Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Afghanistan — A suicide bomber driving a truck attacked an advance NATO combat post in central Af

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




...and what foreign group was the Taliban fighting to get off their homeland after the Soviet withdrawal?


The Taliban were not around immediately after the soviets withdrew. The Taliban were formed much AFTER the chaos and the infighting that arose after the soviet withdrawal.




Next time when the US requests a person be turned over, comply. When they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US, instead demanind he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial, they made their own bed.


Demanding that "he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial" is fair enough...
When will we get to see Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell for the war that they started in Iraq under false pretexts? Or are American government officials somehow immune to prosecution for war crimes?




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


You are isolating things which do not exist in isolation. Perhaps a good way to win an argument, perhaps not, but definitely not a good way to insure survival. While your head it stuck in the sand, you can't see them coming to cut it off.

That's how 9-11 happened in the first place.



edit on 2011/9/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Xcathdra
 




Next time when the US requests a person be turned over, comply. When they refused to turn Bin Laden over to the US, instead demanind he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial, they made their own bed.


Demanding that "he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial" is fair enough...
When will we get to see Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell for the war that they started in Iraq under false pretexts? Or are American government officials somehow immune to prosecution for war crimes?



Charge them with a "war crime". Seriously. get the paperwork rolling. Let's see how that goes, and if there is enough evidence to justify that charge.

In a court, rather than mewlings on the internet.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
The Taliban were not around immediately after the soviets withdrew. The Taliban were formed much AFTER the chaos and the infighting that arose after the soviet withdrawal.


The Taliban as a group was formed in 1996. It is made up of commanders and fighters from the Muhajadeen. The group was in place long before it formally became known as the Taliban. It took them some time to consolidate their hold over other groups vieing for the same control. That would be when the US stopped providing support, right after the Soviet withdrawal.



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Demanding that "he go to a neutral 3rd country for trial" is fair enough...

Im sorry and a 3rd party country can exercise jurisdiction over US law? Not even close to being fair, and since the Taliban chose to not play fair, so did we. The attacks occured within the political boundaries of the United States, resulting in the death of over 3,000 people, the bulk who were American. Those who were not American still fall under the US system for investigation and prosecution since it didnt occur in international waters.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
When will we get to see Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell for the war that they started in Iraq under false pretexts?

Apparently wikileaks doesnt agree with your statement -
www.freeproducttesters.com...

There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.


Read more: www.nypost.com...


Care to point out in the UN resolutions dating back to the end of the 1st gulf war, up to UN resolution 1441 where it states small amounts of a wmd program are ok? Maybe we should ask some of the Iraqi defectors who also continued to supply information to not only the US, but the UN IAEA as to the programs present and level of operations.

We can look at Syria, namely the Bekka valley, where a bulk of Iraqs WMD program was sent to to avoid UN inspections. You will remeber that Syria had a site in that same area bombed by Israel. Normally that would be a state of war, yet Syria remained quiet.....

Maybe they were just having an off day when it came to denouncing Israel for not only violating their air space and sovereignty, but also decided an attack by the lesser satan wasnt worth going to war over?

Maybe they were hiding something?

We can come back to that one in another thread if we want to.



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Or are American government officials somehow immune to prosecution for war crimes?



As a matter of fact they are since UN resolutions / laws / international treaties do not over ride the US constitution, including the doctrine of Soveriegn Immunity. Any internatioanl law / treaty the US signs onto becomes a part of the US Federal body of law, which makes them subservient to the US constitution when dealing with US processes. It also allows Congress, as well as citizens to challenge those laws in court, as was done with the UN Convention on Torture and water boarding.

Treaty Clause- US Constitution and subsequent court case refinement of International treaties and how they are established within the US body of Federal Law.


Repeal

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[8] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[10]


Or we could look at the fact the US is not a signatory to the ICC, nor are we a signatoiry to the Rome Accords. When they introduced the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, we withdrew completely from the program.

The Taliban and any other country is more than welcome to file charges / indict them. Since they would be doing it under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, it opens the door for the US to make use of the same legal term against countries who arent signatories either, making our actions in Iraq valid even without WMD's being found ( making it a moot point).

What else should we talk about?
edit on 14-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


An excellent analysis - with the single exception that I differ in the inception of the Taliban - that's neither when, where, how, nor from whom they were formed. The international law aspects were well done, and were a far more elaborate explanation of what I was trying to say with "file the charges, let's see what kind of mileage you get".

Now you've let the cat out of the bag. I was all set to watch the antics as charges were filed!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





You are isolating things which do not exist in isolation. Perhaps a good way to win an argument, perhaps not, but definitely not a good way to insure survival. While your head it stuck in the sand, you can't see them coming to cut it off.

Not isolating anything.
The only heads that are stuck in the sand are the ones believing that they stand the risk of being chopped off by "them". Again, why exactly do you think that a bunch of Afghans fighting off foriegn invaders on their soil might lead to your "extinction", as you mentioned earlier?



Charge them with a "war crime". Seriously. get the paperwork rolling. Let's see how that goes, and if there is enough evidence to justify that charge. In a court, rather than mewlings on the internet.


If mere "paperwork" could serve justice, the whole world would be a better place.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





The Taliban as a group was formed in 1996. It is made up of commanders and fighters from the Muhajadeen. The group was in place long before it formally became known as the Taliban. It took them some time to consolidate their hold over other groups vieing for the same control. That would be when the US stopped providing support, right after the Soviet withdrawal.


Yeah... same thing that I said earlier.... The Taliban were formed much AFTER the chaos and the infighting that arose after the soviet withdrawal. . Theres also that bit about a certain mullah who fought in the soviet war and then went on to form the taliban movement.




Apparently wikileaks doesnt agree with your statement -
www.freeproducttesters.com...


Interesting.
wait....this shows up on wikileaks.... but does not show up on the MSM.... the same MSM that pushed the cause for war in Iraq.... strange.
Because this news would have been as HUGE as the original *claim* that Iraq had WMDs.


(on Iraqi WMDs)
www.dailymail.co.uk...


The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

Care to explain that? Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the US?



edit on 14-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Yeah... same thing that I said earlier.... The Taliban were formed much AFTER the chaos and the infighting that arose after the soviet withdrawal. . Theres also that bit about a certain mullah who fought in the soviet war and then went on to form the taliban movement.


The point you are missing are these people (Taliban) were doing during the Soviet invasion what they were doing after the Soviet withdrawal, were doing prior to 9/11, and continue to this day. Its like saying each US president doesnt use their predassesors ideas / policies to supplament their own. It all relies on the history of the people involved.

In this case the Taliban" were formed in 1996, however, the people who make up the Taliban arent new to the show so to speak.

Republicans, Democrats, Whig party, Libertarians, socialists etc. The Tea party would be a good example, where a group of people who were Republican in name decided to form something new, which turns out it wasnt new - it was just repackaged.



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Interesting.
wait....this shows up on wikileaks.... but does not show up on the MSM.... the same MSM that pushed the cause for war in Iraq.... strange.
Because this news would have been as HUGE as the original *claim* that Iraq had WMDs.


It did show up in MSM, even to the point of MSNBC covering it. The article I linked was to the New York Post. Foxnews, CNN, Al Jazeera, BBC - they all carried the story. The problem created came from the group of people who worshipped wikileaks, which now all of a sudden justified Bush's actions. So these groups go back and downplay the amount found.

They seem to miss the point that the UN Resolutions clearly states no wmds, none, nadda, zip, zilch, zero. How do we know they had wmd programs? Because the US supplied chemical weapons to Hussein during their war with Iran. Another fact people conviently leave out because it undermines the legitimacy / illegal war argument.

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it as well.



Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.


Care to show your source? Reason I ask is because Rumsfeld served with G.D. Searle up to 1985, when it was purchased by Pheizer. He served as CEO of that company up to 1985. His second stint with pharmaceutical companies occured in the mid to late 1990's. Rumsfeld never made it possible for the sale of any items to Iraq because its nowhere near his decision at the time. The Commerce Department in onjunction with the President made all of that possible. Due to the topic, Congress was also briefed on the wmd issue and approved it.

Should we delve into the Soviet Union and its military support to Iran during the time period? Or are we ignoring that because it would undermine whats cleary evident as a one sided double standard.

What I find interesting though is you, and others, who continually make the one sided its all the US's fault, while completely ignoring the fact that not only does it take 2 to tango, but completely ignore The Soviet Union and its interference in the Middle East.


Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
Care to explain that? Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the US?


What part of Cold war / proxy war do we not understand?
Care to explain that? Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the USSR? Or are we applying the double standard again?

So which is it? You claim the war in Iraq was illegal because they had "no wmd's" and in your next post you blame Rumsfeld for ensuring wmd precursors be allowed to be sold to IRaq.

If you can clarify that for me it would be appricited since it appears you are making a double argument against yourself.

Also, for every picture you show of Americans meeting with Hussein, I can supply an equal amount where he met with leaders of countries that arent friendly. Not really sure what pointing out Rumsfeld meeting with him does though.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by nenothtu
 





You are isolating things which do not exist in isolation. Perhaps a good way to win an argument, perhaps not, but definitely not a good way to insure survival. While your head it stuck in the sand, you can't see them coming to cut it off.

Not isolating anything.
The only heads that are stuck in the sand are the ones believing that they stand the risk of being chopped off by "them". Again, why exactly do you think that a bunch of Afghans fighting off foriegn invaders on their soil might lead to your "extinction", as you mentioned earlier?


You talk as if militant islam in Afghanistan is a thing unto itself, without external connection. Isolated to just Afghanistan. It most certainly is not, and just because you think it is doesn't make it so, it just makes you completely unaware of the bigger picture. To be fair, however, my head is likely much more in danger of being chopped off than yours, so I wouldn't really expect you to realize the gravity of the situation. They'll likely save you for last, or may let you skate altogether if you declare yourself muslim or declare yourself christian and agree to pay the jizyah tribute.




Charge them with a "war crime". Seriously. get the paperwork rolling. Let's see how that goes, and if there is enough evidence to justify that charge. In a court, rather than mewlings on the internet.


If mere "paperwork" could serve justice, the whole world would be a better place.[


So then, I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is no evidence of "war crimes", and so no reason to file charges - otherwise, you'd be busy filing.






edit on 2011/9/14 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





(on Iraqi WMDs) www.dailymail.co.uk...

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
Care to explain that? Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the US?


In addition to what Xcathdra said, even Saddam Hussein's General Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti said that US never gave Iraq WMDs which something the mainstream anti-American media never reports are.


RM: Is it true the United States helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, as some allege, and then arm him with WMDs?

IT: This is absolutely ludicrous. I was in the Ba’athist Revolution who received support from the Soviet Union because of the socialist ideology behind it. The Soviet Union openly supported and backed the Ba’athist revolution in Iraq at the time and I am sure you can find news articles about it in European press agencies and others at the time. I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occasions with Soviet KGB officials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these ‘ingredients’ could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons.


www.worldthreats.com...

Plus the vast majority of WMDs came from France, Britain, Germany, and the USSR but no be a dick and blame on the US. You had no proof we have Saddam legitimate WMDs.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Proof?
As for US involvement with Saddams WMD program... there is plenty to support this claim.

en.wikipedia.org...

You seem to be excusing US connection to Iraqs WMD by asking "Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the USSR?"

The point is that WMDs were the main reason to go to war with Iraq. This was repeated over and over by the government. Before the iraq war, the MSM was abuzz with Saddams WMDs....but remained silent about its own shady past with Saddam. Why?

So to summarize, America is in no way morally superior to these supposedly "evil" regimes America waged wars against. The war on terror is one big joke.
edit on 15-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


reply to post by nenothtu
 





To be fair, however, my head is likely much more in danger of being chopped off than yours, so I wouldn't really expect you to realize the gravity of the situation. They'll likely save you for last, or may let you skate altogether if you declare yourself muslim or declare yourself christian and agree to pay the jizyah tribute.

Well, just out of curiosity... exactly what makes you think your head is danger of being chopped off?
Have you recieved death threats from muslims around you? Has such a thing ever happened to people living around you?
I'd really like to see some proper evidence. If not, your fears of losing your head is not grounded In reality.




So then, I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is no evidence of "war crimes", and so no reason to file charges - otherwise, you'd be busy filing.

Im not admitting anything.
People not filing paperwork to bring war criminals to justice does not mean that a war crime did not take place.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Proof?
As for US involvement with Saddams WMD program... there is plenty to support this claim.

en.wikipedia.org...

You seem to be excusing US connection to Iraqs WMD by asking "Or is it ok for "bad" people to have WMDs when they are buddies of the USSR?"

So to summarize, America is in no way morally superior to these supposedly "evil" regimes America waged wars against. The war on terror is one big joke.
edit on 15-9-2011 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)


America only gave 'dual weapons" to Saddam Hussein. Like $500 millions exports of worth that can be used to low-chemical weapons. Like i said, America was one of that contributed to the WMDs program but we did not gave Saddam legit WMDs, most of them came from Europe and USSR for example and we're not even on the top ten list. Are you denying that "Butcher of Baghdad" said that America never gave legit WMDS? America is one that contributed to Saddam's WMDs but we never gave Saddam legit WMDs, only Dual Weapons that could be out of low-chemical use. But dual weapons are mostly ingredients. Don't tell me because he worked under Saddam in the 1980s before.



The point is that WMDs were the main reason to go to war with Iraq. This was repeated over and over by the government. Before the iraq war, the MSM was abuzz with Saddams WMDs....but remained silent about its own shady past with Saddam. Why?


False, A lot of people think that WMDs is the main reason for the war but that alone was not the main reason for the invasion. Same with Democracy, etc. Hussein violated his obligations under UNSCR 687 during a 1991 Gulf War ceasefire agreement, under which he was obligated to demonstrate he had no WMD, and if he did not, we would therefore assume he DID have WMD. But that alone was not reason to invade: it's the fact that BECAUSE of his past acts, and our assumption of WMD, Hussein was THEREFORE a threat in the region (as 687 and 1441 made clear). And UNSCR 687 clearly states that: "Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area." This mean obey or we will authorize the use of any force to make you comply. This is unique. www.fas.org...

Anyone who thinks WMDs is the main reason for the war needs to study up more. The Government for example did not say WMDs is the main reason for the war.

edit on 15-9-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Yet you are now downplaying UN resolutions passed by the Security council, including Soviet Union / Russia and China. Nowhere in the resolutions does it state they can have a few wmd's, or precursors. It states none, zero, nadda, zilch.

By being in possesion of, and transfering parts of the program to Syria, makes them in violation of the UN Resolutions.

Also, aside from the U.K., I dont see a lot of other countries participating in the no fly zones, let alone having their planes shot at like the US / UK had. Exactly at what point does a country violate a UN resolution? What you and others fail to recognize is how the US is used as peace keepers when no one else wants to. Our forces had issues enforcing the UN resolutions because the UN is so spineless they refused to act.

The UN was and is content to allow the start of something, but refuses to act when things cross a line, as was the case with Iraq. How many times does a country need to be referred to the security council, where violations are constant, before action is taken?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


How about Al Queida going public with a list of goals, which includes turning the US into an Islamic State? You are talking about a group who claims to be acting in the name of Islam, which is a joke. To date, the US has been the country in the cross hairs, not Switzerland, or Romania or Bulgaria.

Spain is attacked, and gives into the terrorists and withdrawls from the war on terror. Italys unstable politics come across the same issues.

If a rogue WMD is going to go off, its going to be targeted at the US. Any attempt to set one off somewhere else will do nothing but turn the world against them. Their only options aare to attack the US and ride the anti American hatred that springs up by people who are then asking the US to send troops here, or give money there.

What you do in your backyard, because it can be snuck into mine, is very much our business.

The ridiculous theory people have about a perwson / country being forced to be shot before responding is a joke and based on science fiction, rather than reality.

as far as war crimes go, as I and others have stated, take a roll od the dice. Just because you, or some prosecutor with the ICC has a political point to make, does not mean a war crime took place. If we want to get technical, the ICC has no authority over nations who arent signatories. If they want to file charges, then it whould be taken as an unfriendly act and dealt with.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n

Well, just out of curiosity... exactly what makes you think your head is danger of being chopped off?
Have you recieved death threats from muslims around you? Has such a thing ever happened to people living around you?
I'd really like to see some proper evidence. If not, your fears of losing your head is not grounded In reality.


U2U sent. Info not for proper dissemination in an open forum thread.





So then, I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is no evidence of "war crimes", and so no reason to file charges - otherwise, you'd be busy filing.

Im not admitting anything.
People not filing paperwork to bring war criminals to justice does not mean that a war crime did not take place.


No, it means that they don't believe their own evidence has enough merit to prosecute the case, OR they don't really care enough about it to seek a prosecution.






top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join