Its now becoming a joke - just not a funny one
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Its now becoming a joke - just not a funny one
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...135099,00.html
The lawyer taking this forward has got to be one of the lowest pieces of scum on the planet for defending the people he has
Sueing the UK for war crimes on behalf of Saddam Hussein? Yeah ok thats a good one, can't wait for his humiliation when it gets laughed out of court Only in this over pc world we now live the scary thing is that he may even get somewhere
The lawyer taking this forward has got to be one of the lowest pieces of scum on the planet for defending the people he has
Sueing the UK for war crimes on behalf of Saddam Hussein? Yeah ok thats a good one, can't wait for his humiliation when it gets laughed out of court Only in this over pc world we now live the scary thing is that he may even get somewhere
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Not sure you've got it quite right. Although they say it's Saddam's lawyer, it doesn't say he's acting for Saddam in this case, but on behalf of the Iraqi people. If they're peed off that they've been invaded, conquered, tortured etc then they have a point in front of the ICC.
However, the article has missed the true irony of the situation: take a deep breath before you read on. Although the Iraqis can sue the Brits, as Iraq/Saddam never signed up to the ICC, thus the British etc can't use it to sue him for the crimes against humanity that he is no doubt guilty of!
(Relax - they don't have to.)
However, the article has missed the true irony of the situation: take a deep breath before you read on. Although the Iraqis can sue the Brits, as Iraq/Saddam never signed up to the ICC, thus the British etc can't use it to sue him for the crimes against humanity that he is no doubt guilty of!
(Relax - they don't have to.)
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: same time, different place
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bob - au contraire. Those people who signed up to it should damn well behave in the way they signed. Those who didn't have no such need to behave.
Markus - coz US never signed up to the ICC and the UK did.
Markus - coz US never signed up to the ICC and the UK did.
#6
i havent read this yet
but i am a believer that Bush and Blair should both be put on trial for war crimes, as the war was started under false pretences.
They took this war on because they knew he didnt have weapons of mass destruction and that they could win it. it was a PR ploy that has went badly wrong. Now if UK/US were so interested in releaving the world from the threat of Weapons of mass destruction why havent they started a war with Korea(cant remember if its south korea but ye know what i mean)? because they know they have weapons and will use them!
but i am a believer that Bush and Blair should both be put on trial for war crimes, as the war was started under false pretences.
They took this war on because they knew he didnt have weapons of mass destruction and that they could win it. it was a PR ploy that has went badly wrong. Now if UK/US were so interested in releaving the world from the threat of Weapons of mass destruction why havent they started a war with Korea(cant remember if its south korea but ye know what i mean)? because they know they have weapons and will use them!
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Under false pretences? In what way? WMD were only part of the reason.
They went in to finish off a job that should have been done 12 years previous. Unfortunately they fcuked it up by not going in hard enough in my opinion/backing off too early and being complacent.
When are people going to understand this was wasn't just about WMD (or oil before anyone bleats on about that old chestnut)!
They went in to finish off a job that should have been done 12 years previous. Unfortunately they fcuked it up by not going in hard enough in my opinion/backing off too early and being complacent.
When are people going to understand this was wasn't just about WMD (or oil before anyone bleats on about that old chestnut)!
Trending Topics
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: WYIOC. The Foxglove, Kirkburton, Huddersfield.
Posts: 5,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by **************
When are people going to understand this was wasn't just about WMD (or oil before anyone bleats on about that old chestnut)!
#9
does it matter what they said it was about it was clearly a LIE anyway. US flexing their muscles as they have did time and time again only to critised for their actions. but this time we had to help them along.
and if it wasnt about WMD and oil then what business of it of ours to be there?
and if it wasnt about WMD and oil then what business of it of ours to be there?
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The poliotical wing of Chip Sengravy.
Posts: 6,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then as they never signed upto the ICC they have no right to go before it complaining about those who have signed up to it.
All this stuff in the media about torturing??? /humiliating /playing naked twister /whatever... , the Iraqi troops - I can't understand why the media is bobarding us with it all - why are we not being told what the Iraqi's did to our chaps in the last Gulf war?
Have any of them actually been hurt?
Were they soldiers, or just bods off the street?
Just curious.
#13
Originally Posted by **************
No it wasn't! FFS people didnt see Tony Blairs interviews then when he quite openly said that it wasn't solely about WMD but they were a major contributing factor to the decision to go to war.
That would have been far easier and acomplished far more, especially as Zim is part of the Commonwealth I'd have thought it was a given that the UK would have wanted to sort that problem out first.
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: WYIOC. The Foxglove, Kirkburton, Huddersfield.
Posts: 5,400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Faire D'Income
That was his point when all of the other so called justifcations were proven to be incorrect and if he truly wanted to make the world a better place by ridding the world of an evil dictator then why didn't he start with Mugabe and Zimbabwe?
That would have been far easier and acomplished far more, especially as Zim is part of the Commonwealth I'd have thought it was a given that the UK would have wanted to sort that problem out first.
That would have been far easier and acomplished far more, especially as Zim is part of the Commonwealth I'd have thought it was a given that the UK would have wanted to sort that problem out first.
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cue long pointless arguments where no one answers or reads anyone elses post in full, choosing rather to spout forth their own arguments just to hear their belly rumble
#16
Madjay - how about genocide?
and whats thats got to do with Britain? **** all mate, why dont we sent are troops to sort out our OWN problems ie. where i live N Ireland. see that wouldnt make political sense though cus ur own country can rot as long as ur seen to be the big man who brought down a dictator that wasnt really too much of a threat to anyone but his own people.
Just a question what exactly has bringing down Saddam accomplished for us?
it pisses me off as much as those people who go off to Africa to "help starving/sick people" or should i say so people will think my god they must be good christians rather than helping out in their own country after all that wouldnt bring about as much gratification from others. (ps long story why i wrote that, involves a bunch of (so called christians i know)
and whats thats got to do with Britain? **** all mate, why dont we sent are troops to sort out our OWN problems ie. where i live N Ireland. see that wouldnt make political sense though cus ur own country can rot as long as ur seen to be the big man who brought down a dictator that wasnt really too much of a threat to anyone but his own people.
Just a question what exactly has bringing down Saddam accomplished for us?
it pisses me off as much as those people who go off to Africa to "help starving/sick people" or should i say so people will think my god they must be good christians rather than helping out in their own country after all that wouldnt bring about as much gratification from others. (ps long story why i wrote that, involves a bunch of (so called christians i know)
#17
"Cue long pointless arguments where no one answers or reads anyone elses post in full, choosing rather to spout forth their own arguments just to hear their belly rumble"
lmfao read above mate
lmfao read above mate
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Steve Williams
ScoobyNet General
33
04 April 2001 04:57 PM
EdwardH
ScoobyNet General
2
20 February 2000 06:12 PM
MarkO
ScoobyNet General
19
10 February 2000 05:01 PM