Stop Press - US and UK have Uranium Enrichment Plants

Originally posted by BigTrain
How many times do we have to go over this. We got ATTACKED. Now its time to kill em all and let "God" sort em out.

Train

Wow, a mind so perfectly programmed that it would spew this out. All action, NO thought.

I have too many avenues to debate this that I may damn near have a mental meltdown.

OK, avenue #1, did you give any thought that this is what your "supposed enemies" are thinking to? I'll answer my own question, "Looks like it to me Bob." "Kill them all", damn good slogan for a terrorist. Oops, this was used by who though here? Er, um, Train!!! The similarities are starting to add up.

Avenue #2,"WE GOT ATTACKED!" Sorry to hear that, have you determined WHO attacked you? Or are you still going to take the word of the people that just may have attacked you that others did?

I could argue that it was, if not a gov't opperation, that it was one that was IGNORED by the gov't. Rep/Dem I don't care so don't play that disinfo ploy.

One thing that can't be denied is that fear is being fed to the American public, how you deal with it will dictate how you live, how you feel, how you react. But I'll tell you "Kill them all and let God sort them out" is about as relevent as the spewings coming from the media about what is going on in the ME.

Originally posted by BigTrain
How many times do we have to go over this. We got ATTACKED. Now its time to kill em all and let "God" sort em out.

Train

Wow. No comment. Cough Cough Brainwashed Cough Cough.

And as for the UN Charter. This is the same UN Charter that says we dont have any rights! It says that the UN is the absolute authority, and all member nations must abide by its bidding or risk expulsion. So much for freedom.

The Globalists are using the UN to create a world government,andyou are falling right into their hands.....

I’m not an expert on International Law, nor do I care to be. From what you self-made “experts” seem to be saying, though, International Law is not binding or enforceable, nor does it ever supersede National Laws written into the Constitution of any individual state. In other words, it’s a lot like the “Wild, Wild West” in the world today, and anything goes as long as you can back it up militarily and it’s says it’s OK in your constitution.

Since I’m no expert, it’s not easy for me to refute this line of thinking, and judging from America and the UK’s reckless, criminal conduct around the world, it leads me to think you’re probably correct. This Non-Rule of International Conduct applies to all countries, I assume, as long as they can backup their intrinsically criminal behavior with the necessary force. In reality it usually comes down to who has the biggest gun.

However, that doesn’t mean that I have to approve of it, or consider it as characteristic of a civilized nation. IMHO it just goes to show how far our species has NOT gone down the evolutionary trail, and it’s this kind of herd-like mentality and belief system that will one day lead to our mutual destruction.

WestPoint23

As you can see under Article 51 the countless attacks upon our fighter jets patrolling the No-Fly zones would have alone given the US the right to retaliate against Iraq.

According to the Global Policy Forum, at page www.globalpolicy.org...:

“In April 1991, claiming a false authority under Security Council Resolution 688, the US, UK and France began to patrol the skies over northern Iraq, excluding Iraqi aircraft from this zone. The same powers started to enforce a second “no fly” zone in southern Iraq a few months later. Announced as a means to protect Iraqi Kurds (in the north) and Iraq’s Shi’a population (in the south), the no-fly has offered dubious humanitarian protection, while engaging Iraq’s government in ceaseless military pressure. France eventually withdrew from the no-fly process. The US-UK turned no-fly into an even more aggressive operation after 1998, when “more robust rules of engagement” have led to regular bombing of ground targets and substantial civilian casualties.”

The above, and many other topics regarding International Policy can be found at www.globalpolicy.org...

I’m no expert, however, and can’t vouch for the validity of the above. I have faith you “experts” will show me the error of my way.

Who the aggressor is, and who is right or wrong here, is a subjective matter, and the true “terrorist” just depends on the side of the fence you happened to fall on. It’s a matter of who’s propaganda you choose to believe and your personal spin on it.

All I know is, I’d hate to be an Iraqi or Iranian these days, considering that a crazed, loose cannon like America is running around the world sticking their nose into everyone else’s business in the name of “Freedom and the American Way”. If I was, I’d arm myself to the teeth and prepare for the onslaught.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag …”

Apologies for the large quote but it seemed important, as this is at the HEART of the issue imo:

www.centennialofflight.gov...

Civil aviation security exists to prevent criminal activity on aircraft and in airports. Criminal activity includes acts such as hijacking (air piracy), damaging or destroying aircraft and nearby areas with bombs, and assaulting passengers and aviation employees. Today, aviation security is high on the list of priorities of air travelers, the Federal Government, and the international air community. In the earliest days of aviation, however, aviation security was only a minor concern.



The first recorded hijacking occurred in May 1930, when Peruvian revolutionaries seized a Pan American mail plane with the aim of dropping propaganda leaflets over Lima. No hijackings were then recorded until 1947. Between that year and 1958, 23 hijackings were reported, mostly committed by eastern Europeans seeking political asylum. The world's first fatal hijacking took place in July 1947 when three Romanians killed an aircrew member.



The first major act of criminal violence against a U.S. airliner occurred on November 1, 1955, when Jack Graham placed a bomb in luggage belonging to his mother and killed all 44 people on board a Denver-bound plane. Graham had hoped to cash in his mother's life insurance policy; instead, he was sentenced to death. In January 1960, a heavily insured suicide bomber killed all aboard a National Airlines plane, sparking demands for the use of baggage-inspection devices.



Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959, and soon after, the number of hijackings began to grow. At first, flights were hijacked by those wishing to escape from Cuba. The pattern changed in May 1961, with the first American airliner diverted to Cuba. Other such incidents took place that summer, and the government began using armed guards on commercial planes when requested by the airlines or the FBI. In September, President John F. Kennedy signed legislation that prescribed the death penalty or at least 20 years' imprisonment for air piracy.



The skies remained relatively quiet until February 21, 1968, when a fugitive forced a DC-8 plane to fly to Cuba. This started a rash of hijackings in the United States that would last through 1972. Worldwide, the U.S. Department of Transportation placed the total number of hijackings from 1968 through 1972 at 364.



The international aviation community had earlier recognized the seriousness of air piracy. In 1963, the Convention on Offenses and Certain Other Acts Committed on Board Aircraft (known as the Tokyo Convention) had been drafted, requiring the prompt return of hijacked aircraft and passengers. In December 1970, the United States and 49 other nations signed the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (Hague Convention). Ratified by the U.S. Senate in September 1971, it categorized hijacking as a criminal rather than as a political act. The 1971 Montreal Convention, which went into force in 1973, strengthened the earlier agreements.



Although most hijackings in the 1960s were to Cuba, in August 1969, Arab terrorists carried out the first hijacking of a U.S. aircraft flying outside the Western Hemisphere when they diverted an Israel-bound TWA aircraft to Syria. Another incident that October involved a U.S. Marine who sent a TWA plane on a 17-hour circuitous journey to Rome. This was the first time that FBI agents attempted to thwart a hijacking in progress and that shots were fired by the hijacker of a U.S. plane. Other violent incidents followed. In March 1970, a copilot was killed and the pilot and hijacker seriously hurt during a hijacking. The first passenger death in a U.S. hijacking occurred in June 1971.



Following the hijacking of eight airliners to Cuba in January 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created the Task Force on the Deterrence of Air Piracy.

This is a BIGGIE folks, look at the year.

The Task Force developed a hijacker “profile” that could be used along with metal detectors (magnetometers) in screening passengers. In October, Eastern Air Lines began using the system, and four more airlines followed in 1970. Although the system seemed effective, a hijacking by Arab terrorists in September 1970, during which four airliners were blown up, convinced the White House that stronger steps were needed. On September 11, 1970, President Richard Nixon announced a comprehensive anti-hijacking program that included a Federal marshal program.



In early March 1972, the discovery of bombs on three airliners led President Nixon to speed certain FAA rulemaking actions to tighten airline security. In October, however, four hijackers bound for Cuba killed a ticket agent. The next month, three criminals seriously wounded the copilot of a Southern Airways flight and forced the plane to takeoff even after an FBI agent shot out its tires. These violent hijackings triggered a landmark change in aviation security. In December, the FAA issued an emergency rule making inspection of carry-on baggage and scanning of all passengers by airlines mandatory at the start of 1973. An anti-hijacking bill signed in August 1974, sanctioned the universal screening.



These stringent measures paid off, and the number of U.S. hijackings never returned to the worst levels before 1973. No scheduled airliners were hijacked in the United States until September 1976, when Croatian nationalists commandeered a jetliner. Two fatal bombings did occur, though: a bomb exploded in September 1974, on a U.S. plane bound from Tel Aviv to New York, killing all 88 persons aboard, and a bomb exploded in a locker at New York's LaGuardia Airport in December 1975, killing 11. That bombing caused airports to locate lockers where they could be monitored.



In June 1985, Lebanese terrorists diverted a TWA plane leaving Athens for Beirut. One passenger was murdered during the two-week ordeal; the remaining 155 were released. This hijacking, as well as an upsurge in Middle East terrorism, resulted in several U.S. actions, among them the International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985 that made Federal air marshals a permanent part of the FAA workforce.



On December 21, 1988, a bomb destroyed Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the London-to-New York flight, as well as 11 on the ground were killed. Investigators found that a bomb concealed in a radio-cassette player had been loaded on the plane in Frankfort, Germany. This tragedy followed an FAA bulletin issued in mid-November that warned of such a device and one on December 7 of a possible bomb to be placed on a Pan Am plane in Frankfort. Early in 2001, a panel of Scottish judges convicted a Libyan intelligence officer for his role in the crime.



Security measures that went into effect for U.S. carriers at European and Middle East airports after the Lockerbie bombing included requirements to x-ray or search all checked baggage and to match passengers and their baggage.



During and after the 1990s, the FAA sponsored research on new equipment to detect bombs and weapons and made incremental improvements to aviation security that included efforts to upgrade the effectiveness of screening personnel at airports. In 1996, two accidental airline crashes focused attention on the danger of explosions aboard aircraft, including those caused by hazardous cargo. The FAA's response included banning certain hazardous materials from passenger airplanes. The 1997 Federal appropriation to the FAA provided funds for more airport security personnel and for new security equipment.



In the last few years, airport security procedures were sometimes faulted by the media and by the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General (OIG), an independent government office that assesses Federal programs and operations and makes recommendations. In 1999, for example, a report issued by the OIG criticized the FAA for being slow to limit unauthorized access to secure areas in airports, stating that its investigators were able to penetrate these areas repeatedly. In 2000, it also faulted the agency for issuing airport identification used to access secure airport areas without sufficient checks. But for the ten years following February 1991, there were no airline hijackings in the United States.



This lull was shattered on September 11, 2001, when terrorists hijacked four U.S. airliners and crashed three of them into buildings and one into the ground, causing the death of thousands. This unprecedented attack resulted in an immediate and drastic heightening of air transportation security. In November, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act gave the Federal Government direct responsibility for airport screening, which had previously been performed by the airlines and their contractors. Other provisions of the Act included the creation of a new Department of Transportation organization, the Transportation Security Agency, to oversee security in all modes of travel.

Four airliners? With all of this history behind airline security? The taking of ONE plane is difficult, taking four on the same day with ALL of these measures in place is

IMPOSSIBLE.

The bold was mine, to make THE point that seems to be missing.

and all member nations must abide by its bidding or risk expulsion. So much for freedom.

Technically not [I]all[/I] of them, as of right now none of the Security Council members can be expelled unless of course they voluntarily leave.

Article 6

A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.

As you can see only upon a recommendation from the Security Council can the General Assembly vote to expel a nation from the UN. Now for any resolution to pass in the Security Council a unanimous vote is needed, if any member of the Council vetoes a resolution then it cannot be passed. Meaning that theoretically any member of the Security Council can just veto a resolution pertaining to it every time it comes before the council and that’s the end of that story.

The Globalists are using the UN to create a world government,andyou are falling right into their hands.....

The UN needs drastic reforming because it cannot cope with today’s world and it’s failing miserably at what it was intended to do, not to mention the corruption.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Four airliners? With all of this history behind airline security? The taking of ONE plane is difficult, taking four on the same day with ALL of these measures in place is impossible.

You missed the point of that article, all those security measure were aimed at making it difficult for people to get on a plane with weapons, they were not aimed at dealing with people already in the plane. All the 9/11 hijackers were unarmed, they did not have what was at the time considered a weapon. There were no measures in place at the time to stop people who were already in the plane from taking over the plane, so I don’t know where you got this impossibility from

[edit on 5-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by intrepid
Four airliners? With all of this history behind airline security? The taking of ONE plane is difficult, taking four on the same day with ALL of these measures in place is

IMPOSSIBLE.

You say that as if only 1 person did it.

It happed because of a group of people did it at pretty much the same time and like you said, no one was expecting what happend to happen.

But what does this have to do with this topic?

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Tasketo]

There isnt much in this world of possible events that I would put into "impossible." This world isnt stable by any means, as all of you surely know. There are people out there who would kill you for simply not believing in their faith, or for where you are from, without even batting an eye about it. That is the world we live in, and if you put the events that unfolded on September 11th in realm of impossibility, then I dont know what to tell you. It aint a sane world man.

To the best of my knowledge no soveriegn nation, muchless the United States, is required to bow to the will of the UN. Said nation should however, realize the ramifications of flouting the will of the rest of the world. Iran is playing with fire, and may get burned, and badly.

Here's hoping that common sense will break out within the Iranian gov't. thought process. Because they are looking down into an abyss they can't fathom.

We lost more than 3,000 civilians on that day, do you expect me to only want to kill osama because he thought of it and the hijackers are dead, so oh well, we can only go after 1 person. Wrong, you make a statement, you level a muslim city, you kill hundreds of thousands of arabs and make a point. If you ever attack us again, you will lose your entire race, because your race has never ever contributed anything to this world but death and we are tired of dealing with YOU!!!!!!

Grow up intrepid.

Train

Originally posted by Tasketo
But what does this have to do with this topic?

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Tasketo]

You are right, I was just blown away by the ignorance I saw displayed. We should stick to the topic, I sure wouldn't be able to match wits with Train in a debate.

Intrepid, you got anything to bring to the table, if so, be prepared to have it torn to shreds like a hyenia over a dead carcas. I will own this debate, go......

You want facts, you better bring facts.

Train

Originally posted by BigTrain
You want facts, you better bring facts.

Train

Obviously you're not going to provide any..

Originally posted by BigTrain
We lost more than 3,000 civilians on that day, do you expect me to only want to kill osama because he thought of it and the hijackers are dead, so oh well, we can only go after 1 person. Wrong, you make a statement, you level a muslim city, you kill hundreds of thousands of arabs and make a point. If you ever attack us again, you will lose your entire race, because your race has never ever contributed anything to this world but death and we are tired of dealing with YOU!!!!!!

Grow up intrepid.

Train

You are an idiot, and an embarrassment to my country.

Arabs have contributed much to the world, more then you will ever know. Pick up a book and learn some knowledge instead of speaking with ignorance you racist prick.


Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

But back on point:

Originally posted by Tasketo

Originally posted by LetKnowledgeDrop
Well first of all, with their illegal war in Iraq, for starters....

Well as somone already said:

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ok cheers, I would just like to point out Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

As you can see under Article 51 the countless attacks upon our fighter jets patrolling the No-Fly zones would have alone given the US the right to retaliate against Iraq.

[edit on 4-2-2006 by WestPoint23]

You keep saying it was illegal, how was it illegal?

What exacly did we spicifically violate in international law?

[edit on 5-2-2006 by Tasketo]

No answers yet.

I fail to understand how mud slinging has anything to do with this Forum topic.

(Thank God, Nobody here has "nuclear ICBM's")

Back to topic: "Is The US\UK hypocritical in asking others not to "not make Nuclear weapons?"

(edit: Added "Do". Slight grammer correction.)

[edit on 5-2-2006 by msnevil]

Originally posted by msnevil
Back to topic: "Is The US\UK hypocritical in asking others not to "not make Nuclear weapons?

No This was the topic: "US and UK have nooks"

Originally posted by Sandman210372
Dear all,

I am not sure if this has escaped everyones notice but both the US and the UK have both Uranium Enrichment programs AND Nuclear Weapons Development programs. Furthermore they have deployed Nuclear Weapons systems ready to strike anywhere in the world at short notice (much less than 45 minutes).

When you couple this with the illegal invasions of not one but two soveriegn nations in the last 5 years and the threatening of several others is it any surprise that a nation like Iran which has been illegally invaded twice from the west in the last 30 years, has sought the means to prevent it happening again?

Cheers


[edit on 5-2-2006 by Tasketo]

quote: The Globalists are using the UN to create a world government,andyou are falling right into their hands.....

The UN needs drastic reforming because it cannot cope with today’s world and it’s failing miserably at what it was intended to do, not to mention the corruption.

It's not just that everytime the U.S. signs an agreement WTO, NAFTA, UN Charter, etc, your rights under the constitution are being abrogated, abridged, and trampled.

Your citizenship will mean nothing with all the giveaways.

WP,

I think you will find that the No-Fly Zones were not UN-mandated and therefore they were offensive operations against Iraq. In this case the Iraqis were acting in accordance with the Article you quoted from the UN Charter.

Cheers

S

Originally posted by Tasketo

Originally posted by BigTrain
We lost more than 3,000 civilians on that day, do you expect me to only want to kill osama because he thought of it and the hijackers are dead, so oh well, we can only go after 1 person. Wrong, you make a statement, you level a muslim city, you kill hundreds of thousands of arabs and make a point. If you ever attack us again, you will lose your entire race, because your race has never ever contributed anything to this world but death and we are tired of dealing with YOU!!!!!!

Grow up intrepid.

Train

You are an idiot, and an embarrassment to my country.

Arabs have contributed much to the world, more then you will ever know. Pick up a book and learn some knowledge instead of speaking with ignorance you racist prick.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.

[edit on 5-2-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

While I may agree with your sentiment of payback for 9/11, tasketo is correct, the arabs have contributed to areas of mathematics, ever hear of algebra? notice how it looks kinda like al-gebra? While I know that is not the name of the man who invented it, I do know the arabs were the first with the concept.

there was once a time where the arabs had vast libraries with unique sources generally unknowned to the west and made for a great resource(if you can read arabic). In fact some naval charts which later ended up in the hands of people like Columbus probably came from arabic cartographers.
a unique aboration is the piri reis map.

of course this was when the islamic world wished to make contributions to the world other than a rhetoric of xenophobic hatred and desire of worl domination by islam.

Originally posted by WestPoint23

One, Under US law the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were perfectly legal.

That is funny my friend.

Its not because theres a law in the US that it makes it so much legal in the rest of the world. I find it hard to follow your logic.

So if China passed a law to make it legal to nuke the US you would be ok with that? Unless you have double standards..