russia was never really a proper enemy of pakistan, the cold war created unique circumstances which meant there was some bad blood but time has passed and both nations realise the need for co-operation is greater than anything else.
most of these attacks and bombs have not verifiable and traceable perpetrator, in other words wheres the detailed investigation that backs your claims up?
so i cant give credence to your theory that its "muslims killing muslims" or "pent up rage" - its just your theory. these societies never...
this is absurd logic.
the US insisting on bringing war into these countries and therefore is morally responsible for the consequences of the war they created in these nations.
war by its very nature will bring more violence and bloodshed, and the US opened the floodgates. there is also...
so what if russia is protecting its interests, its ONLY protecting its interests and they are required to do so for the russian people.
this is altogether different to pushing civil strife and chaos in ANOTHER nation, insisting on regime change, implementing imperialism through fake...
i think a major difference is that pakistan is plunged into a western "war on terror" and being forced to destabilise itself to appease the west.
however i dont want to make excuses for these guys, they probably would do no better even if there was no WoT.
china and russia are very concerned about their soft under bellies which seem to be islamic based separatist movements, even china who is a friend of pakistan values its stability more than partnership with pakistan which is the right thing to do.
unfortunately this seems to implicate...
one could equally ask what is behinds america's stance in syria?
they push civil war and bloodshed onto people only to their detriment, but they insist its based on human concerns, why do people still allow the us to get away with this BS?
just look at libya, once a prosperous country is...
The us is not a superpower for nothing, it's planned the destruction of Pakistan well.
As soon as the us landed in Afghanistan they ignited a self fulfilling prophecy by forcing Pakistan to engage in actions/policies that would destabilise itself.
The past 4/5 years have seen the fruits of...
Britain can claim a distinct ancient history because there is no doubt that it belongs to the modern British nation.
Clearly India cannot do the same, there was never a comparable and distinct entity known as Britain, being at the centre of Asian land mass means that no single group can claim...
My identity crisis? child you are mistaken, one mention of the word race and you project your insecurities to the whole forum, we can surely talk about race without feeling insecure can't we?:)
And that's equally true for you, if not more.
There was no ancient India, there's never been a contiguous India until it was created, there was no ancient Indian identity, you only had what tribe you belonged to, your claim is spurious based on a loose factoid of someone mentioning India...
Maybe India named itself wrongly, a claim does not give you automatic strength of argument, I often wonder how a Tamil relates to ivc.
Secondly, what you wrote above depends on believing on some form of contiguous Indian nation state, we all know that's untrue, modern day India does not...
Check these empires out, most were centred around a distinct people's.
With the ivc that was even more true.
List of largest empires - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dude, so freaking what? :)
You think the word Hindu scares me?
You think being Hindu gives you superior claims to ivc even though it's centered in Pakistan?
You think being Muslim means you cannot have an ancient past?
Fitting old civilisations into modern nation states in somewhere like...