URN - u little gay boy... Hey just kidding - it's good to have u back.

""" Go Slap that Ukranian W h o r e u call a mother"""

LOL... speaking of demi- where is medicine boy anyway - he ran away and never came back...

Kim,

u wouldn't know what a lobby of rocks is - u don't live in Israel. lol...

"""Tank and armored infantry units moved into "A Areas"""

Childhood - childhood - childhood...

is ur Pie hole getting wet and juicy?

Lx do u know what to do with a wet and juicy PIE WHOLE?

LMAO...

Sad bastard!!!

Forces fear war crimes threat

Commanders voice concern over new court and 'Brussels meddling'

Special report: European integration

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday March 7, 2001
The Guardian

Top military commanders have warned ministers that the proposed new International Criminal Court championed by the foreign secretary, Robin Cook, could lead to British troops being prosecuted for war crimes.

They believe it could also prevent British peacekeepers from carrying out their tasks effectively.

Their deep unease reflects a broader concern about regulations restricting the operation of the military, covering health, safety, working practices and non-discrimination, by what a senior defence source described
yesterday as "rules made in places other than our capital city" - a reference to Brussels, above all.

The plan for the permanent, UN-sponsored, court was agreed at a conference in Rome in 1998. Legislation ito incorporate into British law the treaty setting up the court is about to pass through the Lords before
going to the Commons.

"Given wrong rules of engagement [British commanders] could find themselves liable to prosecution as war criminals", a senior defence source warned yesterday. He added that ministers were "very aware" of
such a prospect. He said he was concerned in particular about conflicts and operations, short of a full-scale war, even - paradoxically - where British forces were engaged in support of the UN.

Another senior defence source said that future rules of engagement could, for instance, prevent a British warship from attacking a hostile vessel until it was too late.

The jurisdiction of the proposed new international court extends to genocide, and crimes against humanity, as well as war crimes. In the treaty setting it up, war crimes are broadly defined and include: "Intentionally
launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life, or injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects, or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment
which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated."

The bill also states that "a military commander...is responsible for offences committed by forces under his effective command and control...as a result of his failure to exercise control properly over such forces."

This applies "where he either knew, or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known, that the forces were committing or about to commit such offences and he failed to take all necessary and
reasonable measures within his power to prevent or repress their commission".

The treaty is not retrospective. However, Michael Caplan, a former lawyer to the Chilean ex-dictator, General Augusto Pinochet, questioned last month how Tony Blair would have been able to defend himself if he
were charged with bombing targets in Kosovo in the knowledge that civilians might be killed.

The court will only be set up after the treaty has been ratified by 60 countries - so far only 29 have done so. Though Bill Clinton signed the treaty in the last days of his presidency, it is unlikely to pass through the
US Senate, given fears that American soldiers might be targets of politically-motivated prosecutions.

However, the Foreign Office insisted yesterday that the treaty establishing the court merely incorporates existing tenets of international law. Rules of engagement for British commanders were always consistent with
international law such as the Geneva conventions, it said.

Safeguards have been inserted into the bill to prevent politically-motivated prosecutions, a spokesman said. In the first instance any investigation will be carried out by authorities in the country whose nationals are
accused of wrongdoing.

Humanitarian agencies and human rights groups strongly back the new court.

However, senior defence sources yesterday made clear that, in their view, the safeguards are not sufficient. "We have got to [ensure] there is a framework that does not prevent us from from doing what we set out
to do", one senior official said. He said the new rules could make new types of weapons illegal.

In other walks of life, new regulations were being introduced with very good reason to make the workplace safer, he said. However, "when we see bits of European legislation [the military] should, not be forced to
follow it slavishly".

Another military source cited as an example rules which might prevent helicopters from exercising - or even training for rescue missions - in bad weather.

Sir Charles Guthrie, former chief of defence staff, and his successor, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, recently expressed concern about what they see as an increasingly "litigious society". Defence officials privately
accuse the government of deferring too much to political correctness.

Last month, Francis Maude, the shadow foreign secretary, claimed that the bill setting up the international court would allow officers to be prosecuted for crimes committed by their troops, even if those troops were
not obeying orders at the time.

Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001

EU ministers sign treaty but defence plan rankles

Special report: European integration

Andrew Osborn in Brussels and Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday February 27, 2001
The Guardian

EU foreign ministers yesterday paved the way for the bloc to take in up to 12 new member states in the next decade amid increasingly bitter arguments over Europe's nascent defence capability.

Though the landmark Treaty of Nice, agreed by European Union heads of government in December and signed yesterday, details the form that a larger and more flexible union will take when countries such as
Poland and Hungary join, perhaps its most contentious passage concerns the vexed issue of defence cooperation.

Robin Cook and his EU counterparts yesterday abandoned their monthly meeting in Brussels mid-afternoon and flew to Nice to formally sign on the dotted line, all too aware of the long-term arguments over
whether Europe's new defence capability will undermine Nato.

Not that the rest of the treaty was plain sailing or uncontroversial. Differences over how many votes each country should have when it comes to crunch EU decision-making continue to rankle and Tony Blair had to
fight hard to keep the national veto on tax policy.

The ceremony yesterday went smoothly, however, and did not overrun its scheduled 45-minute slottoo greatly.

Everyone signed and listened politely as president of the European commission, Romano Prodi, the French president, Jacques Chirac, and the French prime minister, Lionel Jospin, gave short, worthy speeches.
But no one wanted to talk about defence.

At a joint press conference with Tony Blair in Washington last week, the US president, George Bush, said the prime minister "assured me Nato is going to be a primary way to keep the peace in Europe. He also
assured me that European defence would not undermine Nato and that the planning would take place within Nato".

Iain Duncan Smith, the shadow defence secretary, promptly accused Mr Blair of lying. The prime minister's case is not helped by France's insistence that the EU will have its own "autonomous planning system".

Unfortunately the treaty will do little to resolve what is essentially a partisan dispute. It hedges its bets by stressing the importance of Nato while simultaneously referring to the EU's "autonomous" decision-making
powers.

If it serves to underline one thing it is that no one has yet agreed just how Nato and the EU will work together.

Phrases such as "the progressive framing of a common defence policy" sit cheek by jowl with provisos such as provided "it shall respect the obligations of certain member states which see their common defence
realised in Nato".

The text then muddies the waters further by stressing that the EU's political and security committee should, where appropriate, have the power to exercise political and strategic leadership in peacekeeping
operations.

In a phrase that will be seized on by opponents of an EU army it says the bloc should have "an autonomous capacity to take decisions and actions in the security and defence field". Littered with ifs and buts and
apparent contradictions, the text does little to clarify the EU's new defence role. That is clearly an issue that will ultimately be decided by member states.

But where Nato does not want or need to get involved the treaty makes it clear that EU-led operations to cope with international crises, peacekeeping and humanitarian disasters, will be perfectly feasible. But
whether individual member states get involved or not will be up to them.

The text of the Nice treaty will now need to be ratified by the EU's 15 national parliaments and the European parliament before it becomes legally binding - probably 2002 at the earliest.

But come 2004 it will be reviewed again and the wording on defence policy is unlikely to remain so hazy.

Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001

Lone voice of reason?


Amid the rhetoric on both sides, the stage appears
set for a new escalation in the uprising to mark the
installation of Mr Sharon's government, and the
Jewish festival of Purim later this week, which has
often been marred by violence.

Police said yesterday's bomb was a relatively small
device, but they believe the Palestinian militant had
been in the Netanya area for several days, waiting
for his moment. It was not immediately clear whether
he was part of the cell behind two bombings last
week, in Tel Aviv and in northern Galilee.

Yesterday's suicide bomber struck just before 9am
with lethal effect, killing two women and a man. "I
saw hands and legs all over the street. It looked like
a butcher's shop," said Israel Aaron, a traffic
policeman.

Mr Aaron said he held out little hope that Mr Sharon
could end the violence with strong-arm tactics. "We
tried strong, but I do not think it is a good solution.
We kill some Palestinians, and then they kill some of
us. We score a goal, and then they score a goal,
and it goes on and on. It is like ping-pong. We have
to stop it, and sit down and talk."

10:26 [Wednesday 7th March, 2001]

Photos of tortured children on display

MOSCOW - Human rights activists displayed photographs Monday that suggested Russian troops tortured dozens of Chechens in the war-torn republic before executing them and throwing them into a mass grave.

Several photographs showed bodies with skin peeled off their faces, while others had teeth pulled out. Many were blindfolded and had hands tied behind their backs. Others had their ears cut off.

Almost all had bullet holes in their skulls.

The activists said Russian prosecutors have confirmed that some of those discovered in the mass grave had previously been detained by federal troops during "cleansing operations" of Chechen villages and had later disappeared without a trace.

The pictures were so graphic that several hardened Russian reporters ran sobbing out of the Moscow press conference room where the photographs were displayed, while AFP decided only a few were suitable for publication.

But highlighting how divisive the 17-month war has become, many others shook their heads in disgust, refusing to believe that the pictures were real.

"This could be a vision of what Russia will become in the future if we do not re-think this war," said Alexander Sokolov of Memorial, which was founded by Soviet-era dissident and Nobel Peace Prize winner Andrei Sakharov.

The photographs were taken by activists from the rights group early last week. Memorial said the bodies were discovered in a mass grave near the Russian military base Khankala on the outskirts of the rebel capital Grozny.

The Russian human rights group said at least 50 bodies of Chechens have been recovered so far.

It said other such mass graves also existed near the southern Chechen city Urus-Martan and the settlement Tangi-Chu.

"It is hard to argue that the Chechen rebels did this themselves because they were killed after the Russian forces took Grozny and Khankala," in February 2000, said Oleg Petrov of Memorial.

Russian prosecutors have suggested that the bodies were those of civilians killed by rebel guerrillas who refused to join the fight against the federal troops.

The groups said prosecutors are reluctant to follow up on locals' reports that other such earth pits are being discovered regularly.

"More and more graves are being discovered of people who the Russians first arrested and who then went missing," said Memorial's Petrov.

"We saw the bodies that had been brought in for identification," he said.

"There were three women among them. Two of the men had their left ears cut off. Nearly all had been blindfolded and had their hands tied."

Memorial's executive director Tatyana Kasatkina added: "These bodies are evidence of war crimes committed by federal troops."

The group said that at least 2,000 Chechens who were officially registered as detainees have gone missing since the start of the war.

But they said the true figure of those executed by the Russians may never be known.

"I saw all three bodies" that were identified after the grave was discovered, Said-Rakhman Musayev, the father of one of the dead men, told Memorial.

"He was executed. There are bullet holes in his heart and lungs. And all three have a final shot in their head," Musayev said.

Memorial claimed that Russian soldiers were now taking bribes to allow the surviving relatives of the victims to take the bodies and re-bury them at home.

the bodies were discovered in a mass grave near the Russian military base Khankala
on the outskirts of the rebel capital Grozny.

The Russian human rights group said at least 50 bodies of Chechens have been recovered so far.

It said other such mass graves also existed near the southern Chechen city Urus-Martan and the settlement Tangi-Chu.

"It is hard to argue that the Chechen rebels did this themselves because they were killed after the Russian forces took Grozny and Khankala," in February 2000, said Oleg Petrov
of Memorial.

Russian prosecutors have suggested that the bodies were those of civilians killed by rebel guerrillas who refused to join the fight against the federal troops.

The groups said prosecutors are reluctant to follow up on locals' reports that other such earth pits are being discovered regularly.
___________________________________________________________-

Do you mean to say that the Russian authorities lie as wel as the Nato authorities, the Isreali authorities, the palestinian authorities, the US and EU, etc... ???????????
Surely not!

OHAYA. KISAKO!
MORNIN', MUM!
0835

...so is anybody ever going to explain to REAL ARAB FAKE AMERICAN PATHETIC LYING GROSS PIG FARIS HOMOUD
that there's no such [expletive] thing as "a lobby of rocks"?
stupid, stupid CREEP -_-
==
yo, cap info:
....so _how_ is it those jihad mofos are treating their _russian_ prisoners, and why would you take the chechen side?
the chechen populace is _not_ the issue.
==
i hope to mail you a couple tapes, by saturday at least, mum...
==
Kisako, that whole Napster game is getting silly...oy...i have app. 70 mp3s now, and the one artist i have more mp3s of than any other is...
Ofra Haza!
much foreign-language material; 'foreign' to moi anyhow, cheri.
..but i betcha the material i'm seeking wont be 'blocked' a few days from now, when the supposed "blockage list" is supposed to kick in.
===
and lastly...
FAKE:
"wet and juicy pie whole?"
what the f*cking hell are you blathering about?
more inability to spell english, huh, FAKE?
whatever, pince cabron -_-

that's not the way i treat women, FAKE.
which is why i have a couple lady friends here.
AND YOU DO NOT.
which is why, in the 'real world', i'm _not_ a virgin...
AND YOU ARE
which is why i dont live in a shed behind my house
AND YOU DO.

hock-PTUI! -_-
===

{+2sk}

Morning, again, mum!
one more comment to say...i feel the chechen populace is in between the 'holy warriors' and the russians...
military excesses notwithstanding, i blame the 'holy warriors' for the worst of this...

Hi, L'menexe, I was just in a daydream about this over coffee........One thing that sprang to mind about Informer's post was the state of the Russian army. Thinking of the British "professional" Army, they are treated like little princes, eduction, training, health care, pensions, etc. They are actively encouraged to discuss amoungst themselves and with their superiors about British defence policy, Nato Policy, world affaires, politics etc. - Compare to the Russian Army : Conscripts, lucky if they get paid, poor living conditions, etc. - Well its no excuse at all, but you can see how things are likely to get out of control..........

The other question I had about informers previous post was: "what is the definition of a political prisoner?" - according to the UN -according to Amnesty international ?????

Does that include the IRA thugs who go about Knee-capping youths in Belfast, for the heinous crimes of petty theft and drug dealing?
Does that include the people who bomb innocent people then claim to be political prisoners 'cause there happens to be a war going on? Can these same people then be held accountable for War crimes in the new UN Court?????

I agree that the Chechen populace are caught in the middle of a new and at the same time medieval practise of using the local population as a weapon.(Russian Army and Holy-warriors alike)

If you see horror every day, does it become "normality"????????

URN:

were you able to get in to USC this morning?

i cant get there, nor the other #54, 'world news and views' forum, usually featuring TEAM ROCKET and the SICK and TWISTED St. Tony.

no great loss in the case of the latter, but did toyman decide to move after all?

Team Rocket? Not.......err...Marie and Isa, who's miauth?

indeed, mum. indeed!

ever seen the cartoon
"Pokemon?"

TEAM ROCKET are the fools who plot their plots...
and LOSE every episode.

quite like mad, mad Marie and mr. 4' 10"...

Kim,
* Delenne, is Isreal attempting to take back control of the Pal jurisdiction?
Stench will rise from various "humanitarian" paranoids, sponsored by oil-Arab hypocrites. And there is no need to. So, the Sharon-style (when in Gaza) cleanup is possible. In this case an "ethnic cleansing" BS and a number of "cleansed" "refugees" may turn up, but ... who needs them here? (Who needed K.-Albs. in the ME? They preferred to push for K.-Alb. European "resettlement" with their own aims in mind - promotion of the worst of Islam.) Jordan will, most likely, close its border and may even open fire on the "beloved brethren", for instance. Because, noone needs them, as they are viewed as a destabilizing force for any Arab Govt., that may give them refuge. (The Egyptians were hard in kicking of all of their "cleansed" K.-Alb. moslem "brethren" back.) So, the Arabs want to make two targets with one shot - to contain and control Pals (which are viewed and treated as a third-grade Arabs) and to fight Israel, no matter what "peace-loving" blah-blah, with Pals' hands. A good position, that makes use of all "useful" "humanitarian" paranoids, that would wake up only when a bomb goes off in their front-yard, and even after it, I suspect, they would find a "humanitarian excuse", - some noble sauvage BS.;o)

Kim, I would have scuttled this Criminal Court joke, - it defies common sense. And how, for instance, they would "prosecute" Hezbollah? ;o))

* We have
to stop it, and sit down and talk."
Did talks help, so far?