Hollus

Leaflees please do describe what your idea of white culture is and how it is being threatened.

Let me rephrase this. I hope all you supporters get drafted.

What part of that was a death threat retard?

GostHacked: We are talking international law here. Not domestic. Cant argue much with this. However I would like to challenge the Bush administration to re-enter their participation in the International Criminal Court which they so tellingly withdrew from in 2002. Untill that time comes, the world could do without their self-proffesed championing of freedom bullshit mantra. Be honest. Come out and say it: 'We are against freedom and democracy. We aim to dominate the world in every respect and we will kill and maim to do so. We value only power and material wealth. To us the world is only a market and if you interfere with our corporatist elite design you are our enemy.' I hope that one day all you supporters get what you deserve and I hope it is viciously brutal.

HA! Your the idiot who claimed he didnt support the idea. I absolutely read the article where Bush cites the National Academy of Sciences and states how there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution. What the hell do you think he was saying? But even if I hadnt read it, does it change the fact that your talking out of your ass and shitting out of your mouth? No it doesnt. And it was not about citing Bush as an 'expert' on global warming, it was pointing out that even he- the leader of the administration that for so long fought against the idea- now accepts it. How friggin dense are you?

HAAAHahahahahhaha.... Pricless... Oh and thanks for the spelling tip Scott, it's the most credible piece of information I've seen you provide to date.

Actually, about half of those you cited believe no such thing. Your funny. http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf]National Academy of Sciences[/url] American Meteorological Society American Geophysical Union American Association for the Advancement of Sciences President Bush discusses Global Climate Change Steven Harper Discusses Global Climate Change Australia Recognizes Human-Driven Global Warming Europa on Climate Change Better get in yer tin foil bunker. The whole worlds trying to trick you. LOL

Oh, so when President Bush backs your cause, he is suddenly credible? It was a joke dumb ass. Bush had to face up to the facts considering the scientific consensus.

Ya, but this time he's got the whole world behind him.

IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorology Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. President Bush recognizes human caused global warming. Steven Harper does. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia does. The EU does. etc. Its globally excepted except for a few tin hat conspiracy nuts and petrol paid 'scientists'. Better cover yourself in tinfoil before those conspiring scientist have you buying their books and shopping for hybrids. LOL.

If you don't like being called a delusional wacko then you could try to provide a plausible alternate explanation for what happened on 9/11. Your 'anomalies' add up to a big fat nothing without such an explanation.If you don't understand why then consider this scenario: a murder scene where the weapon has a police officer's fingerprint on it. If you look at that evidence in isolation then you could make the claim that the police officer was the murderer. However, that claim has little merit when combined with other evidence where witnesses saw someone else actually committing the murder. In this situation the most like explanation for the fingerprint is sloppy police work when the crime scene was investigated. That is why it is rediculous to draw conclusions based on observing 'anomalies' in isolation. You MUST look at the big picture and ask whether other explainations for these 'anomalies' exist. Most people understand this and that is why most people think truthies are delusional lunatics. Your a friggin idiot. Go ask Louis Freeh for his alternative story-line regarding him charging the 9/11 comission as a cover-up. Im in no position to provide an accurate account of what happened that day, and niether are you. That is the domain of a team of investigators with unobstructed access to information. Clearly the commision did not provide that and clearly the Bush admin blocked the congressional inquiry which was pursuing that. Your the delusional wako if you don't think that means something.

Not only that, it is an insult to the people who died in 9/11, their surviving relatives and the eye witnesses. No governments are pure there are always bad apples, but to actually believe that hundreds of gov't officials etc. actually planned to kill thousands of innocent people to further some agenda is the height of idiocy. Conspiracy theories obviously fill a need of some kind, not sure what but people who believe and perpetuate the 9/11 one in particular are delusional at the very least and insult everyone's intelligence. Its all part of an irrational hatred of Bush and the U.S. but one has to be a few clowns short of a circus to actually believe it was a gov't conspiracy. Those who write the books do it for profit, they know how many people can be suckered in. Maybe its Alcan behind it, you know, tin foil hats and all. LOL Your delusional. You dont believe in the possibility that hundreds of gov't officials could actually plan to kill thousands of innocent people to further some agenda? I guess your not familiar with Nazi Germany. But oh no, that could never happen in good ol' US of A. Like thousands of people are not being killed in Iraq right now to further some agenda. Like thousands of people were not killed in Nigaruagua to further some agenda. You really believe Gov't officials have innocent lives in consideration when pursuing an agenda? Like on the news today, a NATO air strike kills 46 innocent civillians and a few militants, thats OK right? Cause we're liberating those civillians right? Right? Liberating them from there resources that is. Not to question 9/11 and all it's anomolies and all it's cover-ups (especially when you have high level gov't officials pointing them out) is freaking delusional. And you, you and all your war-mongering humanity-hating friends, are supremely freaking delusional.

Myata is correct. The UNSC resolutions are multilateral agreements and do not authorize UN Member States to decide on their own that Iraqi transgressions justify those States in using military force against Iraq. It is for the Security Council to decide upon the measures to be taken, and who should take them, in the event that a State breaches a Security Council resolution. Considering the substantial change between conditions from when UNSC resolutions where drafted in design of the liberation of Kuwait to when they were reaffermed in response to Iraqi non-compliance, UNSC Members drafted resolution 1441 which updated the current crisis situation. Surely this resolution subverted any twisted argument put forth that the United States had the authority to invade Iraq based on decade old authorization which pertained to reinstating the regional peace in response to Iraqi aggressions against neighbouring States. Resolution 1441 had two things very clear: Iraq had a final chance to comply with disarmament obligations and, if Iraq failed to comply with obligations there would be no automaticity to military action, but instead would be up to the UNSC to reconvene and authorize what further measures be taken. UNSC Member States comments upon passing resolution 1441: United States :The resolution contained, he said, no “hidden triggers” and no “automaticity” with the use of force. The procedure to be followed was laid out in the resolution. United Kingdom: He said there was no “automaticity” in the resolution. If there was a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter would return to the Council for discussion. France: If the inspection authorities reported to the Council Iraq had not complied with its obligations, the Council would meet immediately and decide on a course of action. France welcomed the lack of “automaticity” in the final resolution. Mexico: In case of failure to comply, the Council would act on determinations it would make on whether international peace and security was threatened. The Council decision preserved the legitimacy, effectiveness and relevance of the Council, in compliance with its mandate to maintain international peace and security. Ireland: The resolution, he said, provided for a clear, sequential process for Iraq compliance. Developments would be then examined by the Council itself, which had the primary responsibility to decide whatever action needed to be taken. Russia: The resolution opened the road to diplomatic settlement. In case of dispute, it was UNMOVIC and the IAEA that would report it to the Council, who would then consider the situation that had developed. Bulgaria: The resolution did not provide a pretext for the automatic use of force, but instead a firm insistence on the accomplishment of its objective, the disarmament of Iraq. He further welcomed the fact that the resolution categorically reaffirmed the unanimity of the Council in the decision-making process, and multilateralism as a primary principle in international relations. Syria: His country had voted in favour after having received from the United States and United Kingdom, as well as France and the Russian Federation, reassurances that the resolution would not be used as pretext to strike Iraq and did not constitute a basis for “automaticity”. The resolution should not be interpreted in any way that any entity could use force. Norway: He said his country wanted the conflict with Iraq to be resolved peacefully. The resolution set out very clearly that the Iraqi authorities had a choice. In case of Iraqi non-compliance, the resolution set out a procedure where the Council would convene immediately in order to secure international peace and security. Columbia: The resolution was not authorizing the use of force, but provided a final opportunity to Iraq to comply. The resolution would make it possible to move forward in the crisis, as it showed that the Council intended to respond to any new challenges. Guinea: It would make possible a peaceful resolution of the crisis, and reaffirmed the key role of the Council in maintaining international peace and security. Mauritius: said the unanimous vote had strengthened the unity of the Council, which was a prerequisite for implementation of the resolution. China: He was pleased to note that the co-sponsors of the resolution had accommodated his country’s concerns. The purpose was to disarm Iraq, and it no longer contained any “automaticity” for the use of force. The Council must meet again if there was non-compliance by Iraq. http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/SC7564.doc.htm

Could it be that you will not reply with an excerpt from your source because you don't have access to it and simply sourced an un-read article that claims to explain why the assertions Ive presented are false? You seemed perfectly happy to get 'bogged down' in legal 'minutiae' when your legal assertions were going unchallenged by substantive sources. May I remind you the title of this thread? One thing I have noticed about bushies is that they will disregard anything and everything that does not re-enforce there assertions, and then attack the contesting view with personal or general insults, and then try redirecting the line of argument by asking a bunch of questions of which there is no definite answer. However in this case I must point out in response to your question of: The source you provided states: "leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars have argued that international law did not justify the war in Iraq" You have sourced a counter argument from which you seem not to have read and which cannot be read by many others in this forum unless they have access to the JSTOR database. You've refused to illustrate how your counter argument actually pertains to the argument Ive presented, yet you continue to assert that your assertions are correct. Hope your proud of yourself... You claim to look at the big picture. I suspect it's wallet sized and depicts yourself standing next to God.

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis". You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to you unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly. I'm afraid, boyo, that the selective reading is on your part. This is not a legal rendering, it's an article in a journal, the counter to which I or anyone else can find all over the net. In fact, if there were any strength to this argument, France would have used it loudly and often. HA! What ridiculous rhetoric. A legal journal, analyzing legal rendering, authored by legal experts. And you consider this to be insuficient in response to your own legal analysis! Ofcourse you havnt even read the 44 page article that you so self-righteously disregard! A clear illustration of your hypocratic nature on this forum. A failure to respond to this discredits everything youve said thus far. (Edit: Thank you for editing your post and providing a source. I will have to go to the library to read it. However, I have posted an excert pertaining to the resolution revival argument. Maybe you could post an excert form your source? In Particular from the section that claims to explain how "other leading nations (primarily France, Germany, and Russia) and many international scholars...failed to properly read existing Security Council resolutions to authorize the use of force.")

Selective reading again ScottSA. The sentence clearly states: "applying traditional international law theory mutatis mutandis". You strongly suspect that in context it is thoroughly rebutted? Well than do be so kind as to provide some reference as opposed to your unqualified opinion. Here is the link so you can reply appropriatly.

Excuse me ScottSA, there has been plenty of evidence regarding malfeasence. "In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry. Newsweek reports that Bush had virtually no choice. “There was a freight train coming down the tracks,” says one White House official. [Newsweek, 9/22/2002] But as one of the 9/11 victim’s relatives says, “It’s carefully crafted to make it look like a general endorsement but it actually says that the commission would look at everything except the intelligence failures.” [CBS News, 9/20/2002] Rather than look into such failures, Bush wants the commission to focus on areas like border security, visa issues, and the “role of Congress” in overseeing intelligence agencies. The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11. [Newsweek, 9/22/2002]" And of course the 'independant' 9/11 Comission that Bush supported has since been charged by former FBI Director Louis Freeh as ill-legitimate.

Selective reading ScottSA. I noticed you've failed to address the qoute from the Georgetown Law Journal that debunks exactly what you've been touting as justification of the legality of the Iraq war.

Oh Im sorry did I wonder into a court room? Are you a Judge? This is a public forum in which to excercise freedom of speech. This is where one comes to express their opinions. What a ridiculous notion you've put forth. Are you not grinding an axe by declaring legitimate an investigation that has been declared ill-legitimate by an FBI Director? Apparently you dont recognize evidence and you apparently have no ability for self directed research, which goes along way in explaining why you cannot fathom any other reality other than that which is presented by your charished government. I imagine you will only accept that there has been malfeasence if it comes in the form of a press release from Dick Cheneys office. There is a pattern emmerging in your rhetoric. You ignore valid facts, challenge valid facts with invalid ones, and when you are cought making invalid statements, you change the subject. Go back and analyze the exchange between you and I. Show me where you were victorious in discrediting me. Answer the question Ive put forth to you twice which you've yet to respond: Do you dispute the fact that the United States has been directly involved in false-flag operations?

The UNSC 687 Resolution revival argument was bogusly put forth by the Bush administration. In a letter dated March 7, 2003 from the British Attorney General to Prime Misnister Blair the right to use force by either the US or UK is disscused

Clearly the invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression as described in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Considered to be one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law calls it a war of aggression.

Good..you are learning the basics...but you have very far to go from your present base of emotional ignorance. The invasion of Iraq was very legal, but you are free to challenge that position in court. Do you have standing? Can you cite legal precedence for your assertions? No you need to teach me. How was the Iraq war not a war of agression? I will start a new thread so you can share your brilliance and enlighten us all. LoL

9/11 has had immense politacal implications throughout the world. It is a very serious topic that deserves the respect of honest debate. Not a bunch of name callers trying to shout down others who do not conform to their idea of what happened on 9/11.

I think the issue is, should we avoid calling conspiracy nuts names? I say yes but their talking toasters and tin foil hats are fair game...... ....on the other hand, conspiracy theories, UFO sightings, cryptozoology and the occult have no place in a political forum..... This is what Im taking about Greg. M Dancer here will troll into a thread and try to debunk valid points with insults. If he has nothing to contribute to a thread there is no reason to be in there name calling. Well M Dancer I sourced you the information on the classified tapes. You disappeared. What happened? Run out of insults?

You do not understand how the US Congress authorized military action against Iraq, nor do you understand the history of American and British foreign policy for Saddam Hussein. That's OK..you live in Canada. That's a hilarious accusation coming from you! Scroll up to the top of this page and note your accusation of me being a "rookie that doesnt do his homework" while you cite the Iraqi Liberation Act as authorization for regime change in Iraq. Your the rookie who doesnt do his homework and you get all your talking points straight from Fox news. I would not be surprised if you were actually a paid propagandist yourself, spewing all the bullshit you do. But please do share the history of American and British foreign policy and illustrate to me how in fact the invasion of Iraq was not an illegal war of aggression. You've got nothing. Those UN resolutions you'll cite do not authorize the US to invade Iraq. (but you should reply in a new thread as this one is about 9/11, and we dont need your delusional digressions clouding this topic).