It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:44 AM

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by NotAnAspie

Dear NotAnAspie,

There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I used the Pope as an example of a person with status who didn't gain that status through wealth. If he got his status from God, then it wasn't by materialism.

The point's still the same even if you take the Pope from the list. I'd be happy to discuss the materialism v. status question, or the one that was the basis for this thread, war crimes. I've stated my position on both, do you disagree with either?

With respect,

Ok... I realize that my writing style often makes it hard to distinguish whether or not I am joking and sometimes I may be both joking and not joking at the same time. Let's call it a coping mechanism. But anyway...

I WAS joking about the pope getting his status from God because I think the Roman Catholic Church is an abomination to God... So at that point I was joking, but now I am definitely not joking.

I thought this would be more clear but I suppose I was wrong.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I think the Pope himself is, like, the most evil guy in the world but birds of a feather flock together and the Vatican is very corrupt in my opinion, they do have quite a taste for materialism and they tend to like put up fronts as though they can do no wrong and this is blasphemy and all part of their deception. It is absolutely sickening that they would exalt themselves the way they do and pretend that they are untouchable and chosen by God. They essentially think they ARE God. Please recognize that this is a sacrilege in the highest form and the fact they have not noticed this yet surely has to mean they are all very high on drugs.

The Vatican IS materialism. It is material people in a material world trying to gain all sorts of material things and pretending to be God.
edit on 3-9-2012 by NotAnAspie because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by onecraftydude

Good sir, I was 100 percent behind the reasons for war, and did "go there", to fight and to make sure that my convictions were just. Did you? Or did you sit behind a monitor and vent about how you vehemently oppose the war?

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by NotAnAspie

Dear NotAnAspie,

Thanks for clearing that up, I appreciate it.
I'm not the brightest. (Check my signature.) Shall we agree to ban the Pope from our discussion and go back to the materialism and war crimes issues?

It's just a sense I have, but I think you've got a lot to say that will be very worth listening to.

With respect,

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:26 AM

Originally posted by charles1952
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?

Why was it taken seriously when he was being used as a Western puppet?

Good on him.

And "does he own a large corporation?" you say? hmm

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by freemarketsocialist

Dear freemarketsocialist,

When I wrote that, I was wondering why his opinion was seen as particularly significant. As another poster reminded me, the message was what was important, not the speaker. I agreed, apologized, and stated some of my objections to the Archbishop's idea.

If you feel like it, I'd be glad to discuss them.

With respect,

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:37 AM
What we need are real facilities that rehabilitate instead of indefinite detention and then these cases can proceed. Until that time nothing of importance will change.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:37 AM
reply to post by thoiter

Since you believe prosecuting the past will not correct the future, I presume you're against all forms of punishment for any crime, or does the same principle not apply to Joe public?

Why would I make an exception?

I do not support punishment for crimes in any context.

I support logical actions taken by a population regarding their preservation.

Locking people in jail is ineffective and a senseless waste of resources. Exile or execution are the only logical solution for individuals that have a sufficiently low probability of being rehabilitated.

Further - a society damages itself when deciding to enact crippling fines, confinement, exile, or execution upon an individual who is currently productive and lawfully compliant while having a low probability of committing such a crime again (IE - there is no consistent pattern and considerable time has lapsed - lifestyle/environmental factors are also up for consideration).

That's not to say that such cases should not be brought to trial - but when I say "trial" - I mean evaluation. What people call a trial today is merely a vengeful blood lust. We would be better served to construct arenas and have criminals bathe in each others blood on live television. It would be welcomed by many of our population.

reply to post by BobNoxious

Your arguments leave me dumbfounded. WOW!. LOL. what can I say...

That's the problem with people. Many like to speak simply for the virtue of making noise.

try raise a child that way and see what type of monster you create.

Do you spank your 25 year old son when you find out he was the one who broke a flower pot 18 years ago?

I cant think of even 1 good reason these liars & murderers shouldn't get a day in court. quite the opposite actually. when you hold the public trust... you should be held to a much higher standard. which means much more severe penalties for F'ing up and lying.

Humans error.

Many of the people in these decision processes must be entrusted with an amount of unilateral authority. Exactly how much should be entrusted will differ from office to office and who you ask.

The fact is - when you are in such a position, you are always going to be looking at situations where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You don't know how damned in either case - you just know that you will be damned.

It changes you when you have to issue an order to people under your authority, knowing that some of them will die (you probably even have accurate statistics staring you in the face that tell you just how many are expected to die). It changes you to receive that order and to look in the eye of the person issuing it; both of you knowing what it means.

Do you always make the best decisions? Hindsight will almost always reveal alternatives to you. You made the decision you did having the information and the time available to you.

Unless it can be demonstrated you were criminally negligent - there's really no logic in persecuting an individual for a judgment call he/she made.

While I'm sure you have all the evidence you need to declare Bush a liar - I'm not so easily convinced. I've been in the military bureaucracy and know how absolutely #ed in the head it can be. I've seen good men set up to fail by poor communication, slack communities, and inaccurate information.

In the end - there comes a point where you have to stop relying on the threat of trial to solve the problem and, instead, go to the source of the problem (the unilateral authority, the legislation preventing the desired level of transparency, etc).

This is your country. If you so decide to do away with classified systems and push it through the government - it will happen.

Not so sure it would be a good idea to do that indiscriminately - but mob rule doesn't have to be sensible rule.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:45 AM
reply to post by charles1952

I agree. I dont feel as though the guys opinion is worth much at all and the guy does annoy me to be honest.

I just like that he is saying that the whole middle east thing is wrong because I agree.

I am also not a huge fan of 'War Crimes' and I do not think the politicians should go to really because us westerners allowed the whole thing to happen. The stupid western public must take much of the blame.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:45 AM

Originally posted by SepticSceptic
With all due respect, why just Tony Blair and George W? Why isn't the current President tried as well? He didn't start it, but by allowing it to continue has definitely condoned it, just as guilty a offense. Also, the U.S. and Great Britain were not the only ones there..

1 Afghanistan
2 Australia
3 Armenia
4 Azerbaijan
5 Bahrain
6 Bangladesh
7 Bulgaria
8 Belgium
9 Bosnia and Herzegovina
10 Canada
11 China
12 Congo
13 Cyprus
14 Czech Republic
15 Denmark
16 Egypt
17 Estonia
18 France
19 Georgia
20 Germany
21 Greece
22 Hungary
23 India
24 Iran
25 Ireland
26 Italy
27 Kuwait
28 Kyrgyzstan
29 Latvia
30 Lithuania
31 Macedonia
32 Malaysia
33 Montenegro
34 Netherlands
35 New Zealand
36 Norway
37 Oman
38 Pakistan
39 Poland
40 Portugal
41 Qatar
42 Romania
43 Russia
44 Slovakia
45 Slovenia
46 South Korea
47 Spain
48 Sudan
49 Sweden
50 Switzerland
51 Tajikistan
52 Thailand
53 Turkey
54 Turkmenistan
55 United Arab Emirates
56 Uzbekistan

Shouldn't they be tried as well? Oh... I get it, it's the whole America and Great Britain is the devil thing. To borrow slang from my cousins across the pond in G.B...... BOLLOCKS!!

How many of them fabricated the evidance or knew of its fabrication, our PM'a suck big time but did they just honour their alegances or did they take part in the game, or at very least have knowledge of it.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:25 AM
reply to post by WorkingClassMan

How many of them fabricated the evidance or knew of its fabrication, our PM'a suck big time but did they just honour their alegances or did they take part in the game, or at very least have knowledge of it.

I'll pick up a role I haven't in a long while.

How do you know we didn't find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq?

Because the Main Stream Media didn't report it? Because CNN and Fox told you that we didn't find any?

Be honest with me, now.

Now that your double-standard lay exposed, let's consider the alternative - that we encountered considerable evidence that Saddam's regime (or some power within Iraq) was actively and currently pursuing chemical and biological weapons development.

James Clapper, the director of U.S. National Intelligence and formerly the director of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in 2003 cited satellite imagery suggesting materials had been moved out of Iraq in the months before the war.

My own evidence, for what it is worth, is purely anecdotal. As I drove east from Damascus in mid-March 2003 to cross the border into Iraq, my Iraqi Kurdish companion said he had spoken to Kurdish truck drivers who regularly used the road.

They reported an unusual build-up of traffic out of Iraq in previous days. Closed convoys of unmarked trucks, which other drivers were forbidden from approaching or overtaking, had been streaming across the border into Syria.

In this case, the surprise isn’t the data but the source. Wikileaks’ new release from purloined files of the Department of Defense may help remind people that, contrary to popular opinion and media memes, the US did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and in significant quantities. While the invasion of Iraq didn’t find huge stockpiles of new WMDs, it did uncover stockpiles that the UN had demanded destroyed as a condition of the 1991 truce that Saddam Hussein abrogated for twelve years (via Instapundit):

I'm having trouble finding the link - but I recall a series of letters on a site back in 2003-4 that were, essentially, eye-witness reports to seeing caches of "WMD" material that had been moved to Syria from Iraq.

There was little coverage of such at the time - but this seems like a fairly similar report:

Further, my experience in the military is that a lot happens that never hits the media - or gets told to the 'experts.' Hell - even Congress is left out of the loop on a lot of things.

Of course - I can see how trumpeting "the WMDs are in Syria!" would not go over so well, politically. The nation would begin to feel quite as though they were on a wild goose chase. It was time to call it a day and let the issue drop.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:26 AM
As far as punishment is concerned... Why would anyone desire to emulate ancient rome all over again?

Hmm... moving forward, I used to be pro capital punishment but I no longer have the faith that humans can collectively execute punishment without error... So I tend to be all for long somewhat comfortable detentions... All the while remembering that courts make mistakes. I don't think we should just try someone once, refuse their appeal and slam the door. I think criminals should be constantly interviewed and that much of the population should have a chance to talk to these people. It should be a long slow process (unless innocence can suddenly be determined and immediate release is the obvious solution) This would give them a lot of time to think and reflect on their lives in total isolation except when being given food etc and being interviewed. It would also give society the chance to learn more about the shocking nature of criminals and why they do the things they do and give us plenty of ongoing time to decide if detaining them is really the right thing to do. I think with a little patience that the truth can come out without making all sorts of mistakes and sealing the deal. The judicial system is now more like a cattle herding company. There's no way I think that seemingly dangerous people should have access to others in absence of self defense but if we just go handing them over to the slaughterhouse, we are no better and that creates demonic energy. The fact is many criminals are just plain screwed up and it would be very interesting to hear their stories. It might even teach us something about ourselves if the criminal was a public figure that we trusted. I recently read an article wherte Bush said that he was famous as a president but no longer had interest in fame.




Clearly he came up with that one on his own and needs his speech writer back.


Imagine him, sitting there in jailhouse jumpsuit being constantly interviewed. I'm think it could get stranger than a Manson interview... and at least if he was really given bad intel he would have plenty of opportunity to explain it all, right? It would sure as hell beat reality TV.

Now some might say this would get expensive, but I'm talking about dangerous criminals, not petty stuff that people shouldn't even be locked up for. They do that crap so they can have non dangerous roadworkers. I say START A TEMP SERVICE YOU GREEDY BASTARDS! THIS IS PRISON NOT TEAM TEMPS YOU DAMN SLAVE DRIVERS!

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:48 AM
This is a very interesting discussion.

To all those who are basically saying "What's the point in prosecuting them now, it wouldn't change anything.", what if we treated all suspected criminals like that ?

The argument "It doesn't matter what happened in the past, it's where we go from here." is just the sort of unintelligent statement that Blair used to come out with.

Yes, Aim64C, how pathetic Your reasoning has become.


posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I do not support the International Trubunal methods. I do believe that said parties should be accountable in there own Sovereign land though. So don't put thoughts and words in posting member's mouths and minds. To agree that those culpable for such things should be brought before there peers to answer is not a bad thing. So you keep on pushing that NWO rhetoric towards whoever you like.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 08:37 AM
Well I for one have just signed the petition below, to try and bring Blair to be accountable for his part in the Iraq war.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:51 PM
reply to post by Bugman82

Harassing the one that brought it all to light, a.k.a Assange, check.

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by WorkingClassMan

NATO allies are but subordinates of the US.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:37 AM
reply to post by qvision

To all those who are basically saying "What's the point in prosecuting them now, it wouldn't change anything.", what if we treated all suspected criminals like that ?

The point of prosecution is to determine whether or not a person represents a severe enough threat or risk to society to warrant removal.

Not to punish.

The argument "It doesn't matter what happened in the past, it's where we go from here." is just the sort of unintelligent statement that Blair used to come out with.

I suppose you drive while staring into your rear-view mirror. That telephone pole you narrowly missed a few moments ago might give you some clues about where and how the next one will approach.

Yes, Aim64C, how pathetic Your reasoning has become.

Cute, but irrelevant. While perhaps above average in intellectual ranking, yourself; you are merely such.

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by iloveinducedguilt

NATO reports to the U.S.??? Right, copy that. Not true in the least bit. This whole matter boils down to yet another opinionated person of notoriety who takes a pot shot at the U.S. All the "cool kids" are doing it, and he wanted to jump in on the bandwagon. There were bio weapons there, a blind rhesus monkey with epilepsy could have seen that. Every country who jumped on board did so of their own free will

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:42 AM
Here is the way i look at it:

Every time i read a book about history, whether it is the ancient isreal, rome, constantinople, egypt,america, or europe, one thing remains constant, and that is violence, such as war, and if not war then violence toward leaders being assassinated by others who wanted to be leaders.

Power does something to the reptilian part of the brain because history is packed with murder by people in power, and history seems to repeat itself.

The words war, death, genocide, and annihilation all exist for a reason, so someone who is wealthy and powerful would not feel too bad about being imprisoned, think about it, they would still have better health care that i ever could, they would have their own internet and tv, and still eat fine cuisine.

I know about that guy who created the 10 million dollar bail-out (his name escapes me at the moment) and he lives a luxurious life in prison, so what does this really say about the wealthy and powerful ?

Any war criminal that was in power or is right now wont feel the long term affects of imprisonment, so what else could prevent them from committing war crimes ?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in