Je suis Omar

To help reduce thread drift, this has been moved to a new thread, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24481-war-crimes-afghanistan/

This was moved from another thread to minimize thread drift. Je suis Omar, on 07 May 2015 - 3:25 PM, said: How many military people are you aware of who refused to aid and support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, Army Guy? Were they muffled? I'd love to hear more about them. Of course ignorant people, non-pejorative sense, can't be held responsible for joining up - they are as duped by government lies as are citizens. Article 5, NATO, I presume, does not take precedence over international law. That's no different than the Axis powers of WWII. The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime under international law. It was no different than what the Nazis were tried for at Nuremberg, or the Japanese at Tokyo.

And the delusion goes on and on. Pik, the invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime under international law. That means that you are providing cover, albeit it, weakly, for war criminals and terrorists. How many USA/Canadian parents continue to send their innocents abroad to engage in war crimes and terrorism?

What is it that leads so many people, people who raise children, go to church, pretend they are moral, to provide unflagging support for the longest running, most vicious band of criminals that the world has ever seen? "It's official: The U.S. is the world's leading terrorist state, and proud of it." Noam Chomsky That should have been the headline for the lead story in The New York Times on Oct. 15, which was more politely titled "CIA Study of Covert Aid Fueled Skepticism About Helping Syrian Rebels." The article reports on a CIA review of recent U.S. covert operations to determine their effectiveness. The White House concluded that unfortunately successes were so rare that some rethinking of the policy was in order. The article quoted President Barack Obama as saying that he had asked the CIA to conduct the review to find cases of "financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn't come up with much." So Obama has some reluctance about continuing such efforts. The first paragraph of the Times article cites three major examples of "covert aid": Angola, Nicaragua and Cuba. In fact, each case was a major terrorist operation conducted by the U.S. Angola was invaded by South Africa, which, according to Washington, was defending itself from one of the world's "more notorious terrorist groups" - Nelson Mandela's African National Congress. That was 1988. By then the Reagan administration was virtually alone in its support for the apartheid regime, even violating congressional sanctions to increase trade with its South African ally. Meanwhile Washington joined South Africa in providing crucial support for Jonas Savimbi's terrorist Unita army in Angola. Washington continued to do so even after Savimbi had been roundly defeated in a carefully monitored free election, and South Africa had withdrawn its support. Savimbi was a "monster whose lust for power had brought appalling misery to his people," in the words of Marrack Goulding, British ambassador to Angola. The consequences were horrendous. A 1989 U.N. inquiry estimated that South African depredations led to 1.5 million deaths in neighboring countries, let alone what was happening within South Africa itself. Cuban forces finally beat back the South African aggressors and compelled them to withdraw from illegally occupied Namibia. The U.S. alone continued to support the monster Savimbi. In Cuba, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, President John F. Kennedy launched a murderous and destructive campaign to bring "the terrors of the earth" to Cuba - the words of Kennedy's close associate, the historian Arthur Schlesinger, in his semiofficial biography of Robert Kennedy, who was assigned responsibility for the terrorist war. The atrocities against Cuba were severe. The plans were for the terrorism to culminate in an uprising in October 1962, which would lead to a U.S. invasion. By now, scholarship recognizes that this was one reason why Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev placed missiles in Cuba, initiating a crisis that came perilously close to nuclear war. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara later conceded that if he had been a Cuban leader, he "might have expected a U.S. invasion." American terrorist attacks against Cuba continued for more than 30 years. The cost to Cubans was of course harsh. The accounts of the victims, hardly ever heard in the U.S., were reported in detail for the first time in a study by Canadian scholar Keith Bolender, "Voices From the Other Side: an Oral History of Terrorism Against Cuba," in 2010. The toll of the long terrorist war was amplified by a crushing embargo, which continues even today in defiance of the world. On Oct. 28, the U.N., for the 23rd time, endorsed "the necessity of ending the economic, commercial, financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba." The vote was 188 to 2 (U.S., Israel), with three U.S. Pacific Island dependencies abstaining. ... http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/27201-the-leading-terrorist-state

How can so many be so blind? What part of the Americans/Canadians/Brits/... are the war criminals, the Americans/C/B/... are the terrorists in Afghanistan don't you get? Notice the big smiles on the amoral crud, (USA presidents and underlings as they weave fantastic tales of how upright and moral they are) that has been relentlessly terrorizing the Afghans, and most of the rest of the world for the last 70 years. And you who are are falling all over yourselves to defend these vicious people, make a huge pretense of some claim to morality. "What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can indeed exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." - Hanna Arendt

Actually, the Americans have been doing/did what comes naturally to them, lying. Lies to invade Iraq, lies to invade Afghanistan, lies to make people think that the UN had given them the authority to invade when nothing is further from the truth. Lies about just who are the greatest terrorist group on the planet. The historical record is very clear on this. The USA has been terrorizing Cuba for over a century, the Korean people for over sixty years, the Vietnamese people was for almost fifty years, every South & Central American country, off and on, sometimes multiple times, for well over a century. The Cambodians, the Laotians, the Angolans, the Somalis, the Irainians, the [_____], ... . And this USA terrorism has been vicious, brutal, every bit the equal of all the usual suspects/boogeymen the USA invents to whip the sheeple into a neat little herd.

The Americans need to follow the very rules/laws that the Americans themselves established, and used to hang Nazis, just like everyone else. Surely you have noticed how the Americans have used these rules to hypocritically try "war criminals"; they constantly and hypocritically rail against others who don't come anywhere close to what the USA has done in terms of volume of war crimes/terrorism or deaths and destruction caused. Both the Taliban and Al Qaeda were created, trained, supplied with weapons and funded by the USA. Would you like to see pictures of the Taliban in Texas in the late 1990s being wined and dined by the USA?

I appreciate your point and of course you are right. I know where you are coming from, I grew up in a time where society was not as careful as it is today. Many probably think we've gone too far, we're too sissified. But would you like to have grown up female, having that constant fear that you could be raped, sexually assaulted, even just verbally sexually assaulted. How will you feel if your university bound daughter one day says to you, "Dad, I wish you had given the mace and talk to my little sister." It's happening in the military, and yes, for sure, it can happen anywhere. I, for one, hope that neither of your daughters ever has to suffer even the slightest, the tiniest sexual indignity to their bodies or their minds.

If you possessed the honesty necessary to discuss the following, I could prove it to you in a short number of posts. "The USA doesn't do the rule of law. It excels at torture, murder, rape, thievery, lying and propaganda." Notice I used the irrealis mood, above, because I am aware of who I am addressing.

See the post, Obama's Af-Pak War is Illegal Just before this one.

No, we're not all doing something so knee jerk as "choosing a side". Some of us have a sense of morality, we think that the rule of law is important, and that countries that espouse the rule of law should follow those principles.

You forgot the operative word, OGFT, that goes in front of 'invade' - ILLEGALLY!

Why would/should any same person have respect for those who actively support and join in with war criminals and terrorists? The invasion of Afghanistan was just one example, in a long line of illegal invasions by the USA as is defined by international law. Whenever the USA sets out to "liberate", tens/hundreds of thousands, million of innocents die directly at the hands of vicious USA bombings and weapons of mass destruction.

You really ought to get up to speed on just who the terrorists are, Hal. The notion of the greatest terrorist group on the planet, the USA, trying anyone else for terrorism/war crimes is ludicrous. The USA committed the ultimate war crime invading Afghanistan. The USA has been using the Afghan people as cannon fodder for some 40 years now. The USA are, have always been, world class liars. Had you been in Guantanamo you too would have been tortured into confessing.

What jail is Allison Redford serving her time in?

"Our allies" are war criminals and terrorists. Not that it matters to you. The USA is the only country that has been judged by the countries of the world as a terrorist nation. That was for only one of the many USA terrorist actions against most of the countries on the planet. Not that you care. The USA calling anyone a terrorist is laughable in the extreme.

"Mr. Harper is a "bigot," Edney said. "We left a Canadian child in Guantanamo Bay to suffer torture (and) we Canada participated in this torture. So today's a wonderful day for justice." http://m.therecord.com/news-story/5606302--free-to-go-omar-khadr-out-on-bail

Everyone is whining about money. Is there no one at all concerned that now Canada has joined the Americans in the war crimes being perpetrated against the people of Iraq?

How many military people are you aware of who refused to aid and support the illegal invasion of Afghanistan, Army Guy?

How many years did you say the PCs were in power?

How so? Is the USA going to send in the CIA to straighten things out, to create death squads? Is the USA going to carpet bomb cities, towns and villages? Will canadians have generations of deformed children from USA Agent Orange or depleted uranium? Will the USA murder 13 percent of Canadians, like it did in the north of Korea, to save them from oppression? Will the USA mount terrorist actions against canada, institute illegal and amoral embargos, assassinate political leaders, ...? Will the USA fund and train folks like you to rape, torture and murder Canadian families to discourage them from expressing their chosen political rights? No??!! How come? Why do all the poor people, the poor countries of the world get to have all the fun?

And so you saw fit to plagiarize it? Ungrammatical??? Stilted for sure. It would be silly for anyone to take the advice of a S&W acolyte.

No, anyone with an ounce of common sense wouldn't think that for a moment. It is sad how it has turned generations of Americans, and obviously some Canadians, into grammar dunces. How old did you say you were?

Now this is truly a ROTFLMAO moment! Can you say "major hypocrite", BubberMiley? You are avoiding, with the same panache of a drowning man, the portions of S&W where G Pullum points out that they were grammatical incompetents who couldn't even follow their own rules.

That's funny, BubberMiley. It's apparent why you have avoided, are avoiding, desperately and shamelessly, pointed discussion that illustrates the gross grammatical incompetence of Strunk and White. You're still using that same deception that you have become famous for. We aren't now talking about the quoted material where you mistakenly described Pullum's argument as a strawman. You simply didn't understand him. We are discussing new material, new issues that illustrate that S&W had no idea what they were doing because they were grammatical incompetents. That's largely been the problem with prescriptivists. That's why there's no one describing and defending the little rules they learned. Of course you are also avoiding providing your source, because sources are anathema to you; they could lead where you definitely don't want to go. And your own inability to recognize a passive. You most assuredly are a Strunk and White progeny.