GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - Are Republicans hoping for another 9-11?

KzU · 08-10-2007, 12:01 AM

Who are the terrorists?

There are still a lot of questions to be answered with regard to America?s ?prompt? response to September 11 attacks. The main one relates to the crucial decision of invading Afghanistan. From his first appearance in public after the attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 11 September, George W. Bush has prepared public opinion for a muscular response against the `faceless enemy' who so painfully struck at America, using the charged slogan: ?We are at war?.

But, is it really a war?

The answer is simple, NO?!!! DON?T BE FOOLED WITH ALL THAT TERRORISM STUFF!!!

For this is not war, which presupposes an armed conflict between adversaries if not identified, at least identifiable (does the well ?known? Osama Ben Laden really exists? ), to which the `laws and customs of war' can be applied-the old and still precious `Hague rules' and the `humanitarian law of armed conflict', the `law of Geneva', principally the Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols. This is not war; it is something else, to which our own legal arsenal is poorly adapted.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION???

Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) recognizes ?the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter?.

This could: A) be taken to authorize the use of force by the USA or
B) recognize the USA?s right of self-defense as a response to the terrorist attacks.

Ad A) Recognition of the right to self-defense is placed in the preamble of the resolution and not in the operative part. Secondly, the wording does not expressly authorize the use of force, for example by using the phrase ?all necessary means?. The use of force is a very serious interference in another state?s territorial sovereignty and an authorization should require explicit wording.

Ad B) The Security Council establishes a link between the terrorist attacks and the right of self-defense. But the Council has no formal powers to make a binding interpretation of the right to self-defense in a concrete case. Secondly, the resolution does not explicitly say that the USA has a right of self-defense against any other state in this case. Thirdly, the resolution was adopted the day after the attacks and no one could at that time know who was behind the attacks, and if they were directed from abroad. Fourthly, international law requires that a state must have been involved in one way or other in an attack. It is not easily accepted that the Security Council would do away with such a requirement (and other legal requirements). Fifthly, against whom should the USA have a right to self-defense? Would it be against Afghanistan or against about 60 states with some connection with terrorists?

?There is something behind the throne grater than the king himself?

So in case your still wondering who the real terrorists are,
I?ll just say: ?turn on the TV and you?ll see them everyday smiling at you as somebody who has just fuck you from behind, (), and it?s very satisfied to see you naked and with your ass broken looking for answers you never seem to find?

Open your eyes, it's not for the terrorism, it's not religion, not even patriotism, NO... it's all about holly money!.

08-10-2007, 12:01 AM
KzU Registered User Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 46	Who are the terrorists? There are still a lot of questions to be answered with regard to America?s ?prompt? response to September 11 attacks. The main one relates to the crucial decision of invading Afghanistan. From his first appearance in public after the attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 11 September, George W. Bush has prepared public opinion for a muscular response against the `faceless enemy' who so painfully struck at America, using the charged slogan: ?We are at war?. But, is it really a war? The answer is simple, NO?!!! DON?T BE FOOLED WITH ALL THAT TERRORISM STUFF!!! For this is not war, which presupposes an armed conflict between adversaries if not identified, at least identifiable (does the well ?known? Osama Ben Laden really exists? ), to which the `laws and customs of war' can be applied-the old and still precious `Hague rules' and the `humanitarian law of armed conflict', the `law of Geneva', principally the Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols. This is not war; it is something else, to which our own legal arsenal is poorly adapted. SO WHAT ABOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION??? Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) recognizes ?the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter?. This could: A) be taken to authorize the use of force by the USA or B) recognize the USA?s right of self-defense as a response to the terrorist attacks. Ad A) Recognition of the right to self-defense is placed in the preamble of the resolution and not in the operative part. Secondly, the wording does not expressly authorize the use of force, for example by using the phrase ?all necessary means?. The use of force is a very serious interference in another state?s territorial sovereignty and an authorization should require explicit wording. Ad B) The Security Council establishes a link between the terrorist attacks and the right of self-defense. But the Council has no formal powers to make a binding interpretation of the right to self-defense in a concrete case. Secondly, the resolution does not explicitly say that the USA has a right of self-defense against any other state in this case. Thirdly, the resolution was adopted the day after the attacks and no one could at that time know who was behind the attacks, and if they were directed from abroad. Fourthly, international law requires that a state must have been involved in one way or other in an attack. It is not easily accepted that the Security Council would do away with such a requirement (and other legal requirements). Fifthly, against whom should the USA have a right to self-defense? Would it be against Afghanistan or against about 60 states with some connection with terrorists? ?There is something behind the throne grater than the king himself? So in case your still wondering who the real terrorists are, I?ll just say: ?turn on the TV and you?ll see them everyday smiling at you as somebody who has just fuck you from behind, (), and it?s very satisfied to see you naked and with your ass broken looking for answers you never seem to find? Open your eyes, it's not for the terrorism, it's not religion, not even patriotism, NO... it's all about holly money!.