The Brits have lots of brains, lots of experience and they get along with the current superpower.

It will never happen, the garlic eaters will never trust us!!

I wonder why?

Preventing a european harmony has been our primary goal ever since the Spanish were top dog! - I should know, my cousin is a Habsburg!

Now, we are destined to become a strange trading outpost. Kapput. Finished.

No loss really, the weather is lousy.

To the last 3 posts respectively; Unfounded speculation, opinion, and opinion based on unfounded speculation.

When any of you guys can supply an actual fact, not just an opinion....that's when I'll start listening.....and off topic, but high on the list for me, is when UG shows a factual....FACTUAL.... not opinion-based.... proof of his allegation that I lied.

Get your own house in order before you point the finger. There is a difference between percieved truth (opinion) and verifiable truth.

koheesti's post is accurate. And if one were to go through each of the multitude of examples in support of his conclusion, the response from you would again be nonacceptance. So what's the point?

You state as fact my future response.

That's either extremely clever, or extremely silly.

I hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too....(as yet unsubstantiated)....do you support that allegation also? Do you also predict how I would react to real proof of that?

I've noticed that you customarily attribute to others insults about yourself that were never said ("showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am"). Where did I ever 'support' these contentions? Never happened. One can only surmise that it is an attempt, in fact a habitual attempt, to steer the reader away from the fact that you have no answer. May I suggest that it would be more appropriate to simply remain silent, rather than attribute remarks concerning your self-analyzed character flaws to other posters.

Indeed!

And my dady is a policeman and he'll beat your daddy.

Nya nya nya nya.

I realize you are trying to be amusing, but the truth is that this about as witty and clever as your posts get even when you think that you have really scored some points.

Yes this is the outside the box corner of TV and I am willing to think extreme but are you saying that these 9/11 Arabs learned how to fly an airplane

in F Ghanistaaaan?

Not sure if they had flight simulators in Tora Bora, will check that one.

The planning and basic training was in fact done primarily in Afghanistan.  But as we all know, the flying lessons were taken in the US.  I don't think being facetious about that contributes much to the discussion.

 

I will probably be called a conspiracy nutter but that's fine. Just look at our global financial crisis theater to see how much conspiracy is going on there. I was called a nutter when this crisis started but it is getting clearer by the day that the biggest swindle in history have happened before our eyes therefore I do not rule out other interest in Afghanistan and perhaps some other places on this planet. That's why we have outside the box, no?

Yes, that is why we have Outside the Box.  And you are welcome to any theories you have.  I certainly have no patent on the truth.  I only have my opinions, which I am quite willing to change if someone else shows me a better likelihood.

But for me, if a theory cannot be backed by logic or proof, then I will call the poster out on that--even, gasp, if I might agree with the general premise.

Ok then why is it that I cannot find some kind of proof that all of those hijackers where trained in Afghanistan, in fact from reading through the 9/11 commission report, less then 50% of them where in, or had been in Afghanistan prior to the attacks.

Many of them had been flagged as having extremist beliefs and pose a risk, how come they had visa's to enter the US?

The Brits have lots of brains, lots of experience and they get along with the current superpower.

The Brits might be the smartest of the bunch. For a country with a navy I think is about the same size as Belgium's they pretty much get whatever they want in foreign policy while America takes most of the heat from the rest of the world. It can be nice having big friends.

Ok then why is it that I cannot find some kind of proof that all of those hijackers where trained in Afghanistan, in fact from reading through the 9/11 commission report, less then 50% of them where in, or had been in Afghanistan prior to the attacks.

Many of them had been flagged as having extremist beliefs and pose a risk, how come they had visa's to enter the US?

How does it matter that less than half had been to Afghanistan before? The leaders had and some were still there. They were also being protected by the people in control of the country. Yeah, Pashtun custom to protect your guest and all that. I guess they didn't know about our custom when it comes to sneak attacks. That's what happens when you ban all those Hollywood movies.

As for getting into the country even though they were flagged, LOL. I remember reading that one of the hijackers was approved for his flying license, visa or something like that about 6 months AFTER the attack. The bureaucracy is a joke.

And my dady is a policeman and he'll beat your daddy.

Nya nya nya nya.

I realize you are trying to be amusing, but the truth is that this about as witty and clever as your posts get even when you think that you have really scored some points.

Ditto.

To the last 3 posts respectively; Unfounded speculation, opinion, and opinion based on unfounded speculation.

When any of you guys can supply an actual fact, not just an opinion....that's when I'll start listening.....and off topic, but high on the list for me, is when UG shows a factual....FACTUAL.... not opinion-based.... proof of his allegation that I lied.

Get your own house in order before you point the finger. There is a difference between percieved truth (opinion) and verifiable truth.

koheesti's post is accurate. And if one were to go through each of the multitude of examples in support of his conclusion, the response from you would again be nonacceptance. So what's the point?

You state as fact my future response.

That's either extremely clever, or extremely silly.

I hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too....(as yet unsubstantiated)....do you support that allegation also? Do you also predict how I would react to real proof of that?

I've noticed that you customarily attribute to others insults about yourself that were never said ("showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am"). Where did I ever 'support' these contentions? Never happened. One can only surmise that it is an attempt, in fact a habitual attempt, to steer the reader away from the fact that you have no answer. May I suggest that it would be more appropriate to simply remain silent, rather than attribute remarks concerning your self-analyzed character flaws to other posters.

Customarily attribute? Firstly, "seeming to support" the insults is not "attributing" the insults. There's a significant difference. I suggest you don't try to spin my words.

Secondly, when one says "seems", it's obviously one's point of view, not a stated fact. If you "seem" antagonistic to me, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

None of those insults are "self-analysed", nor attributed to you....another spin and a subtle insult in itself.

[i hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too

It does not matter how much proof your nose is shoved in, you either change the subject, pretend not to understand the obvious or are completely incapable of doing so. Responding logically to your nonsensical posts is a true exercise in futility.

You provided no proof whatsoever. All you did was state your misguided interpretation that I easily refuted. It's quite ironic that you talk about responding logically.

It is you that pretends not to understand....or maybe you are not pretending.

The Brits have lots of brains, lots of experience and they get along with the current superpower.

The Brits might be the smartest of the bunch. For a country with a navy I think is about the same size as Belgium's they pretty much get whatever they want in foreign policy while America takes most of the heat from the rest of the world. It can be nice having big friends.

may i assume that you don't expect any comment on the bullshit you produce?

And my dady is a policeman and he'll beat your daddy.

Nya nya nya nya.

I realize you are trying to be amusing, but the truth is that this about as witty and clever as your posts get even when you think that you have really scored some points.

Ditto.

Thank you for proving my point!

And my dady is a policeman and he'll beat your daddy.

Nya nya nya nya.

I realize you are trying to be amusing, but the truth is that this about as witty and clever as your posts get even when you think that you have really scored some points.

Ditto.

Thank you for proving my point!

Ditto.

It's a matter of intelligence vs. obstinance.

Ain't it the truth.

The Brits have lots of brains, lots of experience and they get along with the current superpower.

The Brits might be the smartest of the bunch. For a country with a navy I think is about the same size as Belgium's they pretty much get whatever they want in foreign policy while America takes most of the heat from the rest of the world. It can be nice having big friends.

may i assume that you don't expect any comment on the bullshit you produce?

Oh please. I look forward to your comments. You always seem to insert your dirty boot into your own mouth. I suppose you think Germany is smarter than the Brits in getting what they want in terms of forein policy? The Germans don't even have a foreign policy anymore. Which makes the rest of Europe quite happy because they still fear a resurgent Germany (no fear across the pond though, we remember the outcome last time). Remember all those newspaper articles making such a big deal when Germany sent a team of medics to the Balkans about 15 years ago? "first time German soldiers on foreign soil in 50 years!!". Too bad the Serbs weren't as wishy-washy as the rest of Europe otherwise those medics could have single-handedly ended the conflict.

You state as fact my future response.

That's either extremely clever, or extremely silly.

I hope you are clever....I would love to see how clever you are, thereby showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am....and there is an allegation of me being a liar too....(as yet unsubstantiated)....do you support that allegation also? Do you also predict how I would react to real proof of that?

I've noticed that you customarily attribute to others insults about yourself that were never said ("showing me up as the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter" that you seem to support that I am"). Where did I ever 'support' these contentions? Never happened. One can only surmise that it is an attempt, in fact a habitual attempt, to steer the reader away from the fact that you have no answer. May I suggest that it would be more appropriate to simply remain silent, rather than attribute remarks concerning your self-analyzed character flaws to other posters.

Customarily attribute? Firstly, "seeming to support" the insults is not "attributing" the insults. There's a significant difference. I suggest you don't try to spin my words.

Secondly, when one says "seems", it's obviously one's point of view, not a stated fact. If you "seem" antagonistic to me, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

None of those insults are "self-analysed", nor attributed to you....another spin and a subtle insult in itself.

To the point - Where and when did I "support" that you are "the closed-minded, simple-minded, insincere, "nutter"?

Give him credit. Those are, by far, the most accurate comments he has posted in Outside the Box since he arrived.

Ok I will try again backed up by some official documents to show you pro war people that these wars are unlawful.

I might not be complete or in the right order but hey, this is outside the box and I just give it a try.

Have a read and please have an open but clear mind and correct where I am wrong or cited the wrong link/article

I am opening with a statement made by some guy a while ago that still applies today.

"Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." — General Hermann Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party, Commander of Luftwaffe during World War II,

The charter of the United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter

US treaties in force (2009): http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/123747.pdf

The clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that declares that all laws and treaties made by the federal government shall be the "supreme law of the land."

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

In other words, what the US president and 2/3 of the Senate have agreed to in a treaty is part of the law of the US until such time as the US rescinds that treaty obligation. The UN Charter is therefore part of the law of the US with its clear restrictions of using war as a foreign policy option.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence 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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence that the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan. The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, not an armed attack

The preamble of the United Nations charter includes to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and… to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used…” http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/preamble.shtml

CHAPTER VI: PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml

A legal definition of self defense:

http://www.uni-miskolc.hu/~wwwdrint/20042rouillard1.htm

Resolution 1368: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN...pdf?OpenElement

Resolution 1373: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN...pdf?OpenElement

Unless a nation can justify its military use as self-defense from armed attack from a nation’s government that is "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation," all other acts of war are unlawful. The legal definition of “self-defense” ends when the attack terminates. In general legal definition:

No party is allowed use of force under the justification of “self-defense” if the law can be applied for redress and remedy.

The UN Charter’s meaning to make war an unlawful act is abundantly clear in its detailed explanations. The US attack of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 was a deliberate act of unlawful war, not defense that was "instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The burden of proof the US would have to provide is imminent threat of another attack in order to justify self-defense. US Ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, in his letter to the UN Security Council invoking Article 51 for the attack upon Afghanistan mentions only “ongoing threat;” which does not satisfy this burden of proof.

Negroponte letter:

http://www.bits.de/public/documents/US_Ter.../negroponte.htm

There is a lot of legalese in some documents and the links I posted, but the excerpts I posted will make it a bit more easy to understand why these wars and occupations are unlawfull.

On a side note:

If you want to understand how propaganda is implemented go here:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/157/wa...a-and-the-media

Take care all!

Alex

Do you really not realize that there are thousands of examples of other laws and discourse that will completely dispute your rationale? That is why we do nothing but go in circles and no one ever changes their minds.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence 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. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Because the leadership of the CIA and FBI both reported that they had no evidence that the Afghan government had any role in the 9/11 terrorism, the US is unable to claim Article 51 protection for military action in Afghanistan. The legal classification of what happened on 9/11 is an act of terrorism, not an armed attack

All this constant bickering on if war is illegal or legal might be a nice academic exercise, but it has very little bearing on real life.  The fact that North Korea's attack on South Korea was "illegal" had no bearing on the the North's decision to attack and the promulgation of that conflict.  Japan and Germany's attacks may have been "illegal," but the only reason there were any consequences for that was because the allied powers won. Same with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.  Unless there is any way to punish those accused of illegal wars, then any arguments about that are pretty pointless. 

But let's take your above quote.  No, the Taliban government in Afghanistan had no direct role in the 9/11 attacks.  BUt they sheltered and gave succor to those who did plan and carry out the attack.  The US led forces gave the Taliban government a clear choice.  Capture and prosecute the terrorists, or we would come do it ourselves.  The Taliban government replied that they would not take action, and any action by us to take care of the situation would be considered an act of aggression and dealt with accordingly.  

If Afghanistan had arrested and prosecuted Bin Laden and his organization, the Taliban would still be in power.  If the Afghanistan forces had just stood by and let our forces prosecute BIn Laden, then they would still be in power.  But not, they chose to fight.  Their choice.

I am really at a huge loss as how to understand what you wanted us to do.  Sit back and let Bin Laden plan more attacks because they were hiding in Afghanistan?  I am sorry, but I don't see it.  

As many other members of the military, I think now and thought then that our invasion of Iraq was wrong and a mistake.   But I can't see how any rational person would argue that there was no moral ground for going into Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan had arrested and prosecuted Bin Laden and his organization, the Taliban would still be in power.  If the Afghanistan forces had just stood by and let our forces prosecute BIn Laden, then they would still be in power.  But not, they chose to fight.  Their choice.

I am really at a huge loss as how to understand what you wanted us to do.  Sit back and let Bin Laden plan more attacks because they were hiding in Afghanistan?  I am sorry, but I don't see it.  

Is it possible that those who chose to fight were/are fighting what they see as an invasion of their soil nothing more?

Would America respond the same if the invasion occurred on US soil? Regardless of the claim that the US supposedly harbored a fugitive...supposedly accused of an act not yet proven? Is that enough then to invade a country?...Supposition?

Would they? I think we all agree none would dare such an act because as Yamamoto basically said behind every blade of grass they would find a rifle.

If so I guess the US should be grateful most of the other countries have turned their economy away from spending every dime on their military. Other wise they would surely find themselves in similar situations. Because surely over the years the US has been *accused* of many things. Yet none has invaded them over these accusations.

As many other members of the military, I think now and thought then that our invasion of Iraq was wrong and a mistake. But I can't see how any rational person would argue that there was no moral ground for going into Afghanistan.

I tend to see both ( Iraq & Afghanistan )as the same mistake....Lack of concrete evidence makes for a poor reason to invade any country given the collateral damages & financial hardships that will surely follow.

Lastly in this day & age when they can read the date on a dime on a beach from space.... Do not tell me they cannot find one man in 10 years.....If they wanted to or if they did not long ago already find & kill him at the battle of Tora Bora

But then what reason would be left to stay/continue the invasion?

The US is following the same recipe that has been repeated through out history by others & the result will probably taste the same.

Lastly in this day & age when they can read the date on a dime on a beach from space.... Do not tell me they cannot find one man in 10 years.....If they wanted to or if they did not long ago already find & kill him at the battle of Tora Bora

But then what reason would be left to stay/continue the invasion?

The US is following the same recipe that has been repeated through out history by others & the result will probably taste the same.

So you believe that the U.S. has either intentionally avoided catching Bin Laden, or has already killed him and has hidden this fact to enable the U.S. "to stay/continue the invasion"? In other words, the U.S. looked upon 9/11 as an opportunity, not a tragedy, so that the U.S. could justify it's invasion of Afghanistan? Or, do you believe that the U.S. was behind 9/11? I just want to understand your position.

Is it possible that those who chose to fight were/are fighting what they see as an invasion of their soil nothing more?

Many of the Germans who were fighting to protect the motherland at the end of WW2 probably felt the same way, but if they were too stupid to realize the evil that their government had done, that is their problem, not ours.

In other words, the U.S. looked upon 9/11 as an opportunity,

It was not I that coined the phrase never let a good crisis go to waste.

As for position I do not have one per se'

Other than it seems exceedingly stupid to be burning $$$ at the rate the Military Industrial Complex does while Rome burns.

Study History & see where it all leads. When the currency fell for the Weimar they could not even afford to bring their troops home from various parts of the world.

At a time when the US sits on a very narrow edge & unemployment is higher in some states than it was during the great depression we will throw this kind of $$$ into this supposed chase?

You say..... I just want to understand your position.

I do not think you really care to "understand" any position other than your own.

And that is fine but I see no point in arguing. Reading your posts of recent days that is all I see....arguing over minutia.

I stated an opinion & it was very clear... If it was not clear enough...Twist it into what you like.

If I have you wrong in this regard.... kor tort

I have read many things over the years & they conflict with each other & logic/reason. I have read reports by military officers that were at Tora Bora & say there is no way anyone got out alive. It was also the last Verified sighting of Bin Laden

If you ask me if there is more than 1 reason ( Bin Laden ) the US invades/stays in Afghanistan I would say yes....Obviously...So what?....It is what it is. But watch the train wreck as it comes to a head in these next 2 years.

Many of the Germans who were fighting to protect the motherland at the end of WW2 probably felt the same way, but if they were too stupid to realize the evil that their government had done, that is their problem, not ours.

Afghanistan which is tribal & has basically no central government does not compare with WWII Germany.

You would compare WWII Germany with a country accused of what? Better use my comparison as it is closer to a match.

Let one accuse the US of something now & come now to enforce/invade it.

Are the US citizens who would take up arms protecting the evil that their government has done?

I do not think you really care to "understand" any position other than your own.

It looks like he is not the only one.

You would compare WWII Germany with a country accused of what?

Allowing training camps for terrorists. Taking away rights from women. Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Should I go on?

You would compare WWII Germany with a country accused of what?

Allowing training camps for terrorists. Taking away rights from women. Harboring fugitives that killed thousands of innocent civilians.

Should I go on?

Well yes if your comparing to Nazi Germany YES

Surprise, surprise, surprise, you are purposely missing the point.