You are hereBlogs / War Criminals Watch's blog / AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT ON AFGHANISTAN - DEBATE - WHAT DEBATE?

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT ON AFGHANISTAN - DEBATE - WHAT DEBATE?


By War Criminals Watch - Posted on 23 November 2010

By Dr. V. G. Venturini

Chances that we may learn the truth on this subject from the 'debate'now progressing through Parliament are very slim. A proper sense of history would have indicated the impossibility of'winning' a war in the tribal world of Afghanistan. But even little knowledge would have demanded a familiarity with Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and the British Raj.

Knowledge of events only 30 years ago would have explained how a world power was humiliated by bands of raggedy partisans, some of them armed and organised by American 'intelligence'. A modest knowledge of the law would have been decisive.

The United States invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, ostensibly to pursue Al Qaeda, held responsible for the outrages in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The invasion was an act of misdirected
revenge, because the majority of the plane hijackers were Saudis, and the nervous centre of the operation was Hamburg, Germany.

There is no evidence linking Afghanistan with the attacks.

CONTINUED AT: http://warcriminalswatch.org/index.php/news/40-recent-news/733-11-9-10-a...

But even little knowledge would have demanded a familiarity with Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and the British Raj.

Am not precisely sure what that means, but if it's to mean that we'd need to know the history of those people in Afghanistan in order to have been able to see or realize that the war could not be justified, then I'll disagree. Simple and sane common sense sufficed, a little ability with simple logic was sufficient. Bush had clearly said that the Taliban had had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and this was sufficient to be able to realize that resorting to war on Afghanistan and the Taliban government could never be justified; except by people who criminally, certainly unethically, without any integrity at all, use double standards and, therefore, hypocrisy and hegemony.

The historical knowledge referred to by Dr. V. G. Venturini would only back up what simple, straightforward common sense should have promptly told us to begin with; and such back-up is good, it's reinforcement. But it wasn't necessary when common sense, not way, but sense, rational sense (and integral view of law) sufficed.

The United States invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, ostensibly to pursue Al Qaeda, held responsible for the outrages in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The invasion was an act of misdirected revenge, because the majority of the plane hijackers were Saudis, and the nervous centre of the operation was Hamburg, Germany.

That is not supported by or with any proven facts. It's only allegations. There is no real proof that the alleged hijackers were on the planes used for the 9/11 attacks. There still is no such proof even today. And seven of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive a considerable time after 9/11, so they definitely were not on those planes and, therefore, were not hijackers of those planes. The FBI still kept them listed as alleged 9/11 hijackers even after it had been proven that they were still alive, but that's f*cked FBI trying to "entertain" us with disinfo. and/or misinfo.

There is no real proof that the planes were hijacked and there is cause to believe that they were remotely controlled, f.e.

There is no evidence linking Afghanistan with the attacks.

True, and there is no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. He clearly denied responsibility and spoke against the killing of civilians even if most of the people killed on 9/11 were Americans. He allegedly, if not provably, was responsible in the attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the Clinton administration years, but these were attacks on embassies, so it's not civilians who were being attacked. The people there were of the government of the US; not ordinary civilians. On 9/11, mostly ordinary civilians were killed and that apparently is not his way to plan retaliatory attacks for the crimes of the government of the US.

In any case, he clearly, unmistakably denied responsibility for 9/11, and the FBI never has listed him as guilty for 9/11, because the US DoJ has never charged him with responsibility for 9/11.

Dr. Venturini clearly has catching up to do with reading(s).

But even little knowledge would have demanded a familiarity with Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and the British Raj.

Am not precisely sure what that means, but if it's to mean that we'd need to know the history of those people in Afghanistan in order to have been able to see or realize that the war could not be justified, then I'll disagree. Simple and sane common sense sufficed, a little ability with simple logic was sufficient. Bush had clearly said that the Taliban had had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and this was sufficient to be able to realize that resorting to war on Afghanistan and the Taliban government could never be justified; except by people who criminally, certainly unethically, without any integrity at all, use double standards and, therefore, hypocrisy and hegemony.

The historical knowledge referred to by Dr. V. G. Venturini would only back up what simple, straightforward common sense should have promptly told us to begin with; and such back-up is good, it's reinforcement. But it wasn't necessary when common sense, not way, but sense, rational sense (and integral view of law) sufficed.

The United States invaded Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, ostensibly to pursue Al Qaeda, held responsible for the outrages in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The invasion was an act of misdirected revenge, because the majority of the plane hijackers were Saudis, and the nervous centre of the operation was Hamburg, Germany.

That is not supported by or with any proven facts. It's only allegations. There is no real proof that the alleged hijackers were on the planes used for the 9/11 attacks. There still is no such proof even today. And seven of the alleged hijackers were found to be alive a considerable time after 9/11, so they definitely were not on those planes and, therefore, were not hijackers of those planes. The FBI still kept them listed as alleged 9/11 hijackers even after it had been proven that they were still alive, but that's f*cked FBI trying to "entertain" us with disinfo. and/or misinfo.

There is no real proof that the planes were hijacked and there is cause to believe that they were remotely controlled, f.e.

There is no evidence linking Afghanistan with the attacks.

True, and there is no evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. He clearly denied responsibility and spoke against the killing of civilians even if most of the people killed on 9/11 were Americans. He allegedly, if not provably, was responsible in the attacks on two US embassies in Africa during the Clinton administration years, but these were attacks on embassies, so it's not civilians who were being attacked. The people there were of the government of the US; not ordinary civilians. On 9/11, mostly ordinary civilians were killed and that apparently is not his way to plan retaliatory attacks for the crimes of the government of the US.

In any case, he clearly, unmistakably denied responsibility for 9/11, and the FBI never has listed him as guilty for 9/11, because the US DoJ has never charged him with responsibility for 9/11.

There are some indications that the Taliban offered to deliver up Osama bin Laden, under certain conditions, to the United States months before and even one month after it began the invasion. The offers were rejected. Revenge was obviously preferred.

Not "some indications", for it is fact. And the "certain conditions" were definitely, inarguably legitimate, ethical, right, and it, not they, but it simply was for Washington, the Bush administration, to provide sufficient preliminary proof that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

And it was not a question of "revenge". The war was planned prior to 9/11; a proven fact. 9/11 only served as a hellishly committed pretext for launching the war with "popular" support from the public in the US.

In any event, revenge is not a legal ground for going to war, which is a crime under the UN Charter unless a) for self-defence or b) under UN Security Council authorisation.

That's [poorly] stated. "Revenge is not a legal ground for going to war", point final. Self-defence and UNSC authorisation are not for revenge. Defence is not revenge. The UNSC never has any legal or moral right to authorize revenge, but does have the legal right to authorize defencive actions.

There was no legal basis for the invasion: neither UN Resolution of the Security Council 1368/12.09.2001 nor UNSC Resolution 1373/28.09.01 authorised it.

Definitely true! The resolutions only authorized police-like actions, for only going in to Afghanistan to capture the alleged 9/11 plotters or responsible chiefs, say. And they did not include the Taliban.

As for the rest of Dr. Venturini's article, I have no comments; not knowing Australian law and treaties. But when it comes to 9/11 and general consideration of the war on Afghanistan, then he has catching up to do. Plenty of articles and video reports have been produced and are available for free reading and viewing; enough to keep anyone who hasn't read and viewed this material busy for a little while.

He might consider starting with www.911review.com, f.e.; not 911review.org, which is not recommendable, but .com, Jim Hoffman's Web site.

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.