Discussion:
Bush Administration Hard-Liners Set Sights On Iran And Syria
(too old to reply)
Walter Scott
2004-09-27 18:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com seattle.politics:449951 talk.politics.misc:2827115 dfw.politics:95405 soc.culture.usa:1596215 az.politics:102085


I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
4more4W
2004-09-27 21:42:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Why should he? Only you wacko liberals think that if we have cookies and
milk with Syria and Iran, they will stop harboring terrorists. You must
have gone to schoool in N. Korea.
Bill Thomas
2004-09-27 22:30:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 18:55:57 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Sanders Kaufman
2004-09-27 23:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Probably not. Syria and Iran are REAL threats with REAL terrorist networks.
Furthermore, Bush has already over-extended the military too much.
The US doesn't have enough young men to fight a war on so MANY fronts.

Unfortunately, the Militant Christians in the Bush Regime hav no desire to
pursue diplomacy with Muslims, so war is his only option.

He could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran and Syria- and
nobody would be *really* surprised at it.
In fact, his friends in the Christian Coalition and other Militant Christian
organizations would deify him for it.
SteveR
2004-09-28 00:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Probably not. Syria and Iran are REAL threats with REAL terrorist networks.
Furthermore, Bush has already over-extended the military too much.
The US doesn't have enough young men to fight a war on so MANY fronts.
We must have inserted the majority of our military in Iraq by some
geographic miscalculation or simple happenstance, but for whatever
reason/blunder, we have put our military in the position of fighting a
losing battle.

We can't win against Islamists. etc. It's time to throw in the towel.
We're surrounded, hiding in caves from Ashcfroft while the leaders of
islamist movements frolick and play in their bimmers, flipping the bird
to the kufir.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Unfortunately, the Militant Christians in the Bush Regime hav no desire to
pursue diplomacy with Muslims, so war is his only option.
Ah, those Militant Christians, always shopping for belts for the kids.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
He could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran and Syria- and
nobody would be *really* surprised at it.
Some would be, though briefly.

The greatest nuclear threat is not from the US, or GW, it is from
Islamists who have clearly stated their intent.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
In fact, his friends in the Christian Coalition and other Militant Christian
organizations would deify him for it.
Take a peek at numbers and tell mhy I should be cowering from "militant
Christians".
grandwazoo
2004-09-28 02:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Probably not. Syria and Iran are REAL threats with REAL terrorist networks.
Furthermore, Bush has already over-extended the military too much.
The US doesn't have enough young men to fight a war on so MANY fronts.
We must have inserted the majority of our military in Iraq by some
geographic miscalculation or simple happenstance, but for whatever
reason/blunder, we have put our military in the position of fighting a
losing battle.
We can't win against Islamists. etc. It's time to throw in the towel.
We're surrounded, hiding in caves from Ashcfroft while the leaders of
islamist movements frolick and play in their bimmers, flipping the bird
to the kufir.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Unfortunately, the Militant Christians in the Bush Regime hav no desire to
pursue diplomacy with Muslims, so war is his only option.
Ah, those Militant Christians, always shopping for belts for the kids.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
He could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran and Syria- and
nobody would be *really* surprised at it.
Some would be, though briefly.
The greatest nuclear threat is not from the US, or GW, it is from
Islamists who have clearly stated their intent.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
In fact, his friends in the Christian Coalition and other Militant Christian
organizations would deify him for it.
Take a peek at numbers and tell mhy I should be cowering from "militant
Christians".
I would not say "cowering" because of numbers, but concerning because of
irrational influences. There is Christian belief in the final battle of
Armageddon that seem as disturbing as it is self fulfilling. Israel has
crossed the boarder into Syria to destroy "terrorist". That itself is an
act of war. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war seem to have its own
domino effect.
SteveR
2004-09-28 23:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Post by SteveR
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by Walter Scott
I wonder if President Bush will address this on Thursday.....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6099353/site/newsweek/
Probably not. Syria and Iran are REAL threats with REAL terrorist networks.
Furthermore, Bush has already over-extended the military too much.
The US doesn't have enough young men to fight a war on so MANY fronts.
We must have inserted the majority of our military in Iraq by some
geographic miscalculation or simple happenstance, but for whatever
reason/blunder, we have put our military in the position of fighting a
losing battle.
We can't win against Islamists. etc. It's time to throw in the towel.
We're surrounded, hiding in caves from Ashcfroft while the leaders of
islamist movements frolick and play in their bimmers, flipping the bird
to the kufir.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Unfortunately, the Militant Christians in the Bush Regime hav no desire to
pursue diplomacy with Muslims, so war is his only option.
Ah, those Militant Christians, always shopping for belts for the kids.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
He could launch an unprovoked nuclear attack against Iran and Syria- and
nobody would be *really* surprised at it.
Some would be, though briefly.
The greatest nuclear threat is not from the US, or GW, it is from
Islamists who have clearly stated their intent.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
In fact, his friends in the Christian Coalition and other Militant Christian
organizations would deify him for it.
Take a peek at numbers and tell mhy I should be cowering from "militant
Christians".
I would not say "cowering" because of numbers, but concerning because of
irrational influences. There is Christian belief in the final battle of
Armageddon that seem as disturbing as it is self fulfilling. Israel has
crossed the boarder into Syria to destroy "terrorist". That itself is an
act of war. The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war seem to have its own
domino effect.
Perhaps that has something to do with the ongoing miserable failure of
this jihad? Even the Palesetinians are waking up.
Sanders Kaufman
2004-09-29 00:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Perhaps that has something to do with the ongoing miserable failure of
this jihad? Even the Palesetinians are waking up.
Jihad a "Miserable Failure"? That depends on what you think their goal is.
If you believe the Republican spin, that the Islamists are mad because we
have "freedom" and "Democracy" - yooouuu might be a REDNECK!
The Republican war of terrorism - now THAT's a miserable failure, and we've
been saying so for years.

To learn what they want, you'd best look to the source.
They want to punish us for for over a half-century of allowing our
government to use state-sponsored terrorism against them.

This failure on the part of the NeoConservatives to understand their enemy
is one reason why the worldwide Jihad movement has been growing consistantly
and massively for DECADES.

It's typical for Militant Christian Republicans to think that by calling the
Jihad movement a failure, it will become so.
Unfortunately for y'all, it takes more than just propoganda and military
might to survive this war.
Serious Sam
2004-09-29 02:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
This failure on the part of the NeoConservatives to understand their enemy
is one reason why the worldwide Jihad movement has been growing consistantly
and massively for DECADES.
Hmmm..and how many of thee "decades" did DemoCraps mess things up?
James
2004-09-29 05:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by SteveR
Perhaps that has something to do with the ongoing miserable failure of
this jihad? Even the Palesetinians are waking up.
Jihad a "Miserable Failure"? That depends on what you think their goal is.
If you believe the Republican spin, that the Islamists are mad because we
have "freedom" and "Democracy" - yooouuu might be a REDNECK!
Or, we might actually take seriously what those who are leading the Jihad
are saying. They are clearly opposed to democracy and freedom. They see
those trends as destructive to a true Islam.

James
grandwazoo
2004-09-29 08:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by SteveR
Perhaps that has something to do with the ongoing miserable failure of
this jihad? Even the Palesetinians are waking up.
Jihad a "Miserable Failure"? That depends on what you think their goal is.
If you believe the Republican spin, that the Islamists are mad because we
have "freedom" and "Democracy" - yooouuu might be a REDNECK!
Or, we might actually take seriously what those who are leading the Jihad
are saying. They are clearly opposed to democracy and freedom. They see
those trends as destructive to a true Islam.
James
I thought I would provide what *they are saying* in their own words:
London Al-Quds al-'Arabi in Arabic -- 23 Feb 98, Page 1
Saudi Arabia: Bin-Ladin, Others Sign Fatwa To 'Kill Americans' Everywhere
http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the
lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula,
plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people,
terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a
spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation,
all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against
the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all
its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but
they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on
the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge
number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all
this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific
massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade
imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to
humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and
economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert
attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest
neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of
the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper
statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's
survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the
Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear
declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have
throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an
individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was
revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-
Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam
[not further identified] in his books, where he said "As for the
fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and
religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more
sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion
and life."

Blah, blah, but it does not mention democracy or freedom! Maybe you can
find it in Ben Ladden's own words?
Rev. 11D Ricardo MadGello
2004-09-29 08:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Well! Isn't that special.


Shit! Pentagon won't prosecute an AWOL shrub, much less a draft-dodger.
Why would they want to prosecute a GI that refuses to go to Iraq? It costs
over $150,000US to bring someone to trial in America, then $120/day for jail
time if and when convicted, pending appeal, that is. Since Gee DUHbya has
decimated the entire US budget beyond redemption for decades to come AND the
destroyed whole American economy base in under four years, not to mention
devaluing US dollars on a permanent bassis, we won't even see Real
Terrorists brought into court for a long long time.

However! There Is Hope For US AND AMERICA!

The World Court will be bringing Gee DUHbya and his puppeteers,
Dickless Cheney and his evil minions, the Killer Klown From Space,
before the Tribunal for ALL their War Crimes in Afghanistan,
Iraq, AND East Timor once Jan. 6th, 2005 rolls around.

Then many heads will roll into a little bloody wicker basket.
See Italo Calvino's 'Heads Of State' short story for the straight poop.

See Also:
http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php

&

http://www.nogw.com/warcrimes.html

&

http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/index.shtml

America's Criminal Silence: Violations of Human Rights, International
Law, War Crimes by the US Government Go Unchecked and Unheralded by American
Lawmakers and American Media
George W. Bush: Wanted for War Crimes

Prosecute George W. Bush for War Crimes To punish these crimes - and,
of equal importance, to prevent future crimes - we call upon all responsible
international bodies to indict, convict, and punish George W. Bush for his
War Crimes, along with everyone who participated in those crimes.

Bush's Crimes
Since George W. Bush came to power, he has systematically flouted
international agreements that the US had previously signed up to. While
previous US administrations might not be able to claim much better records,
it is clear that Bush is not even making an attempt to stick to these
numerous treaties, laws and obligations.

List of International Obligations violated by George W. Bush

US as nuclear rogue

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

International Law Relating to nuclear weapons:
International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Non Proliferation Treaty
Geneva Conventions Protocol
UN Charter
US Constitution.
(source: IEER)
More info: World Court Project

Environmental Agreements:
Failure to Ratify Kyoto Agreement on Climate Change


April 19, 2004
Minister of Health of Iraqi Governing Council confirms that US forces
are targeting ambulances in contravention of international law

April 14, 2004
Indonesia confirms US War Crime: four killed as Mer-C ambulance hit by
U.S. missile
Bush Doctrine of Preemption a Clone of the NAZI Doctrine of National
Self Defense Rejected at Nuremburg

While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support
of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if
necessary, to exercise our right of self defense by acting preemptively
against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people
and our country . . .

-The National Security Strategy of the United States of America

January 4, 2002-"We sentenced Nazi leaders to death for waging a war
of aggression," says International Law Professor Francis A. Boyle of the
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. By contrast, Prof. Boyle wants
merely to impeach George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John
Ashcroft for their plans to invade Iraq and create a police state in
America.

Boyle is offering his services as counsel, free of charge, to any
member of the House of Representatives willing to sponsor articles of
impeachment. He is experienced in this work, having undertaken it in 1991
for the late Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez (D-TX), in an effort to stop the first
Persian Gulf War. It takes only one member to introduce articles of
impeachment. Of course, it will take many more than that to vote for
impeachment, which will culminate in a trial in the Senate. Boyle is
confident that, once the articles are introduced, others, including
Republicans, will co-sponsor them. But we have to convince our
Representatives that impeachment is necessary for the country and
politically safe for them. This non-violent, constitutional process may be
our best way of stopping World War III and saving our civil rights.

Bush Cabal Repudiates Nuremberg Principles

We don't have to wait for the devastation of Baghdad to impeach the
Bush cabal because they have already repudiated the Nuremberg Charter via
the so-called Bush Doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive attack. "This
doctrine of pre-emptive warfare or pre-emptive attack was rejected soundly
in the Nuremberg Judgment, " Boyle says. "The Nuremberg Judgment . . .
rejected this Nazi doctrine of international law of alleged self-defense."
The Bush Doctrine, embodied in the National Security Strategy document,
published on the White House web site, is appalling, Boyle says. "It reads
like a Nazi planning document prior to the Second World War."

Several examples of crimes that may make Bush and other White House
officials vulnerable to domestic prosecution and to Nuremburg-style
international trials:

a.. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS: Military aggression and conquest
violate the constitutionally mandated role of U.S. armed forces. (Article I,
Section 8; Article IV, Section 4)

b.. VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (U.N. Charter; Geneva
Convention): Preemptive invasion without proof of an imminent attack is an
illegal act of military aggression. The Bush Administration has never proved
that an attack by Saddam on the U.S. or any other country is imminent. The
mission of the U.N. is to avert war, not to rubberstamp invasions.

c.. LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD: President Bush,
Secretary of State Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and other officials
have lied about the weapons capability of Iraq, including nuclear, bio, and
chemical arms (Iraq has no means to deliver them); about connections between
Saddam and al-Qaeda (which seeks to overthrow Saddam); about Saddam's
involvement in terrorism against the U.S. (no evidence); about the U.S.'s
intention to establish democracy in Iraq. In his January 28 State of the
Union address, Bush used a paranoid fantasy scenario to justify war:
"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time
armed by Saddam Hussein....".

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding
of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." --
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946.

d.. RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT: While Bush claims that the war on Iraq is
necessary for homeland security, the invasion will result in terrorist
retaliation against Americans at home and abroad. While Bush expresses
concern for Iraqi civilians, the U.S. plans for a "shock and awe" campaign,
with a massive missile attack on Baghdad, and intends to use cluster bombs
and landmines, which will kill and maim thousands of civilians. The U.S.
will also use depleted uranium, despite the severe health problems it caused
American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the last Persian Gulf War. The
U.S.'s illegal coercive techniques in the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners,
with some prisoners sent to Egypt and other countries that use torture
openly, places U.S. soldiers who are captured at grave risk of torture.

e.. SUBTERFUGE: U.S. intelligence sabotaged the U.N. inspections in
Iraq by withholding crucial information from the inspectors about Saddam
Hussein's arsenal -- evident in Powell's own presentation before the U.N.
Powell cited a graduate student's dossier on Iraq published ten years ago as
'damning evidence' collected by the British Secret Service. The U.N. is
investigating the bugging, allegedly by the U.S., of the offices and phone
lines of U.N. delegations whose support the Bush Administration sought for
the invasion.

f.. BRIBERY AND EXTORTION: The Bush Administration bribed Turkey and
other countries to get their support in the U.N. for invading Iraq, and also
threatened to withdraw foreign aid and impose other penalties. (The $26
billion bribe failed to persuade the Turkish parliament.)

g.. AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY: U.S. companies, in deals
negotiated in part with Rumsfeld's help, sold Iraq chemical, bio (including
Anthrax), and other weapons during the 1980s. While Vice President Cheney
served as CEO, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root did $73 million
worth of business with Iraq between 1998 and 2000 and sold Iraq pulse
generators, designed for oil drilling but which can be used for nuclear
detonations, despite the economic sanctions against Iraq.

h.. WAR PROFITEERING: According to the Wall Street Journal (January
16, 2003), officials from the White House, State Department, and Defense
Department have met with execs from Halliburton, ExxonMobil, and other oil
firms to determine who will control Iraqi oil after the war. Halliburton now
has a multimillion-dollar contract to rebuild Iraq's oil field after the
war, and ExxonMobil has won a $47.8 million contract to supply gasoline,
diesel fuel and motor oil to U.S. and NATO forces.

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the
people fear the government, you have tyranny."
- Thomas Jefferson

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing"
- Edmund Burke

US prosecuted Nazi propagandists as war criminals: The Nuremberg
tribunal and the role of the media.

Lakota United Nations Representative: "The World Must Rise Up Against
America's Tyranny

Witness to War Crimes in Iraq: The Ugly American

On April 6, we were at the outskirts of Baghdad, facing a strategic
bridge the Americans called 'the Baghdad Highway Bridge'. Residential zones
were now much greater in number. American snipers got the order to kill
anything coming in their direction. That night a teenager who was crossing
the bridge was killed.

On the morning of April 7, the Marines decided to cross the bridge. A
shell fell onto an armored personnel carrier. Two marines were killed. The
crossing took on a tragic aspect. The soldiers were stressed, febrile. They
were shouting. The risk didn't appear to be that great, so I followed their
advance. They were howling, shouting orders and positions to each other. It
sounded like something in-between a phantasm, mythology and conditioning.
The operation was transformed into crossing the bridge over the River Kwai.

Later, there was some open terrain. The Marines were advancing and
taking up position, hiding behind mounds of earth. They were still really
tense. A small blue van was moving towards the convoy. Three
not-very-accurate warning shots were fired. The shots were supposed to make
the van stop. The van kept on driving, made a U-turn, took shelter and then
returned slowly. The Marines opened fire. All hell broke loose. They were
firing all over the place. You could hear 'Stop firing' being shouted. The
silence that set in was overwhelming. Two men and a woman had just been
riddled with bullets. So this was the enemy, the threat.

A second vehicle drove up. The same scenario was repeated. Its
passengers were killed on the spot. A grandfather was walking slowly with a
cane on the sidewalk. They killed him too (SEE PHOTO IN LE MONDE). As with
the old man, the Marines fired on a SUV driving along the river bank that
was getting too close to them. Riddled with bullets, the vehicle rolled
over. Two women and a child got out, miraculously still alive. They sought
refuge in the wreckage. A few seconds later, it flew into bits as a tank
lobbed a terse shot into it.

Marines are conditioned to reach their target at any cost, by staying
alive and facing any type of enemy. They abusively make use of
disproportionate firepower. These hardened troops, followed by tons of
equipment, supported by extraordinary artillery power, protected by fighter
jets and cutting-edge helicopters, were shooting on local inhabitants who
understood absolutely nothing of what was going on.

With my own eyes I saw about fifteen civilians killed in two days.
I've gone through enough wars to know that it's always dirty, that civilians
are always the first victims. But the way it was happening here, it was
insane.

At the roughest moment, the most humane of the troops was called Doug.
He gave real warning shots. From 800 yards he could hit a tire and, if that
wasn't enough, then the motor. He saved ten lives in two hours by driving
back civilians who were coming towards us.

Distraught soldiers were saying: 'I ain't prepared for this, I didn't
come here to shoot civilians.' The colonel countered that the Iraqis were
using inhabitants to kill marines, that 'soldiers were being disguised as
civilians, and that ambulances were perpetrating terrorist attacks.'

I drove away a girl who had had her humerus pierced by a bullet.
Enrico was holding her in his arms. In the rear, the girl's father was
protecting his young son, wounded in the torso and losing consciousness. The
man spoke in gestures to the doctor at the back of the lines, pleading: "I
don't understand, I was walking and holding my children's hands. Why didn't
you shoot in the air? Or at least shoot me?"

In Baghdad, McCoy sped up the march. He stopped taking the time to
search houses one-by-one. He wanted to get to Paradise Place as soon as
possible. The Marines were not firing on the thickening population. The
course ended with Saddam's statue being toppled. There were more journalists
at the scene than Baghdadis. Its five million inhabitants stayed at home."

Interviewed by Michel Guerrin for LE MONDE, April 12, 2003.

Not Since the Third Reich: US government implicated in planned theft
of Iraqi artistic treasures 19 April 2003

As the full extent of the looting of Iraq's National Museum in Baghdad
emerges, it becomes clear that there was nothing accidental about it. Rather
it was the result of a long planned project to plunder the artistic and
historical treasures that are held in the museums of Iraq.

Had the National Museum of Iraq been looted by poor slum dwellers it
would have been crime enough, and the responsibility would have rested with
the American administration that refused, despite repeated warnings, to
provide for the security of Baghdad's cultural buildings.

Once the museum staff were able to communicate with the outside world,
however, it became apparent that the looting was not random. It was the work
of people who knew what they were looking for and came specially equipped
for the job.

Dr. Dony George, head of the Baghdad Museum, said, "I believe they
were people who knew what they wanted. They had passed by the gypsum copy of
the Black Obelisk. This means that they must have been specialists. They did
not touch those copies."



rutal Treatment of Young Prisoners Isn't Restricted to Iraq April
24, 2003

Upon discovering that Saddam Hussein's henchmen maintained a brutal
prison for the children of the disloyal, one of my colleagues in the
national press expressed a predictable loathing:

"I was stunned," she wrote with a stylish rhetorical flourish. "What
kind of regime locks up and tortures children?"

Now that's a good question. Because juvenile detention facilities in
the U.S. were recently found by federal investigators to show a "pattern of
egregious conditions." Violations of incarcerated children's rights included
physical abuse, excessive use of discipline, overcrowded and unsafe
conditions, inadequate educational, medical and mental health services.

Just as the Americans were announcing that the liberation of Iraq
would be followed by "steadfast commitment . . . to advance internationally
agreed human rights principles worldwide," the U.S. was for the fourth time
in 12 months preparing to participate in a practice that Amnesty
International denounces as "indecent and illegal."

The U.S. has the barbarous distinction of having executed more people
for crimes committed as children than any other country -- and that during a
period when 40 more nations were abolishing the death penalty entirely,
bringing the global total to 111. When it comes to the execution of juvenile
offenders, it seems the U.S. is a rogue state in the international
community.

George W. Bush: War criminal Mar 10, 2003, 05:42

Is Pope John Paul II telling the world that if President George W.
Bush goes ahead with his plans to invade Iraq without United Nations
sanctions, the Catholic Church will consider Bush a war criminal?

"A war would be a defeat for humanity and would be neither morally nor
legally justified," the Pope told Bush in a papal message delivered last
week by a special envoy. "It is an unjust war."

This leads even conservatives like John McLaughlin, host of the
syndicated McLaughlin Group and a longtime supporter of both conservative
and Republican causes, to have second thoughts.

"The Pope is saying an invasion of Iraq would be criminal," says
McLaughlin, who is also a former Jesuit priest. "A statement that strong
cannot be ignored."
Allied War Crimes in the Second World War
Guantanamo War Crimes
Eisenhower's Death Camps
US War Crimes in the Second World War 1
US War Crimes in the Second World War 2

Ask the International Court of Criminal of Justice to Indict Bush As
a War Criminal for Launching an Illegal, Immoral Attack on the People of
Iraq

Liberation of the Iraqi people must not be by slaughtering them in
their homes and markets. It must never again be at the cost of the lives of
innocent children and the unborn. Using "depleted" uranium will kill
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as our own troops as it did in the
war his father launched twelve years ago. We are requesting that the
International Criminal Court indict and prosecute our own President as a war
criminal, for he leads our government in the rush to a particularly brutal
war. We do not take such a stance lightly, but the Administration's action
is a moral outrage, not a matter of opinion or misjudgment.

Will you stand with us?

If so, sign the card below addressed to the International Criminal
Court and return it to FOR. We will batch and send them on.

Will you stand with us?

Career officer does eye-opening stint inside Pentagon
I suggested to my boss that if this was as good as it got, some folks
on the Pentagon's E-ring may be sitting beside Hussein in the war crimes
tribunals.

Blix says Iraq invasion violated international law:[And US law. Since
Bush did not in fact actually have proof that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction, the Congressional Authorization for the use of force was not
legally in effect, which means Bush misappropriated the US military for
personal use. At the very least he should be required to reimburse the
taxpayers for the costs of such personal use. ]
More evidence of US war crimes in Afghanistan: Taliban POWs suffocated
inside cargo containers and murdered in the desert at Dasht Leile
The film has been broadcast on national television in countries all
over the world and has been screened by the European parliament. Human
rights lawyers are calling for investigation into whether U.S. forces are
guilty of war crimes. But no U.S. media outlet has broadcast the film.

Today, on Democracy Now!, the U.S. broadcast premiere of a documentary
film called "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death."

The film provides eyewitness testimony that U.S. troops were complicit
in the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners during the Afghan War.

It tells the story of thousands of prisoners who surrendered to the US
military's Afghan allies after the siege of Kunduz. According to
eyewitnesses, some three thousand of the prisoners were forced into sealed
containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison.
Eyewitnesses say when the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S.-allied
Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. The
rest suffered through an appalling road trip lasting up to four days, so
thirsty they clawed at the skin of their fellow prisoners as they licked
perspiration and even drank blood from open wounds.

Witnesses say that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the
containers, most of the people inside were dead. They also say US Special
Forces re-directed the containers carrying the living and dead into the
desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried. Now, up to three
thousand bodies lie buried in a mass grave.

US Rogue State

1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the
1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first
time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.

2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144
nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a
London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the
Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001,
US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead,"
at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria
of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or
supporting evidence.

3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms,
July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.

4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights
Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current
dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of
the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US
stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access
to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and
calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)

5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The
Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war
crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty
was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October
2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US
Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would
keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed
ICC.

6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December
1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia,
China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President
Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect
South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He
stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by
President Bush in August 2001.

7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared
"dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush
administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the
accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.

8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to
discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and
electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon"
program),

9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack
down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.

10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production
of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001

11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism,
bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa

12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial
nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001:
the US was the only one to oppose it.

13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In
the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the
tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of
167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).

14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and
ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by
President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one
of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear
power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee
on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban
Treaty.

15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that
the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in
Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US
refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for
compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting
no).

16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the
New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to
lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI,
Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of
press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1
in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US
nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed
rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the
issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN
but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined.

17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and
containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has
neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter
provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles
(with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China
abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000.

18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not
ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe.

19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of
children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no
functioning government.

20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not
ratified.

21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several
"reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and
consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course
of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by
Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia,
and others.

22. Is the status of "we're number one!" Rogue overcome by generous
foreign aid to given less fortunate countries? The three best aid providers,
measured by the foreign aid percentage of their gross domestic products, are
Denmark (1.01%), Norway (0.91%), and the Netherlands (0.79), The three
worst: USA (0.10%), UK (0.23%), Australia, Portugal, and Austria (all 0.26).

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
The Bush administration has also declined to the Framework Convention
on Tobacco Control, sign a World Health Organisation treaty with the aim of
reducing the 4 million people who die from tobacco related diseases every
year. Bush did this because of the donations he recieved from the tobacco
companies and is one of the few countries not to sign. Tobacco could be
called the biggest weapon of mass destruction...

Copyright, Richard Du Boff, Reprinted for fair use only.

The Bush Crime Family: Three Generations of Treason



International War Crimes Tribunal
United States War Crimes Against Iraq
Part One

The National Lawyers Guild state in their
information on "Know Your Rights" that "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS CANNOT
BE SUSPENDED - EVEN DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY OR WARTIME - AND THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN SUSPENDED BY THE 'USA PATRIOT ACT' OR OTHER RECENT LEGISLATION."

U.S. War Flouts Violations Of International Law Is It A Case Of 'Do As
We Say, Not As We Do' April 9, 2003

WASHINGTON -- What can they be teaching in American law schools today
about the principles of international law and constitutional law now that
our nation is practicing "unilateralism" and "preemption?"

Is it a case of "do as we say, not as we do?"

The U.S. invasion of Iraq flouted many of the legal commitments and
treaties that we have pioneered and fostered since World War II.

The United States also has conveniently skirted the United Nations
charter, which limits the legality of taking up arms against another country
to instances of self-defense or when the U.N. Security Council has given its
prior approval. [See also War Crimes]

(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address
***@hearstdc.com )

Iraqis Sue Franks For war Crimes, U.S. Irked


Franks could be prosecuted by a Belgian court for war crimes in
Iraq

WASHINGTON, April 28 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Suffering
from indelible psychological scars for losing their loved ones to the
U.S.-led war on their country, Iraqi civilians are preparing to lodge a
complaint with a Belgian court against Chief of the U.S. Central Command
Gen. Tommy Franks and other U.S. military officials for committing
unspeakable war crimes in Iraq, a leading U.S. newspaper reported Monday,
April 28.

Representing 10 Iraqis who say they were victims of or eyewitnesses to
atrocities perpetrated during the U.S.-led war, Jan Fermon, the
Brussels-based lawyer, said the complaint will ask an investigative
magistrate to look into whether indictments should be issued against Gen.
Franks, the Washington Times wrote.

"The complaint will state that coalition forces are responsible for
the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians in Hilla, the bombing of a
marketplace in Baghdad , the shooting of an ambulance, and failure to
prevent the mass looting of hospitals," Fermon told the Times

November 26, 2003
Britain's third most senior judge describes detention of terror
suspects at Guantanamo Bay as a "monstrous failure of justice"




http://www.peoplejudgebush.org/index.shtml
Larry J.
2004-09-29 08:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by grandwazoo
Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious
and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and
divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of
Muslims there.
The Jews, without a drop of oil to sell, are the only people in the
Middle-East who have been able to create a modern, thriving state in
the region.

This greatly pisses off the area's Islamic nations, all failed
societies.

And the Jews would be doing even better if they didn't have waste a
fortune to fend off the scrabbling Arabs, who play a great fucking
blame game.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"Lord, are we worthy of the task that lies before us,
or are we just jerking off..?"
Larry J.
2004-09-29 08:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Or, we might actually take seriously what those who are leading
the Jihad are saying. They are clearly opposed to democracy and
freedom. They see those trends as destructive to a true Islam.
Anything post-Middle Ages is destructive to a true Islam.
--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"Lord, are we worthy of the task that lies before us,
or are we just jerking off..?"
Sanders Kaufman
2004-09-28 23:33:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
The greatest nuclear threat is not from the US, or GW, it is from
Islamists who have clearly stated their intent.
It makes one wonder why Bush has turned his back on the fight against al
Quaeda.
SteveR
2004-09-28 23:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by SteveR
The greatest nuclear threat is not from the US, or GW, it is from
Islamists who have clearly stated their intent.
It makes one wonder why Bush has turned his back on the fight against al
Quaeda.
Actually, one wonders why you would think that's so.
Sanders Kaufman
2004-09-29 00:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SteveR
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It makes one wonder why Bush has turned his back on the fight against al
Quaeda.
Actually, one wonders why you would think that's so.
Because Bush himself says "I don't care about bin Laden".
And beyond his words, he too busy campaigning and defending the failure to
find al Quaeda and Nuclear bombs in the Iraqi oil fields.
Just look at his campaign. He talks a lot about Iraq, and about Kerry - but
not a word about terrorism except to insist that he's the guy to fight it.

This failure to confront bin Laden is confirmed last week when an al Quaeda
soldier was released from Bush's Concentration Camp for Muslims in Cuba and
returned to freedom in Saudi Arabia.

But don't take my word for it. Have Feith in your president.
He Himself said "I don't care about bin Laden" and "I don't think this war
can be won".

I wonder why you think Bush is so hell-bent on fighting terrorists, when his
own deeds and even his own WORDS say differently.

We need a president who actually knows and cares how to fight America's
enemies - foreign and domestic.
Serious Sam
2004-09-29 02:06:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
This failure to confront bin Laden is confirmed last week
Bin laden was killed in an air strike in February of last year.

His relatives were asked to submit DNA samples.

Get over it and those pasted together al Jizzrag videotapes.
SteveR
2004-09-29 02:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Post by SteveR
Post by Sanders Kaufman
It makes one wonder why Bush has turned his back on the fight against al
Quaeda.
Actually, one wonders why you would think that's so.
Because Bush himself says "I don't care about bin Laden".
Kinda blew bin Laden's rep with the locals. Fearless Leader holed up in
a cave and no-one gives a rat's ass - he's been bitch-slapped.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
And beyond his words, he too busy campaigning and defending the failure to
find al Quaeda and Nuclear bombs in the Iraqi oil fields.
We're still looking. We may even have to knock on other doors. However
frightening it may be to rattle the cages of whacks who want nukes,
failure to do so is suicide.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Just look at his campaign. He talks a lot about Iraq, and about Kerry - but
not a word about terrorism except to insist that he's the guy to fight it.
Last time I checked with the DU, it's *all* he ever talks about - trying
too SCARE US!

OTOH, Kerry tells me that Bush has made the world a more DANGEROUS
PLACE! And that, of course, he'll fix it... somehow.

He'll save us from secret plans to withdraw the troops, institute the
draft, screw the dairy farmers and make Eveyone. In. The. World. Hate.
Us.

He has secret plans! They're in a little lock box.
Post by Sanders Kaufman
This failure to confront bin Laden is confirmed last week when an al Quaeda
soldier was released from Bush's Concentration Camp for Muslims in Cuba and
returned to freedom in Saudi Arabia.
Let me guess, you also consider Gitmo and the captives as victims, but,
well, this is Tuesday, eh?
Post by Sanders Kaufman
But don't take my word for it. Have Feith in your president.
He Himself said "I don't care about bin Laden" and "I don't think this war
can be won".
But.. I thought he was a warmonger bent on a neo-con crusade? I'm so
confused. Now you're telling me he wants to surrender

This is distressing. I may have to vote for the war hero guy - someone
who has the cojones to chase the bastards down and dispatch with extreme
prejudice. From slopes of Sun Valley to shores of Nantucket, he'll never
rest.
Serious Sam
2004-09-29 02:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sanders Kaufman
Bush has turned his back on the fight against al
Quaeda.
You're a vile lying sack of leftist shit!
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...