karan.1970
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 14,781
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
Your diversion attempt is that you're bringing in Pakistan's credibility when discussing GoA credibility. Pakistan's credibility is irrelevant when questioning GoA credibility. Pakistan not having credibility or having any credibility is completely irrelevant.
Perhaps an analogy. There's 2 thieves. One makes fun of the other calling that person a thief. The other says it's hypocritical for a thief to call someone else a thief. It is hypocritical, however my main point, claiming hypocrisy still does not change the fact that the other person is a thief.
Same thing here. It is irrelevant what the credibility of GoP. Credibility of GoA needs to be looked at by itself.
There's a logical inference rule called Simplification.
Suppose A is true AND B is true. From that, we can conclude A is true. Very elementary, yes, but this is exactly what I am saying and you're not understanding.
Suppose GoA has no credibility and GoP has no credibility. GoP not having any credibility is completely irrelevant as it still stands that GoA has no credibility. Just substitude A = GoA having no credibility and B = GoP having no credibility in the formula above.
So we are saying the same thing here.. May be I was not clear before. I am not defending the credibility of Afg govt, but questioning the standing of Pakistanis to call Afg govt as non credible. So while Afg govt may or may not be credible enough, Pakistanis by the virtue of their policies in the past can not raise noise about it..
Just as in your example, when thief number 1 can not make fun of thief number 2 being a thief
Note: Not calling Pakistan a thief..