Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan's Abbotabad Report

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by zraver View Post
    Stop splitting hairs you jihadi fuckstain.... 1368 settled the issue its a war to be fought under the LOAC and CIL.
    See post 45, outside of US Establishment apologists there are very, very few takers of the argument that 1368 somehow authorized military strikes inside Pakistan (without the consent of the Pakistani government).

    BTW, the entire US position defending unilateral and unauthorized military strikes in Pakistan is an exercise in concocting new interpretations of international law and 'splitting hairs', so your continued pejorative laden rant here is disingenuous and an attempt to avoid actually engaging in a rational debate.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

    Comment


    • #47
      Z banned the cigs, so is more explosive these days. I believe he is strong enough not to calm down now :)
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #48
        While Z is stuck with

        5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in
        accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;
        For me the one bellow is more interesting:
        3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
        AM, weren't you believer on almighty, rightful, UN? There you have it. Be thankful it's not enforced.
        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          For me the one bellow is more interesting:
          3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;
          AM, weren't you believer on almighty, rightful, UN? There you have it. Be thankful it's not enforced.
          Why should I be thankful? There is nothing to enforce. 'Harboring' (which you highlighted) would require establishing that the Pakistani State/institutions deliberately 'harbored or concealed OBL and/or other Al Qaeda members'.

          And yes, I still believe that the platform of the UN should be utilized to address inter-State issues. Yes, the platform of the UN is highly flawed in its current state, and it should be reformed, but it is still better than nothing.
          Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
          https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Doktor View Post
            While Z is stuck with
            The UNSC Resolution that actually authorized ISAF is 1386, and it is very specific in limiting the scope of the ISAF military deployment:

            Authorizes, as envisaged in Annex 1 to the Bonn Agreement, the establishment for 6 months of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority in the maintenance of security in Kabul and its surrounding areas, so that the Afghan Interim Authority as well as the personnel of the United Nations can operate in a secure environment;
            ODS HOME PAGE
            Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
            https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
              There are plenty of others who have engaged in far more 'abrasive' language while debating me and avoided bans, so I don't really see why you would have to worry. :D

              As I pointed out in the first article I posted debunking your/US arguments claiming unauthorized US military operations on Pakistan are legal, don't fixate on the word drone. To clarify even further, replace/read the word 'drone' as 'unauthorized military strikes/operations'. Now that is clear, let me reiterate the arguments debunking US claims of 'self defence' in justification of 'unilateral and unauthorized military strikes' in Pakistan:

              "First, international law does not allow a state to unilaterally attack targets within another state to eliminate potential "threats." An armed attack must have occurred or at least be imminent against the self-defending state for an argument of self-defense to have any legal grounding.


              LOAC and CIL do in fact allow unilateral strikes against targets. The controlling factors were in fact met. I've pointed that put again and again. Stop avoiding the word ALL.


              Second, while Pakistan is legally obliged to use "best efforts" to prevent individuals on its territory from launching armed attacks against other states, unless it can be proven that Pakistan has in fact supported these individuals by, for example, supplying them with weapons or other forms of assistance, Pakistani territory cannot be attacked simply because Pakistan is allegedly "unwilling or unable" to suppress such individuals.
              We found him on a Pakistani military canton....

              To be sure, Pakistan may still be liable for reparations or other measures for failing to prevent an attack against another state, but this failure does not translate into a right for another state to conduct lethal drone attacks in its territory as a unilateral "self-help" measure.
              Plai language reading of 1368 says you are wrong.

              Third, prominent American legal scholars, including Mary Ellen O'Connell and Eric Posner, have rejected the international legality of the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. In fact, apart from the United States, only three countries-Israel, Russia, and Turkey-have explicitly invoked some variant of this theory in the past fifty years or more. But even these countries, on the rare occasion when they have done so, have never justified their actions as motivated by a legal obligation.
              Nice dodge, but a bullshit answer. The US stated publicly in 01 and the UN so empowered the US in 01 to take ALL necessary steps.

              And most importantly, the International Court of Justice-the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and popularly known as the "World Court"-agrees. It has on two recent occasions-one concerning Uganda and the other Israel-passed judgment that weak states cannot be attacked and invaded because they failed to prevent individuals in their territory from launching attacks abroad.
              Pakistan was a willingly and knowing ally in a just war. That allies may undertake military action on each others territories with or without the informed consent of the other ally is a settled matter- period full stop.

              [quote\And for good reason too. A theory that permits the use of force in a state such as Pakistan because it is "unwilling or unable" to do something opens up far too many loopholes for aggression and makes the prohibition against the use of force contained in the U.N. Charter somewhat redundant."
              [/quote]

              Stop playing with the strawman you jihadi fuckstain.

              So the above debunks the argument of self-defence. Now lets move on to the alternate justification, of UNSC 1368 somehow extending the 'LOAC' to Pakistan:

              1368 states 'Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations', which you interpreted to imply 'in accordance with the Laws of Armed Conflict'.

              With respect to the LOAC, and specifically Jus ad bellum, here is the excerpt from my earlier post again:...
              A panel without power convened 7 years after the panel with power decided that a chapter 7 violation had occured. Save the pap you lover of terrorism.


              Musharraf's pledge of support for the US involved logistical and military support for ISAF operations in Afghanistan (as and when agreed to by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally), as well as support against terrorism by carrying out law enforcement and/or military operations in Pakistan (by Pakistani forces, as and when determined by the government of Pakistan - it was not some open-ended commitment that the US could define unilaterally).
              Wrong- it was a statement made in accordance with 1368 which empowered the US and its Allies to use ANY and ALL means.

              There was no blanket commitment made to allow US military operations inside Pakistani territory at any time without authorization from the GoP, and therefore 'the State in which force is being used did not consent to it', and this is borne out by the official position and statements taken by the Government of Pakistan condemning US military operations inside Pakistan as violations of international law and Pakistani sovereignty.
              Please define the word all Mr wannabe jihadi

              Why are all three conditions fulfilled? Just because you say so? Flying into a rage over my first set of counter-arguments to your claims that 'all three conditions were fulfilled' doesn't exactly make you come across as a rational individual.
              No, the rage is from watching you for literally years skate all close as you can to the line to say as openly as a forums rules will let you to say "Allu akbar, death to the west". You delight in the deaths of innocents- even Pakistani deaths if you expose what you truly believe. Pakistani's like you have played a direct rile in allowing the GoP to support terrorist leading to the deaths of over 200,000 people since 9-11.

              You are neither civilized, nor a patriot. You are nothing more than the lowest and least respectable form of jihadi- the secret internet jihadist. Dozens of people have tried to get you to embrace the concepts of justice and equality and you refuse. After all this time, only one conclusion remains and so I state is clearly and without equivocation- you support terrorism.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Stop splitting hairs you jihadi fuckstain.... 1368 settled the issue its a war to be fought under the LOAC and CIL.
                That is enough with the personal insults. Next time that happens you're looking at a week vacation.
                “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                Comment


                • #53
                  I am closing the thread at this time because it has become highly volatile and the antithesis of dispassionate discussion. The staff will decide if this closure is a temporary or a permanent condition.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The WAB staff has agreed to reopen this thread after a 24 hour cooling-off period.

                    I strongly advise everyone to behave and adhere to the rules of this board.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Simple plain language reading of 1368 and its repeated use of the word ALL leaves no doubt that the UNSC found Al Queada and its allies to be a belligerent. A legal or illegal combatant is a separate discussion but they are combatants per the UNSC. It is the UNSC that is empowered by the Un Charter to decide issues affecting international peace and security. Not the ICC, not the ICJ, not the general assembly, not various panels and talking heads.

                      Further, no geographical or time limits were imposed on UN/and allied action by 1368. Where Al Queda is, a state of war exists. If a neutral wants to avoid raids and air strikes she has specific duties under CIL/LOAC to enforce its nuetrality. But Pakistan as a self declared belligerent, who was engaging in active combat operations falls under separate parts of CIL/LOAC. So long as the military operations meet the requirements of proportionality and distinction and do not otherwise violate the LOAC such operations are legal. If Pakistani special forces tracked a TTP cell to the US, legally they could conduct such a raid as we did on OBL. Though to be honest we all know that armed Pakistani nationals in the US are not hunting terrorist they are terrorist.

                      In addition statements by the Pakistani government pledging support, statement from Pakistani military leaders linking the TTP and Al Queda and finally CIL/LOAC case precedent make it clear the US raid, and the drone strikes are not illegal. The US has the right to prosecute the war where ever its enemies are inside of those areas known to combat zones or belligerents. Pakistan was (supposedly is) a co-belligerent with the US against Al Queda and the Taliban. Allies have the right to conduct military operations on each others soil if for no other reason than both are belligerents and thus valid areas of military operations. We see this played out over and over again in allied operations on each others soil in WWI, WWII, Korea and Kuwait. Heck, Pakistan uses this right of belligerents when its ISI operates inside of Afghanistan.

                      The idea that Pakistan is somehow immune from receiving what she gives, or that she is above CIL/LOAC is a rich but sick joke. Pakistan's protestations of the US raid that killed OBL are less about sovereignty, than anger and shame at being caught giving refuge to the worlds most wanted man on a Pakistani military canton.

                      The full text of Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) reads as follows:

                      “The Security Council,

                      “Reaffirming the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,

                      “Determined to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts,

                      “Recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter,

                      “1. Unequivocally condemns in the strongest terms the horrifying terrorist attacks which took place on 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington (D.C.) and Pennsylvania and regards such acts, like any act of international terrorism, as a threat to international peace and security;

                      “2. Expresses its deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the People and Government of the United States of America;

                      “3. Calls on all States to work together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable;

                      “4. Calls also on the international community to redouble their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased cooperation and full implementation of the relevant international anti-terrorist conventions and Security Council resolutions, in particular resolution 1269 of 19 October 1999;

                      (page 1b follows)

                      “5. Expresses its readiness to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, and to combat all forms of terrorism, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations;

                      “6. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                          Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?
                          enforce what resolution? 1368- The US and it;s allies have enforced it with military operations around the globe to hunt down AQ where ever it or its allies is found to be hiding. List of publicly known countries- Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq (v AQI), Somalia, Lybia, Sudan, Yemen, Philippines.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            From that entire list seems there is not enough will to finish the job in Pakistan. I mean compared to A-stan and Iraq.

                            Libya? wrt 1368? Really?
                            No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                            To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                              From that entire list seems there is not enough will to finish the job in Pakistan. I mean compared to A-stan and Iraq.

                              Libya? wrt 1368? Really?
                              Not every place mentioned gets the full B-2 bomber treatment, some are very low key, but yes- US anti-terrorism assets are active in Lybia.

                              As for finishing the job, I think once the US leaves A-stan, Pakistan will learn about accountability when the US leaves Pakistan to rot, and snuggles up to the worlds biggest democracy.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Commando complex

                                The article is about Musharraf, but it has one interesting tidbit about the PA's relations with the Taliban

                                Brig (r) A R Siddiqi
                                Thursday, July 11, 2013

                                ...Responding to a question about the army's nexus with the Afghan Taliban, he was overly eloquent about their role as a standby volunteer body for the army when required. "The Taliban are a success story", he said and, "we should soon bring them around to our way of thinking and action when necessary".

                                The same evening, Musharraf and I happened to be sitting next to each other at small private dinner. His observation about the Taliban fresh in my mind, I asked him, "Do you, Sir, really believe in what you said about the Taliban during your talk?" "Don't you?", he countered.

                                "Not quite after the damage they did to Afghanistan. Having made a mess of their country, far worse than what it had been under the Soviet invasion and subsequent occupation for nearly a whole decade".

                                He smiled and with an unmistakable touch of irony said, "Sir the Taliban are my strategic reserve and I can unleash them in tens of thousands against India when I want..."

                                After such a definitive statement I chose to hold my horses. After all he was the army chief and I just a retired brigadier out of touch and unaware of the army's operational planning...

                                The writer is a former head of ISPR. (Inter Services Public Relations)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X