Malaysian mock tribunal finds Bush, Blair guilty of 'crimes against peace'

[frankthetank123]

Well guess i should buy him a drink then!

It feels good to come out, mate.

Ive been out spoken for years about my views, great thing is, 99% agree!!

[Jingthing]

Well guess i should buy him a drink then!

It feels good to come out, mate.

Ive been out spoken for years about my views, great thing is, 99% agree!!

May I suggest starting a poll?

[craigt3365]

One rude post has been removed and the member warned. Let's get back on topic.

[sabaijai]

Posts containing racist epithets removed and warnings issued. The next one earns an immediate suspension.

[golgi1]

That was the weirdest, craziest case of thread hijacking I've ever seen, by Jingthing.

Calling someone an "Anti-semite" apropos of nothing having to do with the thread, is a slur meant to irrationally discredit or disingenuously silence discussion.

People have a right to their opinions. Its not rational nor logical that everyone in the world love the Jews, nor that any people in the world be universally loved. To think as much, and use such a philosophy to silence discussion is both narcissistic and messianic. The Koreans and the Chinese dislike the Japanese. Do you discredit comments from Korean and Chinese leaders based on that? No, Your opinion, which was used to filibuster and shout down, is born out of either brainwashing or personal interest. oohhh...your a big Israel fan. So what. The rest of the world doesn't have to be, and they also don't have to direct their conversation completely around your politics. So, your not a fan of the Malaysian leader. Okay got it. Next. Continue the discussion. Why does the forum need to put up with your continued, off-topic ranting?

People shouldn't sit for repetitive logical fallacies, such as you have employed. Malaysia and their leaders have their policies and opinions for specific reasons. Who are you to judge, or to even pretend that you have knowledge of what is best for their national interest? Grow up, please. Its a big world. Opinions are as varied as the stars, and not everyone needs to share yours, nor is everyone that doesn't share your opinion less deserving of a place to talk free of your continued judgment and off-topic continued ranting. State your piece, once, and be done with it. However, staying on topic will make you seem like you have less of an agenda next time. Just a tip.

Let us know: is every topic about the Malaysian PM, that isn't attacking him, going to be derailed into a "defend the jews" thread? You should let the forum know now, so everyone knows what to expect.

And I've read some of your other views on this post, other then your rabid Semitic defense. You, of all people, shouldn't be calling anyone else's views "bizarre" as you previously did. No "races', huh? Or are we nasty for not beleiving in your political view about that too? Mold us, wise one, lead us into the light. And shout us down when we stray, with slurs and ad-hominems. Please, its for our own good.

Edited November 30, 2011 by golgi1

[Jingthing]

It is related to the thread. The Malaysian ex-PM is known internationally as a rabid anti-semite. That is a fact and that is relevant. Racism is always wrong. Period. Against any group. This is a man who promotes anti-semitic theories that 9-11 was engineered by Jews as opposed to Al Queda. That the Asian financial meltdown was engineered by Jews. The justification by Bush (the convicted in the fake court) to attack Iraq (which was sadly based on lies) was directly related to the politics of the 9-11 attacks. If you don't see the connections here, you aren't paying attention.

Why should I back down from the obvious truth? A fake court started by a rabid hate mongering racist especially if the targets are related to his hate obsession is TOTALLY WORTHLESS.

Hijacking a thread generally means taking the thread off topic. The topic of this thread is both the Malaysian court and the convicted. I have been totally on topic in discussing the poisonous politics of the founder of that bogus court.

That said, if people really are interested in talking about whether Bush is guilty or not or whether he should be convicted (in a real international court) or not, I'm certainly not stopping you! My take on that is that most people here think he does have a degree of guilt but we also know realistically he is never going to face charges. I also think because this consensus exists here (my opinion) talking about the obvious is simply not very compelling to post about.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Jingthing

[golgi1]

Nah. It's not related. It's an ancillary topic that you are using to frame all actions by a particular PM / nation. It would be similar to me noting that Israel leads the western world in human trafficking, and framing any and all action of theirs through that lens, and framing all conversation about Israel and its citizens through that lens. Even if it was related, you use it as a bludgeon to keep the focus the thread on your particular view on Malaysian politics. If this wasn't the case, then you wouoldn't keep coming back to it. You would state your opinion, once, and let the thread and discussion continue without your constant refocusing of it. You're using a philibustering tactic to focus a particular conversation int he light that you are comfortable with. You aren't having a discussion, but rather monitoring a discussion so that it is framed in the context that you feel is appropriate.

Also, your views are your own, but not necessarily those of others. I don't think that you truly know what racism is, and you certainly aren't using the topic of 'racism' with all of the required context necessary for this particular discussion. Perhpas the Malaysian exculsion of Israelis is related to their percieved Israeli racist policies against Palestinians, who share the majority religion of Malaysia? How about that? Or is that 'racism' justified, excusable, and forgotten in the context of your judgment? Furthermore, perhaps the exclusion cannot be framed just in 'racism'. Just because you qualify the reason as such, doesn't make it true. Perhaps it is a lot deeper then that. I can think of a dozen reasons, based in international politics, that could be reasons beyond 'racism'. I see 'racism' as a purposefully played card meant to disengenuoulsy press an emotional button in people, to get them to stop thinking about the topic. You have zero idea as to the real resons why Israelis are excluded, and that is why your posts are inaparproriate, misguided, and, frankly, rude in their presuptiousness and persistence.

Let me ask you something. Do various races have the right to exist, as people?

Do the Thai have the right to exist and persist, as a race, in their own lands?

If you disagree, then the Thai people might take issue with your presence there.

Edited December 6, 2011 by golgi1

[golgi1]

One more thing:

Let me highlight the blatant hypocracy in your worldview , which you expect everyone to accept lest they incur the wrath of your judgment as an 'anti-semite'.

You say that racism is 'always wrong'.

However, you go on to call anyone a racist (anti-semite) who dares to criticize a particular race, the Jews (although you cleverly switch between 'Israelis' and 'Jews' no doubt toward the end of being able to claim that they are a 'race', 'nationality', or 'religion' whenever it suits you - but to disavow any of these terms when it does not).

Here's a fact:

Holding any race, people, nationality, religion, or any other group as above critisism, or suspicion, is supremacist.

Read that again: its supremacist and racist.

Anyone not see the logic in that?

Hiding behind accusations of 'racism' whenever you are criticized is racist and supremacist, becasue other nations, peoples, or whoever, do not have that luxury.

Here's another fact. I dare you to deny it:

Two Israeli Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) agents were caught filming 9/11 and celebrating (dancing, cheering) aftrer the event. Thats a cold, hard documented fact. It's documented in the police records. There are more facts to support any thoughts that might go down this path, but lets take this one in isolation for a moment.

I ask you to make a counterpoint as to how that fact does not warrant suspicion as to the Israeli Mossad's involvement in 9/11? It sure as hell proves prior knowledge. Prior knowledge by a nation that is supposed to be the 'good friend' of the USA. In the USA, even if you don't murder someone yourself, we classify a person who has knowledge prior-to-the-fact of a murder, without intervention, as being an 'accessory' to murder. That is, if you didn't murder the person yourself.

To dismiss this fact as 'racist' is beyond beleif, is supremacist, and wreaks of self-interest and an intent to prevent healthy inquiry into the situation - whether it be by individuals or at higher levels.

So, watch what you are calling racist, while clearly holding a 'people' above rational criticism or suspicion yourself.

So, what's the agenda?

Theirs, yours, or whoever?

Edited December 6, 2011 by golgi1

[Jingthing]

Let me ask you something. Do various races have the right to exist, as people?

Do the Thai have the right to exist and persist, as a race, in their own lands?

If you disagree, then the Thai people might take issue with your presence there.

Yes, all peoples have a right to exist.

Thais are not a race. That is a fact.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It sure as hell proves prior knowledge.

It sure does not.

The BS tin foil hate conspiracy theory you are selling of course is widely believed by groups that feed on that kind of thing such as the leaders of Iran and I'm sure the ex Malaysian PM we have discussing here. Doesn't make it true.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Dancing_Israelis

MILLER: (VO) Source tell 20/20 there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. But many in the US intelligence commu-nity believe that some of the men were engaged in espionage for Israel. However, sources also tell us, even if they were spies, there was no evidence to conclude they had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Mr. CANNISTRARO: The investigation, at the end of the day, after all of the polygraphs, all of the field work, all of the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advanced knowledge of 9/11.

WALTERS: John, so the FBI has concluded that these men did not have any ad-vanced knowledge of the attack on the Trade Center.

MILLER: And they seem to be comfort with that conclusion.

WALTERS: OK. Then what were they doing looking at the World Trade Center then?

MILLER: They say that they read about the attack on the Internet, went to the roof of the moving company, couldn't really see it, and then went to the higher ground to get a better view and to take pictures.

WALTERS: Well, all right, but why were they smiling?

MILLER: Well, that's been the most difficult question. And the only explana-tions we've had, both from the lawyer and from the Israeli government, is chalk-ing that up just to immature conduct.

WALTERS: But the bottom line is, that there is no evidence that these men knew about the attacks in advance.

MILLER: No. And I think the FBI and the CIA spent a great deal of time try-ing to drill down to that answer and found no proof of that.

WALTERS: Well, I hope that we have put this rumor to rest once and for all.

MILLER: We've certainly tried.

[Jingthing]

Something to add:

As I said before, I don't think there is really much interest here to discuss conviction of Bush, Blair, etc. in a phony court because we all know these cases will never be heard in an actual court and we all pretty much have our set opinions on whether they are guilty or not.

The Malaysian gambit -- stale news now and of course it amounted to nothing but a totally not surprising political statement.

So now this thread sits here to attract the kind of toxic diversion as above.

So wondering aloud here -- time to put the thread to bed?

Edited December 6, 2011 by Jingthing

[craigt3365]

A few off topic and argumentative posts have been removed.

[golgi1]

Wow, all of my responses to your above assertions have been removed. Color me surprised.

Maybe the mods will, then, allow me a summary of my points:

1. Your continued insistence on and use of logical fallacies, as points of argument, stands as testament to your rhetorical weakness.

2. There is plenty of (videotaped and admitted) confirmation as to the validity of prior knowledge, that goes against your assertion above of no prior knowledge.

3. You have a ethnic/religious bias toward this argument, and this is another reason as to why your opinion should be voiced once, here, and not continuously used to control the discussion.

Thank you Mods. I tried to be as succinct and brief as is possible. I did not think it fair that the argument ended with three of jingthings posts. Thanks again.

[craigt3365]

Wow, all of my responses to your above assertions have been removed. Color me surprised.

Maybe the mods will, then, allow me a summary of my points:

1. Your continued insistence on and use of logical fallacies, as points of argument, stands as testament to your rhetorical weakness.

2. There is plenty of (videotaped and admitted) confirmation as to the validity of prior knowledge, that goes against your assertion above of no prior knowledge.

3. You have a ethnic/religious bias toward this argument, and this is another reason as to why your opinion should be voiced once, here, and not continuously used to control the discussion.

Thank you Mods. I tried to be as succinct and brief as is possible. I did not think it fair that the argument ended with three of jingthings posts. Thanks again.

I'll allow this one reply, but please back to the topic or we'll have to close it.

Removing posts is not an easy task...especially with a thread like this!

:jap:

[thaifkrlim]

This mock tribunal is somewhat ambitious but tantalising, which tribunal or international court is appropriate and more capable to put bush blair for a fair trial, what can the international community do to actualise the conviction and what outcome are they expecting

[Jingthing]

This mock tribunal is somewhat ambitious but tantalising, which tribunal or international court is appropriate and more capable to put bush blair for a fair trial, what can the international community do to actualise the conviction and what outcome are they expecting

The ICC at the Hague.

http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/About+the+Court/

[Wallaby]

seriously who cares about the guys views, you like all the others cant let it go lol nastyeww

I see you added "content" to your post.

Who cares? He's not a taxi driver. He's probably the most famous Malaysian politician in history, and still lives. Malaysia, a country that bars entry to all Israelis, even Israeli taxi drivers, a country where it is reported Mein Kampf, the Elders of Zion, and the racist writings of Henry Ford are prominently displayed at Kuala Lumpur airport.

We can only assume he still holds the vile and bizarre views documented on this thread, as he has not retracted them. Beyond Malaysia, he has asserted himself as an "intellectual" leader among Islamic nations.

So when such a man starts a court as he did, people will quite justly take notice of what kind of man he is. If he wanted to retire in peace, he could have, but he himself has sought continued international exposure. Sure, he may still be a legitimate leader among anti-semites, dogmatic anti-Americans, and many nationalistic Malaysians, but that's pretty much it.

Just because you don't like someone or don't like his views or whatever does not mean the process was flawed. If you have issues with any part of the proceedings or evidence given in the trial then I'm all ears.

But commenting purely on the person is just a rant.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Wallaby

[Jingthing]

Here's a flaw. It wasn't a real trial. It wasn't a real court. Its decisions to have no consequence in the real world.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Jingthing

[Wallaby]

Here's a flaw. It wasn't a real trial. It wasn't a real court. Its decisions to have no consequence in the real world.

Ok so I take it you haven't read any transcript, you don't know of any issue of evidence or any problem with how the trial was conducted.

Your only issue is that you don't like him and you are getting your knickers in a twist over something you admit is of no consequence in the real world.

Maybe over reacting to something that means so little.

[Jingthing]

Have you read the transcripts? Where did you get the idea I read the transcripts, or cared what the transcripts of a Kangaroo play act court said in the first place.

[Wallaby]

Have you read the transcripts? Where did you get the idea I read the transcripts, or cared what the transcripts of a Kangaroo play act court said in the first place.

Well you did refer to it as a 'kangaroo court' and if you didn't care what the court said in the first place why did you say this...'Does Mahathir Mohamad's involvement in this farce court greatly devalue anything the court does in the eyes of the greater world? Of course it does! That cannot be denied'. Only you would understand how you come to that conclusion without knowing what transpired in the court.

Without reading any transcript, without knowing what was said in the court etc etc you have based you view that it is a farce simply on the fact you don't like him.

No I haven't read any transcripts either, or know the evidence, that is why I have not made an opinion as to whether I agree with the verdict or whether it is a farce. He may well be the antichrist for all I know but that doesn't mean I can judge the court as a farce without any knowledge of how the court conducted the trial. It may well be a farce, but I wouldn't judge that on whether I liked or disliked a judge.

Though I do wish one day that Bush and Blair etc would face an international court to test the veracity of their claims on the reasons to go to war. It won't happen I know, but one can still have hope.

[Jingthing]

Correct. It won't happen. It's clear both us think he is guilty of some crimes. It is also clear, as I have stated here ad nauseum, it was IMPOSSIBLE for this specific politically motivated Malaysian court to come to an innocent verdict for Bush. If you assert different, that's disingenuous. A credible court trial never starts with a predetermined verdict. I don't need to read any transcripts, and neither does anyone, to know the verdicts were predetermined in Malaysia.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Jingthing

[Naam]

ad nauseum

spelling police anonymously informed. they might turn up any time from now

[Jingthing]

ad nauseum

spelling police anonymously informed. they might turn up any time from now

OMG, it's a felony. Better cancel my travel plans to Malaysia. Don't want any marks on my bum.

[lovetotravel]

Though I do wish one day that Bush and Blair etc would face an international court to test the veracity of their claims on the reasons to go to war. It won't happen I know, but one can still have hope.

Considering the effectiveness of the international court, good luck with getting Bush and Blair there. What about Pol Pot? Darfur? Far worse crimes than what these two have done. And no justice yet.

[Pedzie]

Though I do wish one day that Bush and Blair etc would face an international court to test the veracity of their claims on the reasons to go to war. It won't happen I know, but one can still have hope.

Considering the effectiveness of the international court, good luck with getting Bush and Blair there. What about Pol Pot? Darfur? Far worse crimes than what these two have done. And no justice yet.

Aren't some ex Khmer rouge guys getting tried right now at the international court? I'm sure I heard something about it on the radio the other week.

Yes very unlikely Bush or Blair will face trial, Blair even has the cheek to become MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY

[lovetotravel]

Though I do wish one day that Bush and Blair etc would face an international court to test the veracity of their claims on the reasons to go to war. It won't happen I know, but one can still have hope.

Considering the effectiveness of the international court, good luck with getting Bush and Blair there. What about Pol Pot? Darfur? Far worse crimes than what these two have done. And no justice yet.

Aren't some ex Khmer rouge guys getting tried right now at the international court? I'm sure I heard something about it on the radio the other week.

Yes very unlikely Bush or Blair will face trial, Blair even has the cheek to become MIDDLE EAST PEACE ENVOY

Yes, it's an ongoing trial. For the past 30 years or so with hardly any results.

Again, there are people who have committed far worse crimes than Bush and Blair and they will probably never be brought to justice. Darfur, the Congo, etc. The ICC is pretty toothless.

[tutsiwarrior]

fwiw, anti-semitism is a visceral issue for jews just like racism is for black folks and a certain amount of ranting can be allowed...Matahir Mohammad and Admadinejad have about the same amount of international credibility and I don't understand what the fuss is about...but it's refreshing to see that many folks on this forum consider Bush and Blair to be culpable of war crimes however unlikely it may be that will stand trial for their what they have done (Bob Dylan: 'even Jesus would never forgive what you do...')

but Matahir and Admadinejad have stood up to the west and the bullying which is admirable and they can't be all bad...shame that they can't distinguish between israel and its supporters and jews in general...

Edited December 9, 2011 by tutsiwarrior

[Jingthing]

I agree intellectual critiques of western imperialism from the non-western world are quite valid. However, when it bleeds into Blame the Jews for everything, that is anti-semitism.

Edited December 9, 2011 by Jingthing

[craigt3365]

Another racist remark has been removed and the member is now on permanent posting holiday.