|
|
Iranian president calls for war crimes charges on US
By: breakingnews.ie on: 26.11.2005 [17:05 ] (2942 reads)
|
(2703 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Temporary offline
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:28 ]
|
|
|
looking the wires coming in, this site looks just beautiful.
Thank you, Mr. Ahmadinejad.
|
by cosmo on 26.11.2005 [17:34 ]
|
|
|
The US/EU(/Zionist pack should realise that Ian has te right to develope nuclear power or whatever as per their needs .
If China and Russia (Iam not sure about Russia) want to create a multipolar World then they should see to it that as many countries as possible (with the potential to become nuclear powers) do have nuclear Capacity .
Thats for their own sake unless at the back of their heads they are just intending to replace the US/EU with another totalitarian power playing the same games as those of the US and Company.!!
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:51 ]
|
|
|
LINK: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2946715.stm
QUOTE: “The US says it has no plans to remove the debris left over from depleted uranium (DU) weapons it is using in Iraq.
It says no clean-up is needed, because research shows DU has no long-term effects.”
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:52 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.mothersalert.org/du3.html
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:54 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.rense.com/general64/du.htm
QUOTE: ‘American Use Of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in
the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time."’
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:55 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.sundayherald.com/32522
QUOTE: “BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.”
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:56 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0406/S00330.htm
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:58 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FLO308B.html
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [17:59 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0113-01.htm
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [18:00 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/ud_main.html
|
by KamikazeToyota on 26.11.2005 [18:25 ]
|
|
|
U.S used, and is apparently still using DU & WP in Iraq and they insist that it is no problem because these weapons are not banned under international laws.
Yes, it is true that there was no law to prohibit using nuclear weapons when U.S dropped A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But who the hell can justify such war crimes only because the weapons they used were not banned?
|
by stоpwar on 26.11.2005 [18:31 ]
|
|
|
We also have the matters of:
Genocide (Fallujah)
Chemical Weapons (all over Iraq)
Torture (all over the world)
Not to mention...
Breaking International Law
Bribery (UN Security Council)
Phone tapping (UN)
Replacing news by propaganda
Rigging US home elections
I could go on...
|
by _merk_ on 26.11.2005 [19:06 ]
|
|
|
I came across the following. It was part of a comment by someone on another forum.
It's about the April 04 meeting between Bush/Blair and the now gagged memo and why the discussion of bombing of alJazeera may not be the only reason why the memo is so dangerous to US and for public consumption:
QUOTE:
At the time of the Bush/Blair meeting in April, US forces were engaged in the much discussed assault on Falluja.
Did Bush ask for British forces to assist the then current operation?
Any such request was obviously refused at the time but was it Blair's response that the US wanted covered up?
It is probably unlikely that the request related to the October deployment as the Government would have tried to suppress the first article quoting from the minutes. Senior commanders in the British Army were certainly expressing concerns over the US tactics in Falluja and elsewhere around the time the meeting took place.
Did Blair tell Bush that they refused to take part in the ongoing operation because they feared war crimes charges? ENDQUOTE
It never made sense to me that the discussion of Bush's desire to bomb alJazeera would result in a gag order. The attack on alJazeera never happened. Falluja happened. BLAIR CALLS IT A WAR CRIME and it's recorded in the memo. THIS would make sense.
|
by kamau on 26.11.2005 [19:38 ]
|
|
|
"Ahmadinejad didn’t elaborate, but he was apparently referring to the US military’s use of artillery shells packed with depleted uranium, which is far less radioactive than natural uranium and is left over from the process of enriching uranium for use as nuclear fuel."
Gee, I wonder if an Amerikkkan wrote this sorry excuse of a paragraph?
|
by jouna on 26.11.2005 [20:57 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.wrmea.com/archives/November_2005/0511029.html
|
by Neal on 26.11.2005 [22:18 ]
|
|
|
Attack is the best form of defence.
Note every time the US opens up on Ahmadinejad, he returns with double the force double the public embarrassment.
Look I really like this guy.
He's probably some real evil bastard but I like him.
Like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela ... he does the same thing ... probably better.
Saddam was (when he was alive) a great world leader ... Now we have two such men Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
|
by BlackPanther on 26.11.2005 [22:50 ]
|
|
|
"Iran’s hard-line president called for the Bush administration to be tried on war crimes charges related to Iraq and denounced the West for its stance on Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, state-run television reported today."
Any leader or government that speaks outside the accepted "international" (read US axis) terms of debate or questions the existing political framework itself is predictably given the label of "hard-line" by the Western Free Press.
If only there were more "hard-line" governments and leaders in the world, there would be a whole lot more truth.
|
by hellsbells on 27.11.2005 [11:53 ]
|
|
|
-- fired back at them!
Anyway, the number one warcrime was "waging aggressive war" as defined in the 1946 Nuremberg Trials. Although these military tribunals were a travesty of injustice, about which much has been written, they did enshrine the concept that "waging aggressive war" was a cardinal crime.
Bliar's contortions to get his Attorney-General to say the war was "legal" speak volumes. The British Generals were very concerned that the war was "legal", knowing that if it was not, they were liable to charges of committing warcrimes. Principled public servants resigned because they saw the war was clearly illegal. Those people came from both sides of the Atlantic. Even far away little Australia had a public servant resign over the illegality of the war.
|
by jouna on 27.11.2005 [11:56 ]
|
|
|
LINK: www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051127/NEWS06/511270523/1012/NEWS06
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
