Anti-Drone Peshawar Dharna by PTI | Dharti Hamari, Marzi Hamari (Our land, our choice) .

[Leader]

Would you care to comment on the substance of what was posted, not who posted it, please?

there is no substance in the claim either... its propaganda !

 

[VCheng]

there is no substance in the claim either... its propaganda !

So is the $90-120 billion claim, just like the $45 billion claimed for the floods, or the $200 billion claimed for hosting the Afghan refugees.

The real costs are much closer to the aid provided. Our government, bad as it is, is not such a fool so as to provide its services at such great losses, and neither are the other side, to accept such inflated claims without verification.

 

[Leader]

So is the $90-120 billion claim, just like the $45 billion claimed for the floods, or the $200 billion claimed for hosting the Afghan refugees.

The real costs are much closer to the aid provided. Our government, bad as it is, is not such a fool so as to provide its services at such great losses, and neither are the other side, to accept such inflated claims without verification.

maybe maybe not !

 

[FaujHistorian]

So is the $90-120 billion claim, just like the $45 billion claimed for the floods, or the $200 billion claimed for hosting the Afghan refugees.

The real costs are much closer to the aid provided. Our government, bad as it is, is not such a fool so as to provide its services at such great losses, and neither are the other side, to accept such inflated claims without verification.

All these cost estimates fail to mention important fact.

-- If your neighbor's house is on fire
-- You bring that fire and try to burn your own house down
-- Then you go to "insurance company" and tell them the fire burn down your tooth brush, your commode, and your toilet.

And YOUR cost estimate is $50,000,000

Well the insurance comany will first laugh it you

then haul your @ss to court for burning your house down and making insurance claims.

 

[SBD-3]

 

[Leader]

UN panel questions drones legality


UNITED NATIONS - Pakistan called for immediate end to illegal US drone strikes on its territory, after a UN committee unanimously adopted a resolution that underscores need for an international agreement on legal questions involving the use of remotely piloted aircraft.

“When armed drones kill unarmed, innocent civilians, there is a clear breach of international law,” Ambassador Masood Khan said while explaining Pakistan’s position on the draft approved by the General Assembly Third Committee which deals with social, humanitarian and cultural questions.
Under the text, entitled “Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism”, the 193-member assembly would take note of UN Special Rapporteur Ben Emmerson’s interim report last month that referred to the use of remotely piloted aircraft.

The assembly would also note the urgent and imperative need to seek agreement among member states on legal questions pertaining to the use of drones.

Masood Khan said that while he had joined consensus, he was concerned that the text was not based on established international legal norms on the extra-territorial use of unmanned aerial systems.

At the same time, the Pakistani envoy said, “We appreciate that the resolution, for the first time, includes references to the use of unmanned aircraft for counterterrorism and emphasises the urgent and imperative need to seek an agreement between the member states on the legal questions pertaining to such aircraft operations.” He added, “The use of drones violates Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the asymmetric terrorist war, the well-established humanitarian principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution must be observed, but this is not being done.”

A signature strike, the Pakistani envoy said, had to be justified under international humanitarian law or international human rights law to prove that it was a legitimate act of self-defence. Legally, it was important to define the geographical scope of the conflict as well as the immediacy of the threat. “It is not justifiable to launch strikes in the context of non-international armed conflict in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area,” he said.

Drone strikes put all Pakistanis at risk, Masood Khan said, adding their psychological impact on the relatives of the civilians killed in an inhumane manner incites sentiments and hatred and radicalises more people. “Drone strikes are, therefore, counterproductive in countering terrorism,” he added.
He hoped Special Rapporteur Emmerson’s final report would suggest practical measures to advance the debate on the legality of the use of armed drones at the UN fora and focus more sharply on their disastrous humanitarian and human rights consequences.

UN panel questions drones legality

 

[Leader]

https://twitter.com/x/status/406889565753188352

Westminster Intl #antiwar Conference

 

[RescueRanger]

This is excellent mashallah. I wish someone in the US or abroad would carry this banner, i would gladly pay them $100

 

[VCheng]

This is excellent mashallah. I wish someone in the US or abroad would carry this banner, i would gladly pay them $100

Madonna said it best:

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Our land, our choice


Pakistan-Tehrik-i-Insaf showing its people & ruling elite, the way to independent foreign policy.

 
@Jazzbot @mafiya @A.Rafay @pkuser2k12 @Aeronaut @Marshmallow @Zarvan

Good decision by Imran Khan , we need to protect civil rights and drones are anti human rights

 

[Leader]

This is excellent mashallah. I wish someone in the US or abroad would carry this banner, i would gladly pay them $100

this offer is only for girls or for the rest as well ?

 

[Leader]

 

[Leader]

 

[Leader]

we should steal some of these ...... just saying !

 

[Leader]