Isn’t it grand?

I already said that my examples were overly simple. They weren’t meant as end all solutions, but as examples of some of the general tactics that could be used. You asked “How are governments going to do more unless they are willing to send an army in make war on civilians?” I gave two admittedly general examples of alternatives to military action.

Also, nuanced among other things means “Having a subtle quality,” so I was saying that there were options out there that AREN’T overly simplistic and take into account such problems as you brought up. I don’t know what those options are, but I’m not a high-level diplomat, nor an expert on Pakistani culture.

Please inform me as to what our DIPLOMATIC response to that would be?

Yes, and there is that word liberals love; “nuanced”, meaning in six months you can say that is not what we meant then.

Apparently in the past eight years you’ve forgotten about Diplomacy and Trade. For instance if some the Countries that trade with Pakistan say “If you don’t start enforcing laws against this sort of behavior, we’ll stop trading with you,” things might change quickly. Or alternately they could say “if you’re willing to try and stop this sort of atrocity, we’ll help by sending over some of our top law enforcement officers to trade and work with yours.” Now these are examples and simplistic, but I’m sure a more nuanced option is available.

How are governments going to do more unless they are willing to send an army in make war on civilians.

This is not like sending a NYC squad care to arrest a husband or wife for taking a slap at their spouse.