Search results

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.

In all fairness, if a major terrorist killed 3,000 Pakistani civilians and then took refuge in the US, we would help them flush him out, not give him safe harbor. Ergo, your point is fairly mute. We do not behave like Pakistan, so we would not expect to be treated the same as we treat Pakistan.