Posted on 06/27/2005 5:22:48 PM PDT by kristinn
At the culmination of a gathering of global 'antiwar' groups in Istanbul to hold court on the liberation of Iraq led by the United States and the United Kingdom, the jurors who heard testimony against the liberators issued their findings which included a declaration of support for the terrorists in Iraq who are killing American, British and coalition soldiers and Iraqis.
The World Tribunal on Iraq is endorsed by leading leftwing organizations from around the world including American-based groups like Not in Our Name Project, United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink and International ANSWER.
The war on terror has reached a critical juncture. The left has publicly chosen sides with this announcement. There can be no more talk of 'we support the soldiers but not the war.' As Aloha Ronnie says, THE ENEMY IS WITHIN.
Here are two statements from the trbunal's announcement on Iraq:
10. There is widespread opposition to the occupation. Political, social, and civil resistance through peaceful means is subjected to repression by the occupying forces. It is the brutality of the occupation that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom.
AND
III. Recommendations
Recognising the right of the Iraqi people to resist the illegal occupation of their country and to develop independent institutions, and affirming that the right to resist the occupation is the right to wage a struggle for self-determination, freedom, and independence as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, we the Jury of Conscience declare our solidarity with the people of Iraq.
The Tribunal also calls for the world community to support the terrorists by denying aid to those fighting them in Iraq:
10. That people around the world resist and reject any effort by any of their governments to provide material, logistical, or moral support to the occupation of Iraq.
The tribunal betrays the bravery of the 8 million Iraqis who their cast their votes in January by declaring the elected government of Iraq illegitimate. The terrorists couldn't have said it better:
9. Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority. The recently concluded election, the Constituent Assembly, the current government, and the drafting committee for the Constitution are therefore all illegitimate.
Link to the trbunal's pronouncement here.
Link to the list of endorsers here.
Some of you may read this and say this is not news. As with last night's posting about Code Pink, the left has been trying keep under wraps their support for the terrorists. Now, they have boldy declared themselves to be on the side of the terrorists.
We knew this day would come after September 11. We just didn't know the day.
Even more clear for "Brian"...
The public believes that there is a Constitutional prohibition on citing scripture by judges from the bench (separation of Church and State), representatives from the Legislature, or teachers in classrooms.
Americans are prohibited from providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. It is in the Constitution. Congress needs to do its duty.
Thank you, weegee, for your responses. I spoke to another staff member in Hatch's office, who was appalled at Brian's big mouth. I also spoke with another phone answerer, Katy, in the office yesterday and she said, "yeah, Brian can be abrasive." Well, why do they keep such a dunderhead in a senator's office?
Your points are excellent and I will forward those to the senator's office also! Good work!
Communist Party USA
Revolutionary Communist Party
World Workers Party
International Socialist Organization
Thanks for going on the "frontline" and making the calls.
I was at my friends the other day and I noticed his next door neighbors have a Code-Pink bumper sticker on their truck (along with alot of other left-wing crap). When I told him what they stood for, he wouldn't believe it because they seemed like nice, average Americans. Since I showed him this article, I'm now worried about thier safety...nah.
"The left used to hate it when we supported authoritarian regimes that were against communism. The cried about the repression and human rights violations. Now when we change our policy and take down authoritarian regimes and spread freedom, they cry about the repression and human right violations. At least their consistent in their own warped way, they're still hard core communists."
ping!!!
Islam does not permit interest to be charged or earned. What is "conservative" about that?
Islam does not preach free will. If you convert away from Islam, you can be murdered.
The law puts Muslims, Jews/Christians (people of the book), and everybody else into 3 legal classifications (with diminishing rights depending on stature).
How many muslim nations still have royalty?
Communist front groups one and all.
Excellent post Kristinn. Thanks for exposing the truth about these so called "peace" loving reprobates.
Conservative: adj 1: resistant to change [ant: liberal] 2: opposed to liberal reforms 3: avoiding excess;
You're comparison would be valid *if* Islam had experienced anything like the Enlightenment. It hasn't. Categories of Left/Right and Conservative/Liberal simply do not apply when one is discussing a political system based upon a revealed religious text.
"You're comparison would be valid *if* Islam had experienced anything like the Enlightenment."
I'm just wondering. They are allies of the terrorists now? That means they renounced their citizenship, right? Any of them in Club Gitmo yet?
"Americans are prohibited from providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war. It is in the Constitution. Congress needs to do its duty."
I was wondering about that. And also, what about their citizenship status?
And by the way, as you say, Conservative has a different meaning in different contexts. And that's why you (or others) shouldn't take offense simply because you may also be a conservative. I don't mean to infer any similarities between Islam and Christian convervatives...so relax.
Because of 1) naivite and/or 2) inward self-loathing.
The Soviet Union lasted a long time. Does this mean to overthrow their socialist government was a "liberal" act?
Islam does not have strong nationalism. It has a theocratic government. Nations mean nothing to them. ALL nations are to submit to their religious authority.
"Islam does not have strong nationalism."
You're simply arguing semantics, now. While true Muslims may claim not to recognize the so-called "nation-state" they certainly do recognize their own soverignty which they wish to preserve at all cost. No interlopers allowed. Hell, Iran is now an "Islamic Republic" with its own recognized borders.
Islam's so-called disenfranchisment with the "nation-state" is mearly a facade because of their diseffection with colonialism. However, when they were the imperialists, they didn't have such notions, as the Caliphates set up their own tribal regions. Call it what you want, but many in Islam still seek a Pan-Arabic "nation."
"Nations mean nothing to them."
Yeah...only because they think it is their right to annex other people's territory, borders be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.