Should Mr G.W.Bush be charged with War Crimes

[Damo1977]

Basically the question speaks for itself............But this ain't no anti-American thread, this is being discussed around the world.

MR George Bush went against the UN vote and invaded a sovereign nation, and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention.
Mr Bush mentions that those held in 'Guantanamo' are enemy combatants, so legally they should stand under the Geneva Convention and not locked in cells like Cassius Clay.

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

*editors note*
I am the first to admit Mr Bush does believe he is doing the right and helpful thing for the USA and the Western world. Maybe he is maybe he ain't. For who really knows? Least Mr Bush, and the people of the USA, believe in the same values as me. I actually believe if you took him away from politics and met him on face value he would be a kind and decent bloke.
This post was not meant to be a offensive post about USA. Its just he is the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces, so basically he is responsible for what goes on in the forces like the prisoner abuses (not terrorists) in Iraq, and the 'Illegal Invasion' of Iraq and even Guantanamo.

[August]

I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

You mean as opposed to torturing them Hanoi Hilton style or beheading them al quaeda style?

[Kapitan]

its against the UN and international law therefore he can be charged with war crimes

[August]

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

[Type941]

Techinically - yes, as he attacked a sovereign nation as an agressor, and never proved it to the UN that there was a thread.

Anyone watched the Factor the other night with O'Reilly vs. Donhaue - that was a fire cracker. O'Reilly totally lost his cool, was very surprising, perhaps he overdid it. (the debate was pretty much head on Bush vs America)

[August]

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

Again what UN vote did George Bush go against when we attacked Saddam?

Could it be the usual suspects can't find one since it doesn't exist?

[Gorduz]

You mean as opposed to torturing them Hanoi Hilton style or beheading them al quaeda style?

Thats not the point, saddam i charged with war crimes. And I'm pretty damn certian that any al quaeda member doing any beheading will be charged as well. G.W. Bushs unprovoked invasion of Iraq and US treatment av guantanamo could perhaps give grounds for a charge. But still the crimes are not at all in the same propotion as many others.
The question then stads, can you brake the law if you only do i a bit?

[Kapitan]

goerge bush can be charged with crimes against humanity that would be the biggest charge against him

[August]

You mean as opposed to torturing them Hanoi Hilton style or beheading them al quaeda style?

Thats not the point, saddam i charged with war crimes. And I'm pretty damn certian that any al quaeda member doing any beheading will be charged as well. G.W. Bushs unprovoked invasion of Iraq and US treatment av guantanamo could perhaps give grounds for a charge. But still the crimes are not at all in the same propotion as many others.
The question then stads, can you brake the law if you only do i a bit?

If the question is if he could be charged then the answer is yes, of course he could. Anyone can be charged with anything. Could he be convicted? No, i don't believe so.

[SUBMAN1]

Don't get me started.

A. Mr. Bush is taking the soft approach to prisoners of war by keeping them prisoner. If you want to really follow the geneva convention, they should all be shot to death for being enemy combatants who are out of uniform.

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?

-S

[Type941]

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

Not a vote, but a law. International Law. Chapter 7 of United Nations Chapter, where a nation is authorized to use force against another is done under one of the two conditions: either in self-defence (article 51) or under the recommendation of security council (article 42). The US is party to that agreement, so needless to say, it either follows it, or it breaks it.

First, The US failed to pass a resolution thourgh the Security Council which would allow to attack Iraq - simply because half the council was against it, so the US never made the vote and pulled the resoltion. They wanted to call Iraq as a breach of disarmament resolution (like they kept making WMDs) I believe, but China, France, Russia and and some other coutnries who did not have Veto power but were members of SC I think disagreed that Iraq was in breach of it. So the SC option failed. They could not get any coalition beyond Uk, Poland, Spain to name the ones I recall. What they did say (americans) is that since iraq was not living up to their preivious agreements, it made it ok to use military force against them. Furthermore, they said they could prove legally that Iraq was making WMD. In fact, the same case was made in Downing Street for the Brits, and we all know how that turned out later.

Second, The option on self-defence was argued based on US right to self defence, as Iraq was presumed connected to AlQuaeda and therefore was a threat to US national security. This is the bit of the famous Powell speach when he told the UN that Iraq was a grave danger and harbouring terrorists - base for that was the presumed meetings between some militia connected to Zarkawi (sp?) and Iraqi officials previosuly.

Of course, the war started as Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum of 2 days and demanded him to step down, and after that the bombs started to fall.

So the only bit you can argue is what international Law says about the use of preemptive military force unilaterally by a sinlge nation, and that bit I don't know much about.

Than of course there is the international humanitarian law that governs how countries fight each other and aimed at protecting the civilian population. Now it's that law I think that Bush might have troubles with (I think the Geneva convention is a part of that).

realistically though, Bush would need to order the army to carpet bomb all of ... let's say Basra, without any order for evacuation or warning. Based on that, he'd probably qualify to sit next to the likes of Milosevic. However I think he's not that stupid, and the legal breaches he made are first of all will be argued off by the best litigation nation (US) as he'll say he was protecting his people. Really, calling for Bush to trial is like mice deciding that the cat should go away. You all know what the cat would say to that, right? :lol: (given cats could talk, but that's not the point :|\ ) Meoww.

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

[SUBMAN1]

What UN vote did George Bush go against again?

Not a vote, but a law. International Law. Chapter 7 of United Nations Chapter, where a nation is authorized to use force against another is done under one of the two conditions: either in self-defence (article 51) or under the recommendation of security council (article 42). The US is party to that agreement, so needless to say, it either follows it, or it breaks it.

First, The US failed to pass a resolution thourgh the Security Council which would allow to attack Iraq - simply because half the council was against it, so the US never made the vote and pulled the resoltion. They wanted to call Iraq as a breach of disarmament resolution (like they kept making WMDs) I believe, but China, France, Russia and and some other coutnries who did not have Veto power but were members of SC I think disagreed that Iraq was in breach of it. So the SC option failed. They could not get any coalition beyond Uk, Poland, Spain to name the ones I recall. What they did say (americans) is that since iraq was not living up to their preivious agreements, it made it ok to use military force against them. Furthermore, they said they could prove legally that Iraq was making WMD. In fact, the same case was made in Downing Street for the Brits, and we all know how that turned out later.

Second, The option on self-defence was argued based on US right to self defence, as Iraq was presumed connected to AlQuaeda and therefore was a threat to US national security. This is the bit of the famous Powell speach when he told the UN that Iraq was a grave danger and harbouring terrorists - base for that was the presumed meetings between some militia connected to Zarkawi (sp?) and Iraqi officials previosuly.

Of course, the war started as Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum of 2 days and demanded him to step down, and after that the bombs started to fall.

So the only bit you can argue is what international Law says about the use of preemptive military force unilaterally by a sinlge nation, and that bit I don't know much about.

Than of course there is the international humanitarian war that governs how countries fight each other and aimed at protecting the civilian population. Now it's that law I think that Bush might have troubles with (I think the Geneva convention is a part of that).

realistically though, Bush would need to order the army to carpet bomb all of ... let's say Basra, without any order for evacuation or warning. Based on that, he'd probably qualify to sit next to the likes of Milosevic. However I think he's not that stupid, and the legal breaches he made are first of all will be argued off by the best litigation nation (US) as he'll say he was protecting his people. Really, calling for Bush to trial is like mice deciding that the cat should go away. You all know what the cat would say to that, right? :lol: (given cats could talk, but that's not the point :|\ ) Meoww.

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

You forget - The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

-S

[MadMike]

Damo,
I suppose that makes us former and all active duty U.S. servicemen "war criminals" in your eyes (me especially since I worked on "weapons of mass destruction"!!! ).
Talk to me when all those SS and NKVD murderers are brought to justice for their atrocities during WWII. I sincerely doubt Russia is pursuing "war crimes" indictments against those who perpetrated the Katyn forest massacre of 4,000 Polish patriots, nor the abuses committed in the Gulag.
Say, what was that fellow's name (er, terrorist) who was living in Baghdad and assasinated by Uncle Saddam's henchmen?!?

Damo writes-

"...and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention."

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners of war of a recognized army. Read the provisions of Article 4 yourself.

I'm amazed that you insist that Bush is a "war criminal", while ignoring the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Typical anti-American socialist blather.

Yours, Mike

IYAAYAS!

Retired Imperialist Air Pirate

[August]

History will decide, and so will the American people. I have serious doubts he'd be hailed as the great American president 30 years from now. But that's just my opinion.

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion about how history will see Bush, but overall it was a well thought out and interesting post.

[jumpy]

The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

As I understood it, permission was granted to Bush Senior etc... because Saddam actually invaded another sovereign country- Kuwait. As it was this time, Iraq invaded no-one, or really posed any significant military threat to any other sovereign territory.
I supose it's reasonable to think that seeing as 'we' sold WMD's/technology to Saddam when he was an 'ally' it's conceivable to reach the conclusion that when Iraq leaders fell foul of fickle western diplomacy those same ppl/companies/powers that be were a tad worried about a pissed off dictator (whose midermeanours towards his own ppl were conveniently ignored while it suited us) with some badass weapons just itching for a place on the international stage.
Divide and Conquer - it's one of the oldest strategies in the book. If you want to start jumping at shadows, that is ;)
I guess if the western powers had said "look, ok... we sold saddam some badass **** and now he's not our pal anymore, we kindof want it back 'cause we don't trust him that far" there would have been some explaining to do back home.
I have said before that people make choices based upon their concience or their pragmatism- I think maybe, selling a nutter dangerous weapons technology was one of those decisions that erred on the side of pragmatism :roll:

With all the conflicting so called 'reasons' for war with Iraq;
- securing oil.
- defending humanity from despots.
- hiding the truth and saving face over the sale of WMD's to a dictator.
I suppose liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam is as good as any. If only Blair, Bush and all the others had made this clear from the start, instead of peddling halftruths and speculatory reports concerning Saddams' timetable for launching a WMD attack, more folk might have been on side now and back when the case for war was being stated to the UN- As most were when coming to the defense of Kuwait. When you look at the reasons for war as stated by various world leaders, the inference has evolved from removing WMD's, to removing WMD manufacturing capability, to stamping out terrorism, it all starts to seem rather threadbare.
Kindof like this:
GB+TB- he's got wmds!!
World- well maybe he hasn't anymore, you have evidence to the contrary?
GB+TB- but he's a bad man! and stirrs up terrorism over here!
World- so you can't say for sure, or find any WMD's?
GB+TB- yer,butno,butyer,butno,it'sallhisfault'causetracys aidhewozandthatdon'tmatteranyway'causehesmellsandi sagay...
:rotfl:
Personally, I think Saddam had to go for Iraq to develop more fully in the world, but whichever way you look at it, it wasn't going to be pretty, or quick. And now that we have made our bed, we have to lie in it. Besides, the west is as much responsible for some of the trouble in the middle east today as some of the crazies who live there.
As to weather or not anyone broke international law, pfft name a county that hasn't when it suited their national interest.

[Iceman]

MEOW....LMAO :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I think he should be strung up by his ...um ...u know...how dare he show any gump.Get a rope better yet..Texas Style.

[TLAM Strike]

The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

As I understood it, permission was granted to Bush Senior etc... No permission was given to The United States of America! :roll: The elected executive doesn’t matter. After Japan/Germany/Italy declared war on the US it wasn't nullified when FDR died.

Also the Iraqis repeatedly launched missile attacked on US aircraft enforcing the UN’s No Fly Zone. That is an act of war on the US! :stare:

[Sea Demon]

George Bush only enforced UN Resolution 1441, because the useless UN wouldn't do anything themselves. Oh, and by the way, most of the world's intelligence did show the same intelligence regarding WMD as U.S. intel. And Sarin Gas shells were found with a total of about 10,000 gallons of Sarin. There was also Anthrax making facilities found. Does anyone here know anything about Salman Pak??? I guess not. What about Saddam paying terrorist families $10,000 a pop?? I guess you folks in Europe missed that one too.

Not only that, but later we find out that those people harping on and on about an "illegal" war were making tons of money from Saddam from "oil-for-food" programs. Chirac himself was involved and he was the loudest critic. GW Bush will NOT be brought up on war crimes. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Come and try to get him. The facts are...you can't. It would cause an even nastier war, and America wouldn't fight it with the kid gloves we're fighting terrorists with (for fear of civilian losses). You might see B-52's, B-2's, and cruise missile carrying platforms going offensive on you. Maybe even Ohio's pre-positioning. You would also see massive amounts of personnel reserves in IRR called up to deal with any little force you could muster. At the very least, there goes your economies floated by American's taking massive trade deficits with you. But take heart, if there is any corruption found, and I mean real corruption, not just the Michael Moore "made-up" Farenheit 9/11 crap, then the American people would deal with Bush. And I would be front and center. But from where I stand, the criminals are the ones from Europe that have profited from Saddams/UN's oil-for-food program, while Iraq's people suffered. I think the people who forget this stuff have gone nuts. :doh: And the ones that take Mike Moore's movies as gospel are idiots.

And believe me Type 941, if Iraq is successful, Bush will be considered one of the greatest presidents in American history. You are right, it's a matter for history to decide. But trying to make Iraq unsuccessful, just to see Bush fail, makes those governmental critics in Europe villians. If you ain't gonna help....fine. But don't become part of the problem. Criticism is necessary, but constant harping is just annoying, unhelpful, and downright pathetic.

This poll is plain fantasy. :roll:

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

Terrorists are illegal combatants. They are not afforded these rights under Geneva conventions. Let me say again........TERRORISTS are NOT granted anything by the Geneva Conventions". :roll:

Some people just don't get it.

Sea Demon

[jumpy]

TLAM, ok missing the point there slightly, or maybe me not being clear enough ;)
Decision to go to war with Iraq by coalition forces in 1990, was granted in large part because saddam invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait.
There was a clear threat to the stability of the region and to the people of Kuwait- blatantly so. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not the mandate for war in 1990 only extend as far as booting saddams foreces out of kuwait? This being clearly agreed upon by most of the international powers/counties who had any 'say' in the matter. Where was such sweeping unilateral agreement this time?


Yer, ain't corruption a biatch.


Come and try to get him. The facts are...you can't. It would cause an even nastier war, and America wouldn't fight it with the kid gloves we're fighting terrorists with (for fear of civilian losses). You might see B-52's, B-2's, and cruise missile carrying platforms going offensive on you.

wtf?! lol whoah! steady on there :) are not most of eureope/america 'sposed to be allies? no wait, the enemy of my enemy is my friend! :up: so no-one really trusts anybody anymore these days :-j

[Sea Demon]

The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?

As I understood it, permission was granted to Bush Senior etc... No permission was given to The United States of America! :roll: The elected executive doesn’t matter. After Japan/Germany/Italy declared war on the US it wasn't nullified when FDR died.

Also the Iraqis repeatedly launched missile attacked on US aircraft enforcing the UN’s No Fly Zone. That is an act of war on the US! :stare:

Saddam did not live up to his agreements after the cease fire. Clinton was too busy getting hummers to notice. Clinton never got any UN resolution or congressional approval for his interventions in the Balkans. Hello!!!! McFly??? Did any of you bother to read what's in 1441???? I guess you guys were too busy at the "I hate Bush" "I hate America" rallies. :D

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

huh??! lol whoah! steady on there :) are not most of eureope/america 'sposed to be allies? no wait, the enemy of my enemy is my friend! :up: so no-one really trusts anybody anymore these days :-j

Well, I'm countering fantasy situation with fantasy situation. If you think countries in the UN would risk out-and-out destruction of their nations to arrest Bush under false pretenses, then I can assume we would take the proper action accordingly.

See how these things work, jumpy? :D

Sea Demon

[jumpy]

Well, I'm countering fantasy situation with fantasy situation...
:) lol I like the cutt of your jibb :arrgh!: seriously though, somehow I think the all too familiar pragmatism would come to play in the rest of the world were such a situation to develop concerning GWB and warcrimes. So unfortunately, I see it all too clearly.
Interestingly enough, given a 'fantasy' situation, would/could the US risk the out and out destruction of european countries for the sake of one president? It didn't take much for ppl to give Clinton the chop 'cause he banged that woman, then told porkie-pies lol



"Illegal combatants" -that's just solicitor BS
Surely it's of prime importance to not sink as low as the other guy when involved in a war which is touted as 'just'? If the respect of the internatonall community is to be kept then integrity and respect, regardless of the people in question, must be paramount. Otherwise that's like saying we're fighting a war against an enemy who is subhuman- ergo we can do whatever the **** we want to them. How many times have I heard that one in history? Gotta avoid becoming that which we would wish to stamp out, and all that, eh?
No-one is suggesting this some kind of sinister policy :roll: but keeping a careful eye on places and behaviour in/like abugharib/guantanamo bay certainly never hurt anyone's face (no punn intended).

[Sea Demon]

"Illegal combatants" -that's just solicitor BS


So I'm taking that you've never studied the "Laws of Armed Conflict". I'd hardly call that BS solicitorship.

And just how would you fight this enemy that fights from the shadows? Invite them over for tea and crumpets, eh jumpy? The facts are, you won't win this war fought as gentlemen with an enemy that has no problems slicing off your head, or the head of a civilian worker, just because they have American or British citizenship. Become like them? Uh...no. But coddling them just so you can say "see how civilized I am". No the same. Guess what...you ain't gonna impress anyone in the Muslim world with your so-called civility. These people must be fought brutally within law. But let's not misinterpret them just so the "hated Bush" can fail. There's more at stake than rank partisanship.

Sea Demon

[jumpy]

It's just a convenient lable (as I see it anyway *oppinon alert* ) to not afford people the same 'rights' as you or me when facing indeffinite detention and prosecution- why they are there is not as important as how we treat them when we have them at our mercy and disposal. Be wise and gratious in our power. If they are guilty then let them face the music.
Sure, Ive seen the footage of beheadings and other things just as unplesant and was as outraged and disgusted by it as the next man. I've lived 'over there' for a number of years, so I know the kind of mentality which we are dealing with, albeit in a less extreem fasion. I applaud the hyperbole about the tea & crumpets :lol: but answering blood with yet more blood will solve nothing. In the long run, educating these people out of the darkages is the only surefire way of ensuring a long term solution. Who knows, perhaps one day they might even end up discussing these problems on an internet forum like you and I. In the meantmie, we'll just have to put up and shut up and hope for better and more altruistic times. If you can't hope for something better, then what's the point of getting out of bed in the morning?

[Type941]

Well, apart from Sea Deamon's call to arms against Europe (What the ...?) I have to point out that it's the Congress who should grant the president a right to go to war, and only that, however when you said proudly that clinton did it without it - it was once again, breaking your own constitution. A lot of people died there again, but that time it was not the UN, it was Nato.

Now, with Iraq. Why didn't the Nato support US in its self defence? Subman said

You forget - The UN gave permission when the war was started in 1990. So how is it that he didn't have permission again?


This is what the US side argued legally - that it was like the war never ended, and that Iraq broke the rules again and again, and didn't submit to demands, hence there went the army in, again. But if the Security Council or the UN didn't grant any war permission for this second invasion, that means there was no permission!!! Your question implies that the war in Iraq is the same one, just with long cease fire - a view that's definately different to those in the UN or in fact many in Europe. That view exists to support the legal claim that the US was legal to invade in 2003, - whether realistically it's the same war, or a second war - up to your educated opinion only.

I think it's a new separate war. First one was to protect Kuwait and was hailed by the UN and the world, and the US had enjoyed a very natural liberator role, without forcing its democracy principles down anybody's throats. This one was to remove Saddam. For me they are very different. If it was the same war - they would have removed Saddam the first time, but for example would be coming after his successors attacking Kuwait. Which of course is another interesting question - why was Saddam left in power for so long!! I think very nice question to debate in future.

So, the bottom line he didn't have the permission because the world bar few countries saw it as a second war, and didn't believe that the US claims were strong enough. With all unveiled afterwards, the US looked like it made up its mind on going to war, no matter what. There was a very interesting program on Powell and his time during the crisis, and he talked a lot about how the whole thing was an intelligence failure, but also how anyone REFUSED to double check the information, as it suited the political environment. Was that legal? If Bush screwed up with intel, is he not responsible for going to war on a very hoaky and unchecked evidence? Or is it because he sincerely believed it was just, he is therefore, forgiven? These are the questions I refered to that the americans will have to answer later on and decide how good of a leader Bush was for America.

The other side is of course the oil-for-food thing. I reckon so many from UN were involved that it's never going to be published. And before you say that France and Germany and Russia had oil contracts, than what's wrong with that, if now the only companies that have contracts under new government are American only! :) Only a fool would think that Germany France Russia would be OK with losing all oil trade with Iraq and giving it to the US.

Also, if Iraq was never planned properly, no exit strategy was prepared properly - wouldn't you like to know who's responsible for this? I mean surely SOMEONE must be responsible for bad decisions. People get fired from work for using work computer for checking personal emails - surely an intelligence failures of that scale the top guy had to be accountable for it. I think America let off Bush VERY easily of this one, simply becase so much is NOT known to the average JoeVoter. And JoeEurope, JoeAmericanBasher as well.

[Kapitan]

russia buys only about 6% of its total oil from iraq and middle east so its not a big loss but id immagine they aint going to be happy

[gdogghenrikson]

Bush reminds me of Hitler

[mog]

George Bush has broken no laws, and therefore cannot be charged with anything.

[Kapitan]

unlawful detaining of british civilians at an off shore facility which they were treated badly

therefore in a court of law

Guilty under the humaniterian act ie crimes against humanity and the unlawful detaining of forign nationals with disregard for extradition laws and treatys

which consitutes the breaking of the geneva convention on humaniterian side

[Iceman]

Bush reminds me of Hitler

Must be Bush sending all those Jewish people into gas chambers huh...yea uh um...I see the resemblence now.Rolling with tanks into France,Poland, Russia..too for the "Purpose" of conquering them.Bombing England into the stone ages...with no regard for any civilians whatsoever.I see your point

You Wankers!

Strain at a knat and Swallow the camel.

[Type941]

George Bush has broken no laws, and therefore cannot be charged with anything.

And silly me, I thought this was actually a debate! My bad. :-j

Someone fix the poll results, it's not showing the correct answer. :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

give me 20 minuets and il think of some thing to charge him with i know

how about double parking out side the white house thats a conviction

[mog]

unlawful detaining of british civilians at an off shore facility which they were treated badly

therefore in a court of law

Guilty under the humaniterian act ie crimes against humanity and the unlawful detaining of forign nationals with disregard for extradition laws and treatys

which consitutes the breaking of the geneva convention on humaniterian side

Those being detained at Guantanamo Bay are not prisoners of war. POWs are protected by international law on the grounds that the state they are fighting for is responsible for their actions, and Al Qaeda is not a state. Therefore, the 3rd Geneva Convention does not apply.

[Kapitan]

no but the humaniterian side still does regardless

[Kapitan]

oh and i was talking about the brits there

[Sea Demon]

Well, apart from Sea Deamon's call to arms against Europe (What the ...?) I have to point out that it's the Congress who should grant the president a right to go to war, and only that, however when you said proudly that clinton did it without it - it was once again, breaking your own constitution. A lot of people died there again, but that time it was not the UN, it was Nato.


I guess you didn't bother to read my comment. You just twist it to your liking. I just point out the obvious. It's not a call to arms against Europe. I feel as though Europe is and should be an ally. But again I state the obvious. If European "forces" decided to try to come to America to arrest Bush.......America wouldn't tolerate it and would probably lash out.

Plus don't be so intellectually dishonest. The American Congress voted to give Bush the authorization to invade. Look it up. And I point out the hypocrisy in regards to Europe's response when Clinton moved in the Balkans with no authorization of any kind. Where was your outrage then, Type 941???

Sea Demon

[mog]

no but the humaniterian side still does regardless

Can you show me the exact passage in international law you believe has been violated?

[Sea Demon]

Bush reminds me of Hitler

This is just plain ignorant! Care to elaborate on your comparison's gdogghenrikson?

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

Terrorists are illegal combatants. They are not afforded these rights under Geneva conventions. Let me say again........TERRORISTS are NOT granted anything by the Geneva Conventions". :roll:

Some people just don't get it.

Sea Demon

I hate to quote myself, Kapitain. But it's all in the Laws of Armed Conflict who is a legal and illegal combatant. The Geneva Convention was never a vehicle to protect TERRORISTS. Do you need me to give you a working definition of what a terrorist is?

Sea Demon

[Kapitan]

im note saying protect the terrorists what im saying is the non terrorists that are kept at guantamino there the people who can throw up claims under the humaniterian means and its not just the geneva convention either

the U.N N.A.T.O both have policys concerning strict humaniterian issues

i dont give a toss about the terrorists all i care about are the people who have been wrongfully convicted ie the brits that were sent back.

american laws say do they not that every man regardless deserves a fair trial within a certain time limit ?

so why have some of these guys been waiting years ?

[Sea Demon]

Hmmmmm. I wonder what these "British" citizens were doing near the battlefield with AK's, staying in houses protected by Taliban thugs. I'm guessing they were there for a picnic? :roll: (SARCASM OFF)

Sea Demon

[TLAM Strike]

Bush reminds me of Hitler
You remind me of an idiot... :roll:

[mog]

american laws say do they not that every man regardless deserves a fair trial within a certain time limit ?

American criminal law does not apply to them either, so they can be detained indefinitely without breaking any laws.

[Damo1977]

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?

-S

I ain't, this took me 3 hrs to try to word it properly with draft copies in the old style of writing on paper...

[Damo1977]

Damo,
I suppose that makes us former and all active duty U.S. servicemen "war criminals" in your eyes (me especially since I worked on "weapons of mass destruction"!!! ).
Talk to me when all those SS and NKVD murderers are brought to justice for their atrocities during WWII. I sincerely doubt Russia is pursuing "war crimes" indictments against those who perpetrated the Katyn forest massacre of 4,000 Polish patriots, nor the abuses committed in the Gulag.
Say, what was that fellow's name (er, terrorist) who was living in Baghdad and assasinated by Uncle Saddam's henchmen?!?

Damo writes-

"...and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention."

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners of war of a recognized army. Read the provisions of Article 4 yourself.

I'm amazed that you insist that Bush is a "war criminal", while ignoring the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Typical anti-American socialist blather.

Yours, Mike

IYAAYAS!

Retired Imperialist Air Pirate

Did I ever attack the US serviceman that followed orders from civis that hide behind desks? I don't believe I did.

Also you state that the Geneva Convention apllies only to recognised armies, so basically you are saying Iraq didn't have an army only trained terrorists, and the atrocities in Abu Gabi prison camp didn't happen and no US servicemen were sentenced.

And with this comment "I'm amazed that you insist that Bush is a "war criminal", while ignoring the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein. Typical anti-American socialist blather." you are saying its alright to treat POWs badly as long as they did it first. Also since you believe I am anti-American socialist, I have to ask with arrogant comments like that, is it really such a wonder the world is turning against the USA.

Sea Demon says "Saddam did not live up to his agreements after the cease fire."

Oh so the US actually found Saddam's WMDs and links to Al Queda, I must have missed it.

Also after reading posts from a minority of Americans, I gather that any army/soldier that fights against USA is a terrorist. :hmm:

:rotfl: I am anti-American socialist, I shall remember that :rotfl:

[bradclark1]

Odd coming from me but this thread isn't worth the effort.

Brad

[Iceman]

Basically the question speaks for itself............But this ain't no anti-American thread, this is being discussed around the world.

MR George Bush went against the UN vote and invaded a sovereign nation, and than ran a prison camp called 'Guantanamo' off shore which never mind the activities in the camp is still illegal against the Geneva Convention.
Mr Bush mentions that those held in 'Guantanamo' are enemy combatants, so legally they should stand under the Geneva Convention and not locked in cells like Cassius Clay.

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

This took you 3 hours to compose?.....Now I'm more scared of Damo1977 then of GWB lmao... :rotfl: What a load of Texas horse pucky's of a topic of a post....can't wait for the next one.

[August]

I don't see it as two separate wars at all. Since the signing of the cease fire agreement in 91 American and British troops have patrolled the borders and skies of iraq, being shot at, while we waited for the regime in Iraq to become less of a threat.

By "threat" i'm not talking about WMDs or other military hardware but rather the intentions of an extremely wealthy dictator with a serious axe to grind against us.

If we had left Saddam in power he would have taken revenge for the bloody nose we gave him eventually. While his current weapons capability may have been overestimated, (encouraged by Saddam himself), it wouldn't have been long once sanctions had been lifted before he had the means to really hurt us.

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon says "Saddam did not live up to his agreements after the cease fire."

Oh so the US actually found Saddam's WMDs and links to Al Queda, I must have missed it.

Yep, you must have missed it. Well for those of us who actually do pay attention, Saddam failed to comply with:

Resolution 687 - This is the failure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and IAEA personnel. They were to be given...now pay attention here Damo......immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential sites, weapons making and storage facilities, and military storage depots. Saddam failed to comply.

Resolution 688 - This one was to allow humanitarian organizations into Iraq to aid the population unimpeded. And Saddam had to stop repressing his people. Saddam failed to comply.

These are the 2 of the biggest busts for Saddam. But Saddam failed to comply with Resolutions 1154, 686, and much much more. Saddam didn't live up to any of these Resolutions. And there were provisions to go in with MILITARY FORCE as a last resort. I think that after 11 years, we showed too much patience.

Have you bothered to read the Kay report. While they showed that Saddam had no link to 9/11, Saddam did have a link to Al Qaeda and was involved with terrorist financing. Have you ever heard of Salman Pak? Did you know Saddam was paying the families of terrorists $10,000 for murder? There was also a link to Al Qaeda established....unrefuted. Oh, and by the way, the U.S. military did find WMD in Iraq. They found enough Sarin gas and anthrax to kill 350,000 people. That's WMD. Wake up, dude.

Sea Demon

[August]

oh and i was talking about the brits there

Do you have any evidence that Bush personally ordered this particular detention? Remember the premise is a call for the trial of an individual, not a government.

[August]

This took you 3 hours to compose?.....Now I'm more scared of Damo1977 then of GWB lmao... :rotfl: What a load of Texas horse pucky's of a topic of a post....can't wait for the next one.

Did you wait all three hours to make this witty riposte? People post when real life allows them to post, not according to the schedule of some rude anonymous internet personality. Maybe you'd be happier in an AOL chat room.

[Damo1977]

This took you 3 hours to compose?.....Now I'm more scared of Damo1977 then of GWB lmao... :rotfl: What a load of Texas horse pucky's of a topic of a post....can't wait for the next one.

Did you wait all three hours to make this witty riposte? People post when real life allows them to post, not according to the schedule of some rude anonymous internet personality. Maybe you'd be happier in an AOL chat room.

I think thank you August,

the reason why it took so long was I tried to word it properly, without making it seem offensive which I have done in the past :oops:, but alas I seemed to have failed again, plus I was having tea.

It is meant to be a question, not a statement, and definetely not a vindictive anti-American post....I just like seeing what are views from around the world, is that a crime?

But at this current rate of anti-Damo abuse I am starting to become anti-American :lol: Not really, whats that old saying,
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
:rotfl: Geez maybe some people should take notice of that old saying, or grow another layer of skin!

[Sea Demon]

Sea Demon says "Saddam did not live up to his agreements after the cease fire."

Oh so the US actually found Saddam's WMDs and links to Al Queda, I must have missed it.

Yep, you must have missed it. Well for those of us who actually do pay attention, Saddam failed to comply with:

Resolution 687 - This is the failure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and IAEA personnel. They were to be given...now pay attention here Damo......immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to Presidential sites, weapons making and storage facilities, and military storage depots. Saddam failed to comply.

Resolution 688 - This one was to allow humanitarian organizations into Iraq to aid the population unimpeded. And Saddam had to stop repressing his people. Saddam failed to comply.

These are the 2 of the biggest busts for Saddam. But Saddam failed to comply with Resolutions 1154, 686, and much much more. Saddam didn't live up to any of these Resolutions. And there were provisions to go in with MILITARY FORCE as a last resort. I think that after 11 years, we showed too much patience.

Have you bothered to read the Kay report. While they showed that Saddam had no link to 9/11, Saddam did have a link to Al Qaeda and was involved with terrorist financing. Have you ever heard of Salman Pak? Did you know Saddam was paying the families of terrorists $10,000 for murder? There was also a link to Al Qaeda established....unrefuted. Oh, and by the way, the U.S. military did find WMD in Iraq. They found enough Sarin gas and anthrax to kill 350,000 people. That's WMD. Wake up, dude.

Sea Demon

Do you actually consider my reply to you here as .......Damo-abuse? It's just a reply to your statement. Sounds like you may need to grow another layer of skin, pal.

Sea Demon

[Justin Prince]

Don't get me started.

A. Mr. Bush is taking the soft approach to prisoners of war by keeping them prisoner. If you want to really follow the geneva convention, they should all be shot to death for being enemy combatants who are out of uniform.

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?

-S

Amen brother, couldn't have said it better.

Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combatants IN SAID UNIFORM AND OF A SOVEREIGN NATION have rights. ENEMEY COMBATS WITOUT A UNIFORM ARE CONSIDERED SPIES, and can therefore be shot without question.

But, beyond that.... Iraq prison camp: Under Saddam, you are raped, beaten, tortured, and killed. At Gitmo, you get religious tolerance, 3 squares a day, and a relatively cozy life. Hmmmm..................... who should be charged with war crimes, that's a tough one, ya know?

[August]

This took you 3 hours to compose?.....Now I'm more scared of Damo1977 then of GWB lmao... :rotfl: What a load of Texas horse pucky's of a topic of a post....can't wait for the next one.

Did you wait all three hours to make this witty riposte? People post when real life allows them to post, not according to the schedule of some rude anonymous internet personality. Maybe you'd be happier in an AOL chat room.

I think thank you August,

the reason why it took so long was I tried to word it properly, without making it seem offensive which I have done in the past :oops:, but alas I seemed to have failed again, plus I was having tea.

It is meant to be a question, not a statement, and definetely not a vindictive anti-American post....I just like seeing what are views from around the world, is that a crime?

But at this current rate of anti-Damo abuse I am starting to become anti-American :lol: Not really, whats that old saying,
"sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
:rotfl: Geez maybe some people should take notice of that old saying, or grow another layer of skin!

Your welcome, i think.

However, while i think it's unfair to mock someone on a forum for not replying quickly enough, you must realize that your intial post was very blunt and provocative, which i've found nearly always results in a negative reaction.

[Damo1977]

Your welcome, i think.

However, while i think it's unfair to mock someone on a forum for not replying quickly enough, you must realize that your intial post was very blunt and provocative, which i've found nearly always results in a negative reaction.

No he was mocking me cause I took 3hrs to compose the intial post. but thank you all the same

Offensive? Not again :damn: , Well I was trying to be diplomatic, (I knew what I meant) yes I should have posted pros and cons, not just cons. Maybe thats what I need to do, change jobs and become a key figure in international diplomacy :D must make an edit

[Iceman]

August is your brain functioning properly? I was being sarcastic...the whole thread is retarded...No one in the world needed authority to invade Iraq all that was needed was the backbone...as was pointed out he was in failure to comply with U.N.resolutions for yrs...how long is someone supposed to wait?Whatever the excuse WMD..or little green men the whole post is ignorant....OR do those UN resolutions mean dodo..I think they mean squat cause obviously no one had any gump to do anything for yrs...you may continue in your ignorance August and Damo...

[Sea Demon]

Iceman,

Some people never learn. I have seen these types of threads on other boards and some folks only see the facts that fit their myopic agenda. This thread is obviously flame-bait. But when you see such glaring ignorance such as "should Bush be brought up on war crimes" or my personal favorite "Bush reminds me of Hitler" you just gotta respond.

And I notice Damo won't even answer me anymore. I take that as the ultimate compliment. Mission Accomplished. :up:

Sea Demon

[Damo1977]

And I notice Damo won't even answer me anymore. I take that as the ultimate compliment. Mission Accomplished. :up:

Sea Demon

Did you call me anti-American socialist? No. So you didn't abuse me :P Unless you hiding something.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED :rotfl: biggest load of dung I have ever seen. Whats it been, about 2 years now since the sign was shown and things have spiralled out of control.

'Some people only see facts that fit their myopic agenda.'
Interesting, you say that. Than why don't you open your eyes and brain and read what I wrote.

[joea]

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it Damo, no I don't think you are an anti-American socialist. Just an Aussie. I'm a Canuck we are genetically anti-American, the closer you are the harder you try to differentiate yourself. :-j

[Type941]

Under the Geneva Convention, enemy combatants IN SAID UNIFORM AND OF A SOVEREIGN NATION have rights. ENEMEY COMBATS WITOUT A UNIFORM ARE CONSIDERED SPIES, and can therefore be shot without question.

Interestingly, you don't say anything how they should be treated under the convention as prisoners. :hmm: I don't see any REAL concinving arguments that prisoners can be mistretated, aside from some rather radical and unsupported subjective opinions and dubios qoutes of the Geneva convention.

Anyway, the scumbags that those terrorists are, I don't care what happens to these bastards, they are given more humane conditions that they get in their 'free' caves in afganistan. These scum bags have a policy - if caught, scream about abuse, mistreatment of Koran, and so on. It's their policy. They will scream about it because they know very well how the western society works, and they'll get more sympathies.. They are not IDIOTS these fanatics. They know exactly how they fight this war. It's their policy to act like poor POWs when captured. Don't be fooled about that.

[joea]

I agree with that Type941, but what if there were some guys who were just caught up by mistake, maybe in the wrong place at the wrong time kind of thing?

[Type941]

I agree with that Type941, but what if there were some guys who were just caught up by mistake, maybe in the wrong place at the wrong time kind of thing?

I think that those guys don't get the awful treatment that's thought there is. I don't think Gitmo is a death camp. And yes, there will be people caught by mistake, but those guys, you know, it's hard to believe what they all say because they have 0 credibility.

For example they'd preach in a mosque that it's ok to kill the infidel americans, but they never hurt anyone in person. So they'll hire lawyers and say they are innocent victims. I hate these f*cking bastards. I think the americans have with these 'detainees' the same problem as Russia has with Chechen drug sniffing terrorists. You catch them and kill them - it's human rights abuse. You don't - and you are letting them rule the place, but have the human rights watch of your back, who think that as long as you look as a human, you deserve all the rights of normal people.

[The Avon Lady]

FYI, Ex-Guantanamo prisoners fight on (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/22/wguan22.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/09/22/ixworld.html).

[Sea Demon]

'Some people only see facts that fit their myopic agenda.'
Interesting, you say that. Than why don't you open your eyes and brain and read what I wrote.

I did. And I responded to the very BS you wrote with more information than you obviously can handle. It's obvious you haven't read the Kay Report, the 9/11 Commission, UN resolutions 686,688, 1154, 1441, and you only choose to draw your limited info from crazy websites that give you what you want to hear.

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

I agree with that Type941, but what if there were some guys who were just caught up by mistake, maybe in the wrong place at the wrong time kind of thing?

Yeah. These guys that were in Taliban safehouses, or on the battlefield itself with AK's around their shoulders were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. :roll:

Wake Up!!

Sea Demon

[mog]

George Bush has broken no laws, and therefore cannot be charged with anything.

And silly me, I thought this was actually a debate! My bad. :-j

Someone fix the poll results, it's not showing the correct answer. :rotfl:

It isn't a debate. Those who voted Yes in the poll have not made a case; they can't even identify what law GWB is alleged to have broken.

[Damo1977]

Oh, and by the way, the U.S. military did find WMD in Iraq. They found enough Sarin gas and anthrax to kill 350,000 people. That's WMD. Wake up, dude.

Sea Demon

Well blow me down, I never heard of that and looks like these people didn't either,

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/wmd.search/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

wasn't that the original reason given to the world to go to war, was Saddams WMD program.

See I am still answering you Sea Demon

[Damo1977]

George Bush has broken no laws, and therefore cannot be charged with anything.

And silly me, I thought this was actually a debate! My bad. :-j

Someone fix the poll results, it's not showing the correct answer. :rotfl:

It isn't a debate. Those who voted Yes in the poll have not made a case; they can't even identify what law GWB is alleged to have broken.

So invading a soverign nation with no better reason than accusing them of a WMD program is not a crime. Also he is Commander in Chief so he is responsible for the conduct of the armed services, which includes the prisoner abuses in Abu Ghabi. I am not talking about the Muslim fanatics who get off attempting to blow themselves up, whilst inflicting damage on the innocent its the true Iraqi prisoner and the general human rights abuses occuring in these prison camps. Once we start treating prisoners (guilty or not) in these ways, we are as bad as who we are fighting against.

[PeriscopeDepth]

So invading a soverign nation with no better reason than accusing them of a WMD program is not a crime.

Hi Damo

Would it make a difference to you if the US had found WMDs? Would OIF then be justified?

[Soviet_Warlord]

lol 50-50 right now. I wonder what percentage of the voters are Amercan though :oops: :P

[mog]

So invading a soverign nation with no better reason than accusing them of a WMD program is not a crime.

Not in Iraq's case because the UN had already authorised the use of force in Resolution 687, which was passed after Iraq had been expelled from Kuwait in Gulf War I. This resolution was the justification for the bombing of Iraq in 1993 and 1998 when it failed to comply with weapons inspection resolutions. In 2002 Resolution 1441 reaffirmed that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach” of a number of inspections related resolutions.

If the Security Council didn't think Iraq deserved to be attacked again, they should have repealed their authorisation.



Also he is Commander in Chief so he is responsible for the conduct of the armed services, which includes the prisoner abuses in Abu Ghabi. I am not talking about the Muslim fanatics who get off attempting to blow themselves up, whilst inflicting damage on the innocent its the true Iraqi prisoner and the general human rights abuses occuring in these prison camps. Once we start treating prisoners (guilty or not) in these ways, we are as bad as who we are fighting against.
You would need to prove that those acts of abuse were officially sanctioned, i.e. that those guards were merely executing orders.

[Sea Demon]

Your own article claims this:

"[Saddam] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted," a summary of the report said."

And this:

"The report found that Iraq worked hard to cheat on United Nations-imposed sanctions and retain the capability to resume production of weapons of mass destruction at some time in the future. (Full story)"

And do you notice the words stockpiles?

And don't just read msnbc. Get the real story with the actual report. As you can see from the title of the article, they don't give you the whole story. Looky here:

ttp://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Highlights:

* A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.

* A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

* Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.

* New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

* Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

* A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

* Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

* Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

* Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.

Do you see a pattern?

Here's a link to an amazing article that appears in the current edition of The Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

The article is entitled "The Mother of All Connections." It's 15 pages long. But just for you Damo, here are just a few gems from the article:


* How about evidence that a former Iraqi soldier who was recruited by the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan was found to have participated with Iraqi intelligence in a plot to blow up an American embassy in Pakistan .. with a chemical bomb. Chemical Bomb? That would be a WMD, in case you didn't know.
* Saddam agreed in the mid 1990's to a request from Al Qaeda to broadcast anti-Saudi messages on Iraq radio.
* In 1998 there were a series of payments from Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden's No. 2 sidekick, Ayman al Zawahri in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. This was happening at the same time the U.S. was putting increased pressures on Saddam for more inspections, and at the same time Bill Clinton was actually making speeches at the Pentagon that some viewed as preparing the nation for war against Iraq.
* Other documents recovered from Iraqi intelligence show that there were meetings between a high-level Al Qaeda operative and Iraqi intelligence officials in Baghdad. It was also at this very time that Osama bin Laden issued a Fatwa for the "killing of Americans wherever you find them." Not only were these meetings referenced in the documents recovered from the bombed-out Iraqi intelligence headquarters, these meetings were also detailed in the 9/11 Commission Report ... a section of the report never, or so it would seem, released to the Democrats.

And here:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

And I can't find the link, but Iraqi intelligence documents taken by U.S. forces show a number of efforts by Saddam's government to work with Al-Qaeda, along with other terrorists. The documents also show that Saddam had mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction. By the way, some of those weapons, artillery shells with sarin gas, have been found.

But take a look at this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

And this:

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml

Sea Demon

[mog]

lol 50-50 right now. I wonder what percentage of the voters are Amercan though :oops: :P

I wonder what percentage haven't realised that you don't have to support Bush's actions to acknowledge that he legally has his arse covered.

[August]

So invading a soverign nation with no better reason than accusing them of a WMD program is not a crime. Also he is Commander in Chief so he is responsible for the conduct of the armed services, which includes the prisoner abuses in Abu Ghabi. I am not talking about the Muslim fanatics who get off attempting to blow themselves up, whilst inflicting damage on the innocent its the true Iraqi prisoner and the general human rights abuses occuring in these prison camps. Once we start treating prisoners (guilty or not) in these ways, we are as bad as who we are fighting against.

It's more than just some wild accusation out of the blue.

We have to look at it without taking advantage of hindsight. Not only was there Saddams long track record of using them, there's the stockpiles of WMD munitions he was known to have and which have never been accounted for (still). Then there's the stories from expat Iraqis about secret labs and experments and let's not forget that Saddam himself deliberately fostered the idea that he did have them whenever he thought it would be to his advantage.

Also, I can agree with you about improperly treating prisoners but no one should confuse that with the way our enemies treat their prisoners. As bad as humiliation and sleep deprivation might be, it is not the same thing as cutting off arms and legs, acid showers, rape rooms or mass executions.

As for the CiC being responsible for the excesses of the forces under his command, i'd agree, but also I feel that what is far more important is how his forces handle such abuses when they occur. The problems at Abu Grahib came to the worlds attention as the result of an ongoing investigation being conducted by the American military.

In any Army there will be some sadists, but when we find them in our ranks we remove and discipline them, unlike regimes like Saddams who would deliberately employ them as goons to keep his people under his thumb.

[Damo1977]

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it Damo, no I don't think you are an anti-American socialist. Just an Aussie. I'm a Canuck we are genetically anti-American, the closer you are the harder you try to differentiate yourself. :-j

:lol: The US is like a big brother, you must poke and prod them to keep them on the toes, but in the end you still love them.

[Damo1977]

Hi Damo

Would it make a difference to you if the US had found WMDs? Would OIF then be justified?

Hello to you too,

Well frankly yes it would, I have read the articles and reports from Sea Demon which states they have been found. But why isn't it on headlines around the world? Wouldn't it be a victory for Mr Bush, and his party? Instead Mr Bush has changed the reasons of war from WMDs, links to Alqueda to 'Freedom and Democracy' for the Iraqi peoples. Now why would you change the reasons for war unless the initial reasons were unfounded and false.

@August
Yes I agree the US Military handled it very well, but how many other cases have gone unreported? One shall never know. And yes it happens in all forces around the world, when you get sadists in uniforms, they believe they are God and can do what they like.

[Damo1977]

Here's a link to an amazing article that appears in the current edition of The Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

The article is entitled "The Mother of All Connections." It's 15 pages long. But just for you Damo, here are just a few gems from the article:
Sea Demon

Why thank you Sea Demon, for being kind and editing it for me. But I gotta say it is a most interesting article.

[August]

@August
Yes I agree the US Military handled it very well, but how many other cases have gone unreported? One shall never know.

One will never know how many criminal acts you've committed which have gone unreported either.

See? i can play that game too... :D

[PeriscopeDepth]

Hello to you too,

Well frankly yes it would, I have read the articles and reports from Sea Demon which states they have been found. But why isn't it on headlines around the world? Wouldn't it be a victory for Mr Bush, and his party?

I agree about those articles. If it was something substantial you'd think that it would be everywhere in the media and would have learned about it before, not during a discussion on the Internet.

Instead Mr Bush has changed the reasons of war from WMDs, links to Alqueda to 'Freedom and Democracy' for the Iraqi peoples. Now why would you change the reasons for war unless the initial reasons were unfounded and false.

You're assuming that actors in international politics tell the truth when they give their reasons for military action, which isn't always the case. Reasons leaders give for going to war are often the ones that will be most likely to be accepted by their public and legitimize the war in their eyes. WMDs and terrorists were (are) easy to justify after 9/11. I believe that the administration genuinely believed that there WERE WMDs in Iraq and were a little bit surprised when they couldn't find them.

Spreading democracy could be or could not be one of these excuses to make war sound legitimate to the public. There are those that say that the administration launched a war to secure resources and bases in the Middle East. Stacking the deck for the future in an unstable and highly important area, strategically speaking. Which would all be fine with me, mind you.

I don't think that's why the admin did it, however. I really do believe that the Bush admin is serious about spreading democracy in the Middle East through the use of force, starting with Iraq as an outpost. I don't think that "Freedom and Democracy for the Iraqi people" is an excuse. It's the real reason they did it. If they really wanted oil and bases they wouldn't keep troops in the cities, it would be stupid to do so. They would stay in the rural areas and grab the bases and oil, which is similar to what the British did. And everybody knows resources were definitely their primary concern, they were an emperor.

[Damo1977]

One will never know how many criminal acts you've committed which have gone unreported either.

See? i can play that game too... :D

:lol: Shhhhhhh ;)
I have been nothing but an angel all my life!

[Sea Demon]

I agree about those articles. If it was something substantial you'd think that it would be everywhere in the media and would have learned about it before, not during a discussion on the Internet.

Why dismiss them out of hand. IT's NOT an internet discussion. Not only do they list sources, but the same info is found and backed up in the Kay report, and some info from 9/11 Commission. From where I come from, those reports are official. Not CNN or MSNBC news stories. The UN resolutions dilineate all reasons and legalities of invasion. Most of the weapons stuff comes directly from a CIA report. Not just an MSNBC piece covering the CIA report, only reporting what it likes and ignoring what it doesn't like. I actually quote and source from the real deal, and you ignore it as unsubstantial???? What gives?

Plus isn't it kind of obvious by now that the media outlets never report any of the good news out of Iraq? I think it's because most of these media people want the war to fail. Especially the U.S. media.

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

:lol: Shhhhhhh ;)
I have been nothing but an angel all my life!

:shifty: uh....yeah. :-j

[Damo1977]

I believe that the administration genuinely believed that there WERE WMDs in Iraq and were a little bit surprised when they couldn't find them.

I don't think that's why the admin did it, however. I really do believe that the Bush admin is serious about spreading democracy in the Middle East through the use of force, starting with Iraq as an outpost. I don't think that "Freedom and Democracy for the Iraqi people" is an excuse. It's the real reason they did it.

I won't deny Mr Bush is trying to do the right thing for the USA, the western world and Iraq. But he is in charge and should be accountable for the stuff ups in Iraq and other places. But who remembers a certain Mr Ahmad Chalabi, who supplied this information to Mr Bush and co about WMD's and Al Queda links

I shall edit it for Sea Demon :D
- Chalabi was the head of the Iraqi National Congress, a dissident group organized for the purpose of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein.
- The attacks of September 11 made Ahmad Chalabi. The Bush administration had already decided to attack Iraq, and then began casting about for evidence to support the decision which had already been made.
- Chalabi was the man who told Rumsfeld and the rest of the crew that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would be a cakewalk, that the people of Iraq would welcome us with flowers and joy.
-Ahmad Chalabi was the source for the 'intelligence' on the Iraqi threat that was offered to the American people. Chalabi was the man who claimed Iraq was in possession of vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
-Chalabi was the man who claimed Hussein enjoyed deep operational connections with Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda terror network.
- The CIA has hard evidence that Mr. Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/index.cfm?Page=Article&ID=1734

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41871-2004May20.html
They are both American sites so you can't say its anti-American :D

So basically Mr Bush and co got duped in a war with Iraq. Not for WMD's, Al Queda links or 'Freedom and Democracy' for Iraq.
But for Iran and Mr Chalabi. And so Mr Bush should be held accountable for the destruction of Iraq.

[Damo1977]

Plus isn't it kind of obvious by now that the media outlets never report any of the good news out of Iraq? I think it's because most of these media people want the war to fail. Especially the U.S. media.

Sea Demon

Me smells a conspiracy theory brewing, Sea Demon. Soon you will be talking about 'Greys' in the US government :-j

On a serious note,
how can the media report anything good from Iraq, when it is in its death throes?

[Iceman]

You crack me up so bad I almost can't stand it.Do you really think GWB is the supreme Emporer of the world or something?Did he just one day hatch this plan?...Wake Up!...The "ENTIRE" world or allied world of intelligence is reported to the best of my knowledge to have been in agreement with the facts pointing to this guy being a very unstable individual with literally his hand on some buttons.Are you going to gamble with "YOUR" family's life?I think what you should most obviously be saying to yourself in ALL honsety is "How the HELL did so many supposed intelligence agencys around the world come to the same conclusions?"Now...."they"...all of Americas allies save England and alot of others.........God Save The Queen BTW :) ALL let America hang out to dry....I realize it is the politicians too not the peoples..ya know what ...SCREW YOU BUDDY!First rule of gambling is never gamble with more than you can afford to lose...well we gambled and SADDAM is BUST BABY....I sleep just fine.Every soldier in Americas military know what they are signing up for and agree to enforce and protect my country...I love em all.

FREE GWB!!! :) FREE THE WORLD FROM WINNIES!!!....NO WINNIES!

What a thread...lol...You need to be a comic DAMO.

[Damo1977]

God Save The Queen BTW :)
:cry: How offensive!! I mean no harm to the Queen, but I am a Republican, not a Monarchist

FREE THE WORLD FROM WINNIES!!!....NO WINNIES!


What is winnies? Do you mean winners? (sorry to hear that, you must lose alot to have this attitude) or weiners? (if this applies, you must be a nice person because a world free of weiners, is a much safer world for animals).

Anyhow 1 more post tommorrow morning, and than I take me bat and ball and disappear for at least 5 days

[Skybird]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/
HRW with a big grain of salt (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6258).

More reports on HRW and other left-tilting NGOs can be found at Discover The Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/viewGroups.asp?catId=65) and at NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/).

Agendas. Agendas.

[Type941]

George Bush has broken no laws, and therefore cannot be charged with anything.

And silly me, I thought this was actually a debate! My bad. :-j

Someone fix the poll results, it's not showing the correct answer. :rotfl:

It isn't a debate. Those who voted Yes in the poll have not made a case; they can't even identify what law GWB is alleged to have broken.

As opposed to those who debate 'NO' and their facts are 'tell me what he did wrong?'. :roll:

Obviously you didn't read all the replies.

[Skybird]

More reports on HRW and other left-tilting NGOs can be found at Discover The Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/viewGroups.asp?catId=65) and at NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/).

Agendas. Agendas.

First Israpundit, now this. Okay, I already understood before you are a rightie. Israpundit's extreme right-wing reputation, to put it midly, is widely known over here, so this new site now comes as no surprise.

But to answer more directly: The nice thing about NGOs is that sometimes they do not hang at the lips of a government that has it's own selfish interests not to let these things get known if they are true. ;) Or would you easily admit to microphones that you have tortured somebody in your garage?

That someone is called a leftie by a rightie is no argument in itself. It simply is distractive blabla.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/A_Guantanamo_size_120103.htm

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510932004


"Gitmo' Better Blues
The folly of the new Guantanamo trials.
By Neal Katyal (Neal Katyal teaches law at Georgetown University. He has filed a lawsuit on behalf of military defense lawyers that challenges the military commissions. )

Posted Friday, March 19, 2004, at 11:07 AM PT

The rush to create the fig leaf of justice at Guantanamo Bay has begun. Next month, the Supreme Court will review the Bush administration's claim that no one at Guantanamo is entitled to civilian court adjudication of their detentions. On the eve of the Supreme Court deadline for filing its brief defending that policy, the administration announced a newly minted procedure for annual reviews of detentions. The irony of this and other actions (including the decision announced the day before another Supreme Court filing deadline, to allow Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," access to a lawyer) should not be lost: By modifying its policies in the past months, the administration has made the definitive case for civilian review of Guantanamo. The only due process that's happened there came only after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

But don't let these initiatives lull you into thinking that the administration has suddenly decided to follow the rule of law. The most dramatic step—and one likely to be trumpeted by the government at oral argument—was their decision to bring the first charges against detainees: charges based on the offense of conspiracy, to be heard by the first military commission since World War II. As some readers of Slate know, I am a big fan of the conspiracy doctrine in general. But despite the tremendous merits of our civilian conspiracy law, these military charges are unconstitutional, inconsistent with international law, and unwise.

They will demonstrate what critics of the military tribunals have been saying all along: that the administration has sought to create an end run around guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and universally accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.


There are three main problems with the conspiracy indictments at Guantanamo. The first is their targets. One would have thought that, having decided to rock the constitutional order and flout international law, the administration would have at least reserved the military tribunals for the worst offenders—Osama Bin Laden and the like. Instead, charges have been filed against, if the prosecutor's claims prove accurate, someone armed with a TV camera (a videographer of the Cole bombing) and Bin Laden's accountant—both of whom also allegedly served as his bodyguards. While glorifying the Cole bombing and moving al-Qaida money are certainly bad acts, if there were any evidence that these two men actually engaged in serious war crimes, it would be in the indictment. It's not. Instead, the government can only allege the amorphous crime of aiding of al-Qaida.

Contrast these vague indictments with the position of Assistant Attorney General Herbert Wechsler during World War II. Wechsler, perhaps the most important 20th-century scholar of American criminal law, deplored a Pentagon proposal to file conspiracy charges against Germans who were not "prime leaders." To Wechsler, such charges could not be based on ideas drawn from American conspiracy law without "proof of personal participation in a specific crime." In the absence of such proof, he said, "the force of the broad criminal charge against the leaders may be seriously weakened in the eyes of the world," especially "if too many individuals are included in it." Today there is no Wechsler in the administration advising restraint—striking, in light of America's recent experience with the Independent Counsel Act, another device that encouraged overzealousness at the price of balance and fairness. Fairness and process, of course, can give way in an emergency or when the matter concerns Bin Laden or his close associates. But a cameraman and an accountant, even if they double as bodyguards, just don't come close.

The second problem is in the substance of the conspiracy charges. The Department of Defense, bowing to the will of the prosecutors, defined the offense of conspiracy in the broadest terms possible. This definition is similar to the one the United States proposed to use at Nuremberg, with disastrous results. When the Americans proposed it then, it was roundly criticized by our allies. And when a variant of it was used at trial, the Nuremberg judges ruled that there could be no such offenses as conspiracy to commit war crimes or conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity. Even U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle, who sat as a judge, wanted to throw out the conspiracy charges altogether. The result of the Nuremberg ruling was to confine conspiracy only to very limited acts and only against high-level German officials, directly involved in specific acts of aggression. This glaring deficiency will pose problems because the Supreme Court has acknowledged that military commissions can, at most, only try violations authorized by Congress or international law, and the current conspiracy charges do not fit either category.

To make matters worse, the conspiracy charges in both of the indictments are based largely on conduct that occurred before 9/11, yet military commissions can only adjudicate violations of the laws of war. It is a tremendous stretch to argue that this war began in 1999 or 1989. (No doubt that claim would be news to former President Clinton and his national security team. Indeed, it would apparently be a surprise even to President Bush, who, in justifying his campaign's use of 9/11 imagery, stated at a March 6, 2004, press conference, "The terrorists declared war on us that day.") Again, Wechsler is instructive: "Atrocities committed prior to a state of war" ... "are not embraced within the ordinary concept of crimes punishable as violations of the laws of war."

There are good reasons why the laws of war, unlike American civilian law, place powerful limits on the conspiracy doctrine. Recall that the civilian offense is based largely on a theory of deterrence—that draconian punishments will scare people into avoiding association with criminal organizations. But these arguments fail with respect to the military proceedings at Guantanamo. For one thing, the idea that other would-be war criminals are watching the proceedings at Guantanamo and modifying their conduct is far-fetched, especially if, as the Pentagon has asserted, the proceedings may be closed to public view. For another, deterrence works best when the perceived costs of the action exceed the perceived benefits, and it is very difficult to make a claim that the speculative risk of punishment in U.S. military courts would change the calculus of future war criminals (particularly when military operations against them are already ongoing). This isn't to say that there is no upside to conspiracy charges, only that the benefits are more attenuated than they are in ordinary criminal cases and eroded by serious risks of error. And if there are cases in which the advantages of a conspiracy charge become apparent, then the administration is free to use the civilian offense of conspiracy—one written into law by Congress instead of drafted by a Pentagon bureaucrat—in a standard criminal action.

The third and final problem with the Guantanamo tribunals lies in the procedural rules. American criminal law has been able to develop a vibrant offense of conspiracy only because of its strong commitment to criminal procedural guarantees. So, while charges can be somewhat vaguer in a civilian conspiracy trial and hearsay evidence may be admitted, the standard checks on prosecutorial and judicial abuse exist—indictment by a grand jury, the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to obtain exculpatory evidence, and so on. Those of us who defend a broad substantive offense of conspiracy treat these procedural rights as preconditions before such a wide-ranging offense could be established. Yet the military tribunals offer no such guarantees.

The administration thus gives birth to a legal Frankenstein. It picks its jurisdictional theory—that no one can have civilian review—from 1950, before we had earth-shattering developments in international law (e.g., the Geneva Convention's ratification and its worldwide acceptance) and domestic military law (the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice). It picks its procedural theory from the same time period—before the massive revolution in procedural rights in American criminal trials. And it derives its substantive law—the offense of conspiracy—from no real time period at all; it's inspired by cases brought in the 1970s against organized crime. This mix-and-match cannot produce even the closest approximation to fairness.

The chief criticism of the tribunals has always been that the president cannot have the unilateral power to define offenses, pick prosecutors, select judges, authorize charges, select defendants, and then strip the civilian courts of all powers to review tribunal decisions. This principle goes all the way back to the Declaration of Independence, which listed, among the founders' complaints against King George, that he "has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power"; "depriv[ed] us, in many Cases, of the benefits of trial by jury"; "made Judges dependent on his Will alone"; and "transport[ed] us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences." For these reasons, the Supreme Court said during the Civil War that if tribunals are ever appropriate, it is up to Congress to define how and when they are to be used. The current administration has argued that this constitutional history and structure is not relevant because military necessity permitted it to act without explicit congressional authorization.

But charges aren't being brought against planners of the Sept. 11 attacks or other terrorist atrocities. Instead, the president is using these tribunals against minor offenders, where the claim of military necessity is weak. To boot, charges are being brought nearly two and a half years after Sept. 11, dramatically undermining the arguments for avoiding congressional delay. And if the administration prevails at the Supreme Court, the rules for the military commissions—from the definition of substantive offenses to the procedural rules and review guidelines—will be slanted even more in favor of the prosecution than they already are.

Times of crisis demand special responses. But when the crises are long in scope, without a definitive end, and when time permits national deliberation and decision-making, both constitutional and pragmatic values are best served by having our nation's representatives and judges consider that response—not resorting solely to executive decree. The conspiracy charges are the most dramatic step yet in the slide down a dangerous anticonstitutional spiral.

[August]

Okay, I already understood before you are a rightie...................
..................That someone is called a leftie by a rightie is no argument in itself. It simply is distractive blabla.

Yet when someone is called a rightie by a lefty like yourself its not distractive blabla?

:rotfl:

[MadMike]

This sums it up pretty well-

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

Skybird, the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists, not prisoners of war as defined in the Geneva Convention. Remember the case of those Nazi saboteurs (of American citizenship) captured in 1942 landed by U-boats in the States?

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20011207.html

By the way, when is the Federal Republic of Germany going to jail all those Red Army Faction and Baader-Meinhof terrorists identified after the wall fell?!?

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Almost forgot, oh Skybird, the detainees at Gitmo are terrorists,

Proove it. Your saying alone is not enough - even if you spend years saying so, it is no evidence. you can say this, or that, or something different, all day long, no court in the world would take that as evidence, and right so. So far it is only wishful thinking and hear-say, as long as no independent examination by a court and lawyer/judge takes place and evidence is presented that they are not only suspects, but terrorists indeed. Simply saying "They got caught, thus they are guilty" is totally unacceptable and does not suffice even the most minimal legal standards in Western laws.

Mike, you also are a terrorists,even if you don't know. You are, becausee I say so, and that is evidence enough. The simple fact that I saw you in this or that location, and that you have a weapon in your household justifies that you get imprisoned for the next couple of years to interrogate you, and if that is not producing results and I feel a little bit stressed, I maybe may attacjh you to a car battery for some time, who knows. That is no torture, because I do not whip or beat you, and I do not do the electrical shocks to you, itS' the battery, if you don't like it why don't youz stop beeing attached to it? Amnesty is wrong in labelling my doing as tirture, ebvery reasonable man knows that they are just leftist whiners. If you are lucky, I get tired of you, and set you free again after let's say two years. You are free again,so why do you complain. Isn't this just and fair that you got freed after I decided that you were NO terrorist ? I would say that it is just to set you free. I think it is not fair that you accuse me afterwards and blame me for things in the public that I never have done (I really never have done that, I am for a strong legal authority, and for laws and legislative control, I always said that, and so it must be true, and it is you who is lying. Or can you proove different, eh? you even cannot proove that you got impriosned and hijacked. Can you? No? so shut up, will you. We have legal standards in Germany that prevent us from doing like you accuse me of. we are civilized. I am proud to be German, and I love my country. Schroeder is the greatest leader the Western world ever has seen, and he believes in the only true God. And bla and bla and more blabla. My club is bigger than yours, ätsch!)

what? It's just blabla to you? And for you it is only a thought experiment. Dozens have been releasded for whom it was no blabla, but painful reality, for months, for years.

Ridiculous, you think? No, the sad truth. Confirmed by legal experts from your own country, the lastest of which was a lawyer from NY who teaches at their univeristy their and whio gave is disillusioned view on things in TV some weeks ago (and no, he was no leftie, but a Republican, Vietnam veteran, and former Bush fan - which he now regards as one of the biggest imposters that ever have hit the White House). This acting is possible now in your country. If I board an airliner (this professor's example) and fly to some place, and the plane lands in your country to refuel and take up again, during that brake your authorities have now the legal right to catch me and get me out of the plane and bring me to oversea and interrogate me and torture me for months and years, if they want, without ever a judge being consulted, without ever an official accusation presented, withoiut the need to justify that kidnapping to any legal authority, or different office. Espoecially niced is that I even get rejected any chance tol make a defense, I am kept from prooving my innocence. Also, my family, that was sitting in the airplane, has no right to your authorities to get information on where I am and what is done to me. If someone doesn'T like my nose, I am doomed. Maybe you say it is unlikely that this would happen - fact remains that this scenrio by your formulated laws and rules is possible now, and was not before (only when braking the law). what was considered to be illegally and kidnapping, now is accepatbale and existing law, and in accordance with the law. Your authorities are no longer in need top proove that I am guilty. I must proove that I am not guilty, a complete 180° reversion, but I am not allowed to proove that, even if I could. And to proove rigth now that I am no terrorist is something i would find difficult - how should I do that? By stopping to publicly critize Bush? that is no evidence, it could be a trick only. Everyone is guilty as long as he is not found to be unguilty. since that process is under no legal control and can consume unlimited time... go figure what that means for a society. In principle you can shut down your courtrooms: iof this is the new american standard of justice and legislative, you don't need them anymore.

There is a reason why in western societies the role of the court and that of the police is strictly separated, but you have molten it into one and the same now, a formidable "Judge Dredd" of the military/intel community so to speak. That someone can be hold unlimited time without ever beeing accused of anything before a court, without beeing subject to law and order, but because of HEAR-SAY AND BELIEVING AND ARBITRARY ACTING ONLY (to prevent that is WHAT LAWS AND COURTS WERE MADE FOR!!!), and without any evidence beeing found, without any legal examination taking place - all this is a backfall into darkest medieval.

Those women that got burned in the medieval also were "terrorists" (alias: "witches"), because they had been brought to the inquisition. That they were subject to inquisition was evidence enough that they were guilty. The accusation itself was proove and evidence for the guilt. that is perverted, circular logic. That is dangeous. that is tyranny. Some of them even confessed to be witches, when they got tortured long enough, so definetly they must have been guilty, right, so what's the trouble, eh?

Honestly, the "justification" for Guantanamo, the kidnapping of foreign people from their Western homecountries and transportation to some godforsaken places where they can be questioned and tortured without needing to present a reasonable evidence or even just a suspicion to some public controlled authority that it is necessary to deal with this individual, is not different from the moral justification of the Gestapo's acting. The cases of people that good freed again and had been released, obviously unguilty of anything, are counted by the dozens and dozens by now. Obviously there is some basci fault in this system that got designed to evade monitoring by you own legal and constitutional laws and bodies. Noone get'S brought to guantanamo for security concerns, you have for more secure HiSec prisons in the US. It is only about avoiding beeing monitored when doing with them whatever it is that ios done there, and having not days or months or years time, but a whole life, if needed.

Arbitrary rule by the offices and services. Here with us we call this a Polizeistaat.

[Skybird]

Okay, I already understood before you are a rightie...................
..................That someone is called a leftie by a rightie is no argument in itself. It simply is distractive blabla.

Yet when someone is called a rightie by a lefty like yourself its not distractive blabla?

:rotfl:

A taste of your/her own medicine.

[August]

Okay, I already understood before you are a rightie...................
..................That someone is called a leftie by a rightie is no argument in itself. It simply is distractive blabla.

Yet when someone is called a rightie by a lefty like yourself its not distractive blabla?

:rotfl:

A taste of your/her own medicine.

Oh is THAT what it is? And here i thought you were off the Anti-Americanism shtick. Silly me. :D

[The Avon Lady]

More reports on HRW and other left-tilting NGOs can be found at Discover The Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/viewGroups.asp?catId=65) and at NGO Monitor (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/).

Agendas. Agendas.

First Israpundit, now this.
Oh my gosh! IsraPundit! Oh my gosh! :o
Okay, I already understood before you are a rightie.
Just as we understand you're a southpaw, from head to toe. :yep:
Israpundit's extreme right-wing reputation,
Whine! Whine! Whine!

Got a grievance? Wish to disprove something? State the facts. Can you?
to put it midly, is widely known over here,
Where is that? In Moonbatistan?
so this new site now comes as no surprise.
Who cares!
But to answer more directly: The nice thing about NGOs is that sometimes they do not hang at the lips of a government that has it's own selfish interests not to let these things get known if they are true. ;)
I agree.
Or would you easily admit to microphones that you have tortured somebody in your garage?
Hah!

I caught you now!

We don't have a garage! :rotfl:

But if we did............................ :hmm:
That someone is called a leftie by a rightie is no argument in itself. It simply is distractive blabla.
No it isn't and it was indeed not a very relevant part of my post. But you distract.....................
http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr510932004
"The Biteback Effect: Do we even have a word to describe the new criticism?" By Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson081905.html).

A small to-the-point quote:

Rules of interrogation, Korans, prayer arrows pointed to Mecca, visits by U.S. congressmen, Middle Eastern food, inmates as voracious readers of Harry Potter, and the absence of a single inmate lost in captivity: All of that suggests humane treatment toward terrorists — often caught in combat, always out of uniform, and not subject to the Geneva Convention. Guantanamo seems radically different from any prison run by any other current wartime state, much less like anything in our own past when, for example, we summarily shot German agents not in German uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.

Indeed as a general rule, the more hysterically Guantanamo is cited, the more it seems, after introspection, to be a sensible wartime jail under nearly impossible conditions.

[Damo1977]

:damn: Well I am taking my bat and ball and running away for the week, so don't get your hopes up Sea Demon and co.!!! :D

As Mr Schwarzenegger says, "I'll be back'' :D

Have a happy and safe week all.

[MadMike]

Skybird (Marcel X of Muenster),
Haha! You've finally lost it!
I'm copying your post for future reference, no doubt some of my friends in the "government" will be interested in your past meetings with Iranian mullahs and Revolutionary Guards. :hmm:
Think about that one next time you plan to travel to the US, we'll have a cell awaiting you at Gitmo. :cool:

Skybird's very own Club Gitmo t-shirt-

http://store.rushlimbaugh.com/Product.aspx?ProductID=433314

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Mike, you must not do that, for I am pretty much sure that my repeated use of key phrases and alarm words already have triggered the automatted recording of my internet communication in your NSA's automatted electronic surveillance station in Menwith Hill, Harrogate (GB), that already is sniffing after almost all of Europe's internet and telephone traffic for many years now.

And no, I do not mean that as a joke.

[Sea Demon]

:damn: Well I am taking my bat and ball and running away for the week, so don't get your hopes up Sea Demon and co.!!! :D

As Mr Schwarzenegger says, "I'll be back'' :D

Have a happy and safe week all.

Take Care, Damo (no sarcasm here, bud). :D Have a nice week.

OK now that the pleasantries are over..........you'll still be wrong when you get back. :P

Sea Demon

[Sea Demon]

Mike, you must not do that, for I am pretty much sure that my repeated use of key phrases and alarm words already have triggered the automatted recording of my internet communication in your NSA's automatted electronic surveillance station in Menwith Hill, Harrogate (GB), that already is sniffing after almost all of Europe's internet and telephone traffic for many years now.

And no, I do not mean that as a joke.

paranoia, self-destroya.

[Skybird]

paranoia, self-destroya.


...sais the citizen of a country with 26 secret services and a defense budget bigger than the six next biggest defense-spending nations together.

[August]

paranoia, self-destroya.


...sais the citizen of a country with 26 secret services and a defense budget bigger than the six next biggest defense-spending nations together.

...says a citizen of a country that has been protected by that nation and those intelligence services for 60 years.

[Skybird]

paranoia, self-destroya.


...sais the citizen of a country with 26 secret services and a defense budget bigger than the six next biggest defense-spending nations together.

...says a citizen of a country that has been protected by that nation and those intelligence services for 60 years.
...and got payed in form of astronomical financial input into it's financial market over almost five decades from the once protected and most other Western and Asian countries, without whose investements it's economy would collapse under that attempt and that by no means is able to sustain such a defense budget all by itself. that protection was not for free, nor was it altruistic (which is not crfitizism of mine). It was self-interest.

But that is off-topic, and I will go to bed now. ;)

[August]

paranoia, self-destroya.


...sais the citizen of a country with 26 secret services and a defense budget bigger than the six next biggest defense-spending nations together.

...says a citizen of a country that has been protected by that nation and those intelligence services for 60 years.
...and got payed in form of astronomical financial input into it's financial market over almost five decades from the once protected and most other Western and Asian countries, without whose investements it's economy would collapse under that attempt and that by no means is able to sustain such a defense budget all by itself. that protection was not for free, nor was it altruistic (which is not crfitizism of mine). It was self-interest.

...lest that protected nation bring the scourge of world war to our planet for a 3rd time in a century.

[MadMike]

Sky,
You've been watching "Enemy of the State" too much. Twenty-six secret services? Care to list them?

Yours, Mike

[Iceman]

I want one of the Skybird goes Gitmo T-Shirts... LMAO :rotfl:
http://www.cyberallies.com/gitmo.jpg

[Neptunus Rex]

Some thoughts.

All the "combatants" at GITMO were either captured, under arms, in Afganistan or Iraq. Under normal laws, these combatants would be turned over to the authorities who's laws they broke.

That would be Afganistan and Iraq.

Oh, but wait, what government authority? The Taliban were in charge in Afganistan, but they were gone, either killed, running or captured.

Same deal in Iraq. The provisional government didn't exist when the people were being captured, killed, or running.

Here's an idea! Lets turn them back over to those govenments now!

Oh but wait again! We know how that can go and that would offend the sensibilities of our liberal cousins across the water, or in the US.

Two faced is as two faced does. The US gets accused of violating the law, but if the solution within the law (that the liberals demand be inforced) is unacceptable, (the liberals) arguments fall apart, and they accuse and complain of the use of "Legal babel".

I say turn the sons of b*@#^es over to the Afgan and Iraqi authorities and let them deal with it IN THEIR WAY WITH THEIR LAWS!

Also new Rules of Engagement in these two countries. IF IT'S HOLDING A WEAPON (PISTOL, RIFLE, GRENADE, EXPLOSIVE, KNIFE, or VEHICLE) and it's not wearing a recognized uniform, Shoot it and move on!

[Abraham]

Don't get me started.

A. Mr. Bush is taking the soft approach to prisoners of war by keeping them prisoner. If you want to really follow the geneva convention, they should all be shot to death for being enemy combatants who are out of uniform.

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?
-S
Don't get excited, SUBMAN1, I think Damo1977 has his monthly period again.
:D

[Abraham]

Before you vote I would just like to say, now that the Geneva Convention has been broken by the Mr Bush, I would like to thank him, for he has shown the way for all Western enemies to treat US and Allied prisoners of war. I must say thank you again.

Terrorists are illegal combatants. They are not afforded these rights under Geneva conventions. Let me say again........TERRORISTS are NOT granted anything by the Geneva Conventions". :roll:

Some people just don't get it.

Sea Demon
You are absolutely right, Sea Demon. Just a week ago Al-Qaeda terrorists were captured in the Tall 'Afar region. They left the city during anb US self imposted one sided cease-fire, to facilitate the evacuation of non-combatants. These terrorists were dressed as women (so much for Arab honor, I would say!) and had forced little children to hold their hand, family style.
They were pointed out by masked informants from the local population and were immediately flex-cuffed.
(source: Time Sept. 26, 2005)
Of course these people should be interrogated, but it would certainly help - and be totally legal - to court-marshall them and execute them (if found guilty). That is at least a message that the local population would understand (and often appreciate)!
(Mind you, I am against the death penalty in criminal law.)

[The Avon Lady]

Don't get me started.

A. Mr. Bush is taking the soft approach to prisoners of war by keeping them prisoner. If you want to really follow the geneva convention, they should all be shot to death for being enemy combatants who are out of uniform.

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.

Now why the hell are you trying to start a flame war here Damo1977?
-S
Don't get excited, SUBMAN1, I think Damo1977 has his monthly period again.
If only you men wouldn't be so lazy and take your Midol............

[Skybird]

Sky,
You've been watching "Enemy of the State" too much. Twenty-six secret services? Care to list them?

Yours, Mike

This list is from a former colleague of mine wokring on these things. He said it does not claim to be complete, but all organisations listed here operate their own independent intelligence services. even the president's advisory boards is no board only, but operates it's own intel service independent from other services it reports about, and for another example the National Geospatial Intelligence Service not only "prints new maps", but also runs it's own intelligence operations.

I only roughly checked via Google and found all these entities and bodies listed in several lists from various different sources, and I know that man. He comes from German intel and now works freely as correspondent for German news in America.

I remember that in this or that book that I once red the claims repeatedly have been made by different authors that there are between 20 and 30 active independent intel services.

Air Intelligence Agency
Army Intelligence
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, Department of State (INR)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Coast Guard Intelligence
Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
Defense Information Systems Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate
Marine Corps Intelligence
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
National Security Agency (NSA)
National Intelligence Council (NIC)
National Security Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NIMA)
National Intelligence Council
National Reconnaissance Office
Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX)
Office of Intelligence, Department of Energy
Office of Intelligence Support, Department of the Treasury
Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board
United States Secret Service (USSS)


I do not understand that reference to "Enemy of the State". Is that a TV series in the US? Well, I do not look series too much, i admit.

[Skybird]

I missed out the famous FBI.

[August]

The Germans must have a rather broad definition of "secret services" if they include courts, councils and advisory boards.

[August]

By the way, for a country like Germany, with a 6th of the population and a mere 10th of the landmass of the US, they seem to have a rather large number of Secret Services themselves. Here are a few:

Federal Intelligence Service [BND]
Bundesnachrichtendienst

Office of Intelligence of the Federal Armed Forces [ANBw]
Amt für Nachrichtenwesen der Bundeswehr

Office for Radio Monitoring of the Federal Armed Forces [AFMBw]
Amt für Fernmeldwesen Bundeswehr

Military Security Service [MAD]
Militaerischer Abschirmdienst

Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution [BfV]
Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz

State Office for the Protection of the Constitution [LfV]
Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz

Federal Office for Information Technology Security [BSI]
Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik

[MadMike]

There are many more "secret services" if you count intel units assigned within DEA, Border Patrol, Customs, DOE, etc. etc.
The Germans have their own intel and special operations units, GSG-9 and SEK.

BTW Skybird, have you heard this song before?

They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-haaa!
by Napoleon XIV

Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .

You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .

You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .

Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

PS- CIA kidnap team arrived Muenster yesterday... :-j

Yours, Mike

[Onkel Neal]

Techinically - yes, as he attacked a sovereign nation as an agressor, and never proved it to the UN that there was a thread.

Anyone watched the Factor the other night with O'Reilly vs. Donhaue - that was a fire cracker. O'Reilly totally lost his cool, was very surprising, perhaps he overdid it. (the debate was pretty much head on Bush vs America)

Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation, sorry.

[Onkel Neal]

B. Mr. Bush did not start a brand new war, but went to war and removed a cease fire in place since 1991.


-S

Exactly right. Saddam broke the terms of the cease fire years ago, the UN should have taken immediate action but the UN is a toothless and corrupt tiger.

[SUBMAN1]

I can't beleive this thread is still going on? Its one of those that will never die.

-D

[Abraham]

I can't beleive this thread is still going on? Its one of those that will never die.
-D
And even if it dies, it will resurrect one day under another name...
Because there will always be uninformed people.
Because there will always be people who don't grasp the difference between political and criminal responsability.
Because there will always be AAs.
It is a great good that they all have the right to express their thoughts, but sometimes it gets a bit boring reading the same refuted arguments time and again...

[Skybird]

I can't beleive this thread is still going on? Its one of those that will never die.
-D
And even if it dies, it will resurrect one day under another name...
Because there will always be uninformed people.
Because there will always be people who don't grasp the difference between political and criminal responsability.
Because there will always be AAs.
It is a great good that they all have the right to express their thoughts, but sometimes it gets a bit boring reading the same refuted arguments time and again...

Thank God the board is safe now due to your non-AA, well-informed, highly educated, argument-oriented and reasonably arguing presence! How anyone can dare to question your formidable, well-balanced view on things remains a mystery. :zzz:

[Abraham]

Thank you for the - unexpected - compliment, Skybird. It was just a thought, but you cover me with compliments.
Me gratefull for compliments - as usual.
You personal and without substance - as usual.
Nothing new under the sun...
:D

[joea]

Skybird and Abaham, you crack me up. :rotfl: You should be in a sitcom, the Odd Couple.

[Abraham]

Skybird and Abaham, you crack me up. :rotfl: You should be in a sitcom, the Odd Couple.
@ Joea:
I'd love to, but he wouldn't. I might quote others than Nietsche...
But seriously, I would take any chalenge from him.
But he didn't even show up on the 3 Intercontinental Subsim & Subclub Meeting, less than 200 km. from his home...
:down:
Really, we might have gotten along quite well...
(after I convinced him of my point of view, that is!)
:D

P.S. Where were you, Joea? I missed you...

[Skybird]

Thank you for the - unexpected - compliment, Skybird. It was just a thought, but you cover me with compliments.
Me gratefull for compliments - as usual.
You personal and without substance - as usual.
Nothing new under the sun...
:D

Yes, usually I'm a friendly person, that's why I am not stabbing at people from behind their backs, however I am worried about you. Sometimes I think you just do not exist - you always refer to others when describing yourself. You sure you even exist? :hmm:

Joea,
you remember the two old uncles in the Muppet's Show? :lol:

[Skybird]

Skybird and Abaham, you crack me up. :rotfl: You should be in a sitcom, the Odd Couple.
@ Joea:
I'd love to, but he wouldn't. I might quote others than Nietsche...
But seriously, I would take any chalenge from him.
But he didn't even show up on the 3 Intercontinental Subsim & Subclub Meeting, less than 200 km. from his home...
:down:
Really, we might have gotten along quite well...

Hardly. "Süßholzraspeln" is not my thing.

BTW, I was in Hamburg for some days, :-j beating up Bodyguards and even got payed for it - what great fun new work can be :lol:

[Abraham]

Thank you for the - unexpected - compliment, Skybird. It was just a thought, but you cover me with compliments.
Me gratefull for compliments - as usual.
You personal and without substance - as usual.
Nothing new under the sun...
:D

Yes, usually I'm a friendly person, that's why I am not stabbing at people from behind their backs, however I am worried about you. Sometimes I think you just do not exist - you always refer to others when describing yourself. You sure you even exist? :hmm:
I can put your mind at ease, Skybird. I do exist. Really. Trust me on that one at least.
I have 2 (two) independant sources to vow for that: Neal Stevens & Sharktooth.
And if you're not convinced I'll ask The Avon Lady for an Avi David.
There also seems to be some photographic evidence of my existence on the Meeting thread.

But don't you think it is a bit childish to make such a remark?

[Abraham]

Really, we might have gotten along quite well...... Hardly. "Süßholzraspeln" is not my thing...
Just by the sound of it... I fully agree with you not coming to the meeting, Herr Whateveritmaymeanornot.
:rotfl:

[joea]

P.S. Where were you, Joea? I missed you...

Always here, a lot lately, but more on the SH3 and SH3 mods forums, or doing my bit crusading against X1. :lol:

[Abraham]

P.S. Where were you, Joea? I missed you...

Always here, a lot lately, but more on the SH3 and SH3 mods forums, or doing my bit crusading against X1. :lol:
Always happy to join you on that one, but I actually ment: why didn't you join the Meeting?
:D

[joea]

Ahhh yea, had a lot of stuff on, some for my dissertation, plus we launched a new website at work and I helped implement it (work part time in the Information Resources Unit of an international foundation in Geneva as well as a PhD) . :cry: Missed Oktoberfest which I go every year with guys from another forum as well. :shifty:

Next time, looks like it was fun. :rock:

[Damo1977]

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/244/crumb24qe.jpg
IZ BACK



Take Care, Damo (no sarcasm here, bud). :D Have a nice week.

OK now that the pleasantries are over..........you'll still be wrong when you get back. :P

Sea Demon

Thanking you Sea Demon, :|\ But I am still right :P

Don't get excited, SUBMAN1, I think Damo1977 has his monthly period again.
:D
:hmm: Interesting this comes from a man that lives in the Netherlands and so pro-American, that I believe he would lick the sewage system of America clean just to please them. And to be honest my my periods only start when the I watch another bad American pilot TV program.

and @ Subman1, this is what is called free speech. :|\ Thought that is what the war in Iraq is all about, 'Freedom and Democracy', cause there aren't any WMDs or AlQueda links. Oh thats right!, the Americans just love stomping countries, after they have been brought to their knees, and than claim victory. :rotfl: Look at Vietnam (you lost :down: ), and now looks like you running away from Iraq ( :hmm: ).


http://img314.imageshack.us/img314/2496/gulfwars1cm6vo.jpg

[Konovalov]

Should the poster of this thread be charged with Subsim posting crimes against humanity? ;)

Then again it is an improvement on the Hitler wasn't as bad as Russian and China thread. :roll:

[Damo1977]

Should the poster of this thread be charged with Subsim posting crimes against humanity? ;)

Then again it is an improvement on the Hitler wasn't as bad as Russian and China thread. :roll:

Crimes? ME? lol, I have been an angel all me life!! :rotfl:

On, my defence of my Hitler thread, I posted that in my juvenile stage of forums, :|\ , and found out you have to word stuff properly never post stuff when drunk. SO leave me alone. Poms are getting arrogant again!! Just cause you got the Ashes, still saw you lost in soccer against Northern Ireland :rotfl:

[Konovalov]

Should the poster of this thread be charged with Subsim posting crimes against humanity? ;)

Then again it is an improvement on the Hitler wasn't as bad as Russian and China thread. :roll: Poms are getting arrogant again!! Just cause you got the Ashes, still saw you lost in soccer against Northern Ireland :rotfl:

Mate I may have married a Brit and live over here but you simply made an incorrect assumption. I am Australian dinky die. In fact I lived in Adelaide myself for a few years back in the early 90's where I completed my HSC at Scotch College. I used to live right on the Edge of the City in Gilles Street just off Hutt Street near South Terrace and the parklands. I'm not an arrogant Pom. I'm just a little combatitive in my posting today. :)

[Damo1977]

Mate I may have married a Brit and live over here but you simply made an incorrect assumption. I am Australian dinky die. In fact I lived in Adelaide myself for a few years back in the early 90's where I completed my HSC at Scotch College. I used to live right on the Edge of the City in Gilles Street just off Hutt Street near South Terrace and the parklands. I'm not an arrogant Pom. I'm just a little combatitive in my posting today. :)

Sacred Heart boy here, Scotch College at cricket when we played them :rotfl:. Anyhow I didn't take it as an offensive posting, so relax and go drink some tea ;) Take care

[Abraham]

:hmm: Interesting this comes from a man that lives in the Netherlands and so pro-American, that I believe he would lick the sewage system of America clean just to please them.
I really wouldn't, never even thought about it.
You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I must say I find your remark pretty personal and - sorry to say - pretty vulgar.
:down:

[Damo1977]

:hmm: Interesting this comes from a man that lives in the Netherlands and so pro-American, that I believe he would lick the sewage system of America clean just to please them.
I really wouldn't, never even thought about it.
You certainly don't have to agree with me, but I must say I find your remark pretty personal and - sorry to say - pretty vulgar.
:down:

Sorry, if you took that personally Abraham. But actually it is a mark of respect in Oz to give people ****e.

But ain't this personal too

Don't get excited, SUBMAN1, I think Damo1977 has his monthly period again.
:D

So I did some thinking and decided to give you a present, Abraham

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/8956/2004tq.jpg
to wipe away those tears
:P

[Onkel Neal]

Well, this is the end of this thread. Let's get the tone back on the upside. Once again, let me remind you, the General Topics forum is not primarily a forum for people to abuse other people's homeland. If you cannot accept this you are welcome to start your own forum and wail about the USA or whomever you think the Great Satan is.