posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 12:10 PM
Information management by the pentagram center during this war has been superb (starting with the bedding of the media - that's right no "em"
needed). Given the poor performance of US troops against lightly armed guerillas (there was no real Iraqi army left by the mid 90's anyway), that
ANYone supports the war is truly a credit to the pentagrams propaganda technicians.
Now that the truth threatens to crash their party, it's understandable that they have the bouncers out there keeping the public in their place. What
right do ordinary people have to known what the ruling class have decided is acceptable? Damnable plebs.
This disgusting behaviour doesn't come spontaneously to balanced people. I choose to believe that soldiers are (on the whole) balance people.
Therefore, if war crimes (yes, choke on that if you must but that is what they are) are committed by many soldiers in a systemic way, then it ain't
coincidence. It's called "chain of command" [first war crime]. Following an illegal order that comes down that chain is the second crime [the
lesser of the two in my opinion] (any takers?). But that means you have the "Pvt Lindy England"s starring in #ty e-snaps, plus every superior
officer/nco from her up to the "commander in chief" responsible for these crimes (unless anyone on that path is willing to take the trapdoor and
rope test on his boss's behalf - if you survive 30 minutes then you're innocent). Regardless of who will be jailed/executed for the crimes, the
facts about the crimes MUST come out.
If a crime is commited then knowledge about that crime is the absolute right of the plebs - ie. the electorate/public/normal folks, in the place where
the crime is committed and the place where the person who committed the crime originates (once the suspects are identified). Hiding crimes is what
authoritarian regimes do (any takers? - again) so it won't happen in the US
I think it's time to start a poll. After WW2 they chose Nuremberg for the trials of the war criminals. Well why should the western Ubermensche always
choose the venue? After this is over, whatsay we have the trials in, ooh, um, I dunno, Crawford? Any takers? And let's synidcate it (more ad revenue
that way), and have another in Sedgefield, UK, for the other guy - we can call him Bush's lieutenant (after all, they nailed all of Hitler's didn't
Or maybe, justice would be better served by the Fallujah Trials? Just postulating. Let's have an ATS poll. C'mon!