Ramadi - the cycle continues

Memnoch

Its funny I think how the west in general has become desensitized to all the murdering the US does in Iraq, just because these "farce" elections have been held.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html

The cycle is now being repeated by the US in Ramadi, though distinctly the media focus is no longer on the US's atrocities in Iraq. Like Fallujah, I expect little to remain of this city following its pacification. Bush murders a few thousand people more and europe welcomes him to fancy dinners. It would seem that the general public's usually short lasting attention has finally moved on.

So while the elections may not have delivered independence it certainly looks like they were another great media coup for War criminals Bush and Blair.

Rossonero

Memnoch wrote:

Its funny I think how the west in general has become desensitized to all the murdering the US does in Iraq, just because these "farce" elections have been held.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/20/iraq.main/index.html

The cycle is now being repeated by the US in Ramadi, though distinctly the media focus is no longer on the US's atrocities in Iraq. Like Fallujah, I expect little to remain of this city following its pacification. Bush murders a few thousand people more and europe welcomes him to fancy dinners. It would seem that the general public's usually short lasting attention has finally moved on.

So while the elections may not have delivered independence it certainly looks like they were another great media coup for War criminals Bush and Blair.

Now the US knows what the reaction of Europe is to invading a helpless country ( "Stop that, for God's sake!" ) it can do whatever it wants.
How's a voicing of disagreement going to deter the invasion?
The US knows that Europe won't intervene because they're reliant on the US's economy.

Bush goes around speaking of World Freedom. Why did they not free the Rwandan people during the genocides, or the Sudanese? "For Oil? No way, it's not for oil" they say ( even though the list of countries they have intervened includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela-3rd highest producer of oil, etc.) They had a scape goat with 9/11. "Terrorism is a good reason!" Even though 15 of 9/11 terrorists were saudi, bin laden himself saudi "Attack Iraq!"

They say they stand for democracy, but they're willing to ignore China, because they have trade

Moriarty

I for one reckon we should invade the US and UK to show them what for!


what a damned idiotic view of the world

AmenToThat

My mind is still drawn back from time to time of the pictures of the marine shooting the injured man laying in the mosque, god only knows what else happened in the city away from the view of the cameras.
Im wondering if somewhere down the line the events of Fallujah will get internation recognition as a war crime?
I mean it was 'ok'd' by a provisional authority that hadnt been elected and was carried out during a war that many in the international community consider to be illegal and immoral.

Anybody have any legal knowledge of what constitutes a war crime?

AmenToThat

Moriarty wrote:

I for one reckon we should invade the US and UK to show them what for!


what a damned idiotic view of the world

Simplistic maybe but to deem someones views as idiotic is not a very civil way of conducting yourself on a public forum.

In any case idiotic (as you put it) or hypocritical as American/British foreign policy most certainly is.
Cant see that being idiotic as any worse than by a hypocrit myself, certain more honest!

Moriarty

AmenToThat wrote:

Anybody have any legal knowledge of what constitutes a war crime?

I'm sure memnoch will be able to tell you, since he crys "WAR CRIMINAL!!" in every second thread he posts it in.

The world of realpolitik is here to stay. Modern day politics is built around it. Raving like a lunatic about how the world is so unjust is idiotic.

AmenToThat

Moriarty wrote:

I'm sure memnoch will be able to tell you, since he crys "WAR CRIMINAL!!" in every second thread he posts it in.

The world of realpolitik is here to stay. Modern day politics is built around it. Raving like a lunatic about how the world is so unjust is idiotic.

If you want to get into a childish slagging match with memnoch please start another thread as my question was a serious one and Id welcome comments from board members

Redleslie2

Moriarty wrote:

The world of realpolitik is here to stay. Modern day politics is built around it. Raving like a lunatic about how the world is so unjust is idiotic.

I wonder will Saddam present a better defence for his crimes than this infantile load of meaningless bog peasant mentality trolling.

Ah shure, when you think about it, what's the point of anything, we're all going to die someday.

Memnoch

Moriarty wrote:

I'm sure memnoch will be able to tell you, since he crys "WAR CRIMINAL!!" in every second thread he posts it in.

The world of realpolitik is here to stay. Modern day politics is built around it. Raving like a lunatic about how the world is so unjust is idiotic.

Ah right, so murdering a hundred thousand people for your own personal greed, and conquering another country is okay, and we should just put up with it because its real politik. As we should accept that sometimes people need to be tortured. So what if these people turn out to be innocent and have had done nothing wrong in the first place. And while were at it, lets just lock people up for having beards and wearing funny looking cap, because in the pursuit of "greater freedom" (tm), you sometimes have to sacrifice civil liberties. And lets just allow it all to pass without objecting because it doesn't affect us negatively, in fact it helps us.

The world of realpolitik is that of exploitation, and only those who gain from it want it to propagate, and its easy for those who aren't harmed by it because of being lucky to be born in a nice place to poo poo those who cry out against the injustice. But i'm glad you've atleast admitted that you aren't interested in justice, so i'll keep note of that for the future.

Lastly if a Mod is reading this I respectfully request that Moriarity be cautioned for his personal insults and abuse that are clearly directed against me.

I would have thought that calling someone a "raving lunatic" and "idiotic" is against the charter?

Moriarty

AmenToThat wrote:

If you want to get into a childish slagging match with memnoch please start another thread as my question was a serious one and Id welcome comments from board members

I'm no more intrested in a slagging match than you are, I just wonder why he does it. I presume it's just vitriol so he can feel better about himself, but I don't know.

Redleslie2 wrote:

I wonder will Saddam present a better defence for his crimes than this infantile load of meaningless bog peasant mentality trolling.

Nice to see you practice what you preach so well.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Ah shure, when you think about it, what's the point of anything, we're all going to die someday.

<Point>

---

<distance you missed it by>

---

<You>

I have no problem with people arguing their case if they do so in a reasoned manner. Screaming about war criminals, atrocities and mass murder isn't reasoned debate. Therefore, the signal:noise knob gets adjusted so much that the likes of Memnochs ranting just passes under the radar as meaningless gibberish from somone that needs to take some anger manangement classes. Therefore, no reasoned debate. Therefore, nothing changes. That attitude is far from unique to me.

Memnoch

Memnochs ranting just passes under the radar as meaningless gibberish from somone that needs to take some anger manangement classes. Therefore, no reasoned debate.

more personal insults. And this after I responded without saying anything against you in my previous post.

If you are able to debate the points I raise feel free to do so, resorting to personal insults only shows that you have no counter-arguement to offer.

Moriarty

There's a "report this post" thing just to the left there by the way. You'll probably get a response from the mods more quickly.










<--

Memnoch

AmenToThat wrote:

My mind is still drawn back from time to time of the pictures of the marine shooting the injured man laying in the mosque, god only knows what else happened in the city away from the view of the cameras.
Im wondering if somewhere down the line the events of Fallujah will get internation recognition as a war crime?
I mean it was 'ok'd' by a provisional authority that hadnt been elected and was carried out during a war that many in the international community consider to be illegal and immoral.

Anybody have any legal knowledge of what constitutes a war crime?

the problem is that we are in a very grey area here.

Everything they have done does is pretty much illegal.
In their torture of prisoners and holding people indefiantely without a trial they have breached the laws of human rights and the geneva convention to which the US is a signatory.
Now they CLAIM that this was just an act of rogue soldiers (the torture) and they "make up" their own rules so they can hold prisoners of war without trial. Off course this is wrong AND illegal, after all, since when do we allow those accused of commiting crimes to investigate themselves? Since when is it okay for the person commiting the crime to create new rules so that they can escape with what they do?

Their invasion of Iraq was also illegal, because legally you can ONLY invade in self-defence, clearly this was not a case of self-defence, even though they CLAIM that they THOUGHT it was. So I guess then its okay for me to kill someone, then say, I had evidence that they were planning my murder so I decided to stop by killing them before hand. Then when it turns out I didn't actually have any evidence, I blame it on flawed intelligence from the private detective i hired and say I should be considered absolved?

The problem is, the moment you mention the word "ILLEGAL" you will have those defending american policy descend on you in droves to argue semantics (because there isn't any defense of their actions really). About how they haven't been "convicted" of anything illegal so therefore they haven't committed a crime. Because apparently, where the US is concerned, its okay for the criminal to also be the judge and the jury, and the law maker.

So the short answer to your question is, while the US and UK have committed numerous crimes, they can never be held accountable ON PAPER or in reality because they are above the law, since at the end of the day there is only on law. And it is the rule of might.

Redleslie2

Moriarty wrote:

I'm no more intrested in a slagging match than you are, I just wonder why he does it. I presume it's just vitriol so he can feel better about himself, but I don't know.



Nice to see you practice what you preach so well.



<Point>

---

<distance you missed it by>

---

<You>

I have no problem with people arguing their case if they do so in a reasoned manner. Screaming about war criminals, atrocities and mass murder isn't reasoned debate. Therefore, the signal:noise knob gets adjusted so much that the likes of Memnochs ranting just passes under the radar as meaningless gibberish from somone that needs to take some anger manangement classes. Therefore, no reasoned debate. Therefore, nothing changes. That attitude is far from unique to me.

You didn't make any point.

Best to just ignore the likes of you. Onto the list you go.

the_syco

"Your left, thus correct. I'm Right, so I must be wrong"

=====

As my views are mainly pro-US, I will stay quite. Why? Because you'll say anything that I say is lies.. all lies! True, the US only seems to attack countries that will help it in the long run (Germany, Japan, etc), after the US put a bit of money into it. Speaking of Japan; I suppose you think it was a smooth transition. Perhaps, but I say it was the same as Iraq, just minus the camera's.

Memnoch

in the case of japan however, atleast there is truth to the claim that Japan attacked the US first (pearl harbor). And germany was allied with japan during that war.

Regime change is not a justification for invasion, unless your going to depose every "corrupt" regime out there.

In this case the regime had been originally installed with US support, and had been supported by the US for many years before the relationship turned sour. claiming liberation is a lie, because if the US were that intersted in democracy and freedom they wouldn't have supported saddam in the first place.

gandalf

Moriarty and Redleslie2 if I see any more personal abuse from either of you I am banning you and from now onwards the minimum is 2 weeks althou I might make it at my pleasure and ban either of you indefinately !!!

I do not care who started it etc. but I will finish it !!!!

ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE HITTING SUBMIT!

AmenToThat

Memnoch wrote:

the problem is that we are in a very grey area here.

Everything they have done does is pretty much illegal.
In their torture of prisoners and holding people indefiantely without a trial they have breached the laws of human rights and the geneva convention to which the US is a signatory.

But surely if not the whole Fallujah affair then 'Fallujah one' is an exceptional case where people tried to leave the city before the shelling started and were turned back at gunpoint by the American soldiers. The excuse given was that men of fighting age (think it was 16 to 60 or something similar) were trying to leave with the fleeing people and that they might be fighters. So they just all had to turn round and go back into the city while the Americans spent two weeks bombing it.

If this doesnt constitute a criminal action then I dont know what does.