Citizen's Arrest of Alleged War Criminal George W. Bush in Canada

page: 11
73
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
One thing nearly all here don;t seem to understand. ALL our EX-Presidents fall under Diplomatic immunity statutes. The only thing anyone or any government can do is NOT let him into the respective countries. They cannot try any President for ANY crimes unless it is done in the USA! Period!!

Zindo


that, correct me if im wrong, leaves the door open for bush exclusively

as far as presidents go.




posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
George Bush is probably the BIGGEST war criminal the world has ever seen.

When Hitler came to power at the time, there was no internet or fast communication for people to see how he created a false flag, blamed others, and killed Millions.

However, George Bush did the EXACT thing that Hitler did, but this time he is caught red handed thanks to the internet and fast communication, and it's just a matter of time before he is tried for crimes against humanity.

Let's hope the day is very soon.


You have GOT to be kidding me!!

What's the motto of this freakin' forum? "Deny Ignorance"? How about doing a bit of frakking research on the subject before you hit the "reply" button.

"Biggest war criminal" my ass!


Bush may not the biggest war criminal the world has ever seen. However, he is still a war criminal that deserves to be punished for his crimes against humanity. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terror attacks. This was proven soon after the events of that fateful day. Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction as was claimed by the US intelligence community as well as the US government. There is a reason very few countries throughout the world refused to send their troops to Iraq to assist the USA in their agenda. That reason would be the fact that there was absolutely zero evidence linking Iraq with the 9/11 terror attacks.

So, yes, Bush is indeed a war criminal. He sent American troops into Iraq when there was absolutely no justifiable reason to do so. Thousands of American soldiers have since returned home in body bags and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed since the war in that region began.

These statistics or facts mean nothing to you though do they? Because when America is at war it is always justified. America could never possibly be in the wrong in your closed minded opinion, right?



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by galacticos
These statistics or facts mean nothing to you though do they? Because when America is at war it is always justified. America could never possibly be in the wrong in your closed minded opinion, right?


I'm sorry, I must have missed where I was saying that the US was right, and never could be wrong, and that the war is justified.

Maybe you could go back and find that in my post.

Obviously, statistics and facts don't mean smack to alot of people on ATS, or they'd think before they posted. How about doing a quick google search on Stalin and Hitler and get back to me????



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by 814ck0u7
what you are missing is the admission in your own mind that your super star (bush) along with many officials in his administration, along with quite a few other people, are war criminals.


I've NEVER said bush was a or "my" "super star". Any research at all would show you that after initially supporting bush, I began criticizing him for many of his decisions. My purpose here and on several other threads is to point out that devolving into tit-for-tat witch hunts against previous presidents does not solve any current problems. Instead it will only paralyze the country and then open up the current president for the next round of political tit-for-tat. May be too late to stop that already.


you know what though, you are right about getting rid of bad intelligence givers.... except that didnt happen.

the CIA had its budget expanding HUGELY, and people who should have been fired got promotions.


Still hasn't happened with obama, either. Obama even extended some of bush's most unpopular measures like the Patriot Act. Are you going after obama next?


what does that tell you?


It shows your bias and nothing more.


it tells me that Bush like the fake info he got, and passed it on.


No, it shows bush (and Congress) accepted information as factual from agencies they - rightly or wrongly - trusted.


i dont hate bush.


Really? I don't either. Don't like him much for the way he helped things turn out in his 8 years.


it just makes your argument easier to portray me as though i do.


No, I'm just pointing out that your bias against bush IS your ENTIRE argument.



posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 





I've NEVER said bush was a or "my" "super star". Any research at all would show you that after initially supporting bush, I began criticizing him for many of his decisions. My purpose here and on several other threads is to point out that devolving into tit-for-tat witch hunts against previous presidents does not solve any current problems. Instead it will only paralyze the country and then open up the current president for the next round of political tit-for-tat. May be too late to stop that already.

This is a very mis-informed comment, your comment suggests that it is not good to hunt for previous presidents because it doesn't solve anything. That is like saying let's not hunt for previous criminals because it doesn't solve anything.

Slapping the word political in the face of your paragraph doesn't make your reasoning for not pursuing previous presidents correct.

Once people in the higher ranks are prosecuted and punished, the new leaders won't have the balls to go against the law to accomplish their own self centered ideologies. If we let the leaders go unpunished for their crimes, that will give future leaders the confidence to do what ever they like. And that is not how the world should be, in my opinion..



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by 814ck0u7
what you are missing is the admission in your own mind that your super star (bush) along with many officials in his administration, along with quite a few other people, are war criminals.


I've NEVER said bush was a or "my" "super star". Any research at all would show you that after initially supporting bush, I began criticizing him for many of his decisions. My purpose here and on several other threads is to point out that devolving into tit-for-tat witch hunts against previous presidents does not solve any current problems. Instead it will only paralyze the country and then open up the current president for the next round of political tit-for-tat. May be too late to stop that already.


you know what though, you are right about getting rid of bad intelligence givers.... except that didnt happen.

the CIA had its budget expanding HUGELY, and people who should have been fired got promotions.


Still hasn't happened with obama, either. Obama even extended some of bush's most unpopular measures like the Patriot Act. Are you going after obama next?


what does that tell you?


It shows your bias and nothing more.


it tells me that Bush like the fake info he got, and passed it on.


No, it shows bush (and Congress) accepted information as factual from agencies they - rightly or wrongly - trusted.


i dont hate bush.


Really? I don't either. Don't like him much for the way he helped things turn out in his 8 years.


it just makes your argument easier to portray me as though i do.


No, I'm just pointing out that your bias against bush IS your ENTIRE argument.


you can look at me and tell me i just want bushs head all you want, its ok.

but you want to tell me that the expansion of the CIAs funds after 9/11 and the commendation that also took place, doesnt strike you as funny, just that i have a huge bias?

ok

and as for obama, if he had anything to dowith it, which more than likely he does, he can sit in jail awaiting his sentence along with all those corrupt old white men.

political tit-for-tat? the man is sugguested to be a part of 9/11... thats not just some common circumstance...

you are a bush supporter, plain and simple, and thats ok

just dont tell me what i am when you have absolutely no idea.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
I would like to know when the communist trust fund babies that play anarchist for attention that they do not get from mommy and daddy are going to arrest Clinton for butchery of American women and children on American soil? Oh but that would not be trendy and sheik enough to brag about at their collegiate Stalin indoctrination centers.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by centurion1211
 

Once people in the higher ranks are prosecuted and punished, the new leaders won't have the balls to go against the law to accomplish their own self centered ideologies. If we let the leaders go unpunished for their crimes, that will give future leaders the confidence to do what ever they like. And that is not how the world should be, in my opinion..


Principle vs. pragmatism ...

Another example to show the concept.

Clinton did in fact lie under oath, so it was the right thing - based on principle - to hold an impeachment. But was it good for the country? Did it end up accomplishing anything besides paralyzing government while everyone focused on the impeachment instead of dealing with the developing OBL issues?

If the Republican leadership had based their decision on pragmatism, I think they would (should) have decided to pick another battle and let this one go.

IMO, all these "get Bush" initiatives - in spite of what is claimed - are nothing more than a continuation of the political tit-for-tat games. Nothing more than dems saying you went after our guy Clinton, so we're going after your guy Bush. Which will likely lead to Republicans (not just people on ATS) deciding to really and legally go after Obama.

Last, IMO all the "the two party system is a sham" people here should be the first to embrace what I'm saying because if that's true, then paralyzing the government by continually going after each party's president is the absolute height of folly.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by centurion1211]



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

you are a bush supporter, plain and simple, and thats ok

just dont tell me what i am when you have absolutely no idea.


Again, read my posts - including the one just above this one.

I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a supporter of stop the madness of political tit-for-tat. Above, I just posted a criticism of what the Republican leadership did regarding Clinton.

You are for perpetuating the madness. I've also stated what I think are the reasons behind what you want to do. You've never been honest (even to yourself?) or answered me on those.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by 814ck0u7

you are a bush supporter, plain and simple, and thats ok

just dont tell me what i am when you have absolutely no idea.


Again, read my posts - including the one just above this one.

I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a supporter of stop the madness of political tit-for-tat. Above, I just posted a criticism of what the Republican leadership did regarding Clinton.

You are for perpetuating the madness. I've also stated what I think are the reasons behind what you want to do. You've never been honest (even to yourself?) or answered me on those.


yes i have, and if i have skipped over any of your 'questions' its because they are either strawmen or you *telling* me how i think or feel.... neither of which are questions that help to reconcile the issue on whether or not bush and co should be prosecuted for war crimes, since they are the ones that come come under scrutiny for deception and treason, and if anyone else happens to be involved in war crimes and/or 9/11, who wasnt in bush' administration, they should get theirs too.

and by 'get theirs' i mean a trial where prosecution and defense bring the most credible, REAL info to grapple and see who gets what

because, in case you didnt know, as my mother once told me: you do NOT go to a judge for JUSTICE. you go to a judge for a decision. justice is what the 2 parties work out between themselves.

so there you go. i dont have a hate bush agenda, so you can stop pushing that angle. i want to hear his and his whole crews testimonies under oath, i wana hear the prosecution, cross-examination, everything.

let it take weeks. and dont you dare hand me this bull# about 'holding things up' for gods sake man, congress took up time to congratulate peeps, the marshmallow candy, for being around for so long, or some non-sense. that lets me know how concerned 'they' are with getting # done, which is to say not at all.

calling for people who think the 2 party system is a sham to rally behind or support your argument is a complete wash; you arent sounding the call for anything, you started out saying that prosecuting Bush & CO. for deception and treason would be a waste of time, saying instead we should worry about things happening *now*... completely glossing over the fact that some of the things going on now are DIRECT CONSEQUENCES of those lies and deception.

you want to tell me why you think i do what i do and want what i want because you will not accept that prosecuting war criminals is not a waste of time.

or something.



posted on Mar, 13 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Lets just lay this on the line. What do you want from the president of your nation. Do you want a fair minded man, who will do what is moraly correct in every situation no matter what the cost to himself, his party , and yes even his nation? Or do you want a man who will cold bloodedly attack, and destroy anything to acheive prosperity for his people. I can tell you that if you would rather have the first option , then you shouldnt vote . There ARE no candidates who are capable of the first option, and only candidates of varying degrees of depravity and corruption, the IDEAL tools to ensure the continuation of a state which relies on money and power to remain level footed.
If you want justice, you wont find it in a court, or in the law. You MAY find it on a case by case moral assesment , but if you hamstring yourselves with worrying about what the law says, you will discover that the thing the LAW does best, is ignore the powerful, while hammering the meek.



posted on Mar, 15 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I hope he actually gets tried and convicted and hauled away. but its highly unlikely since hes a mason and a part of the illuminati.

They control everything!

He's being charged with War crimes, Going into another country and just trying to take over for no reason. he lied about why they were going there.

I'm sure he has actual evidence, but I live in canada and never heard about this so i dont know how legit this really is.



posted on Mar, 22 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 


Sorry, but there is no diplomatic immunity from War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

If there were then how could Prime Minister Hideki Tojo have been put on trial? How could Grand Admiral Karl Donitz, the political head of the 3rd Reich (Reichsprasident) following Der Fuhrer's suicide, have spent a decade in prison for having spent less than a month as head of state?

And how could the ICC in the Hague have indicted the now-sitting president of Sudan?






top topics



 
73
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join