately, right now this government can do whatever the FUK they want AND get away with it. They've got their FOLLOWERS right where they want them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Source?
[/quote]

Not only do i think GWB had something to do with it. I believe he deserves ALL the credit! YUP, another assassination made to appear to be done by "extremists". Al Qaeda, I'm sure(?). The current "president" Pervez Musharref is really a military dictator. He agreed (under intense U.S. pressure) to take off the military uniform and replace it with a suit in order to appear like a legitimate leader. Bhutto, if elected, would have told the U.S. to stay THE FUK out of Pakistan's affairs. Elections are next month for them. When she arrived recently to Pakistan an attempt was made on her life, but she survived. 150 people were killed. How did this "lone" assassin get so close to her after that first attempt a couple of months ago? Remember, *the CIA has something called "false flag" operations where they commit acts of terror and then blame it on a group or individual they consider a "rogue". They did it during the 50s and 60s (look up "Operation Gladio") in Europe and then blamed it on the communists.* It's all documented and found to be true. People need to STOP being SHEEPLE. Take back whats RIGHTFULLY yours. Ignorant BLIND mofo's.

there you go.
[/quote]

*SOURCE?*[/quote]

Supply & Demand Chain Executive


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

06 C6 LS2 said:


> cliff notes anyone?


Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. She died from a skull fracture attributed to her sun roof. al-Qaeda is allegedly claiming responsibility, but some people want to blame this on Bush or totally on Pervez Musharraf, when the premortem e-mail that Bhutto sent out placed blame on Musharraf, but only to the extent where he didn't give her proper protection from assassins.


----------



## the_skdster (Aug 15, 2006)

Puff said:


> if anyone is was Musharif. that guy is slimy as hell.* he's turning in to a poor man's Saddam*.lol


Now that is funny. Very funny indeed.


----------



## ZOSICK (May 25, 2005)

Newyear said:


> cliff notes anyone?


Bhutto was assassinated yesterday. She died from a skull fracture attributed to her sun roof. al-Qaeda is allegedly claiming responsibility, but some people want to blame this on Bush or totally on Pervez Musharraf, when the premortem e-mail that Bhutto sent out placed blame on Musharraf, but only to the extent where he didn't give her proper protection from assassins.
[/quote]

wow, thanks.









the less reading the better, I always say.


----------



## Trigga (Jul 1, 2006)

Puff said:


> Why G.B?
> 
> I know he's friends with Musharef but Bhutto was trying to install a democracy.


 exactly danny. GW had nothing to do with this. if anyone is was Musharif. that guy is slimy as hell. he's turning in to a poor man's Saddam.lol

but seriously. i came home last night at like 4 or 4:30am and this was on the news, but they said that Bhutto had made it away from the blast area before the bomb hit. i woke up this morning to headlines that she is dead and was thinking that ANOTHER assassination attempt had been made right after the other one.

i kind of doubt that it was the "terrorists". *i really do think it's musharif's cronies. he didnt want her even running in these elections, and the whole world knew it. *but then you ask the question...would he really be that dumb to off her when ppl know how much he disliked her? it would seem a bit obvious. maybe it was indeed the terrorists, or maybe it was another person running in the election (if there is even anyone else.lol) trying to frame musharif so that he can take over...something more sinister than usual is brewing over there.
[/quote]
exactly what i think. wanted her out of the way


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Yo, everybody! Almost 2008! Next year will be a big year in many ways. Wait and see. Hey, has anybody heard about Bush and Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of England) being banned by the Church of the Nativity. The Church of the Nativity is the supposed birthplace of Jesus and under the direction of the Greek Orthodox Church. Why? Because (and I quote), "...their entry into the Church will tarnish it as their hands are covered in the blood of the innocent.....They are war criminals and murderers of children, therefore, the Church of the Nativity decided to ban them access into the Holy Shrine forever." I'm not really into this church, but now I know they can think for themselves unlike churches here who follow the party line. They probably look at pictures of innocent civilians killed in Iraq that the newspapers here don't show. According to "our" news media, when we raid an "enemy stronghold" no civilians are killed. Only "insurgents, terrorists, militants, criminals, foreign fighters, jihadists, muslim extremists, Islamo-fascists, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Where do you suppose all the civilians are? Are they somewhere in another country waiting patiently while Bush & Co. rid their country of all "evildoers"? OR.......are they being killed and THEN designated as the "enemy"? Even if they're five years old. WHAT A COUNTRY!!!


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

^ Agreed.. Hate to say it but Rosie was right, our US forces are the "terrorists" Imagine as your just chilling at your computer reading this thread and people barged into your home dragged you out into the street and killed you in cold blood... They would be terrorists.


----------



## Guest (Dec 30, 2007)

Moderators, feel freee to remove these pics if they are too graphic. 
These were taken shortly after the blast.
I just wanted to show just how horrible it is when a bomb goes off in a crowd of people.

The mainstream media refuses to show the actual result of a bomb, making the events seem routine and inconsequential.









.








.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

it is quite humbling to see people dead where they lay. 
i think more and more people go online for more in depth news. its obvious news is a ratings whore, and most of us know theres more to see and read behind each story. those pics speak volumes of how much can be left out.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Coincidents. Guess what. Elections in Pakistan postponed. HMMMMMMM!









Another thing. A little fire that burned Vice-president Cheney's office may have burned critical documents necessary to prosecute Bush and Cheney (among others). We'll see in the near future. I just read that on the Internet and haven't had the opportunity to substantiate or give validity to these serious charges. I saw Cheney on TV with some of the firefighters. He was in the background and had this big smile on his face. Almost, as if he was relieved and got away with something. He kept looking around with a rather guilty look. When youngsters, my kids looked like that when they did something wrong. I can spot it a mile away. Later!!!


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Bullsnake said:


> Moderators, feel freee to remove these pics if they are too graphic.
> These were taken shortly after the blast.
> I just wanted to show just how horrible it is when a bomb goes off in a crowd of people.
> 
> ...


I think its more that its too graphic to show on mainstream television. I saw those pics in newspapers though.


----------



## boozehound420 (Apr 18, 2005)

PacmanXSA said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

*Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....*

Pac
[/quote]
And india would turn there country into a glass crater if the taliban or alquida got control and even threatend the use of them. Its not a big deal, indias got it under control. M.A.D


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

boozehound420 said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

*Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....*

Pac
[/quote]
And india would turn there country into a glass crater if the taliban or alquida got control and even threatend the use of them. Its not a big deal, indias got it under control. M.A.D
[/quote]

not exactly how nuclear politics work. but i'm rather sure you were kidding.


----------



## boozehound420 (Apr 18, 2005)

mdrs said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

*Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....*

Pac
[/quote]
And india would turn there country into a glass crater if the taliban or alquida got control and even threatend the use of them. Its not a big deal, indias got it under control. M.A.D
[/quote]

not exactly how nuclear politics work. but i'm rather sure you were kidding.
[/quote]

m.a.d
Mutual assured destruction. Thats what prevents nukes from being used.


----------



## scent troll (Apr 4, 2005)

a nation with a nuke is usually a threat only, not certain doom. its the individual or the group with a nuke and certain nations obtaining nuclear power would certainly allow this to happen. i dont expect iran, or pakistan or north korea to use nuclear bombs. i expect a long list of red flags and missing equipment and so called security blind spots to conviniently place a nuke in some fanatics hand. 
perhaps its a matter of time unless we unite under a level headed nations pact (and scrap that silly UN)


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

boozehound420 said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

*Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....*

Pac
[/quote]
And india would turn there country into a glass crater if the taliban or alquida got control and even threatend the use of them. Its not a big deal, indias got it under control. M.A.D
[/quote]

not exactly how nuclear politics work. but i'm rather sure you were kidding.
[/quote]

m.a.d
Mutual assured destruction. Thats what prevents nukes from being used.
[/quote]

just out of curiosity, how do you deter a suicide bomber? i mean, the middle east seems to have an ample supply of them so how do you deter one who is willing to destroy himself?


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

mdrs said:


> fucked just like the whole nation, but need not worry we have imported about 50% of them so we are capable of resupplying the land if all hell breaks loose.


You're brilliant...

Seriously, this is huge worldwide news. If the Taliban/Al-Qaeda are able to use this to their advantage (ie unstable Pakistan), they can gain serious groud. This event cannot delay the election and cannot stifle the installation of the democratic process.

*Remember, Pakistan controls nuclear weapons....*

Pac
[/quote]
And india would turn there country into a glass crater if the taliban or alquida got control and even threatend the use of them. Its not a big deal, indias got it under control. M.A.D
[/quote]

not exactly how nuclear politics work. but i'm rather sure you were kidding.
[/quote]

m.a.d
Mutual assured destruction. Thats what prevents nukes from being used.
[/quote]

just out of curiosity, how do you deter a suicide bomber? i mean, the middle east seems to have an ample supply of them so how do you deter one who is willing to destroy himself?
[/quote]

By changing his belief. The sad thing is that humans of all sorts do just that. We seperate ourselves into little groups and differences. This is our true downfall as it makes us seperate and different and this is what ego is built on then war follows. It kills me that.......well...........lol alot of things. I'll just say this.

I don't believe in anything, I just know some things are more certain than others.


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

baddfish said:


> Yo, everybody! Almost 2008! Next year will be a big year in many ways. Wait and see. Hey, has anybody heard about Bush and Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of England) being banned by the Church of the Nativity. The Church of the Nativity is the supposed birthplace of Jesus and under the direction of the Greek Orthodox Church. Why? Because (and I quote), "...their entry into the Church will tarnish it as their hands are covered in the blood of the innocent.....They are war criminals and murderers of children, therefore, the Church of the Nativity decided to ban them access into the Holy Shrine forever." I'm not really into this church, but now I know they can think for themselves unlike churches here who follow the party line. They probably look at pictures of innocent civilians killed in Iraq that the newspapers here don't show. According to "our" news media, when we raid an "enemy stronghold" no civilians are killed. Only "insurgents, terrorists, militants, criminals, foreign fighters, jihadists, muslim extremists, Islamo-fascists, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Where do you suppose all the civilians are? Are they somewhere in another country waiting patiently while Bush & Co. rid their country of all "evildoers"? OR.......are they being killed and THEN designated as the "enemy"? Even if they're five years old. WHAT A COUNTRY!!!


Actually it is jointly administered by the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic Churches...I wonder if they decided this before or after this year's holiday melee:

Priests Brawl at Jesus' Birthplace

As far as thinking for themselves, you might want to look into the history of those churches and their presence there...they have their own agenda just like everybody else.

"Your" news media must me different than mine...I see articles than not only mention, but focus on civilian casualties just as much and usually more. The media is hardly Pro-Bush.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Yo, everybody! Almost 2008! Next year will be a big year in many ways. Wait and see. Hey, has anybody heard about Bush and Tony Blair (former Prime Minister of England) being banned by the Church of the Nativity. The Church of the Nativity is the supposed birthplace of Jesus and under the direction of the Greek Orthodox Church. Why? Because (and I quote), "...their entry into the Church will tarnish it as their hands are covered in the blood of the innocent.....They are war criminals and murderers of children, therefore, the Church of the Nativity decided to ban them access into the Holy Shrine forever." I'm not really into this church, but now I know they can think for themselves unlike churches here who follow the party line. They probably look at pictures of innocent civilians killed in Iraq that the newspapers here don't show. According to "our" news media, when we raid an "enemy stronghold" no civilians are killed. Only "insurgents, terrorists, militants, criminals, foreign fighters, jihadists, muslim extremists, Islamo-fascists, etc., etc., etc. The list goes on. Where do you suppose all the civilians are? Are they somewhere in another country waiting patiently while Bush & Co. rid their country of all "evildoers"? OR.......are they being killed and THEN designated as the "enemy"? Even if they're five years old. WHAT A COUNTRY!!!


source???? stop ignoring me!!!!














give me the source? lol.... how we are blind or ignorant


----------

