We may have strong differences, yet I know that most of the Indians like Pakistanis and vise versa. It's ok to have strong deterrence, although I pray that the day never comes when we actually have to use it. We should move beyond these blunt and arrogant threats and reach out to those who we can share our concerns with, so that we can have a better understanding of each other's point of view.
That's so terrible. Why is everyone so willing to bomb India? If you drop bombs on India you all will die too because you live right beside then\m. Nuclear Fall Out can reach out for miles. And the Radiation takes 50 years to decompose. You can't just drop nukes at will. Everyone is so against America bombing Afghanistan, so why is everyone ready for this? It is justified because you are muslim and we, as a country, are not? Does it make a difference that you believe that your religion is the correct one and maybe that people with other religions are wrong? Does it make a difference that you are not willing to look at this from any other veiw but your own? Does it make a difference that you are willing to kill all of the people in India by generalizing that they all think on the lines of their government? I may be wrong, so if someone could enlighten me as to how blowing people into the stone age is justified for any reason please feel free to explain.
[quote]
Originally posted by queer:
**
**
So becareful if Musharaf starts saying that too then you bharatian won’t even find a place to hide, cuz we gonna kick ur ASS
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/smile.gif
http://www.gupistan.com/gallery/1/cartoon.gif
[This message has been edited by Question (edited January 11, 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Question (edited January 11, 2002).]
yawn
[quote]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT:
Actually, Islam allows the death of innocents if it is the only way to accomplish a military objective. If nuclear weapons are required to crush India's economic and industrial infrastructure so as to wreck their ability to wage war (hence accomplishing a military objective), then their use against cities is permitted.
[/quote]
thats ****ed up! military objective... more like, BS!
"Islam allows the death of innocents if it is the only way to accomplish a military objective."
Please show me where this is stated!
B.T.W. Us has 4 nukes with a cap of 75.000km!!!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/frusty.gif
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/frusty.gif
and this is ‘official’
[This message has been edited by dutch_paki (edited January 11, 2002).]
Nice, typical desi muslim mob mentality, kill kill, nuke nuke, lets not care about consequences.
Did you geniuses ever stop to think what would happen if the trigger happy pakistanis launch against india? India will retaliate, yes you will achieve your goal of doing a lot of damage to india, but you will also manage to get pakiland annihilated, they have nukes to ya know, and they have more, and pakiland is much smaller than india.
For god's sake you people, think before you spit out such irrational head strong hate.
you’ve even got your spellings all wrong, sweetie.
I still dont understand y do u like to beat indian they gave u the place so just live dont beat them.
tum aagyee ho!
noor aagya hay,
challo movie daekhnay chulain 
Yeh pics basically dikha rahi hain India ko be beta jee: dekho, tumhara Game Over hai!
http://www3.pak.org/gupshup/smilies/hehe.gif
Kambakht Ishq!
This thing between india and pakistan or Afghanistan and America has nothing to do with Islam..don't understand how ppl keep bringing up Jihad. Look up what jihad really is, a fight for land or power isn't jihad, doesn't matter if it involves a muslim country or not. Doesn't matter what bin laden or any other leader of a group or country says. No one can announce a jihad except the Alamaan, and they haven't yet, not for kashmire, palestine or afghanistan.
[quote]
Originally posted by mAd_ScIeNtIsT:
** The scholars have excluded two cases in which the killing of civilians and women is permitted.
The first one is when they take part in the fighting, or if they witness it or are involved in complementary activities such as giving council or propagandizing. The scholars base their decision on the words of the Prophet who, when seeing the slain woman said: "She was not capable of fighting," meaning that had she been fighting, it would have been permitted to kill her.
It should be noted that in the modern age, when an army is engaged in war, non-fighters join it who are involved in complementary activities and, at times, the course of war depends mainly on them. These are, for example, activators of the army's computer systems that direct military activities, such as civilian-manufactured computer systems for directing missiles or sophisticated bombs.
They also include those who work for agencies that carry out military projects; the reserve forces responsible for summoning soldiers and preparing them for fighting, even administratively; intelligence people, and so forth.
All those mentioned fall under the category of those who fight the Muslims and therefore can be targeted and killed in war, especially on occupied Muslim lands such as Palestine.
The second case when the killing of civilians and women is permitted is when Muslims must launch a comprehensive attack against their enemies or shoot them from afar. If civilians, women or children are to be killed in such attacks - although they must not be deliberately targeted - there is no blame on those who kill them, as these things happen in wars when bombs are fired at military posts situated between residential buildings, especially when these are the posts of the occupying army situated on Muslim lands. In such incidents civilians, women, and children are unintentionally killed, but Muslims get killed as well.
As an example, the army of the city of Taif which was hostile to the Prophet (SAWS) fortified itself within the walls of the city. The Muslim Army, led by Khalid Bin Al-Walid (RA) fired catapults into the city with the aim of killing soldiers. However, catapults were inaccurate weapons - whilst they could kill soldiers fortified behind the city walls, they were also likely to miss and land on residences, killing women and children.
However, the Prophet (SAWS) permitted the use of catapults, as civilians we not being intentially targetted - their deaths were a side-effect of killing the enemy soldiers.**
[/quote]
What are your sources??