posted by SPreston
The World Court has repeatedly described the attack on Iraq as a war of naked aggression haven't they?

posted by pinch
The World Court?

Why are you so dead set against April Gallop and her little boy and eventually many others receiving justice and financial aid from the treacherous perpetrators of 9-11? Should all veterans and victims of war policy be denied treatment and compensation in your learned opinion?

Yes pinch [snip]. The International Criminal Court (ICC) based in the Hague, where they try War Criminals such as Slobodan Milošević, Charles G. Taylor, and Radovan Karadzic. Known terrorists Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin and Itzhak Shamir dared not go anywhere near the ICC because they were charged as war criminals. Saddam Hussein should have been tried in the World Court instead of a US kangeroo court. But the Bush Regime would have been unable to contain the real evidence and resulting damage to US 'National Security', so the World Court was not an option.

The World Court is immune from US laws preventing prosecuting and hanging former US pResidents and Vice pResidents guilty of Treason and War Crimes and illegal Wars of Naked Aggression. At the Nuremberg Tribunals, many Nazis were tried and hung for war crimes and waging a war of naked aggression against neighboring nations. Why should the US war machine be immune from the same world justice system?

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty-based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court and refuse to participate in it or to permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
Torture or inhumane treatment
Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
Taking hostages
The following acts as part of an international conflict:
Directing attacks against civilians
Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Killing a surrendered combatant
Misusing a flag of truce
Settlement of occupied territory
Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
Using poison weapons
Using civilians as shields
Using child soldiers
The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
Taking hostages
Summary execution
Pillage
Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes"

As you can see pinch, there are a lot of tools of the US war machine on this list, which they would wish to retain in their mission of spreading the NeoCON version of 'peace' and 'freedom' across the world. That is why the US and the Israelis and the Chinese refused to join the International Criminal Court. How could they have any fun?



[edit on 12/22/08 by SPreston]

[edit: personal information removed]

[edit on 2-1-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by SPreston

Saddam Hussein should have been tried in the World Court instead of a US kangeroo court. But the Bush Regime would have been unable to contain the real evidence and resulting damage to US 'National Security', so the World Court was not an option.

Please elaborate more on this SPreston.

Hussein was on trial for gassing his own people. He killed and killed often. His son's raped and tortured women. They are all resting comfortably in hell. Where they belong.

But you think that he deserved a trial at the "World Court?"

His own people deserved to hold him accountable for what he had done to them. His own people deserved to see him die.

Originally posted by SPreston
However you are just a mechanic, and April Gallop had a top secret clearance. So her knowledge and intellect and position outranks yours by a great amount.

I don't know exactly who you are accusing of being "just a mechanic", but with the investigative skills and intellectual acumen that came up with that gem you ought to get on the CIT payroll.

As far as "intellect" goes, I'm pretty sure that filing a lawsuit as frivolous and silly as this one, not to mention one claiming the "self-defense missiles" were "deactivated" and suing for not evacuating the building when a "non-existent plane" was inbound does not make for much intellect.

Plus, I would advice you not to talk about security clearances since you obviously know absolutely nothing of them. Something about not getting into areas where you are at a distinct disadvantage through ignorance of the subject matter, I think.

Faster, please!

Just a mechanic.....


[edit on 23-12-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by SPreston
Perhaps she was ignorant of the defensive abilities of Pentagon security. However you are just a mechanic, and April Gallop had a top secret clearance. So her knowledge and intellect and position outranks yours by a great amount.

Funny how when someone inside the government is a viable witness only when they tend to support the conspiracy fantasy. Everyone else that doesn't agree (the VAST majority) are all lying or in on it somehow.

Anyhow, the idea that she would trigger the bomb by turning her monitor on seems rather silly when put in context of the hilarious "flyover theory", how could that have been timed so precisely that all the outside witnesses were "fooled" into believing an impact took place? Or perhaps maybe she was in on it after all, hmm?

Originally posted by Soloist
Or perhaps maybe she was in on it after all, hmm?

There you go. She was in on it, along with Bush and Cheney and all the rest of us!

And CIT is supporting her to the hilt!

Excellent! Our plan is coming together!

[edit on 23-12-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by pinch
Till then, however, could you explain, Craig, why, if April doesn't believe a plane hit the building, did she sue and accept a settlement from the airlines and security companies? Was it the temptation of easy, free money? If a plane never hit the building, why did she accept that settlement?

This is why her lawsuit will fail, as in a matter of law. Let's get this straight: she has accepted a settlement from the airline and others on the basis that a plane hit the pentagon.

You can follow the flaw in her new logic, correct? This case is over. Just like Judy 'space beams' Woods. She's going to have to answer the obvious questions around her previous settlement(s) and....wait for it.........prove what she is alleging.

As per the standard truther canard: because she filed a case doesn't mean any of what's contained in the unproven allegations are true, simply because she filed.

For goodness sake: believe in anything you want to but, at least be honest with yourself and especially others.

As before: will this ‘smoking gun evidence’ be included in your upcoming court case bringing the “perps” to justice? Oh, there isn’t a court case?


[edit on 24-12-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

Originally posted by pinch

Don't be scared, Craig. Just because this latest little scam won't see the inside of a courtroom doesn't mean you journey isn't worthwhile - at least you learned that the Camp Springs One departure does indeed fly due west (270), OVER approaching aircraft into DCA, and you learned that Captain Bob isn' treally that sharp of a pilot. Well, you should have.

[edit on 22-12-2008 by pinch]

Do you ever add anything to a thread or just troll to insult? You post over and over questioning others but never back up anything. You rarely ever even say anything other than "NYAH NYAH YOU ARE WRONG AND STUPID!!!" Come on man. Are you a 6th grad girl? If so, then I get it. I can understand and you can go on. I want a friendship bracelet though, ok hun.

posted by Soloist
Anyhow, the idea that she would trigger the bomb by turning her monitor on seems rather silly

April Gallop no longer believes turning the monitor on triggered the explosives outside the Pentagon wall. She was initially startled by the coincidence of the explosives blowing exactly when she pushed the monitor button, as would anyone be.

Obviously the fact that she and her son and fellow Pentagon personnel in the initial 'impact area' and who survived without burns and are still alive, is strong evidence that a 90 ton aircraft filled with jet fuel and shredded by the columns and exterior wall, did not crash through the Wedge One 1st floor E-Ring area at 535 mph.

April Gallop did not have to state that there was NO SIGN OF JET FUEL in her office that morning officially 35-45 feet from the place of impact, for people with a lick of common sense to figure out on their own, that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.

Because the actual aircraft was witnessed flying Over the Naval Annex and North of the Citgo, and could not possibly have impacted the five light poles nor possibly have created the actual damage path through the Pentagon, simply adds to the conclusion that there was NO JET FUEL and NO JET AIRPLANE in the Pentagon on 9-11-2001.




[edit on 12/24/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by SPreston
How odd. Even though jet fuel on walls is promised, not one photo of jet fuel on walls from Mr Riskus. A person must need to be a believer to see that jet fuel on walls.

Fuel on the walls? What the hell are are you talking about?

Gee willikers pinch; did you even bother to read your own link? Not one single person was burned with burning jet fuel among YOUR witnesses.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I'd be embarrassed if I claimed the level of investigative acumen that you and the CIT Sleuths do and weren't aware of the burn injuries and the extensive presence of jet fuel throughout the Pentagon wedge. Closing your eyes and mind to those facts just makes your whole shtick more both funnier and more unbelievable.

Simply saying something didn't happen doesn't make it not-happen.