"...but it would have to be either officially announced...."
I don't THINK SO! <g>
You quoted me out of context, leaving off the important "or established beyond reasonable doubt in some other way."
Germany was in an open declared shooting war against the UK. Even your interpretation of Pakistan's actions in regards to the US doesn't approach that, but I'd still accept the analogy as somewhat meaningful, if you could establish beyond reasonable doubt that your opinion is correct.
If you can't your asking me to accept an alleged proxy attack as being the same as full open and declared warfare, that's large enough to destroy significant armies, and conquer major countries.
But it is also the conclusion draw by NUMEROUS credible Western Intelligence Services (the CIA, British Intel, Stratfor, etc., etc.) as I have already pointed out.
You've asserted that it is so. But I don't see any evidence to indicate that is the case. Sure there is evidence that is their opinion that the Taliban still receives some aid from inside Pakistan, but that isn't the same as "Pakistan is wageing an undeclared proxy war against the US. Since your claiming numerous sources, can you link to reports from the CIA, MI6, Stratfor an others? To be fair to you the inteligence services reports are likely to be classified. But if they are, while it explains why you can't provide evidence, it still means you lack evidence.
Pretty much every one of your point relies on that idea being near certain. It might be true, but if you can't show it to be true, I have no reason to accept all the points that are based on that idea.
I'm not wedded to the idea that Pakistan is not waging a proxy war against the US, but I'd have to see some real evidence before I accept it as true. |
