12
   

The Tea Party and the Muslim Brotherhood

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 08:54 am
@revelette,
Like with Morsi there giving them the benefit of the doubt. Morsi screwed up completely in about 9 months.

I think that's how long they've got before non Morsi supporters start demonstrating, if things aren't going well.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 08:57 am
@izzythepush,
With the way things look, they won't be able to have demonstrations or protest movements, they will be arrested and/or killed.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 10:44 am
@revelette,
I don't know. It's easy to attack a minority, and the Brotherhood represented a minority, about 20%. It's not so easy to take on the rest, especially when they're demanding things that the West finds attractive like Democracy.

At the risk of repeating myself, I don't know.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 10:59 am
@izzythepush,
I suppose so. It just seems so nonchalant to just shrug off so many deaths.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:08 am
@revelette,
I wasn't shrugging them off.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:12 am
@revelette,
Quote:
It just seems so nonchalant to just shrug off so many deaths.


Come on, Rev.

Reagan caused 40 to 50,000 deaths in Nicaragua and they were shrugged off.

The US slaughtered millions in Vietnam and Korea and those deaths were shrugged off.

How many hundreds of thousands have died in the two monumental crimes against humanity that were Afghanistan and Iraq and they have been shrugged off.

What's with this sudden bout of conscience?



JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:24 am
@revelette,
Quote:
U.S. Charged With War Crimes

The Evidence File



Civilian Casualties

1. International humanitarian law

International Humanitarian Law, particularly the Law of Geneva consisting of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and the two 1977 Additional Protocols, obliges the belligerents to make a distinction between persons taking part in the hostilities and the civilian population. The latter should be spared as much as possible. Therefore, indiscriminate attacks and use of indiscriminate weapons are prohibited. International humanitarian law is a body of rules and principles that seek to mitigate the effects of war. It prohibits attacks which do not attempt to distinguish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects (indiscriminate attacks). It also prohibits attacks which, although aimed at a legitimate military target, have a disproportionate impact on civilians or
civilian objects.

According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court, "war crimes" include:
- Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against
individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
- Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

There are numerous eyewitness accounts of U.S. and British attacks on civilians. The cases mentioned here constitute by no means a comprehensive list of all the civilian casualties reported. They only want to draw the attention to some incidents that demand further investigation as, in the words of Amnesty International, U.S. and British forces "may have breached international humanitarian law." (Beth Osborne Daponte, M. A. "A Case Study in Estimating Casualties from War and Its Aftermath: The 1991 Persian Gulf War" 1993)


READ ON AT, [as I'm sure you will]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3466.htm
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:25 am
@JTT,
Speaking only for me, I really didn't start paying to world affairs until well after Clinton was in office, and even then, very little. It wasn't until after 9/11 that I even heard of some of the places that are so well known now.

Once again, I supported the Afghanistan war but really don't understand why we have to drag out the ending of it. Was against the Iraq war as an unnecessary war.

Now it turns out, we actually turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran.

New Docs Detail U.S. Involvement in Saddam's Nerve Gas Attacks

Does that mean I think we should just lie down and be attacked by terrorist which is what you seem to imply? No, it does not.
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:26 am
@izzythepush,
ok, didn't really mean to imply you were in particular.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:42 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Once again, I supported the Afghanistan war


Why do you support what was a crime against humanity, Rev, a terrorist action against the people of Afghanistan? It was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation as defined by international law.

Quote:
Was against the Iraq war as an unnecessary war.


Calling these illegal invasions 'wars' provides a degree of legitimization that simply isn't warranted. It too was a war crime of monumental proportions. It was the same thing that the Nazis and the Japanese were charged with after WWII.

Quote:
Does that mean I think we should just lie down and be attacked by terrorist which is what you seem to imply? No, it does not.


You still are not facing reality. Any attacks that have occurred against the US have come about in direct response to the US's terrorist actions [and the UK's] against other countries and their peoples for over half a century.

I am not for a moment suggesting that any terrorist action shouldn't be stopped. But it's completely unreasonable to think that the US should be allowed to engage in centuries of terrorist actions. It's also completely unreasonable to think that the US should be allowed to continue to engage in its terrorist actions.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 11:59 am
@revelette,
Pakistani Court Accuses U.S. of War Crimes for Drone Strikes
Jason Mick (Blog) - May 13, 2013 10:33 AM


Unsatisifed with "grief payments" of a few thousand dollars per dead civilian, Pakistanis demand action

Could the U.S., who perennial accuses its enemies of war crimes soon face those accusations itself before the UN? That possibility appears increasingly likely following a landmark Pakistani court ruling.

I. Embattled UAV Death Strike Program is Condemned by Court

In the name of fighting terrorism the U.S. has been carrying out a silent war of drone strikes in Pakistan, Qatar, and other Middle Eastern states, order death-strikes on what it say are "terrorists". But recently released numbers reveal the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) warfare program, largely controlled by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, has a very low succes rate in terms of killing high-profile militants, while having large levels of civilian collateral damage with some strikes killing women and children.

In response four petitions by tribal leaders complaining that U.S. drone strikes were killing civilians, Chief Justice Dost Muhammad Khan and the junior judge on Pakistan two-judge Peshawar High Court panel decided that the drone were war crimes as they killed innocent civilians.

The panel says that the drone strikes were inhumane and violated the UN Charter on Human Rights. The court is asking the government of Pakistan to push a UN resolution to condemn the strikes and declare them a war crimes, writing [according to translation by The Press Trust of India, "The government of Pakistan must ensure that no drone strike takes place in the future. If the US vetoes the resolution, then the country should think about breaking diplomatic ties with the US."

READ ON AT,

http://www.dailytech.com/Pakistani+Court+Accuses+US+of+War+Crimes+for+Drone+Strikes/article31537.htm
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  2  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 12:00 pm
@JTT,
I don't want to get into the whole Afghanistan war debate, been there or at least read it between you and other posters.

If you are not suggesting any terrorist action shouldn't be stopped, what is the conclusion of what you are suggesting? Say you are right on some or most of what you claim, then what?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 26 Aug, 2013 12:18 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
I don't want to get into the whole Afghanistan war debate, been there or at least read it between you and other posters.


Why not? It, [and a lot of other illegal US actions], is essential to understanding why these actions are occurring so damn infrequently against the US.

Quote:
If you are not suggesting any terrorist action shouldn't be stopped, what is the conclusion of what you are suggesting?


I'll let US Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert H Jackson answer that.

"If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure."

Robert H Jackson: Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (November 10, 1945).

"We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well."

Robert H Jackson: Nuremberg Tribunal.
Opening Address to the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials (November 10, 1945).

Quote:
Say you are right on some or most of what you claim, then what?


That's another canard that we should dispense with, Rev. It's not me that is "claiming" this. If it was just me, it could be dispensed with without a second thought. Notice how no one is willing to actually address these things. That because those people are afraid to do so because they know it to be the truth.

I think Robert H Jackson was pretty clear on what has to happen in such situations. Consider how well received it would be from all these countries that the US [and the UK] has terrorized, committed war crimes against, for the US to follow Justice Jackson's notions that ALL must be held accountable for their crimes.

Consider that the jailing of the Bush/Cheney gang, the Blair gang would put an end to US/UK terrorism/war crimes and it would stop dead any further actions against the US.

Did you read the article about the Pakistani court and the US drone program?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Aug, 2013 11:54 pm
This thread can be found in the Top Ten most ridiculously partisan nonsense of all A2K time.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2020 at 11:03:30