The metaphor was to bring it to the personal level; when you are threatened, you are entitled to act and attack your opponent first, no matter if you are attacked or not.
In the USA there are laws for precisely such situations. Threatening someone, even if you didn't actually strike, is unlawful and results in imprisonment. Similar is true in the international law.
Diplomatic norms?
What is diplomatic about bringing 72 fully armed fighter jets to your neighbour's border?
It was not an 8th-grade debate club argument. This is exactly what India did to Pakistan, not once now but two times in recent years. Bombed you on the pretence of supporting terrorism. How many times does India have to hit Pakistan before it sinks in?
Oscar, I have quoted the relevant section and also added the "Caroline" document, which is directly related to the pre-emptive self-defence. What is wrong in what I quoted? There is clearly a precedent set in the international law precisely for such a situation created by India. It was clear an imminent threat existed when 72 Indian jets were near Pakistan's borders.
The fact that India was openly saying for weeks before the attacks that they are entitled to attack Pakistan due to its support for terrorist attacks inside India. They created the excuse using the same UN Charter I quoted.
You have to give valid reasons, despite these facts, why you think Pakistan's leadership thought India had no intention to attack Pakistan when it ordered 72 of its fighter jets to assemble on Pakistan's border?
Dishonesty? Are you claiming that the United Nations's charter does not allow you to attack your enemy even if it has not attacked you in preemptive self-defence?
You didn't clarify that Indian jets didn't present an "imminent threat" to Pakistan's security and territorial integrity?
Despite me giving a full explanation of what is an established fact in international law, you are accusing me of dishonesty?
I didn't leave anything out. You are free to introduce Article 51. I have provided you the exemption existing in the international law for pre-emptive self-defence. That's what my point of view is: that international laws allow you to attack your enemy when an imminent threat exists, even if your enemy has not struck you yet but would imminently attack you if you don't react.
Ok, so you admit that the doctrine exists in international law; thus, I was not dishonest at all.
Why didn't this doctrine apply in this scenario? Let's look at your own sentences above.
"Rare moments when the threat is overwhelming, instant and allows no time to think."
I hope you realise you actually made my case.
-72 fully armed fighter jets on Pakistan's borders were not an overwhelming, instant threat?
- Does Pakistan have time to think before the Indian attack?
-What actually happened before Pakistan could think and react?
- Didn't India attack 9 of Pakistan's civilian sites?
When you say over time? What kind of time period do you think it was?
Nope, my point and arguments are not about shooting down other jets at all.
I am arguing that Pakistan has the right under international law to act in pre-emptive self-defence in the presence of an imminent threat posed by 72 fully armed Indian fighter jets.
Nowhere have I mentioned that it was PAF's fault at all. I have written and meant "Pakistani leadership"; it could consist of both political and military leadership, not necessarily PAF leadership alone.
My arguments are valid. I know what you mean by "I will consider you are simply engaging in pointless whataboutism and deal with it accordingly."
This threat is issued to me from the start. People are arrested in Pakistan on a daily basis for standing up for their freedom of speech. I have absolutely no doubts about what could be done. Intolerance and the wielding of supposed "powers" is the way Pakistanis react.
Let' be honest, no water off my back.
Your PM Mr. Shahbaz Sharif famously said,
I am not only smart, but I also have huge self-respect and integrity. I have presented the international law which allows pre-emptive self-defence. In the presence of an imminent threat.
Please provide me a response presenting legal arguments that this is not the case. Quoting Article 51 is no defence at all. That is already dealt with in my posts. I have presented you with a legal foundation where a nation can use the exemption. It is a well-established doctrine in international law.
Instead of issuing threats, what you can do as a "moderator".
If you ban me, so what? You will only prove my points that instead of listening to opposing arguments, you are very keen to employ Pakistani tactics to remove the opposing voices by putting people in jail without following due processes of law and taking away their human rights and liberties.
I have an absolute right to express my point of view. No amount of threats and use of power could deter me from exercising my freedom of speech.
I hope you understand my point of view. I am here to voice my concerns for the Pakistanis and their families, who got killed by India's illegal actions. Their lives could have easily been saved by a preemptive self-defence strike on Indian jets. Those pre-emptive self-defence strikes are allowed in international law, despite Article 51.
By employing these tactics, Pakistani "leadership" is not deterring India. India has vowed to attack Pakistan again in the very near future.
Remember, this is not restricted to the current situation; similar things happened in 2019 and in the past too.
PAF was mostly very successful dealing with IAF in past wars. Even in 1971. But at the end, Pakistan ended up losing East Pakistan.
Indians are threatening to take away Pakistani-administered Kashmir. Denying people their right to free speech is not the answer. Acting and protecting the rights of Pakistani people and the state of Pakistan should be the priority.
As for stupid allegations that I am Indian. Let me say this much: my wife is of "Potowari speaking" descent, and we have constructed a house between Dina and Mangla cantonment for my mother-in-law. When these attacks happened, my wife was in Pakistan. She wasn't even aware that war is about to break. I actually told her that India is going to attack in the next 24 hours. If I knew, analysing the events, that India would attack Pakistan, why should I think that Pakistani leadership wasn't aware?
That's what I am dealing with here, real and present dangers to Pakistani people. My mother-in-law lives only a few km away from the Kashmir borders.
This is the reason I was laughing at the allegations of Indian. I repeatedly said the truth is completely different.
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds (215 Viewers)
UK Racism against Muslims and Brown people: Why are blacks in the UK given a free pass by white english racists? (21 Viewers)