Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Now THIS....Is a War Criminal

Not only is Mr. Assad engaging in wholesale slaughter and ethnic cleansing, his regime is now engaged in the killing and torture of defenseless children (their only sin being that their parents have spoken out against the government). If I had an Uzi/open shot, I would blow his brains out and patiently wait for God to thank me for it later.

25 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

Indeed...

w-dervish said...

Perhaps you should change the name of this blog to "Contra bush is a war criminal"?

Obviously your defense of bush is never going to stop.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's all about perspective, wd. You clearly have zero.

Rational Nation USA said...

I just don' get it. A demonstrably intellect dude like wd lacking in common sense. A rare thing.
Then again...

w-dervish said...

Under your definition of "perspective", yes. Me, I wouldn't refer to this strange obsession of yours as "having perspective" (an obsession that causes you to write post, after post, after post defending bush)... In my opinion you clearly lack it.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a) You excoriate Bush but never condemn ACTUAL war criminals like Bashar al Assad and Saddam Hussein (the fucking guy tried to exterminate an entire God damned ethnic group, for Christ) and b) you only accuse Republicans of war criminality (this, despite the fact that democratic Presidents have done the same exact things and, in certain instances, worse). This is the lack of perspective that I'm talking about, wd.

w-dervish said...

[a] bush is an "actual" war criminal.

[b] They haven't.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

That bush is a war criminal is my INFORMED opinion. Neither the UN nor the ICC "disagree". dmarks has claimed this many times, but when asked to provide a statement from ANYONE working with either of these organizations that backs up his claims, he flat-out refuses...

...because no such statements exist, thus proving dmarks categorically wrong... and without a leg to stand on.

dmarks also incorrectly claims that Francis Boyle is my "main source", but he's just a highly credentialed individual who pointed out the facts... the United Nations articles that bush violated when he illegally invaded Iraq.

Articles that the former head of the UN also agreed bush violated. BBC News reported, that when asked if the invasion was illegal, Kofi Annan said, "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal".

dmarks probably tried to dig up some dirt on Mr. Annan but couldn't find any, which explains the extraordinarly lame excuse dmarks gave to dismiss Mr. Annan's statement... he said it was "off the cuff".

More proof that dmarks' has not a leg to stand on when he defends the war criminal bush.

And bush did not "dare" to "win" the 2000 election. He lost to Al Gore but was annoited by the Conservatives on the Supreme Court who stopped the FL recount.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

LBJ provoked a military confrontation with North Vietnam and based on some sketchy report of a couple of errant torpedoes mounted a 600,000 man land invasion of a nation 9,000 miles away from us and in which ended up killing 60,000 American servicemen and in which DID NOT have a U.N. authorization.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And leftist icon, Noam Chomsky, thoroughly disagrees with you. According to Mr. Chomsky, due to his escalation of a war that YOU YOURSELF deem to be illegal and his SEXTUPLING of the drone attacks in Northern Pakistan, Mr. Obama is in many ways "worse than Bush".

w-dervish said...

And leftist icon, Noam Chomsky, thoroughly disagrees with you...

He didn't say Obama did the "same exact thing" as bush. The "same exact thing" would be lying to start a war. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were already started when Obama took office... and he actually ended the war in Iraq.

LBJ wasn't president when the war in Vietnam ended. Nixon comitted treason and interferred with the peace process while running for president. If not for him the war would have ended years earlier.

w-dervish said...

I don't know why Blogger published my last comment 8 times! I didn't click submit even once.

I was going to add that I'm not convinced that LBJ intended to "provoke" anything.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Chomsky said that Obama was in many ways WORSE than Bush. And Obama certainly did not need to escalate the war in Afghanistan and probably only did so to cover his damn ass over the stupid campaign promise that he made to focus more on Afghanistan (some idiotic ploy to differentiate him from the Republicans and and one in which ended up killing MORE U.S. soldiers in that theater than happened under Bush).............And, no, LBJ wasn't the President when Vietnam ended. But he sure as hell was the President when it escalated and was in fact the President who started it with a provocative act of bombarding the North Vietnamese radar installations and then perpetrating a 600,000 man land invasion that ultimately killed 60,000 U.S. soldiers WITHOUT a U.N. declaration. LBJ was every bit as bad as Bush............."He didn't intend to provoke anything." LOL What in the hell were those ships doing over there, wd? They were stealing electronic information and bombarding their radar installations. What if North Vietnam had done that very same thing off of Cape Cod? My God, what a shameless and mindless partisan you are.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

I'm no fan of the Vietnam war, Will. We shouldn't have gotten involved. Certainly we never should have sent troops.

Will can dish out the "devil's advocate" questions, but he sure can't take 'em.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And FDR, in a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1863, intentionally targeted major population centers in Japan, areas that had ZERO in terms of military value (and, no, the Convention makes no differentiation as to who started the conflict). It seems that if Bush is a war criminal, then you also have to consider FDR one as well.............dmarks, yes, I believe that you're correct. Stealing was probably the incorrect term to use.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

Will: It seems that if Bush is a war criminal, then you also have to consider FDR one as well.

Time to crack a history book Will. FDR didn't invade Germany and start WWII by lying about Hitler's WMD.

dmarks: It is a pet peeve of mine, those who use the word "steal", or "theft" without regard to meaning.

That's ironic, given the fact that you frequently use words with little regard to meaning. Like when you erroneously and ignorantly described "socialism" as the "economic aspect of fascism".

Also, if file sharing isn't theft, what is it?

dmarks: Or there's also WD mentioning job creators/employees raping other workers, in situations where no sexual assault occurred.

Dictionary.com says my use the word "rape" in this context is appropriate.

Definition entry #4 says rape is "an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation..."

You just don't like my use of the word because you approve when the "job creators" rape/plunder/abuse workers.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Like I said, wd, the Geneva Convention makes no distinction as to who started the conflict, just that it's a war crime to target/violate civilian populations. FDR violated this thread of the Convention with impugnity and a a person with a consistent moral yardstick should in fact call this a war crime.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.