Chemical weapons being used ... how about it America?

by Simon 135 Replies latest social current

  • z
    z

    Here are the ppl who report to the Human right in Geneva if you ask

    Khaddafi Prize Founder Addresses UN General Assembly Today
    Today in New York the UN General Assembly's committee on human rights will be addressed by Jean Ziegler, one of whose titles is UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. He also happens to be vice-president of the "Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize" organization. According to a coalition of 20 human rights and other non-governmental organizations, including victims of the Libyan regime, the credibility of Mr. Ziegler's mandate as a human rights expert is jeopardized by the fact of his being politically and financially beholden to a dictator responsible for some of the world's most brutal abuses.
    The Khaddafi Prize was established by the Libyan regime with Mr. Ziegler's help in 1989. Founded in Geneva with capital of ten million dollars, the prize was designed as a propaganda tool several months after Libyan agents bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The prize has since been awarded to several individuals accused of racism and anti-Semitism, including Louis Farrakhan and Mahathir Mohammed, as well as convicted Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy. Other winners of the award include anti-Western leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, and organizations who lobbied at the UN against the sanctions imposed on Libya after the Lockerbie bombing. Although he now denies it, according to Libya's state-controlled news agency, Mr. Ziegler himself won the award in 2002, in the same year as Garaudy. Awardees have received two hundred thousand dollars or more in Libyan prize money.
    As recently documented by UN Watch and reported in a front page exposé in the leading Swiss newspaper Neue Zurcher Zeitung , Mr. Ziegler is vice-president of a group of interconnected organizations in Geneva known as "North South XXI" that manage and award the Khaddafi Prize. Government records, UN documents and international news sources show that, despite recent (and constantly changing) denials by Mr. Ziegler, he played a leading role in founding the Khaddafi Prize, has maintained an ongoing relationship with the Prize organization, and himself won—but did not disclose his connections to—the Prize in 2002.
    Mr. Ziegler's ties to the Khaddafi Prize conflict with the high standards of independence, impartiality and integrity required of a Special Rapporteur. An independent UN human rights expert should not be connected to any government, let alone a dictatorship that is routinely rated among Freedom House's Worst of the Worst human rights abusing regimes. Quite simply, although he clothes himself in the language of human rights, Mr. Ziegler is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
    Notwithstanding Libya's recent renunciation of weapons of mass destruction in return for international favor, Khaddafi continues to rule by fiat, denying freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and other basic civil rights and liberties. Security forces have the power to pass sentence without trial. Arbitrary arrest and torture are commonplace. The Libyan government is seeking to execute five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, on trumped-up charges that they contaminated 400 children with HIV/AIDS.
    Jean Ziegler's entanglement with the Libyan regime is not the only example of his disrespect for the standards that UN human rights experts are supposed to uphold. In the six years he has held the position, Mr. Ziegler has consistently abused his UN mandate, neglecting genuine food emergencies around the world in order to further a radical political agenda. Among his bizarre claims is the charge that the U.S. is committing "genocide" against Cuba.
    If Ziegler's rhetoric and antics at the UN seem reminiscent of Hugo Chavez, it should come as no surprise that the Venezuelan dictator is not only the 2004 laureate of Ziegler's Khadaffi Prize, but—in that same year—officially nominated Ziegler for a second UN post, to be a member of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights. (Alas, the fact that Ziegler is Swiss and not Venezuelan apparently confused UN officials, and he was not elected.)
    Last year Mr. Ziegler became the first UN rights expert to be publicly criticized by Secretary-General Annan and High Commissioner for Human Rights Arbour, after he compared Israelis to Nazi concentration camp guards.
    Mr. Ziegler's ritual anti-Israel polemics were on display again recently at the Human Rights Council. On October 4, he presented a report on this summer's conflict in Lebanon that went far beyond food issues, broadly condemning Israeli "war crimes," yet making no mention of Hezbollah. “I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization,” said Ziegler in a Sept. 19, 2006 interview with Al Akhbar , a Lebanese newspaper. “It is a national movement of resistance. . . I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers in order to exchange them.” Mr. Ziegler's one-sided report to the council stood in marked contrast to the report of four other Special Rapporteurs, presented on the same day, which at least made an attempt at balance by addressing actions by both Israel and Hezbollah.
    At the same Council meeting where Mr. Ziegler presented his anti-Israel diatribe, North-South XXI—his phony, Libyan-run NGO—was one of only four groups that the UN allowed to take the floor. The individual who spoke for it was actually the representative of a Lebanese group with known Hezbollah links. Not surprisingly, he effusively praised Mr. Ziegler's report and echoed his call that Israeli officials be tried for "war crimes".
    Regrettably, so long as Mr. Ziegler fails to own up to his past—and fails to resign from and sever all of his connections to "Institut Nord-Sud," "Fondation Nord-Sud pour le dialogue interculturel," or "North-South XXI," all of which have been exposed as a front for the Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize organization—he will continue to cast a dark shadow upon the Human Rights Council, and upon the UN as a whole.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    MIL,

    There's more backbiting and bickering on this thread than an 8th grade sleepover. What kind of hysteria did you go into when you discovered your first pimple?

    lol....Another thing that I note happens more frequently than the rising sun on these Boards is when someone self-righteously takes the high ground and then falls off it immediately and lands with a thud on their plump arse.

    This is usually noted when a person tries to win a point by identifying an issue of grammar, as in, 'For God's sake use a speel check in your rediculous posts'. The one above is another example. A person decrying precieved 'backbiting', then immediately indulging in it themselves.

    Ain't life cruel....

    HS

  • james_woods
    james_woods

    To quote -

    ____________

    Of course, as it's the murdering, war-crime-committing, UN-mandate-ignoring, nuclear-non-proliferation-flouting Israeli friends of America, they probably won't see it as an issue at all.

    Funny that ... they were dead keen on going to war over just the hint of this very thing but probably won't even condemn it.

    It's about time that sanctions were imposed on Israel

    ____________

    I have been gone for a while, just thought I would get back in and have a look.

    I guess it is correct --- that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    The british hater jewish princess who pack chemliquids in their purses and run with this old cowboy in his Corvette also say hello, but let me find a moderator----I am being told I am off topic.

    _____________

    OK -

    Maybe I am off topic; but I thought this site was about caring for and about ex-JWs?

    Plese correct me where I have gone wrong.

    James.

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Stilla:So is napalm a chemical weapon, even when it has a small area of impact? Surely it's not a WoMD, but it certainly includes chemical agents that prolong suffering?

    I agree that Napalm is a chemical weapon (even though not a true WMD) - however, it is my understanding that most people would not think of it as a chemical weapon. In the end they kill and are horrible ways to die. SEMANTICS

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    MIL,

    The fact is that the jury is still out as to whether these bombs are indeed classed as 'chemical weapons' or not, though the use of phosphorous bombs is controversial and many organizations including the Red Cross have called for them to be banned as chemical weapons for many years.

    It has to be noted that the Israeli's at first denied their use in Lebanon against any target, but later admitted that they were used as 'markers', a purpose for which they were originally created. Under pressure, and when evidence was presented they admitted to using them on 'military targets', which is not as yet banned by International law. Its use against civilians is of course banned as I believe are most projectiles, but they are banned against civilian targets under restriction as a 'chemical weapon'.

    Most bombs and bullets actually undergo a chemical process in order to be discharged, but under International law chemical weapons fall under a different definition. Phosphorous bombs fall between these definitions and live within an ambiguity. While it is true that Israel broke no International treaties by using them in the Lebanon against military targets, and as 'markers' there are numerous reports of civilians horribly burned by phosphorous bombs. Most people who died in the Lebanon adventure, were of course civilians. That Hezzbollah placed many of its 'military' targets in civilian areas is probably the reason for these deaths, but in this case the Israelis well knew that their phosphorous bombs would kill civilians which is against International law and for which they have been condemned.

    If evidence is produced, and it has been and will be, that the Israeli's bombed military targets with phosphorous bombs, *knowing* that civilians would be killed by these devices, then they are guilty of war crimes. That is why they only admitted their use under pressure of evidence. This speaks for itself.

    This is what this thread is about, and what the BBC report highlights.

    HS

  • acadian
    acadian

    Morning All,

    US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal' By Neil Mackay , Investigations Editor BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

    WHO ‘suppressed’ scientific study into depleted uranium cancer fears in Iraq Radiation experts warn in unpublished report that DU weapons used by Allies in Gulf war pose long-term health risk
    By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
    An expert report warning that the long-term health of Iraq’s civilian population would be endangered by British and US depleted uranium (DU) weapons has been kept secret.

    Awaiting the Real Toll Commentary: The Pentagon refuses to believe that depleted uranium ammunition is hazardous to soldiers and civilians.
    But the data suggest otherwise.
    By Chalmers Johnson
    May 5, 2003

    Depleted Uranium may not be chemical, but it is considered a weapon of mass destruction by the U.N. with far reaching affects. The U.S. government is guilty of war crimes against all people of the earth....So, Who really are the terrorist's?

    Sorrows of Empire

    By Chalmers JohnsonChalmers Johnson is the president of the Japan Policy Research Institute in California and author of Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. This essay is an excerpt from his forthcoming book The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books; and London: Verso).


    On March 19, 2003, the Bush administration took the imperial step of invading Iraq, a sovereign nation one-twelfth the size of the U.S. in terms of population and virtually undefended in the face of the awesome array of weapons employed against it. The U.S. undertook its second war with Iraq with no legal justification and worldwide protests against its actions and motives, thereby bringing to an end the system of international order that existed throughout the cold war and that traces its roots back to seventeenth century doctrines of sovereignty, non-intervention in the affairs of other states, and the illegitimacy of aggressive war.

    From the moment the United States assumed the permanent military domination of the world, it was on its own--feared, hated, corrupt and corrupting, maintaining "order" through state terrorism and bribery, and given to megalomaniacal rhetoric and sophistries while virtually inviting the rest of the world to combine against it. The U.S. had mounted the Napoleonic tiger and could not get off. During the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s, the president's chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, once reproved White House counsel, John Dean, for speaking too frankly to Congress about the felonies President Nixon had ordered. "John," he said, "once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in." This homely metaphor by a former advertising executive who was to spend 18 months in prison for his own role in Watergate fairly accurately describes the situation of the United States.

    The sorrows of empire are the inescapable consequences of the national policies American elites chose after September 11, 2001. Militarism and imperialism always bring with them sorrows. The ubiquitous symbol of the Christian religion, the cross, is perhaps the world's most famous reminder of the sorrows that accompanied the Roman Empire--it represents the most atrocious death the Roman proconsuls could devise in order to keep subordinate peoples in line. From Cato to Cicero, the slogan of Roman leaders was "Let them hate us so long as they fear us."

    Four sorrows, it seems to me, are certain to be visited on the United States. Their cumulative effect guarantees that the U.S. will cease to resemble the country outlined in the Constitution of 1787. First, there will be a state of perpetual war, leading to more terrorism against Americans wherever they may be and a spreading reliance on nuclear weapons among smaller nations as they try to ward off the imperial juggernaut. Second is a loss of democracy and Constitutional rights as the presidency eclipses Congress and is itself transformed from a co-equal "executive branch" of government into a military junta. Third is the replacement of truth by propaganda, disinformation, and the glorification of war, power, and the military legions. Lastly, there is bankruptcy, as the United States pours its economic resources into ever more grandiose military projects and shortchanges the education, health, and safety of its citizens. All I have space for here is to touch briefly on three of these: endless war, the loss of Constitutional liberties, and financial ruin.

    Pay no attention to the man with the gun, were bringing Demon-nocracy to the world, and make it a safer place to exploit your resources. Oh, and by the way since the first Gulf war lung cancers have increased exceedingly, it's claimed to be second hand smoke, in truth its the increased use of Depleted Uranium, which are used intensivley during gunnery practice on military bases in the U.S and the world over. Were all affected by it's use... Peace Acadian

  • My MILs worst nightmare, a nonJW
    My MILs worst nightmare, a nonJW

    HS,

    OK, I was just making sure that we were reading the same article. Have there been alot of news articles that specifically show that civilians were definate casualties of WP ? I understand that the specific thermal burns from WP are distinct in look, touch and smell. In other words easily identifiable.

    Is it your opinion that while Israel did not specifically use WP with the intent of harming civilians, they did use it to go after and flush out Hezbollah who were primarily entrenched in civilian areas ?

    I remember the news reports of Israel warning all the civilians to leave particular areas. Was WP used in these areas only after the civilians had been cleared ?

    Or is it your opinion that WP was used indescriminently on both military combatants and civilians ?

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    MIL,

    OK, I was just making sure that we were reading the same article. Have there been alot of news articles that specifically show that civilians were definate casualties of WP ? I understand that the specific thermal burns from WP are distinct in look, touch and smell. In other words easily identifiable.

    Yes, their is clear evidence in the way of phosphrous chemical burns on civilians. It is documented. Search online and you will find it.

    Is it your opinion that while Israel did not specifically use WP with the intent of harming civilians, they did use it to go after and flush out Hezbollah who were primarily entrenched in civilian areas ?

    The facts indicate that the Israeli's used phosphrous bombs against Hezbollah knowing that civilians would be injured and killed by these devices.

    I remember the news reports of Israel warning all the civilians to leave particular areas. Was WP used in these areas only after the civilians had been cleared ?

    Well, as many were burned by them, obviously not.

    Or is it your opinion that WP was used indescriminently on both military combatants and civilians ?

    No, once again, the evidence shows that the Israelis used phosphrous bombs on Hezbollah targets that were embedded in civilian areas. They were well aware that civilians were present, and as such contravened International Law. Not that they have ever cared terribly about International Law, ignoring most UN resolutions which do not suit them.

    RAE an Italian news channel presented compelling evidence of what I note above, which led to Israel admitting their use against military targets. They obviously viewed the civilian deaths as neccessary collateral damage.

    Best regards - HS

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    Depleted Uranium may not be chemical,

    What is it then?

  • Justice-One
    Justice-One
    On March 19, 2003, the Bush administration took the imperial step of invading Iraq

    Bullshit

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit