Poverty can be alleviated or reduced, and in the Western world in the last two centuries it has been almost miraculously alleviated and reduced; but poverty is ultimately individual, and individual poverty can no more be â€œabolishedâ€ than disease or death can be abolished.
Cue the outrage, hysteria, and screaming tantrums from Americans’ enemies, both foreign and domestic.Â President Trump’s National Security Adviser, John Bolton just severely rebuked the International Criminal Court (ICC) and threatened that America will retaliate against them if this foreign body follows through with its attempt to prosecute American military and intelligence personnel for supposed war crimes committed during the conflict in Afghanistan.
Yeah, our enemies are going to blow their tops over this because the only thing that they hate more than our warfighters and intelligence operatives is the idea of America as a sovereign nation unbounded by foreign control, restrictions, and authority.
Of course, what the liberals and progressives who will be screaming are either ignorant of- or in wilful denial thereof is that the US is not signatory to the ICC and is not one of its state-parties and is therefor outside of its jurisdiction since the amendments to the ICC’s powers during 2010 Review Conference of the Rome Statute made the ICC unable to prosecute individuals of a non-state party, e.g., the US.Â Additionally, US federal law, specifically the 2002 American Service-Members’ Protection Act (ASPA), prohibitsany agency or entity of the United States Government or of any State or local government, including any court, from cooperating with this body in just about any fashion whatsoever.
But then, this isn’t about facts or laws. This is all about our domestic enemies’ pathology.
Obama, America’s lamentable Jester-in-Chief is at it again. This time the dangerous fool is once again trying to sell Congress, America, and the world’s governments on his plan to launch a punitive strike against Al-Assad’s government in Syria.Â As usual, his arguments in favor of his chosen course of action are better suited to a fool, cavorting for the entertainment of his masters than to anyone who is allowed to be in a position of authority.
First there is the boy’s attempt to clothe his desires in the Color of Law:
Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity.
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria.
What the mendacious fool fails to mention is that Syria is not signatory to that treaty. In point of fact, Syria is not even signatory to the Geneva Convention, having withdrawn from it some 20 years ago. Hence the only way that any “basic rules were violated” is if we accept the postulate that treaties voluntarily entered into by one set of nations can be enforced upon other sovereign nations that did not agree to be bound by them.
Also, insofar as I know, bombs, missiles, rockets, and artillery shells, and such other remotely delivered ordinance also fail to make distinction between soldier and infant. The Gods know that Obama’s drone war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen has torn plenty of children into smoking gobbets of meat.
Obama’s distinction between the forms of weaponry is the rankest of sophistry and, in the boy’s case, also the rankest of hypocrisy. It’s just more of his capering, shucking, and jiving.
Then there’s the fool’s attempt to make this a matter of America’s current and future national security:
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.
This statement is much akin to jester’s prank that fails to amuse. It engenders nothing but contempt with the sheer volume of error crammed into so few words.
Let us first put aside those logical flaws or deliberate misdirections that are inherent in this particular passage of Obama’s jabbering:
Let us ignore the informal fallacy of the slippery slope argument this argument is predicated upon.
Let us also ignore the fact that punishment does not equate to deterrence and has consistently failed in the Muslim World.
Instead, let us concentrate on the truly dangerous underlying foolishness of Obama’s who agenda regarding the Syrian Civil War. Al-Assad’s government has stockpiles of chemical – and, likely biological – weapons and has had them for decades. Not once has the Syrian government used them on foreign soil or troops and not once have they been turned over to proxies for use by various Muslim terrorist groups. Yet Obama has chosen to side with the rebels, mostly Islamists and filled with member of Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups.
The one singularly dangerous act of foolishness committed by Obama is his not backing Assad. Nothing will make it easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians than the overthrow of the current Syrian government by this Islamist rebels.
And Obama glibly proclaimed that he won’t do anything about it:
First, many of you have asked, wonâ€™t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are â€œstill recovering from our involvement in Iraq.â€ A veteran put it more bluntly: â€œThis nation is sick and tired of war.â€
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assadâ€™s capabilities.
Every single step Obama takes towards ending Assad’s reign is step closer to releasing stockpiles of WMDs upon the world. If Obama is, for political reasons, unwilling to put American boots on the ground in Syria he is also unwilling to prevent this from happening.
At best the boy is hoping that the situation will drag out long enough for him to safely the leave office before Assad falls. That way resulting catastrophe won’t be on his watch.
America and the world’s problem is that Obama is a dangerous and dangerously weak fool, much better suited to cavorting and capering for the entertainment of his masters than being in any position of authority. Like all such fools, when wrongly placed in authority, he can, has, and will cause great harm.
Unsurprisingly, it took little more than moments for the filth in the United Nations, now little more than a OIC front-group, to start whining, bleating, and yammering about America’s extermination of Osama bin Laden.
It took less than a full day before they started quasi-demanding that we explain ourselves and justify our actions to them.
Details of their arrogance from Reuters via Yahoo News:
GENEVA (Reuters) – The United Nations’ top human rights official called on the United States Tuesday to give the U.N. details about Osama bin Laden’s killing and said that all counter-terrorism operations must respect international law.
But Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the al Qaeda leader, killed in a U.S. operation in Pakistan, had committed crimes against humanity as self-confessed mastermind of “the most appalling acts of terrorism,” including the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.
It was always clear that taking bin Laden alive was likely to be difficult, she said, noting that U.S. authorities had stated that they intended to arrest him if possible.
“This was a complex operation and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing. The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counter-terrorism acts must respect international law,” Pillay said in a statement issued in response to a Reuters request.
In Washington, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder defended as lawful Tuesday the U.S. operation to go into Pakistan that resulted in the death of bin Laden and the taking of his body.
“If he was captured and brought before a court, I have no doubt he would have been charged with the most serious crimes, including the mass murder of civilians that took place on 9/11, which were planned and systematic and in my view amounted to crime against humanity,” said Pillay, a former U.N. war crimes judge.
From what I can see, the details of Operation Geronimo and the reasoning behind it could be easy summed up in a short memo to this jumped-up piece of filth trying to justify her own job by yapping at her betters:
Any Further Questions, Navi?
Her stupid claim that Osama bin Laden would be “charged with the most serious crimes” is one of the laughable statements I’ve heard come out of anyone within the UN in some time. Of course Osama bin Laden would be charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and quite that quite readily and speedily.
Convicting it and getting an appropriate sentence enacted upon it under ICC rules is another matter altogether. It would probably die of old age in it’s UN-mandated, carefully comfortable place of incarceration before the ICC ever finished their arguments over jurisdictionality.
Worse, as Richard Goldstone proved to the Civilized World, such a “trial” would swiftly turn into an ongoing attack upon America’s War on Terror.
Navanethem Pillay’s and the UN expected yammering should be met by either America’s silence, the memo shown above, or an eviction notice.
Allegedly President Obama ordered a military operation that killed the jihadi vermin, Osama bin Laden, ending a decade long hunt for the misborn ibn al khanzeer.
While I have some lingering doubts as to the truth of this, they don’t really matter very much since most of the world is taking this good news on faith. Hence I will accept these claims at face value until the unlikely event that they’re proven false.
That being the case, proper accolades are much in order, irregardless of my overall feelings about the Obama Regime, their near total lack of concern over those feelings, and the improbability that any of them would ever read this post:
Well done, Sir! Fucking well done! Huzzah!
To loosely paraphrase the First Lady, for the first time I’m proud of something you’ve done as President of my country.
President Obama acting as the POTUS and C-in-C gave the order for DEVGRU and the CIA to undertake a “kill mission” – codenamed Operation Geronimo – to exterminate Osama bin Laden in t’s compound in the affluent suburb of Abottabad, Pakistan – a mere 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad. Obama ordered the commencement of Operation Geronimo without notifying the Pakistani government due to realistic fears that they would help Osama bin Laden escape.
To paint this in a negative manner, as America’s enemies, both foreign and domestic, will certainly do, President Obama unilaterally violated the territory of a sovereign nation and violated several articles of international in order to assassinate a private citizen in a private residence, killing multiple others in the process of this act.
More accurately stated, President Obama put the needs and desires of the American people before the sovereignty of a “state” that created and continues to support the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and did not allow the puling sensibilities of foreign interests, most of whom are no friends of America, to get in the way of doing his duty.
It was a job well done, both in specific execution and in the tone of the message it sends the world.
The “government” of Pakistan has defied US laws and refused to have its chief of Intelligence, Lt. General Ahmed Shuja Pasha appear in a US court to face a lawsuit alleging that he was responsible for the November, 2008 Muslim Terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India.
Pasha is the chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani today said that no force could pressurise the ISI chief Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha to appear in a US court to face a lawsuit filed by relatives of victims of the Mumbai attacks.
“The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence)… is an extremely important (and) sensitive institution of this country. If they do not agree to go to the American court, then no one can send them,” Gilani said.
His remarks came as media reports from New York said the plaintiffs in two US lawsuits accusing Pakistan’s spy chief of nurturing terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks are hoping for a historic outcome recalling the Lockerbie settlement.
The lawsuit against the ISI and the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was filed before a Federal court in Brooklyn, NY on November 19, 2010 by relatives of Rabbi Gavriel Noah Holtzberg and his wife Rivka, who were both brutally gunned down by Islamist vermin while at the Chhabad House in Mumbai. The court promptly issued summons to Lt. Gen. Pasha along with other key leaders in the ISI and LeT.
The 26-page lawsuit accusing ISI of aiding and abetting LeT in the slaughter of 166 people was filed before a New York Court on November 19, following which the Brooklyn court issued summons to Major Samir Ali, Azam Cheema, Inter-Services Intelligence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Major Iqbal, Lakhvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Sajid Majid, Pasha, Saeed and Nadeem Taj.
“The ISI has long nurtured and used international terrorist groups, including LeT, to accomplish its goals and has provided material support to LeT and other international terrorist groups,” said the lawsuit filed by relatives of the slain Rabbi. Pasha, who has been director general of the ISI since September 2008, has been summoned, so is Nadeem Taj, the director general of ISI from September 2007 to September 2008.
From what evidence we have, including testimony by Pakistani-American Muslim Terrorist David Headley, the case has definite merit. It is very likely that Pasha and others in Pakistan’s ISI are Islamist terrorists and it’s even more certain that they’ve been waging a war of terrorism against India due to the long dispute over Kashmir.
I wholeheartedly sympathize with the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. These Muslim vermin need to be made to pay in any way that mankind can make them pay.
Then, when we’ve punished them fully, we can shove pork chops down their vile throats and shoot them in their respective heads – unto their last misborn crotch-dropping.
Unfortunately, irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit or mankind’s sentiments, restitution as dictated by the court will not be forthcoming and no member of what passes for Pakistan’s government will ever stand before a US court. It is delusional or foolish to believe, think, or hope otherwise.
Failed state or not, never should have been created out of whole cloth or not, Pakistan is a sovereign nation. Sovereign nations rarely allow their citizens to be summoned to stand before foreign courts in matters of tort, nor due they make any effort to enforce any judgments rendered by such foreign courts. This is even more true when the defendant is a senior member of the nation’s ruling body.
In point of fact, the US behaves in exactly the same manner and protects its citizens and officials the same way. It’s – at best – ridiculous to expect any other nation to behave otherwise. That’s why retribution in such cases is most often best handled outside of the judicial system and by experts in the field of bringing wrongdoers before the highest bar for judgment.