Right. Now we know who DID NOT assassinate Rafiq Hariri in 2005. The 4 generals whom the Special Court for Lebanon, mandated by the UN, just had released for total absence of evidence. The former presumed Dalton brothers were completely cleared. But hey, I had warned the world, hadn't I? And I suspected it way before saying so. Yoo-hoo? Anybody out there listening? Hello? Tintin, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Fantômette?
The least that can be said, is that this heavily politicised affair is causing some amount of national agitation. Hullaballoo in yon county. Today some anti-Syrians are officially hopping mad, jumping in place, raising a ruckus to impress even the ghost of Richard Nixon! (Uhm... yes, he IS dead, it's Carter that's still alive.) Instead of demanding the identification of the real(s) culprit(s), which would seem to me like a slight priority. Even the pro-Syrians say so...
This is our own national Outreau affair : for 3 years and 8 months the blighters have been detained without any indictment. Two of them missed the funerals of their respective mothers during that time, and one of them almost saw the moment when he'd end up like Slobodan Milosevic, from heart disease. (For info, Slobodan Milosevic was ALSO cleared of all genocide or complicity charges by the conclusions of the ICJY.)
The 4 acquitted had collaborated with the Syrian occupation? Undoubtedly. But it's like with the Rwanda genocide -while much less horrible- : if we were to imprison all those involved, half of the country would need to build prisons to house the other half! Man, that would really help with the unemployment. "Help wanted, now hiring wardens." And still, according to my expert calculations, for lack of room we'd have to release the islamists whose deadly crimes are absolutely indisputable.
Recently, the Syrian President in person officially declared that "Syria has committed mistakes in Lebanon". Honorable words. What am I saying? That's incredible moral courage. Admitting one's faults, or those of one's country, coming from an arab leader, it's unheard of, no biped recalls such an event! Syria more honest than Turkey? I must say, the eye doctor dazzled me there.
Many Lebanese only thrive for peace, at long last. A normalization of the relations, the end of the fights that've been going on since 1975 (to mention but the most official one). We're weary of useless deaths, broken lives, constant wrestling, burnt tires, student fisticuffs, sceneries layered with posters and slogans, of living with clenched teeth, of paying attention to how cars blow their horns. Basta yôh!
We need to calm down and start thinking.
Now there remains the 48 million dollar question (roughly the amount of the national debt) : WHO planned that infamous assassination?
Well... since I don't want to defame Brother Osama, "our enemy Israel" or anybody touchy and armed, I won't make any gratuitous assumptuions. There are police people and judges, competent and with integrity, who are getting paid for that. Already, they've told us who DID NOT DO IT. 4 less suspects. Only 6 billion 499 millions 999,995 suspects left to rule out, and we'll have the bastard. (6,499,999,994 if I know that I'm innocent too.)
Ah, sorry, my bad, let me rephrase that : false written accusations are not defamation, they're libel.
Goshdurnit, dis blog o' mine is bloody edjukayshunal!
The first published and publicized conclusions of the investigation (later revealed to be scandalously unsubstanciated) led to believe that Syria and its partisans were clearly guilty.
The original poster was seen in the huge anti-syrian demonstration of March 14th, 2005.WANTED FREE AT LAST
Les premières conclusions publiées et médiatisées de l'enquête (plus tard avérées comme scandaleusement infondées) laissaient croire que la Syrie et ses partisans étaient clairement coupables.
L'affiche originelle fut vue dans la manifestation anti-syrienne monstre du 14 Mars 2005.WANTED LIBRES
Bon. Maintenant on sait qui N'A PAS assassiné Rafiq Hariri en 2005. Les 4 généraux que le Tribunal Spécial pour le Liban, mandaté par l'ONU, vient de faire relâcher pour absence totale de preuves. Complètement blanchis, les ex-Dalton présumés. Mais bon, j'avais averti le monde, hein! Et je m'en doutais bien avant de le dire. Youhou? Est-ce que quelqu'un m'écoute au moins? Allô? Tintin, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Fantômette?
Le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est que cette affaire très politisée cause une certaine agitation nationale. Du charivari dans le landerneau. Il y a des anti-Syriens qui aujourd'hui sont ouvertement furax, trépignant sur place, un boxon à impressionner le fantôme de Richard Nixon! (Euh... oui, il est bien mort, c'est Carter qui est toujours vivant.) Au lieu de réclamer l'identification du/des vrai(s) coupable(s), ce qui me paraît tout de même un peu la priorité. Même les pro-Syriens le disent...
C'est notre affaire d'Outreau à nous : 3 ans et 8 mois que les bougres étaient détenus sans la moindre inculpation. Deux d'entre eux ont manqué les funérailles de leurs mères respectives durant ce temps, et l'un d'entre eux a presque vu le moment où il finirait comme Slobodan Milosevic, de maladie cardiaque. (Pour mémoire, Slobodan Milosevic AUSSI, a été blanchi de toute accusation de génocide ou complicité par les conclusions du TPY.)
Les 4 acquités avaient collaboré avec l'occupation Syrienne? Assurément. Mais c'est comme pour le génocide Rwandais -en bien moins horrible- : s'il fallait mettre en prison tous ceux qui sont dans ce cas, la moitié du pays devrait construire des prisons pour recevoir l'autre moitié! De quoi résoudre le chômage et relancer l'économie, tiens. "On embauche des gardiens, help wanted." Et encore, d'après mes calculs savants, par manque de place, on devrait relâcher les islamistes dont les crimes meurtriers, eux, ne font aucun doute.
Récemment, le Président Syrien en personne a officiellement déclaré que "la Syrie a commis des erreurs au Liban". Une parole qui l'honore. Que dis-je? Un courage moral ahurissant. Reconnaître ses torts ou ceux de son pays, de la part d'un dirigeant arabe, c'est du jamais vu de mémoire de bipède! La Syrie plus honnête que la Turquie? Il m'en a mis plein la vue, là, l'ophtalmologue.
Beaucoup de Libanais comme moi n'aspirent qu'à la paix, enfin. A une normalisation des relations, la fin des bagarres qui durent depuis 1975 (pour ne parler que de la plus officielle). On est las des morts inutiles, des vies brisées, des empoignades perpétuelles, des pneus brûlés, des rixes estudiantines, des paysages tapissés d'affiches et de slogans, de vivre les dents serrées, d'écouter comment klaxonnent les voitures. Basta yôh!
Nous devrions nous calmer et commencer à réfléchir.
Reste LA question à 48 milliards de dollars (montant grosso modo de la dette nationale) : QUI a planifié ce fameux assassinat?
Ça... comme je ne veux pas diffamer le Frère Oussama, "notre ennemi Israël" ou qui que ce soit de susceptible et d'armé, je n'avancerai pas de suppositions gratuites. Il y a des policiers et juges aussi compétents qu'intègres qui sont payés pour ça. Déjà, ils nous ont dit qui NE L'A PAS FAIT. 4 suspects de moins. Plus que 6 milliards 499 millions 999.995 suspects à écarter, et on tiendra le salopard. (6.499.999.994 si je sais que je suis innocent aussi.)
Ah, pardon, correction : de fausses accusations par écrit ce n'est pas de la diffamation, mais un libelle.
Sacrébonsouère, il est vachement culturel, mon blog!
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Haririgate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Number of viewings of this page since December 22nd, 2007:
Nombre total de visites à cette page depuis le 22 décembre 2007:
Free Counter
Nombre total de visites à cette page depuis le 22 décembre 2007:
Free Counter
8 comments:
This is our own national Outreau affair : for 3 years and 8 months the blighters have been detained without any indiction.
Why should they be? Three years isn't anywhere near long enough as an indiction is a fiscal period of fifteen years used as a means of dating events and transactions in the Roman Empire and in the papal and some royal courts. The system was instituted by the Emperor Constantine in AD 313 and was used until the 16th century in some places.
An indictment, however, is a formal chrage or accusation of a serious crime. Maybe you meant to say "the blighters have been detained without any indictment" or "without being indicted." Old Boy. I say. What.
one of them almost saw the moment when he'd end up like Slobodan Milosevic, from heart disease.
There are a lot of vampires around these days. They should be treated harshly, and retired with extreme prejudice!
The 4 acquitted had collaborated with the Syrian occupation? Undoubtedly. But it's like with the Rwanda genocide -while much less horrible- : if we were to imprison all those involved, half of the country would need to build prisons to house the other half!
The could just follow the example of the Nuremberg trials and execute most of the guilty. This sounds harsh, but not when we're talking about war crimes. That ass Chomsky said that to call what happened under Milosevic (whether or not he was involved) genocide was an insult to Hitler's victims. Only if numbers alone count. That seemed to be the thinking of the UN when they were told about what was happening in Rwanda, and though they had the power to do something about it instead decided to do nothing. An interesting but chilling book on the subject and well worth reading is Romeo Dallaire's "Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda." They could also make up for the fact that so often so many obviously guilty war criminals escape justice - for example members of the SS who are on record as having served as guards in some of the death camps.
for lack of room we'd have to release the islamists whose deadly crimes are absolutely indisputable.
As Metallica put it, kill 'em all. Then for good measure, nuke the whales.
"An indictment, however, is a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime."
Touché, Pussy Cat.English is only my THIRD language... Fixed now. Thanks for the proofreading. :-)
You're quite right about Rwanda. Unlike the Shoah, the world coud say neither "we didn't know", nor "we didn't have the means because of the bitter worldwide war". It's an unmitigated shame on our so-called civilized species.
What I meant about the Rwanda comparison, is that basically in this country, NOBODY stayed neutral. Those who didn't get slaughtered were the ones doing the slaughter. The whole country was involved, practically without exceptions.
Now, considering that the death penalty is applicable there, the question is: by executing all those who deserved to be sanctioned for murder, and who amount to half of the population, wouldn't the JUDGE himself be ordering a genocide? Rather unreasonable, no?
What's the sanction, what's the possible legal response, if a whole town of 3 thousand people lynches a dozen niggers/gypsies/out-of-towners/whatevers and rips them to shreads? Hang them all?
Including the women who cheered? Including the children who threw rocks, their number making it a deadly lapidation?
I'm not calling the shots on THAT dilemma.
Regarding Milosevic, I recommend you view the Wikipedia article on him, and read the reference news article about the ICJY's conclusions:
1 - There were many massacres, but the notion of genocide requires the intent to eradicate/exterminate a whole population/ethny. Not all massacres can just be called "genocide", no matter how horrible or savage by themselves in other regards. That would be an insult to what happened to 6 million Jews in the Fourties.
2 - Srebrenica was, objectively, an act of genocide, yes. The only true one referenced in ex-Yugoslavia.
3 - The Serbs of Bosnia committed these. The ICJY, which definitely cannot be suspected of being sympathetic towards any Serbian defendant, found that no evidence existed of the government of SERBIA, led by Milosevoc, being involved in the murderous actions of their Bosnia brethren. Who are still under the full heat, and deservingly so.
Furthermore:
- Milosevic was only declared "morally guilty of not preventing exactions that he could very much expect to happen". Well, hey, not to bring back the Shoah as an example again, but he WAS rather busy in a fateful war against those people he didn't protect, and who were killed by his much needed allies. Not saying that all's fair, surely. Just that such moral worries are a luxury that a country at peace can much more readily afford.
- ALL SIDES committed war crimes, atrocities and massacres in ex-Yugoslavia. The Croats slaughtered too. The Bosnians massacred as well. The BBC very recently aired an investigation about organized war crimes: torture, murder, etc. in secret prisons done by UCK, the Kosovo muslim -and fundamentalist- militia. Whose leader has today become Prime Minister of Kosovo. This man's no better than Milosevic. In fact, he's worse. Because HE very knownly did order direct war crimes. He didn't "merely" stand aside while things were being done.
- No slaughters ever took place in Kosovo until the NATO assault on Serbia actually began. In other words, when the serb paramilitary militias (still unproven to have any link with Milosevic) suddenly had nothing to lose anymore. The war INITIATED the massacres which so far had been averted by intimidation and the THREAT of war.
- The crimes committed in Kosovo by the aforementioned militias amounted, from what I know, to about 8,000 dead (in a region of about 1-1.5 million inhabitants). That's a lot in itself. But that's a drop of water compared to the one million in Rwanda, or the 6 million in WW2 Germany. Hitler's record has nothing to fear from Slobodan...
- Today, ALL the Serb civilians in Kosovo are being, little by little, intimidated, attacked, murdered, lynched, and ethnically cleansed by the Albanese local majority. Their centuries-old monasteries (sometimes architectural masterpieces) systematically demolished, their cemetaries profanated... it's all confirmed. In other words: complete ethnic cleansing, a whole ethny and their culture getting destroyed. Under the near-powerless eye of Western peace forces. That's just as inexcusable. No, in fact it's even more unforgivable. Because the Defenders of human rights are standing right there, doing nothing, barely patching a termite-eaten barrel.
Ex-Yugoslavia and Kosovo are ANOTHER bitter failure of the "civilized" West, hugely worsening any previously existing problem.
And I'd just love SOMEBODY to rationally explain to me why a local ethnic majority, in a country's province, can suddenly decide secession and be supported by an international war against their uncooperative country, "but only if said province is Kosovo"? That's what Javier Solana said, when the UN betrayes their official commitment to maintaining Serbia's territorial integrity. I quote, Mr Solana when Kosovo seceded: "Kosovo's situation is sui generis." Translated from fancy latin, this means "it's special, unlike any other". Really? Why's that, sir? What about South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Tibet, Corsica, Ireland, Native American lands, Gibraltar, Kurdistan, or for that matter any ethnic neighborhood in any large city, Little Italy/China/Mexico? Within a one country entity, what suddenly makes it right or wrong? Shouldn't Harlem reject the rule of the White Man and start a guerilla after all those police brutalities and murders in the Sixties? Do Afro-Americans have the right to "purify" their turf from Whites, sui generis, after being oppressed?
Really, the philosophical ground for that affair is VERY thin and shaky. What Nato basically said, officially, is that "Kosovo isn't like all the other similar national minorities being a regional majority, and the reason for that is, simply because we say so."
Tell it to Putin...
The bitter and embarrassing truth is, that Serbia was like Iraq : somebody decided that Milosevic had to be toppled, no matter the method, so the countries of Nato initiated a MASSIVE biased campaign of defamation, half-truths and approximations. No death camps, no "killing factories" were ever built by Milosevic, no ethnic extermination was ever ordered by him, but still he got relentlessly compared to Hitler while nobody mentioned the very real and notorious links between UCK and AlQaeda [according to CIA sources!]. Why's that? Simple, sordid politics. Namely, because Serbia was Russia's best ally in an otherwise pro-American, pro-NATO Eastern Europe. So Serbia had to go, and the public needed to support it.
Again, read the Wikipedia article about the planned defense of Milosevic. His premature death was oddly convenient.
The Western media spared no effort in twisting the facts and diabolizing their target, your current reflex attitudes illustrates their efficiency in this enormous lie. The bigger the lie, the easier to believe, just like Saddam's illusory arsenal. But I grew up in wartime Lebanon, I can spot bull even before it exits the big bovine's bloated bowels.
Nobody's gonna trick ME into swallowing BS from any TV news. I watched all Western media during the two Yugoslavia affairs. But my critical sense cannot be turned off. What I see and hear, I analyze on the spot, it's become an unconscious reflex.
I invite you to do the same. Don't let them con you, seek all the facts.
Sure, I believe Slobodan was a despicable bastard, and probably knew about the crimes but didn't care.
But if such an attitude from a democratically elected President is officially a crime to be prosecuted, then for starters, any leader who ran on Dubya's heels into the Iraqi bloody mess is equally guilty of opening the gates of a predictable hell on the populations of Iraq. That war's caused far more victims than Saddam's dictatorial repressions. It also caused 25 to 50 times vore victims than Slobodan Milosevis in Kosovo... Have I mentioned what an expert I am about war as endured by civilians? (Only 813 times? That's not much.)
Slobodan Milosevic was no viler than MANY political leaders, including "unarrestable criminal" Omar Bashir, president of Sudan, taunting his arrest warrant with a continental african-arabian tour.
Sordid politics. Milosevic was just a target to eliminate. To "fuck Russia" and better rule the post-cold war world.
Well, today Russia has risen again, and now we have a polarized world of tense geopolitics again. Way to go.
Tibet will never be free with such a set of rules. In fact, should the Yugoslavian war(s) happen today, Russia would never let it pass.
The world had a unique opportunity, with the Glasnost and the Perestroika, to finally establish a worldwide climate of trust and friendship, starting with the "giants". But noooo, Bush Jr, and Bill Clinton before him, wanted to rule unchallenged, to dominate the world. They didn't want friends, only servants.
I don't give a mosquito's wanking that Clinton "did" or didn't "do" Monica. His bloody own zipper.
But the Kosovo nauseating hypocrisy? Starting a war that had no need to be? Ruining the whole progress chance that the world had after the Iron Curtain fell? Unforgivable.
Politics : selling your soul to the Devil. Yuck.
Between 1990 and 2005, Lebanon was a juicy fish in Syria's claws. Why did the "Free World" remain silent? Answer: because Bush Sr. had given us to Assad Sr as a reward for Syria's support of the first Gulf War against Saddam. Our country was nothing more than a glorified lollypop for the good boy.
They don't give a squid's fart about human rights ANYWHERE. None of them. Don't you believe it.
Oh, and speaking of squid farts, don't worry about the whales. Any of them entering Lebanese territorial waters WILL be firmly nuked.
We'll just ask our nice Israeli neighbors to lend us a few warheads...
Or our equally nice Iranian neighbors to donate a few tons of used gym socks.
No, scratch that. Arabian used gym socks are against the Geneva Convention. We'll just stick to eating falafel during family beach outings.
Falafel's okay. Our fishermen routinely use dynamite, anyway. (Every year, a few of them blow their hand off doing so, but hey, a fisherman's gotta do what a fisherman's gotta do.)
What was that sports brand's slogan again? "Challenge everything."
I'll add, "believe nobody". Think for yourself, not the way they want you to.
There's this hypothesis, that Al Qaeda is still great buddies with Saudi Arabia, which is great buddies with Israel and the USA. So, 9/11 conspiracies? Heck, why claim that the US Administration booby-trapped the Towers? Why not claim that they actually set the plan for the terrorists, which would be much simpler?
Just a wild hypothesis, sure. But in this tangled worlwide web of wicked ultra-realistic lies (this tangled WWWoURL), I'll rule nothing out definitely.
Hey, a few years ago, I read a comic album, telling the story of a rich neuro-psychotic brat wanting more power. So he arranged, with his equally rich arab buddy, for the assassination of his father to inherit the family's billions. The murder was carried out on September 11th, 2001, during Daddy's air trip in the States. "But we've covered it up real good, nobody will be the wiser."
Goldurn no good coding glitches! Correct link for Slobodan Milosevic on Wikipedia here.
Ah, one of Pascal's patented uber postings. I'm honoured.
Touché, Pussy Cat.English is only my THIRD language... Fixed now. Thanks for the proofreading. :-)
Ah, but I hold you to a higher standard, Pascal! :-)
wouldn't the JUDGE himself be ordering a genocide? Rather unreasonable, no?
Genocide usually means the extermination of a particular race or nation. Even if you accept the broader definition of just any large group of people, I'd say it doesn't count if they're criminals who have committed crimes for which the punishment is death. Would it have made any difference if they'd been able to try and convict 10,000 Nazi war criminals. It's wrong to hang a dozen (or however many it was), but more than that and you're guilty of war crimes yourself?
What's the sanction, what's the possible legal response, if a whole town of 3 thousand people lynches a dozen niggers/gypsies/out-of-towners/whatevers and rips them to shreads? Hang them all?
As with the Nazis there are degrees of guilt. Not all of them were executed, some received life sentences, one a sentence of 15 years. You'd have to determine the guilt. Some of those 3000 might have known of it and done nothing. Their guilt would be judged less than those who actively participated. That sort of thing. Genocide and lynchings, crimes of that magnitude, I'm okay with the idea of capital punishment.
That would be an insult to what happened to 6 million Jews in the Fourties.
Let's not forget the Gypsies and many other groups who were targeted for who or what they were. Still genocide, even if the numbers are small.
Regarding Milosevic, I recommend you view the Wikipedia article on him, and read the reference news article about the ICJY's conclusions:
I haven't read the article but am already aware of its contents as I had followed this at the time. Even though it was through the apparently irredeemably corrupt Western media. Strange that for some reason countries where the citizens have freedoms you can only dream should have such thoroughly corrupt, untrustworthy news media. Odd, that.
Just that such moral worries are a luxury that a country at peace can much more readily afford.
Agreed, but still not an acceptable defence. Strange that Western countries have not even in war time succumbed to the excesses you speak of. THe U.S. may have decided under Bush that torture was okay, but the British, even when standing alone against Germany and facing defeat and while having its cities bombed did not. See "Camp 020: MI5 and the Nazi Spies."
His premature death was oddly convenient.
Don't tell me Pascal is going to start believing in conspiracy theories. There is no evidence of foul play. Unless of course in the Hague they were bribed.
your current reflex attitudes illustrates their efficiency in this enormous lie.
Sorry, but there's nothing reflexive about my attitudes, which are informed by the facts. I like to have evidence before forming my opinions. Yours however despite your strident defence of your views seem based on something else, like naked emotion.
The bigger the lie, the easier to believe, just like Saddam's illusory arsenal.
The CIA has been wrong about so many things, but based on what you've written here you're willing to accept their word for some things and not for others. The evidence is what it is; you don't choose to believe certain facts based on whether they fit into your preconceived ideas.
I invite you to do the same. Don't let them con you, seek all the facts.
Thanks, but I can't do it twice. I suggest you follow your own advice.
(Takes a bow) The honour's all mine.
A molasses mine, of course. I know my classics. :-)
"I hold you to a higher standard"
You may. Everybody's bound to a certain standard depending on their capacities. :-)
All of a sudden, I'm reminded of a poem/proverb:
قتل امرئ في غابة ظلماء
جريمة لا تغتفر
قتل الاف في وضح النهار
امر فيه نظر
Or something like that.
"Killing a fella in the dark of a forest
Is an unforgivable crime
Killing thousands in broad daylight
Is a matter to consider."
The mass-murdering of war was always considered like something that ceased to be a crime, for some reason. Probably because "if everybody does it, it's not a crime".
Leaving the debate over the validity of such a reasoning for another time, we still have to ask the question: at which exact point does the crime of a group supercede the individual responsibility to become "an act of war"?
Clearly, many guerillas view themselves as "legal combattants", while larger countries will insist on calling them "bandits"... :-P
No, I don't hold all the answers.
When a whole population turns criminal, what do you do? And in case of collective punishment, do the later-born children have to endure for the sins of their fathers?
A deep issue. 34 years of war in Lebanon, and I still haven't figured that one out.
Which probably IMPLIES that I'm smarter than the demagogues who claim it's all crystal clear, and all their enemies should simply be executed, "resolving everything". ):-P
But I have to disagree with you on several points:
- First, the idea of mass-executing a guilty population does sicken me, but in fact I'm anti-death penalty altogether. Life imprisonment or hard labor seems not only less barbaric, and less like lowering myself to the level of murderers, but also like a more fitting punishment. After all, you only die once, and it's quite short!
- Also, people who just stood by during a lynching can legitimately plead self-preservation, if they genuinely felt that opposing a killing mob would only get THEM killed too. All BUT unlikely and unseen!
- Third, would you expect someone in the position of Milosevic to get into a dispute with his Bosnian Serb allies in the middle of a war for survival? And he's being blamed for not PROTECTING his enemies, at a time when everybody indulged into massacres? What was he to do, send troops to Bosnia to oppose the Serbs who were doing the killings? Come on. Such critics are ill-faithed, "he should have done something, so he's morally guilty". Talk to the gun, the helmet's not listening.
In the situation of anarchy that is war, NOBODY can be asked to stand in the way of some things.
The UN troops who were present in Srebrenica stood motionless while the slaughter was performed. Did THEY not know? Are THEY prosecuted for doing nothing? It was a ruthless civil war, for cripe's sake!
In a stable country at peace, now that would be a whole other enchilada, and some virtues cease being a luxury.
"Let's not forget the Gypsies and many other groups"
Indeed. Starting with the "proper GERMANS" whose "racial crime" was to be gay, or old, or sick, or have a physical/mental handicap, or being born imperfect.
Say what you want about Hitler, when he got on to "cleansing the race", he began by sweeping in front of his own doorstep!
Horrible, yes. Hypoctitical? Not in that case. Almost a classic comics/movie villain, that guy.
Still, he himself wasn't exactly the tall blonde blue-eyed archetypal Aryan, was he? ):-P
"THe U.S. may have decided under Bush that torture was okay, but the British, even when standing alone against Germany and facing defeat and while having its cities bombed did not."
The systematic bombing of large cities, populated essentially with civilians, is today considered as war crimes. Everybody did it, BTW. Hiroshima was merely on a larger scale than the usual.
It WAS a dirty war.
(But what's a "clean" war? Neutron bombs, as un-messy as the Avada Kedavra? Or just those where no chopped corpses are left to be found? Or perhaps those that nobody notices or cares enough to complain about the mess...)
"Don't tell me Pascal is going to start believing in conspiracy theories."
An open minds considers all hypotheses. Not saying I believe any of them. Not saying I've ruled them out, either.
On MANY matters, I know the truth will never be known. JFK. The Romanovs. Milosevic. Every time power and interests conspire to blur the official truth.
Did any one Roman know that Nero was the actual arsonist? Had Christiannity lost, what would be the official historical truth?
I'm not saying that anybody killed Milosevic. But his death WAS quite convenient regardless. Many must've sighed in relief when it happened.
BTW, I *do* believe that some coincidences can happen. Slobo was a sour old overweight man with a weak heart, after all...
"Unless of course in the Hague they were bribed."
[Matthew 26:64] : "Thou hast said!"What I love about that phrase, is that it's deliberately ambiguous. Especially in the original language. It can be understood either as "yup, that's the truth awright", or as "YOU said it, not me!".
A clever defense from Jesus at his trial, not compromising himself.
About reflexes:
Are you telling me you didn't actually buy that vampire stuff?
Say what you want, but I know what I heard. ;-)
And what's wrong with naked emotion? Naked is beautiful!!!
No, but seriously, you sounded like you were saying "Milosevic = genocide". Did I read you wrong?
Also, I wasn't writing solely for you, but for the many who do buy the Western media scenario. Trying to spread some knowledge via my blog.
You were just... the scapegoat. Maaaa apologies. :-)
"The CIA has been wrong about so many things, but based on what you've written here you're willing to accept their word for some things and not for others."
Accept their word about the UCK being unreliable fanatics? Sure, because I have it confirmed by other sources, and earlier. Just pointing out that even the CIA, when asked for some heavy armament by the UCK, wrote a negative recommendation in an inside note: "These people are unreliable, no heavy weaponry."
It was so obvious, that even the CIA realized it.
"I suggest you follow your own advice."
Damn blighter runs fast, you know. "Ooh, I'm gonna be late for the Queen's party! [woosh]"
There, see? It's gone off again. To quote my Granny, "it's rushed as if having cooking gas with a match in the ass". I can't keep up!!!
On MANY matters, I know the truth will never be known. JFK.
We know the truth about JFK to a reasonable certainty. There need not have been a second shooter. Marilyn Monroe - almost certainly a suicide. To begin to consider a conspiracy theory there must be some evidence to support the wild claims. Not to say it's not possible that things happened the way the conspiracy theory suggests, but if you've got no evidence you've got no case.
Did any one Roman know that Nero was the actual arsonist? Had Christiannity lost, what would be the official historical truth?
Probably the same, as Nero was hated by almost everyone. One thing we can be sure of, he didn't fiddle while Rome burned as the fiddle didn't exist then. Maybe he would have played the harp. Anyway the city was better off after the fire, when he rebuilt it.
I'm not saying that anybody killed Milosevic. But his death WAS quite convenient regardless.
Very, but I think we both need more than that. It's like the death of Goering. How'd he get his hands on the poison? There should have been more of an investigation, but when someone like that dies it's very understandable if not excusable that people are inclined to look the other way. At least he died.
A clever defense from Jesus at his trial, not compromising himself.
Jesus probably wasn't all that motivated to get off, though. If he had, can you image the defence God/the Son of God could have put together? Ay carumba! ;-)
Naked is beautiful!!!
Sometimes! ;-)
You were just... the scapegoat. Maaaa apologies. :-)
Don't worry, I could never stay mad at you! ;-)
It was so obvious, that even the CIA realized it.
Ah. Well, there you go.
"I suggest you follow your own advice."
Damn blighter runs fast, you know. "Ooh, I'm gonna be late for the Queen's party! [woosh]"
There, see? It's gone off again. To quote my Granny, "it's rushed as if having cooking gas with a match in the ass". I can't keep up!!!
Well, you know, it's always good advice. I have read the article you suggested, and while the ruling on old M couldn't have been any different, given the evidence...had the Nazis won Dubya Dubya Two what evidence would there have been of their crimes? In criminal trials, I know, we can't put people away for what's probable (though in civil trials you can). I think we both may have misunderstood each other on some things here.
"We know the truth about JFK to a reasonable certainty. There need not have been a second shooter."
Right. I was convinced after a serious report from some very reliable and independant scientists. But we'll never know who was behind Oswald. He was clearly silenced by some very shady and influential people.
As for Marilyn, personally I seriously suspect murder. But if so, it was covered up and we'll probably never know. Government conspirers would never let a clear proof survive/remain. So, eternal uncertainty it is for us lowly mortals...
"if you've got no evidence you've got no case."
Quite true.
I'll only have doubts, or heavy suspicion. Which is very useful, if not to punish some probable perpetrator, at least to keep me wary and not naively trusting them when it counts.
Doubt is healthy by itself.
And indeed, I'm fed up sick with typical oriental people around me who, by fully believing their suppositions as if facts, waste their life and my time demanding that those they dislike be hung to the gallows.
When *I* can't be sure, I don't claim to be!
But me, I'm honest. I admit my limitations and eventually my ignorance. I dare say "I don't know".
How uncool...
"Probably the same, as Nero was hated by almost everyone."
Do you have proof of that? ;-)
No, but really. FEARED by almost everyone, undoubtedly. He was the "divine" emperor dictator, and mad to top it all. But he probably had enough loyal servants/allies.
To paraphrase a graffiti I saw during the war, "every traitor finds an admirer".
Remember Eva Braun...
"One thing we can be sure of, he didn't fiddle while Rome burned"
That's a very naive made-up modern image.
I seem to remember it was very officially a lyre.
"Anyway the city was better off after the fire, when he rebuilt it."
And another classic construction scandal, building a modern marvel on blood. Take a number.
The rebuilding of Beirut after the war (by Hariri, precisely) has been accompanied by many claims of scandals. Which I won't comment on.
Patritotic duty of neutrality, surely you understand...
Re. M.'s death being convenient:
Yes, I'm not even SUGGESTING that is was more that we're being told. Nothing beyond healthy doubt.
But the high convenience of his death, by itself, is a scandal. I mean, NATO will never be put on trial for some very real and needless abuses done during that Kosovo "operation".
Remember the triple "accidental" bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade? Three "stray" missiles simultaneously hitting?
China didn't press hopeless charges. But they're getting payback otherwise. They got the very clear message, that Nato didn't mind killing a few Chinese on the path of their arrogant, "world policing" big boots.
Now, Nato and the US can reliably count on China NEVER making them ANY favor, anywhere, in the whole world.
Even if it means letting the Iranians get the Bomb. In love and war...
What goes around, comes around.
No, I don't believe true Justice exists in this world. Not after Pinochet confirmed that death is the ultimate escape. But true consequences of our actions and sins? They're no myth, my friend.
"If he had, can you image the defence God/the Son of God could have put together? Ay carumba!"
Control yourself there, young Simpson. ;-)
Yes, I vividly remember what he said when he let them arrest him. "I could have 12 legions of exterminating angels at my side right now, Peter. So put your sword away."
The Devil may need an advocate. That wimp... ;-)
He was clearly silenced by some very shady and influential people.
Evidence, P-Man, evidence.
As for Marilyn, personally I seriously suspect murder. But if so, it was covered up and we'll probably never know.
It's certainly a possibility, but considering she was taking staggeringly massive doses of prescription drugs, it would have been easy enough to slip up and OD. She was on more stuff than Elvis. Not surprising considering her psychological problems (which themselves are not surprising considering the family history).
Government conspirers would never let a clear proof survive/remain.
This was the same government that organized the Bay of Pigs fiasco. That said, in pre-CSI days it was probably a lot easier to do. No worrying about DNA evidence and all that jazz.
"Probably the same, as Nero was hated by almost everyone."
Do you have proof of that? ;-)
Of course! Not on hand, but it's available. Try your beloved Wikipedia. Nero had the Roman equivalent of a Parliamentary vote of non-confidence. They did it because he was incompetent and corrupt. Not quite in the same league as Caligula, but pretty bad.
But he probably had enough loyal servants/allies.
A handful of loyal servents, no allies. Most had deserted him at the end.
I seem to remember it was very officially a lyre.
That seems more likely but I doubt he'd have had time anyway. I mean his palace burnt to the ground. The reason I think he was suspected of starting it was that not only was he already despised (think of a Blackadder type Prince George, a "fat, flatulent git") but he built a new palace after the fire that was much larger and grander.
And another classic construction scandal, building a modern marvel on blood.
At least the Romans were upfront about it. Not much, but it's something. They didn't hide their brutality. They were proud of it even.
They got the very clear message, that Nato didn't mind killing a few Chinese on the path of their arrogant, "world policing" big boots.
Ah, yes, the Chinese. Steller record of human rights, those guys. Not that it makes it okay, but righteous indignation works a lot better when you haven't waded through rivers of blood yourself.
Now, Nato and the US can reliably count on China NEVER making them ANY favor, anywhere, in the whole world.
To be fair that was probably unlikely anyway. However, they will take our money, and we will take theirs. Canada does a fair amount of trade with them, though not nearly as much as with the U.S.
The Devil may need an advocate. That wimp... ;-)
Yeah, he's a total pussy...and not too bright. I mean, challenging God? What the hell was he thinking?
Post a Comment