Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

shafique wrote:Oh, and 'I wrote' when we finish with 'war crimes' of the USA, perhaps we can move on to the mere acts of international terrorism that were perpetrated in the Far East - here I'm referring to the illegal bombings of Cambodia which Kissenger ordered/agreed to despite not having declared war on them.

I enter Noam Chomsky's book 'Hegemony or Survival' as exhibit 1 for the prosecution.

But for now lets stick with war crimes.

Cheers,
Shafique

I Wrote: Objection! The prosecutor has not even defined "war crimes" - the basis for the prosecution. A party cannot be prescuted for commiting any crime without definition and citation on which it is based.

THE COURT: Sustain. Mr. Shafique, the prosecution risks having this case dismissed forthwith as you must tell this court under what authority you seek to prosecute "America". We are giving you another chance to state your definition of war crimes and this must be specific not simply stating "internationally recognized definition" as you have done in your previous statement to this court. Yo Mr. Sahfique, are the prosecutor here and not some forum frequenter... Let the court hear so we might prodeed.

THE COURT: Basic rule of jurisprudence: you state the definition of a crime and then prove that a crime has been commited by the accuse.

I wrote: I also have an objection to "Exibhit 1" on the ground of lack of foundation, and more importantly it would be hearsay at best.

THE COURT: Dear defence counsel we will defer ruling on your second objection (admissability) until we hear from the Prosecutor on its definition of "War Crimes' since without a definition of the basis for this prosecution the case will be dismissed and your second objections will be moot. Ruling on your second objection is reserved.

THE COURT: Mr. Shafique?

Shrewth - call me Danny Crane!

War Crimes - as defined in Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 (both current when the US bombed Japan).



I'll notify the defence of my first witness - Mr John Bolton:

John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, used Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples why the US should not adhere to the International Criminal Court (ICC):

"A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."

From:
"The Risks and Weaknesses of the International Criminal Court from America's Perspective", by John Bolton, current US ambassador to the United Nations, Winter 2001.

Cheers,
Shafique

I Wrote [adderssing the court]. The court will be reminded that the prosecution still has failed to state a definition of "war crimes". Instead it referes to "internationally recognized" and crimes "as defined". The defence insists, as it has a right to, that this Court direct the prosecution to state the definition of "War Crimes" on which is is basing its prosecution:

THE COURT: Mr. Shafique? The court requires a specific definition of "War Crimes". We respectfully remind you that the matter is quite serious and must be addressed based on a specific definition.


I wrote [again addressing the court]. The defense has been notified that a certain John Bolton is to be called as a "prosecution" witness. The defense objects as it will be an uncesserary waste of the court's time for the following reason:

1. Mr. Bolton has no personal knowledge.
2. The quoted text is a "guess" by Mr. Bolton.
3. The quoted text is one person's "opinion"

Thus Mr. Bolton's anwers will be:

Q. Mr. Bolton do you have an opinion as to whether the USA commited war crimes?
A: My opinion is that "provisions [of the treaty] seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
Q: This is an opinion you wrote in a book you sold for profit.
A: Yes it is, but I am not sure whether I made a profit - you will have to ask my account about that.
Q. That the USA "might" be guilty of War Crimes is your personal opinion, correct?
A: Yes it is.
Q: And you were how old when these events took place?
A: 2 years old.
Q: Do you have any evidence that the USA commited war crimes in Germany or Japan?
A: No I do not.
Q: Are you aware of the defintion of "War Crimes" on which the prosecution is basing its case.
A: No I am not. I was subpoened to testify about my opinion from my book.

I wrote: 'No more questions at this time"

I wrote [addressing the court]. Please remind Mr. Shafique that he has yet to state a definition of "war crimes". The defense reserves objection on admissability.

THE COURT: Mr. Shafique?

Mr Shafique: What part of the Geneva conventions and the Hague Regulations did the Court/Defense find confusing?

Is the Defense saying that they cannot find the definitions of war crimes in these documents? I could lend them our researcher who does know how to read.

How about:
Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial, ...taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."



Cheers,
Shafique

damn 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki when USA dropped the Atomic Bomb on the 2 countries.

220,000 people :S and we cant forget those who died later on because of radiation. Man 220,000 ppl that makes 9/11 look like peanuts. lol

220,000 INNOCENT ppl died. Y? Didnt the Truman government cared about any civilian, innocent children and women and men who had nothing to with the war?

Its been 62 years since the bombing and no one from USA was tried because of the killing of 220,000 innocent ppl. maybe they didnt do anything because hey they were doing the RIGHT thing. Or hmmm havent we heard in the past and present when some bomb sprays off into a hospital or a house and the USA military and government are quick to appear on CNN and say "hey you blind ppl, deaf ppl dont u get it now, there will casulaties of war .

220,000 were " casulaties of war". sorry I dont think it justifys the killing of 220,000 ppl and saying it we did it cos we wanted to win the war.

The war was already won and I am sure if the Americans used their forces they would have won anyways and it wouldnt have led to the killing of 220,000 ppl. Instead of making their soilders suffer they went for the quick way out, drop the bomb.

Lol man the world should be shamed of itself for letting the Americans kill 220,000 ppl and never ever tried them for those murders. Shame.

They should do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seriously they are in a mess, pull their forces out and drop 2 bombs on the 2 countries, that should clear out the mess they created.
Man they should drop a bomb on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too because those 2 countries are the "source " of extremist.

lol drop a bomb cos thats the right thing to do. and the rest of the world sit down close ur eyes close ur ears and let the Americans do what they want to.

benwj - you are over-looking the fact that Germans and Japanese military officials were tried and convicted of war crimes after the end of WWII.

Nurenberg you should have heard of and the Japanese equivalent were the 'Tokyo' trials - just do a search on 'Japanese War Crimes'.

Your arguement that the crimes these military and political personnel were accused of were 'acts of war' did not sway the judges.

My point is that if we look at the crimes they were accused and convicted on and applied the same logic to the 'acts of war' committed by the allies discussed above, the allies would also have been as guilty.

Please don't confuse this with condoning the Japanese or Germans - I am rather condemning all war crimes, regardless of who carried them out.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf

Your definition of war crimes does not concur with mine. You mention Nuremburg and the Tokoyo Trials. This is true as they were put on trial for "war crimes".

But, your definition re previous discussions were not the subject of the "trials"

AS you well know and have failed to mention, is that those who stood trial were the perpetrators of the most gastly atrocities against in the main civilians, during WW2. No one was convicted for giving the order to sink the Hood or the attacks in North Africa etc.

It was those responsible who killed and tortured 000's and millions of innocent people who in the main wore no uniform and those in Tokyo who mistreated, tortured and killed many 000's of POW's. I should not have to mention the Bridge on the River Kwai as an example.

This leads onto in similarity to those held at GB. Those prisoners are not prisoners of war, they are terrorists or suspected terrorists who wear no uniform and do not attack military, they target and kill innocent people.

They are nothing but cowards and a disgrace to their religion, like that other Afgan nutcase currently posting here.

They deserve everything they get.

rudeboy wrote:damn 140,000 people died in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki when USA dropped the Atomic Bomb on the 2 countries.

220,000 people :S and we cant forget those who died later on because of radiation. Man 220,000 ppl that makes 9/11 look like peanuts. lol

220,000 INNOCENT ppl died. Y? Didnt the Truman government cared about any civilian, innocent children and women and men who had nothing to with the war?

Its been 62 years since the bombing and no one from USA was tried because of the killing of 220,000 innocent ppl. maybe they didnt do anything because hey they were doing the RIGHT thing. Or hmmm havent we heard in the past and present when some bomb sprays off into a hospital or a house and the USA military and government are quick to appear on CNN and say "hey you blind ppl, deaf ppl dont u get it now, there will casulaties of war .

220,000 were " casulaties of war". sorry I dont think it justifys the killing of 220,000 ppl and saying it we did it cos we wanted to win the war.

The war was already won and I am sure if the Americans used their forces they would have won anyways and it wouldnt have led to the killing of 220,000 ppl. Instead of making their soilders suffer they went for the quick way out, drop the bomb.

Lol man the world should be shamed of itself for letting the Americans kill 220,000 ppl and never ever tried them for those murders. Shame.

They should do the same in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seriously they are in a mess, pull their forces out and drop 2 bombs on the 2 countries, that should clear out the mess they created.
Man they should drop a bomb on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too because those 2 countries are the "source " of extremist.

lol drop a bomb cos thats the right thing to do. and the rest of the world sit down close ur eyes close ur ears and let the Americans do what they want to.

Hey, the Japs like Hitler started it, they didnt expect to loose.

All fair in love and war.

And as previously mentioned the steps at the time were taken as a finallity measure to avoid everyone in the world either speaking Jap or German.

Certainly if they had of won all you guys n gals on here that doesn't have white skin would not be here posting now and Islam for example would not even exist.

As is your right to free speech.

arnie - I for one am glad the allies won the war.

As for war crimes - I agree with you these should be reserved for the most ghastly crimes that go beyond the pale.

I think the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki do fall into this category because of the sheer number of civilians killed.

Similarly I think the carpet bombings of certain German towns to be similarly against the 'normal' rules of war.

Being less evil than the other guy does not excuse the evil that you do.

Sometimes it takes time to come to terms with the ugly facts - the treatment of Irish during the PIRA campaigns, internment, police collusion in killings etc - all do not cover the British authorities in glory. Now they acknowledge these human rights abuses were a mistake.

Going back a bit further, the British were involved in horrendous massacres in India and Africa. The 'Indian Mutiny' is called the 'first war of Independence' in India - where many many unarmed civilians were masacred that it surely constitutes a war crime.

Nowadays, the numbers of Afghans and Iraqi civilians that have been killed is unknown. I would hazard a guess that fewer people were killed in the break up of Yugoslavia - Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia war than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Milosovich was put on trial for being indirectly involved in the killings of Bosnians and Croats.

Many would argue that Bush and Blair have been indirectly responsible for more deaths than Milosovich. Certainly the MP George Galloway calls them war criminals.

I know you don't like his politics, but I think he has a point.

Cheers,
Shafique

arniegang wrote:Hey, the Japs like Hitler started it, they didnt expect to loose.

lol we all know they started it but the sad fact is America and its PUPPPPPPEEEEEET England has to finish it. Oh thats because there is no one else to clean up the mess. its like this a dog does some shit USA and UK go in and clean it up after hes done. oh I get it now.

arniegang wrote:Certainly if they had of won all you guys n gals on here that doesn't have white skin would not be here posting now and Islam for example would not even exist.

lol hahahah Islam has been targetted from the first day it came into the picture. yes oh mighty arnie we should be grateful for the likes of USA (where KKK were responsible for the racists attack) and UK (u even got some rasicts there too havent we) for saving us from Hitler the evil guy. The guy who built a wall across Germany and was responsible for gasing the jews. hmmmm y does the wall sound so familiar oh wait let me look into whats happening in Israel. Oooops no gasing there instead u got concentration camps there. oh well atleast no1 will be gassed there and according to Arnie I am sure those concentration camp must be a wonderful resort. Is a bit ironic init mate that the ppl who were gassed in Germany were Jews and look at what they doing now. Oh wait they suffered alot, their grand dad and grand mum were gassed they been through a hard time so please lets not say anything to them. shall we arnie?

oh i know the palestines started it first, Sadam started it first by invading Kuwait and as we know there is only one country that cares about PLANET earth and is the saviour of EARTH i.e USA came to Kuwaits aid.

Oh I get it know no wonder whenever there are aliens in a movie attacking they attack USA because USA happens to be represent the world and it has to be someone from USA to save the earth.

Yes Arnie u r right mate UK and USA got rid of Hitler to save Islam LOL Yes arnie u r correct sorry i was wrong.

arniegang wrote:As is your right to free speech.

Hmmmm a bit like the gauntanamo prisoners locked up some place far away from the worlds media sight. or maybe documentaries such as Loose Change and many more which questioned the 9/11 and have been banned across USA. I get it.


Sorry Arnie but USA started it first with 2 bombs over Japan that killed 220,000 but no1 on earth had the balls to take Truman to the court, hmmm there was one country who could have and we all know what happened to them dont we? USSR is no more and had it still been here the world might have been a safer world.

Yes Arnie u r right mate UK and USA got rid of Hitler to save Islam LOL Yes arnie u r correct sorry i was wrong.

I did not say we did it to save Islam. I said had Hitler/Japs had their way and won WW2, then Islam would not exist.

I say this because,certainly where Hitler and the Nazis were concerned, anyone who was not white was not worth jack s.h.i.t. Africa, the Middle East and Persia would have just been one huge oil field and Camel farm. Only those fit enough would have been allowed to survive and work the rest would have gone the same way as the Jews.

Know your history Rudeboy and look up what plans Hitler had for any form of worship that didnt meet that of the Third Reich. Mecca would have been wiped off the face of the Earth.

And no we did not do it for those reasons, it was just a benefit from the end result of the actions of the British and Americans that wiped the then evil from humanity.

Yes you and me benefited Rudeboy whether you like it or not.

yeh i know what u said mate that Islam would not exist. Islam has been targetted from day one it is not a POLITICAL movement it is a religion that lives in MANY muslims hearth. when I say MANY dont think of 20,000 think of us in Millions. How do you Islam would not have existed if Hitler had ruled Europe? Did u have a dream one night where you saw Hitler raging a war against Muslims? Or maybe you came to that conclusion that Hitler would have wiped Islam of the face of the earth because he had a thing against Blacks, Jews and Brown ppl?

lol we all should thank america and uk during the war seriously mate, thank u for saving us from Hitler if it wouldnt for you our countries would be one huge oil field and we would be working in a camel farm.
Well we all know whats happening with the oil fields in Iraq dont we now

lol I am not really sure if u know this but those OIL fields we are talking about were in 1920s till 1940s were controlled by the French and the British. Countries like Iraq and Palestine were mendates of the British and it was only with the help of Germany and Hitler, Haj Mufti was able to revolt against the British and the French. I am pretty much sure that the Germans wanted to do this so they can move in and control the oil. Abit like USA in Iraq rite now .

Muslims at that time had a very common thing with the Nazis which was anti-jews policy. Anti-jew policy was the main CORE of Nazis party and they had a supporter in a FEW muslims across the middle east.

Now I dont support Hitler nor did i ever support Nazis or their policies but having read some "WESTERN" history books, u can make out that the Nazis and some mulims were working together.

Maybe u r right Nazis could have one day turned around and targetted muslims hmmm abit like what Bush has been doing in it . yeh u r right he could have targetted Islam but how do u know this? no1 knows if he would have. but I do know if he had he would have a bad time coping with the suicide bombers .

lol see how did u come to the conculsion that Mecca would have been wiped off the face of the earth? how can u say that mate? What proof do you have that Muslims were gased together with the jEws?

Do you really think that the muslims would have let Hitler wipe Mecca of the face of the earth so easily? hmmmm we dont see any bombings or any killing there because we all know that USA aint allowed there. We also know that where ever USA goes bombs follow . I guess thats the reason y till date USA forces have never been into Mecca because if they did the whole muslim population would turn up against them.

Yes Arnie I should be thank ful for UK and USA during the ww2. for saving us from Hitler and how 60 years after WW2 muslims across the world have suffered because of uk and usa. Thanks a lot MATE! We owe u one .

here ya go Rudeboy read this

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fe ... ue/0013396

I know the 'wests' popularity is not at it's highest at the moment.

But the fact is that Hitler had to be stopped - there may be some half baked idea's around that the rothchild's made a killing out of bankrolling Hitler or even more the holocaust deniers, but arnie's points really need to be contemplated. If Nazi Germany had of taking over Europe a lot of people whom have immigrated to European countries and found themselves a living in comfort with careers and free education and health care would be very far from that reality if the white supremacists were running the show.

The Japanese also took millions of life's in south east asia as well. I also have a great uncle who was a POW in Burma building the railway. This guy passed away at 87 and fifty years later he would still wake up screaming at some of the stuff he witnessed. Over 100,000 asians were also starved beaten or ravaged with disease to the early death in those POW camps as well. I depise Guantanamo, but the treatment there is very far from what prisoners suffered at the hands of the Japanese; beyond comparison.

So I agree Iraq and other misdemeanors are atrocious - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

jabbajabba wrote:So I agree Iraq and other misdemeanors are atrocious - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

War is ugly - but still governed by rules such as the Geneva Conventions, and therefore there exists 'war crimes'.

Whilst I am glad that Hitler was defeated, that does not mean we should view the victors as 'whiter than white' or that to question certain tactics which resulted in the deaths of civilians is tantamount to supporting the enemy.

On the contrary, I believe that those who fought in the war fought for the freedom to question our leaders and to advocate justice for all, including those defeated.

In some ways this is related to the question of Iraq. If war crimes by victors are swept under the carpet, those victors or their military descendants may be more inclined to 'push the boundaries'.

I believe that the cynical way that Guantanamo was set up to deny the inmates basic rights afforded to anyone held on US soil or under the Geneva conventions shows up the arrogance and hypocrisy of the US administration. Human right violations should be universal, as should be war crimes. To feel that one is above the law leads to abuse of power - and we have seen this ad nauseum in Iraq - from the initial bombings to mercenary groups shooting civilians.

Had those responsible for Hiroshima, Nagasaki or the illegal bombings of Cambodia etc been put on trial - perhaps there would have been more restraint before Human rights of Iraqis and Afghans were disregarded.

Cheers,
Shafique

arniegang wrote:
This leads onto in similarity to those held at GB. Those prisoners are not prisoners of war, they are terrorists or suspected terrorists who wear no uniform and do not attack military, they target and kill innocent people.

They are nothing but cowards and a disgrace to their religion, like that other Afgan nutcase currently posting here.

They deserve everything they get.

Many of those prisoners are innocent - many have been released without charge. Are you really saying they deserved to be banged up?

Those who are guilty should be charged and tried.

Ironically, I think that Guantanamo Bay is a victory for Al Qaeda - they have won in that it is a sign of a change in US foreign policy and the legal system, and given those opposed to the US the moral high ground. It has eroded much of the good will that the US earned as a result of 9/11.

Above all, it is a most effective recruiting sergeant for those who wish to harm the US and view it as a hypocritical tyrant who talks about justice and rule of law, but flaunts these very values.

I suspect that many more new initiates have been created by Guantanamo than real Al Qaeda inmates held there. It's a shame that the British could not persuade the US of the futility of this - especially as we had the experience of this from internment in Northern Ireland.

Cheers,
Shafique