The Gulf attacks were after war was declared by Germany. The U.S. destroyed a German weather station in Greenland sunk a German U Boat prior to pear harbor. A German U Boat attacked a U.S. convoy that was going to Great Britain prior to Pearl Harbor. DECEMBER 7, 1941 is the official date the everybody recognizes as the day America had to go and save the world as if we were just innocent bystanders that was attacked for no apparent reason.
There were 16 American cargo ships sunk in 1941 prior to Pearl harbor.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
There were 16 American cargo ships sunk in 1941 prior to Pearl harbor.
Agreed...Yet the U.S. didn't declare war. So going back to Pearl harbor was a false flag, it may not have been conducted at the direction of the U.S. government, but it wasn't a surprise since there were hostilities taking place before the attack. They need the public behind a large scale war, and sunken cargo ships wasn't enough for Americans to support such a war with the memory of WWI fresh in their minds.
Agreed...Yet the U.S. didn't declare war. So going back to Pearl harbor was a false flag, it may not have been conducted at the direction of the U.S. government,but it wasn't a surprise since there were hostilities taking place before the attack. They need the public behind a large scale war, and sunken cargo ships wasn't enough for Americans to support such a war with the memory of WWI fresh in their minds.
Quoted Text
It was common knowledge that Roosevelt knew an attack was coming in the Pacific, the US had broken the code on a Japanese message...the question was where? Roosevelt thought Japan would hit French or British interests much closer to its homeland. No one expected the hail mary that was Pearl Harbor
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The Pentagon on Wednesday said it was still investigating whether U.S. strikes in Syria on Tuesday killed a leader of the al Qaeda-linked Khorasan group, adding that it could take time to determine.
"We just don't have a confirmation to make at this point," said Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren. "We don't have personnel on the ground to verify, so we're continuing to assess."
Reuters quoted a U.S. official earlier on Wednesday saying the United States believed one of those killed in the strike against the group was Mohsin al-Fadhli, who the U.S. government has identified as a al Qaeda financier close to al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.
1. My condolences to Cicero. Sorry about your loss. 2. Congratulations to President Barack Hussein Obama on a job well done!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
the United States believed(could have, may have, wondering if, are assuming, think that) one of those killed in the strike against the group was Mohsin al-Fadhli
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Isis grew in power for one primary reason... The successor to the Bush Oil War in Iraq, Maliki, is a Shia. He oppressed the Sunni in Iraq leading to civil unrest. One more "legacy" of the GWB oil war is that the now suffering Sunni presented an opening for radical Islam to come to power in the form of ISIS.
Just think of all the lives saved, all the suffering and death prevented as well as $$$ wasted, if GWB didn't tell his LIES that drew us into his Oil War In Iraq.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Isis grew in power for one primary reason... The successor to the Bush Oil War in Iraq, Maliki, is a Shia. He oppressed the Sunni in Iraq leading to civil unrest. One more "legacy" of the GWB oil war is that the now suffering Sunni presented an opening for radical Islam to come to power in the form of ISIS.
Just think of all the lives saved, all the suffering and death prevented as well as $$$ wasted, if GWB didn't tell his LIES that drew us into his Oil War In Iraq.
Isis grew in power for one primary reason... The successor to the Bush Oil War in Iraq, Maliki, is a Shia. He oppressed the Sunni in Iraq leading to civil unrest. One more "legacy" of the GWB oil war is that the now suffering Sunni presented an opening for radical Islam to come to power in the form of ISIS.
Just think of all the lives saved, all the suffering and death prevented as well as $$$ wasted, if GWB didn't tell his LIES that drew us into his Oil War In Iraq.
There are several reasons... Iran has been meddling in Iraq for years, no surprise they want to see a Shia neighbor. ISIS grew in Syria, not Iraq..the civil war that is still going on has more to do with that anything else. The US should have never gone into Iraq, however I have seen no proof that it was done for Oil...
In Reality, we are much safer with Dictators and imperial rule in the middle east...The Shah of Iran, Assad, the Saudi family, Saddam Hussein... It may not be the best for their people, but it's pretty hard to argue that it isn't for us....
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
one would think that a famed noble peace prize winner would reverse the damage from the Bush's and Clinton administration! OOPS.... they hate us so much for dismantling their landscape and killing their innocent civilians, that even all the a$$ kissing that our noble peace prize winner did in the beginning of his administration.....didn't matter! fools!
Quoted Text
Afghanistan: Much criticized by the Afghani local government, Obama continued George W. Bush’s use of bombing, via aircraft and drones, of targets.
Iraq: Renewed bombings began in Iraq last month, following George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush in attacking terrorists there.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Associated Press By BERZA SIMSEK and RAPHAEL SATTER 24 minutes ago
But for a growing number of fundamentalist Muslim families, the group's territory is home.
"Who says children here are unhappy?" said Asiya Ummi Abdullah, a 24-year-old Muslim convert who traveled to the group's realm with her infant son last month. She said that living under Shariah, the Islamic legal code, means the boy's spiritual life is secure.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Politics U.S. Invokes Iraq’s Defense in Legal Justification of Syria Strikes
By SOMINI SENGUPTA and CHARLIE SAVAGESEPT. 23, 2014
UNITED NATIONS — The United States said on Tuesday that the American-led airstrikes against the Islamic State — carried out in Syria without seeking the permission of the Syrian government or the United Nations Security Council — were legal because they were done in defense of Iraq.
The American ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, officially informed the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, of the legal justification in a letter, asserting that the airstrikes had been carried out under a fundamental principle in the United Nations Charter. That principle gives countries the right to defend themselves, including using force on another country’s territory when that country is unwilling or unable to address it.
International law generally prohibits using force on the sovereign territory of another country without its permission or authorization from the United Nations, except as a matter of self-defense. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Islamic State poses no immediate threat to the United States, though they say that another militant group targeted in the strikes, Khorasan, does pose a threat. Continue reading the main story
Amid Airstrikes Against ISIS, Refugees Flee Syria Published Sept. 24
More than three million refugees have fled Syria since 2012. Most have crossed the border to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, with smaller numbers going to Iraq and Egypt. Only about 12 percent live in the large refugee camps that have been built; many of the rest live in substandard shelters in towns and villages. Related Maps and Multimedia »
Yet the letter asserted that Iraq had a valid right of self-defense against the Islamic State — also known as ISIS or ISIL — because the militant group was attacking Iraq from its havens in Syria, and the Syrian government had failed to suppress that threat. Because Iraq asked the United States for assistance in defending itself, the letter asserted, the strikes were legal.
“The Syrian regime has shown that it cannot and will not confront these safe havens effectively itself,” the letter states. “Accordingly, the United States has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions in Syria in order to eliminate the ongoing ISIL threat to Iraq, including by protecting Iraqi citizens from further attacks and by enabling Iraqi forces to regain control of Iraq’s borders.
“In addition the United States has initiated military actions in Syria against Al Qaeda elements in Syria known as the Khorasan Group to address terrorist threats that they pose to the United States and our partners and allies.”
The argument seems to have persuaded Mr. Ban to issue an implicit nod to the airstrikes. He told reporters earlier Tuesday that the strikes had been carried out “in areas no longer under the effective control of that government.”
The American government is also citing a Sept. 20 letter from Iraq’s minister of foreign affairs, Ibrahim al-Jafari, to the United Nations complaining that the Islamic State was attacking Iraq from its havens and saying that it had requested the United States’ assistance in defending itself.
Iraq has “requested the United States of America to lead international efforts to strike ISIL sites and military strongholds, with our express consent,” the Iraqi letter said. “The aim of such strikes is to end the constant threat to Iraq, protect Iraq’s citizens and, ultimately, arm Iraqi forces and enable them to regain control of Iraq’s borders.”
Two legal scholars, Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School and Ryan Goodman of the New York University School of Law, said the United States appeared to be on solid ground by invoking the argument of collective self-defense of Iraq, but that the notion that Syria’s sovereignty could legally be violated because it was “unable or unwilling” to suppress the threat would be more controversial. While the United States has long invoked that argument in various contexts, many international law scholars disagree with it, they said.
The United States is also asserting a right to defend its own personnel in Iraq from the Islamic State. American officials said this right, which was not asserted in the letter to Mr. Ban, should be understood as supplementary authority to helping Iraq defend itself directly.
Administration officials have said that as a matter of domestic law, they believe that the United States has statutory authority to attack the Islamic State under Congress’s 2001 authorization to fight Al Qaeda. They also believe that Congress’s 2002 authorization of the Iraq war could provide an alternate source of such authority. The United States has been bombing Islamic State forces in Iraq since August.
Both congressional authorizations provide legal authority for the strikes in Syria, too, the officials contended, because of the Islamic State’s history of ties to Al Qaeda — notwithstanding the fact that the two groups recently split. And, they said, the 2002 Iraq war authorization can be read in part as promising to help foster a stable, democratic government in Iraq, which would include defending it from terrorist attacks.
In May 2013, President Obama announced a new policy for targeted killings under which the United States would generally strike only at specific individuals who were deemed to pose a “continuing and imminent threat” of attacks on Americans. The policy appeared designed to foreclose the possibility of so-called signature strikes, which target groups of people whose identities are unknown but whose patterns of life suggest that they are members of militant groups.
Neither the strikes targeting the Islamic State nor those targeting Khorasan were based on any individualized, case-by-case analysis that a specific person in the strike zone posed a continuing and imminent threat to the United States, the officials said. Rather, the United States was hitting members of the groups based on their status as part of an enemy force.
The officials said the May 2013 policy for targeted killings did not apply to the broader armed conflict now underway in Iraq and Syria.
Somini Sengupta reported from the United Nations, and Charlie Savage from Washington.
Isis grew in power for one primary reason... The successor to the Bush Oil War in Iraq, Maliki, is a Shia. He oppressed the Sunni in Iraq leading to civil unrest. One more "legacy" of the GWB oil war is that the now suffering Sunni presented an opening for radical Islam to come to power in the form of ISIS.
Just think of all the lives saved, all the suffering and death prevented as well as $$$ wasted, if GWB didn't tell his LIES that drew us into his Oil War In Iraq.
ISIS has nothing to do with Bush. ISIS was formed and founded in Syria, not Iraq.
It's Obama's inaction led to it's rise. Everyone and their mother was telling Obama that these guys were not the same as AQ and that they were going to be a big problem if no action was taken.
What happens? Obama comes out and calls them a 'JV Team'. ISIS obliterates the cowards known as the Iraqi army every place north of Bagdad.
Sorry Boxy, you can't blame Bush for this one.
"Approval ratings go up and down for various reasons... An example is the high post 911 support for GWB even though he could be said to be responsible for the event." --- Box A Rox '9/11 Truther'
Melania is a bimbo... she is there to look at, not to listen to. --- Box A Rox and his 'War on Women'
Logged
