Lakhvi, a free man for now

[That Guy]

Get a life buddy, I'm not to contact any mod etc

Was just pointing out your inability to respond logically under the guise of troll allegations.

Your logic is really amazing tho, don't you use emoticons on whatsapp, Facebook or Twitter? Does that mean you're trolling on those platforms?

Btw, no one can pretend to be smarter, an oxymoron typical of your inputs..

Time and place, also topic. You spout "logic", but really, you don't even know what logic is, nor did you even use it in your original comment.

really, all your comments are meant to get a reaction out of people, nothing more.

Arre bhai, the government cannot order the media to toe government line. It is against the constitution and neither Canada nor USA can do such a thing. Organise press conference, disseminate press release, give statements - YES. Order around the media - NO. And how many media channels in US are controlled by White House?

They don't have to be ordered to tow government line, they'll do it regardless, simply because the government holds media funds in it's hand.

Godwin who?

Google it.

Afghanistan is now history. That is US presence in Afghanistan is history. Iraq has ISIS not Afghanistan. Afghans have Taliban who are attacking Pakistan and US seems least bothered.

Yes, Taliban has vowed their allegiance to ISIS. But by your logic, did US media report that much or speculate on that?

You think US gives a damn about Afghanistan and Afghan people? Unfortunately politics does not work that way. US were in Afghanistan for their own interests and as long as those interests are safe US does not care what goes on or who gets killed in Afghanistan.

There is already presence of Daesh in Afghanistan, and no the US is not abandoning Afghanistan completely, not after what happened in Iraq.

No, the taliban has NOT vowed it's allegence to ISIS, only some factions within the taliban has.

The US very much gives a damn about Afghanistan, as Afghanistan could again become a launching pad for attacks against US and it's allies.

You neither are informed of developments in Afghanistan and the region, nor do you understand how politics works. Don't pretend to be smarter than you actually are.

Pakistan does not have the option to do nothing. Why do you think Pakistan allowed US in the first place? The country that suffered the most because of US presence in Afghanistan is your country. There was no TTP before US invasion. Now Pakistan is the moset hated country for Taliban.

Pakistan has closed of the border in the past, seriously damaging US and Afghan efforts in Afghanistan. The last Bonn conference was considered a complete failure simply because Pakistan refused to participate.

Again, you don't even know what you're talking about.

Why do you think Pakistan made such terrible decisions if they really had a choice?

Pakistan made decision based on it's own interests, it chose to help the US for sanctions relief (which were placed on it after the nuclear tests).

Try to keep up with international politics, and don't make things up.[/quote][/quote]

From Pakistan's view anything that points out the culpability of Pakistanis in any terrorist activity is "exploiting for benefit".
That goes from Malala to Mumbai tragedy to London bombings to 9/11. Everything is either a conspiracy or "exploiting for benefit".

Malala is a hero in Pakistan, despite the small minority that hate her in the tribal region. Pakistan had nothing to do with 9/11, it was Afghanistan. I don't know much about the London bombings, so I won't say anything about that.

If you're going to post baseless allegations, at least do a bit of research.

On topic though : I am glad that Lakhvi is released. I am a votary of Pakistan going back to its old ways of Islam and Jihad. I believe it is the best way to ensure Pakistan's continued downfall.

Sure, whatever you say.

 

[ManavKalia]

Time and place, also topic. You spout "logic", but really, you don't even know what logic is, nor did you even use it in your original comment.

really, all your comments are meant to get a reaction out of people, nothing more.

Well if you don't see the logic in your own establishment allowing America using your soil to further it's own objectives, and thousands of your citizens being killed, in the process, which is more than the Indian citizens killed by your sponsored terrorism, then I guess from your lack of response to that, that you really don't have any answer to that logically.

If by getting a reaction from some people like you, it means posing an uncomfortable factual truth to them, then sure, why not?

Is there really any time and place for not using emoticons? Brainless arguments like this, uncover your true discomfort with the facts of my original comment, and I'm very happy that they do.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

That's why we ARRESTED the terrorist. That's why they're in jail. No court has allowed any bail for them till date.

Let me also be on record- My personal belief is that Sadhvi might have been involved but I have personal doubts about Col Purohit's involvement.



All have been jailed

from your link:

Swami Aseemanand - accused in three terror cases -- has been granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the Samjhauta Express blasts case. But with two other cases lodged against him, he cannot be released from Haryana's Ambala jail, where he is currently lodged. The charges against him include murder and sedition.

lemme remind you Probot who was behind of samjhota express where 60 Pakistani Passengers were burn to death in locked boggy..
Indian never provide any evidence and if they fell like they can go to International Criminal Court.. and good luck.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

lemme remind you Probot who was behind of samjhota express where 60 Pakistani Passengers were burn to death in locked boggy..
Indian never provide any evidence and if they fell like they can go to International Criminal Court.. and good luck.

You have no idea what you're talking about don't you?

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

You have no idea what you're talking about don't you?

just give a prove instead of crying. that shi tter is on bail.. Lakhvi is innocent.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

just give a prove instead of crying. that shi tter is on bail.. Lakhvi is innocent.

That's why Pak is called sponsor of terror.

 

[Sheikh Rauf]

That's why Pak is called sponsor of terror.

this is your daily crying motto of india.. and no one is buying this crap anymore.. #1 dangerous country for women. feed your poors and build toilets.

 

[Joeblow]

this is your dail crying motto of india.. and no one is buying this crap anymore.. #1 dangerous country for women. feed your poors and build toilets.

Forgot about our people, worry about keeping yours alive. If you were a functional literate, you'd know India is not even close to being the most dangerous place for women. The only difference is, unlike you, we don't expect them to show up 4 male witnesses to their rape.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

this is your dail crying motto of india.. and no one is buying this crap anymore.. #1 dangerous country for women. feed your poors and build toilets.

And which part of the world doesn't call you terror hub? Maybe you should do more for your own people who are getting killed as a side effect of Lakhvi type people's activities.

 

[That Guy]

Well if you don't see the logic in your own establishment allowing America using your soil to further it's own objectives, and thousands of your citizens being killed, in the process, which is more than the Indian citizens killed by your sponsored terrorism, then I guess from your lack of response to that, that you really don't have any answer to that logically.

Your observation is stupid, and simplistic. This topic has been debated to death, and I won't repeat myself for your own satisfaction. If you want answers to these questions, search the forum. You aren't the only one making such ridiculous observations

If by getting a reaction from some people like you, it means posing an uncomfortable factual truth to them, then sure, why not?

There is no factual truth about what you've said. Your comment is simply meant to gain a negative reaction by using disgusting methods.

Is there really any time and place for not using emoticons? Brainless arguments like this, uncover your true discomfort with the facts of my original comment, and I'm very happy that they do.

"Your mother is dead , India and Pakistan have engaged in a nuclear war"

There you go, a clear cut context. Even your slow self can't miss this hint. Also note, none of these are factual statements (at least the second two. The first one, I have no clue, in which case, I apologize in advance).

[Edit]: I changed one of the examples, because it was...SUPER insensitive. Unlike you, at least I try and not be a douche about tragedies.

 

[ManavKalia]

Your observation is stupid, and simplistic. This topic has been debated to death, and I won't repeat myself for your own satisfaction. If you want answers to these questions, search the forum. You aren't the only one making such ridiculous observations


There is no factual truth about what you've said. Your comment is simply meant to gain a negative reaction by using disgusting methods.


"Your mother is dead , India and Pakistan have engaged in a nuclear war"

There you go, a clear cut context. Even your slow self can't miss this hint. Also note, none of these are factual statements (at least the second two. The first one, I have no clue, in which case, I apologize in advance).

[Edit]: I changed one of the examples, because it was...SUPER insensitive. Unlike you, at least I try and not be a douche about tragedies.

Just Google terrorism in Pakistan, and you'll obtain enough factual truths about my original comment..

Won't bother responding to the rest of your post, as you seem super confused in your rambling.

Please rest assured, sensitive or insensitive comments don't bother me in the least, have dealt with a lot of trolls, it's kind of fun to upset them..

 

[That Guy]

Just Google terrorism in Pakistan, and you'll obtain enough factual truths about my original comment..

Won't bother responding to the rest of your post, as you seem super confused in your rambling.

Please rest assured, sensitive or insensitive comments don't bother me in the least, have dealt with a lot of trolls, it's kind of fun to upset them..

Yeah, because google is evidence for everything. Get out of here. I'm going to assume that the reason why you won't respond to the rest of my post is because you don't have an answer (using your logic).

Listen, if you're going to act like a troll, do a better job next time. I picked up on it right away.

 

[ManavKalia]

Yeah, because google is evidence for everything. Get out of here. I'm going to assume that the reason why you won't respond to the rest of my post is because you don't have an answer (using your logic).

Listen, if you're going to act like a troll, do a better job next time. I picked up on it right away.

If you don't think much of Google, then maybe you might concede Wikipedia to be factual. If you still don't see the factual truths in my original comment, after this, then I really have nothing left to say, and would rather let you be happy in your ostrich syndrome, as I'm not going to bother with a non factual troll beyond a certain point..

Read the following and have a great day..


Terrorism in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrorism in Pakistan has become a major and highly destructive phenomenon in recent years. The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009,[1][2][3] with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed between September 11, 2001 and May 2011.[4] According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000–2010 total $68 billion.[5] President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives" The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Muslims (mujahideen) to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent.

The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against Soviet forces present in Afghanistan. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war ended in Afghanistan and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of Pakistan in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials.[citation needed]

From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 1,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians[6] for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalashnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Muslims based in or near Pakistan, who originated from various nations around the world and the subsequent war against the pro-Soviet Afghans in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba; Pakistan's thousands of fundamentalist madrassas (Islamic schools) which are thought by many[who?] to provide training for little other than jihad and secessionists movements – the most significant being the Balochistan liberation movement – blamed on regionalism, which is problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

See also: Pakistan and state terrorism
Following imposition of martial law in 1958, Pakistan's political situation suddenly changed and thereafter saw dictatorship type behaviour at different levels appearing in the civil service, the army (those most culpable) and political forces or Zamindars (landlords created by the British) who claimed power, probably because the British originally did not consider Pakistan an independent state, yet did not want to intervene; this trend continued into the 21st century, when finally, the US persuaded General Pervez Musharraf to hold elections. Other causes, such as political rivalry and business disputes, also took their toll. It was estimated in 2005 that more than 4,000 people had died in Pakistan in the preceding 25 years due to sectarian strife.[7] Terrorism in Pakistan originated with supporting the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the subsequent civil war that continued for at least a decade. The conflict brought numerous fighters from all over the world to South Asia in the name of jihad. The mujahideen fighters were trained by Pakistan's military, American CIA and other western intelligence agencies who carried out insurgent activities inside Afghanistan well after the war officially ended.

At the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, between 1990 and 1996, the Pakistani establishment continued to organize, support and nurture mujahideen groups on the premise that they could be used for proxy warfare in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and in support of the doctrine of "strategic depth" in Afghanistan through the use of the Taliban.

 

[wiseone2]

Talk to me when India gets serious about the murder of Pakistanis. The difference here is that Pakistan is trying, despite India refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

Trying to cover up tracks

 

[That Guy]

Trying to cover up tracks

No, just speaking reality.

If you don't think much of Google, then maybe you might concede Wikipedia to be factual. If you still don't see the factual truths in my original comment, after this, then I really have nothing left to say, and would rather let you be happy in your ostrich syndrome, as I'm not going to bother with a non factual troll beyond a certain point..

Read the following and have a great day..


Terrorism in Pakistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrorism in Pakistan has become a major and highly destructive phenomenon in recent years. The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009,[1][2][3] with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed between September 11, 2001 and May 2011.[4] According to the government of Pakistan, the direct and indirect economic costs of terrorism from 2000–2010 total $68 billion.[5] President Asif Ali Zardari, along with former President ex-Pakistan Army head Pervez Musharraf, have admitted that terrorist outfits were "deliberately created and nurtured" by past governments "as a policy to achieve some short-term tactical objectives" The trend began with Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's controversial "Islamization" policies of the 1980s, under which conflicts were started against Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Zia's tenure as president saw Pakistan's involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War, which led to a greater influx of ideologically driven Muslims (mujahideen) to the tribal areas and increased availability of guns such as the AK-47 and drugs from the Golden Crescent.

The state and its Inter-Services Intelligence, in alliance with the CIA, encouraged the "mujahideen" to fight a proxy war against Soviet forces present in Afghanistan. Most of the mujahideen were never disarmed after the war ended in Afghanistan and some of these groups were later activated at the behest of Pakistan in the form of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and others like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The same groups are now taking on the state itself, making the biggest threat to it and the citizens of Pakistan through the politically motivated killing of civilians and police officials.[citation needed]

From the summer of 2007 until late 2009, more than 1,500 people were killed in suicide and other attacks on civilians[6] for reasons attributed to a number of causes – sectarian violence between Sunni and Shia Muslims; easy availability of guns and explosives; the existence of a "Kalashnikov culture"; an influx of ideologically driven Muslims based in or near Pakistan, who originated from various nations around the world and the subsequent war against the pro-Soviet Afghans in the 1980s which blew back into Pakistan; the presence of Islamist insurgent groups and forces such as the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba; Pakistan's thousands of fundamentalist madrassas (Islamic schools) which are thought by many[who?] to provide training for little other than jihad and secessionists movements – the most significant being the Balochistan liberation movement – blamed on regionalism, which is problematic in a country with Pakistan's diverse cultures, languages, traditions and customs.

See also: Pakistan and state terrorism
Following imposition of martial law in 1958, Pakistan's political situation suddenly changed and thereafter saw dictatorship type behaviour at different levels appearing in the civil service, the army (those most culpable) and political forces or Zamindars (landlords created by the British) who claimed power, probably because the British originally did not consider Pakistan an independent state, yet did not want to intervene; this trend continued into the 21st century, when finally, the US persuaded General Pervez Musharraf to hold elections. Other causes, such as political rivalry and business disputes, also took their toll. It was estimated in 2005 that more than 4,000 people had died in Pakistan in the preceding 25 years due to sectarian strife.[7] Terrorism in Pakistan originated with supporting the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and the subsequent civil war that continued for at least a decade. The conflict brought numerous fighters from all over the world to South Asia in the name of jihad. The mujahideen fighters were trained by Pakistan's military, American CIA and other western intelligence agencies who carried out insurgent activities inside Afghanistan well after the war officially ended.

At the end of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, between 1990 and 1996, the Pakistani establishment continued to organize, support and nurture mujahideen groups on the premise that they could be used for proxy warfare in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir and in support of the doctrine of "strategic depth" in Afghanistan through the use of the Taliban.

lol, wikipedia is even worse. Anyone can edit wikipedia, and often is riddled with bias sources.

Anyway, I don't really care about this conversation. I have no interest to debate you, as you've shown that you have nothing worth while to say.