Taliban Still Denies 9/11 Involvement, Says Was “Excuse” for War on 20th Anniversary

[Soupnazi630]

You actually think that plastic head dumped at the bottom of the ocean was "Osama...."


Quick replay....

911 happens
"Osama" denies involvement
Like fauXI, days later does a 180 and claims he did do it, but muses (correctly) that flying planes into the towers would NOT bring the towers down.... Remarkable scientific analysis from a Zionist CIA/Mossad fraud of a "religious leader..."

That musing is incorrect.

The towers were in fact brought down by planes crashing into them

 

[Soupnazi630]

Reagan had murdered Qaddafi's grand daughter with his illegal Gulf of Sidra attack.
I don't think there was ever any proof about Pan Am 103, but if true, it was more than justified.

It was legal

 

[Soupnazi630]

Just about every international law there is, and quite a few US laws as well.
Afghanistan was a sovereign nation under the Taliban, whether the US decided to recognize them or not.
So it is illegal extortion to threaten them with force to hand over a protected legal inhabitant without providing a shred of extradition evidence.
Then we illegally started bombing, committing 1st degree murder.

Since the Taliban were so popular, we deprived an entire nation of their democratic representation.

Since Congress ratified the UN charter in 1945, it has always been illegal to use military force.
If we thought the Taliban were protecting bin Laden after he was involved in the attacks, the only legal venue was the UN and international courts.
Bypassing the law and attacking the Taliban was totally and completely criminal.

All legal and gthe Un does not supercede the constitution.

 

[surada]

And you believe that that was the deciding factor in determining whether or not to attack?

Yes, OBL wasn't a state actor.

 

[surada]

ENRON was exposed because it was a ponzi scheme. They were selling energy that they didn't have.

They needed cheap gas to fuel the power plant.

 

[Kondor3]

But, we didn't win korea, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan. Oh yeah, we blew up some stuff and then ran away.

In Korea we thumped the North, then the Chinese sucker-punched and thumped us, then we thumped them both, back across the 38th parallel... but we lost the peace.

In Vietnam we thumped the North routinely but we lost the peace two years after the peace treaty was signed.

In Iraq we thumped Sadam and Company good-and-proper, then stupidly tried to nation-build, and lost the peace...

In Afghanistan we thumped the Taliban and al-Qaeda good-and-proper, then stupidly tried to nation-build, and lost the peace...

We excel at thumping...

We suck at winning the peace that follows the thumping...

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, OBL wasn't a state actor.

What a load of hor$e$hit...

 

[munkle]

Reports of systematic explosions were made by hundreds of witnesses and firefighters, yet no mention of these made it into the news or the 9/11 Commision Report. The Towers went down at a time, an hour after the plane hits, when firefighters were reporting that the fires were almost out, to be expected from limited, relatively cool burning kerosene fires. Jet fuel is only kerosene: Jet fuel - Wikipedia

"How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Demolition on 9/11"
How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Demolition on 9/11

 

[Rigby5]

Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc....all one in the same

But guess what the common denominator is

They were all created and supported by the CIA.
The Taliban and al Qaeda were recruited in 1979 as part of the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
ISIS was created in 2005, when the CIA wanted to pretend there was a general Mideast terrorist threat.

 

[Rigby5]

It was legal

No it was not.
The Gulf of Sidra is not international waters because it is not necessary for anyone to navigate through it except if you are landing in Libya.
Lots of countries claim 200 miles of water along their coast.
That is mostly for fishing rights, but it also always precludes military ships.
The US excludes Russian ships and submarines at 200 miles off the US coast.
So then Reagan was violating international law in the Gulf of Sidra incident.
Even if the US would have won in court, it is not legal to just resort to arbitrary force unilaterally.
Only the courts can decide, not presidents.
So Reagan was totally in violation.
Its like pointing a gun at someone, and them shooting and killing them when they pull their own gun in defense.
That is totally illegal.
You can not claim self defense if you deliberately provoked it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it was not.
The Gulf of Sidra is not international waters because it is not necessary for anyone to navigate through it except if you are landing in Libya.
Lots of countries claim 200 miles of water along their coast.
That is mostly for fishing rights, but it also always precludes military ships.
The US excludes Russian ships and submarines at 200 miles off the US coast.
So then Reagan was violating international law in the Gulf of Sidra incident.
Even if the US would have won in court, it is not legal to just resort to arbitrary force unilaterally.
Only the courts can decide, not presidents.
So Reagan was totally in violation.

Yes it was

Necessity has nothing to do with the edfnition of international waters. The gulf of Sidra is internatiobnal water and that is fact. No country makes such claim and making such a claim means NOTHING.

The US does not exclude Russian ships at all.

Your claims are manufactured crap as Usual and it was perfectly legal.

Reagan violated nothiung the Libyans were the aggressors.

 

[Rigby5]

All legal and gthe Un does not supercede the constitution.

First of all, internation laws always superceded the Constitution.
But the US ratified the UN charter, which made international law also US law.
And the Constitution establishes no law at all, but merely divides jurisdiction between the states and federal government.

 

[Soupnazi630]

First of all, internation laws always superceded the Constitution.
But the US ratified the UN charter, which made international law also US law.
And the Constitution establishes no law at all, but merely divides jurisdiction between the states and federal government.

No they do not ever the constitution is the highest law here and no international law trumps that

The Un Charter is not law it is suggestions and we may ignore it at will

The Constitution establishes many laws dumbass

 

[Rigby5]

Yes it was

Necessity has nothing to do with the edfnition of international waters. The gulf of Sidra is internatiobnal water and that is fact. No country makes such claim and making such a claim means NOTHING.

The US does not exclude Russian ships at all.

Your claims are manufactured crap as Usual and it was perfectly legal.

Reagan violated nothiung the Libyans were the aggressors.

So according to you, Russian fishing boats can go as far up the Mississippi river they want, since they can get to it by water?

Here is the law:
{...
The Convention on the High Seas was used as a foundation for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in 1982, which recognized exclusive economic zones extending 200 nautical miles (230 mi; 370 km) from the baseline, where coastal states have sovereign rights to the water column and sea floor as well as the natural resources found there.[4]
...}

 

[Rigby5]

No they do not ever the constitution is the highest law here and no international law trumps that

The Un Charter is not law it is suggestions and we may ignore it at will

The Constitution establishes many laws dumbass

Wrong.
The US constitution is not law at all.
It is just a division of jurisdiction between states and federal government.
For example, if you want to arrest someone for counterfeiting, you don't look it up on the Constitution, since it won't detail anything like that.

And YES when the US had congress ratify the UN charter in 1945, it became US law.
It is illegal to ignore is as long as Congress maintains it as ratified.
They could vote against it if they wanted to, but never have.

There is not a single law the US constitution establishes.

{...
Once a treaty is ratified, the supremacy clause in the Constitution means that it becomes part of domestic law. The clause states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” In other words, ratified treaties carry the full weight of a domestic law before the court system. Treaties also take precedence over state law, meaning that each state must abide by the treaty rules even if they object. In addition to domestic force, ratified treaties also become part of international law and take effect globally.
...}

 

[Soupnazi630]

So according to you, Russian fishing boats can go as far up the Mississippi river they want, since they can get to it by water?

Here is the law:
{...
The Convention on the High Seas was used as a foundation for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed in 1982, which recognized exclusive economic zones extending 200 nautical miles (230 mi; 370 km) from the baseline, where coastal states have sovereign rights to the water column and sea floor as well as the natural resources found there.[4]
...}

Opps you are a liar.

Territorial waters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You left out the details proving you wrong.

Territorial waters extend twelve miles beyodn the nations shore. What you refer to is an ECONOMIC exclusions zone which only allows nations to claim exclusive rights to COMMERCIAL activiey in those waters. Any other activity of a non commercial nature such as military right of passage may be exercised at will.

Next time don't cherry pick in such a blatently clumsy and dishonest manner.

Reagan violated nothing we had every right to cross Quadaffis line and he was the aggressor.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
The US constitution is not law at all.
It is just a division of jurisdiction between states and federal government.
For example, if you want to arrest someone for counterfeiting, you don't look it up on the Constitution, since it won't detail anything like that.

And YES when the US had congress ratify the UN charter in 1945, it became US law.
It is illegal to ignore is as long as Congress maintains it as ratified.
They could vote against it if they wanted to, but never have.

There is not a single law the US constitution establishes.

{...
Once a treaty is ratified, the supremacy clause in the Constitution means that it becomes part of domestic law. The clause states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” In other words, ratified treaties carry the full weight of a domestic law before the court system. Treaties also take precedence over state law, meaning that each state must abide by the treaty rules even if they object. In addition to domestic force, ratified treaties also become part of international law and take effect globally.
...}

The US constitution is the supreme law. It establishes many laws specifically on the government. Law is not restricted to citizens or the people.

The UN is not law it is merely a tool we may use or ignore at will

 

[Rigby5]

In Korea we thumped the North, then the Chinese sucker-punched and thumped us, then we thumped them both, back across the 38th parallel... but we lost the peace.

In Vietnam we thumped the North routinely but we lost the peace two years after the peace treaty was signed.

In Iraq we thumped Sadam and Company good-and-proper, then stupidly tried to nation-build, and lost the peace...

In Afghanistan we thumped the Taliban and al-Qaeda good-and-proper, then stupidly tried to nation-build, and lost the peace...

We excel at thumping...

We suck at winning the peace that follows the thumping...

In China, we tried to install a dictator, General Chaing Kai Shek, and the Chinese would not have it.
In Korea, we tried to install a dictator, Syngman Rhee who had been chased out of Korea for bank fraud, and the Koreans would not have it.
In Vietnam, we tried to install a dictator, Diem, and the Vietnamese would not have it.
In Cuba, we tried to install a dictator, Batista, and the Cubans people would not have it.
In Nicaragua, we tried to install a dictator, Samosa, and the Nicaraguans would not have it.
In Iraq, Saddam was our ally that we gave WMD to during their war with Iran. Why we attack Saddam is a total mystery, since Israel was the only one who hated Saddam.
And by taking out Saddam, we gave Iraq to the Iranian backed Shiites.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban were the main part of the Mujahideen that we trained and funded, in order to attack the Soviets. Why we turned on the Taliban is a total mystery as well, since they were always friendly to us. They even offered to extradite Saddam to Saudi Arabia.
"Thumping" is a horrible thing to do with not in immediate defense.

 

[Rigby5]

Opps you are a liar.

Territorial waters - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You left out the details proving you wrong.

Territorial waters extend twelve miles beyodn the nations shore. What you refer to is an ECONOMIC exclusions zone which only allows nations to claim exclusive rights to COMMERCIAL activiey in those waters. Any other activity of a non commercial nature such as military right of passage may be exercised at will.

Next time don't cherry pick in such a blatently clumsy and dishonest manner.

Reagan violated nothing we had every right to cross Quadaffis line and he was the aggressor.

Wrong.
The economic exclusion zone is up to individual countries to decide.
If there is a disagreement, then it is for the courts to decide.
Individual countries never get to unilaterally take the law into their own hands.

Reagan also specifically targeted the palace in Tripoli, and attempted to assassinate Qaddafi, killing his grand daughter instead.
Which is totally and completely illegal.
Assassinations are never acceptable.

 

[Rigby5]

The US constitution is the supreme law. It establishes many laws specifically on the government. Law is not restricted to citizens or the people.

The UN is not law it is merely a tool we may use or ignore at will

There is not a single law the US constitution specifies.

We created the UN in 1945, and specifically decided to have Congress ratify its charter into US law.
So since then, all military use of force was illegal unless voted for and approved by the UN.
{...
Once a treaty is ratified, the supremacy clause in the Constitution means that it becomes part of domestic law. The clause states that “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.” In other words, ratified treaties carry the full weight of a domestic law before the court system. Treaties also take precedence over state law, meaning that each state must abide by the treaty rules even if they object. In addition to domestic force, ratified treaties also become part of international law and take effect globally.
...}