Hillary says it again - no evidence
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
I don't believe you. I find the Secretary of State of the United States of America more credible than you.
Hillary Clinton: "The US had absolutely no evidence that anyone at the highest level of the Pakistani government knew the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden."
That's unequivocal.
Plausible Denial is the only public stance they could take.
Sheltering him and allowing him to operate unmolested
would basically be an act of aggression.
Any one here expect Obama to declare war on them?
You missed his point completely and it's a valid one.
If they didn't know then they have very little control over whats going on.
BTW Since when did "no evidence" mean that it didn't happen. It just means that there is no evidence that they have found.
Fuji, for someone who it is my understanding has been quite sucessful in the world of commerce, you can be remarkably "thick."
Unless the U.S. desires a total rupture of Diplomatic Relations with Pakistan, do you believe that either the President or the Secretary of State are going to publicly state that the shielding of OBL went straight to the top of the Government of Pakistan?
Notice also the use of the past tence "had no evidence" that does not mean that such has not subsequently been developed.
What governments say to each other in private can be entirely different from what they say in public.
Unless the U.S. desires a total rupture of Diplomatic Relations with Pakistan, do you believe that either the President or the Secretary of State are going to publicly state that the shielding of OBL went straight to the top of the Government of Pakistan?
Notice also the use of the past tence "had no evidence" that does not mean that such has not subsequently been developed.
What governments say to each other in private can be entirely different from what they say in public.
I am simply pointing our that contrary to having the "strong reasons" required by international law the US has "no evidence" to justify its violation of pakistani sovereignty.
I note that Hilary could have refused to comment, or said that she won't discuss what the US knows, but she chose to say explicitly and positively that there was "no evidence" of collusion by the highest levels of the pakistani state. This is on top of the president having previously said the same thing so she is really making the point quite strongly.
note that what matters legally is what the us knew at the time of the attack and not what it learns later.
I note that Hilary could have refused to comment, or said that she won't discuss what the US knows, but she chose to say explicitly and positively that there was "no evidence" of collusion by the highest levels of the pakistani state. This is on top of the president having previously said the same thing so she is really making the point quite strongly.
note that what matters legally is what the us knew at the time of the attack and not what it learns later.
It must be an act.
Nobody can be so dense.
It is hard to guess what fuji does for a living as he seems to be an expert at everything.
Plus anybody as smart as fuji thinks he is shouldn't have to work anymore.
Sure it does , let's say Obama calls and tells the president, we know where he is, we want to go in now, any objections ? Pakistani president says sure, but what if he goes on to contact a general and state, americans are moving in leave them alone ?
And the General let's obama know to get the fuck out ?
Of course it's an act. I don't believe fugi has any real conviction about half of what he posts. He likes throwing out a line and seeing who he can hook into endless debates.
You are wrong. I have strong convinctions, and if you take the time to understand what I write, you will find I'm consistent in the application of those convictions to a variety of subjects. I am strongly against violations of human rights, and strongly in favour of the rule of law as a means of guarding those rights, but also firm in my belief that nations and people have the right to defend themselves. I oppose terrorism, war crime and uphold freedom and due process. I am equally critical of Hamas for attacking Israeli civilians as I am critical of the United States for indiscriminate and reckless bombing, torture, and extra judicial rendition. I insist that laws, even constitutional laws, follow these basic principles, and so for example I dispute that slavery can ever have been legal, even if it was constitutional.
The prosecution of Omar Khadr makes a mockery of the rule of law and trods on his rights. Of course I'm appalled by it.
Fuji, you are out to lunch on this point.
Perhaps you might reflect on this article from The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-officials-say/2011/05/27/AGgN1oCH_story.html
Perhaps you might reflect on this article from The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...-officials-say/2011/05/27/AGgN1oCH_story.html
"That which is not just, is not law". John Brown. Despite that he was at times barking mad, he was also correct in regards to slavery. The problem is who decides what is just or not regardless of law. International law becomes even more convoluted. Obama had to make a decision based on what turned out to be very good information. He would have to have been a fool to allow any of that to be known to the Pakistanis or risk having information about the operation leak out. You think the Pakistan president would have kept it to himself? The action was just. There are times when law takes a back seat.
And beyond that, go back to Aardvark's point. Why do you assume whatever comes out of the mouth of the President or Sec. of State can be taken at face value when dealing with Pakistan, or any other nation for that matter? How naive are you, or pretending to be? The President made the right call, regardless of how you choose to dissect it.
Last edited:
Well somebody understands. Of course we all know that high level politicians 'never' lie to save face or save face of allies.
