US Senator Says We Should Bomb Mecca. Prepare For The Holy War! - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

buzzy · 08-05-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

No civilians ever get killed - this is "collateral damage".

We don't keep records of "collateral damage" - it's too embarassing to feed to the masses, but we keep records of Americans killed at the hands of "terrorists", but we don't like to show any body bags.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

They attacked us on 9/11, and killed thousand of innocent people without giving it a second thought. In fact, they screamed "Praise Allah" as they did it.

What, do you think they put in the effort of coordinating an attack of this magnitude just for shits and giggles? This is retaliation...

mention the date 09/11/2001 to any american, or anyone at all for that matter, and they will know exactly what you're talking about. the american media and propaganda machine has pounded it so deep into the american psyche that they are the enemies, that you haven't even been bothered to question WHY? If I mentioned 03/07/1988 to you, I'm sure you'd just give me a blank stare.

What relevancy does 03/07/88 have to do with anything? Well this happens to be the date that on which an American launched missile took down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing 290 innocent people, but hey we don't talk about IA Flight 655 here in north American, those are dirty words...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Iran Air Flight 655 (IR655) was a commercial flight operated by Iran Air that flew from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai, UAE. On Sunday July 3, 1988, towards the end of the Iran Iraq War, the aircraft flying IR655 was shot down by the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time.

According to the US government, the Iranian airbus was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.

Terror is America's biggest export. It's big business, and big money, and America will be damned if they're gonna pass that up. If ou think these people are just going to bow down to the american way of life you're delusional. I can't blame them for any attack launched against an american. Not one bit. America loves to terrorize, be it innocent civilians on foreign ground, or it's own domestic civilians.

buzzy · 08-05-2007, 01:53 AM

listen it's pointless debating about 9/11 because if the americans did it or terrorists, it dosent change the situation....

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzy

listen it's pointless debating about 9/11 because if the americans did it or terrorists, it dosent change the situation....

I'd say 9/11 did plenty to change the situation. It's a key moment in the timeline of events this entire argument is based upon. Regardless of how ou interpret the event, it was still the launching pad for America's campaign of international terror...

buzzy · 08-05-2007, 02:05 AM

nonono, of course 9/11 was huge, but what im trying to say is if it was terrorists or bush, it wouldn't of made a difference so it's pointless debating who done it.

GreyWolf · 08-05-2007, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzy

listen it's pointless debating about 9/11 because if the americans did it or terrorists, it dosent change the situation....

It's hard to get any real truth anyways when you are dealing with total liars - tho amazingly unfair on the families of those affected, but, it has been like that for some time and the "use and abuse" scenario is unlikely to change.

It's all about fear control using "we have enemies" and "we are under threat" therefore we need to attack as a defense. From that angle, 9/11 was very convenient.

9/11 never was the first terrorist attack, tho you'd think it was. There was plenty sympathy internationally after 9/11 and sure valid - but actions since then have almost wiped that off the map. Another example of CIA - Clueless-Idiots-in-Action.

Another aspect is the "use and abuse" - it's not only people in the Middle East who have been abused - out of all western countries, US people are the most used and abused by their government. They have been ripped off to unprecedented levels economically and persuaded to engage in a war which had no foundation other than the attempted glorification and profit-earning by the current administration and friends - disgusting specimens of the human race.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreyWolf

It's hard to get any real truth anyways when you are dealing with total liars - tho amazingly unfair on the families of those affected, but, it has been like that for some time and the "use and abuse" scenario is unlikely to change.

It's all about fear control using "we have enemies" and "we are under threat" therefore we need to attack as a defense. From that angle, 9/11 was very convenient.

9/11 never was the first terrorist attack, tho you'd think it was. There was plenty sympathy internationally after 9/11 and sure valid - but actions since then have almost wiped that off the map. Another example of CIA - Clueless-Idiots-in-Action.

Another aspect is the "use and abuse" - it's not only people in the Middle East who have been abused - out of all western countries, US people are the most used and abused by their government. They have been ripped off to unprecedented levels economically and persuaded to engage in a war which had no foundation other than the attempted glorification and profit-earning by the current administration and friends - disgusting specimens of the human race.

The US led invasion of Afghanistan set a dangerous precedent for the American ability to launch illegal wars against nations which in reality pose little or no threat. It was a pushover. The American military basically beat down a crippled old man, just to see if they could get away with it, and guess what? THEY DID. No one stood up and made them accountable for starting an illegal war. They set a precedent which allowed them to move onward into Iraq with little or no worry of facing any outside intervention.

Americans are more full of shit than citizens of any other nationality, and I'm not blaming them on an individual basis, that's just not fair. I'm judging the population as a whole because that's the only way to look at it. Day in and day out from the moment you're born the media feeds you incredible amounts of shit, molds your opinions through disinformation and tactical propaganda. In a dictatorship or communist state there is little need for propaganda for those in power to accomplish their goals. Under a supposedly democratic rule, the NEED for propaganda as a means for the powerful to accomplish their aims is found in it's fullest. Americans are fed more bullshit only a daily basis than any other nationality the world over, and they wonder why everyone hate son them. They're easier to program than the timer on my VCR...

who · 08-05-2007, 02:41 AM

This thread makes me physically ill.

GreyWolf · 08-05-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

Americans are more full of shit than citizens of any other nationality, and I'm not blaming them on an individual basis, that's just not fair. I'm judging the population as a whole because that's the only way to look at it. Day in and day out from the moment you're born the media feeds you incredible amounts of shit, molds your opinions through disinformation and tactical propaganda. In a dictatorship or communist state there is little need for propaganda for those in power to accomplish their goals. Under a supposedly democratic rule, the NEED for propaganda as a means for the powerful to accomplish their aims is found in it's fullest. Americans are fed more bullshit only a daily basis than any other nationality the world over, and they wonder why everyone hate son them. They're easier to program than the timer on my VCR...

Not sure if you have access to US media where you are, but I find it *very* boring and depressing. Even CNN US is loaded with utter bullshit - it hits you in the face when you are not used to it (and it's totally different to CNN International). It is not surprising to see how this can piss people off - even watching it is enough to make ya feel you are under threat

You may be aware the current bullshit consists of hours and hours of repeat programming over the bridge collapsing and it's obvious CNN and others have set up several crews to milk this from every angle. Sure, it's a story and relevant that other bridges blah come into question - but that is complete overkill. Meantime, all other major news stories are getting little coverage - convenient.

If it's not purported "news" - it's some idiot spewing his opinion with the slant that "this is the way we should think" about whatever topic - Foxnews is like bees to a honeypot for "how to think".

It sure as hell is not healthy and an embarassment to anyone involved in real journalism (tho there are a few good journalists with CNN). It is easy to see how this can seriously influence people - it's basically a "dumb down" operation and let us do the thinking for you - but with an appeal to have agreement. Just buy a cocktail of medicatons from our ads and we will tell you how it is

If I kept watching that crap - I think it might be easily "programmed" as well

jollyperv · 08-05-2007, 03:16 AM

Fuck Islam. Fuck All Of Them. Fuck Christians Too.

yys · 08-05-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

The US led invasion of Afghanistan set a dangerous precedent for the American ability to launch illegal wars against nations which in reality pose little or no threat. It was a pushover. The American military basically beat down a crippled old man, just to see if they could get away with it, and guess what? THEY DID. No one stood up and made them accountable for starting an illegal war. They set a precedent which allowed them to move onward into Iraq with little or no worry of facing any outside intervention.

Afghanistan an illegal war?

Can you show me where your getting this legal opinion from because I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

I'm more then happy to eat crow on this; how about you?

Buzzy, still waiting on your source for the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon after the May 2000 pullout?

Rui · 08-05-2007, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The next time any terrorist attacks anything, we should strike back. They blow up a car bomb in Bagdad, we give four hour notice that we are destroying an entire Iraqi city.

Nice, so since you cant clean the mess you've done you just decide its best for your government to "destroy an Iraqi city"...

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Player

They bomb Mecca if I was American I would move as far out of that country as possible. Iraq would probably be safer. There are millions of muslims in the US who would answer a call to arms if that happened.

Like all the hebeeby towel heads from the 7/11s?

Jesus let them revolt!

I want my 9to5 back beotch

pocketkangaroo · 08-05-2007, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The next time any terrorist attacks anything, we should strike back. They blow up a car bomb in Bagdad, we give four hour notice that we are destroying an entire Iraqi city.

Would you agree then if someone murders someone in our country, we should give the death penalty to everyone living in their neighborhood as well?

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Would you agree then if someone murders someone in our country, we should give the death penalty to everyone living in their neighborhood as well?

if those types of laws were put into effect then people would have no choice but to wake the fuck up and get involved int the neighborhood watch wouldnt you think?

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I agree.

They attacked us on 9/11, and killed thousand of innocent people without giving it a second thought. In fact, they screamed "Praise Allah" as they did it.

If they do not care about killing innocent people, well, we shouldn't either.

The next time any terrorist attacks anything, we should strike back. They blow up a car bomb in Bagdad, we give four hour notice that we are destroying an entire Iraqi city.

Aren't you the guys that wanted to remove a BADMAN because he was killing his OWN people ????

Barefootsies · 08-05-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

That's a great idea.

They should round up the family members of any suicide bombers and kill them too. Let that serve as a deterrent to future suicide bombers and terrorists that they will be identified, and their entire families will be killed.

Actually, they should do what Israel does.

Once the find out who the terrorists is, they track down their family,and bulldoze their house.

Simple, yet effective.

ok_ok_ok · 08-05-2007, 07:47 AM

bump bump

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Actually, they should do what Israel does.

Once the find out who the terrorists is, they track down their family,and bulldoze their house.

Simple, yet effective.

Shit ...

You mean that the White House would be bulldozed down ?????

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 08:26 AM

... and a ranch in Crawford, Texas ...

Maybe you are right.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

Afghanistan an illegal war?

Can you show me where your getting this legal opinion from because I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about?

I'm more then happy to eat crow on this; how about you?

Buzzy, still waiting on your source for the Israeli occupation of Southern Lebanon after the May 2000 pullout?

The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal as defined by international law on many many levels, and if you believe anything otherwise I'd have to say YOU don't know what you're talking about...

At the time of the 9/11 incident, the attacks were as defined by US law as an "act of terrorism". Shortly after this the US government took a huge swing in their opinion, all of the sudden claiming it as an "act of war" at which point the propaganda machine began spinning it's wheels in support of these claims, demonizing Afghanistan. There was not at that time, or at this time for that matter, any evidence supporting the idea that Afghanistan (as a state) had anything to do with the ordering of the 9/11 attacks. The US, after suddenly changing it's opinion on the status of the attack as an "act of war" as opposed to an "act of terrorism", bypassed a dozen or so international treaties which deal with acts of terrorism like this, and took matter sinto their own hands.

Twice America went to the United nations Security Council for a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan. They were denied both times. The UNSC defined it as an actof terrorism, failing to recognize it as an armed attack lead by any state. The invasion was never OK'd by the UNSC and technically is in violation of international law. Actually it represents a war of aggression on the part of the United States.

Did the United States really have any reason to go into Afghanistan? Fuck no. Did Afghanistan have any defenses? Not really. The intentions behind the invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with setting the precedent for launching a "preventative" war. America's newest war doctrine. They picked a country with little or no defense, which would allow for them to launch said illegal war with little or no consequence to their own numbers. Afghanistan served well for this purpose, and no one attempted to intervene as they did so, exactly what they were hoping for. This essentially gave the US the power to declare war against any state they saw fit to or consider a threat, regardless of international law. As long as they could drum up enough domestic support for an attack, regardless of proof or evidence, they canjustfy an invasion. Until the invasion of Afghanistan came along there was no such thing as a "preventative" war. This is a new doctrine supported only by the United States. It is this SAME doctrine that was shot down by the Nuremberg Tribunal when Nazi lawyers used it as their defense in Nuremberg!

There is no legal backing for any of this in international law. The US is in violation of several international treaties, which they rewrite for themselves however they see fit. They drum up domestic support of the war in people like you through the nonstop fear-mongering and misinformation on the part of the massive media outlets THAT THEY OWN...

The funny thing to me, is that though they have somehow justified this doctrine as the right of the United States of America, and they see themselves fit to attack anyone they consider a threat to their freedom, it still ONLY APPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES! What the fuck is that all about? By that standard there are several, if not dozens of nation right now which could easily consider the United States a threat to their own freedom, but surely we wouldn't let them launch a war against America. It's all a part of the American imperial strategy, and so far, it's working.

So the ball is in your court now, where is the legal backing for this? International legal backing that is, not bullshit legal backing formulated since then by the American government (which only holds up in America) either. I don't think you know what you're talking about...

yys · 08-05-2007, 12:44 PM

As I thought another blow hard who can't back up what they say.

You've written out a nice response but I see no sources posted to back up your opinion.

It's fine that you think 'you have' a valid argument but that doesn't make your esteemed legal opinion valid.

You could post one legitimate source for your opinion but as there are none it might be difficult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

The invasion of Afghanistan was illegal as defined by international law on many many levels, and if you believe anything otherwise I'd have to say YOU don't know what you're talking about...

At the time of the 9/11 incident, the attacks were as defined by US law as an "act of terrorism". Shortly after this the US government took a huge swing in their opinion, all of the sudden claiming it as an "act of war" at which point the propaganda machine began spinning it's wheels in support of these claims, demonizing Afghanistan. There was not at that time, or at this time for that matter, any evidence supporting the idea that Afghanistan (as a state) had anything to do with the ordering of the 9/11 attacks. The US, after suddenly changing it's opinion on the status of the attack as an "act of war" as opposed to an "act of terrorism", bypassed a dozen or so international treaties which deal with acts of terrorism like this, and took matter sinto their own hands.

Twice America went to the United nations Security Council for a resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan. They were denied both times. The UNSC defined it as an actof terrorism, failing to recognize it as an armed attack lead by any state. The invasion was never OK'd by the UNSC and technically is in violation of international law. Actually it represents a war of aggression on the part of the United States.

Did the United States really have any reason to go into Afghanistan? Fuck no. Did Afghanistan have any defenses? Not really. The intentions behind the invasion of Afghanistan had more to do with setting the precedent for launching a "preventative" war. America's newest war doctrine. They picked a country with little or no defense, which would allow for them to launch said illegal war with little or no consequence to their own numbers. Afghanistan served well for this purpose, and no one attempted to intervene as they did so, exactly what they were hoping for. This essentially gave the US the power to declare war against any state they saw fit to or consider a threat, regardless of international law. As long as they could drum up enough domestic support for an attack, regardless of proof or evidence, they canjustfy an invasion. Until the invasion of Afghanistan came along there was no such thing as a "preventative" war. This is a new doctrine supported only by the United States. It is this SAME doctrine that was shot down by the Nuremberg Tribunal when Nazi lawyers used it as their defense in Nuremberg!

There is no legal backing for any of this in international law. The US is in violation of several international treaties, which they rewrite for themselves however they see fit. They drum up domestic support of the war in people like you through the nonstop fear-mongering and misinformation on the part of

The funny thing to me, is that though they have somehow justified this doctrine as the right of the United States of America, and they see themselves fit to attack anyone they consider a threat to their freedom, it still ONLY APPLIES TO THE UNITED STATES! What the fuck is that all about? By that standard there are several, if not dozens of nation right now which could easily consider the United States a threat to their own freedom, but surely we wouldn't let them launch a war against America. It's all a part of the American imperial strategy, and so far, it's working.

So the ball is in your court now, where is the legal backing for this? International legal backing that is, not bullshit legal backing formulated since then by the American government (which only holds up in America) either. I don't think you know what you're talking about...

Humpy Leftnut · 08-05-2007, 12:47 PM

Page three rulez.

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

As I thought another blow hard who can't back up what they say.

You've written out a nice response but I see no sources posted to back up your opinion.

It's fine that you think 'you have' a valid argument but that doesn't make your esteemed legal opinion valid.

You could post one legitimate source for your opinion but as there are none it might be difficult.

neither to yours .... should be easy to pull out the UN resolution to invade Afghanistan ...

yys · 08-05-2007, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

neither to yours .... should be easy to pull out the UN resolution to invade Afghanistan ...

Actually he's the one who was making the claim and I asked him for a source to back up this claim. Instead we get a well written response which is worth as much as the virtual paper it was written on, nothing.

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

As I thought another blow hard who can't back up what they say.

You've written out a nice response but I see no sources posted to back up your opinion.

It's fine that you think 'you have' a valid argument but that doesn't make your esteemed legal opinion valid.

You could post one legitimate source for your opinion but as there are none it might be difficult.

Holy fuck, you MUST be American!

Where do your valued opinion from? Faux News? CNN? The Times? Fuck, even some American news sources have touched on the illegality of the war. It's no secret that in the majority of instances this has all been played out in violation of international law. But hey, don't expect them to tell you that every day on the 6 o' clock news. America DID get a war powers resolution, legally entitling them to the use military force as authorized by the UNSC. Meaning they have to ask before they do anything, which they didn't. Another violation.

There is a world OUTSIDE the united states you know? Most of it views the war as illegal, most of us look down upon America. Don't you think there might be some reasoning behind that? What do you want me to give you for a "legitimate" source of information? You want me to write a fucking book on the topic of international law regarding legitimate war? media propaganda in support of the current war? or imperialist strategy? I'm sure there's a whole fucking shelf of them down at your local library. Maybe you should start reading some of them, and quit taking everything the American media tells you as truth.

Sleep tight in your ignorance, I'm not going to bother arguing with you, you have no argument. Go pick up the following books and do a little reading, when you're finished I'll give you more...

Imperial Ambitions - Noam Chomsky
The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence - Francis Boyle

I'm willing to bet there's more solid evidence to back the opinion that war is illegal than there are otherwise...

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

neither to yours .... should be easy to pull out the UN resolution to invade Afghanistan ...

Exactly, this alone is proof enough of illegality. The UNSC, the regulatory committee overseeing these laws, did not offer resolution to authorize the use of military force. America did anyway. Illegal. End of story...

Do I have to bring a member to the UNSC to your front doorstep to tell you this himself? It's well documented...

yys · 08-05-2007, 01:15 PM

Again just as I thought another anti- American blow hard.

The mission in Afghanistan is backed by multiple UN resolutions.

I can show you the U.N. resolution's authorizing ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

How about you, the guy claiming were in Afghanistan illegally; Can you show me one resolution that calls the mission illegal?

Didn't think so.

Well written responses though. It seems your the one who's ignorant of the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

Holy fuck, you MUST be American!

Where do your valued opinion from? Faux News? CNN? The Times? Fuck, even some American news sources have touched on the illegality of the war. It's no secret that in the majority of instances this has all been played out in violation of international law. But hey, don't expect them to tell you that every day on the 6 o' clock news. America DID get a war powers resolution, legally entitling them to the use military force as authorized by the UNSC. Meaning they have to ask before they do anything, which they didn't. Another violation.

There is a world OUTSIDE the united states you know? Most of it views the war as illegal, most of us look down upon America. Don't you think there might be some reasoning behind that? What do you want me to give you for a "legitimate" source of information? You want me to write a fucking book on the topic of international law regarding legitimate war? media propaganda in support of the current war? or imperialist strategy? I'm sure there's a whole fucking shelf of them down at your local library. Maybe you should start reading some of them, and quit taking everything the American media tells you as truth.

Sleep tight in your ignorance, I'm not going to bother arguing with you, you have no argument. Go pick up the following books and do a little reading, when you're finished I'll give you more...

Imperial Ambitions - Noam Chomsky
The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence - Francis Boyle

I'm willing to bet there's more solid evidence to back the opinion that war is illegal than there are otherwise...

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:17 PM

Ok, lets see them....

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

Again just as I thought another anti- American blow hard.

The mission in Afghanistan is backed by multiple UN resolutions.

I can show you the U.N. resolution's authorizing ISAF forces in Afghanistan.

How about you, the guy claiming were in Afghanistan illegally; Can you show me one resolution that calls the mission illegal?

Didn't think so.

Well written responses though. It seems your the one who's ignorant of the facts.

yys · 08-05-2007, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

Ok, lets see them....

LOL
You first; Just one valid legal opinion stating that ISAF is in Afghanistan illegally.

Here's a couple of excerpts from my source, a U.N. resolution. Maybe you could give us a few excerpts from a legit legal source for your claims. Some how I doubt it though.

Quote:

2. Calls upon Member States to contribute personnel, equipment and other
resources to the International Security Assistance Force, and invites those Member
States to inform the leadership of the Force and the Secretary-General;
3. Authorizes the Member States participating in the International Security
Assistance Force to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate;

Vick! · 08-05-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I think having a deterrent against radical islamic fundamentalists is a good thing. If you don't like it, I don't give a fuck.

You are the idiot most person I ever met in my life, your brain is in your ass or what?
lol

Moron, Its same like threatening of attack on Rome for the act of a couple hundred Christians of Philipines or attack on Israel for act of couple hundred Jews of Canada.

Is this point is so hard to understand?

Ah! I remember, you are an average American with IQ of 45. Idiot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

The next time any terrorist attacks anything, we should strike back. They blow up a car bomb in Bagdad, we give four hour notice that we are destroying an entire Iraqi city.

Woah! another..

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

LOL
You first; Just one valid legal opinion stating that ISAF is in Afghanistan illegally.

Here's a couple of excerpts from my source, a U.N. resolution. Maybe you could give us a few excerpts from a legit legal source for your claims. Some how I doubt it though.

hummmm......

Quote:

In conclusion it appears the US has failed to satisfy and instead violated the modern rules of International Law regarding the right to self-defence and instead relied on an ?expansive? interpretation given by a limited number of academics. Further any claim of a new emergence of customary international law, based on a broader definition of ?armed attack?, in response to terrorism [76] is a weak argument as only two states, those being Israel and the US, rely on such practice. There is therefore no opinio juris amongst the international community as the action had been widely condemned, silence of the UN can by no means be taken as acceptance of US action.

http://www.americansc.org.uk/Online/...anlegality.htm

now, show " yours " ....

Snake Doctor · 08-05-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vick!

You are the idiot most person I ever met in my life, your brain is in your ass or what?
lol

Moron, Its same like threatening of attack on Rome for the act of a couple hundred Christians of Philipines or attack on Israel for act of couple hundred Jews of Canada.

Is this point is so hard to understand?

Ah! I remember, you are an average American with IQ of 45. Idiot.

Woah! another..

BTW, how does that terrorist cock taste?

You may think we should just sit here and feel sorry for ourselves if we get attacked by a terrorist, but I don't.

Invading Iraq was stupid I agree, and I never voted for this president or supported the Iraq war.
Invading Afghanistan was necessary. We knew they had Bin Laden, we knew he attacked us, they refused to give him to us, so we went in ourselves, and I would hope we would do the same thing ANY time we're attacked.

yys · 08-05-2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

hummmm......

now, show " yours " ....

How about a United Nations Security Council Resolution
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroo...CR-1386_en.pdf

Does that hold as much weight with you as a public international law essay by Sulman Hassan

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

LOL
You first; Just one valid legal opinion stating that ISAF is in Afghanistan illegally.

Here's a couple of excerpts from my source, a U.N. resolution. Maybe you could give us a few excerpts from a legit legal source for your claims. Some how I doubt it though.

Why can't you post up the entire resolution? Is that too difficult? It's easy to take things out of context. Hell, even the number will do, I'll go look it up for myself. The UNSC wrote up several resolutions after 9/11 condemning the acts of the Taliban and it's Al-Qaeda friends. However, all of them require actions taken under the resolution to cooperate with international law, which American forces violate on a regular basis. Two of America's favorite violations coming in under articles 48 and 51 of the Geneva convention, which are in place to protect the civilian population and prevent indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure.

America requested a resolution allowing them to take take a military offensive in Afghanistan, they were denied. The UNSC assembled and put in place at least 3 resolutions in 2001 alone regarding the actions to be taken with Afghanistan, all to be followed under their direction and in compliance with international law. American forces paid little attention to any of these laws, carrying on with their war under their own direction, often in violation of these laws.

Two points taken out of the context of the entire resolution hardly stand as evidence to me. The resolutions allow the ISAF to take neccesary actions AS ALLOWED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS outlined in the many conventions regarding the issue of war...

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

How about a United Nations Security Council Resolution
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroo...CR-1386_en.pdf

Does that hold as much weight with you as a public international law essay by Sulman Hassan

please quote what you say " authorises the invasion " of Afghanistan...

FYI, UN resolutions on Afghanistan go way back, mainly against the Taliban, even tough such Taliban were supported by the US...

Still, show the quote or even an " essay " that debates and another perspective.

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 02:03 PM

Why blame the entire middle east for oil?

Most of those poor souls over there wear the same clothes day in and day out and dont even have a washing machine or a public toilet to piss in.

The money is most certainly NOT giong into their pockets from the sales of oil!

yys · 08-05-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

please quote what you say " authorises the invasion " of Afghanistan...

FYI, UN resolutions on Afghanistan go way back, mainly against the Taliban, even tough such Taliban were supported by the US...

Still, show the quote or even an " essay " that debates and another perspective.

Please, He said we were in Afghanistan illegally but the UN has authorized there presence there so how is it illegal again.

Here's a more recent one which mentions the OEF coalition; nothing about them being in Afghanistan illegally either. Hmmmmmm

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroo...CR-1707_en.pdf

Now you.
How about something from the ICC or U.N. instead of a public international law essay by Sulman Hassan, graduate in law from Liverpool John Moores University . You can see the difference between my source and yours can't you?

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

Why can't you post up the entire resolution? Is that too difficult? It's easy to take things out of context. Hell, even the number will do, I'll go look it up for myself. The UNSC wrote up several resolutions after 9/11 condemning the acts of the Taliban and it's Al-Qaeda friends. However, all of them require actions taken under the resolution to cooperate with international law, which American forces violate on a regular basis. Two of America's favorite violations coming in under articles 48 and 51 of the Geneva convention, which are in place to protect the civilian population and prevent indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations and infrastructure.

America requested a resolution allowing them to take take a military offensive in Afghanistan, they were denied. The UNSC assembled and put in place at least 3 resolutions in 2001 alone regarding the actions to be taken with Afghanistan, all to be followed under their direction and in compliance with international law. American forces paid little attention to any of these laws, carrying on with their war under their own direction, often in violation of these laws.

Two points taken out of the context of the entire resolution hardly stand as evidence to me. The resolutions allow the ISAF to take neccesary actions AS ALLOWED BY INTERNATIONAL LAWS outlined in the many conventions regarding the issue of war...

Who do you think we will bomb next will it be IRAN(again)?

Rui · 08-05-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

Invading Afghanistan was necessary. We knew they had Bin Laden, we knew he attacked us, they refused to give him to us, so we went in ourselves, and I would hope we would do the same thing ANY time we're attacked.

That also worked out pretty well didn't it?

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

Please, He said we were in Afghanistan illegally but the UN has authorized there presence there so how is it illegal again.

Here's a more recent one which mentions the OEF coalition; nothing about them being in Afghanistan illegally either. Hmmmmmm

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroo...CR-1707_en.pdf

Now you.
How about something from the ICC or U.N. instead of a public international law essay by Sulman Hassan, graduate in law from Liverpool John Moores University . You can see the difference between my source and yours can't you?

Listen, you post links after links of UN documents of various resolutions ... but the US DID not comply to those resolutions:

Quote:

WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST AFGHANISTAN

Bush, Jr. instead went to the United National Security Council to get a
resolution authorizing the use of military force against Afghanistan and
Al Qaeda. He failed. You have to remember that. This war has never been authorized by the United Nations Security Council. If you read the two
resolutions that he got, it is very clear that what Bush, Jr. tried to
do was to get the exact same type of language that Bush, Sr. got from the
U.N. Security Council in the late fall of 1990 to authorize a war
against Iraq to produce its expulsion from Kuwait. It is very clear if you read
these resolutions, Bush, Jr. tried to get the exact same language twice
and they failed. Indeed the first Security Council resolution refused to
call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack" - that is by one
state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks."
But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by
the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under
international
law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States
against Afghanistan.

NO DECLARATION OF WAR

Now in addition Bush, Jr. then went to Congress to get authorization to
go to war. It appears that Bush, Jr. tried to get a formal declaration
of war along the lines of December 8, 1941 after the Day of Infamy like
FDR got on Pearl Harbor. Bush then began to use the rhetoric of Pearl
Harbor. If he had gotten this declaration of war Bush and his lawyers
knew full well he would have been a Constitutional Dictator. And I refer
you here to the book by my late friend Professor Miller of George
Washington University Law School, Presidential Power that with a formal
declaration of war the president becomes a Constitutional Dictator. He
failed to get a declaration of war. Despite all the rhetoric we have
heard by the Bush,
Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or
against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against
anyone
as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared.

The Illegalities of the Bush, Jr. War Against Afghanistan*
by Professor Francis A. Boyle

please, if you post another link, highlight the parts and discuss them or show an opinion by a scholar or a person qualified ( that excludes Juicy D. Links " I like pie " )....

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

How about a United Nations Security Council Resolution
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroo...CR-1386_en.pdf

Does that hold as much weight with you as a public international law essay by Sulman Hassan

These resolutions call for the reform of the Afghani government, and a stop to the human rights violations of the Taliban rule. They give the ISAF jurisdiction to maintain the peace while the UN works towards establishing a system of rule not in violation of human rights. Nowhere does it speak of going on the offensive for a nationwide manhunt for Osama Bin Laden. Nowhere does it speak of bombing civilian infrastructure and launching indiscriminate attacks in the chase for Al Qaeda kingpins. This resolution was put in place to ensure the protection of Afghani human rights, the same human rights protected in the Geneva Convention under the previously mentioned articles (48 and 51) as well as others, which the US forces were in frequent violation of. In fact this resolution outlines a purely defensive strategy, not the offensive military force that America was pulling for in their applications for resolution...

Oh and yes, I am fully anti-American. Americana is a poisonous idea. But that's alright, I don't have to listen to your bullshit if I don't feel like it. History repeats itself, and every empire eventually crumbles, the American empire will be no different. I just can't stand listening to stupid Americans go on about how everyone is out to get them. It's for a damn good reason, your government has been sticking it's nose in places it shouldn't have for decades now. Manifest destiny didn't end with California. America has been pressing forward to expand it's sphere of influence continuously ever since, it's been a war hungry nation since day one. I highly doubt terror on American soil would be much of an issue whatsoever if the yankee businessman running the nation would quit trying to stick their fingers in everybody else's honeypots.

yys · 08-05-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

Listen, you post links after links of UN documents of various resolutions ... but the US DID not comply to those resolutions:

please, if you post another link, highlight the parts and discuss them or show an opinion by a scholar or a person qualified ( that excludes Juicy D. Links " I like pie " )....

You guys are hilarious. You claim something yet have nothing to back it up but an essay and some article by
The Illegalities of the Bush, Jr. War Against Afghanistan*
by Professor Francis A. Boyle

I show you that Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission yet you still claim it's illegal.

Priceless

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

You guys are hilarious. You claim something yet have nothing to back it up but an essay and some article by
The Illegalities of the Bush, Jr. War Against Afghanistan*
by Professor Francis A. Boyle

I show you that Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission yet you still claim it's illegal.

Priceless

I have something that can back it up alright.
911

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripshit

Who do you think we will bomb next will it be IRAN(again)?

I think America has it's hands full with Iraq for some time to come, and by the time they do establish a decent hold over Iraq (which just might NEVER happen) I'm thinking their resources and the moral support of their own people might just be too low to make another move too quickly. If I had to put my money on the next target of American aggression, I'd put it on Iran still though. Though they are turbulent areas, I think America's hold over Central and South America are already fairly established where they want to be there. Africa really doesn't pose any strategic value or threat to America at the moment, and surely they aren't going to attack anyone who can put up a fight (Korea, China). They already outlined their "Axis of Evil" so I think yes, Iran is a safe bet.....

J. Falcon · 08-05-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpwhits

Terrorist states, Stanley. Someone must bring their war to them. They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute an American tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans.

Im sure that approach will have success. You are about as stupid and desperate as the fucking idiots running your country.

Ripshit · 08-05-2007, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ismokeblunts

Africa really doesn't pose any strategic value or threat to America at the moment

Nobody would ever go to war with the devils continent.
They pose no threat as of yet but Id like to see any troops fight a ground war there animal activists would be in an uproar all over the world.

directfiesta · 08-05-2007, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

I show you that Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission yet you still claim it's illegal.

No, you didn't... you posted a bunch of links, dry.

Quote where the UN approved by a resolution the INVASION of Afghanistan ....

( Use highlight, it helps )....

All you quote are solutions that started prior and continued after ...I could flood my reply with those resolutions...

Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life · 08-05-2007, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yys

You guys are hilarious. You claim something yet have nothing to back it up but an essay and some article by
The Illegalities of the Bush, Jr. War Against Afghanistan*
by Professor Francis A. Boyle

I show you that Afghanistan is a UN sanctioned mission yet you still claim it's illegal.

Priceless

You show us a UN resolution outlining a defensive strategy for the protection of Afghani civil rights. Nothing that overly backs your opinion, or disproves the illegal actions taken by American and American allied forces in Afghanistan.

An essay by a respected and educated man in the field of international law is solid rebuttal. Really, who has to authenticate someone's credibility for it to stick for you? Francis Boyle is NOT the only person who has tackled the subject, and is not even in my opinion the one who has tackled the subject from the best angle. Many many well respected people have wrote dozens of books on America's flawed foreign policies and it's disobedience in relation to international law.

I'vw wasted enough of my time this afternoon arguing with you. you have your opinion and I have mine. I think you're a fucking dipshit, you think I'm a fucking dipshit. It doesn't change anything. Just don't be shocked and awed next time a terrorist attack lands itself on American soil, it's nothing more than retaliation. It always has been. Everyone knows who the aggressor has been all along.

yys · 08-05-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

No, you didn't... you posted a bunch of links, dry.

Quote where the UN approved by a resolution the INVASION of Afghanistan ....

( Use highlight, it helps )....

All you quote are solutions that started prior and continued after ...I could flood my reply with those resolutions...

Keep going in circles

I posted links to resolutions authorizing ISAF presence in Afghanistan you posted links to a law grad and a professor.

Go ahead and flood the thread with U.N. resolutions telling ISAF to end it's illegal presence in Afghanistan.

08-05-2007, 08:26 AM	#120
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,775	... and a ranch in Crawford, Texas ... Maybe you are right. __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

08-05-2007, 12:47 PM	#123
Humpy Leftnut Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,292	Page three rulez. __________________ Humpy Leftnut - Pornsumer Reviews

08-05-2007, 01:53 AM	#103
buzzy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,606	listen it's pointless debating about 9/11 because if the americans did it or terrorists, it dosent change the situation....

08-05-2007, 02:05 AM	#105
buzzy Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,606	nonono, of course 9/11 was huge, but what im trying to say is if it was terrorists or bush, it wouldn't of made a difference so it's pointless debating who done it.

08-05-2007, 02:41 AM	#108
who So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ICQ #23642053 Posts: 19,593	This thread makes me physically ill.

08-05-2007, 03:16 AM	#110
jollyperv Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NYC Posts: 3,927	Fuck Islam. Fuck All Of Them. Fuck Christians Too.

08-05-2007, 07:47 AM	#118
ok_ok_ok Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 135	bump bump

08-05-2007, 02:03 PM	#137
Ripshit So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 951	Why blame the entire middle east for oil? Most of those poor souls over there wear the same clothes day in and day out and dont even have a washing machine or a public toilet to piss in. The money is most certainly NOT giong into their pockets from the sales of oil!