Je suis Omar

Reducing things to the absurd doesn't help your case either, Boges. The USA, as a purported rule of law country, should have done what other rule of law countries like Cuba, Nicaragua and Korea have done. The latter held war crimes hearings against the USA in New York wherein many Koreans testified to the myriad war crimes of the USA. The first two countries took the legal route, the one that the USA could have taken which would have prevented the death of many. In both cases the USA was found guilty of numerous breaches of international law.

See, Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable? http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war You could argue that, but that wouldn't help your case at all. The USA made the Taliban and supported them. They were content with the Taliban until the Taliban refused to support an American oil company's bid for a pipeline from the Caspian basin across Afghanistan to Pakistan. This is just so typical of the USA. How could anyone living on this planet, who isn't willfully blind, have missed this? Just consider the number of dictators the USA supports, has supported.

Distorting the truth in plain view. That's just so typical of you, Argus. And you do it so well, with absolutely no sense of shame. Let your acute sense of honesty lead you back to see who brought up the grammar issue.

Yes, the Philippines was, and has continued to be a series of war crimes and terrorist actions against those people. You seem to be the expert on history so why don't you tell me a "military conflict" the USA was in that didn't involve war crimes.

But your reply did include a mention of the Nazis. These gigantic inconsistencies in your "arguments" illustrates what a person has to deal with in discussing any serious issues with you. Vietnam was not a blight on US history. It was a massive set of war crimes perpetrated upon the people of Vietnam by one of the greediest, most rapacious band of marauders the world has ever witnessed. Vietnam was just another Philippines, which was just another Korea, which was just another Cambodia which was just another Laos which was just another Nicaragua, which was just another Afghanistan, which was just another Iraq, which was just another Hawaii, which was just another ... .

You speak of "violations" of an internet meme, which you have used inaccurately, to attempt to explain away USA war crimes and terrorism. Do you have the slightest conception of the meaning of 'violation', Boges? Pouring poisonous, carcinogenic chemicals (that Americans knew were carcinogenic) on innocent people and an innocent country that had never done anything to the Americans is a gross violation of human decency. We have to note that you are providing support for such evil. What was done at the Boston marathon was wrong but it pales into insignificance when measured against what the USA has done, what its soldiers have done. Compare the My Lai massacre, massacres that were common occurrences in Vietnam, and wherever else the USA went to save the oppressed, with the Boston marathon incident and you'll find that there is just no comparison. Are you aware of the punishment for the perpetrators of those massacres? Do a bit of research. You'll be shocked, ... or not.

That's not got anything to do with grammar.

Here we have, OGFT, your first dandy example of an editor who knows about grammar, commenting on grammar. I'll leave it to you to point out to us how it is "poor grammar". And while you are at it, perhaps you might explain how you think Tim said what you wrote above. Tim said, "Some times the logic is sound even if I think the court is naive about how the ruling will be interpreted." Sensei, onegaishimasu.

You're big on wanting to jabber about inane conspiracies, Tim. You should be plumping for a discussion of how so much power was put into the hands of just nine people, Tim.

What a marvellous idea, Bryan. Put the independence of the judiciary in the hands of a bunch of tea partying Sarah Palins.

What is it precisely that you have against the rule of law, Freddy? What do you see as major problems if the USA did not attack poor third world countries simply to steal their wealth? Ummmmm, I think that's exactly what most moral individuals would think was a good thing, the best thing. And why would you think it is desirable for the USA to pretend it is a free enterprise, capitalist country when history tells us it has been nothing more than a band of marauding pirates? Why is it a good thing for all the glorious things the USA has pretended to stand for being so badly debased by what the USA actually is?

This is a moot question. Afghanistan was illegally invaded by the USA. The USA was there as an invading horde of war criminals and terrorists. What would that make those who support the USA in their illegal invasion?

Ever heard of the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws?

There are many videos, many films, many articles, many speeches, denouncing Israeli war crimes and terrorism. They exist because Israel is, and has been a war criminal, terrorist nation. Look who their biggest backer is, the world's leading war criminal/terrorist nation. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

You get your panties in a bunch about this little scandal but you rejoice over sixty years of USA terrorism against Cuba that killed many and cost Cuba over one trillion US dollars. Why would an individual want to so loudly proclaim his support for terrorism and terrorists? Notice how the immediate concern is about how much this has cost the USA.

A good example of selective, disjointed concern for constitutional freedoms!

"Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries "the top priority in the United States Government -- all else is secondary -- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime." That, Shady, is the dictionary definition of terrorism. And that from a person who was considered a moral person in American history. Highly indicative of the low life scum that has inhabited the usa's highest office.

Okay, just to confirm. The USA is, and has always been, a rogue, war criminal, terrorist nation. It has all been nothing but lies over the centuries portraying these vicious criminals as kind, benevolent souls. Uncle Sam is a malevolent, greedy, rapacious monster, who makes Hitler look like Mother Teresa. What's your line of work again, Public Relations?

Freddy, you are making a mockery of the USA. What of freedom of speech? Is the USA just an unthinking monster? On second thought, no need to answer that. History speaks volumes to answer that in the affirmative.

Already noted - peanut gallery. You fled, "intellectually", once you found you were unable to continue with your source. You did the same in the thread on language. Take your new "source" and discuss these issues in a scientific fashion. Will pigs fly?

I've never suggested that there is anyone who can enforce a ruling against the USA. But that only confirms what we already know - that the USA is a rogue nation. And despite the two centuries of lies, lies, lies, the truth is coming out, the USA is no different than the Nazis. Are you that ignorant (non pejorative sense) that you know nothing of the Nuremberg Trials?

I don't doubt for a moment that you have a butt load of oil, Freddy.

Hardly, OGFT. You were the one who fled once you were shown that you had an outdated, bogus source. And all you have done since is the peanut gallery. This isn't a modus operandi you should be so proud of.

Do you consider that that's a good enough reason for you to support a country that is the equivalent of the Nazis, that no one is powerful enough to halt them? Who are "these guys"? Yes, it's perfectly clear who is at fault, as it always is in these situations. You do know where the buck stops. Every USA president since WWII has committed war crimes that, if Nuremberg laws were applied, they would have been hung. (Noam Chomsky)