Tags for this video have been changed from '13 may 2012, kuala lampur, obama, guantanamo' to '13 may 2012, kuala lumpur, malayasia, guantanamo bay, gitmo, war crimes, obama' - edited by jonny

Come on sift, this should be #1.

Omar Al-Bashir has an international arrest warrant on his head after having been convicted of committing war crimes in Darfur. Several of his top generals have also been convicted. One of them was even on video during border fighting telling his forces to take no prisoners.

This is important news people!

What the fuck is it with these republicans - Bush & Cheney get a swift pass on war-crimes like waterboarding untrialled detainees. & Clinton is impeached for a blowjob - And Obama's really a secret Muslim. WTF REPUBLICANS.

You know the saying. It's not war crimes if they're brown.

@gorillaman

Obama is a fascist, a war criminal and an enemy of all humanity. The reason everyone who meets him doesn't immediately explode into murderous, unrestrainable fury is because he's charming and uses shit like this to get into their hearts.

Words have meaning. The word "fascist" doesn't apply to Obama. Hyperbole aside, how does this make him different from any other US president? It's a long line back to the last one who didn't commit war crimes while in office. Is this the first time you've noticed? Do you have a point yet?

>> ^cosmovitelli:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.

Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.
Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.
What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.
The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.


Welcome to the world of bullshit for people who only speak and know bullshit -- that's everyone, FYI. And it's going to be that way for all of time, whether it's at the workplace of 2012, politics in 3012, or Sunday school at the Grand Cabal's Science Center for Observable Theological Theory in the year 100,012. I already have FTL drives and I keep em powered up wherever I go.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.
This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.
I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.


Wow Yogi, we agree on something .

I think your view is pretty much bang on. The only difference between Dem. and Rep. presidents is the reasons they give for acting purely in their own self interests(which very often coincides with making decisions that are in America's self interests).

Where I disagree with Ron Paul's conclusion is about what the answer to all this should be. I don't for a second believe Ron Paul would be any different than all those before him. Instead of selfish wars he'd maybe follow the course of selfish isolationism. Take the recent example in Libya. America had two selfish options, go in or don't. Not going in would mean keeping the President's hands clean and money in America's pocket, and Ron Paul insists that what he'd have done. It also would have meant leaving thousands of Libyan civilians to Gaddafi's death squads. It would mean a Libya still ruled today by Gaddafi, with a newly subdued and less numerous population.

I don't see a clearly white/black obvious ethical choice in most geopolitical decisions, it's always messy. The Iraqi's that hate America the most(the Sadrists) don't hate them for all the things that America did to them, but for America's failures to act. The hate America for it's failure to push into Baghdad in the first Gulf War. In lieu of that they want revenge on the Sunnis. They want to commit their own eviction of all Sunni's from Iraq, or in it's stead to kill them for what Saddam had done with their aid. Was America wrong to stick around in Iraq after evicting Saddam and trying to stand in the middle, stopping a civil war driven by revenge against the Sunnis?

Ron Paul and Chomsky are generally agreed on minding our own business is the only ethical choice. It's hard to make that argument for Libya. It's impossible to make that argument for Rwanda. There are situations in our world were the ethical choice IS to go to war and stop something even more evil than war inherently is. What Ron Paul and Chomsky understand though is that no matter how grave the evil you oppose, your actions will create people who hate you for interfering. War makes it inevitable that your own forces will commit crimes against innocents, and their families will hate you. Ron and Chomsky conclude that means never get involved, I call that cowardice and insist there are situations that demand paying that price and coming to the aid of our fellow man when faced with terrible evils like genocide. In theory, every signatory nation to the convention on genocide agrees with me on this point too.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^artician:
I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.

I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world..
Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault...
This is also helped along by the media who play their role well.


Exactly. Without war America goes back to the 30's - California's border closed, 400,000,000 acres of farmland turned to dust by greed and lack of regulation, stillbirths due to malnutrition, bank of America paying people (WHITE People!) 5c a day for picking lettuce and beating them in some cases to DEATH for demanding a liveable wage (it was 25c before the excess labour turned up from the dust bowl).
Then corresponding communist organisation by the workers, FBI involvent in repression via total constitutional breaches, etc etc.

Without WW2 it looked like civil war - or reduction to a slave force for big east coast finance. Then the massive battle fleet parked off the coast of Japan mysteriously provoked an attack - and whammo - a job for everyone, a new massive industry (still what America spends half of all it's money on to this day), and a border extended effectively all the way around the globe, allowing the cycle to start again except on a much bigger stage.

What happens now when the organisms reach the edge of the petri dish? Well, better stick some of that annual $1 trillion into FTL research cos we're going to need a new planet.

The choice - face up to it, or shout boo at anyone who tries to tell you the truth.

>> ^artician:

I'm so curious to why people reject that notion. Is it purely fear of other religions and cultures? Are that many americans actually for invading other countries? I've never encountered that state of mind before, at all. From my experience most people are pretty quick to equate War with Evil.


I have a theory that most Americans know pretty much what we're doing. The fight between the indoctrinated (both the right and the left) is actually a fight about how we should go about doing what we're doing in the world. Indoctrinated Democrats have no problem with bossing other countries around and getting our way, we just have to be nicer about it and do it carefully so that we at least LOOK like we're good. Whereas the indoctrinated Republicans believe we are "Special" and should not only do it but do it with complete disregard for what ANY else thinks or says.

This is just a theory based on what I've seen from what our presidents do. Democratic presidents aren't any better on war crimes than Republican presidents. They just seem to be in the business of trying to tell everyone they're being nice and when they have to do something awful it's all the other countries fault.

I mean look at Bush and Obama...Bush locked up people indefinitely and said they deserved it and he does it because they're they enemy. Obama doesn't bother he just assassinates them. If Bush assassinated more like Obama he'd come out and take full credit and say it was AWESOME that he was doing it...Obama not so much, more hand wringing and deflection.

This is also helped along by the media who play their role well. It's just a theory but I like it.

Jup, what the first comment said. Wtf were they thinking.

That CNN piece mentions "War Crime".

I'm confused by your statement do you think War Crimes and Manslaughter aren't forms of violence that should be prohibited? Why do you lump those things in with self-defense which even nations act on. If some country attacks us should we turn the other cheek. Are you saying War Crimes are acceptable losses.

What Ron Paul is saying is that violent crimes should be prohibited, as in the crimes we already have laws against, like murder, rape, genocide, those things. Instead of giving life sentences to a crack head whose only real offense in trying to escape reality. I'm not saying hard drugs don't sometimes incite violence what I'm saying and what he is saying is that the war of drugs has caused more harm than good it has taken more lives than any other war past or present period.

And for what?! They are still no closer to stopping the flow of drugs in the world than they ever were in fact the flow has increased with billions of dollars lost to underground mafias across the globe. If you legalize it and then tax it the government could make up the national deficit in a single year. The mafias would instantly be put out of business because who would buy something from a street corner dealer when you can just go to a pharmacy or Walmart and buy it legally and for less money too. If you don't believe the war on drugs has failed then turn on your TV and watch the series about Moonshiners in America. If they can't enforce the very original laws of prohibition still to this day we need to stop and really think about an alternative solution to the problem.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

wait, the only thing we should prohibit is violence? - what about self-defence, manslaughter & war-crimes? those are types of violence but receive lesser or no prison sentencing at all if it can be proved as suitable in a court of law. Paul just makes sweeping generalisations & this is why i dislike libertarianism it doesn't work in the real-world, not all drug offenders are none violent - and hard drug usage also seeps into other crimes so trying to just fit all drug related crime into one neat little box seems a bit fanciful.
Don't just uncritically believe everything Paul feeds you, remember he's a Dr. who does not believe in evolution & thinks that the government should not provide vaccines to people because it's their liberty not to have them. Seriously...

wait, the only thing we should prohibit is violence? - what about self-defence, manslaughter & war-crimes? those are types of violence but receive lesser or no prison sentencing at all if it can be proved as suitable in a court of law. Paul just makes sweeping generalisations & this is why i dislike libertarianism it doesn't work in the real-world, not all drug offenders are none violent - and hard drug usage also seeps into other crimes so trying to just fit all drug related crime into one neat little box seems a bit fanciful.

Don't just uncritically believe everything Paul feeds you, remember he's a Dr. who does not believe in evolution & thinks that the government should not provide vaccines to people because it's their liberty not to have them. Seriously...

>> ^marinara:

Could Israel bomb Iran without escalation? I suppose so.

I guess I feel like naked aggression (like bombing) ought to be punished... by something or other.


Israel has a knack for eluding punishment. They repeatedly bombed civilians with white phosphorus in 2006 and, as far as I'm aware, the worst punishment they endured was a few people saying, "Hey, that's fucked up."

Gaddafi not a socialist? Hmm, let's see. Libyans had free health care, free education, and heavily subsidized food readily available. Gaddafi even shared excess oil profits, depositing cash in every Libyan bank account. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa and Gaddafi was set to get an award for achievements in Human Rights from the UN before NATO and the US started bombing Libya.

For anyone that wants to educate themselves on NATO's war crimes and the rebel terrorist groups we support, read this guy's blog:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/10/libya-confirmation-could-take-days.html
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/libya-v-day-3-weeks.html

>> ^marbles:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^messenger:
Yes. They now have that freedom. I don't recommend that course of action for them, but it's better than not having that freedom. Or are you saying here that living in a dictatorship is preferable if the dictator prevents you from doing some things that harm yourself, and perhaps Libyans were better off under Gaddafi?
That's a serious question BTW, not a sarcastic jab.
Or maybe you're suggesting that liberating Libya was just a cynical move on the part of the IMF to get more contributors?
Again, that's a serious question. Your hints aren't clear to me.>> ^marbles:
>> ^messenger:
Yup. And vote. And criticize government.
Freedom doesn't make us smart. It just makes us free.>> ^marbles:
http://i.imgur.com/YqXXg.jpg


And squander their wealth and independence to IMF and World Bank loan sharks.


I'm not clear either. Marbles is either just trolling, or unable to understand the concept of bad and worse.
He readily grasps the potential downsides of instability after the fall of dictator. He doesn't seem to grasp that the alternative was continued dictatorship and the genocide of those that toppled Gaddafi. Either that, or he's a troll that just doesn't care.

You're the last person to understand anything going on North Africa. The continued genocide of al-qaeda rebels? What about the genocide committed by the rebels? Any concern on that?
And how about just last week Obama sent US troops to Uganda to help the dictator there. I guess this is a "reverse-Libyan-style" intervention, where the US is sending troops to crush, not assist rebels rising up against their despotic ruler.


From you that's a compliment.

The evidence of Gaddafi's pending genocide is undeniable, from his own public declarations of it, to his deputy minister to the UN, do Gaddafi's forces deliberate actions to attempt and implement it. What evidence do you have of the rebels genocide? So far, the only source claiming that was Gaddafi's own media, which got really silent on the matter now...

Oh, and before you show any dead bodies remember there is a distinct difference between war crimes like massacres that likely did occur on both sides in the fighting in Libya, and a genocide. A genocide is a concerted effort to track down and exterminate a specific group of people. There is zero evidence the rebels have or ever did have any such plans, while Gaddafi announced his publicly from his own mouth. The fact you can't accept this says something very sinister about what ever glasses taint your vision.