Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan's Abbotabad Report

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
    AM, here are merely two of the numerous nagging problems I have with your off-the-shelf explanations...
    We can start with debunking your two 'off the shelf' issues in response to my explanations.

    Would you care to tell me about Syed Saleem Shahzad? For those of you who are unfamiliar, Syed Shahzad was a Pakistani journalist who was investigating the extraordinary close links between the ISI and Pakistani militant groups. He was beaten to death and his body was tossed into an irrigation ditch eighty miles south of Islamabad. The ISI denied any involvement in his death. However, the US has electronic intercepts of his execution orders that were traced back to General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the Director General of the ISI.
    Can you provide a credible source to support your allegations of 'the US has electronic intercepts of Saleem Shahzad's execution orders that were traced back to General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the Director General of the ISI'? I ask because the publicly available statements from US officials do not support your claim:
    Pakistan's government "sanctioned" the killing of journalist Saleem Shahzad, the top officer in the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said.

    But he said he could not confirm if the country's powerful intelligence agency, the ISI, was involved.

    BBC News - Pakistan 'approved Saleem Shahzad murder' says Mullen
    What about the Wardak bombing in Afghanistan? Coalition forces had been tipped off that two suspicious fertilizer trucks were navigating NATO supply routes. US military officials notified Pakistani General Kayani who promised that the trucks would be stopped and detained for investigation. However, Kayani did nothing. The trucks remained unmolested in North Waziristan for two months. During this period, the Haqqani Network turned them into suicide vehicles. US General John Allen once again placed a direct call to General Kayani requesting that these trucks be impounded. Kayani replied that he would make a phone call. A few weeks later, one of these trucks pulled up to the perimeter wall of the US military base in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. The driver pushed the detonation button. The explosion was powerful enough to breach the wall and wound seventy US Marines inside the compound. An eight year old Afghan girl half a mile away was killed by the shrapnel.
    Are you sure you have the correct details here regarding the communication between the US and Pakistan regarding the "truck bombs"? The reports I have seen indicate that the US informed Pakistan about a potential truck bombing two days before the bombing actually occurred (not two months):
    The American commander of Nato in Afghanistan personally asked Pakistan's army chief to halt an insurgent truck bomb that was heading for his troops, during a meeting in Islamabad two days before a huge explosion that wounded 77 US soldiers at a base near Kabul.

    In reply General Ashfaq Kayani offered to "make a phone call" to stop the assault on the US base in Wardak province...

    ... Allen's spokesman said Nato "routinely shares intelligence with the Pakistanis regarding insurgent activities" but he refused to confirm the details of the conversation with Kayani.

    The Pakistani military spokesman, General Athar Abbas, said: "Let's suppose it was the case. The main question is how did this truck travel to Wardak and explode without being checked by Nato? This is just a blame game."

    US bomb warning to Pakistan ignored | World news | The Guardian

    Gen Athar Abbar raises a valid point (regardless of whether the time frame was two days or two months), why did the US not intercept the trucks when they crossed to the Afghan side and during their journey to the target if the US did in fact have concrete intelligence? In addition, the US conducted one drone strike in North Waziristan on September 4 2011, and a total of 9 drone strikes in July and August of 2011. It would appear that the US not only had ample opportunity to intercept the trucks once they had crossed into the Afghan side, but also had ample opportunity to take them out in any one of the many drone strikes conducted in July, August and early September - so why didn't the US take out the truck bombs if the intelligence it provided Pakistan was so strong?

    I have many more examples of ISI collusion AM.
    If the rest of your examples are as poorly thought out and distorted as the two here, then you really need to reassess your objectivity.
    To be quite frank, such disingenuous disambiguation really wears on me.
    Sorry, but the two highly flawed and unsubstantiated examples that you provided in this post suggest 'disingenuous disambiguation' on your part, not mine.
    Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 14 Jul 13,, 03:31.
    Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
    https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
      You tried, and I refuted your arguments in post# 87
      No you didn't

      Again, I addressed, as far as I can tell, all your points related to your interpretation of UNSC Resolution 1368 in post# 87 - the remainder of your arguments are derived from your flawed interpretations of 1368 and therefore are moot.
      No, I can cite chapter and verse of CIL/LOAC and prove that Pakistan is a co-belligerent with the US against AQ. But that can resolved next. First, show me any part of CIL/LOAC that prevent belligerents conducting military operations in the territory of a belligerent- allied or enemy.

      If you can't show me some actual codified examples I expect you to concede the point that allies/ co-belligerents can conduct military operations on each others or another belligerents territory.
      Last edited by zraver; 14 Jul 13,, 03:53.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
        Sorry, but the two highly flawed and unsubstantiated examples that you provided in this post suggest 'disingenuous disambiguation' on your part, not mine.
        Although you have been provided ample room to come to terms with Pakistani diplomatic artifice and military duplicity, you adamantly refuse to accept any Pakistani culpability whatsoever. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that you are at minimum a rabid Pakistani nationalist and perhaps even a funded mouthpiece. At this juncture, you exist here solely as an exemplar to all regarding the nature and pitfalls of blind and rabid nationalism.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
          Respond to what exactly? Fire posted the same article in the thread about Kayani rejecting talks with the Taliban and I offered some thoughts about Musharraf there.
          Its not even about Musharraf. Its about Pakistan's wide-eyed-innocence when Kashmir and "pakistani sponsored terrorism" is mentioned in the same breath. your generals and politicians keep claiming that its all indigenous and that Pakistan only provides moral support. Looks like that's not true after all
          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            No you didn't
            Yes, I refuted your interpretations of 1368 in post# 87, and your lack of counterarguments (to post#87) would imply that my position, that 1368 did not authorize any kind of military strikes, is correct.
            No, I can cite chapter and verse of CIL/LOAC and prove that Pakistan is a co-belligerent with the US against AQ. But that can resolved next. First, show me any part of CIL/LOAC that prevent belligerents conducting military operations in the territory of a belligerent- allied or enemy.

            If you can't show me some actual codified examples I expect you to concede the point that allies/ co-belligerents can conduct military operations on each others or another belligerents territory.
            I have clearly pointed out the conditions codified by the UN Charter that must be met for Jus du Bellum to be invoked - you tried to argue that (1) 1368 authorized military strikes, an argument I debunked (2) Pakistan consented to US military strikes on her territory, an argument that I also debunked (3) US has been carrying out military strikes in Pakistani territory under the justification of Self-defence, an argument that I also debunked given the conditions that must be met for self-defence to be invoked.

            If you have any other arguments to offer, you claim to be able to cite 'chapter and verse of the CIL/LOAC' in support of your position, then please go ahead. You claim that the US has the legal international right to 'conduct unilateral and unauthorized military strikes inside Pakistan', therefore it is your burden to establish the veracity of that claim.
            Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 15 Jul 13,, 13:24.
            Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
            https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Minskaya View Post
              Although you have been provided ample room to come to terms with Pakistani diplomatic artifice and military duplicity, you adamantly refuse to accept any Pakistani culpability whatsoever. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that you are at minimum a rabid Pakistani nationalist and perhaps even a funded mouthpiece. At this juncture, you exist here solely as an exemplar to all regarding the nature and pitfalls of blind and rabid nationalism.
              Whether or not I am a rabid Pakistani nationalist and/or a funded mouthpiece has no bearing on my arguments refuting your claims of ISI involvement in the two incidents you chose to highlight in your previous post.

              If you have other sources or facts to support your claims related to your two examples in the previous post, please go ahead and post them, barring which I would expect you to show the same civility and 'intellectual honesty' as I did in retracting my argument related to the 'US not exploring all options for talks with the Taliban before invading Afghanistan' when certain facts related to Mullah Omar's views about OBL and AQ were brought to light.
              Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
              https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

              Comment


              • #97
                Wrong AM answer my question about the rights of belligerents or be branded a coward without the strength of his convictions.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  Wrong AM answer my question about the rights of belligerents or be branded a coward without the strength of his convictions.
                  You already have my answer - as I pointed out above the UN Charter allows for military action by one State against another (when not authorized by the UNSC) only in the case of self-defence, and self-defence has certain conditions that need to be met which the US has not in the case of military strikes in Pakistan.

                  You are the one claiming to quote 'chapter and verse' in support of your argument, and the burden of establishing the case is now yours, given that your 1368 claims have been thoroughly debunked - so go ahead, start quoting your 'chapter and verse' so we can understand and analyze your claims.
                  Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                  https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    You are a liar.

                    You have no evidence that belligerents cannot conduct military operations on the territory of another belligerent. Azuiiz is just one of many Pakistani politicians who affirmed that that US and Pakistan are co-belligerents in a global war on terror. There is no self defense clause needed to conduct operations in the territory of a belligerent.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      You are a liar.

                      You have no evidence that belligerents cannot conduct military operations on the territory of another belligerent.
                      Your argument is a common logical fallacy brought up by people who run out of arguments to make - demanding that the opponent 'prove a negative'. You claim the US has the right to conduct military operations inside Pakistani territory, so it is your burden to establish why that claim is valid. I have made my position clear, quoting the UN Charter, why the US does not have the right to conduct unilateral and unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil, so stop hiding and please provide us your 'chapter and verse quotations of international law' justifying your position.
                      There is no self defense clause needed to conduct operations in the territory of a belligerent.
                      The UN Charter does not make that distinction in Chapter VII - please provide excerpts from the UN Charter and international law you claim support your position. I have already quoted the relevant sections of Chapter VII that refute your claims.
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • Muh se saath page bhar ka sandas nikal dala, UN charter tumare baap ne likha tha kya?
                        Last edited by anil; 15 Jul 13,, 16:08.

                        Comment


                        • And in English that would be?
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

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

                          Comment


                          • I asked who wrote the UN charter

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                              Your argument is a common logical fallacy brought up by people who run out of arguments to make - demanding that the opponent 'prove a negative'. You claim the US has the right to conduct military operations inside Pakistani territory, so it is your burden to establish why that claim is valid.

                              I already have, and have done so repeatedly.

                              1. Pakistan has on multiple occasion declared itself to be at war with Al Queda and the Taliban and that she was a co-belligerent with the United States.
                              2. CIL/LOAC allow belligerents to undertake military action on each others territory without requiring permission from either the belligerent country or the UN. Examples i showed included Holland and France during WWII and Korea and Kuwait post WWII/UN era.

                              I have made my position clear, quoting the UN Charter, why the US does not have the right to conduct unilateral and unauthorized military operations on Pakistani soil, so stop hiding and please provide us your 'chapter and verse quotations of international law' justifying your position.
                              Ypu are the one who is hiding, I have asked you repeatedly for any example, any citation that shows a belligerent needs permission and you have failed to provide it. On the other hand I have provided you with four different legal examples of belligerents conducting military operations on the territory of an ally.

                              The UN Charter does not make that distinction in Chapter VII - please provide excerpts from the UN Charter and international law you claim support your position. I have already quoted the relevant sections of Chapter VII that refute your claims.
                              Its not about the UN charter, its about CIL/LOAC. You know this but are dodging the question. If you were to answer truthfully you would be forced to admit that you are a shrill for those who support terrorism and are yourself by default a support of terrorists.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                And in English that would be?
                                A derogatory way of asking 'who wrote the UN Charter' - the literal translation into English, "Who wrote the UN Charter, your father?", doesn't really convey the derogatory nature of the question.
                                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X