ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th April 2015, 07:21 PM   #121
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,903
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Which UN Mandate (not the capitalisation) was that, exactly? Please do not reverse the burden of proof. Thanks in advance.
My mistake, I meant per the cease-fire agreement we signed with Iraq.

UN Security Council resolution 687, Article 29 was the basis for their legality, the UN disputes this, but the UN's weak handling of Iraq after 1991 set up the conditions for the US invasion in 2003.


http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2015, 07:31 PM   #122
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
My mistake, I meant per the cease-fire agreement we signed with Iraq.

UN Security Council resolution 687, Article 29 was the basis for their legality, the UN disputes this, but the UN's weak handling of Iraq after 1991 set up the conditions for the US invasion in 2003.


http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
The UN does not dispute this, certain of their former officials do.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2015, 08:08 PM   #123
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
The Middle East is a region of the world, much like Latin America and to a lesser extent Africa, where the U.S. has played a pivotal or supporting role in a whole bunch of chaos that killed a whole bunch of people, some that deserved and many who did not.
Not really, no.

Our relationship with Middle Eastern countries has been largely a post WWII condition, unless you count President Jefferson's Barbary War, and even that didn't amount to much.

As always, left out of your light weight analysis is the Cold War. In Latin America, South East Asia, Central & South America we were countering the USSR. They backed scumbags and so did we.


Quote:
That's not to be construed as being an apologist for al Qaeda or any other Islamic fundamentalist terrorist cult, because it isn't. It is a recognition that U.S. actions abroad have reactions to them. Say you lived in a country where U.S. bombs are habitually dropped. Say you're the kind of guy that just wants to love his family, children to grow up, work hard and stay out of trouble. Well, bad news for you, but the Taliban, or ISIS or al Qaeda have come into town. What follows their appearance is U.S. air power.
Wow, the problem is that none of that stuff happened before 9-11-2001.

We did shell Lebanon, but that was AFTER they blew up the US Marine barracks in Beirut. Desert Storm saw 3,664 Iraqi Civilians killed ( http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8ap2.h...%201991%20Gulf).

We had forces stationed in the Sinai Desert for years. Never fired a shot.



Quote:
Huddled in your house with your family, praying that the planes dropping bombs don't blow your home to smithereens, one bomb explodes nearby and your world suddenly goes dark. When you wake up, you find the scene around you horrific and straight out of a nightmare, some of your family, maybe all of them, are either dead or seriously injured. Are you going to tell me that you would not be angry at the U.S. for dropping bombs?
Funny story, the USSR was in Afghanistan for 9 years. They killed between 75,000 to 90,000 of the locals there. The Russians were viscous about it too. They poisoned wells, destroyed entire villages, and threw tribal elders under the treads of their tanks.

Oddly enough, nobody from Afghanistan has gone after civilians in Moscow.

Funnier story, in Iraq, the first people they called for help when ISIS moved in to that house next door was...the USA. It's not like they're not familiar with our bang bang by now.

Quote:
I mean, be realistic. That's how a lot of people, men-women-children, have been recruited into terrorist organizations. Combine that with a population who as a whole are quite religious with groups that present themselves as Allah's soldiers.
Actually, most of those recruits have been deceived by conspiracy theories. The Protocols of Zion, and much of the BS you've just spewed here lead them to down that path.

I call it BS because you ignore hundreds of years of European meddling in the Arab word which have racked up colossal body-counts. Where are those attacks on the scale of 9-11?

Quite simply put, 9-11 was pulled off by rich Arabs as part of a power play, thinking that the US would withdraw from the region and cut its losses.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2015, 08:31 PM   #124
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
My mistake, I meant per the cease-fire agreement we signed with Iraq.
The USA was never at war with Iraq and had no standing to make peace treaties. The peace treaty was with the UN.

Quote:
UN Security Council resolution 687, Article 29 was the basis for their legality,
You'll be a while looking, if you look for the bit of that resolution that says "If the USA in its own opinion thinks Iraq broke this ceasefire, the USA can enter sovereign Iraqi territory at will and kill Iraqis without having to consult the UN or anyone else".

Quote:
the UN disputes this, but the UN's weak handling of Iraq after 1991 set up the conditions for the US invasion in 2003.
This seems like a non sequitur. How does this statement relate to the legality of the USA shooting down Iraqi planes in sovereign Iraqi territory that were not threatening or firing upon US forces after the UN-madnated ceasefire?
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2015, 08:59 PM   #125
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
The USA was never at war with Iraq and had no standing to make peace treaties. The peace treaty was with the UN.

You'll be a while looking, if you look for the bit of that resolution that says "If the USA in its own opinion thinks Iraq broke this ceasefire, the USA can enter sovereign Iraqi territory at will and kill Iraqis without having to consult the UN or anyone else".

This seems like a non sequitur. How does this statement relate to the legality of the USA shooting down Iraqi planes in sovereign Iraqi territory that were not threatening or firing upon US forces after the UN-madnated ceasefire?
You asked for the support, he cited UN security resolution 687 which gave the U.S. and others the power to take steps to arrange security for themselves.

No fly zone? Take it up with the security council and see how far that gets you.

We do understand your hypothetical objection, tho, get a time machine and a permanent seat on the security council and maybe someone will care.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 12:03 AM   #126
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You asked for the support, he cited UN security resolution 687 which gave the U.S. and others the power to take steps to arrange security for themselves.

No fly zone? Take it up with the security council and see how far that gets you.

We do understand your hypothetical objection, tho, get a time machine and a permanent seat on the security council and maybe someone will care.
Resolution 687 says absolutely no such thing. If you think it does, quote the relevant passage.

Your remarks seem to be an attempt to drag the conversation away from the point. I didn't bring up the absurd claim that the USA was "enforcing" a UN resolution when they were shooting down Iraqi planes in Iraqi airspace after the ceasefire. I merely challenged the person who made that claim to support it, which of course they cannot do.

If such things bother you, I can only suggest that you simply avoid threads where people post false things. Or find an alternative forum where people do not tend to challenge false statements.

You can of course instead say that you realise that said US actions were totally illegal and a breach of the ceasefire but that you support them anyway. It would be refreshing.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 06:09 AM   #127
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Resolution 687 says absolutely no such thing. If you think it does, quote the relevant passage.

Your remarks seem to be an attempt to drag the conversation away from the point. I didn't bring up the absurd claim that the USA was "enforcing" a UN resolution when they were shooting down Iraqi planes in Iraqi airspace after the ceasefire. I merely challenged the person who made that claim to support it, which of course they cannot do.

If such things bother you, I can only suggest that you simply avoid threads where people post false things. Or find an alternative forum where people do not tend to challenge false statements.

You can of course instead say that you realise that said US actions were totally illegal and a breach of the ceasefire but that you support them anyway. It would be refreshing.
lol OK! You ask what the support was, get the answer, hand wave it away.

I understand your opinion, but neither I nor really anyone else cares.

Not sure what this has to do with 911 anymore, of course.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 07:04 AM   #128
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
lol OK! You ask what the support was, get the answer, hand wave it away.
You seem to have a very broad definition of "hand waving" if someone can post a something which is just plain objectively false (e.g. that 687 authorised the USA to shoot down Iraqi planes and violate Iraqi territory whenever it felt like it), and have that blatant error pointed out, and then dismiss this as "hand waving".

What more do you want me to do? Post the entire text of 687 and go through it line by line with you, saying after every line "that line too fails to give the USA or anyone else carte blanche to engage in a shooting war any time they feel like it"?

Quote:
I understand your opinion, but neither I nor really anyone else cares.
Clearly you care enough to keep posting about it.

I admit I am not clear on your exact point or position though. Are you arguing that 687 did give license to violate Iraqi territory and kill Iraqi troops at will to anyone who felt like doing so? If so, on what basis? Or are you arguing something else, in which case what?
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 07:46 AM   #129
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
You seem to have a very broad definition of "hand waving" if someone can post a something which is just plain objectively false (e.g. that 687 authorised the USA to shoot down Iraqi planes and violate Iraqi territory whenever it felt like it), and have that blatant error pointed out, and then dismiss this as "hand waving".

What more do you want me to do? Post the entire text of 687 and go through it line by line with you, saying after every line "that line too fails to give the USA or anyone else carte blanche to engage in a shooting war any time they feel like it"?

Clearly you care enough to keep posting about it.

I admit I am not clear on your exact point or position though. Are you arguing that 687 did give license to violate Iraqi territory and kill Iraqi troops at will to anyone who felt like doing so? If so, on what basis? Or are you arguing something else, in which case what?
Mmmm, straw men in the morning. Anyway, last post:

"Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 04:18 PM   #130
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Mmmm, straw men in the morning. Anyway, last post:

"Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area."
Yes, that is the UN talking. The UN remains seized of the matter and the UN is declaring that it is willing to take further steps to implement the resolution and secure peace and security. Say, by passing a new resolution authorising the use of additional force if necessary.

How do you manage to read that passage as saying "the USA has unlimited authority to violate international law at will indefinitely, as long as they justify it with some talk about peace and security"?

It's a rather strange reading. The passage doesn't even identify the USA at all. Do you think that passage means any member of the coalition had unlimited and indefinite power to wander around Iraq shooting anyone they wanted?
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 05:16 PM   #131
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Yes, that is the UN talking. The UN remains seized of the matter and the UN is declaring that it is willing to take further steps to implement the resolution and secure peace and security. Say, by passing a new resolution authorising the use of additional force if necessary.

How do you manage to read that passage as saying "the USA has unlimited authority to violate international law at will indefinitely, as long as they justify it with some talk about peace and security"?

It's a rather strange reading. The passage doesn't even identify the USA at all. Do you think that passage means any member of the coalition had unlimited and indefinite power to wander around Iraq shooting anyone they wanted?
Good morning! Actually it means the security council of which the USA and Britain and France are permanent members.

I thought we were talking about no fly zones, not "unlimited and indefinite power to wander around Iraq shooting anyone they wanted," which is hyperbole you make up for reasons I can only guess mean you really do not want anyone to ever take you seriously.

Because I don't.

Good luck storming the castle!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 06:45 PM   #132
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Good morning! Actually it means the security council of which the USA and Britain and France are permanent members.

I thought we were talking about no fly zones, not "unlimited and indefinite power to wander around Iraq shooting anyone they wanted," which is hyperbole you make up for reasons I can only guess mean you really do not want anyone to ever take you seriously.
These goalposts are really moving around fast. Okay, now you think there's some specific language in there that says that the USA could fly into Iraqi airspace and shoot down Iraqi air force planes at will, but also says that the USA and other coalition members couldn't, say, walk onto Iraqi soil and shoot Iraqi army personnel? Where are you getting this stuff from?

If the text you cite really was an authorisation for the use of force by coalition members (and that claim is ridiculous), then it must have been authorisation for any member, because it doesn't specify the USA. It also must have been authorisation for any invasion of sovereign Iraqi territory and the killing of any Iraqi military personnel because it says nothing about airspace or planes.

Quote:
Because I don't.

Good luck storming the castle!
Repeating that you don't care or that you don't take me seriously, while repeatedly posting increasingly bizarre misreadings of 687 to defend the USA shooting down Iraqi planes after the cease-fire seems to me to be completely self-contradictory.

If I can ask a serious question, do you not understand the basic concept of a cease-fire? The idea is that you "cease", i.e. stop, "firing", i.e. shooting guns and missiles and things. If sides A and B have a cease-fire, that cease-fire doesn't stop just because B is flying its own planes around its own airspace fighting domestic rebels. The cease-fire didn't say that the Iraqi government had to let the Kurds secede, or stop fighting back against Kurdish military actions or anything of that sort which might justify the US breaking the cease-fire to support Kurdish actions.

Now I would have actually supported the UN breaking off the Kurdish portion of Iraq (and preferably Turkey too) and making the cease-fire conditional on Iraq and Turkey respecting the new Kurdish territory. That would have been nice. However in the real world that didn't actually happen, and so Iraq was at the time perfectly entitled to continue fighting a civil war against rebels on its own soil.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 07:54 PM   #133
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
These goalposts are really moving around fast...

If I can ask a serious question, do you not understand the basic concept of a cease-fire? .....However in the real world that didn't actually happen, and so Iraq was at the time perfectly entitled to continue fighting a civil war against rebels on its own soil.
heck, maybe the sovereign state of Iraq could gas those rebel Kurds huh?

Lol!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2015, 09:00 PM   #134
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
heck, maybe the sovereign state of Iraq could gas those rebel Kurds huh?

Lol!
Do you think you could try to rephrase that in the form of a coherent argument with premises and a conclusion stated in adult language, as opposed to emoticons and lols?

It's totally up to you. If you think this is a topic best discussed in lolspeak and emojis, that's your business in the end.
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2015, 05:43 AM   #135
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe View Post
Do you think you could try to rephrase that in the form of a coherent argument with premises and a conclusion stated in adult language, as opposed to emoticons and lols?

It's totally up to you. If you think this is a topic best discussed in lolspeak and emojis, that's your business in the end.
Your arguments get what they deserve

Those rascally "rebel" kurds!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2015, 10:45 AM   #136
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
The USA was never at war with Iraq and had no standing to make peace treaties. The peace treaty was with the UN.
That would be news to us. We were the 500lb gorilla in that fight, we forced them to the table and stared them down while they signed it.

The UN has no viable military force unless the US is involved. Look at how well they've done since we cut back our presence in UN fiascoes since 1993.

When people want to feel good about pretending to do something about a world hot-spot they call the UN. When they actually want something done they call the US.

It really is that simple.

Quote:
You'll be a while looking, if you look for the bit of that resolution that says "If the USA in its own opinion thinks Iraq broke this ceasefire, the USA can enter sovereign Iraqi territory at will and kill Iraqis without having to consult the UN or anyone else".
Here's the fun part: The Iraqis agreed to this stipulation when we hit them with it at the table. They snuck in an exception for helicopters that they used to put down the Shiite uprising, but we wanted to get out of there.

Quote:
This seems like a non sequitur. How does this statement relate to the legality of the USA shooting down Iraqi planes in sovereign Iraqi territory that were not threatening or firing upon US forces after the UN-madnated ceasefire?
Funny thing about that. The Iraqis only sent up four planes up after Desert Storm for 2 reasons: First, they'd be destroyed before they got their landing gear up, and second - they flew their air force into Iran during the war. Iran kept the planes because they've hilarious that way.

Anyway, it's not a non-sequitur. The UN's mishandling of the WMD issue left a large enough gray area for us to drive an Invasion Force through. More to the point, had Iraq simply complied the war never would have happened.

Quote:
Yes, that is the UN talking. The UN remains seized of the matter and the UN is declaring that it is willing to take further steps to implement the resolution and secure peace and security. Say, by passing a new resolution authorising the use of additional force if necessary.
It didn't have to. The US and the Coalition forces set up the No-Fly Zone WITH the Iraqis...then they shot at us whenever it tickled them to do so. They did so knowing we'd shoot shoot back. It got so bad toward the late 90s that we started dropping bombs filled with cement to save money.

Quote:
Repeating that you don't care or that you don't take me seriously, while repeatedly posting increasingly bizarre misreadings of 687 to defend the USA shooting down Iraqi planes after the cease-fire seems to me to be completely self-contradictory.
Only 4 Iraqi planes were shot down after the cease-fire. Force protection is always implied in any cease-fire or armistice agreement. We didn't have to spell it out, nor did the Iraqis in the case of their continued unfettered flights of Hind gunships after the war.

So you accuse us of flying around guns blazing when the fact is that Iraqi gunships flew combat flights against Shiites in Basra unmolested by our cap.

Why was that?

We honored the treaty that WE signed. We blasted Iraqi AA sites because they failed to honor the treaty THEY signed.

Last edited by Axxman300; 8th April 2015 at 10:46 AM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2015, 07:10 PM   #137
Kevin_Lowe
Guest
 
Kevin_Lowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,221
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
That would be news to us. We were the 500lb gorilla in that fight, we forced them to the table and stared them down while they signed it.

The UN has no viable military force unless the US is involved. Look at how well they've done since we cut back our presence in UN fiascoes since 1993.

When people want to feel good about pretending to do something about a world hot-spot they call the UN. When they actually want something done they call the US.

It really is that simple.
The honesty is refreshing, but you can't have it both ways. Either you can run the line "the USA respects and enforces international law!" or you can run the line " ha ha, we have all the guns, we do what we want!". Pick one.

I do find it interesting that I have never yet run into a poster who ran the first line but, when challenged, didn't switch to the second. I look forward to finding a counter-example to the theory that those who claim the USA respects and enforces international law universally have no actual ethical commitment to international law.

Quote:
Here's the fun part: The Iraqis agreed to this stipulation when we hit them with it at the table. They snuck in an exception for helicopters that they used to put down the Shiite uprising, but we wanted to get out of there.
Citation needed.

Quote:
Funny thing about that. The Iraqis only sent up four planes up after Desert Storm for 2 reasons: First, they'd be destroyed before they got their landing gear up, and second - they flew their air force into Iran during the war. Iran kept the planes because they've hilarious that way.
A serious question: Do you actually know what you are talking about, in which case you are being deliberately deceptive? Or are you just repeating things you heard on some stupid web site without bothering to check them?

I mean, it's not hard to look at Wikipedia. The "no fly zone" business went on for years and included extensive attacks on non-belligerant Iraqi installations, as well as installations firing on invading warplanes (which by law they were absolutely entitled to do, since there was no UN resolution authorising those planes to violate Iraqi airspace).

Quote:
Anyway, it's not a non-sequitur. The UN's mishandling of the WMD issue left a large enough gray area for us to drive an Invasion Force through. More to the point, had Iraq simply complied the war never would have happened.
No. There is no grey area. Absolutely nothing in international law says anything which by even the most determined misreading could be taken by a rational human being to mean "if random nation X violates a UN resolution, then random nation Y can conquer them and set up a puppet regime of their choosing".

Quote:
It didn't have to. The US and the Coalition forces set up the No-Fly Zone WITH the Iraqis...then they shot at us whenever it tickled them to do so. They did so knowing we'd shoot shoot back. It got so bad toward the late 90s that we started dropping bombs filled with cement to save money.
Do you see any ethical problem with posting this kind of revisionist history? Personally I see truth as being morally important.

Quote:
Only 4 Iraqi planes were shot down after the cease-fire. Force protection is always implied in any cease-fire or armistice agreement. We didn't have to spell it out, nor did the Iraqis in the case of their continued unfettered flights of Hind gunships after the war.
Implied in a cease-fire is that the other side won't come over to your side of the line and kill you. Also that the other side won't cross your line and fly around in your airspace threatening to kill anyone else who takes to the air, let alone actually doing so. That is not "force protection".

By your logic the Iraqi air force, if it had the capability, would have been completely within their rights to fly around continental US airspace shooting down US warplanes if they felt like it, and blowing up any anti-aircraft installations that targeted them, and indeed blowing up any that didn't target them. How anyone can believe that such a thing is by any stretch of the imagination compatible with a cease-fire is beyond me.

Quote:
So you accuse us of flying around guns blazing when the fact is that Iraqi gunships flew combat flights against Shiites in Basra unmolested by our cap.

Why was that?

We honored the treaty that WE signed. We blasted Iraqi AA sites because they failed to honor the treaty THEY signed.
Here is the text of 687, which you claim was the legal justification for the NFZ programme. Which of the thirty-four points exactly do you think supports no-fly zones? Name the exact point or point(s).
Kevin_Lowe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2015, 04:44 AM   #138
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,465
This is still the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory section, yeah?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.