We are killing terrorists leaders Maz...They are in Pk.
First you claim its Americas war.
The Pakistans war.
Now you say we are fighting for SA.
I am pretty convinced you are a woman.
AMERICA: NO 1 WAR MONGER.....
- Thread starter mazHur
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
First you claim its Americas war.
The Pakistans war.
Now you say we are fighting for SA.
I am pretty convinced you are a woman.
-
2KReplies
-
19KViews
-
0Participant count
-
Participants list
Well yes...why would we support Iran?
It's YOUR war, boy! You are running the biggest terrorist organization, Chomsky said it all.
If I were a woman I wouldn't have balls and not ashamed to be the Queen !
PK gets the title maz..its already been proven
How is droning terrorists leaders being dedicated to increasing terrorism?
Now its our war again?...So whats the problem?
Whats the name of this terrorist organization...and where have they attacked?
How do numbers that seem to be erased..and ...do not appear to have been removed make any sense?
Haha!! I seem to have stepped on your foot!
Baby, if you will not support Iran, Iran will you!!
Are you a child?? YOu do seem like one or a puerile foul mouthed bum!
Read this admission by your own brass....
After 35 years in uniform Army Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger says he will explain where the U.S.'s war strategy failed. TIME's Mark Thompson: "... recently retired Army lieutenant general Daniel Bolger, who played key roles in Afghanistan and Iraq in his 35-year career, wasn't coy when it came time to titling his upcoming book Why We Lost... There was a belief in some quarters of the U.S. government that Washington and its allies were going to remake that troubled part of the world. 'Don't be so arrogant and think you're going to reshape the Middle East,' Bolger says. 'We've basically installed authoritarian dictators.' The U.S. wanted to keep about 10,000 troops in Iraq post-2011 (the two sides couldn't agree on legal protections for U.S. troops, so none remain) and a similar sized force is being debated for Afghanistan once the U.S. combat role formally ends at the end of 2014. 'You could have gone to that plan in 2002 in Afghanistan, and 2003 or '04 in Iraq, and you wouldn't have had an outcome much worse than what we've had,' Bolger says." Morehere.Buy the book here.
ask them not me..I am not their brother's keeper. dude!
Couldn't answer the question......or refuse to?.........
I have already answered and cannot go on teaching trolls again and again!
You have hurled the whole world into turmoil yet you feign to have done nothing?
Chomsky is talking about America and none else..you are evidently slow of understanding, ignorant lout!
come and lick my ass!
While Man practices these sounds, stony will note the misuse of 'your' in the one and only comment!
https://soundcloud.com/chan13-1
Not enough? Here's more for you and your side kick,Stony!
https://soundcloud.com/annie0rion/moans-and-orgasm
https://soundcloud.com/annie0rion/moans-and-orgasm
- But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
~ Ari Fleischer (born: 1960-10-13 age: 53), Press Secretary Press Briefing, 2003-04-10
If WMDs were what the war was about, the war should have ended as soon as it became clear there were noWMDs. It raged on even more fiercely indicating there was something else fueling it.
After the occupation, no WMDs of any kind were found. Bush continued to insist he was certain the WMDswere there, then gradually waffled, to say that Iraq was merely planning to acquire them, which still justified the invasion. Wolfowitz even confessed this motive was just window-dressing.
For reason that have a lot to do with US Government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction.
~ Paul Wolfowitz (born: 1943-12-22 age: 70) Vanity Fair, 2003-06
Bush was caught falsifying evidence three times. Even after the war started, and no WMDs were used or found, this did not dampen the enthusiasm for this deception one iota. America wants to deceive itself. After stating solemnly that this is the single question, Bush-Powell went on the next day to announce that it wasn’t the goal at all: even if there isn’t a pocket knife anywhere in Iraq, the US will invade anyway, because it was committed to regime change.
- [paste:font size="5"]
2007-09-16
My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women int conflict again in the Middle East.
~ John McCain (born: 1936-08-29 age: 77) 2008-05
In other words, McCain believes the reason for the Iraq war is to ensure supplies of oil by force.
George Leroy Tyrebiter Jr, pointed out that top Bush administration figures, including the President and the Vice President previously worked in the field of oil production. Halliburton, the company that pays Cheney residuals, is the leading oil well service firm. Oil figures doubtless understand that the expansion of economies in developing nations, especially China and India, will cause a big increase in the demand for oil. It is theref
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqmotives.html#SELFISH
The Illegality Of NATO
By John Scales Avery
25 May, 2014
Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles
In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO's legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I).
b War crimes: Violations of the laws and customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destructions of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
c. Crimes against humanity: Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of the laws of the country where perpetrated
ci.
cii. Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against the peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI as a crime against international law.
Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that “To initiate a war of aggression is therefore not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
At present, NATO's nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This “nuclear sharing”, as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.
Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.'
The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.
Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?
At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive operations in connection with the coup which it carried out in Ukraine. Europe must refuse. See the following link:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/...gainst-russia-and-the-danger-of-war-in-europe/
The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US interventions:
During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt, 2013-present.
Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the military-industrial complex needs justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed resources from social and environmental projects.
Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don't they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?
Jo
By John Scales Avery
25 May, 2014
Violation of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles
In recent years, participation in NATO has made European countries accomplices in US efforts to achieve global hegemony by means of military force, in violation of international law, and especially in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles.
Former UN Assistant Secretary General Hans Christof von Sponeck used the following words to express his opinion that NATO now violates the UN Charter and international law: “In the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, the Charter of the United Nations was declared to be NATO's legally binding framework. However, the United-Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine. NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its members to include the whole world”
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires that “All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This requirement is somewhat qualified by Article 51, which says that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”
Thus, in general, war is illegal under the UN Charter. Self-defense against an armed attack is permitted, but only for a limited time, until the Security Council has had time to act. The United Nations Charter does not permit the threat or use of force in preemptive wars, or to produce regime changes, or for so-called “democratization”, or for the domination of regions that are rich in oil. NATO must not be a party to the threat or use of force for such illegal purposes.
In 1946, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously affirmed “the principles of international law recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and the judgment of the Tribunal”. The General Assembly also established an International Law Commission to formalize the Nuremberg Principles. The result was a list that included Principles VI and VII, which are particularly important in the context of the illegality of NATO:
Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
a Crimes against peace: (I) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (I).
b War crimes: Violations of the laws and customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destructions of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
c. Crimes against humanity: Atrocities and offenses, including but not limited to murder, extermination, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, whether or not in violation of the laws of the country where perpetrated
ci.
cii. Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against the peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI as a crime against international law.
Robert H. Jackson, who was the chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, said that “To initiate a war of aggression is therefore not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
At present, NATO's nuclear weapons policies violate both the spirit and the text of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in several respects: Today there are an estimated 200 US nuclear weapons still in Europe The air forces of the nations in which they are based are regularly trained to deliver the US weapons. This “nuclear sharing”, as it is called, violates Articles I and II of the NPT, which forbid the transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states. It has been argued that the NPT would no longer be in force if a crisis arose, but there is nothing in the NPT saying that the treaty would not hold under all circumstances.
Article VI of the NPT requires states possessing nuclear weapon to get rid of them within a reasonable period of time. This article is violated by fact that NATO policy is guided by a Strategic Concept, which visualizes the continued use of nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.'
The principle of no-first-use of nuclear weapons has been an extremely important safeguard over the years, but it is violated by present NATO policy, which permits the first-use of nuclear weapons in a wide variety of circumstances.
Must Europe really be dragged into a potentially catastrophic war with Russia?
At present the United States government is trying to force the European members of NATO to participate in aggressive operations in connection with the coup which it carried out in Ukraine. Europe must refuse. See the following link:
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2014/...gainst-russia-and-the-danger-of-war-in-europe/
The hubris, and reckless irresponsibility of the US government in risking a catastrophic war with Russia is almost beyond belief, but the intervention in Ukraine is only one in a long series of US interventions:
During the period from 1945 to the present, the US interfered, militarily or covertly, in the internal affairs of a large number of nations: China, 1945-49; Italy, 1947-48; Greece, 1947-49; Philippines, 1946-53; South Korea, 1945-53; Albania, 1949-53; Germany, 1950s; Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1953-1990s; Middle East, 1956-58; Indonesia, 1957-58; British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64; Vietnam, 1950-73; Cambodia, 1955-73; The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65; Brazil, 1961-64; Dominican Republic, 1963-66; Cuba, 1959-present; Indonesia, 1965; Chile, 1964-73; Greece, 1964-74; East Timor, 1975-present; Nicaragua, 1978-89; Grenada, 1979-84; Libya, 1981-89; Panama, 1989; Iraq, 1990-present; Afghanistan 1979-92; El Salvador, 1980-92; Haiti, 1987-94; Yugoslavia, 1999; and Afghanistan, 2001-present, Syria, 2013-present. Egypt, 2013-present.
Most of these interventions were explained to the American people as being necessary to combat communism (or more recently, terrorism), but an underlying motive was undoubtedly the desire of the ruling oligarchy to put in place governments and laws that would be favorable to the economic interests of the US and its allies. Also, the military-industrial complex needs justification for the incredibly bloated military budgets that drain desperately needed resources from social and environmental projects.
Do the people of Europe really want to participate in the madness of aggression against Russia? Of course not! What about European leaders? Why don't they follow the will of the people and free Europe from bondage to the United States? Have our leaders been bribed? Or have they been blackmailed through personal secrets, discovered by the long arm of NSA spying?
You claimed America has the biggest terrorist organization.
I am asking you whats is the name of the organization...and possible leaders names...so we can have our boys take care of em.
Why is this not public knowledge?...this giant organization you speak of.
Read read read...learn learn learn. Don't ask me, ask the one who said that.
You are a lesser intellectual being than Jimmy Carter or Chomsky. You can approach them directly to satiate your childish and ignorant curiosity.
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members