Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq

page: 13
2
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
You're Right!

Let's create even more Un-Fairness and throw it off balance even more!

I wonder what kind of Long Term effect it will have - lets see!



Create more unfairness? You mean living the life YOU want and not using all our resources for the good of humanity even though the rest of humanity will screw us over?



The problem here is, that only "You" decide which Fight is "Fair" and worth your time and efforts - which makes you pretty much narrow minded.

Worth our efforts?
Was bosnia , worth it?
Was NI worth it?
If we're sooo narrow minded then why the hell do we commit troops to the UN?



In the Meantime called Peace - the time to Re-Arms an Re-Group before the next "Big Push" to some God forsaken country, which holds "Terrible Terrorists" which threat the Free World.

Uh no they are still doing it today and have been doing it SINCE they where able to. The RAF operates coastguard ops, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
BTW, if your saying it took us 9 years to re arm and regroup then we must of suffered massive losses in GW1.



By GUNZ I ment Weapons in General.

So your willing to generalise but not generalise when it comes to who commits warcrimes?
[qoute]
I guess you do not know that Small Arms today are the Real Weapons of Mass Destruction:

- the growing availability of small arms has been a major factor in the increase in the number of conflicts

- in modern conflicts over 80 percent of all casualties have been civilian. 90 percent of these are caused by small arms

- there are around half a billion military small arms around the world

- some 300,000 to half a million people around the world are killed by them each year

- estimates of the black market trade in small arms range from US$2-10 billion a year

- at least 1,134 companies in 98 countries worldwide are involved in some aspect of the production of small arms and/or ammunition

- an extensive report from Oxfam in 1998 revealed that UK involvement in the small arms trade is much higher than previously acknowledged. Between 1995 and 1997, UK sold small arms to over 100 countries.

- "The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—France, Russia, China, the UK, and the USA—together account for 88 per cent of the world’s conventional arms exports; and these exports contribute regularly to gross abuses of human rights."

Fair?

Yet again, the Rich get Richer.

This has no bearing on what the military spends, the MOD doesnt sell weapons the weapon companies here DO.
BTW if your going to start saying we should start banning guns then tell me how we go about it?
Fair? Since when was the world fair to us?



How Cute!



Too bad it has NOTHING to do with the UK forces in Iraq and the Media coverup of their warcrimes.

[edit on 17/12/05 by Souljah]

Oh so your now ignoring the question?
again.
Tell me when are you going to start reporting the facts and stop reporting one side of the war?




posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:33 AM
link   


In September 2004, the incumbent UN Chief Kofi Annan made a very clear statement. Talking to BBC Annan said "the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." Being the UN Chief, and the custodian of International law, he should have known what he was talking about.

The Nuremberg Trial Counts One & Two: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War and Waging Aggressive War. The "common plan or conspiracy" charge was designed to get around the problem of how to deal with crimes committed before the war. The defendants charged under Count One were accused of agreeing to commit crimes. Accusation for Count Two was defined in the indictment as "the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances."

Abundant evidence is now available that shows that leaders and advisers of the Bush and Blair administrations engaged in "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression." Iraq posed no threat to either the United States or Britain. Its government had neither the means nor the intent of waging war against these countries; nor did it issue any threat to them. It possessed no WMDs.

The events now bear out that the US administration had plans ready well before the 9/11 crime to not only invade Iraq, but also target much if not all of the Middle East. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and presidential advisor David Gergen have confirmed that. The war of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," was planned well over a decade earlier. All alibis put forward by Bush administration for the Iraqi invasion, and the resultant near-genocidal massacre, have now been fully exposed as fraudulent motives.

The Nuremberg Trial Counts Three and Four: War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. These Counts addressed the charges of atrocities committed against humanity in the death camps, concentration camps and killing rampages like the indiscriminate bombing of civilian population centers.

Substantial evidence is now available that the Bush administration leaders, and military personnel following orders of these leaders, have committed "violations of the laws or customs of war," including "murder . . . of civilian populations of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war . . . plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity." The perpetrators' unjustifiable entreaties of military inevitability, of course, cannot free them of their actual crimes.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN sub commission, laws which are violated by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'.

Source:
Dust off the Nuremberg Trials



GlobalReseach

Leaders of the United States, Britain and Australia are criminals who have committed crimes against humanity and should be hauled up and tried for war crimes, according to two law professors.

Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi Mara Malaysia said George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and their accomplices had blatantly disregarded the laws of war.

He said the international community must file reports against them for genocide and crimes against humanity with the International Criminal Court for violating the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Leaders of the United States, Britain and Australia are criminals who have committed crimes against humanity and should be hauled up and tried for war crimes, according to two law professors.

Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi of Universiti Teknologi Mara Malaysia said George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard and their accomplices had blatantly disregarded the laws of war.

He said the international community must file reports against them for genocide and crimes against humanity with the International Criminal Court for violating the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

“His administration’s war of aggression against Iraq also constituted a crime against peace as defined by the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgement and the Nuremberg Principles as well as by paragraph 498 of US Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956),” he added.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Are these the same warcrimes that soldiers like tim collins commited or are they something completely diffrent



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Are these the same warcrimes that soldiers like tim collins commited or are they something completely diffrent

Come on dude - think!

This Colonel is a SMALL Fishie compared to what the Big Ones are doing and calling it "Liberation", "Freedom" and "Democracy".

Can't you see that the Big Fishies never get caught or sued for anything?

Just these Small Men pay their price - just to divert the attention from the REAL guilty ones, hiding in the back behind Your and American Flag.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Come on dude - think!

This Colonel is a SMALL Fishie compared to what the Big Ones are doing and calling it "Liberation", "Freedom" and "Democracy".

Big fishes?
As fishes come a colonel is one of the biggest.


Can't you see that the Big Fishies never get caught or sued for anything?

Just these Small Men pay their price - just to divert the attention from the REAL guilty ones, hiding in the back behind Your and American Flag.

Uh right ok, the tell me how these big fishes commit crimes if anything below colonel is a small fishie....



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Big fishes?
As fishes come a colonel is one of the biggest.

Colonel is nothing and noone compared to the Big Ass Generals that sit and wage wars.

Colonel is nothing and noone compared to Secretaries of Defence that Yearns for wars and arrange them.

Colonel is nothing and noone compared to Vice Presidents that own Companies, which make biggest profits when wars start.

Colonel is just another Soldier - one of MANY standing in line, trained to obey, trained to follow orders from his superiors and thats what he will always be.

And a Scapegoat.



Uh right ok, the tell me how these big fishes commit crimes if anything below colonel is a small fishie....

Colonel did not Lie to the entire World about reasons for Invasion.

[edit on 18/12/05 by Souljah]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Colonel is nothing and noone compared to the Big Ass Generals that sit and wage wars.

Wha????
A colonel commands over 1000 men, thats like 1/5th of a battalion!


Colonel is nothing and noone compared to Secretaries of Defence that Years for wars and arrange them.

Mate I wont say that couldnt happen but frankly ours is not doing that, before afghanistan GW1 was the latest war we had fought, that was over a decade ago.


Colonel is nothing and noone compared to Vice Presidents that own Companies, which make biggest profits when wars start.

A colonel can LEVEL a company if he so wished.


Colonel is just another Soldier - one of MANY standing in line, trained to obey, trained to follow orders from his superiors and thats what he will always be.

Uh no, a colonel is trained to be a leader, a fighter and a father to his men.
Why? Because he is the sole man in charge, he commands the regiment before, during and after battle.



And a Scapegoat.

If they use colonels as scape goats they will have no leaders for war, which is against logic.



Colonel did not Lie to the entire World about reasons for Invasion.

Nethier did the governent.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
A colonel commands over 1000 men, thats like 1/5th of a battalion!

And? The Supreme Commander commands ALL of the Battalions and all of the Generals.



Mate I wont say that couldnt happen but frankly ours is not doing that, before afghanistan GW1 was the latest war we had fought, that was over a decade ago.

I was aiming at the US Secretary of Defence.



A colonel can LEVEL a company if he so wished.

A soldier's WISH is of no importance.

Only ORDERS are important.



Uh no, a colonel is trained to be a leader, a fighter and a father to his men.
Why? Because he is the sole man in charge, he commands the regiment before, during and after battle.

Great for him!





If they use colonels as scape goats they will have no leaders for war, which is against logic.

ALOT of things they do is AGAINST LOGIC - but they do them anyway.




Colonel did not Lie to the entire World about reasons for Invasion.

Nethier did the governent.

Ofcourse it did.

BIGTIME!



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
And? The Supreme Commander commands ALL of the Battalions and all of the Generals.

That would be the queen, not a polition.



I was aiming at the US Secretary of Defence.

I dont care if you where aiming in between general melchouts ears.



A soldier's WISH is of no importance.

Soldiers wishes are important , thats why CL collins didnt send one of his men away when he was scared of going into battle.


Only ORDERS are important.

Wrong, wrong and right are important over orders.



Great for him!



Bad for him, you ever been a leader?
Its not easy.


ALOT of things they do is AGAINST LOGIC - but they do them anyway.

No everything these bad guys would need to be logical for them to survive.



Ofcourse it did.

BIGTIME!

The intel services lied, if tony did anything it was being an idiot.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
US Warcrimes in Iraq

Thats a BIG List there - no wonder alot of those Links is not Working anymore...



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I just have some more Quotes to support this Post which I want to Share with you all. Thanks!




In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its usefulness to US power

Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. “In our country,” said one of them, “to get that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have none of that. How do you do it? What’s the secret?”




Brand USA

Most critics of the U.S. don’t actually object to America’s stated values. Instead, they point to U.S. unilateralism in the face of international laws, widening wealth disparities, crackdowns on immigrants and human rights violations ... The anger comes not only from the facts of each case but also from a clear perception of false advertising. In other words, America’s problem is not with its brand — which could scarcely be stronger — but with its product.




Media as mirror to the world

A friend of mine [of journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski] was working in Mexico for various US television channels. I met him in the street as he was filming clashes between students and police. I asked “What’s happening here, John?” Without stopping filming he replied: “I don’t have the faintest idea. I just get the shots. I send them to the channel, and they do what they want with them”.




Mainstream Journalism: Shredding the First Amendment

“Some advertisers kill some stories and promote others,” she said, asserting that there is an “overwhelming influence of corporations and advertisers” on broadcast and print news reporting.

“The trends are all bad, worse and worse,” Nichols said. Newspapers and broadcast journalists are under “enormous pressures to replace civic values with commercial values.”

He labeled local television news a “cesspool.” Local broadcasters are under pressure from big corporations to “entertain” rather than to inform, and people are “more ignorant” after viewing television news because of the misinformation they broadcast, he said.




Globalization Limits Media Change

It is no wonder then that media historian Robert McChesney suggests that cutbacks in news and “informational” programs are deliberate because the companies who own and control media want to keep us in our private worlds, cut off from other people’s pain and from too much knowledge about the world. They prefer us tranquilized, pacified, entertained. I have heard him describe in several speeches the mantra of dominant media to ordinary viewers, readers and listeners as simple: “Shut up and shop.”




The mole, the US media and a White House coup

The media is in the midst of a transformation which the Bush administration is keen to foster. They have discovered that a partisan and atomised media can be controlled, manipulated and used to an unprecedented degree.




By MARK TWAIN

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.




Fighting Dirty

One difficulty is that the media have little or no memory. War correspondents have short working lives and there is no tradition or means for passing on their knowledge and experience. The military, on the other hand, is an institution and goes on forever. The military learned a lot from Vietnam and these days plans its media strategy with as much attention as its military strategy.




The Dangers of Disinformation in the War on Terrorism

For reporters covering this war [on terrorism], the challenge is not just in getting unfettered and uncensored access to U.S. troops and the battlefield - a long and mostly losing struggle in the past - but in discerning between information and disinformation. That is made all the more difficult by a 24-hour news cycle, advanced technology, and the military's growing fondness for a discipline it calls “Information Operations.” IO, as it is known, groups together information functions ranging from public affairs (PA, the military spokespersons corps) to military deception and psychological operations, or PSYOP. What this means is that people whose job traditionally has been to talk to the media and divulge truthfully what they are able to tell now work hand-in-glove with those whose job it is to support battlefield operations with information, not all of which may be truthfu.




Burying Big Business

One of the secrets of media manipulation is to report the horror and strife of the world as though Western power, interests and machinations did not exist. Vast poverty, injustice and chaos in the Third World are depicted as unconnected to the cool oases of civilisation in Europe and the United States, which look on benignly but helplessly, or pitch in heroically to right wrongs as far as they are able. The idea, for example, that the vast economic and military might of North America might in some way be linked to the vast poverty and suffering of neighbouring Central and South America is unthinkable.






top topics



 
2
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join