I am really suprised this has not got people talking around here.. Well i guess nobody thought of him, as much as he thought. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4208250.stm This chap filled the cliched role of a 'jihadi'.. more than what you could imagine... yeah we have created a picture of you.. that of a pointless individual, carrying out a selfish misguided mission..get over yourself already.. sorry killing innocent people is a worthy goal.. how silly of me.
methinks he needs to sack his press officer....releasing that right now is tantamount to sweeping it under the carpet, everyones attention is on something where a lot more people are in trouble and so it really shows the pointlessness of what he was doing...maybe it was released because of that or maybe just bad timing on his behalf in terms of getting world fame....or maybe we are all informed enough about why people do these things and another person telling us why they are engaging in random acts of violence really doesn't elaborate on anything at all....I don't know....I know I saw it and I thought to myself what a complete and utter prat.
His 'mastermind' had a hand in when this was released i would imagine [given the fact he is dead]..I had the same feelings [him being a prat].. it is as shame he had to kill people to show his point of view. To me this just highlights the idiocy of these acts.. His views just sort of said.. well i want some virgins.. meh you know the drill *boom*
I didn't see the video footage of this moron...but then i didnt have to know that it contained the ramblings of an idiot. what worries me are just how many of these pathetic individuals do we have here?....
Lots and lots and lots.... from the inteligent sounding rationale of the past history [as a excuse] to the nonsense of a high school variant of the 'Imperialistic capitalist govermental junta' taking over the world.. Even if you believe [to a degree] anything these people spout.. the killing of innocent people does not really cross any sane persons mind [i hope]. People [especialy within these forums] could put forward Bush and Blair are no better [killing innocent people etc etc ] ..Its a point [i think wrong headed] , but would anyone then wish to kill people ?..[Again] i hope not.
Random acts of terrorism can only be carried out by the insane.. there is nothing achieved by it except the killing of the innocent... Bush and Blair wage war ( albeit illegally ) with a different agenda... but disagree with war as i do... war has its rules ... ( she gulps as she waits for the shit to hit as people missunderstand what i was trying to say here)...
It was illegal! Stop deluding yourself dear boy. War of aggression is war of aggression and long recognised as illegal since we first set down the Nuremberg Principles as the standard according to which Nazi Germany was judged for its war crimes. Other international conventions comprising the body of international law notwithstanding. Dismiss it and avoid it all you wish. The rhetorical excuses of present day legal eagles hellbent on American (and UK) exceptionalism cannot overturn that fact, only sweep it under the carpet. Nuremberg Principles: Excerpt: Principle VI: The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/nurnberg.htm
Altering the frame work and reasoning/rationale for this 'war' [to suit your own opinion] does not make it anymore 'illegal'... It is a technicality, most wars do rest on technicalities i admit... this happens to be a war you dislike so it is now deemed 'illegal'. You think it is a 'war of agression' and i am sure you can highlight numerous indicators to back up your point. This would be your own delusion.
The definitions are long established delusional one. Tis you who cling to your adamant refusals to accept the precepts of international law in order to preserve your warped war-loving opinions. Too caught up with your own sense of western exceptionalism to acknowledge war crime for its clear and simple identification, as established by our own governments. Truly pathetic. May you find yourself, like countless thousands upon whom we have dropped our bombs under the fraudulent rhetorical proclamations of "liberation" (the latest in self excusatory PR slogans to mask unprovoked war for continued hegemony), on the receiving end of unprovoked destruction and occupation and then we'll see how loudly you champion the occupiers' cause.
Not far off the 'indicators' i imagined you would churn out... 'war loving' ? It seems you do not actually take into account anything other than what you wish.. This 1 dimensional characterisation you have of me is quite dissapointing. I guess it helps you pigeon hole me quicker.. oh well . Have you switched off the news for the past couple of years ?.. as things have moved on .. Though your thoughts on 'unprovoked destruction and occupation' make me wonder if you grasped the reasoning in the first place.
The "reasoning" you call it, exposing the fact that you are the one so easily swayed by oft back-tracked rhetorical excuses that you fail (or dare say have ever refused) to recognise the true ideological intent which drives the doctrine of "pre-emption" (aka, exceptionalist presumption of US right to wage illegal war of aggression to further a select hardline cabal's designs for shoring up US imperial hegemony). Never bothered reading the clear and expunded blue print being pursued by the Strausscons, namely The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, did you? Thought not. If you had you'd see the real reasoning unabashedly detailed by one of its politically-accredited adherents inside the beltway. Much easier for you (1 dimensional apologist that you have been showing yourself to be here for months now) to dismiss clearly enumerated principles of international law which apply to ALL, or none, if the "rule of law" is to be anything but a hollow soundbite. But an arm chair advocate for dropping bombs on other nations which neither attacked nor declared war on us like yourself only needs to hear those choice slogans of "liberty" and "democratisation" to avoid any attempt at considering the long term implications (already demonstrated repeatedly in the last century from our interventions and machinations in that region particularly) of the present agenda of militancy, destabilisation and corporate colonialism. Clamour on, dupe. The fact of international illegality is written and established in easily understood terminology for any who care to open their eyes and apply some consistency of principle rather than glaring double standards. "Original reasoning" indeed, you truly have swallowed the lies hook line and sinker. Some further elaboration on the fact of the illegality issue for you. Though I won't be surprised to see another flippant dismissal following shortly... Nuremberg Lesson for Iraq War: It’s Murder
As for things "moving on". Oh yes, theyve "moved on" from invasion to the establishment of a servile client government under a contrived spectacle of made for tv "democracy", which was in truth nothing more than show, and equally illegal under Vienna Convention precepts for occupying powers. Of course warmongers excuse that plain and established fact along with all else in their exceptionalistic fashion. Mustnt spoil the rhetorical illusion with any reassessment so late in the game now, goodness! If a mere few years from the commission of the original act of criminal aggression is sufficient for you to argue the continued recognition of that fact as out of date or irrelevant, I wonder what sort of statute of limitations you advocate for any other sorts of criminal offenders not immediately brought to justice?
All wars are illegal... because 1 life if worth more than any damn buracrat's decision to kill people for any reason... even if their laws, even if their country says it alright
