|
|
|
Face the Music: Time to Oppose Our Troops Actions
by Joshua Frank
November 22, 2004
At what point will the left have to face the music and admit that in order to
fully oppose the Iraq war, we have to also oppose our troops actions?
On Saturday November 6, US forces pounded Fallujah and razed a civilian
hospital. Witnesses said only a facade remained of a small Emergency Hospital
in the centre of the city, reported the BBC News on the day of the bombing. A
nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were also damaged as US
forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that the bombing of hospitals constitutes
as a war crime:
Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick,
the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack
but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the
conflict.
Article 19: The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not
cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts
harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has
been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after
such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members of the
armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and
ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper
service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Clearly no warning was put forth by the US military prior to the bombing of this
hospital. And now that the troops have hit the ground running, more war crimes
have been committed, and in fact captured on film.
Sadly, the images taken by a NBC news crew embedded with US soldiers fighting in
Fallujah which show the execution of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner -- is not an
isolated incident.
Writing for his blog, ex-Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, explains the odious rationale
for executing an unarmed prisoner of war:
The shots fired at the unarmed terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are
called security rounds. Its (sic) a safety issue pure and simple. After
assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head There's
no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps
Amnesty International doesnt necessarily buy the rhetoric Heidt and others use
when defending the murder of an unarmed prisoner. In a statement released after
the televised event, the group said they were, deeply concerned that the rules
of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the current
fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents in Fallujah.
The Geneva Conventions also spell it out quite clearly in the documents opening
paragraph:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of
combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, it says.
The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
-- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture.
-- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
And it adds that the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
So again, how can one oppose war but support our troops war crimes? Wanting our
troops to come home at once is one thing. But failing to oppose the atrocities
they are carrying out on behalf of the US government is another.
Sorry to say, we cant have our cake and eat it too.
|
| |
| |
I agree with most of what you say. The nominal reason for invasion of Iraq
was to find WMD, due to impatience with UN re this. No such weapons have
been found (are they still even looking?), and it has been admitted that
none probably exist. Hence, there's no reason why troops should stay in
Iraq. Of course, other reasons have been added - regime change, for
example. This has occurred, but now it is necessary to hold elections,
rather than leave immediately. And so it goes on. More reasons for staying
will be found, as required.
The original invasion was itself a war crime (violation of international
law; defiance of the UN), and events since have compounded this.
Even if elections are finally held, will that retrospectively justify the
invasion?
In the meantime, US troops, who are mainly working class folk (there is no
Draft, so the rich escape), are understandably frustrated; so we can
understand their actions, even if not condoning them. They are probably
really fighting for a potential local plutocracy, to be installed to share
eventual oil revenues with the US plutocracy back home. Elections will
produce the "right" outcome - or be postponed until this seems likely.
Unfortunately, war is absence of rule of law; hence Geneva conventions,
while ideal, are, unlike cricket or baseball, unenforceable - unless by
subsequent "war crimes trial"; which is usually conducted by the victors, to
try the defeated.
=================================
Face the Music: Time to Oppose Our Troops' Actions
by Joshua Frank
November 22, 2004
At what point will the left have to face the music and admit that in order
to
fully oppose the Iraq war, we have to also oppose our troops' actions?
On Saturday November 6, US forces pounded Fallujah and razed a civilian
hospital. "Witnesses said only a facade remained of a small Emergency
Hospital
in the centre of the city," reported the BBC News on the day of the
bombing. "A
nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were also damaged
as US
forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault."
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that the bombing of hospitals
constitutes
as a war crime:
"Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and
sick,
the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of
attack
but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the
conflict.
"Article 19: The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall
not
cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties,
acts
harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due
warning has
been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and
after
such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members
of the
armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms
and
ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the
proper
service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy."
Clearly no warning was put forth by the US military prior to the bombing
of this
hospital. And now that the troops have hit the ground running, more war
crimes
have been committed, and in fact captured on film.
Sadly, the images taken by a NBC news crew embedded with US soldiers
fighting in
Fallujah which show the execution of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner -- is not
an
isolated incident.
Writing for his blog, ex-Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, explains the odious
rationale
for executing an unarmed prisoner of war:
"The shots fired at the 'unarmed' terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are
called 'security rounds.' Its (sic) a safety issue pure and simple. After
assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head .
There's
no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the
chumps."
Amnesty International doesn't necessarily buy the rhetoric Heidt and
others use
when defending the murder of an unarmed prisoner. In a statement released
after
the televised event, the group said they were, "deeply concerned that the
rules
of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the
current
fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents" in Fallujah.
The Geneva Conventions also spell it out quite clearly in the document's
opening
paragraph:
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of
armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out
of
combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely," it says.
"The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any
place
whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
-- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture.
-- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the
judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
And it adds that "the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."
So again, how can one oppose war but support our troops' war crimes?
Wanting our
troops to come home at once is one thing. But failing to oppose the
atrocities
they are carrying out on behalf of the US government is another.
Sorry to say, we can't have our cake and eat it too.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:18:02 GMT, "Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com>
wrote:
I agree with most of what you say. The nominal reason for invasion of Iraq
was to find WMD,
You stupid arsehole, that was but *one*reason the President listed.
The others were:
~ Sod-em a regional sponsor of terror
~ Sode-em a threat to US interests
~ Sod-em a brutal genocidal despot
~ Sod-em in 12 year violation of the UNSC
Now try being honest for a change you raving #@($head.
|
| |
| |
I agree with most of what you say. The nominal reason for invasion of
Iraq
was to find WMD, due to impatience with UN re this. No such weapons have
been found (are they still even looking?), and it has been admitted that
none probably exist. Hence, there's no reason why troops should stay in
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
While WMD have been found the only thing still missing
are the large stockpiles which were NOT required for
Sodamn to be in breech.
|
| |
| |
Resident Samuel wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:18:02 GMT, "Don H"
<donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote:
You stupid arsehole, that was but *one*reason the President
listed.
The others were:
~ Sod-em a regional sponsor of terror
You lying scum, no where in the Geneva
Convention or UN or International law does
it allow the aggressive attack and invasion
of a sovereign nation for such a claim.
~ Sode-em a threat to US interests
You lying piece of #@($.
~ Sod-em a brutal genocidal despot
Ibid.
~ Sod-em in 12 year violation of the UNSC
Israel has him beat by 20 years, #@($eater.
Now try being honest for a change you raving #@($head.
You lying #@($sucking fascist scumbag -
Lie #1: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting
its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase
high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas
centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
-President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002
Fact: This story, leaked to and breathlessly reported by The New
York Times' usually astute Middle East correspondent Judith Miller,
has turned out to be complete baloney. Department of Energy officials
who monitor nuclear plants say the tubes could not be used for
enriching uranium. One intelligence analyst who was part of the tubes
investigation, angrily told The New Republic: "You had senior American
officials like Condoleezza Rice saying the only use of this aluminum
really is uranium centrifuges. She said that on television. And that's
just a lie."
Lie #2: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
-President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address
Fact: This whopper was based on a document that the White House
already knew to be a forgery, thanks to honest analysis by the CIA.
Sold to Italian intelligence by some hustler, the document carried the
signature of an official who had been out of office for 10 years and
referenced a constitution that was no longer in effect. The ex-ambassador
who the CIA sent to check out the story is angry: "They knew the Niger
story was a flat-out lie," he told The New Republic, anonymously. "They
[the White House] were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this
to make their case more strongly."
Lie #3: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear
weapons."
-Vice President Cheney, March 16, 2003, on "Meet the Press"
Fact: There was and is absolutely no basis for this statement. CIA
reports up through 2002 showed no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons
program.
Lie #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts
between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
-CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002
and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush
Fact: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and
al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing
relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun
the intelligence 180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it
suggested.
Lie #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in
bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with
terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without
leaving any fingerprints."
-President Bush, Oct. 7
Fact: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin
Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in
northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was
later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied
war planes.
Lie #6: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has
a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be
used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas.
We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs
[unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."
-President Bush, Oct. 7
Fact: Said drones can't fly more than 300 miles, and Iraq is 6,000
miles from the U.S. coastline. Furthermore, Iraq's drone-building
program wasn't much more advanced than your average model plane
enthusiast. And isn't a "manned aerial vehicle" just a scary way to
say "plane"?
Lie #7: "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have
chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and
that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and
control arrangements have been established."
-President Bush, Feb. 8, 2003
Fact: Despite a massive search by U.S. and British forces in Iraq,
there are no signs, traces or examples of chemical weapons being
deployed in the field, or anywhere else during the war.
Lie #8: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile
of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough
to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."
-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5, 2003, in remarks to the U.N.
Security Council
Fact: Putting aside the glaring fact that not one drop of this massive
stockpile has been found, U.S. intelligence reports show that these
stocks-if they existed-were well past their use-by date and therefore
useless as weapon fodder.
Lie #9: "We know where [Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction] are. They're
in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north
somewhat."
-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003
Fact: Needless to say, no such weapons were found, not to the east, west,
south or north, somewhat or otherwise.
Lie #10: "Yes, we found a biological laboratory in Iraq which the U.N.
prohibited."
-President Bush in remarks in Poland, published internationally June 1,
2003
Fact: This was reference to the discovery of two modified truck trailers
that the CIA claimed were potential mobile biological weapons lab. But
British and American experts (including a recent report by the State
Department's intelligence wing) have since declared this to be untrue.
According to the British, and much to Prime Minister Tony Blair's
embarrassment, the trailers are actually exactly what Iraq said they
were: facilities to fill weather balloons, sold to them by the British
themselves.
|
| |
| |
Herb Martin wrote:
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
The UN never authorized an attack, invasion and occupation
based on the supposed "violations".
While WMD have been found
You lying #@($sucking piece of murderous #@($.
the only thing still missing
are the large stockpiles which were NOT required for
Sodamn to be in breech.
May 100 more invading U$ troops be slaughtered for
each and every lie you tell, scumbag.
|
| |
| |
n Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:16:34 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
You stupid arsehole, that was but *one*reason the President
listed.
The others were:
~ Sod-em a regional sponsor of terror
You lying scum,
You @$#*ing TRAITOR!
~ Sode-em a threat to US interests
You lying piece of #@($.
You TRAITOR!
~ Sod-em a brutal genocidal despot
Ibid.
DROP DEAD!
~ Sod-em in 12 year violation of the UNSC
Israel
Irrelevant.
Now try being honest for a change you raving #@($head.
You lying
You terrorist #@($hole!
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered
sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in
carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin
Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list
gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons
courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's
finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything
up to 500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
- - - - -
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On
America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
.... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is
"strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate
their rage into violence and terrorism." ....
- - - - -
The Observer. December 19, 1999.
Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam
The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The
Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's
ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour
of fundamentalists.
By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad
.... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had
met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo
him to Iraq.
Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt
to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror
suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or
Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State
Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
- - - - -
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.
BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE
By: From Beacon Journal wire services
DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:
.... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that
the likely destination is Iraq.
A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far
short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....
- - - - -
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.
International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries
By Rich Hood
.... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to
$500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's
Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden
would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the
United States and any country friendly to the United States....
- - - - -
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.
HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN
Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main
priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it
could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a
sideshow....
- - - - -
National Public Radio (NPR)
MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET)
February 18, 1999.
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS
UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW.
ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS
REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
.... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might
have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence
agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to
Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism
operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph),
sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.
Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism
Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ...
known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let
it be known that the meeting had taken place.
SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at
least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met
him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq
invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets
of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap
between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular
dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to
live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or
biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in
recent testimony....
- - - - -
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama
bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.
"If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin
Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in
neighbouring countries."
.... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his
base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on
ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to
the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based
dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....
- - - - -
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq
DATELINE: Kuwait City
An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that
Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to
launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.
The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam
Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in
neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-
Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said
they
|
| |
| |
n Tue, 23 Nov 2004 15:18:24 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
The UN never authorized an attac
Fuck the UN and FUCK YOU TOO TRAITOR!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8887
The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), December 28, 1999.
Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West
Exclusive. By: Ian Bruce, Geopolitics Editor.
THE world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered
sanctuary in Iraq if his worldwide terrorist network succeeds in
carrying out a campaign of high-profile attacks on the West ...
Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin
Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying.
"We might be looking at the most wanted man on the FBI's target list
gaining access to chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons
courtesy of Iraq's clandestine research programmes."
The U.S. intelligence community has been squeezing bin Laden's
finances steadily for several years. His personal fortune of anything
up to 500m has been whittled down to single figures ...
- - - - -
U.S. Newswire, December 23, 1999.
Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On
America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks.
.... (author Yossef) Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin
Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is
"strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate
their rage into violence and terrorism." ....
- - - - -
The Observer. December 19, 1999.
Sanctions reviewed in West as Saddam wields sword of Islam
The Iraqi dictator has rejected a UN deal to lift sanctions. The
Western blockade, far from toppling the regime, has bolstered it. He's
ditched the sunglasses and taken up the Koran to harness the fervour
of fundamentalists.
By: Jason Burke, in Baghdad
.... This time last year the U.S. claimed that another delegation had
met Osama bin Laden, the alleged terrorist mastermind and tried to woo
him to Iraq.
Senior officials claim that the Islamisation programme is an attempt
to defuse the threat of Islamic militancy rather than encourage it ...
- - - - -
United Press International. November 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle.
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror
suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or
Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State
Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee ...
- - - - -
Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio). October 31, 1999. Sunday 1 STAR EDITION.
BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE
By: From Beacon Journal wire services
DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN:
.... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that
the likely destination is Iraq.
A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far
short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial....
- - - - -
The Kansas City Star. March 2, 1999, Tuesday.
International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries
By Rich Hood
.... He (bin Laden) has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to
$500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's
Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden
would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the
United States and any country friendly to the United States....
- - - - -
Los Angeles Times. February 23, 1999, Tuesday, Home Edition.
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 6; Letters Desk.
HEADLINE: OSAMA BIN LADEN
Where is Osama bin Laden (Feb. 14)? That should be the U.S.'s main
priority. If as rumored he and Saddam Hussein are joining forces, it
could pose a threat making Hitler and Mussolini seem like a
sideshow....
- - - - -
National Public Radio (NPR)
MORNING EDITION (10:00 AM on ET)
February 18, 1999.
THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS
UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW.
ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS
REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER
.... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might
have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence
agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to
Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism
operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph),
sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.
Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism
Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ...
known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let
it be known that the meeting had taken place.
SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at
least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met
him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq
invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets
of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap
between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular
dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to
live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or
biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in
recent testimony....
- - - - -
Agence France Presse. February 17, 1999.
Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition
Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama
bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday.
"If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin
Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in
neighbouring countries."
.... Islamic fundamentalist bin Laden, who has gone missing from his
base in Afghanistan, would never seek refuge in secular Iraq on
ideological grounds. "I think bin Laden would keep quiet or fight to
the death rather than seek asylum in Iraq," the London-based
dissident, who asked not to be named, told AFP last week.....
- - - - -
Deutsche Presse-Agentur. February 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle
Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq
DATELINE: Kuwait City
An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that
Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to
launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours.
The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam
Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in
neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al-
Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said
they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge
in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in
Afghanistan.
Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began
extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the
United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in
|
| |
| |
~ Sod-em a regional sponsor of terror
You lying scum, no where in the Geneva
Convention or UN or International law does
it allow the aggressive attack and invasion
of a sovereign nation for such a claim.
Actually it has long been accepted in Int. Law
that even mobilization of forces can constitute
an act of war deserving of attack.
That Sodamn supported terrorism and violence
against the US and out alies was alone sufficient.
--
Herb Martin
|
| |
| |
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
The UN never authorized an attack, invasion and occupation
based on the supposed "violations".
Sure they did UN 1441 -- unanimous and binding.
Technically the original Gulf War never ended.
|
| |
| |
Guess you don't remember those two buildings that were crushed? Guess you
don't remember Hussan storing munitions in hospitals before?
I agree with most of what you say. The nominal reason for invasion of
Iraq
was to find WMD, due to impatience with UN re this. No such weapons have
been found (are they still even looking?), and it has been admitted that
none probably exist. Hence, there's no reason why troops should stay in
Iraq. Of course, other reasons have been added - regime change, for
example. This has occurred, but now it is necessary to hold elections,
rather than leave immediately. And so it goes on. More reasons for
staying
will be found, as required.
The original invasion was itself a war crime (violation of international
law; defiance of the UN), and events since have compounded this.
Even if elections are finally held, will that retrospectively justify
the
invasion?
In the meantime, US troops, who are mainly working class folk (there is
no
Draft, so the rich escape), are understandably frustrated; so we can
understand their actions, even if not condoning them. They are probably
really fighting for a potential local plutocracy, to be installed to share
eventual oil revenues with the US plutocracy back home. Elections will
produce the "right" outcome - or be postponed until this seems likely.
Unfortunately, war is absence of rule of law; hence Geneva conventions,
while ideal, are, unlike cricket or baseball, unenforceable - unless by
subsequent "war crimes trial"; which is usually conducted by the victors,
to
try the defeated.
=================================
to
Hospital
bombing. "A
as US
constitutes
sick,
attack
not
acts
warning has
after
of the
and
proper
of this
crimes
fighting in
an
rationale
There's
chumps."
others use
after
rules
current
opening
armed
of
place
mutilation,
previous
judicial
Wanting our
atrocities
|
| |
| |
Herb Martin wrote:
~ Sod-em a regional sponsor of terror
You lying scum, no where in the Geneva
Convention or UN or International law does
it allow the aggressive attack and invasion
of a sovereign nation for such a claim.
Actually it has long been accepted in Int. Law
that even mobilization of forces can constitute
an act of war deserving of attack.
Iraq hadn't mobilized any forces. Indeed he had nothing
that could even reach the UK / U$$A.
That Sodamn supported terrorism and violence
against the US and out alies was alone sufficient.
You lie yet again you lowlife fascist war criminal scumbag.
|
| |
| |
Herb Martin wrote:
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
The UN never authorized an attack, invasion and occupation
based on the supposed "violations".
Sure they did UN 1441 -- unanimous and binding.
Nothing there about attacking, invading and occupying Iraq
by the U$/UK oil criminals.
Technically the original Gulf War never ended.
Technically the Korean War hasn't ended, when are
you going to attack, invade and occupy North Korea?
|
| |
| |
ilowatt wrote:
Guess you don't remember those two buildings that were
crushed?
The one's that the U$$A so righteously deserved to be attacked?
The one's that WEREN'T attacked by Iraq?
The one's the WERE attacked by 17 Saudi's at the direction of a Saudi
terrorist?
Guess you don't remember Hussan storing munitions
in hospitals before?
Guess you don't remember why millions of people worldwide
HATE the U$$A --
1948 - PRESENT
AMERICAN/ISRAELI STATE TERRORISM OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE
Estimated civilian deaths: 100,000 Palestinian people
From the very beginning of the Zionist State of Israel in 1948, One of the
earliest and most notorious incidents of Israeli terrorism was the Deir
Yassin massacre in April, 1948. 250 Palestinian men, women and children were
murdered in cold blood by Menachem Begin's Zionist "Irgun" group as it went
from house to house seeking to drive all Palestinians out of their ancient
homeland. It hasn't gotten any better since then.
Besides murdering women and children, Israelis routinely torture Palestinian
prisoners in jail. And almost all of it has been kept hidden by the
mainstream American mass-media for 55 years.
Just to give you another example of who the Israelis really are: in 1946,
Menachem Begin's terrorist organization blew up the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem, murdering British nurses, in order to drive the British out of
Palestine. Israeli society later rewarded Menachem Begin by electing him
Prime Minister.
The United States government gives billions of your tax dollars to the
Israelis every year. And the U.S. government never pays people to do things
it doesn't want done. Israeli state terrorism is essentially American state
terrorism.
1953 - PRESENT
AMERICAN-BACKED GENOCIDE OF THE GUATEMALAN PEOPLE
Estimated civilian deaths: over 200,000 people
From Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive
government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government
death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable
cruelty, totaling more than 200,000 victims - indisputably one of the most
inhumane chapters of the 20th century.
The justification for the coup that has been put forth over the years is
that Guatemala had been on the verge of the proverbial Soviet takeover. In
actuality, the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't
even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem was that Arbenz had
taken over some of the uncultivated land of the US firm, United Fruit
Company [Chiquita bananas], which had extremely close ties to the American
power elite.
Moreover, in the eyes of Washington, there was the danger of Guatemala's
social-democracy model spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Despite a 1996 "peace" accord between the government and rebels, respect for
human rights remains as only a concept in Guatemala; death squads continue
to operate with a significant measure of impunity against union activists
and other dissidents; torture still rears its ugly head; the lower classes
are as wretched as ever; the military endures as a formidable institution;
the US continues to arm and train the Guatemalan military and carry out
exercises with it; and key provisions of the peace accord concerning
military reform have not been carried out.
1955 - 1973
AMERICAN GENOCIDE OF THE CAMBODIAN PEOPLE
Estimated total civilian deaths: 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 people
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American
client. After many years of hostility toward his regime, including
assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet
bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in
1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge
forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But the years
of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The
old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.
Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this
unhappy land. And to multiply the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot
and the Khmer Rouge after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
1957 - 1973
AMERICAN GENOCIDE OF THE LAOTIAN PEOPLE
Estimated total civilian deaths: over 500,000 people
The Laotian left, led by the Pathet Lao, tried to effect social change
peacefully, making significant electoral gains and taking part in coalition
governments. But the United States would have none of that.
The CIA and the State Department, through force, bribery and other
pressures, engineered coups in 1958, 1959 and 1960. Eventually, the only
option left for the Pathet Lao was armed force.
The CIA created its famous "Arme Clandestine" - totaling 30,000, from every
corner of Asia - to do battle, while the US Air Force, between 1965 and
1973, rained down more than two million tons of bombs upon the people of
Laos, many of whom were forced to live in caves for years in a desperate
attempt to escape the monsters falling from the sky.
After hundreds of thousands had been killed, many more maimed, and countless
bombed villages with hardly stone standing upon stone, the Pathet Lao took
control of the country, following on the heels of events in Vietnam.
MID-1950S, 1970-71
AMERICAN ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS ON THE ELECTED LEADER OF COSTA RICA
From Rogue State
To liberal American political leaders, President Jose Figueres was the
quintessential "liberal democrat", the kind of statesman they liked to
think, and liked the world to think, was the natural partner of US foreign
policy rather than the military dictators who somehow kept popping up as
allies.
Yet the United States tried to overthrow Figueres (in the 1950s, and perhaps
also in the 1970s, when he was again president), and tried to assassinate
him twice. The reasons? Figueres was not tough enough on the left, led Costa
Rica to become the first country in Central America to establish diplomatic
relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and on occasion
questioned American foreign policy, like the Bay of Pigs invasion.
1959 - PRESENT
AMERICAN SUBVERSION AND STATE TERRORISM OF THE CUBAN PEOPLE
From Killing Hope
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National
Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 included on its agenda the
feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There
followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military
invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had carried
out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good
example" in Latin America.
The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of
society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the
gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The
idealism, the vision, the talent were all there. But we'll never know. And
that of course was the idea.
1960 - PRESENT
AMERICAN ASSASSINATION OF PATRICE LUMUMBA AND SUPPORT OF STATE TERRORISM OF
THE PEOPLE OF THE CONGO/ZAIRE
From Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since WWII
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after
independence from Belgium. But Belgium
|
| |
| |
Iraq hadn't mobilized any forces. Indeed he had nothing
that could even reach the UK / U$$A.
Mobilizing force includes continuing to develop WMD,
their programs, their delivery systems and the failure to
comply with the requirements and their agreement to
offer full cooperation to the inspectors.
|
| |
| |
Sure they did UN 1441 -- unanimous and binding.
Nothing there about attacking, invading and occupying Iraq
by the U$/UK oil criminals.
Sure there is: Serious consequences ON TOP of the defacto
and actual state of war with Iraq and serious consequences
on top of that is clearly war -- France new it and tried to
trap the US by agreeing to it and then reneging.
|
| |
| |
Don H wrote:
I agree with most of what you say. The nominal reason for invasion of Iraq
was to find WMD, due to impatience with UN re this. No such weapons have
been found (are they still even looking?), and it has been admitted that
none probably exist. Hence, there's no reason why troops should stay in
Iraq. Of course, other reasons have been added - regime change, for
example. This has occurred, but now it is necessary to hold elections,
rather than leave immediately. And so it goes on. More reasons for staying
will be found, as required.
WMDs were found. What was not found were stockpiles of it but that was
not nessecary for Saddam to be in violation of 1441.
Of course there had to be regime change. He was allowed to remian way
to long. Now that he is gone we need to be a part of the process of
rebuilding just like after WWII in Germany and Japan. Even after they
had elections we were there for decades and still are there.
The original invasion was itself a war crime (violation of international
law; defiance of the UN), and events since have compounded this.
Incorrect. WE were justified under both international law and UN
resolutions. Saddam violated the agreements that led to the end of the
First Gulf War thus we were justified to take action.
Even if elections are finally held, will that retrospectively justify the
invasion?
Already been justifies multiple time.
In the meantime, US troops, who are mainly working class folk (there is no
Draft, so the rich escape), are understandably frustrated;
You forget that they military is an all volunatary force from all
classes. Their fustration is towards fools who oppose their actions and
impede their ability to prosecute this war.
so we can
understand their actions, even if not condoning them. They are probably
really fighting for a potential local plutocracy, to be installed to share
eventual oil revenues with the US plutocracy back home. Elections will
produce the "right" outcome - or be postponed until this seems likely.
AS opposed the the desired outcome you wish right? Like allowing Saddam
to remain in power?
Unfortunately, war is absence of rule of law; hence Geneva conventions,
while ideal, are, unlike cricket or baseball, unenforceable - unless by
subsequent "war crimes trial"; which is usually conducted by the victors, to
try the defeated.
=================================
Unfortunately we have not learned that there are no rules in war. War
is brutal and the only thing that matters is winning. To not recognize
this is to give the enemy aid in comfort.
MRC
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Herb Martin wrote:
Sodamn was in breech is the reason given the UN.
The UN never authorized an attack, invasion and occupation
based on the supposed "violations".
Nothing there about attacking, invading and occupying Iraq
by the U$/UK oil criminals.
The declaration of Iraq not in compliance with 1441 gave the US all the
justification it needed. Read 1441 as well as the documents that ended
the first gulf war.
Technically the Korean War hasn't ended, when are
you going to attack, invade and occupy North Korea?
When we decide that it is needed.
MRC
|
| |
| |
S. O. Damocles wrote:
Herb Martin wrote:
The UN never authorized an attack, invasion and occupation
based on the supposed "violations".
You lying #@($sucking piece of murderous #@($.
Our troops found several shells with WMD's in them. Also here is
another article that shows that there were WMD's in Iraq "Polish Troops
Find Sarin Warheads" Friday, July 02, 2004, Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,124576,00.html
May 100 more invading U$ troops be slaughtered for
each and every lie you tell, scumbag.
For every 100 of our boys die 10,000 of yours will perish.
MRC
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 12:33:44 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Face the Music: Time to Oppose Our Troops Actions
by Joshua Frank
November 22, 2004
At what point will the left have to face the music and admit that in order to
fully oppose the Iraq war, we have to also oppose our troops actions?
On Saturday November 6, US forces pounded Fallujah and razed a civilian
hospital. Witnesses said only a facade remained of a small Emergency Hospital
in the centre of the city, reported the BBC News on the day of the bombing. A
nearby medical supplies storeroom and dozens of houses were also damaged as US
forces continued preparing the ground for an expected major assault.
The Geneva Conventions are quite clear that the bombing of hospitals constitutes
as a war crime:
Article 18: Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick,
the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack
but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the
conflict.
Article 19: The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not
cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts
harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has
been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after
such warning has remained unheeded. The fact that sick or wounded members of the
armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and
ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper
service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Clearly no warning was put forth by the US military prior to the bombing of this
hospital. And now that the troops have hit the ground running, more war crimes
have been committed, and in fact captured on film.
Sadly, the images taken by a NBC news crew embedded with US soldiers fighting in
Fallujah which show the execution of an unarmed Iraqi prisoner -- is not an
isolated incident.
Writing for his blog, ex-Navy Seal, Matthew Heidt, explains the odious rationale
for executing an unarmed prisoner of war:
The shots fired at the unarmed terrorist in that mosque in Fallujah are
called security rounds. Its (sic) a safety issue pure and simple. After
assaulting through a target, put a security round in everybody's head There's
no time to dick around in the target, you clear the space, dump the chumps
Amnesty International doesnt necessarily buy the rhetoric Heidt and others use
when defending the murder of an unarmed prisoner. In a statement released after
the televised event, the group said they were, deeply concerned that the rules
of war protecting civilians and combatants have been violated in the current
fighting between US and Iraqi forces and insurgents in Fallujah.
The Geneva Conventions also spell it out quite clearly in the documents opening
paragraph:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed
forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of
combat) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, it says.
The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place
whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
-- Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation,
cruel treatment and torture.
-- The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
And it adds that the wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
So again, how can one oppose war but support our troops war crimes? Wanting our
troops to come home at once is one thing. But failing to oppose the atrocities
they are carrying out on behalf of the US government is another.
Sorry to say, we cant have our cake and eat it too.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:49:38 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Iraq hadn't mobilized any forces.
Irrelevant, terror needs no formal army.
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:53:40 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Kilowatt wrote:
The one's that the U$$A so righteously deserved to be attacked?
Drop @$#*ing dead you scum ball traitor!
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:51:10 -0700, "S. O. Damocles" <so@damocl.es>
wrote:
Nothing there about attacking
Implicit force needed to implement.
|
| |
| |
Herb Martin wrote:
Iraq hadn't mobilized any forces. Indeed he had nothing
that could even reach the UK / U$$A.
Mobilizing force includes continuing to develop WMD,
No it doesn't you lying scumbag, and Saddam wasn't developing
WMD, unlike North Korea, Pakisatan, Iran and Libya.
their programs,
There were none you lying #@($sucking fascist.
their delivery systems
There were none you lying #@($sucking fascist.
and the failure to comply with the requirements and their agreement to
offer full cooperation to the inspectors.
They did, the U$$A forced the inspectors to withdraw as a pretext to
the illegal attack and invasion, #@($sucker.
|
| |
