UK paper: British and American leaders likened to Nazi war criminals

by John O'Driscoll Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:28 PR China

Strange link to see in the list.

by Seán Ryan Sun Oct 09, 2005 13:25

Why is it that the media are the last people on Earth to recognise Bush and Blair as war criminals, excepting of course those who support these genocidal hypocrites without question or thought.

That these men are war criminals is beyond dispute, the only real question is why have both of them along with their staff and their friends and masters from the corporate world, not been hung at the Hague yet? (I can't remember whether hanging is allowed anymore, I'd suffice for lifelong incarceration.)

In fairness, the UN's terms and conditions for waging war are pretty clear. To be a legal war it must be in response to an act of agression, and this response must be of similar magnitude to the initial agressive act. Spending close to a $billion a day and carpet-bombing the whole country is not quite like crashing a few planes into some buildings. Not to mention the fact that Afghanistan committed no agressive act towards America. The "terrorists" and their training camps in Afghanistan had originally been founded and trained and equipped to do to the Russians what they eventually did to the Americans. The definition of a "terrorist" needs to be redefined to encompass this enigma. That being, if I train a "terrorist" and he attacks who I tell him to attack he is not a "terrorist." Conversely if I train a "terrorist," and he attacks me then he is a "terrorist."

Everyone got that?

Good.

I don't mean to belittle 9/11 here, I believe every human life to be precious.

Let's talk about the Geneva convention. The Geneva conventions specify in very explicit terms the treatment of prisoners of war. Basically every move made by the coalition of the stupid in relation to prisoners of war, has violated this. They skirt obeying this very legal treaty, by relabelling prisoners of war as "illegal combattants." And we the rest of the world ignore our responsibilities by accepting this tripe. Why not relabel those butchered and maimed as "illegal victims?" This act of labelling would be much more truthful and accurate than the first.

I could go on and on. But I'd again only be pointing out the obvious.

Suffice to say it's not worth picking up a newspaper today, even to wipe your arse. Unless it has a picture of Bertie in it.

Thanks for listening.

P.S. Bertie, why not go to Iraq or Afghanistan, visit some scarred and shocked children in some overcrowded "hospital," and tell them why the attrocity visited upon them was either moral or justified. Then come home and tell me why you think you represent me or any other creature who possesses a shred of humanity or morality.

Seán Ryan

by John O'Driscoll@hotmail.com Sun Oct 09, 2005 14:17 PR China

heartfelt and a pleasure to read Mr Ryan and very expressive of your anger.

by Mary Kelly Sun Oct 09, 2005 16:33

refreshing to read above posts. The media stinks!

During last week I was asked to comment on NEWSTALK 106 about the increase of troops going thru Shannon, and about Ruairi Quinn finally opening his constipated mouth about it.

They had Tom Cooney on opposite me, to rubbish my comments. When I said on air he was talking crap, Mr Declan? Kiberd referred to him as PROFESSOR to give the impression he was an accepted authority on law.
He ( Cooney ) repeatedly stated that Ireland according to UN resolutions has a duty to support the US military in the war on Iraq, that it was legal, and the least we could do and we should look up the UN resolutions on the internet to confirm this!!

Unfortunately I did not mention on air that Professor Cooney supports the illegal occupation of Palestine, and supports Israel's dismissal of scores of UN reslolutions re withdrawal from occupied territories. Just to to him in context where his sympathies lie..

When are any of the ministers in government ever going to dare ask the Attorney General re position of giving support for US military transits?

by TheTroll Sun Oct 09, 2005 16:43

Another thing Nazis did was to give thier hungarian allies Slovakian lands. It isn't just Blair and Bush who have given Zionists Palestinian lands, but the majority of interloapers around the western world.

When will people understand that such offenses remain offenses even if a majority of interloapers supports it?

by a troll (diferent type) Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:22

interlopers! why can't you see they've the boyne?
and aughrim.-
makes me seeth.

by TheTroll Sun Oct 09, 2005 22:58

giving Irish people Irish lands isn't quite the same as interloapers giving Zionist invadors Palesinian lands.

Thieves couldn't give you your own car because it is your's. But thieves could give you your neighbor's car. And if you accept it, expect to go to jail when you get pulled over by the police.

And don't try to blaim the thieves for your choice in accepting stolen property. It will not wash away your offenses. Just like Hungarians didn't have to invade Slovakian lands after Nazis made them the offer of ruling Slovakia, ZIonists didn't have to accept the Brittish interloapers (etc) offer of Palestinian lands, they both chose to bbe invadors of thier neighbor's homelands. And they both chose responsability for thier own offensive invasions.

by Duine Thu Oct 13, 2005 14:20

Ní mé cad a dhéarfadh an sagart Reid i leith na beirte usual úd.

Cé nach bhfuil cosúil le muintir na Naitsíoch na laetha seo?