Well, the peasant fundies at work are rumbling the same thing, so that means Faux News is getting the word out too. (not that you guys would know any peasant fundies).

Lebanon could only protest and plead when Israel launched its military operations against it. It is important for us to understand that Pakistan is no Lebanon. Pakistan is the sixth largest country in the world with population of over 170 million. It is one of the few countries to possess nuclear weapons with missiles/warheads to deliver those weapons. It has one of the biggest armies in the world (over 700,000). Bombing a sovereign nuclear power could be disastrous to say the least.

What we forget is that the Pakistan-Afghan border region is very porous with easy movement on both sides of the border. This area has historically been self-ruled by the tribals for hundreds of years. For us to expect to reign in this area in a matter of months is quite unrealistic. Pakistan has offered to fence these border areas only for this proposal to be rejected by the Afghan Administration in Kabul. What else can Pakistan do to stop the movement on both sides of this border area?

the country who got the atomic bomb.. how would you think to bomb that country....i think you are sick thats why you give such comments... pakistan has missile technology more stronge then his indian rival ...bombing pakistan is now impossible forever...
JK ...US

Well this for sure is a stupid suggestion with very very serious implications..... we in Pakistan have now started to realize that it was a big mistake to participate in America's so called war on terror (Which is in fact a crusade directed indiscriminately against muslims)..... We have lost soldiers in this war on terror, cooperate with the West in giving them intelligenge and still some moron comes up with the idea of bombing Pakistan.......Well you will be sadly mistaken if you try to bomb a nuclear state......

The brilliant people who created the UK bomb scare did not account for the intelligence of some members of society.. The agreement to allow baby feeding bottles on the plane is so banal either it was used to "dumb down" the interested travellers.

The reported messages did not report how the fuels in all other confiscated items would ignite, would this be because altitude pwas required to activate the so-called bomb, nobody has reported that fact.
The most important question I can consider is, what liquids were in the baggage hold, would this not be a more professional way to do the job. The terror would be similar. Although as we now know that after 9/11 the airlines appeared to suffer financially, we could not have this happen again.

I would like definitive informatio about the nature of the explosive design, why would any sane person not use this route. As far as we know there is very minimum checking of the luggage. I know there are xrays etc. The xrays are only based on the density of an object. Although the media talk around a more sophisticated method, there is none. One would have to use something dangerous like nuclear radiation or some other unchecked type of technology. A technology this is very secret and may be very dangerous to a human in the vicinity.

I am not saying these types of technology are not being used, but there is no reason to hide it from the public.

Back to initial point, why would liquid bombs be safer in the hold than in the cabin?

Another point, can you imagine how much money the stores at the arriving airports made with this deal. Also, three hours at an airport before flying. Think of that kind of money to the franchises at the airport.

A cinic,

Edith

I reread my comment on line, please excuse the spelling and grammer, I did not spellchec and emotion always drives me to say what I want to say and that is my excuse.

Edith