0
   

Spain judge says Bush and Iraq war allies should face war...

 
 
Zippo
 
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:11 pm
Quote:
Spain judge says Bush and Iraq war allies should face war crimes charges

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Spain judge says Bush and Iraq war allies should face war crimes charges
Katerina Ossenova at 2:16 PM ET

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/images/pitt1.gif


[JURIST] Baltasar Garzon [BBC profile; JURIST news archive], an investigating judge for Spain's National Court [official website, in Spanish], said Tuesday that President George W. Bush and his allies eventually should face war crimes charges for their actions in Iraq. In an opinion piece [text, in Spanish] for El Pais, Garzon called the war in Iraq "one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history." Garzon also criticized those who joined the US president in the war against Iraq as having equally responsible for joining the war effort despite their doubts. In 1999, Garzon tried to extradite former Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet [JURIST news archive] from Britain and try him for crimes against humanity. Reuters has more.

On Sunday, ICC Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo [official profile; BBC profile] said President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair may one day face war crimes charges [JURIST report] before the International Criminal Court (ICC) [official website; JURIST news archive] at The Hague. Moreno-Ocampo said that the ICC could investigate allegations of war crimes stemming from the conduct of coalition forces in Iraq [JURIST news archive], so long as Iraq agrees to ratify the Rome Statute [text, PDF] and accede to ICC jurisdiction.

Jurist.law


I agree compeletly! Bring back 'tar and feathering'. Very Happy

Where are people with 'balls' in America ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,226 • Replies: 40
No top replies

 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:15 pm
"Bush and Iraq war allies should face war crimes charges". Of course they should.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:19 pm
*yawn*
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:36 pm
McGentrix wrote:
*yawn*


Wake up McG, It NOT AlQadea or Saddam Terrorists...A white christian spanish judge is saying this :

Quote:
"one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history."
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:59 pm
Zippo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
*yawn*


Wake up McG, It NOT AlQadea or Saddam Terrorists...A white christian spanish judge is saying this :

Quote:
"one of the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history."


Your right being white just makes this guys statement that much more sane. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 02:10 pm
Spain is getting new threats from Muslim extremists, they want them out of Afghanistan now which Spain views as a legal war.

I expect there will be more noises against the US from Spain until they pull all their troops back form that theater...just to keep a bit of appeasement going to keep the attacks off the homeland.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 02:20 pm
Zippo wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
*yawn*


Wake up McG, It NOT AlQadea or Saddam Terrorists...A white christian spanish judge is saying this :

If it was not a "White Christian" echoing those sentiments would it be less creditable?
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 02:39 pm
au1929 wrote:

If it was not a "White Christian" echoing those sentiments would it be less creditable?


This was spicifically intended for McG. I know he has a problem with Islamic people. I was going to add 'I'd doubt you'd trust the opinion of Jesus' if he'd said it. Meaning nothing anyone would say counts for McG except Bush the 'decider'.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 02:50 pm
Zippo wrote:
au1929 wrote:

If it was not a "White Christian" echoing those sentiments would it be less creditable?


This was spicifically intended for McG. I know he has a problem with Islamic people. I was going to add 'I'd doubt you'd trust the opinion of Jesus' if he'd said it.

Only if he puts it in writing
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:46 am
Zippo wrote:
au1929 wrote:

If it was not a "White Christian" echoing those sentiments would it be less creditable?


This was spicifically intended for McG. I know he has a problem with Islamic people. I was going to add 'I'd doubt you'd trust the opinion of Jesus' if he'd said it. Meaning nothing anyone would say counts for McG except Bush the 'decider'.


I have a problem with Islamic people as well, but it only applies to the ones who kill innocent people with bombs.

You have a problem with Jews whats your point? Does that mean if an Islamic person came forward and said that Israel has the right to exist and should control all of what is current day Israel does that mean you would accept what they are saying?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:18 am
Baldimo wrote:
Zippo wrote:
au1929 wrote:

If it was not a "White Christian" echoing those sentiments would it be less creditable?


This was spicifically intended for McG. I know he has a problem with Islamic people. I was going to add 'I'd doubt you'd trust the opinion of Jesus' if he'd said it. Meaning nothing anyone would say counts for McG except Bush the 'decider'.


I have a problem with Islamic people as well, but it only applies to the ones who kill innocent people with bombs.

You have a problem with Jews whats your point? Does that mean if an Islamic person came forward and said that Israel has the right to exist and should control all of what is current day Israel does that mean you would accept what they are saying?



Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred.
0 Replies
 
Americanadian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 02:50 pm
au1929 wrote:


Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred.



So the poster you quoted above; is he truly a "Jew hater" that warrants the label of "Hitler's disciple" ? or is anyone who criticizes Israel considered a Jew hater?

Interesting...
Anyone who calls for equal Justice or International Law to apply to the Zionist cabal in Israel are usually subjected with the nauseating smear tactics such as noted above.

The question that should be asked is "WHY"?

There is a difference between condemning Israel's conduct: The flagrant disregard of Human rights & International Law, Immoral apartheid conditions they impose on innocent civilians, the treasonous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, the theft of classified military secrets by Israel's hero Jonathan Pollard, which inevitably led to the deaths of undercover secret agents stationed in Russia;
Compared to someone who merely hates any Jew that lives in the world and desires to eradicate any evidence of their existence.

One with an ounce of cognizance will also recognize the difference between a "Zionist" and a "Jew". If one cannot differentiate between the two entities, they do a huge disservice to the Jewish race.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 03:01 pm
Americanadian wrote:
au1929 wrote:


Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred.


Interesting...
Anyone who calls for equal Justice or International Law to apply to the Zionist cabal in Israel are usually subjected with the nauseating smear tactics such as noted above.

The question that should be asked is "WHY"?

There is a difference between condemning Israel's conduct: The flagrant disregard of Human rights & International Law, Immoral apartheid conditions they impose on innocent civilians, the treasonous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, the theft of classified military secrets by Israel's hero Jonathan Pollard, which inevitably led to the deaths of undercover secret agents stationed in Russia;
Compared to someone who merely hates any Jew that lives in the world.

One with an ounce of cognizance will also recognize the difference between a "Zionist" and a "Jew". If one cannot differentiate between the two entities, they do a huge disservice to the Jewish race.




My question is why you would comment on something you know nothing about.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 03:04 pm
au1929 wrote:
Americanadian wrote:
au1929 wrote:


Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred.


Interesting...
Anyone who calls for equal Justice or International Law to apply to the Zionist cabal in Israel are usually subjected with the nauseating smear tactics such as noted above.

The question that should be asked is "WHY"?

There is a difference between condemning Israel's conduct: The flagrant disregard of Human rights & International Law, Immoral apartheid conditions they impose on innocent civilians, the treasonous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, the theft of classified military secrets by Israel's hero Jonathan Pollard, which inevitably led to the deaths of undercover secret agents stationed in Russia;
Compared to someone who merely hates any Jew that lives in the world.

One with an ounce of cognizance will also recognize the difference between a "Zionist" and a "Jew". If one cannot differentiate between the two entities, they do a huge disservice to the Jewish race.




My question is why you would comment on something you know nothing about.


Nothing like a little arrogance to prove your point.

The presumption that others cannot recognize the difference between a Jew and a Zionist is laughable.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Americanadian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 03:04 pm
au1929 wrote:


My question is why you would comment on something you know nothing about.


And you are a self-proclaimed expert in the subject?
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 04:40 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
au1929 wrote:
Americanadian wrote:
au1929 wrote:


Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred.


Interesting...
Anyone who calls for equal Justice or International Law to apply to the Zionist cabal in Israel are usually subjected with the nauseating smear tactics such as noted above.

The question that should be asked is "WHY"?

There is a difference between condemning Israel's conduct: The flagrant disregard of Human rights & International Law, Immoral apartheid conditions they impose on innocent civilians, the treasonous attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, the theft of classified military secrets by Israel's hero Jonathan Pollard, which inevitably led to the deaths of undercover secret agents stationed in Russia;
Compared to someone who merely hates any Jew that lives in the world.

One with an ounce of cognizance will also recognize the difference between a "Zionist" and a "Jew". If one cannot differentiate between the two entities, they do a huge disservice to the Jewish race.




My question is why you would comment on something you know nothing about.


Nothing like a little arrogance to prove your point.

The presumption that others cannot recognize the difference between a Jew and a Zionist is laughable.

Cycloptichorn


Americanadian read this comment Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred. and immediately went into a rant about Israel, zionism and Jews. And you of course could not resist the temptation to comment.
The comment was directed at Zippo who has on to many occasions voiced both his, I will put it mildly, dislike for Israel and Jews in general.
Yes he went off half cocked or perhaps he was agreeing with what I accused Zippo of.

To Americanadian In case you were not aware of it. Judaisim is a religion not a race. I am a white caucasion. In addition I suggest you look before you leap.
0 Replies
 
Americanadian
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 05:42 pm
au1929 wrote:

Americanadian read this comment Hitlers disciple would only accept it if someone[anyone] came forward and said that Israel deserved to be destroyed and all Israeli's massacred. and immediately went into a rant about Israel, zionism and Jews. And you of course could not resist the temptation to comment.
The comment was directed at Zippo who has on to many occasions voiced both his, I will put it mildly, dislike for Israel and Jews in general.
Yes he went off half cocked or perhaps he was agreeing with what I accused Zippo of.



Thank you for clarifying the above. Except I was looking for a little more clarification on your position in regards to Zionism and Judaism.



au1929 wrote:
to Americanadian In case you were not aware of it. Judaisim is a religion not a race. I am a white caucasion. In addition I suggest you look before you leap.


As am I.

I am well aware that Judaism is a Religion, not a race. The majority of people today are rather confused as to the real definition of a Jew. I would define it much the same as a "Muslim" is a follower of Islam. Not all Muslims are Arab, and not all Jews are Hebrew.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:16 pm
Americanadian wrote
Quote:
I am well aware that Judaism is a Religion, not a race. The Scriptural Hebrews however, were a race. The majority of people today are rather confused as to the real definition of a Jew. I would define it much the same as a "Muslim" is a follower of Islam. Not all Muslims are Arab, and not all Jews are Hebrew.


I find that too fine a distinction. What than makes a Jew a Hebrew or a Hebrew a Jew?

IMO If one follows the Hebrew religion and one believes that all Jews [except converts] are descended from the original tribes they are indeed Hebrews. If all that was needed to be termed a Hebrew as you may be suggesting is to have descended from one of the original tribes. I would submit that Jesus and his disciples were Hebrews and that there are based upon that definition if it were valid the world is full of Hebrew Christians today.

Note: I may be misreading you.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 06:27 pm
A Definition of Zionism:

Zionism is the national revival movement of the Jewish people. It holds that the Jews have the right to self-determination in their own national home, and the right to develop their national culture. Historically, Zionism strove to create a legally recognized national home for the Jews in their historical homeland. This goal was implemented by the creation of the State of Israel. Today, Zionism supports the existence of the state of Israel and helps to inspire a revival of Jewish national life, culture and language.

By that definition I and I believe most Jews worldwide are Zionists.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 07:13 pm
This definition is not compatable with your earlier definition of a Jew as one who embraces a certain religion. Many Zionists, and many of the early founders of Israel were non-religious. Were they not Jews?

Is the Israel so created and so defined necessarily a religious state? A theocracy? If so it is certainly an anachronism in the modern world.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Spain judge says Bush and Iraq war allies should face war...
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2021 at 11:53:47