US want to kill more Pakistan people

[VCheng]

Why is it that you are prepared to make allegations in the absence of evidence against ISI. .........

ISI was ordered by the Pakistani Supreme Court to produce the "disappeared" persons! Have you not followed the Adiala missing person's case, among others?

What allegations? ISI is guilty as I have indicated of grave violations of law and due process.

Isn't it funny how you choose to accept the same court's verdict against the Prime Minister but not what it says about the ISI? Not funny, but sad, actually.

Talk about selective vision and memory!

 

[lem34]

ISI was ordered by the Pakistani Supreme Court to produce the "disappeared" persons! Have you not followed the Adiala missing person's case, among others?

What allegations? ISI is guilty as I have indicated of grave violations of law and due process.

Isn't it funny how you choose to accept the same court's verdict against the Prime Minister but not what it says about the ISI? Not funny, but sad, actually.

Talk about selective vision and memory!

National security is not a matter for courts. Our courts are not yet as mature as American ones which know their place and put national security first. But then you would want to hold Pakistan to a higher level of accountability than America don't you?

when America goes to war—or appears to be on the verge of war—the war-making powers of the government regularly trump the Bill of Rights. One need only recall the Sedition Act of 1798, Thomas Jefferson’s embargo, Andrew Jackson at New Orleans, the Civil War (in both the Union and the Confederacy), the two World Wars, or the McCarthy Era. Presidents, Congresses, and the states have often limited the rights of some citizens—even if it meant “violating” the law—because they deemed such actions necessary to protect the nation. As Lincoln famously argued on July 4, 1861, “Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?” In other words, the government must prioritize national survival in wartime because constitutional liberty would be worthless if there was no national government left to uphold the Constitution.


Striking the balance between liberty and security yesterday and today | Constitution Daily

 

[VCheng]

National security is not a matter for courts. Our courts are not yet as mature as American ones which know their place and put national security first. But then you would want to hold Pakistan to a higher level of accountability than America don't you?

It is precisely lame justifications as this that are contributing to slowly killing off Pakistan, among many other causes too.

If the perpetrators of the official crimes within Pakistan are guilty (as they very likely are), then their "patriotic" supporters are just as guilty.

Your analogy fails totally: it is not USA that is on the verge of destruction, but Pakistan.

 

[lem34]

It is precisely lame justifications as this that are contributing to slowly killing off Pakistan, among many other causes too.

If the perpetrators of the official crimes within Pakistan are guilty (as they very likely are), then their "patriotic" supporters are just as guilty.

Your analogy fails totally: it is not USA that is on the verge of destruction, but Pakistan.

You remember the other day when I said your intellect does not match your education this is an example of it.

You wish to hold PA and ISI to a higher level of accountability than any security service in any nation in the world and when there are apparent shortcomings you seem to get excitable. Check post 77 and see read it on more than one occasion and see if it makes any sense. Sad when we have Pakistanis who do what you are doing

 

[VCheng]

You remember the other day when I said your intellect does not match your education this is an example of it.

You wish to hold PA and ISI to a higher level of accountability than any security service in any nation in the world and when there are apparent shortcomings you seem to get excitable. Check post 77 and see read it on more than one occasion and see if it makes any sense. Sad when we have Pakistanis who do what you are doing

Resorting to personal insults will not change the predicament that Pakistan is presently in, sadly, no matter how you try to spin it and fail.

"Apparent shortcomings"? The deficiencies are real and disastrous in all branches of government including the PA and ISI, and only getting bigger while denials from people who should know better grow strident.

Why don't we agree to disagree and carry on with our positions and see who is vindicated? Although, being correct would sadden me greatly for I know that would not be a good end result for Pakistan. At least I won't be one of the enablers!

 

[lem34]

Resorting to personal insults will not change the predicament that Pakistan is presently in, sadly, no matter how you try to spin it and fail.

"

Its not a personnel insult mate. but it does prohibit serious discussion with you on some topics. I do not mean to offend you. I will not allow you the liberty any more of your circular arguments which are akin to sophisticated trolling

"Apparent shortcomings"? The deficiencies are real and disastrous in all branches of government including the PA and ISI, and only getting bigger while denials from people who should know better grow strident.

Why don't we agree to disagree and carry on with our positions and see who is vindicated? Although, being correct would sadden me greatly for I know that would not be a good end result for Pakistan. At least I won't be one of the enablers!

you have chosen to either ignore or you do not understand the points I made to which you are trying to respond.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Compromise and negotiations are a good thing! (I think you just proved again who is the rigid absolutist here! )

The 'rigid absolutist' would be the US in this case - as has been pointed out several times, Pakistan has proposed various alternatives as compromise solutions to the issues bedeviling the US-Pakistan relationship, and the US has rejected them all, while unilaterally continuing/imposing her policies on Pakistan.

I have not declared any absolute positions in this forum: even the "mighty and always right" USA is negotiating and compromising because those are the correct things to do. Having said that, negotiating from a position of power is always advantageous.

The official statements and actual policies on the ground, by the US, show absolutely no sign of compromise over the main policy disagreements with Pakistan, and you have been very clear in arguing in favor of the 'maximalist' and 'non-compromising' position of the US.

Please point out where exactly you have argued for the US to compromise on its stance on various Pak-US policy disagreements?

 

[fd24]

Please point out where exactly you have argued for the US to compromise on its stance on various Pak-US policy disagreements?

Come come Agno - don't try to get blood out of a stone sir.

 

[lem34]

If the perpetrators of the official crimes within Pakistan are guilty (as they very likely are), then their "patriotic" supporters are just as guilty.

Well the perpetrator would be guilty not likely guilty. You should have said alleged perpetrator and that would have made sense but your desire to convert allegations against Pakistan security services knows no bounds. I do not enjoy doing this to you Cheng but you do bring it on yourself mate

"Apparent shortcomings"? The deficiencies are real and disastrous in all branches of government including the PA and ISI, and only getting bigger while denials from people who should know better grow strident.

According to who?? Americans and a few Pakistanis who have sold out for a green card??

.

Why don't we agree to disagree and carry on with our positions and see who is vindicated? Although, being correct would sadden me greatly for I know that would not be a good end result for Pakistan. At least I won't be one of the enablers!

We have been here before. When you have no evidence or something relevant rather than accepting you are wrong that is the case you then want to wait and see in the hope that time may come to your rescue and we will forget because this thread will be old.

 

[VCheng]

The 'rigid absolutist' would be the US in this case - as has been pointed out several times, Pakistan has proposed various alternatives as compromise solutions to the issues bedeviling the US-Pakistan relationship, and the US has rejected them all, while unilaterally continuing/imposing her policies on Pakistan.

None of the alternatives proposed are workable. Just because alternatives are proposed does not necessarily make them implementable, even though you might think they are.

The official statements and actual policies on the ground, by the US, show absolutely no sign of compromise over the main policy disagreements with Pakistan, and you have been very clear in arguing in favor of the 'maximalist' and 'non-compromising' position of the US.

I did say that it is advantageous to negotiate from a position of strength, did I not? Pakistan needs to develop its negotiating position to a level of robustness before it can get a compromise out of the US. That is how negotiations work.

Please point out where exactly you have argued for the US to compromise on its stance on various Pak-US policy disagreements?

When Pakistan presents a workable alternative, then a compromise will be forthcoming too.

 

[lem34]

None of the alternatives proposed are workable. Just because alternatives are proposed does not necessarily make them implementable, even though you might think they are.



.

So who is to judge what is workable. Those that do not even have the decency for killing our soldiers in an "accident".

I did say that it is advantageous to negotiate from a position of strength, did I not? Pakistan needs to develop its negotiating position to a level of robustness before it can get a compromise out of the US. That is how negotiations work.


.

We would never have got any strength if we had reopened the routes within 30 days as you were suggesting.

When Pakistan presents a workable alternative, then a compromise will be forthcoming too.

why? what difference does it make? Our leaders wrongly in my opinion have more or less said if Americans apologised we could move on. But Americans cant even be bothered to do that.

Anyway I think it is a difficult task you have to defend a rogue nation that is drunk on its own apparent omnipotence

 

[VCheng]

So who is to judge what is workable. .................

Actually, both sides determine that, after a process of back and forth negotiations, such as those going on right now. It may be that Pakistan will get some concessions that it wants, though not all, and USA will get some concessions it want, but not all, and the relationship moves forward.

It depends on how good each side is for negotiating the advantages for itself.

We would never have got any strength if we had reopened the routes within 30 days as you were suggesting.
...................

I will still maintain that the prolonged closure has hurt Pakistan's position far more than helped. A shorter blockade would have driven home the protest while still not hardening the positions taken by USA, which is one of the things you are complaining about.

 

[Solomon2]

It seems I may have erred when I said the U.S. wasn't reporting on drone activities to the U.N. I found that there is a U.N. body set up specifically to monitor compliance with UNSCR 1373 and related matters, the Counter-Terrorism Committee: link However, after 2006 country reports about compliance with 1373 have been classified!

Member reports regarding follow-on Resolution 1624 (domestic compliance)are available, including from Pakistan. link

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Didn't see anywhere it says U.S. wants to kill more Pakistanis by Leon's comments. I can write it as U.S. wants to kill more terrorists like Osama.

Like they killed terrorists in Iraq?

Uh huh...yeah sure.

The U.S. is widely known to be the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Is this completely new for you ?

 

[lem34]

I will still maintain that the prolonged closure has hurt Pakistan's position far more than helped. A shorter blockade would have driven home the protest while still not hardening the positions taken by USA, which is one of the things you are complaining about.

Not complaining at all. Their position has not changed they are just not subtle about their position any more so it appears as if they have hardened