Tony Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Rex Tomb didn't decide to go to war and his explanation is crystal clear and concurs with what I wrote above. Come on, a little attention to detail / facts is helpful here. A UN resolution was the pretext for war. From memory the resolution stated that the Taliban provided support to Al Qaeda (paraphrased). I don't think that Bin Laden was mentioned at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Rex Tomb didn't decide to go to war and his explanation is crystal clear and concurs with what I wrote above. Come on, a little attention to detail / facts is helpful here. A UN resolution was the pretext for war. From memory the resolution stated that the Taliban provided support to Al Qaeda (paraphrased). I don't think that Bin Laden was mentioned at all. Wrong. The resolution was never granted. The UN Security Council NEVER authorised it. mad when you look into it: Check out this dude, doesn't seem too cranky..indeed, an extremely articulate lawyer, who has represented his views numerous times on the american box - http://www.counterpunch.org/boyle0917.html "...the first Security Council resolution refused to call what happened on September 11 an "armed attack"--that is by one state against another state. Rather they called it "terrorist attacks." But the critical point here is that this war has never been approved by the U.N. Security Council so technically it is illegal under international law. It constitutes an act and a war of aggression by the United States against Afghanistan." Are you not even the merest bit interested now? Bush, having failed to get the ok from the UN, then went to congress to get an official 'declaration of war'. Guess what? No dice... "Despite all the rhetoric we have heard by the Bush, Jr. administration Congress never declared war against Afghanistan or against anyone. There is technically no state of war today against anyone as a matter of constitutional law as formally declared." But then he pulls out the trump card, an 'imperfect declaration of war', which, being ambiguous in its terminology, actually renders it far more dangerous! Check this out: "he did get from Congress a War Powers Resolution authorization. This is what law professors call an imperfect declaration of war. It does not have the constitutional significance of a formal declaration of war. It authorizes the use of military force in specified, limited circumstances" And this, not the UN resolution, not the declaration of war, but a resolution from the US which allows specified, limited engagement. Now the genius part is this - define 'limited' or 'specified' in this context? Depending on that definition, you could use this to then hop over to Iraq, (job done) and check out any number of countries 'known to be habouring terrorists with 'links' to 9/11' (ongoing) That's got to stoke your interest now, Tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 p.s "Come on, a little attention to detail / facts is helpful here. A UN resolution was the pretext for war." er...pot and black, pal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted November 4, 2010 Author Share Posted November 4, 2010 We are somewhat heading off course here. Anyway, back to the original question....! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 ok my opinion? Conspiracies do and can exist. In fact, they have always existed, particularly in the context of the multi-layered geo-political aspirations of certain countries. The driving motivation underpinning them all is power, whether economic, social, or political. And its becoming increasingly difficult to delineate these. Maybe it is folly to do so. The world as we know it is not the world as they tell it. Clearly. Anyone brave enough to grapple with that concept deserves credit. The difficulty arises when, in an eagerness to understand the puzzle, one can easily be led down the wrong path. Equally, in an eagerness to hold on to a solid 'world view', one can be persuaded to argue the opposite, despite major and rather obvious anomolies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 p.s "Come on, a little attention to detail / facts is helpful here. A UN resolution was the pretext for war." er...pot and black, pal? Go away and look up what a pretext it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbradley Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 Go away and look up what a pretext it. er, ok...so you mean a 'UN resolution' was, and i quote a spoddy on-line dictionary's 1st entry: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretext "something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse" that doesn't really make any factual sense whatsoever. There WAS NO UN RESOLUTION. And i stand corrected here: Forget pot and black. you mean the pretext is the reasoning behind the request for a resolution? um...In which case, you are aligning yourself with me, insofar as the link between OBL and 9/11 being a false one, used to justify an invasion... Nice one. There i was thinking we were on opposite sides...! You are a top bloke. Despite what the others say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USUK Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I started a thread a year or so ago about this very subject, and I've just dug out my opening post.... "My question is this: Why is it socially unacceptable to question the things which shape our society? In my view it is the people that blindly accept everything at face value that should be ridiculed and socially outcast - not the other way around. " Kind of like the guy walking on water and turning it into wine (without the grapes) and oh yes, the invisible man in the sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Thought that I'd revive this given that SF has been joined in the last week or so be people (some from abroad) who only discuss 7/7 and appear to belong to what could fairly be described as a cult. I'm wondering why people, who are so certain they're correct, appear to spend a lot of time with SF and the usual dozen or so people who post on these threads, rather than trying to get stories in the press, use much bigger sites etc. I know on one thread once we had a guy convinced that all the local councillors and MP's used SF to discuss business and thought he was debating with them. I wonder if some people think they're engaging with government representatives, security services etc or are just looking for somewhere to vent their spleen - or perhaps recruit new members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishcake Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Conspiracy Theories exist because governments kill as they please and silence people any way they feel appropriate. It happened, happens and will always happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.