Friday, October 9, 2009

War Criminal Obama Deserves An Oscar, But Not A Nobel Peace Prize


Barack is good at propagandizing for an attack on Iran, and he has dutifully expanded the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but a peacenik he is not

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
October 9, 2009

In a world where war criminals like Tony Blair are rewarded and those that oppose war criminals, like the Iraqi shoe thrower Muntadhar al-Zeidi, are imprisoned and tortured, it comes as no surprise that another war criminal – Barack H. Obama – has been rewarded for his stoic service to imperial bloodletting with the Nobel Peace Prize.

The man who gallantly promised "change" from the Bush regime’s illegal wars and a return to diplomacy over belligerency in dealing with Iran, has perpetuated the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq while expanding another in Pakistan and becoming belligerent towards Iran.

How in anyone’s mind can such behavior constitute a move towards peace?

Obama has done nothing to dismantle the sprawling network of well over 700 U.S. military bases all over the world.

Instead of coming to an understanding with Iran over their nuclear power program, Obama gleefully read from his trusty teleprompter and crafted the hoax that the Iranian nuclear facility at Qom was an evil secret that the Iranians had kept hidden from America as part of a clandestine agenda to build nuclear weapons. In reality, Iran had followed precisely the guidelines set out by the IAEA on when to report the facility and the U.S. had known about it for several years anyway.

Obama’s slick propaganda in expressing his shock at the "discovery" of the plant was worthy of an Oscar but not a Nobel Peace Prize, since the scam has increased the likelihood of sanctions on Iran that will only accelerate the path to war.

By dutifully playing his part in this contrived hoax, Obama was mimicking the tactics of how George W. Bush sold the attack on Iraq.

As Paul Craig Roberts wrote, "By accusing Iran of having a secret "nuclear weapons program" and demanding that Iran "come clean" about the nonexistent program, adding that he does not rule out a military attack on Iran, Obama mimics the discredited Bush regime’s use of nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" to set up Iraq for invasion."

The fact that Obama launched himself into the role of war hawk in an effort to propagandize for belligerency towards Iran completely discredits the claim by Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland that Obama "Has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."

Obama’s acting skills in front of a teleprompter and his slick rhetoric about peace and diplomacy may look good on the surface, but the reality of what he has actually done to further the PNAC agenda for endless war underlines why the award of the Peace Prize is a sick joke.

If Obama intended to bring peace to the world, then why were his early appointments mostly neo-liberal war hawks who have a history of backing military adventurism?

If Obama is such a huge peacenik, then why has he sent 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan already, with tens of thousands more at least on the way?

If Obama plans to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq and bring peace to the region, then why has he gone back on his promise and ensured that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in the country?

If Obama is so deserving of being recognized for his efforts towards peace, then why has he intensified the Bush-era missile drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan that have killed and injured countless innocent civilians?

If Obama is so interested in promoting peace, then why does he protect war criminals who have violated the Geneva Conventions from prosecution?

Beyond the meaningless platitudes served up by his fellow elitist snobs, the true hilarity of Obama receiving the prize was illustrated by just a couple of individuals who the corporate media dared to quote.

Issam al-Khazraji, a day laborer in Baghdad, told Reuters: "He doesn’t deserve this prize. All these problems — Iraq, Afghanistan — have not been solved…The man of ‘change’ hasn’t changed anything yet."

"Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke."

"By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique," writes author Chris Floyd, and in doing so send, "an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions."

Floyd encapsulates perfectly why Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award is a disgusting farce, an insult to those who really are fighting for peace in the world, and just another reminder that the Nobel Peace Prize represents little more than a gaggle of back-slapping elitists who bestow awards upon each other so that they can pose as global saviors to the public when in reality they are mostly a bunch of crooks, con-artists and deceivers.

18 comments:

Nancy Evans said...

Sounds like a perfect skit for Saturday Night Live. Perhaps CNN will even fact check it.

the_last_name_left said...

how exactly is Obama guilty of warcrimes? What war-crimes?

As for doing "nothing" to dismantle US military/imperial system......well....sure. Though to his credit he has abandoned the missile sites in Poland and Czech Republic. That's worth something? He didn't have to do it.

Small beer? y - but the american public are a bloodthirsty greedy lot.........so........who is to blame?

Real Truth Online said...

"how exactly is Obama guilty of warcrimes? What war-crimes?"

The war crime of NOT prosecuting others who have committed war crimes. It's in the Geneva Conventions--you might want to read it, but since you probably study that as much as you study 9/11, that would be my guess why your head is up your ass so far you have to cough to fart.

the_last_name_left said...

So, tell me, Larry - what is it in the Geneva Conventions you are referring to here?

Quote me the exact articles relating to what you claim?

Larry said...

Sure thing assmonkey

Here is the Convention Against Torture link itself. Article 7, number 1 states:

“The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”

http://www2.ohchr.org/english
/law/cat.htm#art7

Read my story on this, here:

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2009/05/in-
defending-bush-on-waterboarding-pat.html

Read this story as well:

http://realtruthonline.
blogspot.com/2009/05/three-
legal-truths-case-for-prosecuting.html

Why couldn’t you look it up yourself? Same reason you cant look up facts on 9/11? LAZINESS?

Do NOT respond until youve read BOTH stories I posted above. If your response indicates that you hav obviously NOT read the stories, you will be deleted. Im sick of you responding with OPINIONS.

Anonymous said...

as usual no response from last fraud left. you got him again larry.

the_last_name_left said...

it isn't specific in anything you posted that it is "a war crime" to fail to prosecute "war criminals."

How can Obama have failed to prosecute "war criminals" when there hasn't yet been a trial to determine if anyone has even been a war criminal?

You have to have some war criminals first.....before you can fail to prosecute them? That's a real problem with what you're saying.

Plus, what are the facts of the matter. The dude you posted an article by claims failing to prosecute war criminals constitutes a "war-crime" itself.

BUT

where does it say that in the Geneva Accord? It says torture is "a grave breach", sure......but failure to prosecute for torture? It says parties to the convention are under duty to comply and fulfill the terms......but......where does it say it is a war-crime to fail to prosecute torture?

Where is the legal opinion that "it is so"......as you claim?

I have no doubt the actual position is more complex than you imagine.

For starters - Bushco have a slew of lawyers and legal advice saying "not torture". Saying Geneva Convention doesn't apply.

But nevermind all that - Obama is already "a war criminal" to you.

I wonder what you think trials are for, exactly, Larry.

Larry said...

well, its OBVIOUS you didnt read ANY of the above links I gve for you to read--so Im not wasting any time on you. Who has committed war crimes??? The BUSH administration you dumbass!!! Read the links above. I answered your fucking questions and now you just deny deny deny deny deny. Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley says the EXACT same thing I do---I guess HE'S wrong too, but YOURE right? Mr. "Im not even an American but I know America's laws better than Americans do". I schooled you on 9-11 and Im schooling you on this too. Your DENIALS of what I said is NOT a refutation.

"For starters - Bushco have a slew of lawyers and legal advice saying "not torture". Saying Geneva Convention doesn't apply."

OF COURSE they will say its not torture ad PROTECT him, they are HIS lawyers!!!!!! God, you are a dumbass!

“The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”

The above quote from the Convention Against Torture pretty much says that failure to prosecute war crimes IS a war crime! It couldnt be more clear!

Article 4 says this:

"1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature."

Article 5 says this:

"1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(a) When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;

(b) When the alleged offender is a national of that State;

(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.

2. Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in paragraph I of this article.

3. This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law."

Article 2 says this

" 2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Do you understand that? It says "NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER may be invoked as a justification of torture"-----it says NO EXCEPTIONS-----that would include TERRORISTS. So, tell me Einstein-----since it says NO EXCEPTIONS-----what circumstances would torture be justified? Keep in mind, it says NO EXCEPTIONS.

I'll be waiting for your stupid fucking answer.

the_last_name_left said...

L: The above quote from the Convention Against Torture pretty much says that failure to prosecute war crimes IS a war crime! It couldnt be more clear!

No it doesn't. Read it again?

it does not "pretty much" say what you claimed. It doesn't say what you claimed at all.

And, yes, of course Bush's lawyers say what they do - they're Bush's lawyers. But don't be so presumptuous that you can sweep them aside, simply because Larry Simons believes they should be.

We might agree that they are responsible for "torture" - but that doesn't make it legally so. It isn't up to you or I, right? This is why I asked you what you think trials are actually for. Point is - you don't get to decide, Larry.

L: It says "NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER may be invoked as a justification of torture"-----it says NO EXCEPTIONS-----that would include TERRORISTS. So, tell me Einstein-----since it says NO EXCEPTIONS-----what circumstances would torture be justified? Keep in mind, it says NO EXCEPTIONS.

Yes - very good. It still doesn't say anything about failure to prosecute means guilt for war-crime.

And it isn't "guilt for war-crime".............it's guilt for failing to prosecute war-crime. A DIFFERENT THING.

I thought you were a constitution-loving american.........but now you're condemning people without even a trial.

Turley is entitled to an opinion. He isn't necessarily right........it isn't impossible lawyers are wrong sometimes, you know.

I've made efforts to find the facts of the matter - I can't find any clear-cut vindication for his view. Maybe he's right.....but maybe he's not. I guess your extensive experience in international law allows you to determine Turley's opinion to be correct.......

Larry said...

So YOU are an authority over Turley???? LOL

Larry said...

By the way, why dont woodstoves melt????

the_last_name_left said...

So......anything to substantiate your claims? Anything to substantiate Turley's opinion?

Larry said...

I answered your question ad nauseum, dickweed----Article 7 of the Convention Against Torture. Now answer MY question! Ive asked it like 14 times now------WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT???????

the_last_name_left said...

Article 7 does not say it is a warcrime to fail to prosecute warcrime.

It says "“The State Party in the territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.”"

It says the state party SHALL extradite him, or subject the case to competent authorities.

It *does not* say anything failure to do so - let alone does it say it is a warcrime to fail to do so.

But nevermind that, eh? You'll just carry-on with your accusations of "warcriminal"......

I'm happy to believe it is a warcrime to fail to prosecute warcrimes ---- but only if it is true.

Is it true? You cite only Turley's view......hardly an exhausting investigation of the matter, is it?

Larry said...

What I find astonishing--but not surprising, is how you CONTINUE to ignore my question "WHY DONT WOODSTOVES MELT?"-----is it because you know EXACTLY why Im asking it and you know that no matter what you say, it will completely DESTROY your views that the steel SHOULD NOT HAVE MELTED in the twin towers? Yes, I do believe THATS why you dont answer it. If not that, then what could the reason POSSIBLY be?????

tlnl said...

woodstoves do melt- for the nth time. If it gets hot enough. Lordy knows why you think you have a point about woodstoves.

what is your point about woodstoves supposed to be?

elsewhere you claim you don't posit any explanation for 911 - because you don't know what happened - because there hasn't been an investigation......apparently.

Yet here you are arguing that XYZ is impossible.......

Your position is dishonest - you claim you make no assertions - because there hasn't been an investigation, so you can't know what happened - yet you DO make assertions, such as "it was impossible for WTC to collapse as they did without explosives".

You're just playing games.

You want to assert your beliefs, but you are too cowardly to open those beliefs to proper scrutiny - so you hide behind your sprurious claim that you are "only asking questions".

Dishonest.

Larry said...

Oh woodstoves melt huh? Oh OK, so if I have a woodtstove in my house and I put wood inside and set it on fire, it will [according to you] turn into a big gob of molten steel right before my eyes? What's the point of having a woodstove if when I want to keep warm, the entire thing melts right before my eyes? I think my point is strikingly obvious asshole: Since woodstoves OBVIOUSLY do NOT melt when people throw wood inside of them to heat their homes, then its pretty damned safe to say that the steel in the twin towers did not melt EITHER due to fire.

Keep in mind ass monkey---that the fires in the twin towers were not very hot at all, due to MOST of the jet fuel already being burned up upon impact [hence the big fireball we all saw] and that the fires were out in the open [not contained]. The smoke was also black [sign of an oxygen-starved fire]. The heat inside of a woodstove would be MUCH hotter since the fire is contained and is not exposed to air [with the exception of the air vent, which is very small]---yet woodstoves do NOT melt--for if they did, they would be useless. Since there was molten steel found in the rubble of the WTC as long as several MONTHS after 9/11 [as reported by firefighters and rescue workers who had to continually keep changing their boots because they melted], then the only thing to conclude from that is that the steel melted because of high-tech explosives [nano-thermite]--in which physicist Steven Jones possess a piece of.

Not bad--only took me nearly 20 times to ask that before you addressed it! Youre improving.

Pwned.

Larry said...

People's frying pans melt on gas stoves as well, assfuck? Damn! Im never frying chicken again!!