kuzadd

http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm then afterwards it got even worse A number of breaches of international law have already been reported following the occupation of Iraq, including failure to prevent looting and allowing breakdown of law and order to take place in Baghdad, failure to provide humanitarian assistance and shooting of civilians during protest. Members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ that go to Iraq under Security Council resolution 1483 (2003) would go as belligerent occupants and would be subject to the requirements of international law accordingly, and may themselves incur responsibility or individual liability for actions which have or which will place in Iraq. This paper finds that any members of the “coalition of the willing” may be responsible for compensation, including direct loss, damage, including environmental damage and the depletion of natural resources, or injury to foreign Governments, nationals and corporations. Under Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), no protection is given to Member States or their officials from liability under the Geneva Conventions, Hague Regulations or other provisions of international or national law including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." The attack on Iraq was the WRONG thing.

upon reading, I notice the CIA used a member of the mafia, to attempt an assasination of Fidel Castro, in exchange for what I wonder?? Ah but then, they did the same thing in post ww2 italy with mafioso Lucky Luciano, releasing him from prison, to arouse the Cosa Nostra http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/luciano.html In 1943, when the Allies planned to invade Sicily, Navy intelligence again sought Luciano's help. Assistant District Attorney from the State of New York, Murray Gurfein, also with the Office of Naval Intelligence, negotiated a deal with Luciano. In exchange for his release, Luciano would convince the Sicilian Mafia to join with the Allied forces during the invasion of Sicily. " and he did, he did. politics makes for strange, strange bedfellows, or not, given there is no honour among, liars, crooks and thieves!

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 is a UN security council resolution authorizing member states to "use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security"[1] to the Persian Gulf region, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. It effectively authorized the use of force by member states against Iraq to repel its invasion. It was the final UN security council resolution regarding the matter prior to the coalition military action. The old resolutions related to the kuwait invasion do not apply to the US's illegal invasion of iraq, which is why the US went to the UN, to get approval for new resolutions which they did not get. NEXT!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/print...1980496,00.html the family Jewels are available for download, it more then 700 pages of finally declassified CIA documents ( I got'em) anyway, here's an article from Aussie news "EASILY lost, on page 425, in the mass of the CIA's notorious "Family Jewels" files is a short paragraph outlining "potentially embarrassing Agency activities". "Experiments in influencing human behaviour through the administration of mind- or personality-altering drugs to unwitting subjects." Of all the heinous acts committed by the CIA in the name of national security, these experiments, done on the agency's behalf by prominent psychiatrists on innocent victims - including children as young as four - may be the darkest. "We have no answer to the moral issue," former director Richard Helms infamously said when asked about the nature of the projects. experimentation on kids as young as 4! The release of the Family Jewels documents revealed the CIA handsomely funded these real-life Dr Strangeloves and engaged pharmaceutical companies to help its experiments. hey then you can use soldiers as guineau pigs!! The CIA said it's OK! The Family Jewels files do not provide further detail into the numerous mind-control programs, such as MKULTRA, covertly propped up by the agency. In 1953, MKULTRA was given 6per cent of the total CIA budget without any oversight. The nature of the experiments, gathered from government documents and testimony in numerous lawsuits brought against the CIA, is shocking, from testing LSD on children to implanting electrodes in victims' brains to deliberately poisoning people with uranium. "This Manchurian Candidate program was just one of the operational uses of the mind-control scenario by the CIA. "Your hard-earned tax dollars supported this." The US began these experiments after World War II when it made a grab for hundreds of Nazi scientists and doctors who had been researching mind control in concentration camps, fearing they would fall into Soviet hands. US military intelligence leaders were paranoid that they were falling behind the communist bloc in the brainwashing race.

good bye and good riddance to Blair, he was an idiot, at best. The trumped up evidence , dossier, the death of that man in the wooded area, when he contradicted the Blair dossier. Hopefully he will be tried as a war criminal, sigh.....we could only be so lucky.

Hollus, BC is 'playing you', he knows there were no WMD's, he knows Iraq, was just a further extension of US foreign policy.

actually BC the answer is YES and YES, the Bush administration LIED, to go to war, the Bush administration lied via the EPA mouthpiece Christie Whitman, and said the air is safe, no problem, that was an intentional and wilfull lie showing total and complete disregard for the citizens of the US, including those that would die in Iraq, the first responders, who worked tirelessly, even the citizens who lived in the vicinity. When an adminstration shows such wanton disregard for it's own citizens, as to lie, and lie, so, that so many people will die. How can one credibly make the claim that the Bush admin would actually care that citizens would die, in false flag attacks??? You can't.

No you are accusing him of such things. You love to make statements which have obvious implications yet deny those implications when confronted. Accusing Bush of staging 9/11 is accusing him of being a mass murderer. Don't waste time with denials. Red herrings that have nothing to with whether the Bush admin planned 9/11. You are evading the question. I asked you if you think your theories would stand up in a court of law. Your answer appears to be no. You don't have one witness or whistle blower. No concrete evidence that conclusively supports your theory and mountains of contradictory evidence which you ignore. Your theory is so full of holes it is laughable. So why should we take your theories seriously? Because governments have run smaller scale covert operations before? That is not even worth describing as an 'arguement'. first of all, riverwind I am not accusing Bush the individual of any one thing, so get off you GWB blame thing. Second of all, I asked you if the official conspiracy would stand up in a court of law, and it would not. that continually flies over your head. Why do you put the responsibility for truth on the people, whom that burden DOES NOT belong to? Then you say, "I have a theory, and it is full of holes." I don't have a theory. I have questions, why is this so hard for you to grasp? Do you have intellectual difficulties? I just don't know? You should take questioning seriously becasue actually governments have run larger false flag ops previously, and yes prior behaviour is an excellent indicator of future behaviour. I know, I know, likely over your head, sorry for that. I wish to address also, the inconsistent and thorough discreditting of your own arguements. You have zero concept of lateral load. You have zero construction knowledge, as your statement wrt redundancy in the towers, as totally false, bogus. Your arguement on the physic of table collapse was so blatantly wrong. You flub above on aluminum. In fact, you have demonstrated, repeatedly and loudly a complete and total lack of knowledge in these issues, along with a total lack of knowledge of history and political intrigues. You are in no way shape or form in any way of "superior knowledge" wrt any of this discussion. You are in fact a perfect demonstration of why "the wool get's pulled" over people's eyes. The ignorance displayed by yourself, the lack of understanding, the lack of historical perspective, and also the near delusional belief in the "official conspiracy" theory. Hey 19 men with BOX CUTTERS?? hijacked planes,( and no passengers jumped the boxcutter 'armed' hijackers??? LOL) all run by a man in a cave, likely on a dialysis machine, that makes sense?? Oh and BTW that same man, from his cave of course, is chartering private jets to fly his extended family out of the US, right after the attacks, but, OMG, he just can't be caught! "where in the world is osama bin laden" That's what you believe? Ridiculous isn't it? You are like the woman who finds out her husband is molesting the kids and suppresses and denies, rather then face up to the "ugly truth" There must be a name for that?? What you repeatedly do is demand, demand, demand, but, from the wrong people. Make demands for truth from the people who gave you such a bogus conspiracy theory. They bear the ultimate responsibility. I know, that will go right over your head.

scottsa: WW2, is so convoluted, Russia was an ally of the west, so I guess we should clarifiy which allies we speak of at what times. When Hitler, launched his first attack, which way did he go, he went east , to Poland, why? The Eastern front was the front of the most massive casualties, one must surmise, that the prize for Germany had all along been Russia, despite there agreement to not fight on another. It is quite likely the attack on Poland had been the first indicator of this. Casualties on the western front were substantially less, indicating to my mind, this was not as important as the march eastward. When one looks at a map after ww2, one sees clearly how much territory had been gained by Russia, through war with Germany and subsequent occupation. Given the unending concern of the US, with Russia, (the 2 superpowers) it is not the least bit unbelievable that the US has an interest in seeing Russia's westward march stopped. The quest afterwards to gain Nazi scientists , and gather Nazi's for the US's benefit is also another indicator of the threat the Russian ww2 actions had posed to the US. Amongst other things. anyway, this is about just war, and I should like to see it as that. If ww2 was about just (justice) why then did the US , undertake to fill there ranks with the worst of the worst of the nazi's, it could not have been "just" it could have only been power.

I wanted to say army guy, thanks for being an honest debater, but, Can there be a just war, I don't see it, given the fact that the history of war is not just, the reasons for war are not just, always it seems war is used a s a means to steal land, resources, etc., and not much else. if there is anything JUST ( righteous) about war, it is in the people who fight back, who defend, to keep , what is theirs, theirs homes, theirs families. That is all the just (justice) I can see in war, much anything else, reeks of conquest. good-day to you!

I'm not sure why the USSR retreated in full rout all the way to Moscow, leaving their equipment and dead strewn all along the way. Perhaps you could explain this to us? why don't you ask some scholars? why was half of Germany communist and half not? what troops occupied eastern germany if they were all the way in Moscow? lol. clearly not worth my time!!!!

not only have I looked at a map, I seen a timeline, read books and why oh why did you leave the rest of my post out, here it is , http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2 Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front. "Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. " "It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier." Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place. Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia. you are not worth my time!

The Allies inc. the US knew, it is documented in this book http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Intelligence-Naz...n/dp/1880875268 U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis (Paperback) by Richard Breitman (Author), Norman J. W. Goda (Author), Timothy Naftali (Author), Robert Wolfe (Author) "NEARLY SIXTY YEARS after World War II, the American public and media continue to investigate troubling questions: Who knew what about the Holocaust, and when?.. Though Breitman being an American tries to downplay, the knowledge the US and Britian had of jews and others being rounded up and imprisoned/killed, it nonetheless, is a interesting book. I've read it. There are other out there if you are so interested. Russia didn't get her "ass kicked" revisionist western history, at it's worst.

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe. This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting. You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool? Unfortunately current historiography doesn't much care about the facts. It's like the 800 year lag in GW and CO2...what's a few hundred years if it doesn't fit the theory? Kuzzad knows, somewhere deep in his socialist soul, that the capitalist plots were so powerfully prescient that they knew not only that Germany would attack the USSR in 1941, but that over a year after that, the Germans would actually start losing instead of winning! So they pre-emptively and visciously attacked Germany on the trumped up excuse that germany invaded poland. Not only that, but the arch capitalists in Washington cleverly got the bejezus bombed out of them by the Japanese so the germans would declare war on them too, so they could stop the USSR from overrunning Europe, even though at the time the USSR was in full retreat and everyone thought was lost. Now, if I can only get those crafty capitalist plotters to divine the future of the stock market for me... see, people who don't have a clue embarrass themselves over and over. Look at a map, okay? http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_Allied_nat...ing_World_War_2 Many scholars agree that the USSR (Soviet Union, Russia) is most responsible for defeating Germany in World War 2, but that they could not have done it without the US and UK on the Western Front. "Without doubt, the USSR played the largest part in holding the Nazi expansion and therefore in winning WW2. " "It's obvious that the Russians faced the bulk of the German army and I have the deepest respect for the Russian soldier." Look at the amount of casulaties on the varying fronts easter vs western you will see where the greatest fighting was taking place. Therefore the USSR was going full guns and would have taken all of Europe the "alliance" inc the US/ Britian and Russia, was over before it had begun since the Brits and Americans did ZERO to aid Russia. Ok, now could the non-informed get back on topic, or please inform themselves!

Uhhhh.... The allies joined WW2 in 1939... Germany and SU did not start to fight until after this... ergo, your tripe is just that, tripe. This doesn't make any sense and is just plain wrong. The Allies were fighting the fight before Germany and the SU even started fighting. You shouldn't talk about stuff you have clearly have no clue about unless you enjoy looking like a fool? actually you shouldn;t talk because you look a fool. By the allies, I am including the US, by the time the US got to Europe, get a map and look at how much Russia had advanced, they were stopped in Germany , on there way through. Ergo, Russia was kicking butt, and all of Europe was going to fall to the communists. go read a book or ten!

oh riverwind..................aluminum flub! "You are accusing Bush of being a mass murderer. The onus is on the accuser to make the case. You have not come close to making your case. Do you honestly believe that your so called 'evidence' against bush would stand up in a court of law?" actually I am NOT accusing Bush of being a mass murderer, that's your wording. But let me throw this at you... Did the Bush adminstration LIE the country into war in iraq and how many american soldiers are now dead? Did the Bush administration LIE about air quality at WTC, and how many first responders have died and are expected to die, from diseases that could have been presented bt wearing proper attire. The answer to both questions is yes, the death toll from the Iraq LIE of America soldiers (citizens) stands at more then the Sept 11th death toll. The death toll of first responders for the air quality LIE, is expected to top the Sept 11th death toll. What value is REALLY placed on the lives of the citizens, when an administration is willing to LIE to justify war in iraq and LIE, to get New York back in business??? Proof of mass murders is right there, in the pudding riverwind. Besides mass murder for governments is nothing new, what exactly do you think the US has done in it's numerous covert -ops , are you that naive? I know, it shakes your beliefs to the core, but your naivete is to the extreme. You need to have your beliefs to give your life it's security, but, your beliefs are largely delusions, the world is full if backstabbing, double dealing agents, double agents, triple agents covert-ops, democide by governments, these are your realities, this is your history, the history of mankind. "Do you honestly believe that your so called 'evidence' against bush would stand up in a court of law?" there you go making your own arguements again, set up a strawman, I said the official conspiracy theory lacks EVIDENCE, so please, if you wish to discuss with me, discuss what I have said. or perhaps, you could create a riverwind2, then create trumped up discussions and argue them between yourselves. But I'll rephrase your question, do you believe the official story would stand up to scrutiny, in a court of law , with hearsay being inadmissible.( half-truths and rumours) I am certain it wouldn't. "again aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen," in a stream of oxygen in a stream of oxygen"

I was waiting for the WW2 reference, it's not credible. The "allies" joined in to fight the "evil nazis" is the spin, the allies, went in to fight to stop the USSR from marching on through and taking Europe as was happening and was going to happen. The 'allies" knew for a very long time about the imprisoning/ killings of the, Jewish, communists, unionists, gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovh's witness's or undesirables, as deemed by the nazi's, this was not the "just cause" for the invasion, the communists were on the march, Russia, was kicking butt, and that had to be stopped. The allies didn't give one whit that the "undesirables" were being killed. It just became good pr afterwards. "Just war is a specific concept of how warfare might be justified, typically in accordance with a particular situation, or scenario, and expanded or supported by reference to doctrine, tradition, or historical commentary." "Just war" is a specific concept if how war may be sold,( justified) in accordance with a particular situation (not necessarily truthful), then expanded or supported by doctrine (code of beliefs, such as bringing freedom) tradition ( it's our duty) or historical commentary ( Saddam was bad he gassed Kurds) Just war is a sales pitch, a way to sell a war, to make it acceptable and palatable. That's all it is.

No such thing as a "just war" it is a slogan to sell to the populace the justification for slaughter by calling it "just." after all what sounds better, we must fight a "just war" or we must 'slaughter a bunch of innocent people, to attain out goal' I mean, they are both reflective of the reality. pretty obvious which is the better sales pitch now isn't it.? "Just war" draws to mind justice and righteosness, wow! That sounds good.

I would suggest that Islam has its finger in a disproportionate number of the conflicts around the world today. The reason he was repeating the word over and over is because Islam is involved over and over. Actually wouldn't it be far more realistic to say that the US has it's finger in a greatly disproportionate number of conflicts all over the world. Far more reflective of reality. Islam is merely the scapegoat, like communism previously , or Jews, symbolic boogey men for the dumbed down masses. Justification for war.

Sigh. Such an argument means nothing unless you can provide a plausible storyline that explains how the US government could have planned such a hoax. Such an arguement is relevant unless the Bush administration can provide credible evidence, to show, it was not a flase flag.

clearly a greater thinker then you, that is obvious! You missed the point, your statement PROVES nothing, except like I said, the masses will go along to get along and swallow any swill thrown at them by a "leader". Just like you do. The onus was on the Bush administration, no matter how you contort and whine, it was up to them, they have sent people off to die in the 'war on terror' , for bogus reasons, not people who are questioning the official conspiracy theory. editted to add: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/ from senior military officers, military intelligence, professors, engineers, archititects, pilots airtraffic controllers, surviving family members and even survivors of wtc themselves. Lunatics all of them, and hey riverwind, why don't you tell those family members and firefighters , they are raving lunatics, or Doctor Francis A Boyle, or Professor Peter Dale Scott, or John McMurtry, PhD – Professor of Philosophy and University Professor Emeritus, University of Guelph.,or Richard Falk, JSD – Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University. In 2001 he served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo. or any of the other 100's and 100's and 100's of "lunatics" at that website. You can't hold your own with me, you think you can discuss the numerous 9/11 anomolies with the big guns, who KNOW even more then I do, Not a way in heck! Like I said, your statement proves nothing, and your so blinded by BS , you can't grasp that. and you KNOW that ,so you resort to the tactic of the weak, over and over, namecalling, smear.

oh riverwind.... 'This is contrary to my experience. Aluminium does burn, and surprisingly (with relevance to the shuttle) it can do so in near-vacuum conditions. Several years ago, against the accepted knowledge of experts in the field, I devised a process that achieves this, operating at a pressure of around 10-3 millibars (0.1 pascals)." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1782...nium-burns.html ROFLMAO! absolutely clueless! from riverwind's article "In a large vacuum chamber, aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen, and deposits a coating of aluminium oxide onto a web of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film moving past at high speed from reel to reel. Counter-intuitively, the process even improves the vacuum through a "getter" effect, by mopping up any traces of water vapour present" again aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen, in a stream of oxygen in a stream of oxygen wrong again as usual! and noticed you glossed right over it, of course.

Hollus, if you will notice, riverwind tries to set out the parameters of discussion, tries to make the rules, and creates arguements, which he/ she then argues for or against them. In otherwords riverwind has huge control issues. if you stay you will realize this. Unfortunately riverwind needs to realize he/she cannot control everything. Until then watch out!

But not nearly so fond of lecturing as Canada....especially when it comes to "human rights". There would be articles about this too, except that nobody really gives a damn what Canada thinks in China, but the Americans can put serious restrictions on their biggest market. It would be sad to lose all those cheap Happy Meal toys, but then again we can do without the poison pet food from CanChina. oh but BC, America takes it so much further then lecturing especially on human rights and fweedum and democracy. lol. I detest McDonalds! anyway.................the article writer seems to be saying the US is to blame for it's own mess. and where do you come in on that?