Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

This is an interesting paper written by a university student concerning whether the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was legal or illegal under international law. After much wrangling, he concludes that it was illegal.  I give him a C for this paper because he is way too respectful to the U.S. What this paper lacks is outrage. The United States committed genocide. 

https://www.e-ir.info/2013/11/06/was-the-nato-invasion-of-afghanistan-legal/

But still, he made some good points. For instance, did you know that immediately after 9/11, the Taliban government of Afghanistan condemned the attacks, offered sympathy, and pledged to help in any way possible to find the culprits? You could be cynical about it and say they were putting on aires, but you don't know that, and there is no basis to say it. You can't just claim something because you feel like it.  

The United States declared Osama bin laden to be the culprit behind 9/11 within hours of the attacks. It reminds me of how the FBI traced the 6th floor rifle to a sporting goods store in Chicago within hours of JFK's murder. That wasn't credible, and neither is this.  

And no evidence against bin laden was provided- to anybody- and certainly not the Taliban. Bush went hyperbolic about it, but that doesn't count for anything. You've got to remember that anybody can say anything. And anybody can hit any keys on the keyboard. George W. Bush made a firery declaration about bin laden being behind the 9/11 attacks, but so what? Why should anybody, and I do mean anybody, including every American, put any stock in it? What makes George Bush's spewings bankable? Nothing does. Nothing did. And the idea that they were bankable enough to justify launching a war against Afghanistan is insane. It's insane because of what war is: mass destruction, mass poisoning, and mass murder.  

The 9/11 attacks were not the action of another government against the United States. Therefore, to respond to the 9/11 attacks by attacking another government made no sense at all. And I spoke of attacking another government, but all you can do is attack people, which is to say that most of the people you wind up attacking are not the government. The 9/11 attacks were a crime, not an act of war by a government. Wars are between governments, but regular people die in droves. The United States had no right to start a war in response to the 9/11 attacks.     

The big question is: when is the world going to stand up to the United States? It's true that we are the world's 800 pound gorilla, and I'm sure there are plenty of small countries who live in fear that they are going to be our next victim. But, Russia and China don't have to be intimidated by us. We are not going to engage against them militarily. Putin put down Georgia's aggression against South Ossetia, and we didn't stop him. Putin retook Crimea in just a few hours, and we did not stop him. Putin went into Syria, foiling our plans to take out Assad, and we didn't stop him. Putin offered sanctuary to Edward Snowden, so why didn't we demand that he hand Snowden over the way we ordered the Taliban to hand over bin laden? We don't want to go up against Putin militarily. He's not afraid of us; we're afraid of him. So, why doesn't Putin condemn us for our crimes? I'm sure he does condemn us, but why doesn't he condemn us publicly, and in very strong terms? But, at least he went to the aid of Assad, and at least he denied categorically that Assad used chemical weapons, and he even questioned the authenticity of the first aid films that were released. Better be careful, Vlad, because they're going to start calling you a conspiracy theorist.