Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Usama Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 attacks


Recommended Posts

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html

Richard Butler , former UN Weapons Inspector.

Now, if there is to be a pipeline through Afghanistan, obviating the need to deal with Russia, it would also cost less than half of what a pipeline through Russia would cost. So financially and politically, there's a big prize to be had. A pipeline through Afghanistan down to the Pakistan coast would bring out that Central Asian oil easier and more cheaply.

So you have Harmid Karzai, a former UNOCAL board member himself, and also a former member of the Muhajedeen (that pesky militant group who fought off the Soviets) as leader of Afghanistan, running Sharia Law.... the same law the Taliban ran with. Nothing has changed there.

Actually, quite a bit has changed.

There are at least 2 new pipelines in the region... one through to china, the other through to Turkey. Both of these pipelines are more secure than anything that can be put through Afghanistan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4577497.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan-China_oil_pipeline

So, while having a pipeline through Afghanistan would benefit Afghanistan (and help secure oil supplies), it is certainly not a necessity. If the whole reason for invading Afghanistan was to build the pipeline, it seems like a bit wasted effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Arguing with a troothar reminds me so much of playing with a cat and a piece of string.

I know the feeling.

I do know there are troothers around here; however, I am willing to give some of the posters here the benefit of the doubt. It is possible for someone to believe bin Laden was likely responsible, but we only bothered invading Afghanistan due to other reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Gross oversimplifcation. There are a variety of reasons NATO countries have joined the U.S. in Afghanistan. Canada's mission is to provide stability and enable the country to rebuild. Saying that its 'just to get bin Laden' is wrong.

Canada would not be in Afghanistan it it weren't for 9-11, and I quoted Bush saying that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11.

The U.S. actually made several demands. Not only did they demand bin Laden, they demanded his 'cohorts', and they wanted access to terrorist training camps.

Yet they said they would invade if bin Laden wasn't handed over. What do you think the deal was? 'Hand over bin Laden but we're going to attack you anyway?' I'm sure the Taliban would have jumped on that.

From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310852.shtml : Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps.... "They will hand over the terrorists (note the plural) or they will share in their fate."

I've read that. I'm well aware of it. But the biggie was getting bin Laden. That was made quite clear.

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5 : Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."

That was after the bombing started. I'm talking about prior to the bombing.

So, your claim that it was 'just about bin Laden' is false.

I didn't say it was "just" about bin Laden. I said it was all we heard about. And it was. I don't recall hearing we were going to smoke al Qaeda out of their caves. I don't recall hearing we were going to get al Qaeda "dead or alive."

Could be that the average person is lazy and doesn't bother to actually properly research things.

Or it could be that Bush referred to bin Laden over and over again. It could be that Bush said: "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans."

The U.S. said right from the beginning that they wanted more than just bin Laden... however, its probably easier for the average person to fixate on one individual. (For the same reason most people know who Hitler was, even though there were others nazis that were just as evil/ruthless; a single personification is easier to comprehend.)

<_< Bush was the one fixating on bin Laden. I'll repeat yet again: "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans." GW Bush

Read what I said again... I did not claim that they lacked the necessary evidence to charge and/or convict him.

The FBI said they lacked the necessary evidence to charge him. So I repeat. In light of the fact that there isn't enough evidence to charge him, it's pretty bizarre that Bush fixated on him in regards to the war in Afghanistan.

What I said is that a lack of charges does not mean bin Laden is innocent. They likely have enough evidence to try and convict him, if they so choose... however, such legal proceedings are pretty much unnecessary because of outstanding charges for other terrorist activities for which he's already been charged.

That makes no sense at all. It's more than a stretch to say that he wasn't charged with 9-11 because it's unneccessary. After all, he's already been charged with lesser acts, so why charge him with the attack we went to war over? <_<

The fact is, the FBI said there was no hard evidence to charge him with.

Nope, I've already shown that that was incorrect. The U.S. did not just want bin Laden, they wanted access to al Qaeda training camps, and they wanted others in the terrorist organization.

No, it's not incorrect. This thread is about bin Laden and the fact that we went to war over 9-11 and Bush said that bin Laden was the one resposible. Again. "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans." GW Bush.

So for Bush to say that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, that he's responsible for killing Americans, as the FBI says there's no hard evidence to charge him with, is ludicrous. And that's what this thread is about; the fact that bin Laden is not "wanted" for 9-11 because there's "no hard evidence" to charge him for it.

Edited by American Woman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Canada would not be in Afghanistan it it weren't for 9-11, and I quoted Bush saying that bin Laden was responsible for 9-11.

Yet they said they would invade if bin Laden wasn't handed over. What do you think the deal was? 'Hand over bin Laden but we're going to attack you anyway?' I'm sure the Taliban would have jumped on that.

I've read that. I'm well aware of it. But the biggie was getting bin Laden. That was made quite clear.

That was after the bombing started. I'm talking about prior to the bombing.

I didn't say it was "just" about bin Laden. I said it was all we heard about. And it was. I don't recall hearing we were going to smoke al Qaeda out of their caves. I don't recall hearing we were going to get al Qaeda "dead or alive."

Or it could be that Bush referred to bin Laden over and over again. It could be that Bush said: "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans."

<_< Bush was the one fixating on bin Laden. I'll repeat yet again: "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans." GW Bush

The FBI said they lacked the necessary evidence to charge him. So I repeat. In light of the fact that there isn't enough evidence to charge him, it's pretty bizarre that Bush fixated on him in regards to the war in Afghanistan.

That makes no sense at all. It's more than a stretch to say that he wasn't charged with 9-11 because it's unneccessary. After all, he's already been charged with lesser acts, so why charge him with the attack we went to war over? <_<

The fact is, the FBI said there was no hard evidence to charge him with.

No, it's not incorrect. This thread is about bin Laden and the fact that we went to war over 9-11 and Bush said that bin Laden was the one resposible. Again. "The person responsible for the attacks was Osama bin Laden. That's who's responsible for killing Americans." GW Bush.

So for Bush to say that bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, that he's responsible for killing Americans, as the FBI says there's no hard evidence to charge him with, is ludicrous. And that's what this thread is about.

Oh get with it..who ever hires the trigger man man not commit the actual murder but if you follow the buck back to the finance guys - they are Saudis and it was Saudi money that facilitated the 911 attack and Bin Ladin their favorite adventurer minion may not have brain powered the attack (seeing he is a bit of a rich kid dumbo) - but sure enough it should have been Saudi Arabia that should have been invaded and shut down not Iraq or Afghanistan - THEN if that was done as it should have been..there would be no peak oil bull shit nor would there be psuedo Islamic terrorism...just like commies - no backing no movement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" It is possible for someone to believe bin Laden was likely responsible, but we only bothered invading Afghanistan due to other reasons."

That is exactly the problem, 90% of the population whether "troothers" or not believe that we are in Afghanistan directly because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks Osama Bin Laden "masterminded". Now nearly just as many people think we're in Iraq for the oil. There are always ulterior motives; it would be stupid to believe a country would go on a multi-billion dollar one man manhunt. However, that was the story that was told to justify the invasion. Generally, as a rule of thumb, if a politician needs to decieve and coerce a population into a conflict it is generally not in their best interest. But let me guess, we're too stupid to decide for ourselves and should let it be because they obviously have a good enough reason for it.

Vietnam was great for America eh? There were no attacks on the USS Maddox or the USS Turner Joy. We were lied to then just as we are still being lied too; I don't see how this is any different. But it totally justified the millions that died and the lovely little present we gave Laos...an undeclared war against a 3rd world country and the largest aerial bombing campaign in history, more than all of WWII. Most of it was indiscriminate dropping of unused bombs because it was "too dangerous" to fly them back...but ofcourse the could fly them there with no qualm.

And lets forget about the million dead in Iraq, the torture which is now legal, the opium production that has increased 100% in "A-stan", the domestic spying, the patriot act, full spectrum dominance, record breaking oil, the recession and stagflation (while the US plans to spend 1T on defense) and the road we are now on heading to even more war. All of this stems from one misrepresented fact. Whether Bin Laden perpetrated the 9/11 or not the end result is still the same. The US wanted to enter the region for geopolitical reasons to stabilize and ensure assets this has been stated many times. In Zbiginiew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" he states that the US must ensure control of the energy markets otherwise the growing demand of emerging countries (China, India, etc) will be larger than the US market and they would no longer have a monopoly and the petrodollar. PNAC came to the relatively same conclusions and called upon America to not sell itself short and "build upon past success". I'm sure it's a coincidence that both PNAC and Brzezinski came to the same conclusion that the process would be much faster with a "cautostrophic-catalyzing event, like a new pearl harbour". One year after PNAC released their paper the new pearl harbour occured. The 9/11 attacks were used to justify ulterior motives of the government in power which they knew the public would not support. That is what is fundamentally wrong. If the population knew why were going to war we wouldn't be...

Edited by obsidian
Link to post
Share on other sites
But let me guess, we're too stupid to decide for ourselves and should let it be because they obviously have a good enough reason for it.

If you are speaking for yourself, you are at least half right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

Anyone who believes we would have attacked Afghanistan if 9-11 hadn't occurred must be living on another planet from the one I'm living on. :unsure:

US tells Taliban to give up Bin Laden or face attack

Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes we would have attacked Afghanistan if 9-11 hadn't occurred must be living on another planet from the one I'm living on. :unsure:

Please be more precise....as others have noted, Afghanistan was "attacked" with cruise missiles in 1998 (Operation Infinite Reach ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone who believes we would have attacked Afghanistan if 9-11 hadn't occurred must be living on another planet from the one I'm living on. :unsure:

US tells Taliban to give up Bin Laden or face attack

Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days.

Sure there were training camps in Afghanistan...every last penny spent on arms and supplies and transport came out of the oil rich Saudi Kingdom (lot of nerve - those barbarians have calling themselves royal). The point is the Bushites could not attack their international oil buisness partners for attacking New York though surrogates..that would have been bad for the American oil buisness - and buisness and money is more important than the murder of over 3000 of your own citizens..the whole thing stinks to this day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
Please be more precise....as others have noted, Afghanistan was "attacked" with cruise missiles in 1998 (Operation Infinite Reach ).

If this-- Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days-- isn't precise enough for you, I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can do to help you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this-- Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days-- isn't precise enough for you, I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can do to help you.

Sad part about the mess is that now the slaughter of Canadians will begin and it will not be a single coffin crusing down that stupid "Highway Of Heros" - This is about to become our Viet Nam...If I were in charge I would get the hell out and not waste one more good white Christian boy to those infidel hooligan dope growers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If this-- Afghanistan will be offered a final chance today to escape a devastating US military onslaught when a delegation from Pakistan delivers an ultimatum to the Taliban leadership to hand over Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect in the New York and Washington attacks, within three days-- isn't precise enough for you, I'm afraid there's nothing anyone can do to help you.

It's not...and your lack of precision is to be expected. For the record, the United States attacked long before 9/11....long before "Bush". The Al Qaeda terrorism timeline does not begin in 2001.

Oh, and don't forget to tell the Northern Alliance they were part of the "US military onslaught" so they can get embroidered turbans for their veterans day parades.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
It's not...and your lack of precision is to be expected. For the record, the United States attacked long before 9/11....long before "Bush". The Al Qaeda terrorism timeline does not begin in 2001.

Oh, and don't forget to tell the Northern Alliance they were part of the "US military onslaught" so they can get embroidered turbans for their veterans day parades.

This is hilarious in light of how we had to hear over and over that Clinton/Democrats were soft on terrorism-- that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism. Now it turns out that we had attacked "long before 9-11," "long before Bush." Evidently we didn't go to war in Afghanistan because of 9-11. Evidently we were already waging war there. Canada didn't go into Afghanistan because of 9-11. NATO didn't send troops to Afghanistan because of 9-11. War didn't break out in Afghanistan because of 9-11. The headlines/article I quoted mean nothing. It's all a coincidence that all this happened right after 9-11.

How sadly pathetic that some people will say anything depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not...and your lack of precision is to be expected. For the record, the United States attacked long before 9/11....long before "Bush". The Al Qaeda terrorism timeline does not begin in 2001.

Oh, and don't forget to tell the Northern Alliance they were part of the "US military onslaught" so they can get embroidered turbans for their veterans day parades.

Jeezz I thought it was Saddam who was at the controls of the planes...or was it that fat greasy unsaven guy at the torture facilty in the boycotted Cuba? - SO which one are we talking about? - I am more worried about some disgruntled black thug with a Glock killing two Rosadale sons out of sheer hate...we have our own up close and personal terrorism growning in Toronto..forget this stuff and concentrate on domestic terror...it's getting worse..because of fatherlessness and materialism due to the aggressive secularisation of Toronto..Some black youth have taken to killing the sons of Judges and Lawyers out of plain old jealousy..this is a serious problem ..not Bin Ladin who has been protected by the Saudis and American crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is hilarious in light of how we had to hear over and over that Clinton/Democrats were soft on terrorism-- that Clinton did nothing to fight terrorism. Now it turns out that we had attacked "long before 9-11," "long before Bush." Evidently we didn't go to war in Afghanistan because of 9-11. Evidently we were already waging war there. Canada didn't go into Afghanistan because of 9-11. NATO didn't send troops to Afghanistan because of 9-11. War didn't break out in Afghanistan because of 9-11. The headlines/article I quoted mean nothing. It's all a coincidence that all this happened right after 9-11.

War has been in Afghanistan for at least 30 years. See, your half baked assertions have come full circle, to blaming the root cause on CIA actions with the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. Try to broaden your historical perspective if you can.

How sadly pathetic that some people will say anything depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Sadder still is that "some people" will say anything when the wind is blowing from a distinct direction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman
War has been in Afghanistan for at least 30 years. See, your half baked assertions have come full circle, to blaming the root cause on CIA actions with the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. Try to broaden your historical perspective if you can.

Oh for God's sake. I'm talking about the current war, and I'm guessing even you knew that. We are in Afghanistan, Canada is in Afghanistan, NATO is in Afghanistan-- because of 9-11. Try to argue otherwise with someone else; someone who has the time to waste on such stupidity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are speaking for yourself, you are at least half right.

I am ever so offended... Did you just leave the 6th grade? How about offering an actual opinion rather than a dismal insult. Or how about telling us how this situation is any different from how were were lied to in Vietnam.

BC the fact that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan with cruise missles years prior to the invasion doesn't make it right, nor does it pave the way for justifying an invasion as you attempted to. The only reason why no one retaliated or spoke out is because the US is the sole remaining superpower for now...

Edited by obsidian
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for God's sake. I'm talking about the current war, and I'm guessing even you knew that. We are in Afghanistan, Canada is in Afghanistan, NATO is in Afghanistan-- because of 9-11. Try to argue otherwise with someone else; someone who has the time to waste on such stupidity.

It's tribal...and righfully so - America - Russia - Canada are intruding on the turf of war lords because they believe THEY are the greatest of the war lords....it's a macho thing this envolvement of western boardroom types in what is a primative and manly nation...I guess the whimpy executives that encourage these invasions want to feel relevant as far as their manhood - Look at Chaney and Bush - who fired all their high ranking military men spawned from the blue collar class...thinking they could be warriors - they failed - they are merchants not soldiers and that is a problem - our leadership is inept when it comes to a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How exactly is that "laying their hands on Bin Laden"? The Taliban agreed to send him to a "neutral" third country, not the U.S. Given the fact that bin Laden's crimes were carried out against americans, its quite reasonable to expect the U.S. to actually have access to him.

....

Of course, as I pointed out, that was not the only demand that the U.S. had... they wanted access to other terrorists, as well as terrorist training camps. (See my post above for references.)

The question is, whether Bush administration's real goal was to see justice done on the perpetraitors of 9/11, or start implementation of its global "democracy" project, on the pretext provided by 9/11? Unleashing wars in Afghanistan, and, moreover, in Iraq, which was in no proven way related to 9/11, strongly points to #2.

If all they were looking for was justice on Bin Laden and cohorts, they could have taken neutral country as the first step; then maybe have him extradited; while pressing to close training camps, and get to the other cohorts;

Every sovereign country has the right and duty to police its own affairs. However, if a country (such as Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows attacks to be launched from its soil, it has the obligation to at least attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Which may certainly take more than a few weeks given to them by US administration (compare with how long it's taking them to achieve the same goal). In any case, to my knowledge, nobody has yet proven that Taleban were either directly involved in 9/11, or refused to bring its perpetrators to justice. Which would have been the only lawful causes to forcefully remove them from power (not to say that it would be a good practical option to deal with Al Quaeda threat). But things work differently in that world; law and justice take back seat to the "vision"; a vision that paints rosy pictures, while unleashing death and destruction; how much new is actually in this?

You do realize the Taliban were not exactly respectful of human rights. The civilian casualties that resulted from this war are indeed unfortunate; however, the amount of death probably wasn't that much greater than that caused by the Taliban and its strict Islamic law. (How many women died because the Taliban limited access to women's doctors? How many were executed at public executions?)

...

Is it moral to force women to stay at home and prevent them from working or going to school? Is it moral to execute women for adultery? Is it moral to force men to wear beards?

....

Granted, those weren't exactly the main issues that were on the minds of the U.S. when they overthrew the Taliban, but before you go assuming the war was 'immoral', consider the alternative.

So you're claiming that questions of morality are a valid ground for a war? Because our morals are different (superior to theirs, in our view), we are entitled to invade them, and install our understanding of "moral" by force?

Indeed I find it paradoxical that this "moral" foundation for wars is taking the front side, while bringing perpetrators to justice is going into background. Speaks volume about our understanding of morality. No major atrocity in history has been done by those who believed to be morally inferior to their victims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for God's sake. I'm talking about the current war, and I'm guessing even you knew that. We are in Afghanistan, Canada is in Afghanistan, NATO is in Afghanistan-- because of 9-11. Try to argue otherwise with someone else; someone who has the time to waste on such stupidity.

No, I thought you said we were in Iraq because of 9/11. Make up your mind!

Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is, whether Bush administration's real goal was to see justice done on the perpetraitors of 9/11, or start implementation of its global "democracy" project, on the pretext provided by 9/11? Unleashing wars in Afghanistan, and, moreover, in Iraq, which was in no proven way related to 9/11, strongly points to #2.

If all they were looking for was justice on Bin Laden and cohorts, they could have taken neutral country as the first step; then maybe have him extradited; while pressing to close training camps, and get to the other cohorts;

Which may certainly take more than a few weeks given to them by US administration (compare with how long it's taking them to achieve the same goal). In any case, to my knowledge, nobody has yet proven that Taleban were either directly involved in 9/11, or refused to bring its perpetrators to justice. Which would have been the only lawful causes to forcefully remove them from power (not to say that it would be a good practical option to deal with Al Quaeda threat). But things work differently in that world; law and justice take back seat to the "vision"; a vision that paints rosy pictures, while unleashing death and destruction; how much new is actually in this?

So you're claiming that questions of morality are a valid ground for a war? Because our morals are different (superior to theirs, in our view), we are entitled to invade them, and install our understanding of "moral" by force?

Indeed I find it paradoxical that this "moral" foundation for wars is taking the front side, while bringing perpetrators to justice is going into background. Speaks volume about our understanding of morality. No major atrocity in history has been done by those who believed to be morally inferior to their victims.

The emotional stimulant called "morality" is always used as a ploy to plunder another nation..there is nothing moral about kicking in an Iraqs' door in order to win his heart and mind....lets not mention the rapes....oh yah...that reminds me - I heard that Canadian troops were suggested to turn the other way if a local was raping ...I guess that rape is still being used to destroy a culture - it's the oldest method on earth and is used to make a familiar culture dysfunctional...To order Canadian troops NOT interfere in sexual attacks is saying that our policy is one of social dystruction of Afghanistan...maybe we can supply them with our non-culture called "multi-culturalism" - toss in a dose of corporate secularization and wow! _ we may just create a nation of servants to grow morphine for us.. :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
...BC the fact that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan with cruise missles years prior to the invasion doesn't make it right, nor does it pave the way for justifying an invasion as you attempted to. The only reason why no one retaliated or spoke out is because the US is the sole remaining superpower for now...

There you go again....trying to unify "war" with "justice". It's a futile endeavor...best to stick with the reasons, not the moral or legal fantasies. This is the brain knuckle that many can't overcome, but it is really quite simple, and you know it. The "power" that launched Tomahawks in 1998 or "invaded" in 2001 is one and the same....and it whistles Yankee Doodle Dandy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There you go again....trying to unify "war" with "justice". It's a futile endeavor...best to stick with the reasons, not the moral or legal fantasies. This is the brain knuckle that many can't overcome, but it is really quite simple, and you know it. The "power" that launched Tomahawks in 1998 or "invaded" in 2001 is one and the same....and it whistles Yankee Doodle Dandy.

When I watched the "Shock and Awh" attack on Bahagdad...I said one thing to myself concerning what appeared to be a video game war for the rich and bored with high end war toys ==== This will come to a grinding halt" and it did!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am ever so offended... Did you just leave the 6th grade? How about offering an actual opinion rather than a dismal insult. Or how about telling us how this situation is any different from how were were lied to in Vietnam.

BC the fact that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan with cruise missles years prior to the invasion doesn't make it right, nor does it pave the way for justifying an invasion as you attempted to. The only reason why no one retaliated or spoke out is because the US is the sole remaining superpower for now...

first off, that is my opinion. In my opinion troothers are idiots. Whether you are smert enough to understand Vietnam is highly debatable given that your a chock full of nuts regarding Afghanistan...

Secondly

BC the fact that the US illegally attacked Afghanistan with cruise missles years

There was nothing illegal about it. If you can find an internatioanl court ruling go ahead....but the fact is troothers and other tinfoil hat types trot out phrases like illegal and haven't a clue what they mean and carry no weight other than they, the tin foil hat troothers in their opinion, don't like it therefore, must be illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...