Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/28/07 03:57 AM, JudgeDredd wrote: Listen. If it goes down ^THAT badly then Musharraf is just as likely to use them on his own people, or India for eternal posterity.

I mean for the West, in general. Of course the region is at serious risk, that's what I was mentioning before, but worst case scenario for the US would be that the civil unrest in the region would allow for nuclear material to go missing.

At 12/28/07 03:53 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: JUST because you're trying to pretend that the US supporting Musharraf is somehow worse than simply doing nothing.

No pretending needed. Hindsight is 20-20. The rest will history..

Musharaf is a western-friendly, secular leader who..

..who will as likely reside over a Pakistan civil-war, than step down.

Your goal is to demonize the US even further. You've made this clear.

Your goal is to continually exaggerate the terrorist threat. Then throw nukes into the issue if that's not enough of an agrument.

You believe it's your right to point question to Musharaf's involvement in Bhutto's death, but if anyone else does that then it's a 'wack-job conspiracy'.

Double standards indeed!

At 12/28/07 04:31 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/28/07 03:53 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: JUST because you're trying to pretend that the US supporting Musharraf is somehow worse than simply doing nothing.

No pretending needed.

No, that's exactly what you're doing, you're pretending.

Hindsight is 20-20. The rest will history..

And the funny thing is that your "hindsight" will probably be just as tainted by your bias as your interpretation of the current events.

You WANT the US to be the bad guy, it's so intrinsic to your views that you can't shake it. Admit it.

Musharaf is a western-friendly, secular leader who..

..who will as likely reside over a Pakistan civil-war, than step down.

Worst case scenario is that either there is a civil war that ends up with a coup in which Islamists take over, or Musharraf rejects the world (and the US) and is shown to have interfered with the elections in Pakistan and refuses to abide by them even though the US has told him to hold free and fair elections.

Best case scenario is that Bhutto's party gets a majority, they appoint a PM, and power sharing between Musharraf and the PPP goes smoothly and Musharraf gets phased out of power over time.

Your goal is to demonize the US even further. You've made this clear.

Your goal is to continually exaggerate the terrorist threat.

Your goal is to continually ignore the terrorist threat and pretend that terrorists - the people who have been calling for Bhutto's death for a long time - some how don't exist or pose no threat. Never mind, you know, the fact the terrorists have been killing these people in Pakistan for years, and are most likely the people who killed Bhutto given the fact that she made it clear she wanted to fight them!

The funny thing is, you apparently supported Bhutto. Or at least you're pretending you did right now to give an illusion of credibility to your argument. However, you ignore the fact that not only was Bhutto pro-US, but she was also just as adamant about identifying terrorists as a threat, and determined to defeat them as the US is. Her policies went hand-in-hand with US goals in Pakistan.

Thus her biggest enemy was obviously the terrorists. Yet, now you conveniently pretend that they have no influence at all in this situation, even though she herself made the war on terror probably her highest priority.

Then throw nukes into the issue if that's not enough of an agrument.

Lol, and you just pretend that nukes have no importance at all.

This is funny,

You believe it's your right to point question to Musharaf's involvement in Bhutto's death, but if anyone else does that then it's a 'wack-job conspiracy'.

I said I was undecided because I don't want to claim with 100% confidence who was responsible until some more information becomes available. I believe that terrorists were responsible, and not the Musharraf government, but I'm keeping an open mind because the situation is a more complicated than most care to see.

You on the other hand, you leapt at the opportunity to bash the US. You giddily began to exploit this issue to for your own political agenda, which has absolutely nothing to do with Pakistan, but has everything to do with your larger, all-encompassing desire to attack the US. As I said before, you're exploiting Bhutto's death in order to perpetuate your bias, which is sick and pathetic.

If Musharraf is proved to be responsible then I will be fucking angry and my perception of the issue with change.

You know why that is? Because I'm balancing two logical dualities right now. Condemning Musharraf and turning our back the Pakistani government will not only be a betrayal given the fact they have been a strong ally, but because this could destabilize their government, and lead to the break up of their military forces, which would compromise the security of their nuclear arsenal.

Nukes on the loose is a threat that TRANSCENDS anything that you are identifying, and you know it. You just don't want to accept it because once nukes come into the equation, your entire argument becomes thoroughly moot.

However, if it turns out that Musharraf was complicit in this attack, then the US has tough decisions to make, and if power could be transferred peacefully to an elected government, then this would be swell. However, we couldn't just withdraw all support (some of which includes support to safely store and guard nuclear weapons). That would be far worse.

At 12/28/07 04:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: As I said before, you're exploiting Bhutto's death in order to perpetuate your bias, which is sick and pathetic.

^You're the sickest fuck on NG for even suggesting that.

You throw more shit the more you get cornered.

At 12/28/07 05:35 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/28/07 04:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: As I said before, you're exploiting Bhutto's death in order to perpetuate your bias, which is sick and pathetic.

^You're the sickest fuck on NG for even suggesting that.

Nope, and now you're even more sick for continuing to use it for personal biases as well.

You throw more shit the more you get cornered.

Lol I got cornered?

Seems like you got cornered and now you're trying to save face.

Don't look now boys, but the threat is real.

I'm just glad it's happening on the other side of the planet, if it had to happen at all. That at least gives Western interests a geographical buffer if, Heaven forbid, nuclear winter should dawn over Pakistan in the near future.

It would take something of this magnitude for individuals to really cast their lot and forsake nuclear non-proliferation. I do n't even want to think about it.

Is there any doubt about Musharraf's "love" to lead his people into as bright a future as possible? Does he believe in "whatever means necessary", or does he have faith that Pakistan can progress without him?

Tough questions.

At 12/28/07 05:58 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Does he believe in "whatever means necessary", or does he have faith that Pakistan can progress without him?

Tough questions.

Likewise, is anyone caught trying to overthrow Musharraf an insurgant (terrorist) or a freedom fighter?

At 12/28/07 06:21 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/28/07 05:58 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Does he believe in "whatever means necessary", or does he have faith that Pakistan can progress without him?

Tough questions.

Likewise, is anyone caught trying to overthrow Musharraf an insurgant (terrorist) or a freedom fighter?

They would be a terrorist, if their tactics of targetting Musharraf's supporters weren't already met with staunch condemnation.

It takes more than capturing the capital to overthrow a regime that respresents a good percentage of the populace.

I'm wearing kid gloves on this til the smokes settles.

At 12/28/07 02:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: He is, because he is a much better than the alternative. He's the lesser of two (maybe ten) evils. He has been mostly supportive on the war of terror, has handed over or killed several Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and he is a strong leader that is secular in nature.

Pakistan has nukes, and Musharraf is/was capable of keeping them under control and preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists.

You know, he is arresting and torturing oppositional leaders, as well as sometimes killing them (didn't he kill a supreme court judge some weeks ago?). That IS terrorism. The nukes ARE in the hands of terrorists, namely Musharraf.

At 12/28/07 07:47 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

You know, he is arresting and torturing oppositional leaders, as well as sometimes killing them (didn't he kill a supreme court judge some weeks ago?). That IS terrorism. The nukes ARE in the hands of terrorists, namely Musharraf.

Typical left wing thinking: Fight Al Qeada and condemn your allies.

Excellent strategy.

At 12/27/07 11:44 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 12/27/07 11:29 PM, LadyGrace wrote: One's in General, one is an "RIP" thread in Politics, and then there's mine, which is a discussion on the state of America and world government, which, obviously, you're not contributing to. Therefore, suck my balls and get the fuck out of the politics forum if it's too intimidating for you.

The RIP thread has already started into this, and a better solution would be to post in that thread and steer the topic in that direction. Instead you decided to make another thread still on the exact same topic, but not within the thread.

What did you contribute? At least the guy in the RIP thread came up with the words "RIP Pakistan democracy." To be truthful, you did less than he. Get out of the politics forum if you don't want to actually write anything.

This is not intimidating, but blatantly out of place.

Ok,what was the point of blasting the thread?we got a serious happening in the world,and all YOU care about is if it's well placed in a forum.If that really is the case,you need your priorities reset.

At 12/28/07 07:47 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/28/07 02:49 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: He is, because he is a much better than the alternative. He's the lesser of two (maybe ten) evils. He has been mostly supportive on the war of terror, has handed over or killed several Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, and he is a strong leader that is secular in nature.

Pakistan has nukes, and Musharraf is/was capable of keeping them under control and preventing them from falling into the hands of terrorists.

You know, he is arresting and torturing oppositional leaders

1) Prove that he is arresting them simply because they are opposition leaders
2) Prove that he is torturing them, or having them tortured.

as well as sometimes killing them (didn't he kill a supreme court judge some weeks ago?)

No.

That IS terrorism.

No it's not.

The nukes ARE in the hands of terrorists, namely Musharraf.

I really can't get over how absurd an idea that is.

You actually think that nukes in the hands of a secular, nationalist leader is equally or more concerning than if those nukes got into the hands of the terrorists in Pakistan, i.e. the people who supported and harbored terrorists who attacked not only the US, but several other countries in the last few decades?

I don't even think you do, I just think you want to pretend that this is true because it helps you make a case where one otherwise couldn't exist.

Nukes in the hands of Musharraf are better than nukes in the hands of the Islamists in Pakistan, period.

At 12/29/07 12:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Tell me, do you foresee a civil war?

If so, do you think that Iran, Israel and the US will get involved?

At 12/29/07 03:19 AM, public-enemy1 wrote:

At 12/29/07 12:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Tell me, do you foresee a civil war?

Maybe.

If so, do you think that Iran, Israel and the US will get involved?

The US, because the US would have to get involved.

Iran and Israel, no.

And to ward of the inevitably idiotic criticism from JudgeDredd... it should be known that if the US DIDN'T get involved in the civil war, and didn't try to prevent it from getting worse, people like Judge would be saying "OH SO YOU FUCK IT UP THEN YOU LEAVE, OMG WHY DOESN'T AMERICA DO SOMETHING!?!?!"

At 12/29/07 12:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 1) Prove that he is arresting them simply because they are opposition leaders

Pffft.. You don't even know how stupid you sound!

"Pakistan's government asserted Friday that al-Qaida was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and offered the transcript of a conversation as proof."

Link.

A lot of al-Qaida members are going to get themselves killed, and not just by themselves and by US military anymore. They pretty much pissed off an entire country that they supposedly support.

Now, this could be misinformation on the government's part in order to get the world to oppose al-Qaida. But if it is true, which seems likely, I don't doubt you're going to see a US military strike very soon. And this time, it won't be protested by the Pakistani government.

At 12/29/07 04:00 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/29/07 12:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 1) Prove that he is arresting them simply because they are opposition leaders

Pffft.. You don't even know how stupid you sound!

You sound like a wacked out conspiracy theorist considering you have no proof for anything you ever say, ever.

Your entire argument this whole time has been a joke.

At 12/29/07 04:03 AM, LadyGrace wrote: "Pakistan's government asserted Friday that al-Qaida was behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and offered the transcript of a conversation as proof."

Link.

And Al-Qaeda itself admitted to it.

A lot of al-Qaida members are going to get themselves killed

Um...

LOL, they apparently managed to kill Bhutto. A goal of theres which they obviously have no problem sacrificing their own lives to do.

If they DIDN'T kill her, and are afraid of being killed by Pakistanis, why did they admit that they killed her?

and not just by themselves and by US military anymore. They pretty much pissed off an entire country that they supposedly support.

Al-Qaeda supports Pakistan?

Interesting concept.

You mean... parts of Pakistan support Al Qaeda?

The funny thing is, several militant groups, including Al-Qaeda, threatened Bhutto with death. Some of those groups were homegrown and support Al-Qaeda.

You make no mention of that.

It's too inconvenient for you, it compromises your attempt at a conspiracy theory.

Now, this could be misinformation on the government's part in order to get the world to oppose al-Qaida.

Bhutto herself blamed Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the earlier attempts on her life.

Bhutto herself was afraid of a militant take over of Pakistan. Funny that you're saying someone killed her and blamed it on Al-Qaeda, in order to fight Al-Qaeda... even though she herself fought Al-Qaeda, and blamed them for attempts at her life.

Your argument holds no water.

But if it is true, which seems likely, I don't doubt you're going to see a US military strike very soon.

I am 100% certain there will be no military strike by the US any time soon in Pakistan. That would stir shit up.

You really have a funny little way of looking at things.

At 12/28/07 01:25 AM, bcdemon wrote: Sad stuff. But I find the human to human transfer of the H5N1 to be more compelling news.

Then create a topic on it! :)

Can we go into Pakistan and get Osama NOW please?

Talk about repeating mistakes.....

What happened? It's like we took a detour to Iraq and the admin lost all its teeth once they found out OBL was hiding in Pakistan.......

I'm tellin ya man, Al-Qaeda is doin a better job of hurting us because we stay over there.....

Now there's another destabilization to think about. Should just move in, get em, and get out. No nation building, no leftover responsabilities, no questionable "democratizing" missions....

At 12/30/07 04:38 AM, Imperator wrote: Can we go into Pakistan and get Osama NOW please?

Wow wow wow.

So now you're endorsing an invasion of Pakistan?

Talk about repeating mistakes.....

What happened? It's like we took a detour to Iraq and the admin lost all its teeth once they found out OBL was hiding in Pakistan.......

Yes, let's invade Pakistan, that's a grand idea. Let's destabilize a nuclear-armed country, and give the Islamists a good issue to rally around to justify a coup against the wester-friendly government.

Should just move in, get em, and get out.

Lol how is that going to work?

Do you think we know the exact area of Pakistan that Osama is hiding in (if he's even there)? We'd need to know exactly where he was, exactly who and what is defending him etc..

Do you think we could just magically enter a country, kill/capture someone, without causing an uproar? You actually think we could just mosey in and out with no conflict?

What if he's in the middle of a city? What if he is in Pakistan and we do find out where he is, that he's being harbored by a city filled with thousands and thousands of Pakistanis that would either fight our approach, or die in the process?

Chances are, if he is in Pakistan, he's in a tribal region where the populace support him and would violently confront any US presence there, no matter how short and precise we tried to make it. People would die, the US would be blamed for innocent death, and this would take away any validity for the pro-US, pro-western, secular politicians in Pakistan. Bhutto's party would have a hell of a hard time winning any elections.

Naivety.

A sad day for Pakistan, its very tragic to see this happen.

If Jack fucking Thompson says that video games caused this, then he is indeed, the most retarded person on Earth and everyone would be glad when he loses his bar license forever(if he didn't lose it yet).

At 12/29/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's too inconvenient for you, it compromises your attempt at a conspiracy theory.

lol wait... Did you just look at the symbol and confuse me for Dredd? Because I haven't claimed conspiracy theories. I have stated what I think will happen, but I haven't ravenously defended or opposed any argument anyone has put forth in this thread because, admittedly, I won't claim to know a lot about the situation.

Now, if this is just your retaliation against something I've said simply because I've posted a link and stated an opinion, you really are a dick.

At 12/30/07 08:09 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 12/29/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's too inconvenient for you, it compromises your attempt at a conspiracy theory.

lol wait... Did you just look at the symbol and confuse me for Dredd?

You're right, I'm sorry.

It was late.

I was going to send you a PM to apologize the next day when I noticed my mistake but I guess I forgot to.

Because I haven't claimed conspiracy theories. I have stated what I think will happen, but I haven't ravenously defended or opposed any argument anyone has put forth in this thread because, admittedly, I won't claim to know a lot about the situation.

I know, I know. But when I thought it was Judge saying that at first, it blended into his larger conspiracy theory in my mind so I pounced without noticing who I was pouncing on, lol.

I blame lack of sleep, but whatever it was a dumb move.

Now, if this is just your retaliation against something I've said simply because I've posted a link and stated an opinion, you really are a dick.

It's not. Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.

At 12/30/07 08:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.

That's what SHE said.

ba dum chish

At 12/30/07 08:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/30/07 08:09 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 12/29/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's too inconvenient for you, it compromises your attempt at a conspiracy theory.

lol wait... Did you just look at the symbol and confuse me for Dredd?

You're right, I'm sorry.

..i don't know, it did sound like a conspiracy to me. Either that, or my attempt to make you look foolish, which isn't any actual effort.

so I pounced without noticing who I was pouncing on, lol.

^Indicitive of American foreign policy as a matter of fact.

Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.

how tiny? (..but you've got a BIG car am i right!?)

At 12/30/07 10:41 PM, JudgeDredd wrote:

At 12/30/07 08:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/30/07 08:09 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 12/29/07 04:29 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's too inconvenient for you, it compromises your attempt at a conspiracy theory.

lol wait... Did you just look at the symbol and confuse me for Dredd?

You're right, I'm sorry.

..i don't know, it did sound like a conspiracy to me. Either that, or my attempt to make you look foolish, which isn't any actual effort.

Coming from you, that's just hilarious. Every time you open your mouth, and attempt to make a political observation, you just sound like some cracked out hippy. You epitomize foolishness.

Go back over this thread, read what you said. The little connections you were trying to make were so hilarious.

so I pounced without noticing who I was pouncing on, lol.

^Indicitive of American foreign policy as a matter of fact.

Lol, you just get dumber and dumber.

It's obvious that no matter what the US actually did, you'd find some way of freaking out and creating some pathetic emotional charade about it.

The fact that you actually found some way of blaming the US for Bhutto's death just makes it completely obvious that you're incapable of any honest, objective analysis of anything.

Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.

how tiny? (..but you've got a BIG car am i right!?)

Someone's jealous.

At 12/30/07 11:21 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Someone's jealous.

Nyuk-nyuk. MY lvl icon doesn't even look like hers.. and no confusin' me with EarFish either!

(..is it me or is there a LOT of 'Axes of Evil' icons on NG!)

At 12/30/07 09:20 AM, ForcedDj wrote: A sad day for Pakistan, its very tragic to see this happen.

If Jack fucking Thompson says that video games caused this, then he is indeed, the most retarded person on Earth and everyone would be glad when he loses his bar license forever(if he didn't lose it yet).

Not even Jack is stupid enough to believe/say that. No seriously as far as I can remember he has never even come close to the level of blaming terrorism on video games (although others (not him but other people) have suggested they could've learned to fly using MS flight sim).

Back on topic how would it damage our credibility if we go in there find and kill Osama and the Taliban without levelling the country then leave? Hasn't Bush already isolated a lot of people with 'your either with us or your against us'? Wouldn't it get rid of an annoying pest to Pakistan and maybe get them to like us more?

At 12/30/07 09:20 AM, ForcedDj wrote: A sad day for Pakistan, its very tragic to see this happen.

;
I really don't see it as being that "tragic" .
She had been in power a couple of times in the past & all I've ever heard about that is hushed up corruption scandle type accusations.
I think it would be great if this galvanizes the much larger group of moderate's into taking out the extremists .

With the present batch of scumbags in all of Canadian Politics which is almost everyone of them (we know for sure there's like 2 honorable men in Politics in Canada) I think it would be quite refreshing to have a bunch of them blown up on live TV.
Chances are though the only 2 we got that are any good would be standing in the blast zone

At 12/30/07 08:28 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: It's not. Yeah I'm a dick, but I'm not that big of a dick.

Let's hug it out! *huggles*