bush_cheney2004 Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 War means dropping bombs. War means killing people. But terrorism and war crimes are rather specific, and generally fall outside the bounds of simply killing the enemy. Cheney and Rumsfeld were probably the most responsible for screwing things up over there. Doesn't matter from a legal standpoint....if that were the case, Chretien and Clinton would hang for the illegal NATO bombing of Serbian forces and civilians during the Kosovo War in 1999. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Doesn't matter from a legal standpoint....if that were the case, Chretien and Clinton would hang for the illegal NATO bombing of Serbian forces and civilians during the Kosovo War in 1999. You seemed to neglect to mention Bush Cheney with regard to Iraq. But the selectivity among your trolling we have come to expect. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 Which is why accidentally killing people when doing something acceptable, like trying to kill terrorists, is not nearly as bad as deliberately sending a mentally impaired individual into a market with a vest stuffed with explosives, say. ------- A second candidate for most extreme act of Mideast international terrorism in the peak year of 1985 is a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. The bomb was placed outside a Mosque, timed to explode when worshippers left. "About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast," Nora Boustany reported. The bomb also "burned babies in their beds," killed children "as they walked home from the mosque," and "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb. The target was a Shi'ite leader accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The crime was organized by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of British intelligence. NOTE{Boustany, _Washington Post Weekly_, March 14, 1988; Bob Woodward, _Veil_ (Simon & Schuster, 1987, 396f.).} http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm ----------- What you are calling 'terrorism in our name' is "mostly" things which didn't work out as planned, or which you are going back in time and trying to denounce without regard to the complexities or context of the times. Completely fatuous. Quote
Smallc Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Why is this being allowed to go on? Is this even serious? Quote
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) War means dropping bombs. War means killing people. But terrorism and war crimes are rather specific, and generally fall outside the bounds of simply killing the enemy. Omar: You really ought to try to find out about the things you "discuss", Argus. That way you wouldn't be so ignorant about these things. The invasion of Iraq was a massive set of war crimes, started by the illegal invasion of Iraq, which is the ultimate war crime. The US-NATO led war applied Worlwide is a criminal undertaking under the disguise of counter-terrorism. It violates the Nuremberg Charter, the US constitution and the UN charter. According to former chief Nuremberg prosector Benjamin Ferencz, in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation. Ferenz was referring to Crimes against Peace and War (Nuremberg Principle VI): which states the following: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). b. War crimes: Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity. © Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime. (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). It should be noted that Nuremberg Principle III relates directly to president Obama and the heads of State and heads of government of the US-NATO led coalition: a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. Moreover, the evidence amply confirms that the United States of America is a State Sponsor of Terrorism and that the campaign against the Islamic State is a smokescreen used by the US and its allies to justify in the eyes of public opinion its global war of conquest. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-ultimate-war-crime-americas-global-war-on-terrorism/5434478 Edited April 8, 2015 by Je suis Omar Quote
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Actually it was those people who were being killed, illegally, according to international law. Iraq posed no threat to the US and Bush Cheney knew it. And you know this because of all your military and legal expertise, right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 And you know this because of all your military and legal expertise, right? Partly. But also because I worked in Iraq right up to the beginning of the war. Quote
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Completely fatuous. You have a journalist quoting a journalist, with no actual evidence in support. Nevertheless, whoever blew up that car bomb, the action certainly qualifies as terrorism. If anyone in the US could be proven to have done it they'd be in jail now. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 The US-NATO led war applied Worlwide is a criminal undertaking Posting reams of crap from globalresearch convinces no one of anything. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Partly. But also because I worked in Iraq right up to the beginning of the war. And so you know they posed no threat to anyone? You had inspected all the weapons caches and sites and knew there was nothing to the stories? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 And so you know they posed no threat to anyone? You had inspected all the weapons caches and sites and knew there was nothing to the stories? Thats exactly what I was doing. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 And you know this because of all your military and legal expertise, right? I'm completely blown away by your sourcing and sources,Argus. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 Thats exactly what I was doing. You're way too cagey for someone intimating he is interested in science, or that he is a scientist, OGFT. Were on the Bush/Cheney inspection team? Quote
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Thats exactly what I was doing. Why do I find this difficult to believe? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 Posting reams of crap from globalresearch convinces no one of anything. What good are sources for you, Argus, you never read them. Or post them. --------------- The US-NATO led war applied Worlwide is a criminal undertaking under the disguise of counter-terrorism. It violates the Nuremberg Charter, the US constitution and the UN charter. According to former chief Nuremberg prosector Benjamin Ferencz, in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation. Quote
Je suis Omar Posted April 8, 2015 Author Report Posted April 8, 2015 Why do I find this difficult to believe? a Neocon wet dream Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 ....a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation. This is actually good news....'cause it use to be that indifference to so called "climate change" was the supreme crime against not just humanity, but the entire planet ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
On Guard for Thee Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 Why do I find this difficult to believe? I have no idea why. But it really doesnt matter to me one way or the other. Quote
Argus Posted April 8, 2015 Report Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) What good are sources for you, Argus, you never read them. Or post them. I don't read globalresearch, that's true enough. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Globalresearch.ca --------------- The US-NATO led war applied Worlwide is a criminal undertaking under the disguise of counter-terrorism. It violates the Nuremberg Charter, the US constitution and the UN charter. According to former chief Nuremberg prosector Benjamin Ferencz, in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation. It's cute when you try to talk legalisms when you clearly don't understand them. Edited April 8, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.