I'm inspired.
I saw the International Criminal Court was inaugurated. Today.
The United States is not a member. It was, but it "unsigned". Bush did. Odd and suspicious.
Well, now he wants to invade Iraq. I'm sure he thinks he will be immune to prosecution there. We shall see, the future will tell.
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
millions of people demonstrated last month.
voters made their voice heard
blair's resignation is being called
bush is being abandoned by several who used to support him. support is significantly smaller.
another new protest with a few million in DC would do him in, he wouldn't be able to invade.
he would find an excuse and back out
which he may still do, in my opinion
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, pointed out it could amount to a criminal invasion, and the US could be subject to UN sanctions for it
heh
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/
the Hagues international war crimes tribunal is opening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838491.stm
if you look here, you will see the US has NOT ratified the agreement. why? because he is GUILTY and could be tried there.
muahahah
unstoppable? we just need a few million people.
and he'll be a war criminal, nothing more. jail companion of Milosevic, Pinochet, Hussein, and others, when they're all ARRESTED
voters made their voice heard
blair's resignation is being called
bush is being abandoned by several who used to support him. support is significantly smaller.
another new protest with a few million in DC would do him in, he wouldn't be able to invade.
he would find an excuse and back out
which he may still do, in my opinion
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, pointed out it could amount to a criminal invasion, and the US could be subject to UN sanctions for it
heh
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/
the Hagues international war crimes tribunal is opening
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2838491.stm
if you look here, you will see the US has NOT ratified the agreement. why? because he is GUILTY and could be tried there.
muahahah
unstoppable? we just need a few million people.
and he'll be a war criminal, nothing more. jail companion of Milosevic, Pinochet, Hussein, and others, when they're all ARRESTED
Hello Terrorist. Hi anti-American. Protest today?
After studying the issues, I've discovered everyone is now now potentially "anti American". Or potentially a "terrorist".
Well, great! It's a lot more entertaining than a day job.
Let's have fun. It all means nothing, really.
Let's go to Washington and protest. Dress funny clothes.
Go to Wash DC and say just what you think. In loud funny ways.
I'd like to have a group of people dresses as some way - perhaps a group of "goofy clown terrorist suspect" or "mickey mouse terrorist suspect", "office nerd terrorist suspect", "universally guilty terrorist suspect", "terrorist oops not really", things like that.
On a slightly more serious note - If you're looking for the original meaning of the term "anti-americanism", it's here.
In the 50's Congress defined what 'Anti-Americanism' meant for it, established the HUAC (House on Un-American Activities Committee). They waged ideological war supposedly on "Communists", or "socialists" - but actually - anyone who tried to organize social change in the repressive status quo of the United States.
"The definition of American has been contested all throughout the history of this country, and when the State has been able to assert their meaning, it has always meant blind obedience to those in power, in government. "
That's what it means.
I found it here.
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/121602antiamericanorantiimperialistmaj.html
As to the meaning of "terrorist", it's been agreed that, as it is being today used in the media, it's defined to mean you can always arrest your enemy and accuse them of terrorism. Something like "opponents we don't agree with or dislike and can remotely associate with violence".
Numerous studies have been made. There's a little article here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html
After studying the issues, I've discovered everyone is now now potentially "anti American". Or potentially a "terrorist".
Well, great! It's a lot more entertaining than a day job.
Let's have fun. It all means nothing, really.
Let's go to Washington and protest. Dress funny clothes.
Go to Wash DC and say just what you think. In loud funny ways.
I'd like to have a group of people dresses as some way - perhaps a group of "goofy clown terrorist suspect" or "mickey mouse terrorist suspect", "office nerd terrorist suspect", "universally guilty terrorist suspect", "terrorist oops not really", things like that.
On a slightly more serious note - If you're looking for the original meaning of the term "anti-americanism", it's here.
In the 50's Congress defined what 'Anti-Americanism' meant for it, established the HUAC (House on Un-American Activities Committee). They waged ideological war supposedly on "Communists", or "socialists" - but actually - anyone who tried to organize social change in the repressive status quo of the United States.
"The definition of American has been contested all throughout the history of this country, and when the State has been able to assert their meaning, it has always meant blind obedience to those in power, in government. "
That's what it means.
I found it here.
http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/121602antiamericanorantiimperialistmaj.html
As to the meaning of "terrorist", it's been agreed that, as it is being today used in the media, it's defined to mean you can always arrest your enemy and accuse them of terrorism. Something like "opponents we don't agree with or dislike and can remotely associate with violence".
Numerous studies have been made. There's a little article here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,487098,00.html
Sunday, March 09, 2003
The completely false American news, the Army disinformation campaign, has begun.
"C.I.A. Warning of Terror Risk to American Troops in Iraq", the headline says. "Terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces", they begin saying, as they would like Americans to believe.
Tranlation: Iraqi civilians are going to take up arms and defend their country, and try to attack American military bases. Exactly as the French Resistance tried to attack German occupying forces. They will executed and classified as "Al Qaeda" and "terrorists". Exactly as the Germans occupying France did.
Just yesterday there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. They will conveniently materialize, of course, right after the war. In the form of Iraqi civilians, fighting a guerilla war to resist occupation.
Further, they would like us to believe the other disinformation - "Iraq Plotting to Use Garb of the Allies, U.S. Says".
"President Saddam Hussein is seeking uniforms that are 'identical down to the last detail'"
That claim is so unrealistic as to be laughable. The American uniforms and equipment cost a fortune.
"atrocities carried out by Iraqi forces could be blamed on the allies, a senior Defense Department official said today."
This couldn't be, of course, Americans wearing American uniforms, shooting civilians to terrorize them or because they are legitimally defending their country against occupying forces.
Clearly the US Army is planning to kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians, and there will be photographs of this. In preparation, they are beginning to plant the disinformation everywhere, to confuse people at home, who still believe somehow that the Americans are honest and kind, and never kill civilians or wrongly occupy countries.
It remains to be seen if the American population will be fooled.
In the New York times, these articles are written by THOM SHANKER.
Thom has represented the Pentagon's opinion for years. A search of his articles reads as the history of official press releases from the Pentagon.
In other words, his job is to agree to print Pentagon propaganda mostly intact, and sign his name on it as researched news articles.
You can read some of it here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07UNIF.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09TERR.html
"C.I.A. Warning of Terror Risk to American Troops in Iraq", the headline says. "Terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces", they begin saying, as they would like Americans to believe.
Tranlation: Iraqi civilians are going to take up arms and defend their country, and try to attack American military bases. Exactly as the French Resistance tried to attack German occupying forces. They will executed and classified as "Al Qaeda" and "terrorists". Exactly as the Germans occupying France did.
Just yesterday there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. They will conveniently materialize, of course, right after the war. In the form of Iraqi civilians, fighting a guerilla war to resist occupation.
Further, they would like us to believe the other disinformation - "Iraq Plotting to Use Garb of the Allies, U.S. Says".
"President Saddam Hussein is seeking uniforms that are 'identical down to the last detail'"
That claim is so unrealistic as to be laughable. The American uniforms and equipment cost a fortune.
"atrocities carried out by Iraqi forces could be blamed on the allies, a senior Defense Department official said today."
This couldn't be, of course, Americans wearing American uniforms, shooting civilians to terrorize them or because they are legitimally defending their country against occupying forces.
Clearly the US Army is planning to kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians, and there will be photographs of this. In preparation, they are beginning to plant the disinformation everywhere, to confuse people at home, who still believe somehow that the Americans are honest and kind, and never kill civilians or wrongly occupy countries.
It remains to be seen if the American population will be fooled.
In the New York times, these articles are written by THOM SHANKER.
Thom has represented the Pentagon's opinion for years. A search of his articles reads as the history of official press releases from the Pentagon.
In other words, his job is to agree to print Pentagon propaganda mostly intact, and sign his name on it as researched news articles.
You can read some of it here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/international/middleeast/07UNIF.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/international/middleeast/09TERR.html
It's clear the war is not only going to kill civilians, but that the war is ON civilians.
The army knows clearly it is occupying a country by military invasion, and that it is very unwelcome by the entire population, which is armed and dislikes the occupying army.
They have already planted stories in the media claiming Iraq has purchased "identical uniforms" to American soldiers and may be "planning to kill it's own citizens". This is of course nonsense - the people wearing American soldier uniforms and killing American civilians are truly American soldiers, breaking all codes of military and ethical behaviour.
They have also planted a story claiming "C.I.A. has warned that terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces". The "terrorists" are Al Qaeda, of course, which will magically materialize in Iraq during the war. Surely they will be "disguised and mixing with innocent Iraqi civilians". They wouldn't be, of course, *actual* Iraqis doing what they should - defending themselves and their country from invasion.
The army knows clearly it is occupying a country by military invasion, and that it is very unwelcome by the entire population, which is armed and dislikes the occupying army.
They have already planted stories in the media claiming Iraq has purchased "identical uniforms" to American soldiers and may be "planning to kill it's own citizens". This is of course nonsense - the people wearing American soldier uniforms and killing American civilians are truly American soldiers, breaking all codes of military and ethical behaviour.
They have also planted a story claiming "C.I.A. has warned that terrorists based in Iraq are planning attacks against American and allied forces". The "terrorists" are Al Qaeda, of course, which will magically materialize in Iraq during the war. Surely they will be "disguised and mixing with innocent Iraqi civilians". They wouldn't be, of course, *actual* Iraqis doing what they should - defending themselves and their country from invasion.
Friday, March 07, 2003
Bush spoke to the people today through the media. Repeating more of the same - Iraq has a bad president.
I don't understand how people will support an attack and invasion of a country over that, while claiming to stand for "democracy", "peace", and "freedom".
In democracy, when you have a bad president, you demand elections. That's what it seems like from what I've read. Invading and replacing a regime by force is the stuff of dictartorships.
I don't understand how people will support an attack and invasion of a country over that, while claiming to stand for "democracy", "peace", and "freedom".
In democracy, when you have a bad president, you demand elections. That's what it seems like from what I've read. Invading and replacing a regime by force is the stuff of dictartorships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)