comment: >
  
  Depending on which Taliban the Afghan or Pakistan Taliban both groups are two different entities.
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.