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.
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.
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.
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?
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
Originally posted by Nygdan
Which means, 'anyone that you disagree with'
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.
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.
BTW, I wonder what the Argentinians think of this idea of UK condemnation of the Us' involvement in Iraq?
Harte
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.
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.
Originally posted by Agit8dChop
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.
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.
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?
Uh no thats an opinion, you want to start talking opinions then say so at any time.
I'm game if you are.
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"?
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?
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.
Germany can claim what they want, frankly they dont have a say over the UK.
damn right, least im stating mind, instaed of avoiding the points and attacking character.
Yeah ok mate...your opinion.
Obvioulsy not in the case of these verdicts.
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.
But then again...when was the last time anyone did ANYTHING legally....
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.
those who defends are far less worst then those who invades.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
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....
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
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.
damn right, least im stating mind, instaed of avoiding the points and attacking character.
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.
didnt the american govenrment delcare war on Iraq? .... yep.. thats enough in my mind, and obvioulsy the courts mind too, just not yours hey?
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?