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.

 

'War criminal!': Ron Paul backers crash Cheney-Rumsfeld reunion

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 




Riiiight...And I will counter your "very few people believe Bush lied about WMDs" with a great big whopping >>>B.S.




posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

How quickly Assange supporters ignore certain releases of information when they no longer support their argument. Wikileaks released documents that shows Iraq had an active WMD program up to the 2003 invasion. Iraq was in violation of 5 UN resolutions, and under article VII coupled with the resolutions we were within our rights to invade.


Legally within your rights is completely different to being right. Who made America world police?

Some nations operate on principals with morals. See the Chilcot Inquiry in Britain.


My point is this:

If people want to go after Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld, then do it. Find a prosecutor, get the charges going and go from there. Simply name calling every chance they get accomplishes nothing, and does nothing but continue to portray that side of the fence as out of touch.


What will a prosecutor do? Nothing would stick in a court of law, these people are untouchable. The courts are in their pockets. You can't prosecute rulers, they make the rules. The clues in the name!

Practically the whole world is in disagreement with your stance. Who's out of your touch?


9/11 was not the first attack on US intrest by Islam. As I said in another thread, if you want to know when it first started, ask any Marine, and they can give you the answer. 9/11 was also not the first attack on the world trade center. 1993 was when they exploded a truck bomb in the parking level.


Does Britain have the right to start waging wars on Catholic nations because of the IRA attacks, that are still happening to this day? Terrorist attacks that America supported, for the record.


Moving on from that, we had an attack on 2 of our embasies on the African Continent. We had an attack on the USS Cole by extremists on a suicide mission.


Where are you going with this? Half the world could justify attacking America if being attacked is a prerequisit for invasion.


Also, as far as war crimes go, seriously you guys need to actually read not only US Domestic law, but the UN Charter, the IHL, the 3rd and 4th Geneva Conventions as well as the CAT.


War crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (Also known as International humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct includes "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

Do I really need to cite the many examples of American war crimes before you acknowledge them? And yes, I'm speaking legally here.


You will find that we are within our rights to classify captured persons who DO NOT CONFORM to the Genevea Conventions as enemy combatants. As such, they are not subject to International law, but Domestic Law - Civilian, or Domestic Law - Military Tribunals. People demand they be charged, which again is not required under "International Law" since we are still in a state of armed conflict with them.


The Battle of Falujah, maybe we'll start there?


If you want to criticise them for violating law because you think they comiited war crimes, thats fine. However its not what is happening. The opposite side of the fence is doing this for no other reason than to try to make a statement.


Actually, it is what has happened, and is happening.


Where are all these vocal oponents to war crime When Hussein was killing his population? Where were these groups when France violated the arms embargo on selling weapons to Iraq and China? Where were these groups when China illegally annexed Tibet? Where are these groups when China was caught violating the arms embargo on the Sudan?


There were plenty of opponents to Hussein. He was despised almost globally, despite American government support for him.

There was also plenty of opposition to the other mentioned incidents. Naturally American citizens aren't going to be as informed or aware of these issues. Especially not relatively speaking. Furthermore, most decent citizens hold their own governments to higher standards than others.


Where are these groups and their clout when Sudan was in the middle of genocide? Where were these people when Rawanda comiited Genocide? Where were these groups when Iran used school children, having them hold hands and walking through fields to clear land mines?


You're a smart boy, you know full well there was massive public outcry to the genocides of Sudan and Rwanda. To suggest there was silence while this was going on is dishonest.


Where were these vocal opponents of war crimes when civilians were having their heads cut off and then having that video aired on Al Jazeerra?


Why would that be opposed? It's vulgar, but media can show graphic footage when reporting the news if they please.

I'm failing to see your point. You want people to protest Al Jazeera for reporting the news of Islamic terrorists? Islamic extremism has been opposed by the public forever. Are you living under a rock? You keep asking where vocal opponents were, as if to suggest there isn't or wasn't any. It's untrue and you know it's untrue.

Staying on that point, what does any of that have to do with US foreign policy? What is wrong with holding your own nation and government to higher standards than others. Pointing out other war criminals and terrorists doesn't justify the US position.


How about insurgents who intentionally used civilians in IRaq as human shields. Hamas and Hezbullah do the same thing, yet I dont see you guys screaming your lungs out over there.Where were you guys when Iraqi and Afghani insurgents, in addition to taliban and alqueida units, used mosques, schools and churchs to not only store munitions, but actually fight from.


The Iraqi insurgents are the civilians of Iraq. Hamas are the civilians of Palestine. Hezbollah are the civilians of Lebanon. The use of human shields has been absolutely minimal, and reflects on individuals, not the groups themselves. The majority of Iraqi insurgents are ordinary Iraqi citizens defending their nations sovereignty from an invading imperial nation. Ditto for Palestine and Lebanon insurgents.

But actually yes. When people use human shields and attack innocents, plenty of people scream their lungs out. I've yet to see it condoned. How often do you actually listen to or read other peoples positions?


The only reason people find it "cool" to go after Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld is because if they attempted the same stunt in China, North Korea or Sudan, interupting a speech, they would be executed. Almost any person on this planet can come to this country, make a sign and protest in front of the whitehouse, Supreme Court or Congress. You cant get away with that in front of the Peoples Hall in China.


Exactly. You can do that in America. America and Britain are two of the most free nations in the world. And as such people will speak out against self-serving imperial governments. Because America and Britain are both free, and held to high standards by their own citizens.

Though your argument isn't entirely correct. Interrupting a speech in China won't get you executed, atleast not under normal circumstances.


Translation - Those screaming about the moral high ground are lazy - plain and simple. Actually making a stand against a country that does not have the rule of law and guarantees on speech is to hard and to dangerous. So they take the lazy way out - Attack a government that allows it.


It's quite easy to support and aid nations and peoples in their search for freedom. You support internal Democratic processes. Invading a nation, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and trying to force your version of Democracy is no good.

In saying that, you're being naive or dishonest again. By suggesting that's the goal of the American government, to help other nations


You're also ommiting important information here. Like the fact America supported Hussein and the Taliban. Was that supporting free speech? When you support vicious regimes in that region (Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc), is that supporting freedom of speech and law.

Of course not. Because that's not what America is about. If that was the reason for the invasion, as you're suggesting, there's plenty of countries worse off than Iraq and Afghanistan!!!


The laws you guys hold dear in this arean are designed to prevent the actions. They are not designed to be brought up 5-10-15-20 years after the fact as an amicus brief.


Forget laws, this is about right and wrong.


The whole argument made against Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney is not coming across as they comitted warcrimes. It comes aacross aswe hate these 3 because its the "cool" thing to do.


It is the "cool" thing to do, it's clearly a popular position. Christopher Hitchens put forward the argument that George Bush is someone dumb people laugh at and attack. And he's right, there is alot of that, without question. People follow popular opinion and go with the crowd on both sides.

BUT, just because that's the case, doesn't mean there isn't valid argument or issue against the 3. Surely you recognise that. I get the impression you're playing stupid for the sake of strengthening your own position.


You want to hold these 3 accountible thats fine, but you better make sure you have room for the Chinese, French, British, Chilean, Mexican, Sudanese, Saudi, Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish, Mynmar etc leaders that should be sharing a cell with them.


Well look, if people are ignorant to the crimes of others, inform and educate. Nobody has problem with that. What people take issue with is deflection. Deflecting and justifying the crimes of your own government by pointing to the crimes of others. There's a big difference.


My point is this -
Taking the slack ass easy road to make a political point does nothing to change the situation. Going to an event for nothing more than to yell war criminals is nothing but petty, uneducated and portrays themselves as dilettantes.

If it werent for the starch in these protesters shirts, I dont know how they would be able to stand erect.


Debatable, but given some of your dubious arguments I'd question whether your issue is with the guys actions or his views.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by NadaCambia
 


Lol Dimension knows what I am about.. Actually you would know also if you actually tried to communicate instead of the typical hurling insults and ignoring those who have a different view point.

But whatever works for you...


I'm not ignoring you. We've both used insults. Indirect or direct, we're both guilty. I imagine, like with your view on American foreign policy, you're blind to your own crimes.

A hypocrite is someone who points out the crimes of another, but refuses to recognise his own crimes.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Malcram
 

We could always take a look at the road not taken, which would be electing a Democrat into office instead of Bush. Not only would we of still had the terrorist attack, the flip side is we wouldnt have any military casulties. The reason for that is Gore would still most likely be dicking around with China, offering them satellite technology to get them to return our airmen when their plane hit ours in international waters / airspace.


I just want clarification on the part of your post in BOLD. It seems like the point of view you were arguing makes this out as if it would have been a bad thing... please explain.

Thanks.

p.s.

I will ignore your anti-Canadian rant from another response, I imagine you let your emotions get the better of you.
Many Americans (not you specifically) like to claim that the U.S. is Canada's protector, if that is the case, I would want only one example of:

(a) a foreign invasion on Canadian soil where America's armed forces came to our defense.
or
(b) any "preemptive" military action in a foreign country by Canada supported by the U.S.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


It was a sarcastic comment nothing more.

As far as my Canadian rant goes, it was in response to the Canadian lawyer dude who expressed his opinion while at the same time applying a sterotype to me.

I responded in kind, and noted that in my response to him.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Billmeister
 


It was a sarcastic comment nothing more.

As far as my Canadian rant goes, it was in response to the Canadian lawyer dude who expressed his opinion while at the same time applying a sterotype to me.

I responded in kind, and noted that in my response to him.


I assumed as much.

Thanks for the clarification.

the Billmeister



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Do you have any idea what your talking about? Let me help you:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Above is the first Amendment, which you clearly didn't know that? A heckler, yelling out anything isn't against the law. According to the above, its a right. So how do you come to the conclusion that a law was broken, simply by exercising the 1st Amendment? Or are you just trolling? I'd have to think your doing the latter of the two.


BTW, you do realize, being on private property doesn't negate your right to free speech don't you?


As stated in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989), “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable. “



Furthermore, “…the claim that the government has the power to curtail speech when it is likely to produce ‘a specific and significant fear of disruption’ cannot justify the banning of offensive speech in a free society that is protected by the First Amendment.”


With the above illustration, it would seem it is you who needs to learn the law? Working as a LEO, I would have expected more form you?~ Only shows the state of our Union with LEO's mindset, thanks for your example!



edit on 11-2-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


The cop dragging the woman back up the stairs most not understand the 1st Amendment either?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
that's great we need more people like that guy shouting war criminal to cheney in every place that he goes.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


when that music came on i started busting up laughing



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


You know I don't say this often... YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

When the system starts catching the murderous criminals, then we will start concerning ourselves with LAWS.
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN WHEN WE THE PEOPLE CANNOT BRING THESE SOB's TO JUSTICE.

Do you know ANYTHING about the history of Cheney and Rummie and the rest of the evil croakers?

Your comment just made my head spin.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


Very few people still think that Bush deliberately lied about WMDs. Nearly the entire world believed what Bush believed. It has never been proved to be a lie to date. It's been debunked for years now, but still remains a dull weapon in the liberal arsenal of propaganda.

But some lies, such as "Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq", never die.


US did find Iraq WMD



There were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all.

The massive cache of almost 400,000 Iraq war documents released by the WikiLeaks Web site revealed that small amounts of chemical weapons were found in Iraq and continued to surface for years after the 2003 US invasion, Wired magazine reported.

The documents showed that US troops continued to find chemical weapons and labs for years after the invasion, including remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons arsenal -- most of which had been destroyed following the Gulf War.

In August 2004, American troops were able to buy containers from locals of what they thought was liquid sulfur mustard, a blister agent, the documents revealed. The chemicals were triple-sealed and taken to a secure site.

Also in 2004, troops discovered a chemical lab in a house in Fallujah during a battle with insurgents. A chemical cache was also found in the city.


Hmmm! Chemicals were found is what it says in the article and this equates to WMD's how?? We know that Iraq had chemical weapons during its war with Iran, in fact where do you think they got their information and assistance in creating these weapons from America, Britain, Interesting dont you think? Makes you think doesn't it?
edit on 11-2-2011 by kcfusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by DevilJin
 


Originally posted by DevilJin
Since we are talking about people standing up to the three war-stooges, I thought this video was fitting for the topic at hand. Code pink attacks Donald Rumsfeld declaring he is a war criminal.



Beautiful. They should have also mentioned all the deaths he's caused due to his direct involvement in the approval of Aspartame.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
And here we see an accurate commentary on Cheney.


edit on 11-2-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by DevilJin
 


YES! that was awesome. Wonder what goes through his wife's head. lol


Probably what goes through any of their head... NOTHING THEY ARE NOT TOLD TO THINK>



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
And here we see an accurate commentary on Cheney.


edit on 11-2-2011 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)


I keep thinking.. EMP EMP EMP EMP EMP


Shut him down like a robot.

He is no longer human in my eyes and I do not have to treat him as such.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I wonder? Did the new Obama Care pay for that Cyborganic pumping system for Cheney? Inquiring minds wanna know?



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


You should be right. But unfortunately, there is a way around "Congress shall not...." its having the Supreme court interpret the law. They can get really creative. Its why Presidents are so hot to appoint justices. You pick one or several who are biased towards, say..........corporate rights and personhood, and you can slowly over time set precedent for all sorts of craziness. Such as pretending an artificial entity has the same rights flesh and blood humans do.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


I wonder? Did the new Obama Care pay for that Cyborganic pumping system for Cheney? Inquiring minds wanna know?


Nope the VP is given free lifetime medical care.



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Im in awe of all the mindless sheeple in that crowd, a bunch of animals. I referring to the "Dick & Rummy" fanboys. Those people disgust me, what vile people. My hats off to the hecklers


If I was there you would have seen some tomatoes thrown, fists thrown perhaps a flying shoe


What i wouldn't give to spit in Cheneys ugly face
edit on 11-2-2011 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join