comment: >
  
  I mean it is religious in the sense that the person that was sent was probably promised after life and told that he’s going to be a martyr and all the rewards in heaven and stuff. 
  But its not one religious sect attacking another. Its simply insurgents attacking a bunch of people related to the police to assert some power. At the end of the day they don't care about religion they just want power. If it really was about religion they would probably not take innocent lives considering that would contradict their own religion.
context: Holy shit >
  
  Pakistan the government is not Pakistan the people necessarily. I doubt these people deserved it but maybe you know better >
  
  Pakistani people largely support Taliban in Afghan and were celerating their return >
  
  These particular people? My point is it's wild to say the dead deserved it without knowing intimate details >
  
  It's a bit of a jump to go from "actions have consequences" to "these specific people deserved to die." 
  Terrorism is a stupid game and Pakistan plays it perhaps more than any other state in the world. So it goes. >
  
  "Actions have consequences" is only meaningful to say if you are suggesting they did something to deserve it. Otherwise it's just saying "stuff happens". >
  
  Pakistan has done more than anyone else to use fundamentalist terror groups as a tool to destabilize their political rivals in the region. This action, the regional cultivation of fundamentalist terror groups, has consequences, the proliferation and sustainment of regional terror. 
  "Deserve" introduces a morality judgement that doesn't otherwise exist in this observation. Nobody deserves to be murdered in cold blood, but it is nonetheless true that Pakistan bears some degree of responsibility for the violent sectarianism that currently plagues its own neighbourhood. It's not "deserve" it's "responsibility." >
  
  The article mentioned that the Taliban took credit for it. So basically we have a religion killing people in the same religion for  being the wrong flavor of the religion.
  Fundamentalism is a disease. >
  
  Not only that, but Talibans just attacked a nation that previously financed and sheltered them. >
  
  Depending on which Taliban the Afghan or Pakistan Taliban both groups are two different entities. >
  
  The Pakistan Taliban only exist because Pakistan Sheltered, Trained, and Armed the Afghan Taliban for two decades. This is a problem of their own making. >
  
  Well the US did it first lol >
  
  But Pakistan ran with it and now the monster they created is haunting them as well. 
  The U.S was giving funds but it was Pakistan that was allocating those funds into groups that would later become the taliban. >
  
  Well, the Afghan Taliban, while being Muslim fundamentalist, are also the defacto Pashto nationalist group. Millions of Pashto speakers also live in Pakistan so many are also attracted to the Taliban >
  
  Pakistan had a habit of backing more extreme Mujahideen groups during the soviet war. They tended to favor guys like Gulbaddin hakmatyer  known as the butcher of Kabul. Moderates like massoud were often not given as much support by the Pakistani military.
  
  Millions of Pashto speakers also live in Pakistan so many are also attracted to the Taliban
  
  Seems like the Pakistan military failed to realize how this was going to come back and bite them. >
  
  
  Moderates like massoud were often not given as much support by the Pakistani military.
  
  Pakistanis were working with the Saudis who actively tried to kill massoud multiple times iirc. >
  
  The sad thing is they eventually succeeded in assassinating him. >
  
  Everyone seems to be missing the point here. This was an attack against Pakistan's security forces. 
  The only reason they chose the mosque is because a lot of police officers could be killed this way.
  
  A suicide bomber struck a crowded mosque inside a police compound in Pakistan on Monday, causing the roof to collapse and killing at least 59 people and wounding more than 150 others, officials said.
  Most of the casualties were police officers. It was not clear how the bomber was able to slip into the walled compound, which houses the police headquarters in the northwestern city of Peshawar and is itself located in a high-security zone with other government buildings. >
  
  Al-Balawi killed 9, including 7 CIA officers and contractors, in the 2009 Camp Chapman attack. He got through security unsearched because he gained the trust of his handlers.
  So who knows how this attack happened. But anyone determined to carry out a bombing like this basically only needs motivation, patience, and luck. And just because dozens of people died doesn't mean that was the intention - remember that the July 20th plot to assassinate Hitler with a bomb failed to kill him (the target) but did manage to kill 3 Nazi officers and a stenographer.
  Also - while not a bombing - Nidal Hasan murdered 13 of his co-workers in Fort Hood. Hasan was not your typical 'terrorist,' as he was an army Major and psychiatrist. I use the word 'terrorist' in quotes because I'm convinced this was an act of workplace violence that Hasan he tried to justify as being religiously motivated. Which is to say - don't assume this was an act of religious terrorism - sometimes people murder their coworkers as a way to deal with their personal issues. >
  
  Hasan didn't kill "his coworkers", he shot up a deployment staging center of sorts. A place where people knock out needed paperwork and examinations before deploying on a combat tour. He was himself preparing to deploy. These are not people he had any experience with prior to his need to be there for deployment reasons. >
  
  Horrific. >
  
  “Punitive action”… “suicide bomber”…
  I think it’s too late for that. >
  
  Any god worth having would condemn this. >
  
  it is condemned in Islam. the unjustfully taking a single life is equal to the killing of all humanity. that bomber nor the people who raised, and enabled him shall experience anything but the harshest punishments any existing soul will ever have to experience.
  Note: its fine if you or anyone who reads this doesnt believe it, just let me take comfort in this. >
  
  As per fundamentalists in any religion, basically:
  "Yea yea I know God specifically forbids killing... but in this one part of the book he says that we should defend our faith from attack, so I'm just going to kill under the name of defending the religion. Totally legal, very cool with God, I promise!" >
  
  Perhaps an all knowing god should have the wherewithal to know people are going to interpret things that way. At the end of the day all you’re doing is interpreting it in a nicer way, the extremists aren’t wrong for interpreting it their way, how could we possibly know? We can’t ask for a clarification can we? >
  
  
  Perhaps an all knowing god should have the wherewithal to know people are going to interpret things that way.
  
  Considering how the books have been interpreted - not to mention the near limitless contradictions with them - the only logical conclusion in a universe with an all knowing god is that god wanted his religions to cause endless conflict for humanity... either because he's sadistic af, or he's the show-runner for the universe's most depressing reality TV show. >
  
  Nah, God just wants to keep us busy fighting each other so we don't end up usurping him. >
  
  Well jokes on him, he’s not even going to make it long enough to beat the Egyptians. 3,000 years and out! >
  
  Just awful. Lives senselessly lost. For what? >
  
  For Allah >
  
  It was an attack predominantly against the police force gathered in the mosque. The mosque was sunni as well as is the most of Pakistans population. This attack is not based on a religious dispute. >
  
  If it's not a religious based attack then why use a suicide bomber? Also, I don't mean this question in a condescending or asshole way >
  
  If you are a terrorist vs a country with a military force, this is a way to deal a lot of damage without losing much (or even anything, i doubt they care about 1 person dying if he can take this many with him). >
  
  Totally understand the logistical reasoning. I guess the part that gets me is the justification because of appearance. From an outside perspective it can be seen as either religious enough to justify suicide or take an anti religious stance by targeting a mosque.