LaRouche Warns:Cheney's `Guns of August'Threaten the World

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:25 am

The ole man rocks on....much of his rants make sense to me. LaRouche Warns: Cheney's `Guns of August' Threaten the World July 27, 2005 (EIRNS)—This statement was issued today by the LaRouche Political Action Committee. "Lyndon LaRouche, on this Wednesday afternoon, issued an international alert, covering the period of August 2005, which is the likely timeframe for Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened, were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until September 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran. LaRouche based this assessment on a series of factors, reported to him over the recent days, beginning with the qualified report, from a former U.S. intelligence official, published in the American Conservative magazine, that Dick Cheney ordered the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the United States. As EIR reported several months ago, the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new Global Strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair with his own "Reichstag fire" incident, and the full resources of the British "liberal imperial" faction can now be expected to weigh in behind the brutish Cheney circles in Washington. The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of August" plan, LaRouche emphasized in discussions with colleagues, is the pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's state of mind. Cheney is living out an American version of "Hitler in the bunker," lashing out at Republican Senators who have dared to resist his mad tirades, accusing anyone who fails to follow his orders—including senior members of the United States Senate—of being "traitors" and worse. And finally, LaRouche identified a series of reports from highly qualified Congressional, military, and intelligence community sources, who have confirmed the essential features of the original American Conservative account of Cheney's Strangelove schemes for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. These sources have emphasized that these Iran plans are not merely military contingency studies, but represent the policy intentions of Cheney." <a href="http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2005/lar_pac/050727guns_august.html">larouchepub.com/pr_lar/20...ugust.html</a>

by **lady lib** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:27 am

Hi dbeach, Greetings from ddesert! Thank you so much for the invitation. I think I'll spend some time over the next week getting acquainted on this Board. ~lady lib

by **LibertyorDeath** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 4:25 am

I'm sure crashcart hears that clock ticking. I mean how many "heart episodes" can one person have So he's in a rush as time is short. Doing anything nuclear in the ME is beyond insane. Iran would give mega pay back. Russia and China are heavily invested in Iran. Scott Ritter was talking about this a while back I listened to an interview with him and he seemed very convinced & very convincing. Sy Hersh also says this is the next move by the cons. Always enjoy your posts & links. Have you read the Wikipedia write up on Lyndon <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche</a>

by **AnnaLivia** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 12:20 pm

thanks, dbeach, and L or D. a friend had just asked me what i thought of LaRouche, and i had to say i didn't know much about him, though the name comes up. hard to know what to make of him until i read more. but get this from that wikipedia: In a September 24, 1976 op-ed in the Washington Post, entitled "NCLC: A Domestic Political Menace," Stephen Rosenfeld wrote: "We of the press should be chary of offering them print or air time. There is no reason to be too delicate about it: Every day we decide whose voices to relay. A duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities should not be presented to the public unless there is reason to present it in those terms." would that the press felt that way about bushco! the ultimate duplicitous violence prone group with fascistic proclivities! their perfect description. and what more does Joe Citizen need than an outright, couldn't be plainer, "Every day we decide whose voices to relay." !!! the media is not your unbiased friend, Joe. you really need to learn who owns them, Joe. so here we are with one deranged man holding so much power and wealth that he can choose to turn Iran into a glass parking lot at whim. what is wrong with this picture? is it the man, or is it the very idea that power and wealth should ever become so concentrated that a man can become a dictator...one armed with nuclear weapons. gee...and all he needs to greenlight it is a widdle owd attack on.......who?

by **Dreams End** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:45 pm

I'd look more into Larouche all of you. The tricky thing about Larouche is that he has a very sophisticated (or at least did) worldwide intelligence network. At one point he was giving info to the Reagan administration, but the Reagan people backed off of it when it came to light. Larouche (AKA Lyn Marcus) started as a "leftist" in NYC. Somehow or another he decided that the best thing to do would be to take baseball hats to the heads of other leftists in what was then called "operation mop-up." It's well known and I have a friend who was around at the time. Larouche transformed both to a sort of "American fascist mentality" as well as leading in a "cultish" sort of way. I hate to use that term, as it is kind of subjective, but there are all kinds of stories of how peole were beaten down psychologically...often around sexual issues. For someone in "fringe" politics, he sure has had some influence. Read the Wikipedia article and see if any "opposition" groups you know would have the same kind of access to world leaders. The problem is that he will often take rather "progressive" sounding positions, and have a deep level of information published in things like "Executive Intelligence Review". I've found that a typical pattern is a lot of valuable information then tied into some conspiracy involving the British royal family. I'm sure the royals are up to no good, but I really don't find them to be the central force behind...everything. Cross reference this with a study of Fred Newman and the New Alliance party. Very similar MO and Newman worked briefly with Larouche in the 70's. They had trouble finding a room large enough to contain both egos, however. Newman is less well known, because not he but protege Lenora Fulani is the public face of their "movement." She also runs for president and succesfully got on the ballot in all 50 states during one race. Not an easy task for a "fringe" group. They fund themselves and get members through a series of "mental health" clinics. Also, lots of weird sexual politics. I've read some of Newman's stuff, and feel free to join them, but be aware that in order for a woman to reach the height of her revolutionary effectiveness, she must sleep with Fred. To me, he kinda looks like Wilford Brimley, but you make your own decisions on that one. They eventually took over the Reform Party, and despite their former "progressive" rhetoric, decided Patrick Buchanan was the guy for them. Both groups, in my own direct experience, run a confusing series of front groups that recruit at political events. (I'll end with a story that is...creepy). NAP at the time of the Rainbow Coalition, would table at events as "Rainbow" this or that, with the implication they were an official part of the Jackson coalition. Handy...money and credibility for them...drain of money and credibility for the real Rainbow coalition. (Please no comments about Jesse...believe me, all of us who were ever involved in the rainbow KNOW...sigh) Larouche and NAP are so similar that it's really worth the time to learn about both. Of course it COULD be a coincidence...but it seems to me to be simply two branches of the same operation. Now, a story (this post is not comprehensive...no time, but please, check them out thoroughly.). Back in 1994 I went with a small UN NGO to be a foreign election observer in Mexico for the Presidential elections. This was the first time this was allowed and came as a result of 70 years of uninterrupted rule by the PRI in Mexico. Electoral corruption is not solely an American enterprise. A woman called me to ask about our trip for some sort of newsletter she said she was putting together of all the various groups going down there. She wanted out exact agenda, and given the places we were headed, I told her no more than I told the general press. (We were going to be in Chiapas among other southern states. This was just after the Zapatista revolt. Security was an issue, for sure.) Damn it, my memory is fuzzy here. The same woman was calling other folks and there were red flags going up. I THINK the PRD, a Mexican opposition party, actually called us to see who she was because she'd been calling them, but there was other interaction with them later and I may be confused here. Anyway, I finally saw her "newsletter" and it really looked like schizophrenic rambling. You've seen this sort of thing, so many notes in the margin and underlining and arrows...just really hard to follow. I noticed, with a little alarm, a lot of emphasis on the Jesuits. Now, I'm not here to defend the Jesuits, but in Mexico, Larouche organizations were known to be focusing on them. There was even some suggestion that a Jesuit was murdered by one of their number. I have NO evidence for that...just indicating the climate down there. Anyway, this woman's writings had a sort of Larouchian feel to them. Whatever, off we go. Into the freaking twilight zone. In southern Mexico our group of about 15 or so split into three groups for election monitoring. One group to Veracruz (including me...and not in any nice resort area, but in an area near a river so polluted it once caught fire!), one to Tobasco and one to Chiapas. We did not reveal our specific itinerary to anyone other than the local people we were coordinating with and with the PRD, at whose invitation we came (I guess that needs to be said for full disclosure). One evening, late...close to midnight, I get two calls. The first, from one of our number who had been severely teargassed as she and her party were stuck at a peasant blockade in Chiapas. The military was well aware that they were there and seemed rather happy to lob the canisters right at them. She took a lungful and was out of commission for a day and really had trouble ever since. At about the same time I get another call...and it's the woman who had written the "newsletter." I'm in an obscure part of Veracruz, not having revealed my itinerary and here she is, calling me. WTF? I ask where she is and she says, "In the lobby." I turn to ask Rod Serling exactly what the hell he was doing in my room and then told her to wait right there. I wanted to see her in person. I went to meet her and she definitely had a glassy eyed look about her. She wanted to know the whereabouts of our other groups, and, naturally, I wouldn't tell her. After she left, I called the other groups and warned them. Good thing. Within about 6 hours she was at the hotel of one of our other groups in Tobasco. One of that party, a Catholic nun, came down and heard this woman say to someone else that she was a part of OUR delegation. Well, you really don't want to mess with Sister Pat. She walked right up to the woman and said, "I am a member of that delegation and you, madam, are not." It turned out that she had gone to the offices of the PRD and claimed she was with our group before coming down to Veracruz. However, they swore they didn't give our actual locations. Either they did, or we were followed in some other way, I don't know. I can't prove she had anything at all to do with Larouche, of course. It's just that, here was this "crazy woman" who, nevertheless, was quite sophisticated at tracking. Remember, we were in some rather obscure places. Now the Larouchians have a "Larouche Youth Movement", a self described cadre movement that is really building their numbers. I hadn't heard of this before but it's been around a few years. This paragraph, from Wikipedia suggests that you be VERY careful before letting your kid run off with them: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>On November 6, 2003, a British inquest heard allegations that the Schiller Institute is an anti-Semitic cult that may have used mind-control techniques on a student who died in March 2003 after running onto a busy road in Wiesbaden, Germany. [9] Jeremiah Duggan, a 22-year-old Jewish student from London, England, attended a Schiller Institute conference in Wiesbaden with members of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Youth Movement. [1<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/alien.gif ALT="0]"> [11] He learned about the conference after being handed a LaRouche newspaper outside the Sorbonne in Paris, where he was studying. After six days in Wiesbaden, Duggan telephoned his mother to say he "wanted out," was "frightened" and "in deep trouble," before the line went dead. His mother told the inquest that her son sounded terrified. Forty-five minutes later, he ran for one kilometer down the middle of a busy road and was killed. The British coroner rejected the German police report of suicide and ruled that Duggan died while in a "state of terror." [12] Duggan's mother believes the Schiller Institute used mind-control techniques on her son to persuade him to join the organization. [13] The family has hired a Berlin lawyer to have the German police investigation re-opened. A spokesperson for the Lyndon LaRouche organization has claimed that Mrs. Duggan's allegation of a connection between her son's death and the Schiller Institute was part of a "smear campaign" intended to prevent LaRouche from gaining the U.S. Democratic Party's 2004 presidential nomination. [14] <hr></blockquote> This business of a "cultish" organization that often has rather progressive rhetoric but seems to be up to no good is a familiar one. The wheels within wheels are difficult to follow.

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:52 pm

"I'm sure the royals are up to no good, but I really don't find them to be the central force behind...everything." Dreams End I am not too far from ya I would add that the queen is much more than afigure head..she is a genuine pwoer..what disturbs me is bush and the windsor are cousins on both sides..Larocuhe is a wild card..like many take what ya need and reject the rest Cult is a term that gets over use..I learned a mediatation technique and was called a cultist..my friend went to a 12 step program and was called a cultist..also attended a course on grave rubbings and was labeled.. Most of yoru stuff is well worth noting.

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 1:53 pm

HI LADY LIB Look forward to your insights and koolness!!

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:07 pm

Tarpley and Chaitkin are former LaRouces guys..tarlpey Has SINCE split and is getting more recognition Thier book was big exposer of bush myth as the all american family..NEVER read it but have read some..Bush ditched the plane is an eye opener <a href="http://www.tarpley.net/bush6.htm">www.tarpley.net/bush6.htm</a> George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter - VI -Bush in World War II

by **AnnaLivia** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:15 pm

Thanks, Dreamsend. to give deserved kudos to the wikipedia, the first thing you see at the top of their page is a warning of possible bias in the article. they say right out there are registered disputes. so you know you're gonna have to read farther...

by **Dreams End** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:35 pm

I used wikipedia for convenience. I've followed that history for quite awhile.

by **jimmy maxwell** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 2:39 pm

Somehow or another he decided that the best thing to do would be to take baseball hats to the heads of other leftists in what was then called "operation mop-up." Never trust a haberdasher.

by **Starman** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:37 pm

AnnaLivia said: "so here we are with one deranged man holding so much power and wealth that he can choose to turn Iran into a glass parking lot at whim. what is wrong with this picture? is it the man, or is it the very idea that power and wealth should ever become so concentrated that a man can become a dictator...one armed with nuclear weapons." SO sharp and to-the-point. Cheney's obviously performing his 'part' to the Bush-neocon/globalist script -- which no-doubt he helped write as one of the big-guns with close ties to the Pentagon and Military Industrialists (who each are main actors in designing International Policy, along with Int. Banks and major corporations). It's nothing less than a monstrous obscenity. HOW is it possible these foul murdering thugs can so completely ignore and disregard domestic and International Laws? AND that the US people aren't outraged, OR that there isn't a huge uproar by world leaders and key human-rights organizations? Or perhaps, the MSM has effectively blocked this 'news'? Re: Cheney's purported ordering the Pentagon to plan nuclear strikes on selected Iran targets in retaliation/reprisal for any terrorism act on the US: CLEARLY -- This is totally unacceptable as a Crime Against Peace, as described below in the letter sent to the UK Government which details the statutes governing war crimes according to International Humanitarian Law; Accordingly, it is simply unconscionable and unacceptable for any American Administration to be actively planning and preparing for a wholly unjustified, immoral and illegal act of aggression on another sovereign nation, as the Bush Administration is apparently now doing. This compounds the crimes against peace, illegal aggression, war crimes and atrocities the US under Bush Adminstration direction has committed (and in many cases still IS committing in) Afghanistan and Iraq, AND in other states by engaging in covert intervention and destabilization operations. These actions are gross violations of US law and violate the US Constitution, thereby essentially invalidating the legitimacy of the Bush Government. The Bush Regime is not in ANY manner exonnerated by the history of past transgressions and illegal war-making actions committed by most of the past forty-plus years of American Administrations, who either condoned, accomodated, tacitly supported, ordered, encouraged or actively directed many dozens of illegal wars, invasions, military conflicts, covert operations, political/economic/military interventions, and other acts of aggression including coups, regime-change, political assassinations, blackmail and coercion that are specifically prohibited by US and International Laws -- but which Congress failed abysmally to either prevent or hold the Executive Branch accountable before Law and to the American people -- as they are tasked to provide a crucial check on Presidential abuse of power and misfeasance. The US's reneging of its obligations to Korea and duplicity in creating the pretext for the Korean War tragedy essentially set the stage for America's warmongering and militarization of foreign policy that has caused enormous death, suffering, destruction, hostility and costs, facilitating and depending on ever-greater frauds, lies, duplicity, criminal scheming, murders, political intrigue, corruption, cover-ups, dirty-dealing, espionage, betrayals, treason, propaganda to manufacture public opinion, and other acts which have grossly subverted the most basic American values and core principles -- to the shameful and tragic consequences we now see with an unprecedented crisis of political illegitimacy and tremendous abuse of authority in which 'leadership' and integrity in Government have become travesties. Planning nuclear strikes in the Middle East must be one of the most lunatic and irresponsible idiocies ever -- showing a degree of reckless desperation that is truly a fearsome symptom of the Bush/Cheney Administration's irresponsible obsessive-compulsive delusion of their own making. Given Congresses' gutless cowardice and compromised ability to stand on principle and challenge the Executive Branch's neocon-aided reorganization of an Imperial autocracy, and the Justice Department's evident collusion with the corrupt Bush/Cheney 'leadership', there doesn't seem to be a promising timely solution to the impending catastrophe the Bush Gang seems to be engineering -- unless, perhaps, one might hope a sufficient number of top military leadership recognize their duty to disobey unlawful orders so as to remove Bush and Cheney's access to weapons of mass death -- thereby placing the 'issue' of Executive abuse of power and their outrageous criminality and the crisis of political illegitimacy four-square in the public's attention where it needs to be. Starman From: <a href="http://www.eroj.org/Bagdad/crimes.htm">www.eroj.org/Bagdad/crimes.htm</a> "Crime of Agression" and "Crimes against Peace" -- Letter submitted by The Right Honourable Geoffrey Hoon MP, The Secretary of State for Defence, UK Ministry Of Defence; 2 January 2003 Dear Sir, PROPOSED USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ - ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND "WAR CRIMES" We wish to raise with you at the outset of this letter our clients' concerns that the UK Government (and its leaders) are about to use force in circumstances where a "crime of aggression" is being committed and, thus, a "crime against peace." Our reasoning on this is as follows: 1.. You will be aware that the crime of aggression is included under Article 5 of the ICC Statute as one of the crimes along with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, over which the ICC has jurisdiction. The ICC may not yet exercise jurisdiction over this crime, however, and will not be able to do so until an agreed definition of the crime is adopted in accordance with Articles 121 and 123 of the ICC Statute. There is nonetheless a broad consensus that the crime of aggression is a crime under international law. 2.. Crimes against peace were punishable under Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Principles. Principle 6 defines crimes against peace as 1.. Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; 2.. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). 1.. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg described aggression as the 'supreme international crime.' 2.. The outlawing of aggressive war is reflected in Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, and in particular in the prohibition on the use of force at Article 2(4). Article 1 (1) of the United Nations Charter states that the Purposes of the United Nations are (amongst other things) "To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace." Article 2 states "..(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. (4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." 3.. On 9 September 2002 the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC Statute adopted a resolution proposed by the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court in which it stated that it was desirous of continuing and completing the work on the crime of aggression and to that end established a special Working Group on the crime of aggression. The discussion paper which was attached to the Preparatory Commission's Draft Resolution suggested the following basic definition of the crime: "For the purpose of the present Statute, a person commits a "crime of aggression" when, being in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, that person intentionally and knowingly orders or participates actively in the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations." 4.. Paragraph 2 of the discussion paper suggested that act of aggression be defined as an act referred to in United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) ("Resolution 3314") of 14 December 1974. Article 1 of Resolution 3314 states: "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition." Article 3 provides as follows: "Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression: (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof, (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; (c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; (d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; (e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; (f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; (g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein. 5.. It is the widely held view of legal experts in the field that in the absence of the inherent right arising to take action in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, any military action taken by the United Kingdom against Iraq without a United Nations Security Council Resolution expressly authorising such force would be in clear violation of the UN Charter and international law. Background to our clients' concerns Gross Violations of Law the US and UK are accused of (as of Jan 2003 -- many more crimes and far-greater loss of life have since occurred in addition to illegal rendition/kidnappings, prison detentions and torture and killing of prisoners, suspected false-flag terrorist ops and guerrilla behind-the-lines special forces covert ops, more political killings and targetted murder of journalists, ongoing use of prohibited weapons esp. Depleted Uranium, and etc. -- truly abysmally horrendous and a shameful outrage that should offend everyone's sense of decency and honor -- the 'point' which seems to be, on a deeply subconscious level, to make the US so complicit in the foulest atrocities and humanitarian depradations that the public will 'project' its self-revulsion onto a conveniently-constructed/identified 'enemy' who then will richly deserve whatever they 'get' -- including being Nuked; I recall seeing a severely-injured/honorably-disccharged Marine vet (a documentary-program of four veterans featured on Sundance recently) who was so bitter about his experience in Iraq, and so completely ignorant of the history of the region and how the US has disasterously intervened in Iraq's politics and economy since at least the early 50s as a Cold War ideological battlefield, that he quite passionately and sincerely recommended the whole nation be nuked and leveled, and a 'new' state begun-from-scratch. I don't think this young man's attitude is all that untypical of many wannabe-Patriots or Veterans. That just utterly disgusted as it profoundly saddened me, at such an unself-conscious display of arrogant self-indulgent contempt and a near-total lack of empathy and compassion. Starman <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smokin.gif ALT=":smokin"> Aieieiei -- At least, Keep yer Hands on dat plow and keep that Searchlight of Truth beam on High. Peace & Justice, all! **** ILLEGITIMATE MEANS AND METHODS OF ATTACK a.. The unannounced bombing of Amiraya Civilian Air Raid Shelter in Baghdad killing between 600 and 1000 civilians on February 13 1991 when it was known by coalition forces that the facility had been previously used as a civil-defence shelter; b.. The deliberate killing of thousands of civilians especially Palestinians, killed as they tried to escape from Kuwait City after February 26 1991; c.. What appears to have been the deliberate massacre, without quarter, of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians on the road to Basra on February 26 and 27, 1991; d.. The bombing of cities which served as major military communications and supply centres, for example Basra, Ramadi, Diwaniya and Mosul; e.. The fact that 93% of the bombs used were free-falling bombs and that most appeared to have been dropped from higher than 30,000 feet; f.. The fact that only 7,000 tons were guided bombs leaving 82,000 tons of bombs used that were non-precision guided; g.. The use by the US of massive amounts of fire bombs; h.. The use by the US of fuel air explosives; i.. The use by the US of BLU-82s (otherwise known as "daisy cutters"); j.. The use of cluster bombs and anti-personnel bombs; a.. The use of the weapon system CBU-75 carrying 1800 bomblets called Sadeyes (each bomblet contains 600 razor sharp steel fragments lethal up to 40 feet). a.. The declaration of Basra as a "free fire zone"; b.. The use of carpet bombing techniques; a.. The targeting of chemical plants; b.. The use of at least 320 tons of depleted uranium ammunition in air and tank rounds and sniper bullets. ATTACKS ON OBJECTS DEDICATED TO CIVILIAN PURPOSES a.. The destruction of civilian targets such as the Iraqi Ministries of Justice and Municipal Affairs; a.. The destruction of between 10 to 20,000 homes, apartments, and other dwellings; b.. The destruction of commercial centres with shops, retail stores, offices, hotels, restaurants and other public accommodation destroyed; c.. The destruction or damage of scores of schools, hospitals, mosques and churches; d.. The targeting of isolated Bedouin tents in Western Iraq leaving 46 dead civilians, including infants and children; e.. The bombing of the "baby-milk" factory in Abu Gharaib on January 22 1991 DESTRUCTION OF IRAQI INFRASTRUCTURE a.. The deliberate disproportionate targeting and destruction of Iraq's infrastructure towards the end of the war leaving it in a pre-industrial condition. Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were: a.. Electricity power generation, relay and transmission a.. Water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs a.. Telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities a.. Food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites a.. Railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles a.. Oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tanks, cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks a.. Sewage treatment and disposal systems a.. Factories engaged in civilian production, for example, textile and automobile assembly a.. Historical markers and ancient sites a.. As a result of the above the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians from dehydration, dysentery and diseases caused by impure water, inability to obtain effective medical assistance and debilitation from hunger, shock, cold and stress; CIVILIAN LOSSES IN AFGHANISTAN a.. Disproportionate and indiscriminate bombardment of Afghanistan resulting in at least 3,767 civilians being killed between October 7 and December 6, 2001, in particular: a.. Repeated bombing of the farming village of 450 persons of Karam, killing at least 160 civilians on October 11; b.. Falling of a cluster bomb on the military hospital and mosque in Herat, killing 100 on October 21; c.. Carpet-bombing by B-52's of a frontline village near Khanabad, killing at least 150 civilians on November 18. CIVILIAN LOSSES DURING NATO AIR STRIKES IN KOSOVO a.. At least 489 civilians killed in the ninety separate incidents in Operation Allied Force, almost half of which resulted from attacks during daylight hours, when civilians could have been expected to be on the roads and bridges or in public buildings which may have been targeted; b.. The most dramatic losses of civilian life came from attacks on fleeing or travelling refugees including repeated attacks on refugees on the Djakovica-Decane road, near Korisa and Savine Vode; c.. Bombing of Dubrava prison on 21 May 1998; d.. Attacks on populated urban areas in Belgrade, Nis and Vranje e.. Use of cluster bombs, resulting in deaths of some 90 to 150 civilians and Britain's refusal to discontinue their use even after NATO confirmation of responsibility for the attack on Nis airfield in southern Serbia on May 7, 1998 and subsequent prohibition of cluster bomb use imposed on the US forces by the White House. f.. Failure to provide clear advance warning of the attacks on state Serb Radio and Television headquarters in Belgrade on April 23, 1998 resulting in civilian deaths The information that leads us to these conclusion includes: a.. Personal accounts from representatives of NGOs. b.. The report of the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal ("War Crimes. A report on United States war crimes against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal" by Ramsey Clark and others, available at www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-index.htm ) c.. Needless Deaths in the Gulf War, Human Rights Watch, available at www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/ d.. The Secret behind the Sanctions: how the US intentionally destroyed Iraq's water supply, Thomas Nagy, available at www.progressive.org/0801icsue/nagy0901.html e.. Joint WHO/UNICEF team report: A visit to Iraq (New York: United Nations, 1991). A report to the Secretary General dated March 20 1991 by representatives of the UN Secretariat, UNICEF, UNDP, UNDRO, UNHCR, FAO and WHO. f.. Amnesty International annual report 1991, pp122-124. g.. Counting the Human Cost of the Gulf War, Medical Education Trust background paper, London, July 1991 h.. US Bombing: The myth of surgical bombing in the Gulf War, Paul Walker, evidence to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, May 11 1991, available at www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-myth.htm i.. International Law and War Crimes, Michael Ratner, evidence to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, May 11 1991, available at www.deoxy.org/wc-ilaw.htm j.. Highway to Hell, Michael Kelly, New Republic, April 1991: 12 k.. The Gulf War: Not so Clean, George Lopez, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1991, vol 47, no.7, available at www.thebulletin.org/issues/1991/s91/s91lopez.html l.. Iraqis Reduced to a "Rabble," General Asserts, R W Apple, JR, New York Times, March 1991, p1 m.. Report to the Secretary General on Humanitarian Needs in Kuwait and Iraq in the Immediate Post-Crisis Environment, Martti Ahtisaari, United Nations Report No. 5122366, March 20, 1991 n.. Testimony of Joyce Chediac, a Lebanese-American journalist, report presented to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal, May 11, 1991 available at www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm o.. Various reports from the Washington Post and the New York Times and agency reports from Reuters and Agence France Presse available at www.globalsecurity.org p.. Collateral Damage: the health and environmental costs of war in Iraq, November 2002, available at www.medact.org q.. Iraq: Consequences of a war, Professor Paul Rogers, Oxford Research Group, October 2002. r.. War Plan Iraq, Milan Rai, ARROW Publications, 2002 s.. War on Iraq, Scott Ritter, Profile Books, 2002 t.. Targeting Iraq: Sanctions and Bombing in US Policy, Geoff Simons, Saqi Books, 2002 u.. Material from Defence publications particularly Defense News, Jane's Defence Weekly, Aviation Week and Space Technology. v.. Depleted Uranium Weapons: Lessons from the 1991 Gulf War, Dan Fahey, Laka Foundation, May 1999 w.. A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting, Professor Marc W. Herold, December 2001, available at www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/civilDeaths.html x.. Medical ethics and human rights violations: the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait and its aftermath, Troyan Brennan and Robert Kirschner, Annals of Internal Medicine, 117:78-82 (1992) y.. Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign - The crisis in Kosovo, report by the Human Rights Watch, available at www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato/Natbm200-01.htm We should make clear that our clients' main concerns are the civilian casualties caused by indiscriminate and/or disproportionate attacks. Further our clients are extremely concerned about the consequent civilian casualties caused by attacks on the economic infrastructure of Iraq as happened in the 1991 Gulf War. To add to our clients' concerns the following are noted: Nuclear Weapons We note that the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001 makes clear that the United States continues to plan for massive retaliation or a pre-emptive counter force attack in response to an actual or imminent nuclear attack, and for use of nuclear weapons against an overwhelming conventional attack. Much concern has been expressed about the US's willingness to contemplate a "first strike" against non-nuclear weapons states and particularly those characterised as "rogue states." You have made clear to both the UK House of Commons Defence Committee and to the Jonathan Dimbleby programme on BBC TV that the UK also might under certain circumstances be willing to engage in a "first strike" use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapon state, namely Iraq. This policy represents a fundamental breach of customary international law and particularly in the light of the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. That opinion concludes at paragraph 105E: "E. By seven votes to seven, by the president's casting vote, It follows in the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.." It is clear that the threat to use chemical or biological weapons against UK deployed forces in the filed is far short of a threat such that "the very survival" of the UK "is at stake." As such if the UK were to carry out the threat you have made to use nuclear weapons against Iraq in these circumstances it would be in clear breach of customary international law. Other Weapons Systems We know that in the Gulf War conflict from 1991, in Kosovo and in Afghanistan the following weapons systems have been used: a.. Cluster bombs including the BL-755 and the US CBU-55B b.. Fuel air explosives including the BLU-82B. c.. The multiple launch rocket system d.. Depleted uranium munitions including the British Challenger II and US M1A1, M1 and M60 tank rounds, aircraft rounds and 7.62mm calibre bullets. Our client's concerns include that these weapons systems, and the UK's nuclear weapon system, all breach "intransgressible" rules of IHL and in particular the rule on discrimination (Articles 48 and 51 (4) and (5) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflict (Protocol 1) adopted at Geneva, 8 June 1977 (hereafter referred to as AP1)). Relevant provisions of International Humanitarian Law The above noted incidents are all examples of where the use of force failed to comply with fundamental principles of IHL, in particular the conventional and customary rules of distinction, military necessity and proportionality. You will be aware that failure to comply with these principles constitute grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and will amount to violations of articles 7 and 8 of the ICC. Art 35. Basic Rules 1.. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means or warfare is not unlimited. 2.. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and materials and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. 3.. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. Art 48. Basic Rule In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations against military objectives. Art 49. Definition of attack and scope of application 1.. "Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or defence. ......... Art 51. Protection of the civilian population 1.. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2.. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians , shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3.. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4.. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: 1.. those which are not directed at a specific military objective; 2.. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or 3.. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 1.. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: 1.. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and 2.. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated .... Art 52. General protection of civilian objects 1.. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2. 2.. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 3.. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution, it shall be presumed not to be so used. Art 54. Protection of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population 1.. ...... 2.. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of food-stuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive

by **dbeach** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 5:42 pm

Hi star and thanx for not kiling the meseneger. to answer your question the elites have literally and metaphorically poisoined the minds. spirits and bodies of Americans in many different ways.. "HOW is it possible these foul murdering thugs can so completely ignore and disregard domestic and International Laws? AND that the US people aren't outraged, OR that there isn't a huge uproar by world leaders and key human-rights organizations? Or perhaps, the MSM has effectively blocked this 'news'?"

by **AnnaLivia** » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:10 pm

golly thanks, Starman. that was flippin' awesome. crimes against peace, crimes against justice, crimes against sanity itself. the martians must fall down laughing when they look through their telescopes at this hilarious species.... i refuse to believe people in general are more bad than good. i don't even think it's close. what i can't figure out is why we don't ACT in accord with what we really BELIEVE.

LaRouche Warns:Cheney's `Guns of August'Threaten the World

LaRouche Warns:Cheney's `Guns of August'Threaten the World

Re: LaRouche Warns:Cheney's `Guns of August'Threaten the Wor

Re: LaRouche Warns:Cheney's `Guns of August'Threaten the Wor

read and read and still such a newbie

Larouche

Re: Larouche

Re: Larouche

Re: Larouche

bless my reading glasses

wikipedia

Re: Larouche

Cheney Planning Iranian Nuke Strikes -- War Crime

Re: Cheney Planning Iranian Nuke Strikes -- War Crime

is it cocktail hour yet?

Who is online