US Drone strikes in Pakistan are illegal under international law.

[Rod of God]

They arguably did 'write the rules' when formulating the UN Charter, time to amend article 51...

Actually, it's time for the U.S. to QUIT the U.N., throw the scofflaws out of N.Y. bulldoze the place into the East River and make a skateboard park on the land !!

then to legally justify their currently illegal drone strikes on Pakistani soil.

It isn't 'illegal' if Pakistan gives their 'blessing' on the strikes but denies it publicly because they have a SHIITE-LOAD of Islamofascists they need to appease, is it ?

 

[pakdefender]

It isn't 'illegal' if Pakistan gives their 'blessing' on the strikes but denies it publicly because they have a SHIITE-LOAD of Islamofascists they need to appease, is it ?

If it was illegal for Saddam to violate the territorial integrity of Kuwait, then it is also illegal for the United States to do the same against Pakistan.

 

[VCheng]

They arguably did 'write the rules' when formulating the UN Charter,...........

May I please requote SuperKaif's complete sentence, that obviates the need to amend anything including the UN Charter:

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.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

May I please requote SuperKaif's complete sentence, that obviates the need to amend anything including the UN Charter:

Which only supports the position that the drone strikes are illegal under current international law, since the US is seeking to justify a position that has no basis in international law.

 

[TruthSeeker]

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?

Yes, indeed. For at least two years this thread was entitled: "Missile Strikes in FATA". The introduction of the word "illegal" was done in the past day or so by the PDF management and does, indeed, show that they are introducing their editorial bias into this and other threads. But, as you say, their forum, their rules. It just shows that they are not willing to let free speech govern their own forum. Undoubtedly, such heavy handedness will be the demise of the PDF down the line. The strength of this forum was the willingness to allow a civilized debate or discussion. Such editorializing as they have done on this thread title shows their fundamental inability to tolerate the expression of views they cannot hear.

 

[VCheng]

Which only supports the position that the drone strikes are illegal under current international law, since the US is seeking to justify a position that has no basis in international law.

The US says they are legal, Pakistan says they are illegal. Neither you nor I are experts in international law. I am perfectly content for events yet to unfold to prove one side or the other right or wrong, and hence would not agree with your stance that regards the matter as decided as you have decided. I know the odds are in my favor quite overwhelmingly, and hence there is no need to antagonize you by insisting that I am correct.

I do respect your policies of moderating DefPk as you see fit until all you have is unanimity of views, if that is what is desired.

Yes, indeed. For at least two years this thread was entitled: "Missile Strikes in FATA". The introduction of the word "illegal" was done in the past day or so by the PDF management and does, indeed, show that they are introducing their editorial bias into this and other threads. But, as you say, their forum, their rules. It just shows that they are not willing to let free speech govern their own forum. Undoubtedly, such heavy handedness will be the demise of the PDF down the line. The strength of this forum was the willingness to allow a civilized debate or discussion. Such editorializing as they have done on this thread title shows their fundamental inability to tolerate the expression of views they cannot hear.

Of course it is quite evident. It is precisely because of this bias that I resigned from the OpGrp too, not wishing to validate the official stance of DefPk, as long as it remains so biased.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, indeed. For at least two years this thread was entitled: "Missile Strikes in FATA". The introduction of the word "illegal" was done in the past day or so by the PDF management and does, indeed, show that they are introducing their editorial bias into this and other threads. But, as you say, their forum, their rules. It just shows that they are not willing to let free speech govern their own forum. Undoubtedly, such heavy handedness will be the demise of the PDF down the line. The strength of this forum was the willingness to allow a civilized debate or discussion. Such editorializing as they have done on this thread title shows their fundamental inability to tolerate the expression of views they cannot hear.

There is no editorializing here - as pointed out, in the absence of any arguments supporting the US contention of 'legal drone strikes', Pakistan's official position is the only credible and objective position to take, and the thread title reflects that.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No one on this Forum, whether it is myself or AgnosticMuslim, can "prove" the legality or illegality of USA drone strikes in Pakistan or elsewhere. In fact, truth be told, there is no where on this planet that a ruling on the "legality" of such actions could be rendered and accepted as final. So, inserting the word "illegal", on the authority of the forum administers, is merely their own personal opinion of the matter, nothing more, nothing less. I personally think that the drone strikes are a legal and moral act of self-defense. But, who cares what TruthSeeker thinks!! The point is, by making this change, who ever did so, has diminished this Forum, for all of us.

I might add, that the original title "Missile Strikes in FATA" was neutral and factual. So the addition of the word "illegal" is obviously an editorial addition to what was a very long standing factually titled thread. To argue otherwise is to be in complete denial as to one's own biases.

A further point. AgnosticMuslim is quite capable of arguing all he wants to in this and any other thread about his opposition to the FATA drone strikes and his firm belief that they are illegal and immoral. Fine. But to use his power to make this argument by changing a long standing PDF thread title is an abuse of his power on this Forum. Plain and simple. It was wrong to try to win the argument by changing something that someone like me is powerless to combat. His rules, his Forum. But it is a diminished Forum, to be sure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The US says they are legal, Pakistan says they are illegal. Neither you nor I are experts in international law. I am perfectly content for events yet to unfold to prove one side or the other right or wrong, and hence would not agree with your stance that regards the matter as decided as you have decided. I know the odds are in my favor quite overwhelmingly, and hence there is no need to antagonize you by insisting that I am correct.

Pakistan states they are illegal, and the US's own arguments attempting to argue legality have been thoroughly debunked. One does not have to be an expert in international law to see the plain facts that the US arguments are hollow and flawed, as has been shown.

I do respect your policies of moderating DefPk as you see fit until all you have is unanimity of views, if that is what is desired.

Attempting to argue bias when you are incapable of countering the arguments made to debunk US claims of legality only further illustrates the weakness of your position. If you feel the US has a legitemate claim beyond the arguments it has already made, that have been debunked, then feel free to argue it. Don't whine and cry about 'bias' when you can't even offer counterarguments to the points made.

No one on this Forum, whether it is myself or AgnosticMuslim, can "prove" the legality or illegality of USA drone strikes in Pakistan or elsewhere. In fact, truth be told, there is no where on this planet that a ruling on the "legality" of such actions could be rendered and accepted as final. So, inserting the word "illegal", on the authority of the forum administers, is merely their own personal opinion of the matter, nothing more, nothing less. I personally think that the drone strikes are a legal and moral act of self-defense. But, who cares what TruthSeeker thinks!! The point is, by making this change, who ever did so, has diminished this Forum, for all of us.

Actually we can show the illegality of US drone strikes, and I have done so on this thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...er-drone-strikes-us-argues-strikes-legal.html

Read through my posts and counter the arguments if you believe they are incomplete - please don't whine and cry about bias when you can't defend your POV.

 

[VCheng]

.................
Read through my posts and counter the arguments if you believe they are incomplete - please don't whine and cry about bias when you can't defend your POV.

Right you are. Of course, using words such as whine and cry (plus the others you used elsewhere) are not conducive to polite debate, so I will not do so with you. At all.

 

[Oldman1]

Some Pakistani politicians considered it illegal while others allow it lets say the Pakistani leader himself. In any case they provide the intelligence and coordination so in my opinion its no illegal. And to compare to Saddam invading Kuwait, the Kuwaiti leaders didn't give approval.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Right you are. Of course, using words such as whine and cry (plus the others you used elsewhere) are not conducive to polite debate, so I will not do so with you. At all.

Again, don't whine and cry about Admin/Moderator bias, and you won't be called out for it.

You were warned already on this issue, and yet you chose to continue to attack the admins/mods.

If you have a counterargument to the points raised to show the illegality of US drone strikes, then make those arguments - stop whining and crying about bias.

Some Pakistani politicians considered it illegal while others allow it lets say the Pakistani leader himself. In any case they provide the intelligence and coordination so in my opinion its no illegal. And to compare to Saddam invading Kuwait, the Kuwaiti leaders didn't give approval.

The official Pakistani position, as indicated by the statements of the FO and the resolutions by Parliament, do not support your conspiracy theories. If you have evidence showing that the Pakistani government has authorized US drone strikes, then please provide your sources.

 

[VCheng]

Some Pakistani politicians considered it illegal while others allow it lets say the Pakistani leader himself. In any case they provide the intelligence and coordination so in my opinion its no illegal. And to compare to Saddam invading Kuwait, the Kuwaiti leaders didn't give approval.

One of the terms referred to the PCNS was to formalize all prior agreements with USA. I would imagine some of those might apply to drone attacks, albeit verbal. I hope the process going forward sheds some light on this issue.

 

[TruthSeeker]

^^^

AM, Say what you want. You know what you are doing when you manipulate thread titles. Stop whining and crying that no one will debate you. Your "debate" points are just your own personal opinions, not facts. You have no idea what has been discussed and proposed between the US and the GoP regarding drone strikes, and neither do I. Everything you know is from press reports and speculation. None of which is FACT.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^^^

Say what you want. You know what you are doing when you manipulate thread titles. Stop whining and crying that no one will debate you. Your "debate" points are just your own personal opinions, not facts. You have no idea what has been discussed and proposed between the US and the GoP regarding drone strikes, and neither do I. Everything you know is from press reports and speculation. None of which is FACT.

I know exactly what the GoP thinks about the drone strikes based on the official statements by the Pakistani Foreign Office - spinning conspiracy theories in the face of facts and an inability to counter arguments does not change the facts. The facts are the US's own stated rationale (as argued by Brennan) is hollow and has been taken apart on a mere internet forum, and the facts are that the official Pakistani position on the drone strikes is clear on the illegality of the strikes.