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.

 

Blair, Bush should be tried for Iraq: Tutu

page: 1
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Blair, Bush should be tried for Iraq: Tutu


news.msn.co.nz

South Africa's Archbishop Desmond Tutu has called for Tony Blair and George Bush to be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for their role in the Iraq war.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Seen this kind of story pop up a bit lately, bet nothing will come of it, but who knows.... It might gain some traction. Would be nice to see some sense come back to the world....

Anyway i would be extremely surprised if this went any further than this! Although i think if someone put the effort in and had the resources, then they probably would have a case that these two scumbags would have to answer....


news.msn.co.nz
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
I am honestly not trying to be insulting to the Archbishop. He just hasn't been in my mind for a while and my file on him comes up pretty empty.

What has he been doing this century?
How old is he, is he still mentally competent?
Does he control a country or a large corporation?
Why should we care for his opinion more than a rock star's?

I suppose I'm asking why does his opinion matter, why should we take it seriously?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Skinon
 



Seen this kind of story pop up a bit lately, bet nothing will come of it, but who knows.... It might gain some traction.


There's nothing for it to get any kind of traction on.


Would be nice to see some sense come back to the world.


So this is what counts for sense these days? Explains a lot.


Although i think if someone put the effort in and had the resources, then they probably would have a case that these two scumbags would have to answer.


Answer for what, exactly? Acting on the intelligence sources of their respective nations? Enforcing the ultimatum of an international diplomatic forum?

How fickle the human memory is.

How pathetic our reasoning has become.

Prosecuting the past will not correct the future. How would this change anything? How would this undo any wrongs?

It's blood lust justified by its direction at an individual in a position of authority during an unpopular (or contentious) sequence of events. It presumes to know the truth and advocates the persecution of an individual as a solution to any existing problems.

But it's nothing more than vengeful aggression. So you crucified some political figure currently out of office and out of power. Good for you. You've gotten that out of the way just in time to persecute the official who just left office. By time that's over, you can persecute the next one for his perceived atrocities - and the next.

Let's not do something about how much power the office has.

I swear... our society deserves every plight that befalls it.


+12 more 
posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



How old is he, is he still mentally competent?


He's 80 years old. Is he mentally competent?

Let's hear his words again:


"The then leaders of the United States and Great Britain fabricated the grounds to behave like playground bullies and drive us further apart," he said.

"They have driven us to the edge of a precipice where we now stand - with the spectre of Syria and Iran before us."

He said different standards appeared to be set for prosecuting African leaders than western ones, and that the death toll during and after the Iraq conflict was sufficient on its own for the former leaders to face action.

"On these grounds, alone, in a consistent world, those responsible should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in The Hague."


Not only does he sound mentally competent, but IMO he sounds like one of the sanest people around. Of course, Bishop Desmond Tutu doesn't have a $700 billion annual military budget at his disposal so naturally, the world will go on ignoring him.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


So we should just let them get away with it? No point in the nuremburg trials i spose...
If we constantly dont stand up, letting the government do what they want when they want
then we are all going to go down the -o wait thats right. Thats what is already happening! We
are all doomed because of exactly this stance. That it 'doesn't matter' because it was in the past.

Do you not feel that he has just proven that the US government can do exactly what they want
and to other countries what they want, yet turn around and oust dictators and extremists using the
very same laws that they have broken? What if another country defied the UN's laws and sanctions?
USA would invade them citing the same crap that you are fed everyday.

I feel just because they are former heads of state, doesn't mean they shouldn't have to answer for there
own atrocities, just because they where POTUS shouldn't excuse them from jack $&@!, if anything they should
be held even more accountable on the fact that they should be a leading example of actually trying to make a better
world to live in, like they claim. Not infact, a leading example of corruption, bullying, properganda and everything that goes with it!

All the instigators of any war should be automatically held on trial to prove to the public and world that the reasons for causing the deaths of thousands of people in 'regime change' were justifiable. If they weren't then they should't have a problem taking the stand.
edit on 2-9-2012 by Skinon because: Iphone formatting meh



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skinon
So we should just let them get away with it? ........

All the instigators of any war should be automatically held on trial to prove to the public and world that the reasons for causing the deaths of thousands of people in 'regime change' were justifiable


So who would you start with? North Korea for invading South Korea? North Vietnam for invading South Vietnam?

Or people involved in one of these?

1990 1990 Invasion of Kuwait
1990 1991 Gulf War Kuwait
1990 1993 Rwandan Civil War
1990 1995 Tuareg rebellion (1990–1995)
1991 1991 Ten-Day War Slovenia
1991 1992 1991–1992 South Ossetia War
1991 1994 Djiboutian Civil War
1991 1995 Croatian War of Independence
1991 2002 Sierra Leone Civil War
1991 2002 Algerian Civil War
1991 Ongoing Somali Civil War
1991 1993 Georgian Civil War
1991 1991 1991 uprisings in Iraq
1992 1992 East Prigorodny conflict
1992 1996 Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
1992 1992 War of Transnistria
1992 1993 War in Abkhazia
1992 1995 Bosnian War
1992 1994 Croat–Bosniak War
1992 1997 Civil war in Tajikistan
1993 2005 Burundi Civil War
1993 Ongoing Ethnic conflict in Nagaland
1994 1997 Iraqi Kurdish Civil War
1994 1994 Chiapas conflict
1994 1994 1994 civil war in Yemen
1994 1996 First Chechen War
1994 1999 Caprivi conflict Namibia
1995 1995 Cenepa War
1995 2009 Insurgency in Ogaden
1996 2006 Nepalese Civil War
1996 2001 Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001)
1996 1997 First Congo War
1997 1997 rebellion in Albania
1997 1999 Republic of the Congo Civil War
1997 1997 clashes in Cambodia
1997 2008 Pool Department insurgency
1998 1998 War in Abkhazia (1998) Abkhazia
1998 2002 Civil war in Chad (1998–2002)
1998 1999 Kosovo War
1998 2000 Eritrean–Ethiopian War Ethiopia
1998 2003 Second Congo War
1998 1999 Guinea-Bissau Civil War
1999 1999 Kargil War
1999 2000 1999 East Timorese crisis
1999 2001 Insurgency in the Preševo Valley
1999 2003 Second Liberian Civil War
1999 2007 Ituri conflict
1999 1999 Invasion of Dagestan (1999)
1999 2009 Second Chechen War
2000 2005 Second Intifada Israel
2001 2001 2001 Indian–Bangladeshi border conflict
2001 2001 Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia
2001 Ongoing War in Afghanistan (2001–present)
2002 Ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines
2002 Ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa
2002 2002 Operation Defensive Shield
2002 2007 First Ivorian Civil War
2002 Ongoing Insurgency in the Maghreb (2002–present)

etc etc etc.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Skinon
 



So we should just let them get away with it?


And what do you propose as justice?

Locking them up in a cage? Public humiliation? Public execution?

What do such things accomplish? How does it change what already happened?

More importantly - how will it affect what lay in store for the future?


No point in the nuremburg trials i spose.


Not really, no.


If we constantly dont stand up, letting the government do what they want when they want
then we are all going to go down the -o wait thats right. Thats what is already happening!


How is this standing up to "the government?"

He's a former president - at least in the case of Bush. The event in question is ten years' past.

The purpose behind executing, jailing, or exiling an individual was to prevent them from causing more damage to society. Somehow, this has become twisted into the idea that it is to punish people for their wrong-doings. Our justice system has become saturated with sadism long disconnected from the functional purpose it served - which was to purge our society of individuals who preyed upon it.

If you were to kill someone and be brought to trial for it ten years after the fact, having committed no other serious offenses and living a productive lifestyle - is it justice to imprison you (remove you from your source of income), fine you into bankruptcy, etc?

No. That's spitefulness at best - sadistic vengeance at worst.


We are all doomed because of exactly this stance. That it 'doesn't matter' because it was in the past.


The problem is that people in the U.S. are so focused on the past that they have forgotten there is a present ever-expanding into the future.

So focused, are we, on bringing justice to events in the past that we have forgotten there is a future full of the same problems (and worse).


Do you not feel that he has just proven that the US government can do exactly what they want
and to other countries what they want, yet turn around and oust dictators and extremists using the
very same laws that they have broken? What if another country defied the UN's laws and sanctions?
USA would invade them citing the same crap that you are fed everyday.


Bluntly - we can do whatever the hell we want and there's not much the rest of the world can do about it. I'm sure you'll try and throw back that "the rest of the world could unite and fight the U.S." - but that's a lolipop dream. Military hardware considerations and command hierarchy aside - most of the U.S.'s strongest economic allies could not afford to do much more than say "we disagree," and anyone who could mount military opposition would be just as likely to end up at war with others willing to mount military opposition to the U.S.

We can wreck a whole country with a carrier battle group and our civilian population not even feel the cost of war.

Had we been managing our finances more appropriately - this ten year long war in Afghanistan and nine year long war in Iraq would have hardly been felt by the nation. It was our domestic spending that got us in trouble. That we could go to war with two nations for such a long period of time and not subject our population to rationing and financial hardship is a frightening concept. Were we not concerned with nation building or environmental responsibility .... we could go on a conquest that could make Rome look timid.

What can be done about it?

For starters - don't piss us off.

Second, for those of us Americans who would like to use our power responsibly - take away the unilateral authority of our various national offices and place responsible individuals into office.

Ultimately, little can be done about the reality that the U.S. can 'go its own.' Just like you can do little about the reality that the guy with 50lbs of muscle on you and hand-to-hand training can tie you into a pretzel if he so chooses.


All the instigators of any war should be automatically held on trial to prove to the public and world that the reasons for causing the deaths of thousands of people in 'regime change' were justifiable. If they weren't then they should't have a problem taking the stand.


The problem is that these individuals are only accountable to their host nation, really.

And like I said - what would such a trial change? What new discoveries would be made in it? What net gain would there be?

None.

What would cause change, however, is to reign in our national government. To improve our intelligence networks and their interaction across department divides. To devise and implement methods of making the government more transparent while preserving operational security (OPSEC).

This call for a trial is merely a distraction from those goals. The trials would be a temporary abatement - a false sense of accomplishment.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Desmond Tutu (ex Archbishop) is held in high esteem in my book because of his work to bring about the peaceful end to South African apartheid.

However, this type of intervention lessens my respect for him as it is just crass politics.

No one seems to mention that based the record of Saddam, had he remained in power the numbers of deaths he would have inflicted on his own people and others would have eclipsed those killed after the war in the internecine violence of Iraqi against Iraqi.

Regards



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 

Dear paraphi,

Thanks very much for refreshing my memory.

Just as a side thought, Several former leaders come to mind who have become a little. . . (I don't know the right word.) Odd? Strange? I'm thinking of Jimmy Carter and his friendship tour of Cuba; Al Gore and his, well, his evrything, frankly; Nancy Pelosi, and her speeches and comments. Maybe you have some more in mind? On the other hand, the Bushs seem to be pretty quiet, minding their own occasional charity drives. (I didn't intend this to be partisan, but I see how it can be interpreted that way.)

One of the things parents and military officers are taught is "Don't make a threat unless you're fully prepared to carry it out." Calling for Bush to be put on trial, makes me remember a childhood comeback, "Yeah? You and what army?" That seems appropriate here. The Archbishop's goal seems like it can only be realized if the US is reduced to a third-rate power. (A second-rate power would still be too strong to mess with.)

As it's impossible for the foreseeable future, I wonder what the Archbishop's thinking is. It would be sad if he were just looking for a little more spotlight and international approval. Who does he think will benefit from this call for "justice?"

Thanks again for your response.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   
pigs will fly long before shrub ... blair and co. are tried for their crimes against humanity...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I completely agree with his position on iraq, i also think Cheney, Rumsfield and others should be arrested for 9/11.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
At least we can hope that the likes of Blair suffer an untimely death, so that their graves can serve a purpose as a handy urinal.


I'd like to see that in my lifetime and would certainly make the pilgrimage to make use of the facility.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
The whole point of any trial is to get to the truth. If Blair and Bush are so sure of their position then they would not be afraid of appearing before any court.

They keep trying to avoid it so doubts will remain.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Yep - and lets let the real culprits go free AGAIN - WAKE UP PEOPLE

Let me break it down - here's a dozen or so that need to go to trial for crimes against humanity well before those two bloody idiots - perpetrated since 1912......................



1) Lord Jacob de Rothschild.
2) His spooky son, Nathaniel.
3) Baron John de Rothschild, who recently said they are working towards global governance.
4) Sir Evelyn de Rothschild. His wife Lynn Forrester is a big mover and shaker in the Democratic party.
5) David Rockefeller, Sephardic Crypto-Teutonic, who’s son Nick told film director Aaron Russo about 9/11 in advance.
6) Nathan Warburg. His family was not only instrumental in creating the Federal Reserve, etc. they were also behind the rise of Adolf Hitler.
7) Henry Kissinger, Globalist genocidal schemer.
8 George Soros, another Teutonic schemer and NGO manipulator.
9) Paul Volcker, Crypto-Jew big-time Globalist and economic advisor to Obama.
10) Larry Summers, Crypto-Teutonic economic advisor to Obama.
11) Lloyd Blankfein, CEO to the rapidly growing Goldman Sachs banking behemoth.
12) Ben Shalom Bernanke, current Teutonic master of the Federal Reserve (a private entity, neither “Federal” nor a “Reserve”).

What’s the common denominator here?

A: Bush / Blair / Howard / Obama / etc Puppet Masters (& Zionists)







posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


I suppose that is the real benifit to having these threads. It allows the head-cases to vent their one-sided blatherings.
Mental competency is so far lacking in Tutu's utterance as to suggest that anyone who gives credence to them is in the same ballpark.
The Iranian and Syrian issue far predate Blair or Bush. In general the whole middle east mess is a British invention.
The rhetoric out of Iran and the murders out of Syria are hardly originating with Bush or Blair.The series of despots, dictators and wackjobs supported by the Brits, then the Americans under a cold-war logic is slowly, one by one being corrected.
This allows the locals to put in their own wack-jobs. Then we can do it all over again..Isn't freedom wonderful??
So barbeque a steak, have a beer, relax and enjoy life instead of festering in your own poisons.
The Zen of planet earth.....



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Thats funny . WHo has the courage to take them to the court ? ...I guess no one.
edit on 2-9-2012 by Z07MB because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
'Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone,' so goes a famous saying held by at least 90% of mankind's population.

Is Tutu the idiot free fo all sins, that he can cast that first stone? Do remember, all humans are flawed. Despite his creditionals, WHAT had he really done that others had sacrificed FAR MORE than this hypocrite for the case of South Africa?

This is NOT an attempt to stifle the nutcase senile Tutu's freedom of expression. By all means, go ahead with Blair and the moron Bush for justice in the international court, and see how it works out and both of them be exonerated once and for all, issue laid to rest.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, he too, WILL BE called to court to justify his actions over south africa and personal life, while south africans had been lied and pacified to by him for years.

As well as the many humanslayers of mankind be brought to court, around the world. The RULE OF LAW must not be made a mockery of, or be MISUSED by the evil who thinks such institutions are the way to continue with inaction or slaughter of mankind.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I am very disapointed in many of the people's stance in this thread. Bush was being spiteful because he could, and it is obvious. He was pissed because of the hit on his father's head around the Gulf War. So everyone thinks it is alright for Bush to pick his first tour around the "axis of evil" to be Iraq just because he don't like him? That my friends is a war crime. Is it ok for Bush to retrieve Saddam's firearm as a trophy? That my friends is rubbing the fact that it is a war crime in the faces of all of us. Just like public law enforcement, the greatest nation on the face of the earth as an authority figure, must show the most superior of ethics to set an example. If there was reason to show that he had a good reason to protect our nation then they should have no problem proving their case in court. Maybe prosecution will help presidents remember that they cannot invade other countries based on lies and a personal vendetta.

www.google.com... .0.175373.5.3.2.0.0.0.142.345.1j2.3.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.sZaZdIXoYlU
edit on 2-9-2012 by cbaskins because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 




If you were to kill someone and be brought to trial for it ten years after the fact, having committed no other serious offenses and living a productive lifestyle - is it justice to imprison you (remove you from your source of income), fine you into bankruptcy, etc?

No. That's spitefulness at best - sadistic vengeance at worst.


That is a ludicrous position. Perhaps the sadistic or spiteful act was the taking of another persons life.




The problem is that people in the U.S. are so focused on the past that they have forgotten there is a present ever-expanding into the future. So focused, are we, on bringing justice to events in the past that we have forgotten there is a future full of the same problems (and worse)
.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana




top topics



 
21
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join