Hillary says it again - no evidence

[fuji]

Again the president and the secretary of state have been unequivocal in their statements. They could have refused comment or said they won't discuss. They chose instead to make a strong, direct, and clear statement.

It's a fact. Sorry about that.

 

[Asterix]

He likes throwing out a line and seeing who he can hook into endless debates.

Just a reminder. Have a good night everyone.

 

[blackrock13]

That is not the case as it would be made in a court of law.

These are public comments made to mend fences and save face.

If you think that this is the best US attempt to expose corruption and discredit and embarrass Pakistan, you are an even greater idiot than I ever imagined.

Somebody gets it, but as many here realize, FUJI won't let himself get it, it could be embarrassing (what am I saying) and the nimrod couldn't handle that.

I wonder if FUJI spends time in his Hall of Mirrors practicing his talents, imaginary or otherwise.

 

[blackram]

Swell. So someone in the Pakistani government did know, though no one can prove it, or they are completely incompetent. Speaks real well of them either way.

If their government wasn't incompetant, do you think they would still be a 3rd world country?

 

[blackrock13]

If their government wasn't incompetant, do you think they would still be a 3rd world country?

It's a tad more complicated than that, but remember they are a nuclear armed 3rd world country.

 

[Malibook]

Again the president and the secretary of state have been unequivocal in their statements. They could have refused comment or said they won't discuss. They chose instead to make a strong, direct, and clear statement.

It's a fact. Sorry about that.

So if Pakistan was suing the US for $100 billion in the World Court and the US was ready to cut the aid and sever relations with Pakistan, you think that the US defence to this action would be the same as the friendly press conference comments that are made to mend fences and save face and improve relations going forward?

You have really outdone your legendary stupidity this time, and that is saying a lot.

 

[fuji]

You've again changed the topic away from the illegality of the act.

Again, the American official chose to make definitive statements. They did not gloss over the issue or choose diplomatic ways of avoiding the question. They were forthright and forceful in their claim that the upper levels of the Pakistani government are not involved.

 

[blackram]

It's a tad more complicated than that, but remember they are a nuclear armed 3rd world country.

So they are idiot savants, they have a competance in building nuclear bombs, yet no competance in feeding their people or educating them. Every loser has something that he or she is good at doing.

 

[blackrock13]

So they are idiot savants, they have a competance in building nuclear bombs, yet no competance in feeding their people or educating them. Every loser has something that he or she is good at doing.

On this we agree.

 

[Malibook]

You've again changed the topic away from the illegality of the act.

My point, which keeps on going right over your thick head, is that the US is not even trying to make the case that they had strong reasons.

We don't know if they would be successful or not in this matter as they are not even making the attempt, as they vigorously would if faced with the hypothetical lawsuit and splinter scenario that I described.

The US and Pakistan have no desire for the US to have to publicly justify their method.
That would be pouring salt in the wound and moving in the wrong direction.
What part of this is so difficult for you to comprehend?

Your demands for evidence are irrelevant.

 

[fuji]

They can't have strong reasons: they have said, definitely, that they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

You are essentially calling them liars.

If they had strong reasons but wished not to share they would dodge the question of evidence of complicity in any number of diplomatically acceptable ways. They didn't.

Your claim that they do actually have evidence despite saying so emphatically that they don't is about as plausible as a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

 

[Malibook]

The US knows that there is significant corruption and collusion in the Pakistani ranks.
They are saying that they don't have evidence that it goes to the top.
Obama said that he doesn't know how high it goes and he couldn't be sure that there would have been no betrayal or leakage.
His reasons were strong enough for him and the risk was deemed unacceptable to him.

Unacceptable risk is subjective.
It is like fuji telling his wife to walk to the store at night to get him some breath mints.
Even though the odds of her being attacked on the way there or back are extremely remote, she says that she feels uncomfortable and it is an unacceptable risk that she is not willing to take.
Who the fuck is fuji to say that the risk is acceptable or completely non-existent?

Even if there was only a 1 in a million chance that your wife would have been attacked, that doesn't mean that she felt perfectly safe and was just trying to piss you off.
The risk was unacceptable to her.
Your opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Malibook]

If they had strong reasons but wished not to share they would dodge the question of evidence of complicity in any number of diplomatically acceptable ways. They didn't.

They are trying to mend fences and improve relations and help the Pakistani leadership save face.
Dodging the question would fuel the fire and move things in the wrong direction.
The US is not apologizing and/or admitting that they were wrong.

OBL was and the extremest of priorities and nobody else comes remotely close and the US would be much more likely to trust Pakistan for any other target, even Ayman al-Zawahri.

 

[fuji]

So your argument depends on the public statements of the president and secretary of state being lies.

Bizarre and unbelievable.

 

[Asterix]

So your argument depends on the public statements of the president and secretary of state being lies.

Bizarre and unbelievable.

No, what is bizarre and unbelievable is that you can't fathom that becuase the administration still needs the cooperation of the Pakistanis they were willing to cover their ass. At the very least I'm sure they had very strong suspicions about the porousness of the Pakistan government or they would have brought them in from the get go.

 

[Malibook]

So your argument depends on the public statements of the president and secretary of state being lies.

Bizarre and unbelievable.

Your inability to comprehend plain English and your lack of logic are hard to believe.

They don't have evidence that the Pakistani President is corrupt. (I believe them, understand?)
That does not mean they trusted him implicitly and sufficiently in the case of OBL.
That does not mean they trust everybody that he may have told and everybody that they may have told.
That does not mean the risk was not unacceptable to them.

Legal or not is inconclusive simply based on these statements.
Without examining all of the data that the US has on Pakistan and all of the relevant historical realities and examples of corruption, collusion, and incompetence, it would be premature, presumptuous, and idiotic to make a conclusive finding.

You seem to be the only person who is so perplexed and astounded that the US could not trust Pakistan.
Even the radical idiots who despise everything about the US are logical enough to know that the US has legitimate reasons.
AQ, the Taliban, and OBL likely knew better than most that the US had strong reasons.

I have no doubt that a jury of 12 fujis would not find their reasons to be strong and the risks to be unacceptable.
Without a trial where the US is motivated to make their best case with no regard for US/Pakistani relations, we will never know what 12 rational people would have decided given all of the information.

 

[blackrock13]

Your inability to comprehend plain English and your lack of logic are hard to believe.

They don't have evidence that the Pakistani President is corrupt. (I believe them, understand?)
That does not mean they trusted him implicitly and sufficiently in the case of OBL.
That does not mean they trust everybody that he may have told and everybody that they may have told.
That does not mean the risk was not unacceptable to them.

Legal or not is inconclusive simply based on these statements.
Without examining all of the data that the US has on Pakistan and all of the relevant historical realities and examples of corruption, collusion, and incompetence, it would be premature, presumptuous, and idiotic to make a conclusive finding.

You seem to be the only person who is so perplexed and astounded that the US could not trust Pakistan.
Even the radical idiots who despise everything about the US are logical enough to know that the US has legitimate reasons.
AQ, the Taliban, and OBL likely knew better than most that the US had strong reasons.

I have no doubt that a jury of 12 fujis would not find their reasons to be strong and the risks to be unacceptable.
Without a trial where the US is motivated to make their best case with no regard for US/Pakistani relations, we will never know what 12 rational people would have decided given all of the information.

12 Fuji's OMFG. Bite your tongue.

 

[train]

One has to conclude that fuji really doesn't understand basic english. I mean he really can't be this stupid can he?

 

[fuji]

No, what is bizarre and unbelievable is that you can't fathom that becuase the administration still needs the cooperation of the Pakistanis they were willing to cover their ass.

And you think that for this reason they lied? Note that you actually have to believe that the President and Secretary of State actually went on TV and lied about it. They were very emphatic in saying there was no evidence. They had all sorts of ways of diplomatically avoiding the question and saying other nice things about Pakistan if they'd simply wanted to mend the fences.

At the very least I'm sure they had very strong suspicions about the porousness of the Pakistan government or they would have brought them in from the get go.

Or, more than likely, they're just arrogant.

 

[fuji]

Your inability to comprehend plain English and your lack of logic are hard to believe.

They don't have evidence that the Pakistani President is corrupt. (I believe them, understand?)

If by "corrupt" you mean "complicit" then I think you're not grokking that right there, in that sentence, you've acknowledged that their act was illegal. The rest of your post is an attempt to justify why they would carry out an illegal act:

That does not mean they trusted him implicitly and sufficiently in the case of OBL.
That does not mean they trust everybody that he may have told and everybody that they may have told.
That does not mean the risk was not unacceptable to them.

None of that is relevant to the legality.

Without examining all of the data that the US has on Pakistan and all of the relevant historical realities and examples of corruption, collusion, and incompetence, it would be premature, presumptuous, and idiotic to make a conclusive finding.

The President and Secretary of State have presumably examined all that evidence and they have come out and told you that there is no evidence of complicity. They have used variously the phrases "no evidence whatsoever" and "absolutely no evidence". They've made a pretty strong statement there.

It seems to me that you are the one that is having trouble comprehending the phrase "no evidence".