|
Keep it civil guys.
Alright I am sick of warning people: Trolling, flame baiting, and derailing will result in insta bans.
The same goes for conspiracy theorists and stupidity generally.
Confirmation was as follows
- On-site DNA test which came back as 99% positive.
- photos of face sent to CIA and confirmed with photo analysis
- confirmed by 20 year old wife who live in pakistan.
This thread is specifically dedicated to the details surrounding the raid/his death. |
On May 02 2011 19:36 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:29 Imres wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. You, sir, are an enemy of democracy and human right. I don't know how to spell it in english, but human rights cannot be ignore/forgotten, it's their privilege and nature. If you want to deal in absolutes and absurd oversimplifications, then go ahead. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your exact definition and opinion on what human rights should be isn't perfect? Or even the opinion of the UN? Just because I think horrible crimes against humanity should strip you of total equality as a person, I'm an enemy against human rights and democracy? Grow up.
Read Locke/Declaration of human right in France in the end of 1789/20th century litteracy about it. Human rights are natural rights. You can be against it, but that's a conservative position which is against human right.
The core of the HR is that they're inalienable. You deny it. You're against human rights and democracies based upon it. Every government think that human right is a shity thing that prvent them to act like they want to, well, US government doesn't care nowadays, french one didn't care in the 60's... But you can't say the contrary.
Just stop thinking that our governments respect this kind of declaration or so on. And yeah, Geneva convention is always violated, but just stop to deny it.
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 19:39 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:
[quote]
When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned.
Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq. Since when has war been a legal matter?
Let me google that for you
|
On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq.
Technically the UN signed off on Iraq, which gave it legal cover.
That being said, it was a stupid mess that I marched against for years. You'll never hear me defend the wisdom of that war but we did get approval first.
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 19:36 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:29 Imres wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. You, sir, are an enemy of democracy and human right. I don't know how to spell it in english, but human rights cannot be ignore/forgotten, it's their privilege and nature. If you want to deal in absolutes and absurd oversimplifications, then go ahead. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your exact definition and opinion on what human rights should be isn't perfect? Or even the opinion of the UN? Just because I think horrible crimes against humanity should strip you of total equality as a person, I'm an enemy against human rights and democracy? Grow up.
Maybe the UNs definition is not perfect in your subjective worldview. But since it is a definition that the majority of the world's countries agreed on, it has some merit. And by this definition you cannot "lose" your rights - however cruel your deeds. That does not mean that you won't be held accountable, though.
|
On May 02 2011 19:40 Imres wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:36 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:29 Imres wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. You, sir, are an enemy of democracy and human right. I don't know how to spell it in english, but human rights cannot be ignore/forgotten, it's their privilege and nature. If you want to deal in absolutes and absurd oversimplifications, then go ahead. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your exact definition and opinion on what human rights should be isn't perfect? Or even the opinion of the UN? Just because I think horrible crimes against humanity should strip you of total equality as a person, I'm an enemy against human rights and democracy? Grow up. Read Locke/Declaration of human right in France in the end of 1789/20th century litteracy about it. Human rights are natural rights. You can be against it, but that's a conservative position which is against human right. The core of the HR is that they're inalienable. You deny it. You're against human rights and democracies based upon it. Every government think that human right is a shity thing that prvent them to act like they want to, well, US government doesn't care nowadays, french one didn't care in the 60's... But you can't say the contrary.
Locke died along time ago. Just because someone believes that someone shouldn't have human rights doesn't mean he can't believe that other people should have them.
|
I wont pretend I'm not happy that the man is dead, since he was clearly a rabid dog that needed to be put down. But killing one man does not kill a cause.
Bin Laden just became a martyr, never a good thing to happen with fundamentalists.
|
On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler? And you throw a party?
I'm sure parties were thrown when Hitler was killed. Hitler, along with Osama, were mass murderers of innocent people.
He's the leader of Al'Qaeda, the people we are AT WAR with. Killing their leader DOES mark an achievement and step forward in the war. If Al'qaeda killed Obama it would be an achievement for them too.
People aren't celebrating the mere FACT that he was killed. They're celebrating the fact that this is a step forward in the war, at least at a moral standpoint. Americans, who've had friends / neighbors over seas fighting everyday in this war DESERVE to celebrate this achievement. Saying otherwise is pretty idiotic, and is just a way for you to get attention by flaming this thread.
If I were to say to every jew back when Hitler was killed who was elated, "how dare you celebrate this MANS death! Shame on you!" is fucking stupid.
TLDR there's a bunch of attention whore's in this thread who have found a way to get attention - by ridiculing anyone who is happy Osama is gone.
|
On May 02 2011 19:41 partisan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:
[quote]
When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned.
Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq. Technically the UN signed off on Iraq, which gave it legal cover. That being said, it was a stupid mess that I marched against for years. You'll never hear me defend the wisdom of that war but we did get approval first.
France (one of the few things we can be proud of :D) vetoed the decision.
|
|
|
Ten years, no sightings of Bin Laden, no eyewitness reports, no specific allegations of location in public media, only tapes; Osama Bin Laden long dead.
how convenient that bin laden can never testify.
AlJazeera pushing line that pseudo-Osama Bin Laden's residence in Abottabad military zone proves Pakistan army, ISI knew where he was.
seems like an attack on pakistan
US media report alleged Bin Laden buried at sea, no photos, no proof, just assertions by notorious liars of Obama regime-who believes this?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 02 2011 19:44 EternaL_9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler? And you throw a party? I'm sure parties were thrown when Hitler was killed. Hitler, along with Osama, were mass murderers of innocent people. He's the leader of Al'Qaeda, the people we are AT WAR with. Killing their leader DOES mark an achievement and step forward in the war. If Al'qaeda killed Obama it would be an achievement for them too. People aren't celebrating the mere FACT that he was killed. They're celebrating the fact that this is a step forward in the war, at least at a moral standpoint. Americans, who've had friends / neighbors over seas fighting everyday in this war DESERVE to celebrate this achievement. Saying otherwise is pretty idiotic, and is just a way for you to get attention by flaming this thread. If I were to say to every jew back when Hitler was killed who was elated, "how dare you celebrate this MANS death! Shame on you!" is fucking stupid. TLDR there's a bunch of attention whore's in this thread who have found a way to get attention - by ridiculing anyone who is happy Osama is gone.
That's not a fair comparison. Hitler was seen as (and was a) threat to the world and people were afraid of a Nazi occupation, of course celebrations were had when Germany was defeated.
|
On May 02 2011 19:44 EternaL_9 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:34 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad. So every year you mourn the passing of Adolf Hitler? And you throw a party? I'm sure parties were thrown when Hitler was killed. Hitler, along with Osama, were mass murderers of innocent people. He's the leader of Al'Qaeda, the people we are AT WAR with. Killing their leader DOES mark an achievement and step forward in the war. If Al'qaeda killed Obama it would be an achievement for them too. People aren't celebrating the mere FACT that he was killed. They're celebrating the fact that this is a step forward in the war, at least at a moral standpoint. Americans, who've had friends / neighbors over seas fighting everyday in this war DESERVE to celebrate this achievement. Saying otherwise is pretty idiotic, and is just a way for you to get attention by flaming this thread. If I were to say to every jew back when Hitler was killed who was elated, "how dare you celebrate this MANS death! Shame on you!" is fucking stupid. TLDR there's a bunch of attention whore's in this thread who have found a way to get attention - by ridiculing anyone who is happy Osama is gone.
But why aren't other countries who are fighting in Afhanistan/(Irak) celebrating it? They have fought against Al Qaeda for years too.
|
Deleted, going to leave this thread now. Simply silly.
|
On May 02 2011 19:28 FinBenton wrote:
This doesnt change anything and seeing people CELEBRATE after someone dies is just SICK and makes me sad.
My thoughts exactly.
|
On May 02 2011 19:39 Fraidnot wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:
[quote]
When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned.
Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq. Since when has war been a legal matter?
Since the UN and the international court in den haag?
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 19:47 Zerokaiser wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:40 Imres wrote:On May 02 2011 19:36 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:29 Imres wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:05 Awesomeness wrote:
I believe that human rights should be universal, you obviosly don't. So yeah, we do have different perspectives. When somebody commits heinous crimes and destroys the lives of thousands, they relinquish their rights as far as I'm concerned. Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. You, sir, are an enemy of democracy and human right. I don't know how to spell it in english, but human rights cannot be ignore/forgotten, it's their privilege and nature. If you want to deal in absolutes and absurd oversimplifications, then go ahead. Has it occurred to you that perhaps your exact definition and opinion on what human rights should be isn't perfect? Or even the opinion of the UN? Just because I think horrible crimes against humanity should strip you of total equality as a person, I'm an enemy against human rights and democracy? Grow up. Read Locke/Declaration of human right in France in the end of 1789/20th century litteracy about it. Human rights are natural rights. You can be against it, but that's a conservative position which is against human right. The core of the HR is that they're inalienable. You deny it. You're against human rights and democracies based upon it. Every government think that human right is a shity thing that prvent them to act like they want to, well, US government doesn't care nowadays, french one didn't care in the 60's... But you can't say the contrary. The concept of human rights is something that human beings invented as a way to enforce civility and to protect one another. The exact meaning and application is and always will be subject to reconsideration and alteration. We are fallible creatures. The US Constitution has been amended 27 times. Again, just because I disagree with the exact definition and application that you do doesn't mean I don't support the idea. The
you think they're not natural rights, so you disagree with modern (since 17th) human rights. I mean, you can think that second and third generations are bullshit, but you can't deny the 1st one.
|
On May 02 2011 19:44 Imres wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 19:41 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:38 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:35 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:32 VicTimEyes wrote:On May 02 2011 19:30 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 blomsterjohn wrote:On May 02 2011 19:23 partisan wrote:On May 02 2011 19:21 Zerokaiser wrote:On May 02 2011 19:16 Awesomeness wrote:
[quote]
Rights stop being universal, if you can relinquish them. This gives the government the freedom to do whatever they want, saying _everyone_ who is against them has "relinquished" his rights. I think you need to draw a line there, if you consider yourself a democrat and actually believe in the decleration of human rights. "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." We have rights to protect our fellow human beings from being subject to mistreatment, and to give everybody the ability to live their lives freely. Osama Bin Laden had those rights like anybody else. When you make the conscious choice to violate those rights and take away the lives of people, you are no longer free and equal with mankind. That's my personal opinion. Well said. Bin Laden had his until he infringed on the rights of others by eliminating their ability to enjoy those rights. A price must be paid Why do I feel like this is the same'ish as "I believe in free speech, except for some stuff" Doesn't feel good either. There are limits to free speech, and they are extreme cases. Any idea taken to an absolute extreme can be troublesome. The idea that a person can murder thousands and not be brought to justice is confounding. He was intent on fighting to the very last bullet and he fired on the team that came to arrest him. Self defense in the course of executing a legitimate arrest is something that's not usually questioned. So why is George W. Bush still not brought to justice then? He murdered thousands of innocent civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody has ever been prosecuted accidental civilian deaths that result in war, at least as far as I'm aware. Actually it was during an invasion, which was even illegal in the case of Iraq. Technically the UN signed off on Iraq, which gave it legal cover. That being said, it was a stupid mess that I marched against for years. You'll never hear me defend the wisdom of that war but we did get approval first. France (one of the few things we can be proud of :D) vetoed the decision.
The 2003 resolution was vetoed, but the original disarmament resolution from 1991 along with resolution 1441 were used as justification. In the states we call that a loophole, or lawyers earning their pay. Apparently in some parts of the world its considered illegal
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
