View Poll Results: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    5 7.81%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    4 6.25%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    21 32.81%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    34 53.13%
Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 285

Thread: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  1. #81
    Sage
    Navy Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pacific NW
    Last Seen
    05-07-15 @ 12:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    39,883

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
    "God Bless Our Troops in Harms Way."

  2. #82
    User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    02-15-09 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    77

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    Sources please!

    I do find your lack of comprehension amusing, but only because I am too tired to work up annoyance.

    What you think of as items of "Ancient History" are in the Muslim World current affairs. If you fail to grasp this extremely basic fact of Islamic Militancy, then your positions are not to be taken seriously.

    Normally, I would cite sources for you. But since you seem to reject what I have already posted, I fear that there is little point.

    But to take a stab at your question, the greatest threat to the Constitution of this, or indeed any Republic, is an ignorant population of state-dependent persons who fail to exercise analytical thinking or accept the hard truths that a must be assimilated by individuals wishing to develop a mature character.

    Such individuals have allowed themselves to become serfs, and await the coming of their masters.

    Carry on.

    "The CIA paied for, organized, trained, and equiped the backbone of modern day 'Islamic extremeist' groups especially through the ISI (the inteligence arm of the ISLAMIC republic of Pakistan, who your government gives millions of $s in military aid to every year)."



    "After the Soviet deployment, Pakistan's military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq started accepting financial aid from the Western powers to aid the mujahideen.[50] In 1981, following the election of United States President Ronald Reagan, aid for the mujahideen through Zia's Pakistan significantly increased, mostly due to the efforts of Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson and CIA officer Gust Avrakotos. "

    "The United States, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia became major financial contributors, the United States donating "$600 million in aid per year"

    Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ( Eduardo Real: "Zbigniew Brzezinski, Defeated by his Success" (50))

    ( Kepel, Gilles, Jihad, Belknap, (2002), p.143 (51))


    "The Pakistani government gave substantial military support to the Taliban in the years leading up to the September 11 attacks, sending arms and soldiers to fight alongside the militant Afghan movement, according to newly released US official documents.

    ""The documents illustrate that throughout the 1990's the ISI [Pakistani intelligence] considered Islamic extremists to be foreign policy assets," Barbara Elias, a National Security Archive researcher, said. "But they succeeded ultimately in creating a Pakistani Taliban. "

    US documents show Pakistan gave Taliban military aid | World news | The Guardian

    "The Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A special Afghan Section was created under the command of colonel Mohammed Yousaf to oversee the coordination of the war. A number of officers from the ISI's Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, specifically the fighters loyal to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The United States of America provided technical assistance and financial support to Afghan Mujahideen through ISI. "

    Inter-Services Intelligence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "Despite billions of dollars in U.S. military payments to Pakistan over the last six years, the paramilitary force leading the pursuit of Al Qaeda militants remains underfunded, poorly trained and overwhelmingly outgunned, U.S. military and intelligence officials said. "

    Pakistan fails to aim billions in U.S. military aid at Al Qaeda - Los Angeles Times


    PATRIOT VS CONSTITUTION

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    ([url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentiv])

    Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to define the term "domestic terrorism" as a counterpart to the current definition of "international terrorism" in 18 U.S.C. §2331. The new definition for "domestic terrorism" is for the limited purpose of providing investigative authorities (i.e., court orders, warrants, etc.) for acts of terrorism within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Such offenses are those that are "(1) dangerous to human life and violate the criminal laws of the United States or any state; and (2) appear to be intended (or have the effect) – to intimidate a civilian population; influence government policy intimidation or coercion; or affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping (or a threat of)." Same as Administration proposal.

    Sec. 806. Assets of terrorists organizations. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to provide that the assets of individuals and organizations engaged in planning or perpetrating acts of terrorism against the United States, as well as the proceeds and instrumentalities of such acts, are subject to civil forfeiture. Same as original Administration proposal.

    Sec. 201. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to add criminal violations relating to terrorism to the list of predicate statutes in the criminal procedures for interception of communications under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code. Not in original Administration proposal.

    Sec. 202. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to add criminal violations relating to computer fraud and abuse to the list of predicate statutes in the criminal procedures for interception of communications under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code. Not in original Administration proposal.

    Sec. 505. Miscellaneous national security authorities. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to modify current statutory provisions on access to telephone, bank, and credit records in counterintelligence investigations to remove the "agent of a foreign power" standard.

    Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the FISA. Both the House and Senate bills included this provision to remove the "agent of a foreign power" standard for court-ordered access to certain business records under FISA and expands the scope of court orders to include access to other records and tangible items. The authority may be used for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities or to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning U.S. persons.

    Section by Section Analysis of the USA Patriot Act - October 2001

    USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)




    Your Sources

    1. The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe by Lorenzo Vidino

    Lorenzo Vidino is a research analyst for the Investigative Project. Whos director is Steven Emerson

    "Emerson has also been known to be a major cause in the firing of Muslim govt. jobs, all because of pure exaggeration and hate.
    Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:"

    Steven Emerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. Spread By the Sword By by Mark Hartwig

    ”[On the other hand, Christians shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that their Muslim neighbors are bomb-toting fanatics: Even Muslims who believe in militant jihad don’t necessarily like violence.
    Instead of fearing or hating Muslims, Christians should view them in light of our duty to preach the gospel. For as 2 Tim. 1:7 reminds us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” ”
    Islam: Spread by the Sword?

    3. History of Spain Before During and After the Muslim Conquest

    Could not find this book on Amazon.com but is attributed to have ended in the 13th Century

    Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    4. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ( A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE )

    Ended in 1300

    History of the Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire

    5. Muslim Conquests

    I have no idea what your referring to here, perhaps the 13 or so noted time period in which Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Persians fought in what is currently referred to as the middle east?

    6. The Islamic Justification for Killing Non-Combatants in War By Ms. Yael Shahar

    “Ms. Yael Shahar served as a reservist in the IDF hostage rescue unit, and as a sniper in Israel’s Border Guard “Matmid” units.” - Would it be possible to provide sources from less compromised sources?

    ICT - Ms. Yael Shahar

    7. Battle of Vienna

    Citing a battle? I do not understand, is this single event supposed to prove that Muslims are inherently war like? If so I do not follow the reasoning considering the large number of Cristian wars, genocides and conquests.

    8. Islamic conquest of Afghanistan

    Again, Could not find a book with this exact name, and no author was provided so I assume that you take the action itself as proof, as I have sourced above, this was not only supported, but in large part paid for the USA.

    9. Khazar–Arab Wars

    Ended 737 AD

    Khazar–Arab Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by cheat3; 12-22-08 at 05:42 PM.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Talk View Post
    . . . I am saing that if you want to see presidents held accountable to the world for their actions on the world stage. . .
    Open the window, turn on the TV, read the newspaper. Learn what the world is.

    Then you should see that it is a suicidal concept to court "world opinion," in much the same way as it is to seek the approval of a criminal mob.
    Last edited by Oftencold; 12-22-08 at 07:06 PM. Reason: typo

  4. #84
    Professor
    shiznit770's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,393

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
    Because everyone involved in the war (soldiers and security forces) are pure of heart and would never take advantage of their situation(sarcasm). Perhaps war crimes is not the appropriate term, since most agree Iraq is no longer at war.

    War crimes exist, but they certainly are not justified in the case of Bush or Cheney. Putting our armed forces up on a pedestal where there can be no wrong is dangerous and ignorant.

  5. #85
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE=LaMidRighter;1057856270]
    Because our laws trump theirs, any attempt to enforce international law on our sovereign shores would be an act of war, and we would destroy them if the attempt was made.
    You obviously don't know much about international law.

    How is he treasonist? Nevermind, you couldn't prove your case because their isn't one. And where is your proof the president lied? Nevermind, you don't have any.
    That's all been proved here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Seek and ye shall find... and be edumacated.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  6. #86
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    [QUOTE][QUOTE=ADK_Forever;1057857395]
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post

    You obviously don't know much about international law.
    Don't have to since it does not supercede long standing U.S. Constitutional law for sovereign affairs.


    That's all been proved here beyond a shadow of a doubt. Seek and ye shall find... and be edumacated.
    Then list some of these war crimes and specifically tell me how they violated the Geneva Conventions, or U.S. War Powers doctrine. This oughta be classic.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  7. #87
    Guru
    ADK_Forever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    05-07-11 @ 07:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,706

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Don't have to
    I see.
    Thank You Barack Obama for Restoring Honor To The Presidency.
    President Obama will rank as one of our greatest presidents!

  8. #88
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-08-14 @ 10:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?


    Point?

    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    PATRIOT VS CONSTITUTION

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
    . . .

    Section by Section Analysis of the USA Patriot Act - October 2001

    USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)

    Yes, an act ratified by Congress, with a pretty good record of standing up to legal challenges in the courts. One that also is reported to have been useful in preventing further attacks by savages.

    But I hardly think that it rises to the level of a crime at all, much less an internationally actionable war crime.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    Your Sources

    1. The Muslim Brotherhood's Conquest of Europe by Lorenzo Vidino

    Lorenzo Vidino is a research analyst for the Investigative Project. Whos director is Steven Emerson

    "Emerson has also been known to be a major cause in the firing of Muslim govt. jobs, all because of pure exaggeration and hate.
    Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:"

    Steven Emerson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Apparently Mr Emerson is a very good source, as, "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." This is from the same article.

    Curiously, the material that you cite here, has just recently added to the wiki by someone with a poor grammatical style that oddly, I believe looks a bit familiar.

    The Criticsm section until a few days ago in toto was:


    Emerson has been accused of exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists and of creating fictitious or unverifiable sources. Examples of allegations that have been ridiculed by the mainstream media include an alleged plot by Pakistan to launch a nuclear first strike against India and the accusation that Yugoslavians were behind the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York.[3] In its criticism of his coverage of the Pan Am 103 bombing, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting also accused Emerson of plagiarism:
    Emerson's book, The Fall of Pan Am 103, was chastised by the Columbia Journalism Review, which noted in July 1990 that passages "bear a striking resemblance, in both substance and style" to reports in the Post-Standard of Syracuse, N.Y. Reporters from the Syracuse newspaper told this writer that they cornered Emerson at an Investigative Reporters and Editors conference and forced an apology.[4]
    The New York Times also criticized Emerson's accusation that Iran was behind the bombing.
    But instead of weaving these revelations into the day-to-day story of the investigation, they drop them almost casually at the end, without much substantiation.[5]
    Emerson also accused Muslims of being behind the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The false accusations led to "a backlash against the American Muslim community during the first few days after the explosion."
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    2. Spread By the Sword By by Mark Hartwig

    ”[On the other hand, Christians shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that their Muslim neighbors are bomb-toting fanatics: Even Muslims who believe in militant jihad don’t necessarily like violence.
    Instead of fearing or hating Muslims, Christians should view them in light of our duty to preach the gospel. For as 2 Tim. 1:7 reminds us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” ”
    In the same article the more dilligent reader will find
    Modernist interpretations notwithstanding, it is clear that military jihad—even in its expansionist form—is an authentic part of Islam.
    No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

    Furthermore, the traditional doctrine of jihad remains alive to this day.
    This means that Christians should not accept the sweeping claim that Islam is a religion of peace. There’s just too much contrary evidence.
    Modernist interpretations notwithstanding, it is clear that military jihad—even in its expansionist form—is an authentic part of Islam.

    No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

    Furthermore, the traditional doctrine of jihad remains alive to this day.
    This means that Christians should not accept the sweeping claim that Islam is a religion of peace. There’s just too much contrary evidence.
    Islam: Spread by the Sword?
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    3. History of Spain Before During and After the Muslim Conquest

    Could not find this book on Amazon.com but is attributed to have ended in the 13th Century

    Umayyad conquest of Hispania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Try clicking on the link in the post.

    The point was to show that Islam had a long history of violent expansion. I take it that you concede this point, since you cite another reference to the 800 year battle to expel the Muslims Invaders from Europe.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    4. THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE ( A CHRONOLOGICAL OUTLINE )

    Ended in 1300

    This would no doubt come as something of a stunning revelation to the Ottomans still serving in the regime in the 1920's.


    Thirteen hundred was the second year of the Ottoman Empire.
    The Ottoman Empire . . . was an empire that lasted from 1299–1923. It was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey,[3] which was officially proclaimed on October 29, 1923.
    LINK


    History of the Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    5. Muslim Conquests

    I have no idea what your referring to here, perhaps the 13 or so noted time period in which Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, and Persians fought in what is currently referred to as the middle east?
    The clear point, was to show once again that Traditional Islam is a violently expansive body, with a history of forceful annexation going back to its inception.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    6. The Islamic Justification for Killing Non-Combatants in War By Ms. Yael Shahar

    “Ms. Yael Shahar served as a reservist in the IDF hostage rescue unit, and as a sniper in Israel’s Border Guard “Matmid” units.” - Would it be possible to provide sources from less compromised sources?
    ICT - Ms. Yael Shahar
    You have a number in my earlier post to choose from. I find it amusing, ironic and sad, that you find a source with direct experience "compromised." This suggests a deliberate aversion to contradictory information.

    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    7. Battle of Vienna

    Citing a battle? I do not understand, is this single event supposed to prove that Muslims are inherently war like? If so I do not follow the reasoning considering the large number of Cristian wars, genocides and conquests.
    It is true, you simply do not understand. The battle of Vienna was the culminatios of an aggressive war of conquest. Once again, this demonstrates a long history of Islamic aggression against Western territories.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    8. Islamic conquest of Afghanistan

    Again, Could not find a book with this exact name, and no author was provided so I assume that you take the action itself as proof, as I have sourced above, this was not only supported, but in large part paid for the USA.
    Again, the entry is hotlinked. Click on it and be amazed at the wonders of hypertext.
    Quote Originally Posted by cheat3 View Post
    Once afgain illustrating the long histrotr of traditonal Islamic Agression.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    01-03-16 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,761

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Really, then what is American about those who have done NOTHING but stand in the way?
    Because they had the courage to stand up and say out loud 'NO! A WAR WITH IRAQ IS WRONG!!" in spite of the consequences, the attacks against their character, the association with 9-11 and how by being against the war in Iraq = support for OBL, Saddam Hussein, etc.

    Rather than caving into 'intelligence' which to the attentive person was clearly somwhere between an attempt at 'warmongering' and completely fabricated (which, thankfully I was right on that one... because for how dangerous Saddam was claimed to be, if he DID have these WMD's he would have unleashed them with the grandest fury he could muster before his inevitable defeat. It's like, say you're at the bar and you see a guy with a gun, a reasonable analogy would be to choose that guy walk up and punch him in the face... in other words, you'd be BEGGING to get shot)


    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Since the war crimes are only figment in the minds of left wing whackos and Bush haters who still have not gotten over the 2000 and 2004 election where Bush kicked ass there will be no war crimes prosecution nor should there be any..........
    Listen, the only reason it hasn't been proven to 'neo-con' allies is that anytime it does get proven, the bar is raised and told that the 'proof' is inadequate, 'debunked' or 'irrelevant',

    Hell, I even found a video of high ranking Bush officials discussing : duration, severity and METHOD of torture for specific detainees, IN THE WHITEHOUSE where one of the guys is quoted to saying 'history will not look kindly upon us discussing this in the whitehouse." and it was deemed irrelevant???

    It's nothing short of denial of Bush and co. wrongdoing. I mean, the media isn't debating whether or NOT Bush lied, but rather COUNTING THE OFFENCES (between 100-900 infractions depending if we're talking Bush or Bush and all... there was one where they calculated the 'lying to speaking ratios in some members being upwards of .5 (meaning every second statement was FALSE)

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    Yes, an act ratified by Congress, with a pretty good record of standing up to legal challenges in the courts. One that also is reported to have been useful in preventing further attacks by savages.
    Ever hear of a 'biased' question?? 'we can't have the first warning of Saddams WMD's coming in the form of a mushroom cloud... Do you want to stop Saddam from accomplishing this, or do you want an american city to get nuked??? You don't want an american city to get nuked, DO YOU?? Support the war.

    I'm not saying that the question posed to congress was that blatantly biased, BUT they were essentially pressured into voting for the war/ misled.

    But I hardly think that it rises to the level of a crime at all, much less an internationally actionable war crime.
    Yet the guy whose JOB it is is to PROTECT the constitution should be ALLOWED to KEEP his job after calling it a 'goddamned piece of paper' (yes, the words come out of Bush's mouth) is a SLAP IN THE FACE to EACH AN EVERY ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

    Torture is wrong, waterboarding IS torture contrary to your claims, which I'd like to see you backup (or do you deny that the US conducts waterboarding??)

    Apparently Mr Emerson is a very good source, as, "Emerson predicted, before September 11, 2001, that Islamists would launch a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil, and warned the U.S. Senate in 1998 of the danger posed by Osama bin Laden." This is from the same article.
    I could list off at least 2 others that have video dated upwards of 3 months-1 year prior to 9-11 that there WOULD be an attack on the US, that it would be used to justify wars in the middle east (Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Pakistan) one of them CITING the PNAC document as being a MESSAGE of INTENT... if you want I'll fish those videos out an post them for you to call 'irrelevant'.

    The point was to show that Islam had a long history of violent expansion. I take it that you concede this point, since you cite another reference to the 800 year battle to expel the Muslims Invaders from Europe.
    These wars are as old as the Bible itself, and the happenings represented IN the bible, IMO, are the SOURCE of this unending conflict between what boils down to religious wars.

    The clear point, was to show once again that Traditional Islam is a violently expansive body, with a history of forceful annexation going back to its inception.
    Much like Christianity... but we won't count that.

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-14-09 @ 05:19 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

    My post said that IF one desires to have george bush put on TRIAL for war crimes, that you would first need to achieve and acknowlegement of this courts juristiction. I knew most of you would not want this to happen, for this forum is quite nationalistic, and rather blind to the sins of its leadership. But this is another matter. As is weather the U.S. should or should not undertake such a policy.

    My statement is factualy corect.

    IF u want bush (or future presidents) on trial in a world court, the method to achieve this is pursuing an acknowlegement of the relevant international courts juristiction over u.s. citizens actions (in relation to international crimes).

    Until this is done, george bush, or any other president, will not see an international court trial.

    There is no point in debating this with me (at least in the manner psots have been) as my post is not one of normative idealism, but one of tactics in pursuit of an expressed (by other posters) ideal outcomes.


    And as I say (I guess this one is open to legal debate, as I am not sure of the exact wording and interpretations of relevant laws), I believe that pursuing charges of treason aggainst George Bush and his war mongering cabal (for misrepresenting inteligence). Although I am not a supporter of the death penalty, I belive that the relevant charge for treason would be execution, and I would not be in favor of any 'special treatment' in aplication of the law for someone who once presided as a governer of the state with roughly (or is it exactly?) death penalty sentances per anum.

    So yeah, death penalty for treason or not. Debate that one IMO.
    Or go make a thread about weather an acknowlegement of world courts over U.S. citizens is a good idea (which I doubt Ill post in). Cause further discusssion here with me about this is boarderline futile.
    Last edited by Real Talk; 12-23-08 at 02:52 AM.

Page 9 of 29 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •