War crimes wash off with West's help

War crimes wash off with West's help

rt.com

Mikhail Saakashvili is still supported in the West, even though the EU fact-finding mission determined that he started the 2008 war and ordered the bloodbath in South Ossetia.
“They [the West] have no strategic interests in supporting his overthrow,” believes Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project. “The notion that decisions get made on the basis of humanitarian concerns is simply false: it does not, it is not the basis for the decision about Libya, it is not the basis for the decision about Georgia, about Palestine or about Kosovo,”

“The question who is hel

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is coming in off Russia Today, so it is important to understand the bias and criticism.
It is hilarious to see the hypocrisy coming from the West as they turn a blind eye to war crimes. As an anti-war advocate, I myself say Russia pursued a just war against Georgia and I am honestly suprised that I didn't see more reprocussion against Georgia during this conflict. It has been proven that Georgia began this war with the murder of civilians. The article reflects U.S hypocrisy and sums up the Libyan no-fly zone very well. The West isn't concerned with humanitarian missions and human rights. It will only overthrow a regime if their is an ulterior motive and a strategic advantage. This is how Georgia and Israel are permited to carry out atrocities against other human beings.

Now as the world has declared a no-fly zone over Libya to stop Gaddafi, many wonder why a no-fly zone was never on the table when the Georgian president launched his deadly campaign, or when Israel bombed Gaza for three consecutive weeks

“On the question of Gaza, when you had a blatant act of aggression, clearly a massive violation of not only international human rights norms, but war crimes, crimes against humanity being carried out, more than 1,400 people have been killed, 900 of the dead were civilians, more than 300 were children,” Bennis recalled.

“It was a horrific situation that went on for days. The problem there is that Israel is [a] protectorate of the US and the US was not going to allow anyone, the UN or anyone else, to actually engage in a serious way, stopping that massacre.”

You would think if a leader commits atrocities, he would be treated like, say, Gaddafi, denounced, banned from travel, but history shows, that is not the way politics works: the Georgian president killed scores of civilians but was exonerated by the West. Politicians accept him as a friend, business leaders are looking to invest in his country and it seems the US is happy to continue turning a blind eye to the blood on Saakasvili’s hands.

This is also coming in off Al Jazeera English.

The International Court of Justice has said it cannot hear a complaint by Georgia that Russia committed human rights abuses in two breakaway provinces, saying it had no jurisdiction over the case.

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


We know Governments are run partly by corporations..
If there's no corporate gain then there is no interest in humanitarian issues..
Though sometimes it's the Israeli lobby group getting Big Brother to fight their battle for them..
The west has proven that many times by ignoring countless atrocities around the globe..

To the average ATS viewer, this is kind of like a "Duh!?!" type of article. To the average person in the West, however, this will be more like a "Nah..." type of article.

Great find. You captured the flag.

We like to think that with our modern ways, and our "civilised" manners that we are removed from the dark ages, that we have morality and ethics which outclass those presented by our barbarian ancestors. In truth, more often than not we find that the wars fought with blade and sheild, were fought with more honour, and were fought for better , more honest reasons, than are fought the wars of today.
I for one feel I was born in the wrong centuary for exactly this reason. When the Romans invaded the territory of the Iceni tribe in Britain, after the death of the Iceni ruler, they raped his daughters, and flogged his wife. She then lead an uprising against them, which routed the IX Hispana Legion at Camulodunum (modern day Colchester, which has a museum containing artifacts from the battle, and the period in general, contained inside Colchester Castle).
Her war was not fought for resource, nor for power. Her war, was fought for vengance, and to ensure that the Romans remembered the vital truth, that when you sod about with the freedom of a celt, you take your life in your hands. The Iceni often fought against superior numbers, and certainly against better trained soldiers than they themselves could feild, and yet they fought.
Such valour, and righteous fury could never fuel a battle, or a war nowadays. Soldiers are no longer warriors, and leaders are no longer lead by moral or dignity, but by pride and greed. A curse, a hell, a pox on the lot of them.

reply to post by TrueBrit


So I take it you think vengeance is a righteous reason for war?

reply to post by 547000


No. Personaly speaking, vengance would not be an appropriate cause for war, but if given a choice of fighting for vengance, or fighting for politics, I would choose vengance over politics, because at least vengance is honest. It tells no lies, and offers no false promise of hope. It promises what it delivers, and although a tide of blood is never the ideal way to go, its a hell of a lot more pure and honest than the so called policies of the way the war of today is fought.
When politicians tell us that we fight to protect, what they mean is that we fight to protect our wealth. When they tell us that we fight to defend ourselves, what they mean is that we fight to defend our resources. When they tell us that we are at war to prevent attrocity, they mean that we are fighting to prevent atrocious rises in prices.
My nation in particular, hasnt fought a war worth fighting since the end of WW2. Since about then, we have been involved in battles which had and continue to have , no real reason to have occured, other than manipulations by the very nations which cried out against the "tyrants" those wars were fought against. If tyrany were a crime worth fighting wars of punishment over, then many more targets, and many more fronts would have to have opened up, and the people with whom western governments ally themselves would be held to higher standards than they currently are. The fact that western governments pick and choose whose sins to punish, is stark evidence that they lie to us, every time they ask us to sacrifice our brothers, and sisters, mothers and fathers, to the grinding machinery of war.
Compared to that cruel deception, the promise of death and vengance seems like a pretty sweet offer.

One day people will realize the US ended the Nazi's to take their toys and create a monopoly on being the uber-barbarian.

what is a war crime when all murder is wrong?

If Bush/Cheney have not been brought up on charges for Guantanamo, 9.11, iraq, etc; then there is no hope of a US citizen ever being charged with a war crime

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Here is the classic example of war crimes being made to "DISAPPEAR" (read to the bottom )

....

History of pharmaceutical interests

In the early half of the 20th century, petrochemical giants organized a coup on the medical research facilities, hospitals and universities. The Rockefeller family sponsored research and donated sums to universities and medical schools which had drug based research.

They further extended this policy to foreign universities and medical schools where research was drug based through their "International Education Board". Establishments and research which were were not drug based were refused funding and soon dissolved in favor of the lucrative pharmaceutical industry. In 1939 a "Drug Trust" alliance was formed by the Rockefeller empire and the German chemical company IG Farben (Bayer).

After World War Two, IG Farben was dismantled but later emerged as separate corporations within the alliance. Well known companies included General Mills, Kellogg, Nestle, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Procter and Gamble, Roche and Hoechst (Sanofi-Aventis).

The Rockefeller empire, in tandem with Chase Manhattan Bank (now JP Morgan Chase), owns over half of the pharmaceutical interests in the United States. It is the largest drug manufacturing combine in the world. Since WWII, the pharmaceutical industry has steadily netted increasing profits to become the world's second largest manufacturing industry; [3], [4] after the arms industry.

The Rockefeller Foundation was originally set up in 1904 as the General Education Fund. The RF was later formed in 1910 and issued a charter in 1913 with the help of Rockefeller millions. Subsequently, the foundation placed it's own "nominees" in federal health agencies and set the stage for the "reeducation" of the public.

A compilation of magazine advertising reveals that as far back as 1948, larger American drug companies spent a total sum of $1,104,224,374 for advertising. Of this sum, Rockefeller-Morgan interests (which went entirely to Rockefeller after Morgan's death) controlled about 80%. [5] See also AMA.

IG Farben & Auschwitz

Auschwitz was the largest mass extermination factory in human history. However, few people are aware that Auschwitz was a 100% subsidiary of IG Farben. On April 14, 1941, in Ludwigshafen, Otto Armbrust, the IG Farben board member responsible for the Auschwitz project, stated to board colleagues:

"our new friendship with the SS is a blessing. We have determined all measures integrating the concentration camps to benefit our company."

Thousands of prisoners died during human experiments, drug and vaccine testing. Before longtime Bayer employee...

and SS Auschwitz doctor Helmut Vetter was executed for administering fatal infections, he wrote to his bosses at Bayer headquarters:

"I have thrown myself into my work wholeheartedly. Especially as I have the opportunity to test our new preparations. I feel like I am in paradise."

After WWII, IG Farben attempted to shake its abominable image through corporate restructuring and renaming. So great has been their success that the public has no idea that it many of the men responsible for such atrocities, were able to carry on their work even after the collapse of the Nazi regime. Namely, a medical paradigm that relies almost exclusively highly toxic drugs. Such men were in control of the large chemical and pharmaceutical companies, both well before and after Hitler. The Nuremberg Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben board members and executives on the basis of mass murder, slavery and other crimes. Incredibly, most of them had been released by 1951 and continued to consult with German corporations. The Nuremberg Tribunal dissolved IG Farben into Bayer,

Hoechst and BASF, each company 20 times as large as IG Farben in 1944. For almost three decades after WWII, BASF, Bayer and Hoechst (Aventis) filled their highest position, chairman of the board, with former members of the Nazi regime.

Bayer has been sued by survivors of medical experiments such as Eva Kor who, along with her sister, survived experiments at the hands of Dr. Josef Mengele.[6] See also Bayer.
www.sourcewatch.org...