[Peace-discuss] FB posting of the Day

[Karen Aram]

<https://www.facebook.com/paula.whowantstoknow?fref=nf>
[https://scontent.ford1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/c88.44.545.545/s80x80/157068_173109209379847_6495444_n.jpg?oh=efcb30e8668308ac4cddd2d45795f128&oe=598067DB]
Paula Densnow<https://www.facebook.com/paula.whowantstoknow?fref=nf><https://www.facebook.com/paula.whowantstoknow?fref=nf>
Yesterday at 7:29am<https://www.facebook.com/paula.whowantstoknow/posts/1552016938155727> ·

My friend, Simon Wood, posted something important. A reminder (for some) and an eye-opener (for most). There is NO American Exception to international law, no matter what our rulers tell us, when they target another country.

''The US - in just one week - has sent an 'armada' to the Korean peninsula, has threatened to invade Syria, and has bombed that same poor, suffering nation after carrying out the most pathetically obvious false flag since your dog shat in the porch and tried to blame it on the cat. It has threatened military action against Venezuela for the dual, capital crimes of practicing socialism AND having a shitload of oil. It just dropped a massive bomb on a bunch of peasants. The US say it was 'ISIS'. The US created, trained, funded and equipped ISIS, remember. Hillary Clinton even stated, in a leaked email, that 'AQ is on our side'. And she isn't talking about Anthony Quayle.
In just one week.
So I was wondering how many senior officers of the US military forces are aware of what constitutes a crime under international law, and of their obligations to refuse illegal orders. How many take seriously their oath to defend their nation from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? Because they need to start seriously looking at the enemies in their own government who are on a warmongering spree. This is not about protecting the homeland, folks; it's about ensuring the US has no rivals in its hegemonic goals.
What is a crime of aggression under international law?
"1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means 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. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, 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."
Some of that may sound vaguely familiar.
Nuremberg Principle IV states:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
So, senior US officers, if you do go ahead and follow these orders, someday you may well be hanged by your balls for war crimes. If the US is defeated, I wouldn't count on the fact that the US does not recognise the International Criminal Court. And yes...the US can be not only defeated, but...
...People of the United States, you need to understand that Russia has the ability to reduce the entire United States to a radioactive wilderland. You need to understand that Russia military doctrine explicitly states that it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in certain scenarios as follows:
"The Russian Federation shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy. The decision to use nuclear weapons shall be taken by the President of the Russian Federation."
So put down your damned pussy hats and build a real anti-war movement. Do what you can depending on your means. And start by working toward removing by whatever means necessary the criminals that have taken your nation hostage.
Or they may get you all killed.''
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20170415/c8bc11a3/attachment-0003.html>