Thread: No pals in Nepal

Originally Posted by Tronic

No sir, its not worse. Not if you're family members are constantly being gunned down or being blown up in restaurants, malls, trains or hotels.

As opposed to a full blown war when the victim nation finally had enough? IE Israel?

Originally Posted by Tronic

Nation states hold a lot more accountability than terrorist organizations.

And the result of which was the Israeli-Hezbollah War which both sides were protected by their patrons within the UN.

Originally Posted by Tronic

However, the ban would have gone through, had the Chinese not vetoed it, since enough nations, including the Americans, acknowledged the JuD as a terror group.

The Americans still have them on their wanted list while members of Hezbollah travel without fear in Iran. The nations that want to declare them on their list will have them on their list regardless of what the UN says. Those that don't, won't.

The P5 play their games in protecting their clients, whether you agree with it or not.

However, again, the Chinese are out to protect their client, Pakistan. And this is a pretty cheap way to do so.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Then why the bluff?

Colonel, Troung:

It ain't a bluff if you mean it and don't care about the outcome one way or another. You mentioned the US covering the Israelis, the Russians covering the Iranians, the Chinese covering the Paks... you dropped the Soviets/Russians, the French and sometimes the US covering India. It gets tiresome after a while. At one point of time or another you have got to ask yourself, is all this charade really worth it? Why not try something different?

It ain't a bluff if you mean it and don't care about the outcome one way or another.

India does.

Originally Posted by Cactus

At one point of time or another you have got to ask yourself, is all this charade really worth it?

Everyday while wearing the blue beret.

Originally Posted by Cactus

Why not try something different?

The UN is not good at preventing wars but it has been brilliant at ending them. The Israeli-Hezbollah War is the example, using the UN to allow the Israelis to withdraw.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

As opposed to a full blown war when the victim nation finally had enough? IE Israel?

And the result of which was the Israeli-Hezbollah War which both sides were protected by their patrons within the UN.

Sir, I fail to see how Israel can be equated with Jamaat-ud-Dawa. It is as equating Al-Queda with the United States.

The Americans still have them on their wanted list while members of Hezbollah travel without fear in Iran. The nations that want to declare them on their list will have them on their list regardless of what the UN says. Those that don't, won't.

The Pakistanis were forced to shutdown, or send underground, JuD operations after 26/11 anyways. The only difference is it could have been achieved before 26/11, rather than after.

The P5 play their games in protecting their clients, whether you agree with it or not.

However, again, the Chinese are out to protect their client, Pakistan. And this is a pretty cheap way to do so.

Sir, Chinese vetoed a vote against Jamaat-ud-Dawa, not Pakistan! Unless ofcourse, the JuD are the Chinese client, not the Pakistanis, than that would make sense. If the Chinese are helping their client Pakistan to support and protect a terrorist organization, than that is as good as the Chinese supporting terror groups themselves; the Pakistanis in this case are being used as the sole scapegoat. The Chinese did not protect Pakistan from anything, they protected Jamaat-ud-Dawa. No one was going to sanction Pakistan over JuD, let alone wage war. Pakistanis are home to many more declared terrorist groups which provide enough reason to strike that country, JuD would not have made a big difference to Pakistani security.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Sir, I fail to see how Israel can be equated with Jamaat-ud-Dawa. It is as equating Al-Queda with the United States.

A-Jad, Khomeni, Omar would think so but you're missing the point. The point is that UN criminal declarations are made based upon political and not legal necessities. Charges are not brought before a UN Prosecutor who then determines the merit of the case but before a bunch of diplomats who do cost/benefit analysis to their own country.

Originally Posted by Tronic

The Pakistanis were forced to shutdown, or send underground, JuD operations after 26/11 anyways. The only difference is it could have been achieved before 26/11, rather than after.

There lies the answer to your next question.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Sir, Chinese vetoed a vote against Jamaat-ud-Dawa, not Pakistan! Unless ofcourse, the JuD are the Chinese client, not the Pakistanis, than that would make sense. If the Chinese are helping their client Pakistan to support and protect a terrorist organization, than that is as good as the Chinese supporting terror groups themselves; the Pakistanis in this case are being used as the sole scapegoat. The Chinese did not protect Pakistan from anything, they protected Jamaat-ud-Dawa. No one was going to sanction Pakistan over JuD, let alone wage war. Pakistanis are home to many more declared terrorist groups which provide enough reason to strike that country, JuD would not have made a big difference to Pakistani security.

Because before 26 Nov, Pakistani courts declared JuD to be a legal entity. Do you see how China was backing Pakistan now?

However, to further illustrate the hyprocracy of all this. The enite JuD organization would have been organ donars by now if they were under Chinese jurisdiction. Do you see how the Chinese decision has nothing to do with their views of legality but their support for Pakistan.

Incidently, 13 Dec 2008, China voted to ban JuD.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

A-Jad, Khomeni, Omar would think so but you're missing the point. The point is that UN criminal declarations are made based upon political and not legal necessities. Charges are not brought before a UN Prosecutor who then determines the merit of the case but before a bunch of diplomats who do cost/benefit analysis to their own country.

There lies the answer to your next question.

Because before 26 Nov, Pakistani courts declared JuD to be a legal entity. Do you see how China was backing Pakistan now?

However, to further illustrate the hyprocracy of all this. The enite JuD organization would have been organ donars by now if they were under Chinese jurisdiction. Do you see how the Chinese decision has nothing to do with their views of legality but their support for Pakistan.

Incidently, 13 Dec 2008, China voted to ban JuD.

Sir, I'm under no illusions, ofcourse the Chinese will follow their national interests first, and that is why I was just calling a spade a spade; that the Chinese have protected anti-India terrorist organizations. Because the Pakistani courts declared JuD to be a legal entity even after 26/11. The Chinese didn't veto but supported that vote because of the international pressure and the spotlight which 26/11 brought upon JuD. Without 26/11, that vote too would most likely have ended up vetoed by the Chinese.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Sir, I'm under no illusions, ofcourse the Chinese will follow their national interests first, and that is why I was just calling a spade a spade; that the Chinese have protected anti-India terrorist organizations.

I really don't understand why you keep leaving Pakistan out of this Chinese action. It was through intense Pakistani lobeying of the Chinese leadership that kept the Chinese veto in play. What in effect the Chinese is saying is that bring us proof that the Pakistani courts are incompetent (which in effect they are but be that as it may). None of the P5 would ever allow their own courts or those of their clients to be overruled by the UN.

Originally Posted by Tronic

Because the Pakistani courts declared JuD to be a legal entity even after 26/11. The Chinese didn't veto but supported that vote because of the international pressure and the spotlight which 26/11 brought upon JuD. Without 26/11, that vote too would most likely have ended up vetoed by the Chinese.

Hate to tell you this but 26 Nov was proof. The "I told you so" while emotionally satisfying does not shift Chinese outlook in the UN ... nor bring back the dead.