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...

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.

Page three rulez.

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.

Holy fuck, you MUST be American! :disgust 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...

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...

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.

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.

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. :321GFY

Woah! another..

hummmm......

now, show " yours " .... :1orglaugh

http://www.amateurcleavage.com/gfy/english.jpg

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.

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

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...

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.

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!

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?

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

That also worked out pretty well didn't it?

:1orglaugh:error

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 " )....

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.

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

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.....

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

It's amazing how many stupid responses this thread has had.

I see... you CAN'T quote any resolutions allowing the INVASION of Afghanistan ...


Post your ISAF presence ( nothing to do with invasion ) resolutions .... even, post your mother spaghetti sauce receipe .... as long as you post, but can't explain .... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh



BTW, this is straight to the point, not circles ... YOU should know

And you can't quote me any resolutions calling their presence illegal.

Yet there they are with full UN backing

Oh , I see ... A disciple of the " prove me you have no WMD " ....

BTW, the UN was in Iraq ( till the bombing ) to support the population .... even tough they never authorised the invasion of IRAQ ... ( Or maybe you want to say they did that also ).

Anyway, no point here .... bye!

Were did I claim their PRESENCE is illegal now.... ? Please quote.

Probably the same reason the faggot who started this thread didn't post the whole quote from the congressman. (not a senator, a congressman)

This is hardly the dramatic threat that you're making it out to be. It sounds fairly reasonable to me.

How much of the money from *your* countries oil goes into your pockets? lol c'mon. If you say taxes and jobs, well they got them too. And as for taxes, how well is that spent!

sounds like a great plan to me too, and then tell the fucks that oil is now $10 a barrel or else we might bomb more crap they're fond of, I liked the twin towers myself

Please do not bumb no one. Peace

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh