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.

 

George W. Bush should be charged with crimes against humanity as well

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).


This post isn't directed solely at GT100FV, I'm just using his quote as reference.

For the vast majority of news, I don't "listen" to news sources. As df1 said, nearly everything we listen to (TV and radio) here in the states is totally biased. Some (like FOX) are just more biased than others.

There are a few exceptions. Link TV is pretty good. If you have cable, check it out now and then.

Here's a story from the Middle East Times. Notice how the US reports 6 'terrorists' were killed, but an Iraqi security officer tells a different story...



An Iraqi security official gave a different version, saying four civilians were killed in a firefight late Sunday as a result of clashes between Mutlaq's guards and those of Shiite lawmaker Salama Al Khafaji.

He said the two groups clashed in the Al Jamel neighborhood of western Baghdad, after which US troops, including military helicopters, arrived to quell the fight.

Four members of a family were killed and two of Khafaji's guards wounded, he added.


If you're listening to US news sources, you're getting an extremely slanted, twisted version of events. Especially if you're listening to FOX 'news'.

My whole point here is to say that it's no wonder you're so staunchly defending Bush if you only allow a small part of the real story in. Surely you know it's not above this government to call everyone they kill a 'terrorist' regardless who it is... Surely, you're not that blindly devoted...

Check out some of the International News Publications listed on this page. Open your world view. Get ALL the information out there that you can, not just the pablum fed to you by the US 'news' sources. Read what the rest of the world is saying. Come out of the protective bubble that is the US media...




posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
This claim against Bush is outrageuos.

Halliburton has done a lot of wrong to our own people. Check out this clip of what goes wrong over there. Leave Bush out of this, down with Halliburton!

www.whoisthemonkey.com... rn



But...Bush IS connected to Halliburton. It's a complicated chain of connections, but the Bush family has a hand in all these organizations.
Also, don't forget that Cheney was CEO of Halliburton at the time he was tapped for VP and he's still receiving revenues from them. Halliburton was granted an enormous amount of contracts in Iraq, many of them no bid. Hmmm, how did that happen I wonder?

archives.lists.indymedia.org...

"Cheney is still receiving deferred compensation from Halliburton, but
neither the company nor the White House would specify how large his
payment will be this year or how long the payments will continue.

This is cash that he's already earned. Yet it's also cash that
Halliburton is accruing in part from its activities in Guantanamo Bay
and Afghanistan." (OR IRAQ!)"

www.mail-archive.com...@listserv.aol.com/msg49546.html

"In 1998 Richard Cheney got the idea that Halliburton should purchase Dresser
Industries, for $8.1 billion (creating the world's largest oil-drilling
services company) while on a quail hunt with Dresser chair Bill Bradford.
Dresser and Halliburton merged. Dresser Industries was owned and operated by
Brown Brothers Harriman. Prescott Bush (George H.W.'s father) was a partner
of Brown Brothers and on the board of Dresser for decades until he became a
U.S. Senator."


Bush Sr. was also involved in Kellogg, Brown and Root as a major player. Who are they? KBR was the forerunner of Brown & Root, which is connected to Halliburton. I believe Halliburton is a subsidiary IIRC.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Who is behind all these major corporate groups?

The Carlyle group, and who is the face of the Carlyle group?

Major political figures including Bush father.


You know when it was claims that the Republican party favors corporations, it was not a joke you know.

Bush appointee for secretary of the defense is also another Carlyle group friend of the family.


Somebody has to oversee the investments in Iraq.


www.hereinreality.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Who is behind all these major corporate groups?

The Carlyle group, and who is the face of the Carlyle group?

Major political figures including Bush father.


You know when it was claims that the Republican party favors corporations, it was not a joke you know.

Bush appointee for secretary of the defense is also another Carlyle group friend of the family.


Somebody has to oversee the investments in Iraq.


www.hereinreality.com...

I think this administration has a *Feck you all, I will look after myself atitude*
Fair enough we all make mistakes but why twice???



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

This post isn't directed solely at GT100FV, I'm just using his quote as reference.

For the vast majority of news, I don't "listen" to news sources. As df1 said, nearly everything we listen to (TV and radio) here in the states is totally biased. Some (like FOX) are just more biased than others.

There are a few exceptions. Link TV is pretty good. If you have cable, check it out now and then.

Here's a story from the Middle East Times. Notice how the US reports 6 'terrorists' were killed, but an Iraqi security officer tells a different story...



An Iraqi security official gave a different version, saying four civilians were killed in a firefight late Sunday as a result of clashes between Mutlaq's guards and those of Shiite lawmaker Salama Al Khafaji.

He said the two groups clashed in the Al Jamel neighborhood of western Baghdad, after which US troops, including military helicopters, arrived to quell the fight.

Four members of a family were killed and two of Khafaji's guards wounded, he added.


If you're listening to US news sources, you're getting an extremely slanted, twisted version of events. Especially if you're listening to FOX 'news'.


A- FOX is not more biased than every other US media source. It just doesn't have a liberal bias(it's the only balance to the overwhelming liberal slant in the US media). Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it's any more biased than a source with a different agenda. CBS let Dan Rather put out completely fabricated BS. CNN regularly puts out BS, etc....

B- Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well? Of course everybody that's killed was just minding their own business, when the brutal US bogeyman came in and shot them for no reason whatsoever. When those sources have been caught staging events, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.

C- I would take the news from anybody with antiwar in the name of their site, with a grain of salt too. Of course they have an agenda, and slant everything to try put their position in the best light.


Everybody has an agenda, that's why multiple corroborating sources help sort out what is BS, and what isn't. If I were to see a story reported by multiple, independent sources(and no not Al Jazeera), that had irrefutable evidence, then it would lend some credibility. When a story is an obvious Anti US piece, I'm going to be very dubious as to its veracity.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by df1

Originally posted by GT100FV
but I don't hear about mass civilian casualties with any sort of regularity when US/Allied forces are concerned. I'd say that the news sources you've been listening to have an agenda(every bit as much as you'd say FOX does).

I suggest that you start consulting some non-american news sources. All of the american media is complicit with the government to prevent the public from seeing atrocities being committed by the US in the ME. Most democrats are neck deep in the ME pit of manure along with most republicans. Both serve the same master, the corporate oil interests, at the expense of the american people

You don't want to hear about mass civilian casualties, because taking your head out of the sand would force you to confront the ugly truth that our government is a bunch of war criminals.
.


I'd have to disagree that the Democrats wouldn't use anything they could to embarass Bush, at anytime. The US media can be very unfavorable to the administration, so I'm not sure where the complicity is(the fact that they're not more unfavorable?). You seem to accept as fact any news that you agree with, and disparage any news that you don't agree with.
I've been on the ground in Iraq and seen the kind of BS reporting that these so called sources that you take at face value, report. You seem to be so blinded by your hatred of Bush, that you'll believe anything negative that is said about him or the US(but call anyone that disagrees with your point of view biased)



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I do want to be clear that I realize that the poll posted isn't a completely accurate assessment of the way that ALL Iraqis feel. HOWEVER, since Baghdad is where most of the mess is, and it's the most populous city in Iraq, I think it's fair to say that 90% if not all of them are worse off under Bush than under Saddam. And that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to my formidable opponents here.

OF course if you ask the people we're not bombing if their life is worse under Bush, they're going to so no. It's not so bad. We're not bombing and killing them...

It's a BIG DEAL that Baghdad's 6-7 million people want us to go away. It says something to me. Does it mean ANYTHING to you guys? Or would you just rather argue abut the poll and keep the attention off of what the poll means?

Back to the subject of this thread...

What's so scary about Bush being tried? If you're all right, he'll be found innocent. But with so many Americans agreeing that he should be tried, why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't our legal system apply to him, too?

What are you afraid of?




A- Baghdad represents 20 percent of the Iraqi population, so while 90 percent of them may feel worse off, does that mean that the opinions of the other 90 percent of the country aren't valid?

B- It is true that there are a lot of Americans that to some degree are against the war, either because they felt it -

a-illegal
b-legal but a bad idea
c-it's not going as well as they'd like

It's a tiny minority that would ever feel that Bush should be tried for war crimes. You don't just say, well we're gonna try you, just to see what happens. It's certainly not the mainstream viewpoint nationally or internationally for that matter.

Even far left partisans Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and their ilk don't believe there's even a strong enough case for impeachment much less war crime charges, and they hate Bush.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Even far left partisans Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and their ilk don't believe there's even a strong enough case for impeachment much less war crime charges, and they hate Bush.


Wrong, Bush could be charge under the basis that he and his administration lie to the American people, took out nation into a war with a sovereign country, causing the death of 3 thousand American troops and hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

The problem is that in our nation we have corruption and that corruption will rather protect the private interest involve in this war than bring justice to humanity.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LovingSoul
The first thing my 12 year old said was "But that's not fair! What about Bush?". Indeed! When will we see him before the Court?


Well, since your child is 12 year's old, it's ignorance can be excused.

I would argue that bush did not use nerve gas on CIVILIANS not to mention torture, rape, beheadings, etc.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysticalUnicorn
The sad part of this thread is I don't think any of you Bush-haters are joking. I appreciate FlyersFan clearing you guys up, and he/she has received a WATS from me.

This site is anti-american!




Well, yeah...

Unless your an ultra liberal who happens to think that the US government is worse than the nazi regime, you may not fit in too well.

Most of this ignorance comes from euros who have no idea what they are talking about. Sadly, most of the "knowledge" about the US that they receive comes from hollywood. Of course, movies like farenheit 9/11 dont help things either.


df1

posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
You seem to be so blinded by your hatred of Bush...

Without the the spineless democrats bush's corporate war would not have occurred. I hate hillary, pelosi, kerry, bush and the rest of the treasonous bastards that supported the current puppet president.

What the hell is your point? You seem to think that their is difference between democrats and republicans.
.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Well said df1 - all these pigs feed at the same trough.

And to the poster who said ATS is anti-American...

Please, stop and think for a second before making inflamatory accusations. There is a MASSIVE difference between being anti-lies, anti-fraud, anti-corruption, and anti-ignorance, and being anti-American. I believe we are all the former, and not the latter.

One can love this country (as I do) and still hate corrupt elements of the government (as I do). You would do well to remember that.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well?


Yes, it does stand to reason. I read ALL sides and then decide. Do you? Or does FOX tell you everything you need (and want) to hear?



I would take the news from anybody with antiwar in the name of their site, with a grain of salt too.


The news wasn't from the antiwar site. If you had clicked on the link, you would have known that. The antiwar site lists links for news from around the world. The middle eastern newspaper was one of a HUGE list on their site. But I understand that you don't want to see what the rest of the world has to say. If you did, it would shatter your illusion.

That's cool. See ya.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Most of this ignorance comes from euros who have no idea what they are talking about. Sadly, most of the "knowledge" about the US that they receive comes from hollywood.


Really?

Here I am thinking that the majority of people on this side of the world actually have the common sense not to accept what happens in "Hollywood" as factual...



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Most of this ignorance comes from euros who have no idea what they are talking about. Sadly, most of the "knowledge" about the US that they receive comes from hollywood. Of course, movies like farenheit 9/11 dont help things either.


I bet you would be suprised.

Entering the American school system, I broke the bell curve in history, geography and cultural knowledge. Especially on a world scale. The American classes were only concerned about studying the US history. It was not much shock that much of the country only knew Afganistan was "over there" at the start of the war on terror.

I think you are underestimating non-Americans.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
I think you are underestimating non-Americans.


This thread has become what it should not, sometimes when people can not come out with irrefutable facts it seems easier to attack others by what ever means needed.

Sad.

I agree with you Zed, I am an American but I was no educated in the US mainland.

Our books didn't came from US either.

Sometimes ignorance is something that we can not blame people for it, but rather the educational system they grow up with and the unwilligness of learning the perspectives of other sources.

I always said that you do not get to understand the whole picture of historical facts until you read history books from other countries and compare their point of view with the ones here in the US.

The education I received in my littler Island was more diverse, unrestricted and open that what is teach in the US for a very strong Catholic influenced Island.

Well I guess we are out of topic sorry for that.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by GT100FV
Does it not stand to reason that an Arab source might have an agenda in news reporting as well?


Yes, it does stand to reason. I read ALL sides and then decide. Do you? Or does FOX tell you everything you need (and want) to hear?




I don't take any one news source as Gospel truth, but if a story is way out of line with numerous other reports, and/or personal experience, I'm less inclined to view it as credible. I'm assuming the news sources that you like, present everything you need(and want ) to hear?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by GT100FV]

Edit: Fixed BB code.

[edit on 1-1-2007 by intrepid]



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
How about a little music?

Why don't we let this topic continue without the political bickering.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Why don't we let this topic continue without the political bickering.

Thanks.



Sounds good to me. All it does is turn into who can throw the most (fill in the blank) at the other person/side. Hardly productive or conductive to a reasonable discussion. New Year ..... same Attitudes. No wonder why things are the way they are.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
................
HOWEVER, since Baghdad is where most of the mess is, and it's the most populous city in Iraq, I think it's fair to say that 90% if not all of them are worse off under Bush than under Saddam. And that means something to me, even if it doesn't mean anything to my formidable opponents here.


I don't think you understand that you are being duped by the "liberal media"....

You guys come around claiming that the present administration should be hanged and or sent to the ICC for war crimes, which i still don't understand... Why is it that many of the same people who are against the NWO, which main goal is to set up a one world government, want to give away the independence of the United States and want the ICC to take charge of our courts?.... Anyways....

Oh, and the worse thing that "I really do not understand'...is that even after Clintoin has said that he also believed there were wmd stockpiles in Iraq...even after the Russian president stated that his intelligence agencies had evidence that Saddam's regime was planning terrorist attacks against the U.S..... Even after the authorities in Spain found that there were connections between some of the terrorists who planned 9/11 and the Iraqi regime.... even after all that and more...you people still claim you were lied to?....

You are given some poll and article which is obviously biased because it is being used as a political tool, and it's making claims that anyone who makes a little bit of research can find immediately that those claims are lies.

Do you even understand what you are trying to claim Heretic? The majority of people in Iraq, and in Baghdad are Shiites... One of the very same groups which Saddam, his sons and his regime was brutally torturing, and murdering members of a family in front of their entire family for speaking up against Saddam, and quite a few times just because they are Shiite, and Saddam and most of his regime was Sunni....

When Saddam was in power, noone, and I mean noone was able to defend or even try to defend the Shiites, not even the shiites themselves in Baghdad could help themselves.


Iraqis pour out tales of Saddam's torture chambers
By Jack Kelley, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. Jail cells, with dried blood on the floor and rusted shackles bolted to the walls, line the corridors. And the screams of what could be imprisoned men in an underground detention center echo through air shafts and sewer pipes.


"This is the place where Saddam made people disappear," said an Iraqi soldier named Iyad Hussein, 37, describing Iraq's Military Intelligence Directorate in the northwestern suburb of Kadimiya. "It is a chamber of death."

The secrets of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror are beginning to emerge. Iraqi civilians who had longed feared speaking out about the alleged atrocities for fear of government retribution are revealing in detail what the Iraqi dictator and his regime inflicted on some of the country's 26 million people.

They paint a picture of arrests, killings and torture that have led human rights groups to condemn the Iraqi leader in the strongest terms. The groups have charged that tens of thousands of Iraqis, from Kurds in the north to Shiites in the south, were tortured and killed after Saddam seized power in 1979.

Most were arrested on charges ranging from criticizing the Iraqi leader to cooperating with the United States.

www.usatoday.com...

But you and the liberal media want to claim it is worse now than under Saddam.....

Saddam, his regime and his sons, didn't have to respond to anyone. They didn't care at all about "human right groups"...


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OF course if you ask the people we're not bombing if their life is worse under Bush, they're going to so no. It's not so bad. We're not bombing and killing them...


Sorry, but Iraqis are not as unfamiliar and as naive, imo, as a large percentage of people here.

The Iraqis know full well that if the coalition forces leave, they will have a quaqmire like what happened right after the first Gulf War. Pretty much the same will happen if the coalition leaves now, and I am pretty certain most Iraqis know this, because they have gone through this several times already...because they were left alone for decades, and they paid the price. Now the liberal media and some around ehre want to claim that the Iraqis want the coalition to leave so that the remnants of Saddam's regime and the insurgents under the leadership of Al Qaeda can do the same things that SAddam did to them for so long?..... Sorry but that makes me extremely skeptic as to the claims made by these "polls"...



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
What's so scary about Bush being tried? If you're all right, he'll be found innocent. But with so many Americans agreeing that he should be tried, why shouldn't he? Why shouldn't our legal system apply to him, too?

What are you afraid of?


You obviously do not even understand what you are saying.... Let me put it this way, maybe then you'll understand.

Do you really want to give the power to the International Community to take charge over U.S. law? Do you want to give away our independence?.... You do know what independence means right?........ tell us, seriously, you really want to start a real NWO by giving power to the "international community" and hence losing our status as an independent nation?

[edit on 1-1-2007 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join