It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Courts AGREE, the Iraq war is illegal

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by selfless
I just want to say that if what america did to iraq were to happen to america, american people would freak out.

We sure as heck wouldn't care what british courts had to say about it, nor protest the war by legalities. We'd do what we did when we were attacked and nearly 3k of our civilians were killed, we'd hunt down the enemy across the globe and smash any state that resisted.


Indeed, so you mean to tell me that if an outside force were to invade usa, you would be considered a terrorist for defending your own? Cause that's what the us government calls those who defends them selves when they are being invaded by outside forces. Sure all forms of violence is wrong but those who defends are far less worst then those who invades.

Anything wrong with this picture?

The world is the world, the world is not usa. The war in iraq is not allowed and usa is not above all.

This attitude to take revenge and think your country is a hot shot and would destroy everyone... is arrogant and delusional, there shouldn't be any violence period.

They did a good job at brain washing people when they are able to create an event like 911 on them selves for the purpose to make it seem like the war in iraq is the choice of the american people.....

What hides behind the mask of delusion that is called democracy? A force like hitler or even worst then hitler him self.

The reason usa has been able to get away with this delusion is because they brain wash the people to make the choices the government wants to make in the first place. To make it seem like the people are in control but the people aren't even in control of their own minds.

Democracy? no... more like brain control for the purpose of a hidden facsist purpose.

Well no government on the planet speaks for me and i do not consider them to be my rulers, not for one second. If i had to say that i obey the government to save my own life i would choose death.

This false reality makes me sick, im gonna go trow up now.




posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
No Iraqi court has called it a crime, and the Iraqi government hasn't even requested that the US leave, thats because they know things will get really bad if they leave.


That's what they want you to believe, sure trust the mighty tv, it's your mind afterall...



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I just want to say that i mean no offense to the american people but i DO mean offense to the government or shadow government.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Of course the war is illegal, by international law (even within our own army field manual, although now we've succesfully re-written the laws to make it "legal"). This won't change anything, when have "laws" ever applied to actions performed by the United States? When has our government ever been penalized with any legal action as a result of our government breaking these laws?

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Sure all forms of violence is wrong but those who defends are far less worst then those who invades.

Anything wrong with this picture?


I will accept the flaggelation of the Brits as soon as I witness their self-flagellation for the war of 1812, the takeover of Ireland, the Boer war, et al.

BTW, I wonder what the Argentinians think of this idea of UK condemnation of the Us' involvement in Iraq?

Harte



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by selfless
Sure all forms of violence is wrong but those who defends are far less worst then those who invades.

Anything wrong with this picture?


I will accept the flaggelation of the Brits as soon as I witness their self-flagellation for the war of 1812, the takeover of Ireland, the Boer war, et al.

Harte


I was talking about iraq people defending them selves, im not for any kind of violence regardless of which country creates it.

[edit on 19-10-2006 by selfless]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Which means, 'anyone that you disagree with'


Thought you mods were meant to be the respected members on this board.
This is the second time ive been accusd of this by you mods,
when i never mentioned such.

Again your TWISTING the words of the posters whom offer a different opinion from you.

I never accused or put down anyone whom ' didnt agree with me ' as you suggest.
I clearly state I hate the ruling elite, the corporte entitites, the greed, the politicans.

For gods sake if your mod act like more than a 10yr old child... when the peers of this site act like the immature new comers it does nothing but DEGRADE the respect that simon and co have built up, and the power they have placed in you.


My whole point of this post if you managed to get off your high horse and stop for a second and think..

is that these guys were caught red handed...

yet, a court FAILED to convict them, because they managed to place REASONABLE DOUBT within the minds of the court that they were attacking machines that were being sent out to WRONGFULLY Murder and destroy.

This should of been an open and shut case, but CLEARLY, some people within the LEGAL System now agree, that the USA has violated international law and are UNLAWFULL killing civilians.

Cant you mods stop friggen attempting to put people down simply because they have a voice that has a POINT.

At least I argue for somethign im passionate baout, instead of taking pot shots at someones CHARACTER attempting to degrade them in public simply because I have no other reply for there point.

Whats the point in this site, when the mods are free to attack and degrade the posters.. the same posters that MAKE This site what it is..

[edit on 19-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I will accept the flaggelation of the Brits as soon as I witness their self-flagellation for the war of 1812, the takeover of Ireland, the Boer war, et al.

Uhhh what??



Definitions of flagellation on the Web:

(flag·el·la·tion) (flaj²[schwa]-la¢sh[schwa]n) 1. the act or instance of whipping or beating, particularly as a sexual excitant. 2. the formation of flagella. 3. the arrangement of flagella on an organism or surface.

What are you talking about lol.


BTW, I wonder what the Argentinians think of this idea of UK condemnation of the Us' involvement in Iraq?

Harte

Uhh you have read the article....right?
Secondly the argentinians are probably still annoyed at the junka for managing to get soo many conscripts killed, injured and stranded on the falklands.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
yet, a court FAILED to convict them, because they managed to place REASONABLE DOUBT within the minds of the court that they were attacking machines that were being sent out to WRONGFULLY Murder and destroy.

Lol stretching the truth a little bit chop old boy?
Where does it say that they managed to find reasonable doubt? Please I'd be very happy if you'd act more than a 10 year old and answer the question posed to you TWICE now.


This should of been an open and shut case, but CLEARLY, some people within the LEGAL System now agree, that the USA has violated international law and are UNLAWFULL killing civilians.

Exscuse me? Where does it say this? Or is this "the truth"?


Cant you mods stop friggen attempting to put people down simply because they have a voice that has a POINT.

What point lol, you've stretched and spinned this story quite far enough IMO.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Unforunately DW, spinning this story isnt nessecary.
How do you CONFESS to this crime
then
"the jury failed to reach a verdict."

Obvioulsy they created enough of a point within the minds of these men and women, that indeed these war machines were UNJUSTLY going to murder and mame..

they created DOUBT in the minds that the war was legal.. If these planes were honestly defending the west, and doing the RIGHT thing, then the jury would of convicted them.

Hell, there wouldnt of been people ATTEMPTING to wreck them if they indeed were Protecting us...

After the five men in ireland caused millions in damage to US War machines
= The jury decided that the five saboteurs were acting lawfully.

Then in Germany
The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.


So im sorry to say, no spin needed.

The mindset is shifting that this war has nothing to do with defense, and if u attempt, or succeed in damaging us war machiens destined for IRAQ, you will not be punished, because there is enough of a degree in your actions to constitute that you are stopping a crime from taking place.

A 10yr old kid wouldnt be able to conclude this,
but a 10yr old kid would be willing to blindly follow, and attack character.



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Unforunately DW, spinning this story isnt nessecary.

Yet you claim the UK courts now think the war on terror is illegal? .....Stretched and spinned like a true sun reader.


How do you CONFESS to this crime
then
"the jury failed to reach a verdict."

Crime? Eh? They failed to reach a verdict...if I fail to make my mind on whether to diet or not does that mean that have serious doubts about if I should diet?


Obvioulsy they created enough of a point within the minds of these men and women, that indeed these war machines were UNJUSTLY going to murder and mame..

Uh no thats an opinion, you want to start talking opinions then say so at any time.
I'm game if you are.


they created DOUBT in the minds that the war was legal.. If these planes were honestly defending the west, and doing the RIGHT thing, then the jury would of convicted them.

Would they? Are they not? And to be honuest I'd like to know how two men found out top secret information concering the mission plans for those aircraft....or is it posted in the "USAF departes lounge"?


Hell, there wouldnt of been people ATTEMPTING to wreck them if they indeed were Protecting us...

Uh right, and there arnt people trying to break into any military base to wreck things, if there werent...then why are there guards? Need I say faslane?



After the five men in ireland caused millions in damage to US War machines
= The jury decided that the five saboteurs were acting lawfully.

So your now saying that ireland is part of the UK now....I dont think they'll be too happy about that not after our last little spat.


Then in Germany
The judges determined that the UN charter permits a state to go to war in only two circumstances: in self-defence, and when it has been authorised to do so by the UN security council. The states attacking Iraq, they ruled, had no such licence. Resolution 1441, which was used by the British and US governments to justify the invasion, contained no authorisation. The war could be considered an act of aggression.

Germany can claim what they want, frankly they dont have a say over the UK.



So im sorry to say, no spin needed.

Yeah ok mate...your opinion.


The mindset is shifting that this war has nothing to do with defense, and if u attempt, or succeed in damaging us war machiens destined for IRAQ, you will not be punished, because there is enough of a degree in your actions to constitute that you are stopping a crime from taking place.

Lol what! So your saying I can damage a rifle in rosyth naval base and claim I was "stopping a crime" ? No you couldnt because unless you can say: "That rifle was going to shoot someone" then its illegal. Unless you can prove to me that those planes where going to commit a crime then I'm sorry you havent got a leg to stand on.


A 10yr old kid wouldnt be able to conclude this,
but a 10yr old kid would be willing to blindly follow, and attack character.

Lol would they now? how many 10 year old you ever tried to work with? Not many I think.
Lets put this into perspective: Unless they can prove that THOSE specific planes where going to murder someone (taking part in a war does not count as murder BTW at the most its aiding and abetting) then they commited an illegal act almost as illegal as the war in iraq in your words. But then again...when was the last time anyone did ANYTHING legally....



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet you claim the UK courts now think the war on terror is illegal? .....Stretched and spinned like a true sun reader.

Not only the UK, but the UN also, along with countless citizens worldwide. Why is it only the people invovled with corporate greed seem to label this war as legal? wouldnt be from all the money coming in would it?


Crime? Eh? They failed to reach a verdict...if I fail to make my mind on whether to diet or not does that mean that have serious doubts about if I should diet?

No, but again your missing the point either through stupidity or on purpose.
These men were caught red handed, confessed. Yet, they wernt prosecuted because they managed to succesfully ARGUE that they were damaging equipment used to murder people. The court couldnt dismiss this, but at the same time they couldnt agree with it. This, is the first step in a long road my friend.


Uh no thats an opinion, you want to start talking opinions then say so at any time.
I'm game if you are.

Its not an opinion its fact. Can you see how they DIDNT prosecute them? you think they were given floewrs and candy ? no... they argued there side, and the jury had enough intellegence to see there point.



Would they? Are they not? And to be honuest I'd like to know how two men found out top secret information concering the mission plans for those aircraft....or is it posted in the "USAF departes lounge"?

Urrm, whats the point here mate? the war was starting, there were american aircraft refueling on there way to iraq. Again I fail to see why you bother bringing this up ?




Uh right, and there arnt people trying to break into any military base to wreck things, if there werent...then why are there guards? Need I say faslane?

again your jsut being stupid, if you dont know why there are guards at a army base then perhaps you should stop typing on this site and read some abc type books.
just because they managed to get passed the second rate army guards isnt the point here. They did....




So your now saying that ireland is part of the UK now....I dont think they'll be too happy about that not after our last little spat.


Jee's man, for such a senoir member you tend to miss the point completely and again go for character that has nothign to do with the point.. butt ill entertain your attempts.



Germany can claim what they want, frankly they dont have a say over the UK.

fair enough, but unfortunately it happened. And wether you like it or not, its out there. The german government realise this for what it is, even if you refuse to achnolwdge it, its not going to go away.



Yeah ok mate...your opinion.
damn right, least im stating mind, instaed of avoiding the points and attacking character.




Lol what! So your saying I can damage a rifle in rosyth naval base and claim I was "stopping a crime" ? No you couldnt because unless you can say: "That rifle was going to shoot someone" then its illegal. Unless you can prove to me that those planes where going to commit a crime then I'm sorry you havent got a leg to stand on.
Obvioulsy not in the case of these verdicts.
If you couldnt figure out that the american planes were destined to join there friends in the iraq war, then you lack a decent amount of logic.
And yes, if you were going to kill someone with a rifle, I broke in and damaged the rifle so you couldnt do it, its not illegial. all it would take from you is a statement saying im going to use that gun to kill that man.
didnt the american govenrment delcare war on Iraq? .... yep.. thats enough in my mind, and obvioulsy the courts mind too, just not yours hey?




But then again...when was the last time anyone did ANYTHING legally....

Clearly, as the article states, these people damaging war machiens of the US army, that were destined for iraq, were unabel to be prosecuted.
The law couldnt find them to be committing an ILLEGIAL Act.
Obvioulsy if its not illegial, it must be?
so to your question,
the peopel that damaged the US militaries war machines, were obviously acting within the law, according to the juries in Ireland, England and the judges in Germany.
Simply because you plead ignorance in that theres no proof these us military machines are going to iraq, doesnt mean decent citizens do also.
its obvious where they were heading, and for what mission they were HELPING.

thankfully, people such as yourself and GW and CO arent judges.. because Id hate to imagine you prosectuing people who stand up for hte SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE..

do you understand that word.. INNOCENT?
Meaning DID NOTHING WRONG?
how baout slaughter?
MEANING BEING MASSACERED< MURDERED and F'd up..

so where do you justify innocent people being murdered at the hands of the british and american armies?
You must be justifying it, being you dont agree with the courts decisions?



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by selfless
Cause that's what the us government calls those who defends them selves when they are being invaded by outside forces.

I fully agree that the people focusing their attacks on US soldiers are not terrorists, but are merely iraqi patriots (or at least can make a claim to be such). But the people that are rounding up shiites and putting bullets in their heads, the ones using car bombs to kill members of another sect, those guys are terrorists.


those who defends are far less worst then those who invades.

I don't see how.


The world is the world, the world is not usa. The war in iraq is not allowed and usa is not above all.

De jure, perhaps. De facto, clearly the opposite is true.


This attitude to take revenge and think your country is a hot shot and would destroy everyone... is arrogant and delusional, there shouldn't be any violence period.

I'm all for it, now if you could just convince the jihadis to not waste their time trying to kill us. If you ever get around to doing it, lemme know.



Well no government on the planet speaks for me and i do not consider them to be my rulers, not for one second.[/uqote]
De jure, perhaps. But De facto....?

This false reality makes me sick, im gonna go trow up now.

Welcome to the real world neo.



Shotek
Of course the war is illegal, by international law

Really? What international law outlaws war? None. What international law gives a foreign/international body the authority to dictate what is in a sovreign state's security interests? None.

This won't change anything, when have "laws" ever applied to actions performed by the United States?

And why should laws apply to a state actor in the world??? Laws are obeyed for two reasons, because you agree to, or because you are coerced. Laws, internationally, don't exist, they're merely treaties, agreements between 'individuals', backed by no coercive authority.


Agit8dChop
Thought you mods were meant to be the respected members on this board.

An ad hominem response? Interesting track.

I never accused or put down anyone whom ' didnt agree with me ' as you suggest.
I clearly state I hate the ruling elite, the corporte entitites, the greed, the politicans.

And anyone 'supporting' them, iow, people who aren't trying to bring them down.

My whole point of this post if you managed to get off your high horse and stop for a second and think

High horse eh?

is that these guys were caught red handed[..]yet, a court FAILED to convict them, because they managed to place REASONABLE DOUBT within the minds of the court

I have already addressed this, but as it must be hard to here me from all the way up here on my high horse, I suppose I will have to repeat myself.
The court didn't determine that they were allowed to do this because america is commiting atrocities. A jury didn't find them guilty. That doesn't set any precedent or represent any governmental position. What does infact represent a position and a possible precedent is that the court allowed that particular defense to even be made.

some people within the LEGAL System now agree, that the USA has violated international l

Irrelevant. The informal opinions of some people in some country's legal system are utterly irrelevant to the sitaution between US and Iraq.

Whats the point in this site, when the mods are free to attack and degrade the posters

I know I know, it really sucks when people read your posts, examine your position, and yet....still don't agree with you and are 'mean' enough to point our your errors in arguement. Christ, whats the world coming too!



posted on Oct, 19 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
not asking for agreence, just some maturity.
clearly you have neither the ability to understand this, or offer this.

I never put anyone down for not AGREEING.
Id argue my side, they argue there side, we'd walk away agreeing to disagree.

either way, who cares huh? as sooon as i turn off this monitor in 15minutes its the weekend and I can face your illogical replies to my debate on monday.



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Really? What international law outlaws war? None. What international law gives a foreign/international body the authority to dictate what is in a sovreign state's security interests? None.

And why should laws apply to a state actor in the world??? Laws are obeyed for two reasons, because you agree to, or because you are coerced. Laws, internationally, don't exist, they're merely treaties, agreements between 'individuals', backed by no coercive authority.


Are you kidding me?


United Nations Charter ("All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.") As well as the UN "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"- "Freedom from torture or cruel, inhumane treatment or punishment"

Nuremberg Charter- Actions in Iraq by the united states qualify as "war crimes", "crimes against peace" as well as "crimes against humanity" within the nuremberg charter.

Geneva Conventions- Prisoners of war were tortured, ridiculed, (electrodes to the testicles, sex pictures, et al), which violates the third geneva convention.

The war in Iraq is a "war of aggression" as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yes, there is a body of international laws recognized by countries around the world and the UN...many countries have been found guilty of a violation of international law by the UN and subject to different courses of action based on their violations. You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of international law, and it would appear you have no concern for the victims of war crimes, as defined by international law. And you seem to lack a decent set of morals or basic human values, as you're having some difficulty determining what is "right" and what is "wrong" to do to other people...or perhaps your "politics" override your conscience. In any case, the Iraqi people have been de facto #ed over by the United States governing power. And we the people have been misled.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Now that I have had a chance to gather my thoughts heres my 10 cents.
International law is geared or excuted by the victor or the US that being the case even if the Iraq war was proven to be ilegal I doubt that we would see anyone in the dock.
Lets face it International law is a joke and other then the Nazis its leaders who fallen out of favour with the US government who face the judges.


[edit on 20-10-2006 by xpert11]

[edit on 20-10-2006 by xpert11]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 02:34 AM
link   
Yes, that is what I said in my first post. There are international laws which were violated, laws, treaties, and principles which were signed and supported by the US government. The war is "illegal" by these definitions, but of course, no country is going to hold us accountable for our actions, and certainly our own UN will not. Even our own congress will not. International laws have been used many times for the UN/US to go into other countries, and yet when they violate the same laws, or even more severe laws under the same set of agreements, they are not held accountable. I was just showing that there is such thing as "international law", but of course no one with more power than us, so obviously nothing will be done about it.

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Shoktek]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by selfless
I just want to say that if what america did to iraq were to happen to america, american people would freak out.

We sure as heck wouldn't care what british courts had to say about it, nor protest the war by legalities. We'd do what we did when we were attacked and nearly 3k of our civilians were killed, we'd hunt down the enemy across the globe and smash any state that resisted.

That's a very interesting summation of exactly what's going on.

SOMEONE (not Iraq) did damage to the people of the US. The US freaked out and started 2 wars dispite world condemnation of US agression.
Now thousands more innocent people are dead (along with a fistfull of suspected "bad guys").

The fact that you seem to be proud of this is disturbing.



Agit8dChop
I am not bashing america, just the ruling elite.
As is ALWAYS the case in my threads.

Which means, 'anyone that you disagree with'.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the second time I've had to point out that making this kind of statement is uncalled for? Specificly, I believe this is the second time you've accused this particular poster is such a way.

It is a chronic problem on this site that anyone who mentions anything that could be construed as "anti-american" gets called an "America-basher", reguardless of what they have to say.

I've found many of this posters threads and comments to be very interesting and well documented. He always quotes his sources and presents some interesting commentary. He is somewhat biased towards being critical of US policy and the administration, but I have never once seen him attack another poster for "not agreeing with him".

Please, as a moderator of a forum that I highly respect, leave your personal bias at the door.



Your ruling elite make me sick, and all of you whom follow there line should be put in a line and shot for crimes against humanity.

We're not the ones that will find ourselves blindfolded with our backs against bloodied walls when the tide turns.



Hmm... not much of a one for world history, eh?
It's usually the ruling class that winds up being executed in times of revolution.

Aside from that point, I am truely mystified that you would make this kind of remark. Are you truly so hostial to your fellow man as to want to see critics of policy lined up and shot?

That makes me sick.


[Edited to fix quotes]

[edit on 20-10-2006 by BitRaiser]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
Now that I have had a chance to gather my thoughts heres my 10 cents.
International law is geared or excuted by the victor or the US that being the case even if the Iraq war was proven to be ilegal I doubt that we would see anyone in the dock.
Lets face it International law is a joke and other then the Nazis its leaders who fallen out of favour with the US government who face the judges.




Not now we wont...
Feels like the last few opportunites to try and show the world what was really going have now passed us by, We allowed that freedom to be taken away.
Maybe in 15yrs the survivng race, will always have a dark hoodoo about them......

Who knew it was coming,
And those who didnt see it from a mile off.

Unfortunately though the foreign governments of Germany, UK and Ireland havent the will to activley defy the US, and China. Two big monoliths

But you all have to admit...

Had this case of happened in febuary 2003, everyone would of agreed, they were guilty, "lock up these terrorrists" we'd scream....

Now... you have every day citizens. making a difference in the courtroom.
Its small, But a legal movement has been born into the democratic system.
Some people arent buying into this propoganda, and have observed enough strange happenings, to be unable to say, in a court of law.. that the mission those planes was undertaking......... wasnt, isnt, and never will be - Justified.

:Media & propganda
To bombard you with the ''FACTS'' that all turned out to be "LIES"

:Fore-knowledge of a planned attack with no action taken.
The government knew about those terrorists from day one. All they had to do was watch them around the clock, and make the call when they begin.

: Decleration of Evidence, then failing to back it up.
We were grossly lied to about the reason behind this global endevour.

And final,

:WAR PROFITEERING
Hang him they'd say, the man making money by sending his troops to die.


TREASON at the highest level.



[edit on 20-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]

[edit on 20-10-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Oct, 20 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Not only the UK, but the UN also, along with countless citizens worldwide. Why is it only the people invovled with corporate greed seem to label this war as legal? wouldnt be from all the money coming in would it?

Nice dodge, fancy going back to the topic we were discussing apart from going on a diffrent tangent?
Yet again why have you mislabled this thread?



No, but again your missing the point either through stupidity or on purpose.

No now your going onto character bashing...again...you sure you dont work for the sun?


These men were caught red handed, confessed. Yet, they wernt prosecuted because they managed to succesfully ARGUE that they were damaging equipment used to murder people.

Did they? I fail to see any evidence of this or is this another "truth"?



The court couldnt dismiss this, but at the same time they couldnt agree with it. This, is the first step in a long road my friend.

My friend? Firstly I only treat people as friends after I've worked with them preferably for a decent amount of time.
The jury couldnt reach a verdict for all we know thats 1 person out of 8 that actually buyed the "yeah those planes MIGHT be used in a murder" exscuse.


Its not an opinion its fact. Can you see how they DIDNT prosecute them?

Eh? The jury failed to make a decision its not like they lacked evidence or the judge ruled innocent or mistrail.


you think they were given floewrs and candy ? no... they argued there side, and the jury had enough intellegence to see there point.

Really? Then why didnt they say: "Not guilty"? Or is this a nasty little coverup?



Urrm, whats the point here mate?

Points are:

A) how did these men KNOW where these planes where going to?

B) How did they know these planes where going to be used in a warfighting mission?


the war was starting, there were american aircraft refueling on there way to iraq. Again I fail to see why you bother bringing this up ?

I am bringing this up to ask how these men got classified orders, if I am not mistaken having unlawful acess to that IS illegal.




again your jsut being stupid,

Yeah ok you insult me and you call a mod a child for dissagreeing with you?


if you dont know why there are guards at a army base then perhaps you should stop typing on this site and read some abc type books.

I know the reason there are guards there hell I've even BEEN on many of those bases with guards. I was asking you why there are guards at a base, IE do you actually have a clue why they are guarded.



just because they managed to get passed the second rate army guards isnt the point here. They did....

Since when does the army fly jet aircraft?



Jee's man, for such a senoir member you tend to miss the point completely and again go for character that has nothign to do with the point

Lol miss the point? Ok mate whatever.
Also character? Pot calling kettle black lol.




fair enough, but unfortunately it happened. And wether you like it or not, its out there. The german government realise this for what it is, even if you refuse to achnolwdge it, its not going to go away.

I know the german government isnt going away and frankly I couldnt care less about it. The germans can say what they want but doesnt mean it holds any water across the channel.



damn right, least im stating mind, instaed of avoiding the points and attacking character.

Lol what?
Ok attacking character? I have yet to attack your character, if I wished to do so there is plenty ammunition to use, if you want a mud sling just bring it.





Obvioulsy not in the case of these verdicts.

No so you have evidence to show they where going to bomb someone?


If you couldnt figure out that the american planes were destined to join there friends in the iraq war, then you lack a decent amount of logic.

I dont deny that they where going to do so and I dont deny they did take part in it or they where going to join thier "friends" in iraq, all I am saying is this: How did two chavs get thier hands on this info?



didnt the american govenrment delcare war on Iraq? .... yep.. thats enough in my mind, and obvioulsy the courts mind too, just not yours hey?

Lol so because america declared war on iraq that makes all thier weapons ok to wreck huh lol plus a jury is not a court, a jury is a group of people selected to make a judegement which they didnt in this case. Otherwise they would have selected guilty or not guilty.



Clearly, as the article states, these people damaging war machiens of the US army,

No they werent, they where no where near US army equipment.


that were destined for iraq, were unabel to be prosecuted.

Because the jury couldnt agree on a judgement. Stalemate.



The law couldnt find them to be committing an ILLEGIAL Act.

Couldnt they? IMO it was the jury that couldnt find them guilty or not certainly not the so called "law".


Obvioulsy if its not illegial, it must be?

Nice bit of either or there huh? Pity theres a nice bit of grey when a court cant decide but then again if I'm wrong your right, right?



so to your question,
the peopel that damaged the US militaries war machines, were obviously acting within the law, according to the juries in Ireland, England and the judges in Germany.

German and ireland juries can say what they want, they have no say on the crowns territory.
ENGLISH juries said nothing of the sort and unless you can show me them saying so then your lieing i'm afraid, "My friend."


Simply because you plead ignorance in that theres no proof these us military machines are going to iraq, doesnt mean decent citizens do also.

lol Whoah there when did I say that those planes WERENT going to iraq to bomb people?


its obvious where they were heading, and for what mission they were HELPING.

So your now saying its ok to damage RN sea king helicopters then?


thankfully, people such as yourself and GW and CO arent judges.. because Id hate to imagine you prosectuing people who stand up for hte SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE..

Standing up for the slaughter of innocent people?
Since when did I say I supported the war in iraq? Do you think I enjoy seeing my countrymen die because someone made a call, well I dont.
Frankly if you wish to make a stand against the slaughter of innocent people why dont you go complain to the UN for its work or lack of work in iraq.
Ever read this report?
www.usaid.gov...
Where were you during this? Where was the UN?


do you understand that word.. INNOCENT?

I understand that word means nothing today, law means nothing , its merely who has the better influence or stronger force. Sooner you realise that innocent has no meaning in this world the faster you'll learn.


Meaning DID NOTHING WRONG?

Nothing wrong? Your telling me that the iraqi army as a whole done NOTHING wrong during its time?


how baout slaughter?
MEANING BEING MASSACERED< MURDERED and F'd up..

Slaughter, read the link I posted then read about the iran iraq war and tell me that wasnt slaughter. Ever read phil collins "Rules of engagement"? The same man accused of warcrimes but cleared by the iraqi people? He worked with the iraqi resistance group who had been fighting sadamm also tells how he cut off a river to kill them off....where was this mass of protestors then? WHERE?


so where do you justify innocent people being murdered at the hands of the british and american armies?

Where do I jusitify it? I dont, I justify they acted under false intelligence that stated they where a threat to the world but they where lied to be the green slime but then again...who cares they still did wrong and wrong deserves another wrong to make it right, right?


You must be justifying it, being you dont agree with the courts decisions?

Lol I dissagree breaking into a base and endagering several men and women by wrecking thier equipement. Ever worked with a dangerous piece of kit? I wouldnt like someone wrecking my ship when I go into port because someone doesnt like my company.

Stop treating this as black and white and begin to look at the grey in the world....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join