Pakistan's Abbotabad Report

[antimony]

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..."

AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"

[Double Edge]

AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"

More like in Afghanistan.

[lemontree]

AKA "moral support" for "Kashmiri freedom fighters"

In Kashmir, the Taliban will be easy game. The locals will report them to the security forces, and in the Kashmri valey they may get initial assistance, but will get caught in the COIN grid pretty soon. We may run out of graves for them.

Why else do you think that the insurgency in J&K is a failure in its 24th year and it succeeded in 6-7 years against the Soviets in Afghanistan? The bear trap became a monkey trap in J&K.

[farhan_9909]

@zraver

Ok let suppose pakistan or pakistani military and ISI did created the taliban/terrorists for fight against india or any other purpose or all the stuff you said.
and SWAT and FATA are in mess because we created them and they are now killing us.everything admitted
but
what about USA?didnt they created the terrorists to fight the USSR?didnt they funded the terrorist groups in the past.while now they are fighting the same people now which again are responsible for the suffering of USA(9/11) and thousands of US marine lives

so please make me out the difference between the approach of USA and PAkistan in the past and now?

what is the difference between both the country support for the terrorism in the past,fighting against the same the created for strategic purpose and being kiled by the same.


@Admins

i am new to the forum.
can my post be kindly approved

thanks in advance

[S2]

farhan_9909 Reply

We ask new members to stop by our member introduction thread and tell us a bit about themselves. The latest post can be found here-

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...tml#post922423

You may reply underneath it and leave a brief introduction.

Doing so makes us VERY happy.

Failing to do so? Not so much.

Please make us happy.

[zraver]

what is the difference between both the country support for the terrorism in the past,fighting against the same the created for strategic purpose and being kiled by the same.

The US took a Homer Simpson approach to the problem- yelling D'oh! and muddling through it. Pakistan however has refused to admit it screwed the pooch and instead still thinks it can get the pooch back in the dog house until Paksitan wants it to bite someone else in the future.

[Doktor]

We ask new members to stop by our member introduction thread and tell us a bit about themselves. The latest post can be found here-

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab...tml#post922423

You may reply underneath it and leave a brief introduction.

Doing so makes us VERY happy.

Failing to do so? Not so much.

Please make us happy.

I am so copying this for further pasting.

[farhan_9909]

The US took a Homer Simpson approach to the problem- yelling D'oh! and muddling through it. Pakistan however has refused to admit it screwed the pooch and instead still thinks it can get the pooch back in the dog house until Paksitan wants it to bite someone else in the future.

Well no Both country took almost a similar approach.though the difference only is Pakistan is still struck with them because unlike usa we cant just move away from them.USA after the defeat of USSR could turn against the afghan mujahideen/taliban only because they were not to get affected.negligible compared to pakistan.

USA defeated its arch rival with the help of pakistan through these terrorist.

what pakistan got?
Destruction,millions of refugees even being already a very poor country.AK culture was introduced into pak with the refugees of Afghanistan..

i wish would had been alot better if like iran we would have not allowed the refugees or should have ended all kind of diplomatic relation with usa onwards 1980's

[Agnostic Muslim]

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,

Excellent, reaffirm a commitment to the Charter of the UN.

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

The resolution identifies terrorism as a thread and makes a general commitment to combat that threat, it does not authorize the use of force by one or more States against others, or even the use of non-violent measures define in Article 41 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

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

This is the only place where 1368 comes even close to authorizing force, and it does so indirectly and in an extremely limited manner by pointing to the articles concerning the right of self defence in the UN Charter. Which in turn brings us back to my previous arguments on how unauthorized US military strikes in Pakistan do not meet the requirements of 'self defence' as defined by the UN and in international law.

“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;

Excellent, they should be condemned, but condemnation is not an 'authorization for the use of force' by one or more States against others.

“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;

As it should.

“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;

Calls on States to work together, the US in fact has, and is, violating this particular part of 1368 by conducting unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan.

“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;

Excellent, but again, no authorization for the use of force by one State against another.

“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;

And the 'steps' the UNSC took to actually authorize the use of force under Chapter VII (excluding self defence) are in UNSC 1386 (quoted at the end)

Now, here is the text of 1386 that explicitly authorizes force in Afghanistan:

"The Security Council,

"Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December 2001,

"Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12 September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,

"Welcoming developments in Afghanistan that will allow for all Afghans to enjoy inalienable rights and freedom unfettered by oppression and terror,

"Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,

"Reiterating its endorsement of the Agreement on provisional arrangements in Afghanistan pending the re-establishment of permanent government institutions, signed in Bonn on 5 December 2001 (S/2001/1154) (the Bonn Agreement),

"Taking note of the request to the Security Council in Annex 1, paragraph 3, to the Bonn Agreement to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of an international security force, as well as the briefing on 14 December 2001 by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on his contacts with the Afghan authorities in which they welcome the deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations authorized international security force,

"Taking note of the letter dated 19 December 2001 from Dr. Abdullah Abdullah to the President of the Security Council (S/2001/1223),

"Welcoming the letter from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General of 19 December 2001 (S/2001/1217), and taking note of the United Kingdom offer contained therein to take the lead in organizing and commanding an International Security Assistance Force,

"Stressing that all Afghan forces must adhere strictly to their obligations under human rights law, including respect for the rights of women, and under international humanitarian law,

"Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Afghanistan,

"Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

"Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force, in consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority established by the Bonn Agreement,

"Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

"1.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;

"2.Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;

"3.Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

"4.Calls upon the International Security Assistance Force to work in close consultation with the Afghan Interim Authority in the implementation of the force mandate, as well as with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General;

"5.Calls upon all Afghans to cooperate with the International Security Assistance Force and relevant international governmental and non-governmental organizations, and welcomes the commitment of the parties to the Bonn Agreement to do all within their means and influence to ensure security, including to ensure the safety, security and freedom of movement of all United Nations personnel and all other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan;

"6.Takes note of the pledge made by the Afghan parties to the Bonn Agreement in Annex 1 to that Agreement to withdraw all military units from Kabul, and calls upon them to implement this pledge in cooperation with the International Security Assistance Force;

"7.Encourages neighbouring States and other Member States to provide to the International Security Assistance Force such necessary assistance as may be requested, including the provision of overflight clearances and transit;

"8.Stresses that the expenses of the International Security Assistance Force will be borne by the participating Member States concerned, requests the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund through which contributions could be channelled to the Member States or operations concerned, and encourages Member States to contribute to such a fund;

"9.Requests the leadership of the International Security Assistance Force to provide periodic reports on progress towards the implementation of its mandate through the Secretary-General;

"10.Calls on Member States participating in the International Security Assistance Force to provide assistance to help the Afghan Interim Authority in the establishment and training of new Afghan security and armed forces;

"11.Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."

The authorization for ISAF deployment has been renewed/extended multiple times since, which on its own refutes your argument that 'UNSC 1368 provided some sort of blanket and unlimited authorization for the use of force against terrorism', because had that been the case, there would have been no need for UNSC 1378 and the subsequent extensions in the mandate of ISAF in Afghanistan.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Z, why US didn't enforce the resolution?

There is nothing to enforce in 1368 - it is a resolution that 'condemns, condoles and urges member nations to work together against terrorism' - there is no authorization for violent or non-violent measures as outlined in Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

As I pointed out in my previous post, the only place where UNSC 1368 comes even close to suggesting the use of force is in pointing (without specifically identifying a target) to the 'right of self defence' outlined in the UN Charter.

[Doktor]

Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69, which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

There is plenty of legal analysis debating the language of UNSC Resolutions, what is binding, what isn't, when Chapter VII violent and/or non-violent measures are authorized etc. What we do know is that UNSC 1368 does not explicitly invoke Chapter VII measures - that on its own could be questioned, but the fact that subsequent resolutions (1386) specifically invoked Chapter VII and specifically authorized and outlined the use of force further establishes the argument that 1368 was little more than a document expressing solidarity with the US while 'condemning and condoling'.

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Those military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory, when not authorized by the GoP, are violations of international law, regardless of who is being targeted, unless the US can establish a case for Self-defence which it has not.

Zraver and some others like to suggest that my position opposing unauthorized military strikes by the US on Pakistani territory imply 'support for terrorism' - what they have failed to comprehend is the distinction between opposing ALL military operations against alleged terrorists vs opposing unauthorized military operations by the US on Pakistani territory. I support the latter point, not the former, and it really isn't that hard of a distinction to understand.

[farhan_9909]

Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69, which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

but even if they do than it should not kill the innocents around aswell including children

[farhan_9909]

Wanna try this at court? ICJ maybe? ;)

Anyway, USA is not attacking state of Pakistan, but terror organizations that are hiding there. At least I see it that way. Unless you can show me occurances where PA assets are being targets (on purpose).

Edit: The message is reply to post #69, which is pretty lengthy to quote it.

First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

but even if they do than it should not kill the innocents around aswell including children

[Agnostic Muslim]

First of all they are not allowed to strike even if the Terrorists gets nukes.they have no rights to enter into each and every country.

If a an entity obtained nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them, and posed an imminent threat to another nation, then that nation would in fact be 'allowed/justified' in taking any and all measures necessary to protect itself from that threat under the right of self defence as outlined in the UN Charter.