posted on Jul, 24 2013 @ 10:42 PM
The US has a recent history of strikes against other nations, most of which were not really justified on the grounds that were given. I think many
would agree with that statement. And although I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan, nor a continued US presence there, I am
starting to feel a bit differently regarding Pakistan. IF this is indeed true, what is written in the article, then Pakistan is basically claiming
that they are willing to give handheld, or small, nuclear devices to Islamic extremists, most of which are either direct terrorists, or are associated
in some way with terrorists.
Pakistan does claim it will do this "if it is attacked," but their admission that they would allow it in the first place suggests to me that it
would not take a direct attack by an opposing country for them to unleash devices like this on the rest of the world. Granted, a nuclear device this
small is probably considered more of a tactical nuke, in that it probably cannot decimate an entire city by itself, but I cannot say at this point,
because I am not familiar with these types of devices that they claim to have constructed.
Regardless, devices of this nature in the hands of Islamic extremists, who have proven themselves capable of killing innocent civilians, and doing
other horrendous acts, is not acceptable in the least. Even the possibility is not acceptable. So Pakistan's admission of EVER giving out these
bombs, no matter what the circumstances, is not acceptable. Therefore, if ANY conflict or invasion has ever been justifiable, especially in recent
years, the strategic bombing of Pakistani facilities producing these devices definitely is justifiable and necessary in my opinion.
I am all for countries sanctioning, bombing, or directly attacking other countries when those countries pose a threat to the rest of the world.
Policing the world in cases such as those is actually necessary. I think most people get frustrated and angry at the US because there seems to be
little discretion, or need, for the kind of policing that the government has become accustomed to. A totally isolationist policy by the US is not
realistic in this day and age, as it was prior to WWI. So while there needs to be policing of other countries by the stronger militaries of the larger
countries, when and how such acts are carried out is vital to enforcing what is "right."
I don't think so many people would be up in arms about the actions of the US government IF they showed more discretion, only getting involved in
conflicts when it was truly necessary to the security of the greater part of the world, and the US itself. Knowing that Muslim extremists HATE the US
with a passion is another aspect to consider in a case like this, because there is no question that there are groups out there who would use such
nuclear devices against the US, on US soil, IF they had the chance. Knowing that the southern border is a gaping hole for anyone wishing to enter the
US, it stands to reason that the potential threat in this case is great.
Something else to consider is the fact that MANY people in Pakistan are sympathetic to the misunderstood Islamic cause, and who also hate the US, and
therefore who is to say that elements within the government or military or scientific departments of Pakistan will not release such devices to
terrorists, even if Pakistan is not under direct attack from another nation? I say "misunderstood" Islamic cause simply because there are high-level
Islamic teachers who claim that Islam is not a religion of war, and that Muslims are not supposed to kill infidels, basically anyone who is not a
practicing Muslim. If this is true, ALL these extremist groups have no religious basis for their actions.
And even if it is not true, they still have no moral basis for their actions, and their actions could NEVER be justified. So as I said, IF these
claims by Pakistan are accurate, I personally call for some type of military intervention in Pakistan itself. This would lead to a greater war with
the Muslim world, but so be it. It is going to happen sooner or later regardless of whether the US starts it or the Muslims start it. It really is
going to be the US and her allies against the Muslim world, because the vast majority of Muslims living in the Middle East hate Americans with a
passion, just as they hate Israelis. The worst part of such a war will be the fact that Muslims living within European countries, and the US, are
going to carry out attacks in those countries, bringing the war directly to the streets of these nations.
This is a good reason why religious tolerance is not acceptable in this day and age. What I mean is that ANY religion that claims to be hostile to
peace, order, or the country in which its proponents are residing, should not be tolerated. We should only tolerate groups who are for peace and
tolerance themselves. Why should we tolerate a group who cannot tolerate the mere existence of non-members?