În subsolurile de la WTC ce valori ale Deutsche Bank erau depuse în leasing?

mai e o intrebare: ce cauta aurul Romaniei la LONDRA atata vreme cat ANGLIA e cea mai INSTABILA tara din Europa, iar lira se prabuseste din cauza BREXIT si se va prabusi si mai tare cand iese de tot din UE? iata argumente puerile, copilaresti si mincinoase ale acestui isarescu:
http://stirileprotv.ro/stiri/financiar/tot-aurul-romaniei-si-inca-32-de-miliarde-de-euro-sunt-la-londra-isarescu-multa-lume-considera-ca-e-ceva-necurat-aici.html

Cauza principala a 9/11 nu a fost aurul ci a fost crearea unei scuze, a unui cadru mincinos ptr Mossad/CIA sa invadeze Irakul pe baza notiunii – MULT DRAGA IZRAELULUI !!!!!!! de

„PREEMPTIVE WAR” care de fapt e un „PREVENTIVE WAR” total criminal!!!!!!!!si total dezavuat de legile Natiunilor Unite, deci nejustificat legal !!!!!!!!!, ca cel impotriva lui Saddam
Notiunile astea de fapt inseamna aceeasi branza, indiferent de sclifoseala cioclopedistilor din textele prezentate de mareata lor lucrare .

In cioclopedia izraelita, Wikipedia gasiti deci si detalii despre aceasta notiune, de fapt stigmatizata de Carta Natiunilor Unite – vedeti al doilea paragraf citat de mine mai jos .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war
Preemptive war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with preventive war, namely an anticipatory war in the face of a less immediate threat.
„Preemptive strike” redirects here. For other uses, see Preemptive strike (disambiguation).

Post September 11, 2001 Bush administration period (2002–2008)[edit]
The doctrine of preemption gained renewed reputation following the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Bush administration mainly claimed for the necessity to intervene to prevent Saddam Hussein from deploying weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to launching an armed attack. At that time, U.S. decision-makers claimed Saddam’s WMD might be given to terrorists groups and claimed that security of the nation was at a great risk. Soon the Congress passed its joint resolution in October 2002 authorizing the president to use military force against Saddam Hussein’s regime.[31] However, it was later confirmed that no nuclear weapons or biological weapons capability existed and that Bush administration’s suspicion was mistaken. Some questioned the true intention of Bush administration for invading Iraq, based on possibility of retaliation on the terrorist attacks which occurred on September 11, 2001. It is still unclear whether the U.S. invasion of Iraq is legally justifiable and, at the same time, whether Iraq’s resistance to the attack is justifiable.

Arguments for preemptive war made during the Bush administration[edit]

Legality[edit]
Further information: War of aggression, Jus ad bellum, and UN Charter
Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be jus cogens (literally: „compelling law”, in practice: „higher international law”), and prohibits all UN members from exercising „the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”. But in the modern framework of the UN Charter, it is the phrase „armed attack occurs” in Article 51[42] that draws the line between legitimate and illegitimate military force.[31] From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive ‘self-defense’ has yet been made ‘legal’ under the UN Charter. In order to be justified as an act of self-defense, two conditions must be fulfilled which are widely regarded as necessary for its justification. The first of these is that actor must have believed that the threat is real, as opposed to (merely) perceived. The second condition is that the force used in self-defense must be proportional to the harm which the actor is threatened. When it comes to a situation where an armed attack is considered as a self-defense, it usually narrows realistic options for avoidance by nonviolent means such as negotiation, retreat, or calling upon higher authorities (such as the police or the UN).[43]