Even if we accept that what you are saying is true (just for the sake of argument)
You are still inferring present guilt just from past criminality. Not admissible in a court of law...
Not quite. Just that a man with a criminal record apprehended with burglars' tools in the vicinity of a jewellers' shop has a great deal of explanation to do. And we are discussing the Jaish; the effort has been to declare the Jaish a terrorist organisation, not Pakistan; not yet.
Where is the evidence of Pakistani involvement in (current)Pulwama attack?
An unforced confession and a guilty plea by the Jaish, for its part; contradictory support for the self-same self-admitted guilty party by another, proclaiming that the first is not after all guilty, thus making the supporter an accessory before the crime?
where is the 'proof' that Pakistan was planning more attacks in IoK??
None, whatsoever; but the statements of the Jaish itself..
India has openly helped Mukti Bahini in the past, is it sufficient to prove that India is helping Baloch terrorists currently?
So why then is that argument used by both the Pakistan establishment and by members of this forum?
Pakistan too has a right to attack India after a terror attack is carried out on Pakistani soil, based on India's past criminality? Do you not see the weakness/flaw in your argument/position?
Certainly I will acknowledge Pakistan's right to attack India under the same circumstances; that is, the same organisation from an identified base on Indian soil proclaims its responsibility for the attack and its plans to conduct more such attacks.
You don't have to force Pakistan to implicate itself. You have substantial proof of Pakistani involvement in Pulwama incident/planned strikes? Just take it to the UN/ICJ or any other international body....
Isn't that precisely what we did? And isn't the Security Council, with the exception of China willing to declare the chief conspirator and his organisation terrorist, based on the evidence that we have provided?
You accuse Pakistan of 'infiltration' across LoC, but then you refuse to let any neutral mechanism to investigate such charges when Pakistan denies them....
That ship has sailed. FATF is no longer prospective; a negative listing has already resulted. The UN Security Council is already ready, but for a veto-empowered member, to declare the delinquent organisation a terrorist organisation. What investigation? What denial? It's over.
You don't want investigations, you don't want to resolve issues.. you just want that your state propaganda and lies should be accepted unquestioned ... The current episode, however, proves that it ain't happening anytime soon..
The world, especially the Permanent Members, seem to think otherwise.
Let me remind you, sir, that you (not I) are the one complaining about China using veto against Indian interests... I just reminded you that the USSR had used the same veto several times to protect your (illegitimate) interests and therefore you should be the last ones to complain about it
It is mesmerising to be told that just as association with a Russian veto implies that our interests were illegitimate, association with a Chinese veto confers a similar distinction on your interests. What frank and direct statements, Sir g!
As I mentioned, consistency is not a diplomatic virtue; it is often not even a domestic virtue, as I understand is known in the highest circles.
Of course. We shall - I certainly shall - treasure all the nuggets unearthed during the discussion.
We arrested and tried him, but we did not have enough evidence to convict him, so, the courts had to set him free .... Just like what happened in India, when your courts, for the lack of evidence against him, could not convict Modi (for his role in the 2002 Muslim genocide in Gujarat)
Some of us - I, for one - have right through believed that the man's absolution was an example of blatant suppression of evidence and misuse of state organs to distort a criminal offence? Please check my posts and verify for yourself what my stance has been.
In the light of that discussion, may I then draw the same inferences about Hafiz Saeed and his status?
A lot of time has passed - are you aware of the particulars of the purported evidence provided? Would said evidence really stand up to scrutiny in the same civil courts that India wants Kulbushan Yadav tried in? I highly doubt you have a Hafiz Saeed or Azhar letterhead, signed and thumbprinted by the aforementioned, directing the attack/s and admitting to providing support for the attack.
The evidence was not just that of Kasab's testimony; understandably, under the circumstances of his detention in Indian custody, a Pakistani court might feel hesitant about the quality of his confessions.
On the other hand, wireless intercepts were of two types: Indian and foreign. Corroborative evidence was from a double agent's confessions while he was undergoing his penal sentence, with nothing to lose. If we are to draw lessons from your post, we might ask why a military court did not try him, when military courts were apparently set up precisely to try terrorists.
Has LeT not been contained? It has. And that should demonstrate that, within the domestic limitations that Pakistan faces, it has done a lot to reduce the kinetic operations of these groups in India.
Sadly, given the propensity of these terrorists organisations to breed and to grow in size in Pakistani petri dishes, containment of one combination of alphabets is singularly ineffective. What is the point of 'containing' one set of these when another set is almost immediately launched at us? Is containing these quick-spawning organisations of any value whatsoever? After its containment, the number of incidents has increased; they are more or less sponsored by the JeM.
So yes, Pakistan should have been engaged, if India actually had evidence of some plots, because given the information available so far, it doesn't appear there was not much more than a JeM Madrassa (and not a training camp) at Balakot.
The evidence and the building outlines indicate more than a madrassah.
The reward for a track record of manipulating evidence and outright denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, post Pulwama, goes to India. Multiple (non Indian) news organizations have reported from the site, analyzed satellite imagery, and debunked the official Indian claims. Yet India continues to regurgitate them
Multiple organizations (some Indian even) have debunked the facebook post talking about an alleged PAF pilot being lynched, yet the Indian Defence Minister was shameless enough to spout that facebook post as 'evidence' in an official press conference in front of the media asking her for evidence that an F-16 had been shot down. Such are the depths of depravity that the Modi Sarkaar has taken India to.
Given all the discrepancies and lack of evidence in the Modi Sarkaar's accounts (and note that I used Modi sarkaar rather than Indian government), shouldn't Indians actually be questioning their government about the second IAF jet that the PAF claims was shot down and fell on the Indian side?
Kargil was not a terrorist attack - it was a covert military operation in disputed territory that engaged regular Indian military forces. Lets get the terminology and context of various events correct first before throwing accusations of 'supporting terrorism' around.[/QUOTE]
