PTI News, Updates and Discussion

[newb3e]

No, no, you can surrender your nationality if you're so fed up of Pakistan and hate everything about it for the sake of the Pervert Messiah.

No one is forcing you to associate your origins with Pakistan.

not everyone is like chutwari lord who runs away as i said fk off into asims qrse chutwari!

 

[Forsvaret]

Oh it's IK's testimony. Please don't present the testimony of the "accused"…

But you already believe military establishment’s "testimony" when they’re accused of being responsible for most if not all ills plaguing Pakistan.

 

[hnn]

WHEN did IK "backtrack" from it?

AFAIK it was reported by number of news outlets after his interview with FT. If there's more the story, I'm listening.

 

[Watandar]

Some facts:

1. There was a previous court verdict that convicted IK in the cipher case.

2. The IHC set aside the verdict due to a technicality over the procedure for a jail trial, not the merit of the case itself.

3. That single judge IHC order was appealed by the government. What was the result?

So what does one conclude from that?

The conclusion is the acquittal.

Major boost for PTI as IHC acquits Imran, Qureshi in cipher case

PTI hails verdict; govt says will review detailed verdict before deciding whether to appeal; IHC transfers Iddat case to ADSJ Muhammad Afzal Majoka.

www.dawn.com

This is how the legal system in Pakistan, when not threatened bullied or bribed, operates.

You are refusing to accept the facts provided to you and now resort to splitting hairs.

 

[Forsvaret]

AFAIK it was reported by number of news outlets after his interview with FT. If there's more the story, I'm listening.

Imran Khan did claim that Bajwa / Establishment / PDM was on board with US when it came to that cipher. His critics saw it as "backtracking".

 

[hnn]

I have already explained this in my previous posts. You can read it there [flying kiss]

Yeah I read that afterwards but then again it doesn't make for a strong and cogent defense. You are "assuming" that the court acquitted IK by going against the influence of his rivals while not providing any evidence that the court was not influenced by him on the other hand. I hope you follow the logical tension I'm pointing at - if you already agree that courts can be influenced then you have to provide evidence for "zero influence" from any and all parties involved in that verdict.

 

[VCheng]

The conclusion is the acquittal.

Major boost for PTI as IHC acquits Imran, Qureshi in cipher case

PTI hails verdict; govt says will review detailed verdict before deciding whether to appeal; IHC transfers Iddat case to ADSJ Muhammad Afzal Majoka.

www.dawn.com

This is how the legal system in Pakistan, when not threatened bullied or bribed, operates.

You are refusing to accept the facts provided to you and now resort to splitting hairs.

ROFL!

You are merely picking only what suits your pre-determined narrative.

Please feel free to carry on by yourself. I will respect your right to hold on to your opinions whatever they might be.

 

[Watandar]

No, no, you can surrender your nationality if you're so fed up of Pakistan and hate everything about it for the sake of the Pervert Messiah.

No one is forcing you to associate your origins with Pakistan.

Noone is forcing you to worship jackboots who have ruined Jinnah's Pakistan , and yet you continue in your misbehavior. Afsos.

 

[Watandar]

ROFL!

You are merely picking only what suits your pre-determined narrative.

Please feel free to carry on by yourself. I will respect your right to hold on to your opinions whatever they might be.

I am providing facts which your ego is refusing to admit because they prove you wrong in calling Mr Khan a liar and criminal in the cipher case.

Please do continue rolling on the floor.

 

[alphapak]

No, no, you can surrender your nationality if you're so fed up of Pakistan and hate everything about it for the sake of the Pervert Messiah.

This is what Mota Nawja family has done, they only come to Pakistan to loot then
f@ck off back to their home to enjoy the loot in London.

 

[hnn]

But you already believe military establishment’s "testimony" when they’re accused of being responsible for most if not all ills plaguing Pakistan.

No I believe what I could dig out myself and I'm open to learn more about the story it's why I asked you for further details. I didn't believe military's "testimony" because it said so, I believed it after I was made aware of it through third parties e.g. my colleagues and news.

 

[Watandar]

Yeah I read that afterwards but then again it doesn't make for a strong and cogent defense. You are "assuming" that the court acquitted IK by going against the influence of his rivals while not proving any evidence that the court was not influenced by him on the other hand. I hope you follow the logical tension I'm pointing at - if you already agree that courts can be influenced then you have to provide evidence for "zero influence" from any and all parties involved in that verdict.

I provided the facts about Mr Khan's acquittal and the legal process. This was to disprove claims he was a criminal in that case.

To the larger question (more likely dodge) on whether this single case can be indicative of the whole judicial system of Pakistan and every other politician, the answer would obviously No. Every case is different and the history of the Pakistani judiciary is available in front of us.

As are the lawfare strategies of the Establishment.

 

[VCheng]

calling Mr Khan a liar and criminal in the cipher case

That is incorrect. I did NOT call him a liar AND a criminal. I called him EITHER a liar OR a criminal.

BIG difference!

 

[Watandar]

That is incorrect. I did NOT call him a liar AND a criminal. I called him EITHER a liar OR a criminal.

BIG difference!

And you have been factually proven wrong on both counts

 

[hnn]

Imran Khan did claim that Bajwa / Establishment / PDM was on board with US when it came to that cipher. His critics saw it as "backtracking".

The FT article quotes him putting behind what happened b/w him and US - which in the sphere of international politics means one of the party had apologized and the other accepted - and also quoted him for wanting to normalize his relations with the US - the US didn't say they wanted to normalize relations with IK, so at international level the "desire" is commonly shown by the one who doesn't have any leverage or has less than the other party - IK wasn't in power at that time so we are talking about leverage at a personal level which makes it safe to "assume" that he backtracked on his words. It's an assumption still on my part I must concede and to overturn my assumption you'd have to tell me more about the story. Here again, I'm asking for more details.