US Drone strikes in Pakistan are illegal under international law.

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The use of the word "illegal" in the title of this thread shows that the Admin/Mods believe in only one side of the story.

Their website, their rules, of course.

What good discussion can come after such a display of bias?

I believe you were posting in the thread where various US arguments (arguments by US apologists) suggesting drones strikes in Pakistan are legal were refuted. In the absence of any further justifications of the legality of US drone strikes, the thread title is completely accurate and objective.

 

[VCheng]

............ In the absence of any further justifications of the legality of US drone strikes, the thread title is completely accurate and objective.

Like I said, with such a display of the Admins minds being made up, what good discussion can follow?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Like I said, with such a display of the Admins minds being made up, what good discussion can follow?

If you, or various other apologists for illegal US military operations, cannot refute the arguments debunking the legal rationale provided by the US in support of their drone strikes, then why blame the Admins for stating that which is quite obviously correct.

 

[VCheng]

If you, or various other apologists for illegal US military operations, cannot refute the arguments debunking the legal rationale provided by the US in support of their drone strikes, then why blame the Admins for stating that which is quite obviously correct.

Of course. The Admin's version is always "correct" but only for this website. The world's reality moves on!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Of course. The Admin's version is always "correct" but only for this website. The world's reality moves on!

And I repeat, yet again no refutation of the arguments illustrating the illegality of US drone strikes, just more inane and snide comments.

 

[DRaisinHerald]

The use of the word "illegal" in the title of this thread shows that the Admin/Mods believe in only one side of the story

Since when were they legal?

 

[VCheng]

And I repeat, yet again no refutation of the arguments illustrating the illegality of US drone strikes, just more inane and snide comments.

I would respectfully again submit that a final determination of the legality or lack thereof of the drone strikes has not yet been made. Obviously, Pakistan and USA have different opinions, as do you and I, but that is a matter still under process.

My comments are meant to indicate that only, very honestly, and should not be regarded as snide in any way.

However, I do not wish to argue with you, given the warning I have already been given by you, so I will not say anymore.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I would respectfully again submit that a final determination of the legality or lack thereof of the drone strikes has not yet been made. Obviously, Pakistan and USA have different opinions, as do you and I, but that is a matter still under process.

My comments are meant to indicate that only, very honestly, and should not be regarded as snide in any way.

However, I do not wish to argue with you, given the warning I have already been given by you, so I will not say anymore.

Had you posted a comment such as this one earlier, you would have received no warning for arguing your point.

The US is the aggressor here, carrying out strikes on Pakistani soil - Pakistan has officially and vocally condemned the drone strikes as illegal and unauthorized, and there are plenty of Western and Pakistani studies indicating a large amount of collateral damage from the strikes.

The onus is therefore on the US to establish the legality of the strikes, especially given Article 51 of the UN, which requires the US to declare any actions taken under the guise of 'self defence' before the UNSC.

 

[VCheng]

Had you posted a comment such as this one earlier, you would have received no warning for arguing your point...............

What can I say here? Better to keep quiet and let you do what you want.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What can I say here? Better to keep quiet and let you do what you want.

Better to avoid snide comments insulting the mods/admins - arguing your point with civility will draw no censure, as already pointed out.

 

[VCheng]

Better to avoid snide comments insulting the mods/admins - arguing your point with civility will draw no censure, as already pointed out.

Roger that.

 

[fd24]

What can I say here? Better to keep quiet and let you do what you want.

VC - Your insinuations and suggestions are most annoying. When you say you attempt to be impartial - even those who wish to give you the benefit of the doubt find it difficult.
The USA work with the rules of the game written by themselves and as in Animal Farm - when the rules are broken by themselves then incredibly the rules change and so do the goalposts..... do you catch my drift?
I suggest (politely) avoid insults or suffer the wrath.....

 

[VCheng]

VC - Your insinuations and suggestions are most annoying. IWhen you say you attempt to be impartial - even those who wish to give you the benefit of the doubt find it difficult.
The USA work with the rules of the game written by themselves and as in Animal Farm - when the rules are broken by themselves then incredibly the rules change and so do the goalposts..... do you catch my drift?
I suggest (politely) avoid insults or suffer the wrath.....

Roger roger.

The USA work with the rules of the game written by themselves

Of course. What does a superpower do if not write the rules of the game?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Of course. What does a superpower do if not write the rules of the game?

They arguably did 'write the rules' when formulating the UN Charter, time to amend article 51 then to legally justify their currently illegal drone strikes on Pakistani soil.

“Pakistan has consistently maintained that these illegal attacks are a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity, and are in contravention of international law,” a Foreign Ministry statement said.

ONLINE - International News Network

 

[unicorn]

Drones are fueling and igniting extremism in Pakistan. This should also be the front line slogan coupled with stop the drones strike.

I think in Pakistan diplomatic language they have to make slight adjustments so that the other parties who are sitting quietly and watching understand as well. One thing that Pakistan can turn on it's advantage is that all the NATO countries are not vocal about drone strikes. Whether they support it or not is a different matter but there is a sense of feeling that majority among them understands Pakistan position. This is clear that Pakistan at current time does not want to push the offensive button and shoot the drones. They clearly want a diplomatic way out. Well if they want to do effectively and get the desired results they have to understand the psychological part as well.

The same way USA is doing for a very very long time like for example There are safe heavens in Pakistan. Hiliray Clionton and Mike Mullen especially Mike Mullen no matter what the occasion There are safe heavens in Pakistan bullsh@t is a must. They have done this because they know a time will come when they will no longer justify their defeat in Afghanistan and neither their stay in this region.