What's new

An intolerant educational system made me indifferent to the death of non-Muslims

Well a simple question can be asked...which text books are the American soldiers fed? I mean just google how many wars they have undertaken? Hell their own making UNITED STATES was based on a series of war, hatred, racism! From heinous war crimes in Vietnam escalating their blood thirst to 3 countries in few yrs...that speaks volumes on its own...How about we shine some light to their education system? did it give them these values and morals?

What education were they given for their crimes in guatemala prison and what about those soldiers who took pix when they shot civilians and posted those pix on fb? Same questions for the ISRAELI soldiers who did something similar not too long a go!

Can we JUDGE or paint everyone in AMERICA and ISRAEL for faulty and hate spread education?
 
Well a simple question can be asked...which text books are the American soldiers fed? I mean just google how many wars they have undertaken? Hell their own making UNITED STATES was based on a series of war, hatred, racism! From heinous war crimes in Vietnam escalating their blood thirst to 3 countries in few yrs...that speaks volumes on its own...How about we shine some light to their education system? did it give them these values and morals?

What education were they given for their crimes in guatemala prison and what about those soldiers who took pix when they shot civilians and posted those pix on fb? Same questions for the ISRAELI soldiers who did something similar not too long a go!

Can we JUDGE or paint everyone in AMERICA and ISRAEL for faulty and hate spread education?


Just one flaw in your logic Talon.


Soldiers are supposed to fight when ordered by the government.


OP is pointing to the fact that ordinary Pakistanis are behaving irrationally towards minorities, and towards Western travelers and workers.


Thus the right comparison is to check what books are read by the guy who attacked Sikh temple in USA.

or the guys who attack the school children.


peace
 
Just one flaw in your logic Talon.


Soldiers are supposed to fight when ordered by the government.


OP is pointing to the fact that ordinary Pakistanis are behaving irrationally towards minorities, and towards Western travelers and workers.


Thus the right comparison is to check what books are read by the guy who attacked Sikh temple in USA.

or the guys who attack the school children.


peace


But soldiers are also from these ordinary people...those who took pictures of their victims and those who did those heinous crimes at that jail.....None of this was thought to a soldier in his training....

None of that hatred and pride was filled in through army training....if it was then American and Israeli army needs to be checked!!
 
Just one flaw in your logic Talon.


Soldiers are supposed to fight when ordered by the government.


OP is pointing to the fact that ordinary Pakistanis are behaving irrationally towards minorities, and towards Western travelers and workers.


Thus the right comparison is to check what books are read by the guy who attacked Sikh temple in USA.

or the guys who attack the school children.


peace
Since when does USA have military conscription?
 
Didn't see pakistan anywhere in it.


Thank you.


Lot of stories are being juxtaposed, cut and pasted to prove a wrong point.


And then some of these posters called them educated and dance around and prace around in an ignorant and self-righteous moves.


Thank you
 
Didn't see pakistan anywhere in it.
Neither did I. I suspect Pakistanis were unjustly vilified by a slip of the tongue: the similarity of "Pakistan" to "Palestine" led to confusion. (Geography is among Americans' worst subjects.)

Yah, here we go, scroll down and you'll see Pakistanis vilified but the accusers can't provide the link. When I search youtube for the video clip referred to I only find one that has Palestinians dancing and celebrating, not Pakistanis.
 
Last edited:
Neither did I. I suspect Pakistanis were unjustly vilified by a slip of the tongue: the similarity of "Pakistan" to "Palestine" led to confusion. (Geography is among Americans' worst subjects.)

Yah, [URL 'How 9/11 changed Pakistan - World Blog we go, scroll down and you'll see Pakistanis vilified but the accusers can't provide the link. When I search youtube for the video clip referred to I only find one that has Palestinians dancing and celebrating, not Pakistanis.



Yeap. No such thing. I agree.

the Author of the OP made a lot of errors and ended up with cartoon of an essay even though his intentions were good.


peace[/quote]
 
No need, I think. Check out the "war against drones" section.

Oh, I'm aware that the argument "drones are illegal by American law" has resurfaced. That's a lie: authorization for military operations in the Afpak theatre was authorized by the post-9/11 resolutions of Congress

Mr. you are not well versed in this issue so don’t argue irrelevantly below are the some US laws and resolution which you were suggesting.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 64

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 14, 2001

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Bill Text - 107th Congress (2001-2002) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Now note

1. This resolution empowers President of USA to use ‘Armed Forces’, in accordance to the War Power Resolution in section 2B-1

2. In section 2B-2 It is clearly stated that this resolution does not supersede War Power resolution

3. This resolution does not authorised CIA to wage a war against a sovereign nation.

Now read The War Powers Act of 1973

SEC. 2. (c) The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.


Sec. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced-

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;

SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress

(1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces,

(2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or

(3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.

SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-

(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution;
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/politica...-fall-2002/readings/TheWarPowersActof1973.pdf

Pls answer

1. Has United State declare war against Pakistan...??

2. ‘Now’ Is there is any emergency situation in USA as per sec-2(c) of War Power act ....???

3. Any such action by US armed forces could not extend beyond 150 day in any circumstances as stated in sec 5-(1) & (2), Why the Drone operations is in use from over a decade...??

4. Has US approved any Law/ resolution specifically for the ‘legally authorized use’ of Drones in Pakistan , in accordance with the section 8-(1) of War power act .... ???

Now read Law of War Power

3.1. Law of War: That part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities. It is often called the “law of armed conflict.” The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law.

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/231101e.pdf


Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

The Rules of War

LOAC comes from both customary international law and treaties. Customary international law, based on practice that nations have come to accept as legally required, establishes the traditional rules that govern the conduct of military operations in armed conflict. Article VI of the US Constitution states that treaty obligations of the United States are the “supreme law of the land,” and the US Supreme Court has held that international law, to include custom, are part of US law. This means that treaties and agreements the United States enters into enjoy equal status as laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. Therefore, all persons subject to US law must observe the United States’ LOAC obligations. In particular, military personnel must consider LOAC to plan and execute operations and must obey LOAC in combat. Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

American Drone attacks over Pakistan is an act of war, which is the clear violation of above stated US laws and international Laws such as Geneva Convention, Human Rights, UN charter etc in all this USA is party/signatory.

Mr. There is a reason Secretary General of United Nation Mr. Ban Ki-moon in one of his speech in Pakistan dated 13 August 2013 said:

“But armed unmanned aerial vehicles are a different matter,” he continued. “As I have often and consistently said, the use of armed drones, like any other weapon, should be subject to long-standing rules of international law, including international humanitarian law.

“This is the very clear position of the United Nations. Every effort should be made to avoid mistakes and civilian casualties.”

United Nations News Centre - UN chief hails Pakistan’s leading role in peacekeeping operations


and even if the CIA runs the drones as long as the military is in the room when the decision is made to attack the attack is legal under U.S. law.


I would like to state views of some of the Law Professors of US

Loyola Law School Professor David Glazier, who reminded subcommittee members that the CIA remotely navigated drone pilots are not legally considered combatants, and thus employing them to carry out armed attacks “fall outside the scope of permissible conduct”. He also warned that “under the legal theories adopted by our government in prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, these CIA officers as well as any higher-level government officials who have authorized or directed their attacks are committing war crimes”.Dr. Glazier’s view was seconded by American University law Professor Kenneth Anderson, who told the panel that “only uniformed military”, has the legal right to conduct international military operations using lethal force. Other speakers included University of Notre Dame law Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell, who suggested that the use of unmanned drones is in fact unlawful outside combat zones –where most of the CIA’s targeted killings have taken place.
Analysis: Experts question legality of CIA drone strikes | intelNews.org

Melina Sterio (Associate Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.) in his paper stated
“According to the Bush Administration, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the United States was at war against al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, and the applicable laws were the laws of war. Thus, military force, including the use of drones, could be used if consistent with the laws of war.”

The use of drones to perform targeted killings in remote locations of Pakistan and Yemen is riddled with difficult legal questions. These questions have been impossible to answer because of the secrecy surrounding the CIA drone program. If the United States is truly engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces, it can be argued that drone attacks are not per se illegal, and that, if performed under carefully elaborated rules and guidelines, they could satisfy the relevant rules of jus in bello. Issues that remain unanswered are those regarding the nature of the conflict that the United States has been engaged in since 9/11, as well as those regarding the details of CIA-led drone operations, without which rules of jus in bello cannot be analyzed. The Obama Administration, as well as any future administrations, should consider installing military-led drone operations, which would be subject to public scrutiny to ensure that the rule of law remains the guiding principle of U.S. use of force abroad.
http://law.case.edu/journals/JIL/Documents/45CaseWResJIntlL1&2.11.Article.Sterio.pdf

I have already stated that use of Drone over Pakistan under DOD is illegal, for CIA you must be known that it is formed under section 104 of NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/nsaact1947.pdf) which does not permits CIA to conduct any such operation by its own unless specially directed by President, but the president is not above the and constitution or other law of USA which does not allow the president to order or to act any unlawful action. In fact the oath of the president include

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of United State, and will to the best of my ability, preserve and defend the constitution of United State”

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

At this stage please read War power act 1973 again, and Law of Arm Conflict (LOAC) according to which ‘Those who violate LOAC may be held criminally liable for war crimes and court-martialed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Article VI of US constitution give all the international treaties, Law are made under the authority of United State as the supreme Law of the land.

(Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text)

If there is any order by the President to launch an attack/s over the state of Pakistan is a clear violation of US constitution and International law, further it is a clear case of War Crime.
 
Last edited:
Neither did I. I suspect Pakistanis were unjustly vilified by a slip of the tongue: the similarity of "Pakistan" to "Palestine" led to confusion. (Geography is among Americans' worst subjects.)

Yah, here we go, scroll down and you'll see Pakistanis vilified but the accusers can't provide the link. When I search youtube for the video clip referred to I only find one that has Palestinians dancing and celebrating, not Pakistanis.
I have mixed feelings about the palestinians, I've met 2 that I know personally very well and they are the nicest people ever, and I'm not just saying that, they're just plain nice in comparison to most other nationalities. Maybe the ones who who have lived their lives there might be traumatized by the events the get to witness, hence their behaviour.
 
I have mixed feelings about the palestinians, I've met 2 that I know personally very well and they are the nicest people ever, and I'm not just saying that, they're just plain nice in comparison to most other nationalities. Maybe the ones who who have lived their lives there might be traumatized by the events the get to witness, hence their behaviour.

I respect that

FYI. Personal niceness may or may not translate into national level or group level niceness.

I am sure you have seen plenty of such examples even on this forum.

Peace
 
@HRK: please post ur screed the appropriate section, as it's too far OT to consider here, and too interesting not to respond to.
 
@HRK: please post ur screed the appropriate section, as it's too far OT to consider here, and too interesting not to respond to.

it was not me how raise the issue of Drone in this thread it was you, now trying to run off from it .... I observed it is your habit to talk about International laws without quoting the original text & give your interpretation as suited to you .....
 
Oh thanks bilal now we know that its intolerant education system which made the Americans/NATO soldiers jubilant by playing football with heads of dead bodies.

hmmm.
BTW when 9/11 happened i was in northern areas and the news breaking on TV screens sent my heart trembling and i was like hands on my head and said "OH GOD" NOOOOOOOOO.


Dont know how much amount of money forced you to made a story about well an 8-year old boy.
 
Thats one rational pakistani..!!! I guess, understanding the problems plaguing the nation is very important...!!! other wise we all will be living in a fools paradise..!!!

Oh thanks bilal now we know that its intolerant education system which made the Americans/NATO soldiers jubilant by playing football with heads of dead bodies.

hmmm.
BTW when 9/11 happened i was in northern areas and the news breaking on TV screens sent my heart trembling and i was like hands on my head and said "OH GOD" NOOOOOOOOO.


Dont know how much amount of money forced you to made a story about well an 8-year old boy.

Your signature.. says that you can't think any thing beyond the prism of religion..!!! my neighbors bad nullifies my bad is a bad argument to make..!!!!
 
Last edited:

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom