Such as al-Qaeda leader, Baitullah Mehsud, who apparently sanctioned the disfigurement of unveiled women with acid, and is accused of masterminding the assassination of Bhutto. "[T]he aftermath of the Mumbai carnage has suddenly turned terrorists into patriots."
"Army official calls Baitullah Mehsud, Fazlullah 'patriots,'" by Hamid Mir for the International News, updated December 5 :
ISLAMABAD: All main militant groups fighting in Fata, from South Waziristan to Bajaur and from Mohmand to the Khyber Agency, have contacted the government through different sources after the Mumbai bombings and have offered a ceasefire if the Pakistan Army also stops its operations.That's but the "first step"; what will subsequent steps be, make them leaders in the army and government?And as a positive sign that this ceasefire offer may be accepted, the Pakistan Army has, as a first step, declared before the media some notorious militant commanders, including Baitullah Mehsud and Maulvi Fazlullah, as "patriotic" Pakistanis.
These two militant commanders are fighting the Army for the last four years and have invariably been accused of terrorism against Pakistan but the aftermath of the Mumbai carnage has suddenly turned terrorists into patriots.A top security official told a group of senior journalists on Saturday: "We have no big issues with the militants in Fata. We have only some misunderstandings with Baitullah Mehsud and Fazlullah. These misunderstandings could be removed through dialogue."
The Indian allegations against Pakistan have suddenly forced the military establishment in Pakistan to finally accept that they are not fighting an American war inside the Pakistani territory.
On another level, the parliamentary leader of the 12 Fata members in the National Assembly, Munir Orakzai, has expressed optimism in this regard, saying: "I see a bright ray of peace in the tribal areas and if we come out of the American pressure, I can guarantee that there will be peace in the tribal areas in a few days and we will be ready to fight against India on the eastern border along with the Pakistan Army.
The change in the attitude of the Pakistani military establishment is remarkable. Thanks to India, the security officials, who used to criticise the Pakistani media, are now praising its role in the recent days, saying: "You have proven that you are patriotic Pakistanis."...
Good for them, they finally chose a side at least. I knew they couldn't be playing a double game forever. Funny how all those "moderate" Islamic countries end up choosing to not be so moderate for long, huh?
Ceasefire against whom? The US, the Pakistani government in the tribal area (like they're not relly on the same side), or India?
I see a bright ray of peace in the tribal areas and if we come out of the American pressure, I can guarantee that there will be peace in the tribal areas in a few days and we will be ready to fight against India on the eastern border along with the Pakistan Army.
So peace = war, just on another border. Got it. Because Pakistan is so skilled at doing the peace thing, obviously.
In my opinion Pakistan is the most enigmatic (if that's even a word) nation on earth. It seems that the question is when rather than if the civil war starts. My bewilderment stems from the fact that I've been wondering when for quite a while now.
Girding your loins for Allah...
Allah chose up sides a long time ago (Islam), and decided who he was going to support (Mohammadans) and who He was not going to support (Kufrs).
The official in Pakistan decided it was better to be on Allah's team than not to be on it. Sounds like they are headed for an Islamic Republic, you know, one with a mullah in charge...
Girding their loins for battle with India maybe?
You haven't lived until you see a Mohammadan with his loins girded...
who controls the pakistani army?
The President or the Army generals?
Why doesn't the President throw out the army generals?
Pakistan is in a very dangerous place, on the edge of revolution and civil war, they need our assistance in ridding their nation of this plague.
I see a bright ray of peace in the tribal areas and if we come out of the American pressure, I can guarantee that there will be peace in the tribal areas in a few days and we will be ready to fight against India on the eastern border along with the Pakistan Army.
Posted by: jdamn
Yet another reason for the U.S. to enter into a formal defense alliance with India and to reconcile and harmonize our respective military strategies regarding Pakistan. India should have better intelligence regarding the Pakistanis than anyone. Their on-the-ground intelligence combined with our hardware should make a formidable combination for when the shooting inevitably starts.
Michael, what form of "assistance" would you suggest we provide to Pakistan to "rid them of this plague." My suggestion is in the previous paragraph. What is yours?
From post above: Pakistan is in a very dangerous place, on the edge of revolution and civil war, they need our assistance in ridding their nation of this plague.
Which plague is that? There are so many.
We need to know which plague we are dealing with to help them with it. And what if they don't want our help?
I think Eastview's suggestion makes sense...
Eastview
Special forces, CIA, electronic disruptions, wiping out the madrasses on the NW frontier.
Assisting India in a ground war would backfire on us and will probably result in a nuclear attack on NYC or London.
Plus civil war would most likely break out in the UK resulting in a military dictatorship being set up.
secret operations win hands down everyday and generally the moderate Arab world looks the other way.
ground wars end up with wars such as afghanistan and iraq dragging on for almost a decade with no win win situation.
pakistan will always be muslim, our cruise missiles will never change this fact but working with india, and the pakistani government we can help wipe out the jihadists. just gently push the pakistanis to do it themselves.
Israel hits Iran on the same day India hits Pakistan.
That would make a great double feature.
From above: pakistan will always be muslim, our cruise missiles will never change this fact but working with india, and the pakistani government we can help wipe out the jihadists. just gently push the pakistanis to do it themselves.
Since the Pakistani military now see jihadists as patriots, getting them to do it themselves will be harder than ever. Pakistan is consolidating its power in case it has to fight India. It is not wise to try and fight jihadists at the same time...
duh swami
Pakistani governmental corruption. we need to show that teh west means business and not sell pakistan military hardware.
Without pakistan our war in afghanistan would be a total disaster.
Our supply lanes run through pakistan. or didn't you know this?
Without pakistan our war in afghanistan would be a total disaster.
Our supply lanes run through pakistan. or didn't you know this?
Where there is a will there is a way...It's called Ameri-CAN...Or didn't you know this?
Besides Prophet Elect Obams (PBHM) is going to sweet talk all these people out of their hostilities. That's his way, bowl em over with Messiahship, he was only joking about invading Pakistan...
Michael, OK, I think we're basically on the same wavelength, that Pakistan is a problem that has to be dealt with, maybe differing on strategy and/or tactics. You sound, though, as if you'd be willing to sacrifice India in order to avoid a hypothetical civil war in England in the event of open war involving Pakistan. That approach seems to carry a whiff of Chamberlain and the Sudetenland, though. If such a scenario were really a possibility, then it would be because of England's Paki population. Tough problem, to be sure, but since when do you let the disloyalties of violent minorities dictate foreign policy? The U.S. in WWI passed the sedition act to control its pro-German immigrant population, and during WWII set up internment camps to protect against possible difficulties involving Japanese Americans whose loyalties still lay with the emperor.
Certainly we have to provide covert assistance to whatever sane forces there are in Pakistan, and it would certainly be cheaper than the alternatives if it worked. But haven't we already been doing this for decades? We arm them and train their military and their pilots as well. Yet, their internal situation continues to degenerate. The government is unable and/or unwilling to control its own jihadis, who continue to grow in strength and in aggresive actions toward its neighbors. Imagine what we would have done if the Mumbai scenario had been played out in the U.S., but had been Mexican "insurgents" attacking Chicago or Houston, or had blown up the capital building, as Pakistani terrorists did in Delhi in 2002.
In considering the various contingencies that might occur with Pakistan we need to include worst case scenarios and prepare accordingly. If Pakistan falls apart, which seems likely in spite of our best efforts, no one will escape the fallout.
.It's called Ameri-CAN...Or didn't you know this?
?
anyway, the cold war was won, by building an alliance against communist russia, plus we all diplomatic ties with the soviets including selling of military and technological hardware.
today, we pump billions of dollars into pakistan and you expect us to suddenly turn it off and bomb them?
This is the exact tactic which we did with saddam, fund and pump full of weapons and then went against him by funding Iran. then bomb saddam. Ludicrous and fkd up ideology.
smacks of governmental corruption. yet we vote in the same losers every 4 years or 8 years in the uk.
Either we stop funding middle eastern states or ask ourselves if our funding of these states isn't somehow prolonging and encouraging jihadist activity. or even funding the muslims themselves to engage in war, example the terrorists in Mumbai had Heckler and Koch sub machine rifles. Obviously we sold them to pakistan, pakistan corruption within the army sold them onto the black market and those rifles were bought by fundies.
we need to pull the plug. carrot and stick, help them militarily with CIA special forces but not sell them another radar defence system or fighter jet, not give them billions in aid unless they flatten every extremist Madras from NW frontier to Kashmir.
we are all complicit in the jihad by our taxes and our voting in of the Republicans and Labour party.
A war with Pakistan will result in hundreds of thousands of British pakistanis engaging in active terrorism in the UK, but what the hell do you care about that? You are safe and snug in your US home. Whilst Ordinary British will be left facing socialist marshall law and a muslim infitada.
...It's called Ameri-CAN...Or didn't you know this?
?
If you didn't know this Michael, you are not an American...and it shows...If the US wants to find another supply route to Afghanistan bad enough it will do it...That's Ameri-Can...To bad you Brits don't have more of that...
But that's ok, not everyone is an American...or want's to be...
I used to deal with a lot of Pakistanis, and I can usually tell a Moslem from a Hindu because the vibes are different, especially noticeable among the women, but it's true for both genders. The Moslems have an aura of aggression which I hardly ever experience when meeting Indian Hindus. Since they are basically the same people, most Pakistanis having originally been Indian Hindus until their ancestors were subjugated, the only difference is the Islamic culture which has turned a peaceful group into another warring Islamic menace.
There is a danger that India will be attacked by nukes from Pakistan one day soon. The situation is very dangerous.
"A war with Pakistan will result in hundreds of thousands of British pakistanis engaging in active terrorism in the UK, but what the hell do you care about that? You are safe and snug in your US home. Whilst Ordinary British will be left facing socialist marshall law and a muslim infitada."
Posted by: michael calvert
Chickens, home, roost, etc. Yes, Michael, it would undoubtedly be terrible. Lancing a boil can sometimes be very painful. Tell me, which side in this struggle would you be on? From your other posts on this site you obviously identify with the British Paki population and care less about Britain than you do Pakistan. Second generation, perhaps?
Your comments about problems with La Raza etc. the U.S. are not entirely misdirected, but your analysis omits a very important feature that distinguishes our American problems with illegal aliens and the Latin drug cartels from Islam. These are mere criminal organizations that make no pretensions toward being anything more than that, no special relationship with god, no secret formula for getting to heaven. Criminal organizations lack long term coherence extending for more than the lifetimes of the current thug in chief, or perhaps a few lifetimes if you include family, but these usually don't last very long. Islam is different. It has a coherent and well developed philosophy that has been tested over a very long period of time. It's the Islamic philosophy and its smothering effect on the human spirit, and its willingness to physically cram this down everyone's throat, that we in the West resist. The problem with Pakistan is intimately tied in with the problem with Islam.
Or would you rather act all tough on the internet?
Posted by: michael calvert
Good-bye Michael...You just lost whatever credibility you might have had...
You have just identified yourself as a troll...
duh-swami
not a troll simple - a troll simple has no agenda beyond yanking people's chains for fun.
This creature is a Muslim Boggart trying to frighten us into doing what it wants.
Eastview nailed it: "From your [mc's] other posts on this site you obviously identify with the British Paki population and care less about Britain than you do Pakistan. Second generation, perhaps?
I agree.
Various reasons, but one of them is the Boggart's resort, as the conversation proceeded, to thinly veiled threats:
"Assisting India in a ground war would backfire on us and will probably result in a nuclear attack on NYC or London.
"Plus civil war would most likely break out in the UK..".
And did you spot the unsubtle attempt to 'split the camp', to drive a wedge between UK and USA jihadwatchers here present?
The US needn't do anything in tandem with India. 'All' we need to do is recognize the fact that Pakistan will do nothing about the Jihadis in Waziristan and treat that for all practical purposes like Afghanistan i.e. indiscriminate bombings of Taliban and al Qaeda targets and ignore Pakistan altogether. If Pakistan protests or has its troops doing anything in that area, treat them like they are al-Qaeda and bomb them.
Enough of that, and there will be a fissure in their society on which group of Infidels do they take on first. Maybe even a civil war.
Michael Calvert -- I'll add his name to the Troll Watch list.
OPEN LETTER TO AL-QAEDA
Dear Al-Qaeda Nutcases,
I'm hoping you read this site, because it's the heart of infidel darkness, and your types always like to know what we infidels are up to.
It seems your latest attack on Mumbai was a ploy to get India to go to war with Pakistan. You correctly surmised that the liberal elites in India are the ones who most strongly influence national policies, and they are too dhimmi-fied to raise a fist against Pakistan ordinarily. It seems like in this case, dhimmis are an unfortunate obstacle to your immediate needs. You also correctly figured out that by targeting our dhimmi elite liberal chattering classes, that this would be the most effective way to remove their opposition to war. Unfortunately, their inbred dhimmi instincts are once again re-asserting themselves, and they want us to sit out another fight yet again (and again and again).
Unfortunately for you, it seems like the dhimmi training is not easily broken.
If you'll accept a suggestion from me, may I point out that there are still plenty more dhimmis left here for you to go after, if that's what you want. I, for one, will not miss any of them.
Angry regards, and looking forward to the chance to splatter you across the landscape.
“Im totally confused.”
Posted by: michael calvert
I’m with you 100% on that mikey!
Michael Calvert
We care about what happens in the UK. please remember hat many of us still have extended families there
Michael Calvert was previously known here as Leon, before being banned under that name. He is bitter that we don't support his favorite political parties (which he shilled for relentlessly), and apparently decided to return to harass and try to provoke other commenters.
Not anymore.
Now, where were we?
Swift work, Marisol, guess you answered his question, eh?
dumbledoresarmy...I knew there was something up with this 'Boggart' when I read something of his on DW.
I'm glad Marisol was on it...I would have never pegged him for Leon...But then I never really paid that much attention to him anyway.
People can change their identities on the internet, but they forget to change their writing styles and word usage. That often gives the 'boggart' away...Boggart...I love that word...
Mike I agree. The final straw being deployment of T.A in Afghanistan. I have as much confidence in the system as I do in chocolate fireguards.
"Lancing a boil", how quaint. Did it cross your mind that Britains security services may not be prepared for anarchy on the scale you would normaly see during a Soylent Green scene. I recall a senior anti terrorism agent from the SAS stating that Britain would find it hard to cope with a Mumbai style scenario occuring within its borders, and all you Eastview can do start a muslim witch hunt over it.
No.
Mike is correct to point out that a couple million Pak muslims in Britain may end up rioting should the hostilities between India and Pak continue to spiral towards an overt war. Why that has anything to do with driving a wedge between Jihadwatchers is anyones guess, this seems to be more about social networking to some people than coming to terms with the Jihad.
(OT, I had to give up on Hedgehog's typekey, simply refuses to open, so am back again as Hedgehogg - another character to type. Pity)
And yes, a number of posters have correctly identified Mike Calvert as a Pakistani. A Pakistani from Punjab Province most likely. Mike's English is almost faultless, except for a couple of words (marshal for martial: you'll find this usage almost exclusively in Indian and Paki Punjab. Fundie and Fundoo are entirely Paki contributions to the Queen's English. In fact even the Queen hasn't gotten round to using these words).
The land of pure, the pak, look at what they have produced,.... nothing! keep your senators inline by telling the pres. to stop sending over money to them!
A war with Pakistan will result in hundreds of thousands of British pakistanis engaging in active terrorism in the UK, but what the hell do you care about that? You are safe and snug in your US home. Whilst Ordinary British will be left facing socialist marshall law and a muslim infitada.
What a great excuse to evict them all, starting with Anjem Choudhary, and to seize their assets and bulldoze their mosques. If that doesn't teach a lesson to the Arabs, the Somalis, the Moroccans, etc., au revoir to them too.
"The Indian allegations against Pakistan have suddenly forced the military establishment in Pakistan to finally accept that they are not fighting an American war inside the Pakistani territory."
-- from the article above
In other words, put to the test, choosing between Islam and decently distancing itself from the Mumbai terrorists, Pakistanis -- the primitive masses screaming in the streets, the fiery imams in the mosques, the soft-spoken relentless brain-molding teachers in the madrasas, the smooth anglophone zamindars who don't dare get out of synch with those masses, and imams, and teachers, and of course the military, the generals who while they might play a game with the Americans to extract more and more money and equipment -- all that stuff, especially planes, that they want so badly -- choose Islam.
So now, we are told, the "finally accept that they are not fighting [that is, will not fight, not even offer the pretense of fighting] an American war inside the Pakistani territory" because they have chosen. Chosen not to meet India's well-justified demands. Chosen to blackmail the Americans by claiming they will have to move troops out of the northwest and south to confront the Indians, and thus, they claim or hint, it is the Indians who are preventing the Pakistanis from fighting "the war on terror" by demanding ....well, by demanding, of course, that the Pakistanis really "fight the war on Muslim terror" by handing over those suspected of planning and supporting the latest, and some previous, attacks on Indian civilians in Indian cities.
Pakistan stands fully revealed, and not even the smooth Husain Haqqani, nor Zardari, the crooked widower of Bhutto who (wrongly) inherited her mantle, can mnnage at this point to cover Pakistan up again.
A very correct assessment above by Hugh.
Pakistan is playing the Bluff of Blackmail. Put it under pressure and it will yield but to come back again.
That has been the historical experience of India and its past rulers.
But will Pakistan get away this time too.Let it not be an opportunity missed which will be very costly.
The aftermath of the Mumbai bombings seems to be working out exactly how those in control of the Pakistani military and ISI wanted. The US is publicly played for a fool while the Pakistani govt ignores their requests to help India investigate the bombings.
The whipping up of anti-Indian public sentiment will enable the military and ISI to stage another 'treaty' arrangement with the jihadis and soon I expect another military coup will occur and another dictator will emerge and promise help against the jihadis (and make a few token arrests), while asking that the US stop the drone attacks.
As for the reaction in the UK if it does move to war, it is time our leaders (including the met) stared re-reading some of the classics on counter-insurgency by people like Galula - controls on the movement of people (and that means controls applied both within and between nations) since we are facing an international counter-insurgency).
The USA and India will continue to grow closer because of not only Islamic threats, but also the Chinese threat(they are a real serious threat to anyone living within at least 1000 miles of their borders, with the possible exception of Russia with whom they are allied with against the USA). The problem with Pakistan is it's huge size and nuclear weapons. To say that Pakistan is revealed is an overstatement, remember that the people's most popular political leader was a WOMAN who is perceived to have been assassinated by the Islamists. There must still be very strong anti-Islamic forces within that nation in my observation. Unlike Iran it looks like diplomacy is actually a real option yet with Pakistan.... As to a possible muslim uprising in Britian, it would be a needed dose of truth for the world. The left has inverted truth, and sometimes it takes a hard costly punch in the face to snap out of it. Stalin was moving raw materials into Germany even on the day the USSR was invaded. It's obviously going to take something bloodier and more encompassing to destroy the sacred leftist god of multiculturalism than 9/11. I just hope we don't suffer a nuclear death-blow here in the USA before we get the chance to truly fight.
"...Britain would find it hard to cope with a Mumbai style scenario occuring within its borders, and all you Eastview can do start a muslim witch hunt over it."
Posted by: OLDEngland
OLDEngland, Mikey was the one who raised the specter of an "intifada" in Britain involving Paki riots should serious warfare involving Pakistan break out. Yes, the large Pakistani minority in Britain would undoubtedly be in a very uncomfortable position should the country of their cultural roots suddenly become involved in a conflagration. But while the possibility of an intifada may be real and internal security forces might be hard pressed to deal with it, this fact in itself should be a source of great alarm and occasion for reflecting on how such a possibility could have been allowed to arise in the first place, wouldn't you say? Recognizing the reality of a threat and identifying the forces behind it need not be occasion for a witch hunt, but merely wringing one's hands in the face of such threats instead of facing up to them would appear not to be a very effective response either.
Much has been written about the injustice inflicted on the Japanese Americans who were interred during WWII as a precaution against internal sabotage from first and second generation immigrants whose loyalties in this fight to the death with Japan were suspect. Tragic as it may have been for the families involved, the Japanese Americans responded, not by launching an "intifada" but by making extra efforts to show that their loyalties were to the U.S., with all-Japanese-American Army units being formed that distinguished themselves on the battle fields of Europe. Questions of loyalties were thereby laid to rest forever.
Sophisticates might think we should have evolved beyond such silly concepts as having to prove loyalties, but it would appear we have not. In fact, Islam requires such, which is part of the problem. One might suppose that Paki immigrants would understand, even if they might not like, being called on to affirm their loyalties to the country that has so graciously taken them in. They might complain they were being singled out for discriminatory treatment, but it is they who have singled out themselves as being deserving of such. Where are the Paki immigrants demanding to be allowed to serve in Army units in Afghanistan, which would certainly involve conflict with their cultural kin? They want respect? They could easily earn it by abandoning the cultural chip on their shoulders and embracing, or at least not actively trying to sabotage, the culture of their adopted country. If they cannot do this, then they should return "home."
Having said all this, I do recognize that second generation immigrants are in a difficult position. They grow up in a family cultural milieu that is little different from that of the old country, their language at home, the customs they learn at home as children, are those of the old country. Like Barak Obama, heart strings are formed as children that sound for decades throughout one's life. But thus it has been for immigrants throughout history. Many posters on this site are the products of immigrant ancestors, and their stories are the stuff of family legends. Those who stayed at home in the old countries don't know what they have missed. The newcomers are always called on to adapt to the culture of their hosts, and perhaps in time help enrich that culture. But demanding to maintain the culture of the old country, or to form enclaves that recreate a culture that is isolated from the embedding culture, as one reads is happening in Olde England, is insane and guaranteed to create conflict.
Fantastic posts, Hugh and Eastview. The internment of the Japanese was not that bad, actually, and it is definitely worth noting that the Japanese DID prove their loyalty to their country of immigration, and that was after having already proven to be a huge benefit to their host country. Paki immigrants in England, even the 3rd-generation ones, have done neither, and if anything, have come out unequivcally on the side of evil, have parasitized and dragged down their host nation, and have given nothing but turmoil in return. They should be evicted anyway. Pakistan is a hostile nation. The sooner we all realize this the sooner we will all be safe. Hostile elements within a nation should not affect international policy. International policy should affect them.
"...I can usually tell a Moslem from a Hindu because the vibes are different, especially noticeable among the women, but it's true for both genders. The Moslems have an aura of aggression which I hardly ever experience when meeting Indian Hindus. Since they are basically the same people, most Pakistanis having originally been Indian Hindus until their ancestors were subjugated, the only difference is the Islamic culture which has turned a peaceful group into another warring Islamic menace."
Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman
Good observation. I have also noticed this among our students. The Indians are invariably gentle and kind, whereas the Middle Easterners evince an aura of hostility and aggressiveness. It is similar to the differences (is this a legitimate construction?) between Black Americans and Black Africans. Culture obviously matters.
"....whereas the Middle Easterners evince an aura of hostility and aggressiveness."
Interesting observation.
Given the area in CA that I live in, I have had very limited interactions with Middle Easterners during my lifetime; but then in '03 my husband and I made the insane decision to purchase a business, one that came equipped with an "office manager", and I would like to add that he turned out to be the office manager from hell! And you guessed it, he was from the ME, and moved to the states like 20 years ago to an arranged marriage. A very young and naive 19 year old her parents apparently just wanted to get rid of (according to her story).
Long story short, he was very "hostile and aggressive", and his poor wife used to call me continually concerning his incredible abuse, and at one point she became suicidal.
This office manager caused one drama after another, not only is his home life, but for us as well, due to the lack of self- control he [did not] have concerning his temper. I asked my husband repeatedly to please fire this guy, but replacing him was no small task either.
Anyway, I'm simply expressing a similar negative experience, the one and the only REAL one-on-one experience that I've personally had with a Middle Easterner, and it was NOT a good one, not by a long shot; and thank God we decided to sell that business 3 years later. Not only was the office manager a headache, but so was owning a business. Good riddance to both.
I prefer the openly aggressive, hostile ones to the fake, saccharine, disingenuine ones. All the women are like that, what with the fake little-girl voices and the put-on demureness. Many of the men are like that too. Those are the ones you have to look out for because they are the real jihadists. They're not just unfortunate victims of Islam. They are malignant narcissists looking for others to victimize and you know this because their entire "personalities" consist of desperation to be liked and approved of, a sure-fire sign of malignant narcissism. The guy who stalked me was like that. I'll take the openly evil douchehat who said that women are genetically inferior, that blondes are genetically inferior, and that "separate but equal" apartheid constitutes an ideal to which all societies should aspire over a fake psychopath posing as a lamb any day.
I have never met a Hindu, Sikh, or Arab Christian with whom I didn't immediately get along quite well. They don't just integrate into new societies effortlessly and naturally, but they're just very kind and relatable people. I especially like Bengalis. They're like Jews and Italians in that they like to eat and argue and they joke a lot, so we always get along famously. The same holds true for Muslim and non-Muslim black Africans.
Nuclear calamity is inevitable with Pakistan.
Islam is essentially irrationalistic, and nuclear physics is not.
You cannot mix the two and not result in a disaster.
It is like building with rotten wood and rusty nails.
It totters like a real structure for a while, but MUST collapse.
Hi, profitsbeard! Haven't seen you around in while, glad you're back!