Saif al Islam

The interviewee is a young fighter from Jabhat al-Nusra, an extremist Sunni group in Syria affiliated with al-Qaeda in Iraq. A former teacher and then tiler, he is...

U.S. President Barack Obama, former U.S. president George W. Bush, former British prime minister Tony Blair should be tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC), prominent thinker and linguist Noam Chomsky says in an interview with RT.

“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the ICC]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” said the father of modern linguistics.

Chomsky said that the invasion of the oil-rich Arab country is a “supreme international crime” based on Nurnberg tribunal, adding that the invaders must be also held accountable for the ensuing deadly violence there.

“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That’s part of the evil that follows.

However, Chomsky is highly doubtful that those responsible for the Iraq war would ever face justice at the ICC.

“That is just inconceivable. In fact there is a legislation in the U.S. which in Europe is called the ‘Netherlands invasion act’, Congressional legislation signed by the president, which authorizes the president to use force to rescue an American brought to the Hague for trial,” he went on to explain.

He also criticized president Obama over his drone program in Muslim countries describing it as a “most massive terror campaign”.

US academic Chomsky says former and current US presidents must be tried at ICC for Iraq invasion.

Obama's ironclad way of battling terrorists sparked heated debate during his speech in Washington. At one point the president was stopped in his tracks by an...

What do you do when a man is killed in the streets where you live? According to some wonderful humans, you call for the mass slaughter of all those who practice the same religion that the killers may practice!There was a horrific attack today in Woolwich in southeast London. Two men attacked another man, who is believed to be a soldier, and then beheaded him with a machete. Literally, what the fuck.It is being called a terrorist attack and it is said that they are Islamic extremists because someone told some guy who told his brother’s uncle who works for the BBC that they heard them shout “Allahu Akbar.” Well,ok. If you insist. Saying these things certainly won’t fan the flames in jolly old England…

Glenn Greenwald: What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

 

Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".

That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.

But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

http://www.voltairenet.org The recycling of Bin Laden’s men by Webster G. Tarpley* Drawing on the West Point Military Academy’s analysis of records seized in the Islamic Emirate of Iraq, U.S. histo...

More whistleblowers will emerge shortly in the escalating Benghazi scandal, according to two former U.S. diplomats who spoke with PJ Media Monday afternoon.

These whistleblowers, colleagues of the former diplomats, are currently securing legal counsel because they work in areas not fully protected by the Whistleblower law.

According to the diplomats, what these whistleblowers will say will be at least as explosive as what we have already learned about the scandal, including details about what really transpired in Benghazi that are potentially devastating to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

DAGUESTAN, Fédération russe -  Situé entre la  Tchétchénie et la mer Caspienne, cette province russe dans le Caucase du Nord, où les terroristes disent qu'ils se battent pour un Etat islamique sud ...

US President Barack Obama now pledges to transfer the responsibility of the shadow 'Drone Wars' from the CIA to the Pentagon – so the US Congress is able to monitor it.  Until virtually yesterday the Obama administration did not even recognize in...

Do you think it was a "terrorist" attack?
What the word terrorism typically means in reality, functionally, when it’s most commonly used by our media, is that the perpetrators are Muslim, and that they are driven by either religious or political motivations. I think that when it became clear that the perpetrators were Muslim (they said "Allah Akbar" during the attack), then media outlets instantly said that this was an act of terror, and politicians sort of did at the same time. The premise here is that if the violence is perpetrated by Muslims against the West, for a political cause, then by definition it’s terrorism, but not the other way around. It’s very typical to call this a terrorist attack without including all sorts of acts of violence that the US and UK has routinely engaged in over the last decade.

 

The News-Herald is your source for all Northeast Ohio 24-hour breaking news, local news, sports, life and more. View daily weather updates, watch videos and photos. Keep up with Northeast Ohio's News and Northeast Ohio local Sports.

Foreign Ministers
African Union Member States
Re: 50thAnniversary and Advancing Justice for Grave Crimes
To Foreign Ministers of African Union member states:

In the military, following orders isn't a choice, it's an obligation. So what happens when a soldier says no? Joe Glenton was that soldier. When ordered to r...

The tone of truth and moderation