fuji's vocabulary is fine but he seems to have comprehension issues.One has to conclude that fuji really doesn't understand basic english. I mean he really can't be this stupid can he?
They weren't simply trying to mend fences. I'm sure behind closed doors they are far more blunt with the Pakistanis. To be a fly on the wall for all of that. They were covering for the Pakistanis to deflect any repercussions within their own country. They're trying to say the Pakistan government was D and D. They also obviously don't trust them, for which I don't blame the Obama administration one bit, but still need their cooperation. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?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.
Or, more than likely, they're just arrogant.
And who the fuck are you to establish the World standards for strong reasons and unacceptable risk?None of that is relevant to the legality.
So again all that matters is your opinion.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.
You're changing the topic again--we first have to get past the fact that it was an illegal act, before we can start this new and different debate about whether it was an acceptable risk.And who the fuck are you to establish the World standards for strong reasons and unacceptable risk?
Your understanding of these terms is not gospel and my question is directly related to the legality issue.You're changing the topic again--we first have to get past the fact that it was an illegal act, before we can start this new and different debate about whether it was an acceptable risk.
And by the way, it doesn't matter who the fuck I am. It's a fact that the law requires "strong reasons" and it's a fact that the US has "no evidence".
You don't like facts much, do you?
Take a knee brother. Fugi is only interested in an argument that sets him apart. That makes him seem to be unique. He'll also never backs down no matter what silly idea comes out of his keyboard. He will simply argue you to death to where no one can remember what the original point was. He's begging for attention and we're giving it to him. Shame on us.Your understanding of these terms is not gospel.
Strong reasons does not require definitive proof that the Pakistani President is complicit with AQ.
That would be the ultimate strongest reason and potential grounds for war.
Your absolute burden of such proof is relevant only in your arrogant demented mind.
Your tolerance for acceptable risk is very impressive with other peoples' lives on the line.
I think you are right.Take a knee brother. Fugi is only interested in an argument that sets him apart. That makes him seem to be unique. He'll also never backs down no matter what silly idea comes out of his keyboard. He will simply argue you to death to where no one can remember what the original point was. He's begging for attention and we're giving it to him. Shame on us.
It would require at least some evidence.Strong reasons does not require definitive proof that the Pakistani President is complicit with AQ.
The conditions required for this evidence to see the light of day will likely never be met.It would require at least some evidence.
Plus there is no incentive for anybody relevant to have such a trial.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.
There isn't any evidence. Unless you are calling both the President and the Secretary of State of the United States liars.The conditions required for this evidence to see the light of day will likely never be met.
They didn't say they were wrong and there is absolutely no evidence to justify not informing Pakistan.There isn't any evidence. Unless you are calling both the President and the Secretary of State of the United States liars.
Sooner or later this very basic concept is going to sink into your skull.
Wrong again.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.
You are wrong again.Specifically they said there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the upper levels of Pakistan's government collude with Al Qaeda. That is the polar opposite of having "strong reasons" to think that there is collusion.
That makes it illegal.
To be clear they don't have ANY evidence WHATSOEVER of collusion. Hillary's phrase was ABSOLUTELY no evidence.There are degrees to strong reasons and claiming that they don't have evidence of the absolutely most severe degree does not mean there are no strong reasons at all and this is certainly not the polar opposite.
The only EVIDENCE, required to make the strike legal, was that OBL was in Pakistan.To be clear they don't have ANY evidence WHATSOEVER of collusion. Hillary's phrase was ABSOLUTELY no evidence.
That means they do not have a little bit of evidence.
That means they do not have some troubling evidence.
That means they do not have a few clues or signs.
It means they have NO EVIDENCE.
The only EVIDENCE, required to make the strike legal, was that OBL was in Pakistan.
Are you denying he was there?
I am still waiting for your proper explanation of your legal argument with sources. Is this yours?So, if a fugitive from American justice is found in Canada, that justifies sending in Seal Team 6 huh?
Bullshit and you know it.
You are such an idiot. You REALLY want to defend this claim?If OBL had been in Canada and Seal Team Six had been sent in to kill him it would be perfectly legal.
