ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

They were Saudis, but the country itself was not involved; it was a band of criminals called the Taliban. There's a big difference. The king of Saudi Arabia was not responsible in any way for the attack on the twin towers.

On the same token, if any criminal element from the US attacks another country without the president's approval, that doesn't mean our country is involved.

Not a country, sorry, just a loose group of some Saudi nationals.

But later, it was decided (by Mr Cheney, and other like-minded criminals) that the country was Iraq.

Well, then Cicerone Imposter, if anyone who bombed or were planning to bomb US targets declared war on us, we have quite a lot on our hands.

Well, it looks like we have quite a few people who have declared war on us then--People who planned to bomb US targets.

Note:

Thwarted Attacks

Richard Reid, December 2001

A British citizen and self-professed follower of Osama bin Laden, Reid allegedly hid explosives inside his shoes aboard a flight from Paris to Miami and attempted to use a match to light the fuse in his shoe. The explosives were strong enough to cause damage to the plane if detonated. Caught in the act, Reid was apprehended on board the plane by the flight attendants with the assistance of passengers. FBI officials then took Reid into custody after the plane made an emergency landing at Boston's Logan Airport.[2]

Reid was found guilty of charges of terrorism in 2003, and a U.S. federal court sentenced him to life imprisonment.[3]

Jose Padilla, May 2002

U.S. officials arrested Padilla in May 2002 at O'Hare Airport in Chicago as he returned to the United States from Pakistan, initially charging him with being an enemy combatant and planning to use a "dirty bomb" (an explosive laced with radioac­tive material) in an attack against America.[4] Prior to his conviction, Padilla brought a case against the federal government stating that he had been denied the right of habeas corpus (the right of an individual to petition against his or her imprisonment). The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5"4 decision, found that the case had been filed improperly.[5] In 2005, the government officially indicted Padilla for conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups.[6]

In August 2007, Padilla was found guilty by a civilian jury after a three-month trial and a day and a half of deliberations.

Lackawanna Six, September 2002

When the FBI arrested Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Shafal Mosed, and Mukhtar al-Bakri, the press dubbed them the "Lackawanna Six" (also the "Buffalo Six" or "Buf­falo Cell"). Five of the six had been born and raised in Lackawanna, New York.[7] The six Amer­ican citizens of Yemeni descent were arrested for conspiring with terrorist groups. They had stated that they were going to Pakistan to attend a reli­gious training camp but instead attended an al-Qaeda "jihadist" camp.

All six pled guilty in 2003 to providing support to al-Qaeda. Faysal Galab received a seven-year sen­tence. Sahim Alwan got seven and a half years, while Yesein Taher and Shafal Mosed both received eight-year prison sentences. Mukhtar al-Bakri, the first to plead guilty, received a 10-year sentence, as did Yahya Goba.[8]

Iyman Faris, May 2003

A naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Kash­mir and living in Columbus, Ohio, Iyman Faris was arrested for conspiring to commit a terrorist act. He was suspected of planning to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge.[9] The New York City Police Department had learned about the plot and increased police surveillance around the bridge. Faced with this additional security, Faris and his superiors decided to cancel the attack.[10]

Faris pled guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to al-Qaeda. During his sentencing trial, he stated that he was innocent and had admit­ted a role in the plot to FBI agents only in order to trick the agents and secure a book deal. Faris was sentenced in Federal District Court to 20 years, the maximum allowed under his plea agreement.[11]

Virginia "Jihad" Network, June 2003

In Alexandria, Virginia, 11 men were arrested for weapons counts and for violating the Neutrality Act, which prohibits U.S. citizens and residents from attacking countries with which the United States is at peace. Of these 11 men, four pled guilty. Upon further investigation, the other seven members of the group were indicted on additional charges of conspiring to support terrorist organizations. They were found to have connections with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-i-Taiba, a terrorist organization that targets the Indian government.[12] The authori­ties stated that the Virginia men had used paintball games as a form of training and preparation for bat­tle.[13] The group had also acquired surveillance and night vision equipment and wireless video cameras.[14]

The spiritual leader of the group, Ali al-Timimi, was found guilty of soliciting individuals to assault the United States and was sentenced to life in prison. Ali Asad Chandia received 15 years for sup­porting Lashkar-i-Taiba but maintains his inno­cence.[15] Randoll Todd Royer, Ibrahim al-Hamdi, Yong Ki Kwon, Khwaja Mahmoud Hasan, Muhammed Aatique, and Donald T. Surratt all pled guilty and were sentenced to prison terms.[16] Masoud Khan, Seifullah Chapman, and Hammad Adur-Raheem were found guilty at trial.[17]

Dhiren Barot, August 2004

A terrorist cell under the leadership of Dhiren Barot was arrested for plotting to attack the New York Stock Exchange and other financial institu­tions in New York, Washington, and Newark, New Jersey, and later accused of planning attacks in England. The plots included a "memorable black day of terror" with the employment of a "dirty bomb."[18] A July 2004 police raid on Barot's house in Pakistan discovered a number of incriminating documents in files on a laptop computer that included instructions for building car bombs.[19]

Dhiren Barot pled guilty and was convicted in the United Kingdom for conspiracy to commit mass murder and sentenced to 40 years.[20]

**************************************************************

This is not a complete list.

I really do hope that President Obama does not spend so much time on the Basketball court that he will not be aware of the people who obviously hate us and want to kill us. But.maybe, if he discovers who the people are who want to kill us,like those in the above list, he can sit and reason with them. There is no one who could reason more effectively since President Obama understands Muslims. His relatives in Kenya are Muslims.

Cicerone Imposter is incredibly ignorant. It is NOT necessary for the president to declare war.

Truman did not declare war, by getting he approval of the Congress as any PRESIDENT must. Instead he wanted the UN's "moral authority" so he bypassed the security council and go authorization by the UN's general assemblym which American then dominated, on a mere-counting heads basis.

Most leftist liberals like Cicerone Imposter, either do not know,or will not admit that President Bush did not send troops into Iraq.

Quote from Robert Woodward's book "Plan of Attack" P. 351.

quote:

OnOc tober 10 and 11 the House and Sen ate overwhelmingly voted to GRAN THE PRESIDENT FULL AUTHORITY TO ATTACK IRAQ UNILATERALLY. The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The C ongress gave Bush the full-goahesd to use the military 'AS HE DETERMINES TO BE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE" to defend against the threat of Iraq.

It is amazine how one blogger like Cicerone Imposter can continue to post
repeated ignorant blogs. He almost nev er gives any evidence or documentation.

Note:


The President Must Have Congressional War Resolution Before Starting War
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., today said "U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and other congressional colleagues filed a lawsuit in a Boston Federal Court arguing that, according to the U.S. Constitution, President George W. Bush only has the authority to go to war in Iraq if Congress passes an official declaration of war - and Congress has not passed such a declaration. Congress cannot willingly or voluntarily relinquish its constitutional authority and responsibility in this critical area."

Jackson further stated, "An invasion of Iraq would violate Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that `Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War.' The Iraq Resolution passed by Congress on October 3, 2002, did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President that decision. Historical records show that the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents did not have the power of European monarchs to single-handedly declare and wage war."


CONGRESS DID NOT PASS AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR!!

genoves, You haven't absorbed anything I said; there's a big difference between a gang of insurgents vs a country. How do you manage to always come up with the wrong questions and conclusions?

The problem with this discussion at this point, in my opinion, is that there is no mention of the fact that many believe there are militants/terrorists that function as proxy armies to actual nation states. So, the old paradigm of armies meeting on a battlefield may not apply; the old paradigm of one military attacking a nation/kingdom (by surprise perhaps) may not apply. Currently there seems to be this new paradigm of proxy organizations operating in behalf of a funding/sponsoring nation state. It may mean we do not declare war officially, since the sponsoring nation state also did not declare war?

A possible close analogy is the American Indian hostilities that lasted in the U.S. west for close to 100 years. We might not have been officially at war with any tribe, yet people died on both sides. It was a war of attrition I think? But, not an official war, I believe.

Foofie, Your assumption that all future warfare will be done by militants/terrorists does not compute; there still exists frictions between countries. If all the nations agreed to work towards the elimination of militants/terrorists, it will still not accomplish that goal, because of long-term frictions that have existed over generations in many countries like Israel. There are always extremists who will not put down their weapons as long as they have a need for revenge or to accomplish political gains.

Whether it's a band of criminals, insurgents, tribes, and/or religious differences, conflict will continue to exist as long as humans have a need to survive, make revenge, or take over the government.

I have often wondered why we dident nuke Lockport New York after the Oklahoma City bombing. After all McVeigh was from there. On the other hand there is not oil in Lockport.

There is no oil in Israel or Afghanistan either. But there is an Iraq thread on which is is customary to make all sorts of criticisms, idiotic and otherwise, about who gets nuked over oil.

But meanwhile, based on the following piece, will you Palestinian-supporters, Israel-critics accuse Israel of starving the Palestinians when it is now the noble U.N. who is accusing Hamas of taking food out of the mouths of the people?

Read the post, goofy, and respond to the particulars in it. Cut out the posturing.

You are absolutely correct,Foofie. No Middle Eastern Country would declare war on us. Attacks by radical fundamentalist Muslims would be done as they have been done previously--as you said--"a new paradigmof proxy organizations".

Then who would attack us? Cicerone Imposter is so confused he does not see that there is no country in the world that would violate the
strictures laid down by MAD--Mutual Assured Destruction.

The Russians? They are working hard to get their country going economically. There would be NO point in attacking us.

The Chinese? Why would they ruin their drive to have the highest GDP in the world based on the Billions of goods they sell to us.

The only people we need to watch carefully and,perhaps,wipe out before they attack us again are the fundamentalist radical Muslims. They do not operate on rational grounds. Some of them are convinced that the world must submit to Islam--that the rest of the world must become Islamic.

Read it, Cicerone and respond to it and rebut it if you can. Please, none of your usual meaningless two line undocumented bull!


The President Must Have Congressional War Resolution Before Starting War
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2003

Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., today said "U.S. soldiers, parents of U.S. soldiers, and other congressional colleagues filed a lawsuit in a Boston Federal Court arguing that, according to the U.S. Constitution, President George W. Bush only has the authority to go to war in Iraq if Congress passes an official declaration of war - and Congress has not passed such a declaration. Congress cannot willingly or voluntarily relinquish its constitutional authority and responsibility in this critical area."

Jackson further stated, "An invasion of Iraq would violate Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which states that `Congress shall have Power . . . to declare War.' The Iraq Resolution passed by Congress on October 3, 2002, did not declare war and unlawfully ceded to the President that decision. Historical records show that the framers of the Constitution sought to ensure that U.S. presidents did not have the power of European monarchs to single-handedly declare and wage war."


CONGRESS DID NOT PASS AN OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF WAR

genoves, You are stupid! You haven't learned anything from my posts.

What you are describing is the procedure that our government goes through. If we are attacked by any nation, no president is not going to declare war. War has been declared by the very fact that another nation has attacked us.

Listen, if you can: no president is not going to declare war if another nation attacks us. Got that? It's a procedure that is required for congress to fund it.

In logic: If A, always B. B always follows A.

What you are describing on Bush's Iraq war is a different kettle of fish. It was illegal, and Iraq did not attack us.

I just had to comment that Cheney knew the attack was not by Iraq. Cheney and Bush, both oil men, went into Iraq to grab the oil. They had maps drawn up dividing Iraq among the US oil companies.

And you can provide proof of that statement?

If we went into Iraq solely for the oil, where is it?
Why hasnt a single US oil company started drilling in Iraq?
Why are all of the oil contracts going to other countries?

Also, since you made the claim, show us all the maps.

Here you go:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml

After looking at all of the map s, I dont see anything that even remotely supports the claim that

Really? I'd read that the deadline for the biding round had been extended from January 31 to mid-February.

Do you have a source for the results?