THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

McTag wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
McTag wrote:
McGentrix wrote:

I can agree with this.

You can agree with the statement that it does not matter whether the invasion was legal?
More sloppy bob and weave action... This is an excerpt from what he agreed with:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Bitch and moan all you want about our chosen method of remedy, whether or not it was legal, just or any other damn detail but stop pretending Saddam was in compliance! That part is not a matter of opinion.
I'd say Timber subsequently provided a damn strong case for legality anyway (certainly more convincing than your unsubstantiated proclamation to the contrary), but that is not what McG was agreeing with. This is the type of fact avoidance that drives me crazy.

I did not avoid answering all your points in order to bob and weave, but simply in order to cut to the chase. You don't mind a mixed metaphor or two, do you, since everything else seems to be allowable round these parts, not excluding obfuscation and irrelevancy heaped on irrelevancy. I do not have the time to pick through all the verbiage you guys throw up.

I don't answer every post line by line either so I certainly wouldn't expect you to. I would like to assume however that you actually read my posts before questioning others logic for agreeing with them. Nowhere in the piece McG quoted in agreement does it say "it does not matter whether the invasion was legal" or anything that could be reasonably construed to mean that. In fact, the only mention of legality in the whole piece was that it (legality) is open to debate. As seen above, my next statement addressed legality in a matter of fact tone while pointing out that it wasn't the point of my earlier disputed statement in the first place.

The bob and weave is in ducking the proven false "Saddam was in compliance" nonsense (that you, c.i. and Nimh were all party to) and attacking on another front. To that effect, Craven's completely uncalled for filibuster about my lack of International Law credentials buried that point better than you could have hoped to.

McTag wrote:

Nor do I think all the faults lie on one side only.

Nor do I. I'll take my fair share of blame for side tracking on these issues. My mini-rant about compliance; could be viewed by some to qualify.

McTag wrote:

I just want to question the basis for going to war. Tony Blair can't prove it was legal; he has avoided the issue. Nor can you. It is not.

By all means, question away. But, don't assert false points into my commentary in the process. I do not feel a burden to prove the war legal. I'm still waiting for a reasonable explanation for why some think it isn't (not having France's permission doesn't suffice for me :wink: ).

Steve: I can say,

Quote:

"The stability and security of the global petroleum market was a component as well, and, by extension, so was the overall economic security of all nations, in particular the United States, which imports nearly 60% of is daily oil requirement.",

without hesitation. I can even add Major in front of component but I do not accept your assumptions that it was the main or only reason. I think it is silly for anyone to assume that anyone is that single minded of purpose. Everyone here can easily think of at least a half a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq. Why do you continually assert there was only one?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Regarding the legality of the war....ask a lawyer. Lawyers advising the US and British administrations say it was legal. Lawyers not representing USUK govts say it was illegal. Take your pick. There is no such thing as International Law anyway, just legal opinion based on what the great powers have done in the past (and want to do in the future).

Pretty brave statement. Sounds similar to my suggestion that examining past precedents is relevant in determining the answer (and that didn't seem to fly :wink: ).
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why I picked so horribly wrong. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

The bob and weave is in ducking the proven false “Saddam was in compliance” nonsense (that you, c.i. and Nimh were all party to) and attacking on another front. To that effect, Craven’s completely uncalled for filibuster about my lack of International Law credentials buried that point better than you could have hoped to.

I was not party to any "Saddam was in compliance" argument because I think it irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. So I personally have no interest in burying that point.

More later.

0 Replies

Is that an explanation for attributing meanings into my posts that couldn't possibly have been derived from them? I apologize if I guessed wrong on your purpose. What was the purpose then? Do you mind sharing?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Neither is the use of grape jelly ... in fact neither grape jelly nor juvenile offenders are mentioned in the 1969 Vienna Convention.

There's something called "customary international law".
The "customary international law" principle comes under the same norm as the jus cogens stipulated by the "Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties".
Coming under the principles of jus cogens and opinio juris, the question of executing juvenile offenders has a supra-national identity and as a result, the practice is illegal, in whatever state or nation it is carried out.

Well, that's at least was is taught here in Europe :wink:

(As far as I remember, however - and this can be wrong [now] -, the US' argument always had been that they didn't ratify the Vienna Convention and thus it was value. [Which isn't general opinion either, since they are a member of the international community and thus governed by the same laws .... but that view isn't shared by the US either.])

0 Replies

Quote:

Everyone here can easily think of at least a half a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq. Why do you continually assert there was only one?

I don't think I do continually assert there was only one reason. I've said recently that it was for the control of oil AND the profitability of large corporations. [I suppose you could say that amounts to the same thing]

Its just a question of priorities.

For example which do you think ranks higher in the minds of the current American administration, the strategic economic interests of the United States, or the schooling of Iraqi children?

Saddam was a bad man, no doubt about it, and I'm glad he's gone. And yes the war was fought to get rid of him, but ONLY to put in place a government which would do the bidding of the United States. Any bonus in the form of freeing the people from tyranny was incidental to the main objective.

But of course in a democracy, freeing a people from tyranny and removing the threat from wmd, is more likely to garner popular support for war than a more honest call to arms. Which might have gone along the lines of

"Sh1t. There is big trouble ahead. Saudi Arabia is wobbling and we can't allow Saddam to get hold of nuclear weapons and long range missiles. [he doesnt have them yet but he will]. Iraq is a vital geopolitical pivot necessary for the control of the Eurasian heartlands. If he's left alone he will threaten oil interests from the Caspian to Yemen. Peak oil is just around the corner, we have to do something NOW. As it happens, with the demise of the USSR there is no one around to stop us, so there is an open window of opportunity that can't be missed. Moreover if we don't do something about Saddam, the Israelis are telling us they will nuke the bastard if he ever gets to within a mile of some plutonium, and if Israel starts a nuclear war we will end up losing millions of people. Saddam is never going to go quietly (not after we tried and failed to get rid of him first time), so its invade now or wait until he controls 70% of middle eastern oil and threatens Israel with argameddon."

How many ordinary Americans Bill, do you think would say, on hearing the pro war case put so bluntly, "ok lets start the war and get it over with"

and how many would say "This is a disgrace. There must be a better way of settling our differences and sharing oil resources other than war. I will not support this war"

My guess is that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people would reject a war on that basis. The US government knows this full well, hence the vigorous campaign of lies and deceipt to disguise the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

And of course it would have worked had the invasion gone according to plan.

0 Replies

Bravo, steve.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Danke

0 Replies

According to Anthony Aust:
Former Foreign Office deputy legal adviser and visiting professor of international law at the London School of Economics

Was the war in Iraq legal? "There is a good legal argument that it was lawful on the basis of earlier UN resolutions, such as 678 passed in 1990 and 687 in 1991, and subsequent action by the security council during the next decade. Resolution 678 was still in force. To say it was no longer effective because it was 13 years old is spurious. If you follow that argument most of our domestic laws would be no longer in force. Resolution 1441 [2002] was an uneasy compromise, the outcome of seven weeks of confidential negotiations by security council members. There were statements by all the members when it was adopted, but only one, Mexico, said there would have to be a second resolution before Iraq could be attacked.

A second resolution would have been desirable to put the legal position beyond all doubt and politically, but if the issue ever came before the international court of justice, it could be argued either way with equal cogency. I have been a lawyer long enough to know you can never predict the outcome of a legal case. What is clear, however, is that there was legal justification for the government's position.

According to Malcolm Shaw QC:
Professor of international law, Leicester University

Was the war in Iraq legal? "On the basis of the intelligence we had at the time and the publicly available knowledge, there was a credible and reasonable argument in favour of the legality of the war. The authorisation to use force in [UN resolution] 678 included the restoration of international peace and security as well as the liberation of Kuwait. Resolution 687, after the 1991 ceasefire, included getting rid of... weapons of mass destruction.

The run of resolutions after that shows there was still backing for it in the security council. The possession of such weapons constituted a threat to international peace and security. Resolution 1441 [in 2002] reiterated that. It was the common belief of the security council that Iraq had such weapons, and that they constituted a breach of binding resolutions. We know [from the Blix report] that Iraq did not fully cooperate. Through that period there was a long series of security council resolutions condemning the Iraqis for what was believed to be their possession of WMD."

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
Everyone here can easily think of at least a half a dozen good reasons to invade Iraq. Why do you continually assert there was only one?

I don't think I do continually assert there was only one reason. I've said recently that it was for the control of oil AND the profitability of large corporations. [I suppose you could say that amounts to the same thing]

Eh, yup. :wink:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

For example which do you think ranks higher in the minds of the current American administration, the strategic economic interests of the United States, or the schooling of Iraqi children?]

I trust that was retorical? (I agree with you)

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Saddam was a bad man, no doubt about it, and I'm glad he's gone. And yes the war was fought to get rid of him, but ONLY to put in place a government which would do the bidding of the United States. Any bonus in the form of freeing the people from tyranny was incidental to the main objective.

Steve, the result remains the same. MILLIONS freed from his oppressive, murderous reign. This would not have happened without the war. Is this just an incidental piece of meaningless trivia to you? It isn't to me, nor to millions of other people who, like you, are glad he's gone. That wasn't going to take care of itself.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

But of course in a democracy, freeing a people from tyranny and removing the threat from wmd, is more likely to garner popular support for war than a more honest call to arms. Which might have gone along the lines of

"Sh1t. There is big trouble ahead. Saudi Arabia is wobbling and we can't allow Saddam to get hold of nuclear weapons and long range missiles. [he doesnt have them yet but he will]. Iraq is a vital geopolitical pivot necessary for the control of the Eurasian heartlands. If he's left alone he will threaten oil interests from the Caspian to Yemen. Peak oil is just around the corner, we have to do something NOW. As it happens, with the demise of the USSR there is no one around to stop us, so there is an open window of opportunity that can't be missed. Moreover if we don't do something about Saddam, the Israelis are telling us they will nuke the bastard if he ever gets to within a mile of some plutonium, and if Israel starts a nuclear war we will end up losing millions of people. Saddam is never going to go quietly (not after we tried and failed to get rid of him first time), so its invade now or wait until he controls 70% of middle eastern oil and threatens Israel with argameddon."

How many ordinary Americans Bill, do you think would say, on hearing the pro war case put so bluntly, "ok lets start the war and get it over with"

Frankly I think the numbers would have been similar. I think you underestimate the intelligence of the American people (just like Bush does). I believe a large portion of Americans did see this, just like you described above and agreed for those very reasons. I would go further and state that many were even put off by the lousy exaggerating way the war was sold to them. I was. But that didn't change my opinion that it was overdue work that needed to be done. Bush's moral reasons or lack thereof have no bearing on my own. I believe taking out Saddam to be the "good fight" and can't fathom for the life of me how someone as smart as you, c.i., McTag, Walter etc. could see it any other way. The man was a monster and we all know it.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

and how many would say "This is a disgrace. There must be a better way of settling our differences and sharing oil resources other than war. I will not support this war"

The same anti-war folks you are hearing from now. We took out a Mass Murdering Bastard. You have to be pretty deadset against violence to not see him as a worthy target.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

My guess is that the overwhelming majority of ordinary people would reject a war on that basis. The US government knows this full well, hence the vigorous campaign of lies and deceipt to disguise the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

My guess is no better than yours, but it is the precise opposite. Providing a true understanding of who Saddam was and what he meant to Iraq was not some propaganda made up to sell a war. It was the truth. The man was a monster. Bush overplayed the WMD card, no doubt about it. But that wasn't the only compelling reason to attack Iraq. I wish I could persuade you to put out of your mind those who are profiting undeservedly by this war for a moment and consider those who are profiting so much more and do deserve it, for they are no different than you or I. Forget Oil and Rumsfeld and even stability for a moment... doesn't the remaining information still point to a monster that should be stopped?

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

And of course it would have worked had the invasion gone according to plan.

And, with a little luck, it still may.

0 Replies

Quote:

We are teachers of international law. On the basis of the information publicly available, there is no justification under international law for the use of military force against Iraq.

The UN charter outlaws the use of force with only two exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack and action authorised by the security council as a collective response to a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.

There are currently no grounds for a claim to use such force in self-defence.

The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in international law.

Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.

Before military action can lawfully be undertaken against Iraq, the security council must have indicated its clearly expressed assent.

It has not yet done so.

A vetoed resolution could provide no such assent.

The prime minister's assertion that in certain circumstances a veto becomes "unreasonable" and may be disregarded has no basis in international law.

The UK has used its security council veto on 32 occasions since 1945.

Any attempt to disregard these votes on the ground that they were "unreasonable" would have been deplored as an unacceptable infringement of the UK's right to exercise a veto under UN charter article 27.

A decision to undertake military action in Iraq without proper security council authorisation will seriously undermine the international rule of law. Of course, even with that authorisation, serious questions would remain.

A lawful war is not necessarily a just, prudent or humanitarian war.

Prof Ulf Bernitz, Dr Nicolas Espejo-Yaksic, Agnes Hurwitz, Prof Vaughan Lowe, Dr Ben Saul, Dr Katja Ziegler (University of Oxford), Prof James Crawford, Dr Susan Marks, Dr Roger O'Keefe (University of Cambridge), Prof Christine Chinkin, Dr Gerry Simpson, Deborah Cass (London School of Economics), Dr Matthew Craven (School of Oriental and African Studies), Prof Philippe Sands, Ralph Wilde (University College London), Prof Pierre-Marie Dupuy (University of Paris).

McG - we are not going to play the "I-have-and-I-have-better-professors-game" aren't we :wink:

0 Replies

Damned near a futile discussion, as are many such; arguments dear and central to the positions of those on either side are practically genetically coded. In the ultimate test, history will provide much clarification of reasons and justifications or lack thereof. Of course, one of the problems with history is that it requires patience. Another is that frequently it provides unexpected answers.

I remain convinced Iraq's Ba'athist/Saddamite regime was a nexus for terrorist activity, a destabilizing presence in the Middle East - and thus a globally destabilizing force - and that with or without physical stockpiles of WMD, Iraq retained both the intent and the capability to rapidly produce and deploy same. I am thoroughly convinced Iraq's actions in the matter of disarmament lead to no other conclusion, and that to allow that situation to pertain would have been folly bordering on criminal negligence. I remain thoroughly unconvinced either corporate or personal profitibaility played any role whatsoever in the decision to resume hostilities, though I am convinced both considerations were significant factors in the opposition to intervention.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Damned near a futile discussion, as are many such; arguments dear and central to the positions of those on either side are practically genetically coded. In the ultimate test, history will provide much clarification of reasons and justifications or lack thereof. Of course, one of the problems with history is that it requires patience. Another is that frequently it provides unexpected answers.

Yeap, been going on for some VI separate threads - and back to the beginning. From then till now I have said it matters not if WMD or al Queda is there - preemptive war of this nature is criminal. International criminal court court could decide it before history - but, somehow I doubt it. And, that doubt doesn't simply come from Bush's "veto" of the World Court - which is more of his premeditative insurance that wouldn't work.

0 Replies

The real question comes down to whether a preemptive war is justified on faulty intelligence. I say no; errors in intelligence makes it all wrong. There must be 100 percent proof of what is being charged; not presumptions and guesses based on hearsay.

0 Replies

I really can't agree that the invasion was to get rid of a bad man.

How come he wasn't so bad in the 1980s when America and Britain tacitly supported Saddam against Iran? It was at this time that he was doing most of his murderous work, Hallabja, the murder of British journalist Faroz Bazhoft (apologies for spelling) etc etc. Damn it I was working for a British company that was selling equipment to the Iraqi Army, with full cover export credit guarantee courtesy of Maggie Thatcher. That was about the same time Donald Rumsfeld (working for Union Carbide I think) was in Baghdad shaking hands with Saddam as he sold him the precursor chemicals for chemical weapons agents.

I didn't go to Iraq myself, but some of my colleagues did, checking equipment in the field as well as arranging further deals, some of the stories they came back with made your hair curl. So I need no lessons about Saddam being a 24 carat sob.

Just out of interest, I might have mentioned this before, the kit we were supplying to Iraq were mobile hydrogen generators. (for weather balloons to feed atmospheric data back to gun aiming and control system). Some of the remnants of this very kit were found after the war and hailed as "Saddam's mobile biological warfare laboratories"

Is there still time for Iraq to come right? well Ehud Barak told Dick Cheney last Autumn that the situation was lost. "All you can do with an occupation is limit the extent of your humiliation" and that from a former Israeli pm who knew a thing or two about occupations.

Seems to me that two catastrophic things went wrong. 1. The neocons believed their own propaganda. 2. America never put enough effort into proving their good intentions towards Iraq during that vital period after the fall of Baghdad. {too busy clearing out the swimming pools in the Green Zone in July August last year instead of working hard to get the electricity supply up and running for the Iraqi people if you as me}

So its gone invasion liberation occupation resistance

when it could/should/might have gone invasion liberation rebuilding democratisation peaceful co existance

I just don't know what will happen next. I really do hope something can be retrieved of the situation, but I fear what we see now is just the beginning of worse to come.

0 Replies

U.S. Withdraws UN Measure on Immunity for Soldiers

34 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Evelyn Leopold and Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States abandoned its effort on Wednesday to seek a U.N. exemption for U.S. soldiers from prosecution overseas and withdrew a Security Council resolution because it lacked support.

"The United States has decided not to proceed further with consideration and action on the draft at this time in order to avoid a prolonged and divisive debate," said James Cunningham, the U.S. deputy ambassador. "We are dropping action on this resolution."

Washington in the past has threatened to veto U.N. peacekeeping missions if the resolution giving it immunity from the new International Criminal Court were not adopted. Cunningham would not comment about whether it would carry out the threat this time.

The United States has rarely faced such opposition in the council, with the notable exception of its attempt to get U.N. endorsement for the invasion of Iraq (news - web sites) last year. Since then, the council has backed Washington on its plans in Iraq, with far less acrimony than before the war.

But this year's specter of U.S. abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites) made it difficult for members to extend the resolution for the third time, even though analysts say the scandal would not come before the new tribunal, based in The Hague (news - web sites), Netherlands.

"My government is under particular pressure not to give a blank check to the United States for the behavior of its forces," said China's U.N. ambassador, Wange Guangya.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) helped harden position in the council by telling members last week to oppose the resolution, saying it sent an "unfortunate signal any time -- but particularly at this time."

NOT ENOUGH VOTES

The Bush administration needed a minimum of nine "yes" votes in the 15-member Security Council for an exemption from the new International Criminal Court. But more than seven countries signaled they would abstain.

The resolution was first adopted in 2002 after the Untied States threatened to veto U.N. peacekeeping operations. It was renewed again last year. The current exemption will run out June 30, the date on which the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq is to hand over sovereignty to an interim government.

The new court, which is largely financed by Europeans, is to try individuals responsible for the world's worst atrocities, including genocide, war crimes and systematic human rights abuses -- a belated effort to fulfill the promise of the Nuremberg trials that prosecuted Nazi leaders after World War II.

The Bush administration opposes on principle an international court having jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers abroad. It argues the court would hinder global peacekeeping obligations.

Proponents of the court say it is a tribunal of last resort and only accepts cases when a nation is willing or unable to prosecute, making it unlikely a country with a functioning justice system, like the United States, would ever see its citizens before the tribunal.

All European Union (news - web sites) members, except for the Czech Republic, are among the 94 countries who had ratified a 1998 treaty creating the court. And among the EU council members, only Britain had said it would vote in favor, while France, Germany and Spain made clear they would abstain.

0 Replies

Heard Clinton on NPR this morning with Juan Williams. It was very refreshing to hear someone articulate an answer, handle followup questions and delicate positions. This just showed what a dunce Bush is <sigh>

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I really can't agree that the invasion was to get rid of a bad man.

How come he wasn't so bad in the 1980s...

He was, Steve, he was and you know he was. Buried beneath your contempt for this administration, you do know it. You also indicated you know precisely how bad he was, too. Focus on that, and only that, for a moment...

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

So its gone invasion liberation occupation resistance

when it could/should/might have gone invasion liberation rebuilding democratisation peaceful co existance

Was the second sequence your preference? Perhaps we are not so very far apart on this. My fingers remain crossed for that scenario.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Am I declaring myself qualified to interpret international law? No. Are you?
Yes. I am well versed in this facet of International Law.

As of this post of yours, you have failed to provide evidence of your claim that you are in fact "well versed in this facet of International Law." Until you do so, your questioning of others about International Law without contributing anything yourself about what about that law relevant to this discussion is suspect. Also, do not fail to grasp a fundamental requirement. Only that International Law to which the US is a treaty signatory is also part of US Law.

Quote:

[boldface added]

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
…
Article III
…
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;-- between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
…
Article VI
…
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Are you aware that the UN Treaty signed by the US (i.e., a part of the US's supreme law of the land, see above) grants to each member state the legal right to defend itself against aggression without obtaining an approving UN resolution?

That is exactly what the US is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is defending Americans against those who have declared war against Americans.

Quote:

BIN LADEN'S FATWA

The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

…

Praise be to Allah, we seek His help and ask for his pardon. we take refuge in Allah from our wrongs and bad deeds. Who ever been guided by Allah will not be misled, and who ever has been misled, he will never be guided. I bear witness that there is no God except Allah-no associates with Him- and I bear witness that Muhammad is His slave and messenger.
…
My Muslim Brothers of The World:
Your brothers in Palestine and in the land of the two Holy Places are calling upon your help and asking you to take part in fighting against the enemy --your enemy and their enemy-- the Americans and the Israelis. they are asking you to do whatever you can, with one own means and ability, to expel the enemy, humiliated and defeated, out of the sanctities of Islam. Exalted be to Allah said in His book: { and if they ask your support, because they are oppressed in their faith, then support them!} (Anfaal; 8:72)
...

Quote:

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
…
Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.
…
We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
...

Quote:

Al-Qaida Statement Warning Muslims Against Associating With The Crusaders And Idols
Jun 09, 2004
…
Once again, we repeat our call and send this clear message to our Muslim brothers, warning against fellowship with the Crusaders, the Americans, Westerners and all idols in the Arab Gulf. Muslims should not associate with them anywhere, be it in their homes, complexes or travel with them by any means of transportation.

Prophet Muhammad said "I am free from who lives among idols".

No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.
…
We further repeat our warning to the officials and those who guard the American complexes and who stand with America and its hired help, who takes up arms against the Mujahideen for defending for them and their interests such as the Saudi government and others who choose to support the idol’s regime over the Islamic one. We call them to repent, separate and to hate idols by fighting them with money, tongues and arms.
…
Al-Qaida Organization of the Arab Gulf
19 Rabbi Al-Akhir 1425

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Since craven says he knows about such things, I wish he would explain why the Iraq war was illegal in simple terms so that we all can understand it. I would just like to read it for my own sake.

I did not say the war was illegal but I will indeed explain the details later. I will however let Bill and Timber try to make their cases first. Bill's still smarting on being called on for having an utterly basless opinion and Timber is grasping at straws with unrelated documents.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

To that effect, Craven's completely uncalled for filibuster about my lack of International Law credentials buried that point better than you could have hoped to.

That's rich bill. I don't need any credentials from you. I asked for a couple of sentences to demonstrate that you have an elementary understanding of the laws you are opining on.

That is not a "filibuster".

But hey, I understand, if someone called me on something and I was left exposed for opining with a total dearth of factual basis I too might be inclined to think it's "uncalled for". Rolling Eyes

It's a simple concept this intellectual honesty thing Bill. And I don't happen to think it is uncalled for.

If you ever see me simply talking out of my ass and opining on things about which you can clearly see that I do not know a whit and have no factual basis please call me on it.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I'm sure you're after something here, CdK, but I must be having an attack of obtuseness; I can't figure out exactly what it is you are after.

1) You claimed, in no uncertain terms that the war was "legal". You said so multiple times.

2) The evidence you cite for legality contains ridiculous errors (I'll point some out in this post) and I asked you if you even know anything at all about the law in this regard. Just a couple of sentences worth.

I trust this clears it up. You claimed the war was legal and I think you are bluffing. I do not think you know a whit about what the law is in this kind of case and I am asking you if you know the law and use it to form the basis of your opinion.

So again I ask:

Timber, you claimed that the war in Iraq was "legal" multiple times, do you have any idea at all as to what the law is and what factors would make it legal?

If so, please tell us what the law is (nothing fancy, a few sentences will do).

If not, what is your repeated opinion about the war's legality based if not on law?

Quote:

I would contend, if forced to sum up in a few words, that Article 60 of the 1969 Vienna Convention says it pretty well:
(Paraphrasing) A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties to that treaty entitles the other parties, severally or singley, to suspend operation of the treaty in question or to terminate it.

I did not ask what random ideas you had about the Vienna Convention (which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the war in Iraq). I asked you to tell us if you have an elementary understanding of the laws you reference when repeatedly claiming the war in Iraq was "legal".

Hint: that treaty has nothing to do with the law in this regard.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know