CC, Does Abdullah's Death Mean Change?

[Anonymous]

^Islam has always been expansionist since it's very beginning. This is not the fault of the West, it is the commandments of it's violent founder. ISIS is here today, because ISLAM commands it.

[cc]

They and all islamists are merely following / mimicking the slaughterer prophet ... exactly as ordered.



It is those who do not mimic their prophet who are outside of islam. So-called moderates may claim to be islamic but not living one's life based on the life of the prophet makes them not true to islam and not true islamics.

[Romero]

You're an idiot but we already know this. What pray tell is an "illegal invasion"????? Is their a legal one and what beyond your unicorn and fairy based world view is the difference?



BTW, the US didn't create a terrorist haven in Libya by bombing it. Obviously your view of things in the ME only extends back 10 years or so. ac_toofunny  I guess you never realized that the country of Libya had been ruled through brutal repression by a lunatic for decades effectively creating an underground Islamic state in the eastern half of the country that became a haven for radicals long before any US involvement in Libyan affairs. Going all the way back to the Nixon Admin Libya was a hot bed for Islamic radicals.



"Prior to Qadhafi's downfall, eastern Libya remained a locus of extremist activity over which Government of Libya security services had comparatively limited control. Eastern Libya suffered from a disproportionately high level of unemployment, particularly for young men between the ages of 18 and 34. At least half of the young men in that demographic were unemployed or only intermittently employed. The situation reflected in part the Qadhafi regime's belief that if it kept the east poor enough, it would be unable to mount any serious political opposition to the regime. The rationale is explaining in the Libyan proverb: "If you treat them like dogs, they will follow you like dogs".



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/islam-radical.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... adical.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/islam-radical.htm

The US had no authorization to attack Iraq. Under international law, a country can not be attacked unless it's a threat.



*Spoiler Alert*



Iraq was no threat. Bush lied. Don't you remember? There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq and no ISIS until after the invasion and occupation.



As for Libya, what happens when a country is bombed and its leaders removed? Good things or bad things? What happened to bringing in democracy and stability? As usual, it was never the purpose.



I thought you hated everything Obama does? Yet you support his military intervention? How nice that Republicans and Democrats can always agree when it comes to bombing other countries!

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II



China 1945-46



Korea 1950-53



China 1950-53



Guatemala 1954



Indonesia 1958



Cuba 1959-60



Guatemala 1960



Belgian Congo 1964



Guatemala 1964



Dominican Republic 1965-66



Peru 1965



Laos 1964-73



Vietnam 1961-73



Cambodia 1969-70



Guatemala 1967-69



Lebanon 1982-84



Grenada 1983-84



Libya 1986



El Salvador 1981-92



Nicaragua 1981-90



Iran 1987-88



Libya 1989



Panama 1989-90



Iraq 1991



Kuwait 1991



Somalia 1992-94



Bosnia 1995



Iran 1998



Sudan 1998



Afghanistan 1998



Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999



Afghanistan 2001



Libya 2011



http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626">//http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626

And that doesn't include the countries since 2011!

[Renee]

You're an idiot but we already know this. What pray tell is an "illegal invasion"????? Is their a legal one and what beyond your unicorn and fairy based world view is the difference?



BTW, the US didn't create a terrorist haven in Libya by bombing it. Obviously your view of things in the ME only extends back 10 years or so. ac_toofunny  I guess you never realized that the country of Libya had been ruled through brutal repression by a lunatic for decades effectively creating an underground Islamic state in the eastern half of the country that became a haven for radicals long before any US involvement in Libyan affairs. Going all the way back to the Nixon Admin Libya was a hot bed for Islamic radicals.



"Prior to Qadhafi's downfall, eastern Libya remained a locus of extremist activity over which Government of Libya security services had comparatively limited control. Eastern Libya suffered from a disproportionately high level of unemployment, particularly for young men between the ages of 18 and 34. At least half of the young men in that demographic were unemployed or only intermittently employed. The situation reflected in part the Qadhafi regime's belief that if it kept the east poor enough, it would be unable to mount any serious political opposition to the regime. The rationale is explaining in the Libyan proverb: "If you treat them like dogs, they will follow you like dogs".



http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/islam-radical.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... adical.htm">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/islam-radical.htm

The US had no authorization to attack Iraq. Under international law, a country can not be attacked unless it's a threat.



*Spoiler Alert*



Iraq was no threat. Bush lied. Don't you remember? There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq and no ISIS until after the invasion and occupation.



As for Libya, what happens when a country is bombed and its leaders removed? Good things or bad things? What happened to bringing in democracy and stability? As usual, it was never the purpose.



I thought you hated everything Obama does? Yet you support his military intervention? How nice that Republicans and Democrats can always agree when it comes to bombing other countries!

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II



China 1945-46



Korea 1950-53



China 1950-53



Guatemala 1954



Indonesia 1958



Cuba 1959-60



Guatemala 1960



Belgian Congo 1964



Guatemala 1964



Dominican Republic 1965-66



Peru 1965



Laos 1964-73



Vietnam 1961-73



Cambodia 1969-70



Guatemala 1967-69



Lebanon 1982-84



Grenada 1983-84



Libya 1986



El Salvador 1981-92



Nicaragua 1981-90



Iran 1987-88



Libya 1989



Panama 1989-90



Iraq 1991



Kuwait 1991



Somalia 1992-94



Bosnia 1995



Iran 1998



Sudan 1998



Afghanistan 1998



Yugoslavia – Serbia 1999



Afghanistan 2001



Libya 2011



http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626">//http://www.globalresearch.ca/list-of-countries-the-usa-has-bombed-since-the-end-of-world-war-ii/24626

And that doesn't include the countries since 2011!

Thanks for the bullshit from the tin-foil hat conspiracy site founded by Michel Chossudovsky also known as one of Canada's "nuttiests Professors" bigot and wild-eyed loon.   ac_toofunny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky



As I have said before you are an idiot.



I hate to break the news to you but no international tribunal has unequivocally declared the 2003 Iraq invasion illegal. Why.... because according to UNSCR 678 "Member States were always authorized to use all necessary means to restore peace and security in Iraq. The authorization was suspended; but on condition Iraq verifiably disarm. Iraq's repeated material breach and failure to take its final opportunity meant it was lawful for Member States of the UN to use force on the basis of UNSCR 678″.



So as much as it pains you lefty bastards and US bashers, technically there are no grounds for calling the 2003 US lead invasion of Iraq illegal and doing so is highly controversial. You namby-pamby PC morons can hold your breath until you turn blue and stamp your feet all you like it's not going to change the legal situation one way or the other.

[Anonymous]

^What the fuck does any of that matter? Islam commands we all die ffs. Not Dick Cheney, not the late Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarek. Islam is the killer people.....http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/5/1222605/11829814/winstononislamvie1398833149326-vi.jpg">http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/ ... 326-vi.jpg">http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/5/1222605/11829814/winstononislamvie1398833149326-vi.jpg[/img]

[Renee]

^What the fuck does any of that matter? Islam commands we all die ffs. Not Dick Cheney, not the late Saddam Hussein or Hosni Mubarek. Islam is the killer people.....http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/5/1222605/11829814/winstononislamvie1398833149326-vi.jpg">http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/ ... 326-vi.jpg">http://images42.fotki.com/v1630/photos/5/1222605/11829814/winstononislamvie1398833149326-vi.jpg[/img]

It's all part of the same problem. Western attitudes toward Islam are based in pop culture fantasy. Romero's opinions on the subject and all related subjects illustrate just how fucked up the situation is.

[Anonymous]

It's all part of the same problem. Western attitudes toward Islam are based in pop culture fantasy. Romero's opinions on the subject and all related subjects illustrate just how fucked up the situation is.

It all comes back to what CC has said before; Islam's greatest strength is our weakness. Islam commands we die and our so-called leaders refuse to admit the problem is the ideology itself.

[Romero]

As I have said before you are an idiot.



I hate to break the news to you but no international tribunal has unequivocally declared the 2003 Iraq invasion illegal. Why.... because according to UNSCR 678 "Member States were always authorized to use all necessary means to restore peace and security in Iraq. The authorization was suspended; but on condition Iraq verifiably disarm. Iraq's repeated material breach and failure to take its final opportunity meant it was lawful for Member States of the UN to use force on the basis of UNSCR 678″.



So as much as it pains you lefty bastards and US bashers, technically there are no grounds for calling the 2003 US lead invasion of Iraq illegal and doing so is highly controversial. You namby-pamby PC morons can hold your breath until you turn blue and stamp your feet all you like it's not going to change the legal situation one way or the other.

Wow, you're like one of the last people on Earth who think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea.



You do realize that UNSCR 678 was adopted in 1990 regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?

The relatively clear authority granted to Member States in this case contrasts with the disputed legality of U.S. actions in the Iraq disarmament crisis of 2002–03. The extent of authority that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 gave is the subject of disagreement.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678">//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.



He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm">//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[Renee]

As I have said before you are an idiot.



I hate to break the news to you but no international tribunal has unequivocally declared the 2003 Iraq invasion illegal. Why.... because according to UNSCR 678 "Member States were always authorized to use all necessary means to restore peace and security in Iraq. The authorization was suspended; but on condition Iraq verifiably disarm. Iraq's repeated material breach and failure to take its final opportunity meant it was lawful for Member States of the UN to use force on the basis of UNSCR 678″.



So as much as it pains you lefty bastards and US bashers, technically there are no grounds for calling the 2003 US lead invasion of Iraq illegal and doing so is highly controversial. You namby-pamby PC morons can hold your breath until you turn blue and stamp your feet all you like it's not going to change the legal situation one way or the other.

Wow, you're like one of the last people on Earth who think the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a good idea.



You do realize that UNSCR 678 was adopted in 1990 regarding Iraq's invasion of Kuwait?

Do you realize it was still in effect in 2003 with the stipulation mentioned??????? Besides I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the invasion. I'm saying that all your wailing and whining doesn't make the invasion illegal. Stop trying to duck, dive and divert.

The relatively clear authority granted to Member States in this case contrasts with the disputed legality of U.S. actions in the Iraq disarmament crisis of 2002–03. The extent of authority that United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 gave is the subject of disagreement.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678">//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_678

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.



He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm">//http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

I don't give a fuck what that clown Kofi Annan said. You do know that they give the position of UN Sec. General to a insignificant member state nitwits because it gives the illusion that the UN is run by something other than the US and the security council, don't you? Besides the world court has never pursued any charges claiming the invasion was illegal. It's a controversial subject and untenable because of the provisions of the existing UNSCR 678 that gave member states legal authority to use force against Iraq. You can't have it both ways, asshole. ac_toofunny

[Anonymous]

^I too think the overthrow of Hussein was stupid. However, blaming Dick Cheney, Tony Blair, Donald Rumsfeld or the tooth fairy for ISIS is pure nonsense. The seeds of violence were sown 1300 years before Iraq's regime change.

[Romero]

Do you realize it was still in effect in 2003 with the stipulation mentioned???????

It wasn't. Bush tricked you into believing so, but of course 'Iraq was connected to 9/11', 'Saddam had wmd's', "Saddam was making nukes'...

Besides I'm not saying whether or not I agree with the invasion.

You don't know whether you agree with it or not yet???

I don't give a fuck what that clown Kofi Annan said.

Neither did Bush, but Annan was the Secretary-General of the UN. So instead of claiming it was legal when it wasn't, just admit you don't give a fuck.

[Renee]

Do you realize it was still in effect in 2003 with the stipulation mentioned???????

It wasn't. Bush tricked you into believing so, but of course 'Iraq was connected to 9/11', 'Saddam had wmd's', "Saddam was making nukes'...

 

You are truly a hysterical far left moron.  ac_toofunny  No one said anything about nukes. The issue was and always had been chemical weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.



Okay dipshit, if UNSCR 678 wasn't still in effect than why did the UN pass resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had to verify their disarmament to avoid facing military force as stipulated in 678?



OH I know why; it was because the security council had nothing better to do that day ac_toofunny . If that's the case then that turd of a UN building needs to be torn down immediately because it's taking up waaaaaay too much prime realestate in NYC.



You obviously don't get the fact that the first Gulf War had 2 objectives; liberate Kuwait and to make sure Saddam Hussein could not make war on his neighbors and to disarm. The latter objective was never clearly reached and that is why UNSCR 678 was an OPEN ENDED resolution. Iraq had been stalling since 1991 and in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion even Hans Blix said that Iraq's recent attempts at compliance were welcome but not enough. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq additional time to disarm but it was a toothless and useless resolution because the world had been waiting since fucking 1991 for Iraq comply with the UN demand for disarmament. The US, GB, Spain and Portugal all decided that the world had waited long enough and under resolution 1441 it was declared that Iraq's time was up.



How long did you expect the world to wait? The UN already looked like a toothless bunch of fools (which BTW it is) so what's the big deal? That egomaniac Saddam Hussein made sure that force was going to be necessary one way or the other. Because France was chickenshit and Russia was just being contrary, Saddam assumed that he could play games with the UN security council indefinitely. Well he was wrong just as you are wrong by calling the 2003 invasion an ILLEGAL war.



Again, if the invasion was so illegal why hasn't the world court ruled on it and brought the Bush and Blair administrations up on charges of violation of international law?????? Fuck it's only been 12 years.  ac_toofunny  They won't because they know they would lose because there is enough legal grounds to claim that the invasion WASN'T illegal.



Clowns like you need to get over this tin-foil hat shit. Stop paying attention to all the internet arm chair experts in international law and face the reality. I find it a real tell tail sign that you cry and whine about the US invasion of Iraq but yet you practically turn yourself inside out with denial regarding the barbarity of the ideology known as Islam. People like you make rational people physically ill with your willful head in the sand bullshit.

[Anonymous]

^How does anyone prove the US lead overthrow of Saddam Hussein was "illegal"? Does anyone seriously think the former leaders of the US and UK will face a Nuremburg style international tribunal?

[Renee]

^How does anyone prove the US lead overthrow of Saddam Hussein was "illegal"? Does anyone seriously think the former leaders of the US and UK will face a Nuremburg style international tribunal?

Well maybe we should check with Kofi Annan or some other insignificant, pinhead, who prattles his or her nonsense in front of the UN General Assembly?

[Romero]

No one said anything about nukes. The issue was and always had been chemical weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems.

"This is a man of great evil, as the President said. And he(Saddam) is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." - Dick Cheney



"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." - George W. Bush

Amid questions about prewar intelligence, the White House is acknowledging that President Bush was incorrect when he said in his State of the Union address that Iraq recently had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-admits-wmd-error/">//http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-admits-wmd-error/

Okay dipshit, if UNSCR 678 wasn't still in effect than why did the UN pass resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had to verify their disarmament to avoid facing military force as stipulated in 678?

Neither 678 or 1441 authorize the use of military force.

Iraq had been stalling since 1991 and in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion even Hans Blix said that Iraq's recent attempts at compliance were welcome but not enough.

Iraq inquiry: Former UN inspector Blix says war illegal



"All in all, we carried out about 700 inspections at different 500 sites and, in no case, did we find any weapons of mass destruction."



He criticised decisions that led to the war, saying existing UN resolutions on Iraq did not contain the authority needed, contrary to the case put by the UK government.



"Some people maintain that Iraq was legal. I am of the firm view that it was an illegal war."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239">//http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10770239

Again, if the invasion was so illegal why hasn't the world court ruled on it and brought the Bush and Blair administrations up on charges of violation of international law??????

The International Court of Justice has no teeth. There's a long list of war criminals the World Court hasn't charged.