Pakistan will never again fight 'imposed wars' on its territory: PM Khan

[Taimoor Khan]

I agree with you that Pakistan has every right to play the game as best as it can, just as the others are doing. I have no problem with that at all.

Others have already have played their game, 60k Pakistani citizens dead is no joke. If and when Pakistan respond, ALL should take it and understand the reasons why Pakistan is responding. No "do more" or "Pakistan is playing double game" non sense.

 

[VCheng]

Others have already have played their game, 60k Pakistani citizens dead is no joke. If and when Pakistan respond, ALL should take it and understand the reasons why Pakistan is responding. No "do more" or "Pakistan is playing double game" non sense.

The game is never over. One innings follows another.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

The game is never over. One innings follows another.

So when we bat and score big, just lay down and except it as part of "the game" . Savy?

 

[VCheng]

So when we bat and score big, just lay down and except it as part of "the game" . Savy?

No, you get to bowl the other side's innings. They have bats too. And bowlers.

 

[ziaulislam]

The Taliban are the terrorists without distinction and should be a common shared enemy without a doubt, for both countries. If Pakistan chooses to be selective here, as you advocate, then it will only harm itself needlessly. Of course, it is Pakistan's choice whether it wishes to continue to retain some extra-State actors for use elsewhere, but the time for that strategy has come and gone.

Not simple as that ..hypothetically if Taliban loses and southern alliance win what grantee is that they will not bomb Peshawar and hijack school buses as they did in 1990s..
Whats the grantee they will not support baloch insurgents as they did in 1960s and pushtoon militants aka TTP as they did in 1950s and currently

Whats the grantee huge amount of armed Indians wont sit in khandhar to attack Pakistan
As it happened in 1971..

Pakistan rightly or wrongly is now largely paranoid ..as this lack of paranoia cost it alot before in1940s and 1970s

 

[Taimoor Khan]

No, you get to bowl the other side's innings. They have bats too. And bowlers.

I am happy if we bat or bowl. as long as no one is moaning foul play, when there is none. As I said, no more do more or Pakistan is playing double games. Everyone needs to keep their mouth shut and try their best..... in the spirit of the game!

 

[VCheng]

I am happy if we bat or bowl. as long as no one is moaning foul play, when there is none. As I said, no more do more or Pakistan is playing double games. Everyone needs to keep their mouth shut and try their best..... in the spirit of the game!

The game of international geopolitics has its own rules which are the same for all players.

Not simple as that ..hypothetically if Taliban loses and southern alliance win what grantee is that they will not bomb Peshawar and hijack school buses as they did in 1990s..
Whats the grantee they will not support baloch insurgents as they did in 1960s and pushtoon militants aka TTP as they did in 1950s and currently

Whats the grantee huge amount of armed Indians wont sit in khandhar to attack Pakistan
As it happened in 1971..

Pakistan rightly or wrongly is now largely paranoid ..as this lack of paranoia cost it alot before in1940s and 1970s

There are no guarantees in international geopolitics.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

The game of international geopolitics has its own rules which are the same for all players.

Exactly, so no moaning please.

 

[HariPrasad]

What is the been to talk war?

 

[VCheng]

Exactly, so no moaning please.

As long as that requirement applies to ALL parties, I am okay with that too.

 

[ziaulislam]

The game of international geopolitics has its own rules which are the same for all players.



There are no guarantees in international geopolitics.

exactly so option of imposing a unilateral anti Pakistan govt now with continuing civil war and afghan refugees is better vs letting talks and forming an afghan consensus govt is better

americans needs to solve the pakistani concerns if they want a full spectrum support which are afghan drug trade, poltical consensus govt(rather than antipakistan elements/northern alliance), and asking afghan govt not to renew a dead durrand line issue or host militancy in pakistan...

 

[VCheng]

exactly so option of imposing a unilateral anti Pakistan govt now with continuing civil war and afghan refugees is better vs letting talks and forming an afghan consensus govt is better

americans needs to solve the pakistani concerns if they want a full spectrum support which are afghan drug trade, poltical consensus govt(rather than antipakistan elements/northern alliance), and asking afghan govt not to renew a dead durrand line issue or host militancy in pakistan...

USA can and will only do whatever serves its own national interests, and all other parties, including Pakistan, can and will do the same. That is what will indeed happen, I predict.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

As long as that requirement applies to ALL parties, I am okay with that too.

Did you hear Pakistan moan as to how India is using Afghan soil to cause terrorism in Pakistan, right under the nose of America?

Your enthusiasm of bracketing everyone under the same category doesn't go along with the ground realities.

 

[VCheng]

Did you hear Pakistan moan as to how India is using Afghan soil to cause terrorism in Pakistan, right under the nose of America?

Your enthusiasm of bracketing everyone under the same category doesn't go along with the ground realities.

My enthusiasm, or any lack thereof, to bracket everyone in the same category arises from the fact that everyone is entitled to be an equal player in international geopolitics. That is the immutable ground reality.

 

[Taimoor Khan]

My enthusiasm, or any lack thereof, to bracket everyone in the same category arises from the fact that everyone is entitled to be an equal player in international geopolitics. That is the immutable ground reality.

Where do you define the red line between geopolitics and state sponsored terrorism?