Why is a resort to 'stronger words' the only option, aside from a one line disagreement?
I've explained my interpretation of the UNSC resolution in a debate with another poster claiming to be Pakistani, on the following thread:
Pakistan Using Heavy Shells - a First Since Ceasefire Agreement: Sources | Page 11
I don't really care if these organizations ban the LeT - the LeT is banned in Pakistan as well. Past support for the LeT (insurgency in Kashmir)does not equate support or knowledge of their Mumbai attack plan, so while I completely agree that Pakistan bears responsibility in ensuring that it degrades the capabilities of the LeT as much as possible after the Mumbai attacks, the Pakistani State is not complicit in the attacks.
There is almost no credible evidence implicating HS in the Mumbai attacks, and the evidence against Lakhvi boils down to the alleged voice samples India has, and Lakhvi's legal team argued against using those.
This is a ridiculous argument because the violence on the LoC would not have been at the low levels it was prior to Modi taking power had the justification behind ceasefire violations been 'internationalizing the Kashmir Dispute'. The ceasefire violations largely coincided with Modi and the BJP taking power in India and Pakistan increasing her military deployments in FATA, Balochistan and Karachi. No rational analysis of the internal dynamics playing out in Pakistan and India points to Pakistan having a motive for escalation on the LoC.
Yep - I'm totally maladjusted, introverted, without friends, without a social circle and totally irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that your arguments are a load of rubbish driven by an irrational anti-Pakistan hatred.