|
| Niemcy 1940 - Izrael 2009 - Szokujące zdjęcia |
|
| |
|
| Nazwisko Horban na mapie świata |
|
| |
|
| Światowy dług |
|
| Ciekawe kto jest "wierzycielem" tego długu? |
|
| Kanciarze z Wall Street |
|
| Film przedstawia kulisy Wall street . Metody działania , które doprowadziły w ciągu kilku ostatnich lat do wywołania kryzysu finansowego. |
|
| Zakrzyczana prawda |
|
Mamy 2010 rok a zbrodniarze którzy doprowadzili do wielu wojen i kryzysu światowego w w dalszym ciągu - z tupetem - niczym Josef Goebbels kłamią w oczy w kwestii sytuacji gospodarczej świata i Stanów Zjednoczonych
|
|
| Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski |
|
| Notka wikipedii dotycząca osoby prof. Iwo Cypriana Pogonowskiego |
|
| Polscy "nacjonaliści" o żydach |
|
| Po prostu zobaczcie |
|
| WHO: Poprzez zdrowie publiczne do globalnej dyktatury |
|
| Traktat WHO oraz poprawki do Międzynarodowych Przepisów Zdrowotnych to bezpośredni atak globalistów na demokratyczne, suwerenne narody świata (chociaż już wiemy, że tak naprawdę ani one „demokratyczne”, ani „suwerenne”) w celu ustanowienia sanitarnej dyktatury WHO pod pretekstem walki z niekończącymi się pandemiami (a według nowej, zmienionej niedawno przez WHO definicji „pandemii”, pandemią może być dosłownie wszystko - może być „pandemia otyłości”, „pandemia depresji”, „pandemia kataru”, "pandemia alergii", itd.) |
|
| Aresztować Netanjahu |
|
| Protest w Warszawie po decyzji Rządu. |
|
| Wojsko izraelskie zabija Żydów, by odpowiedzialnością obarczyć Hamas |
|
| Na angielskojęzycznej, izraelskiej stronie ynetnews.com, pojawił się film nakręcony w podczerwieni przez jeden z izraelskich helikopterów typu Apache podczas ataku Hamasu na Izrael 7.10.2023 r. |
|
| Kowidowa żydokomuna szykuje sądy kiblowe |
|
| Reżim kowidowy Morawieckiego zamierza wprowadzić "komisarzy politycznych" dla ścigania wolnego słowa. |
|
| Syntetyczny patogen - to nie jest szczepionka |
|
| Wstrzykuje się im substancję chemiczną po to, żeby wywołać chorobę, a nie żeby wywołać odpowiedź odpornościową i nieprzenoszenie wirusa. Mówiąc inaczej, nic z tego nie powstrzyma rozprzestrzeniania się czegokolwiek. Tu chodzi o, żebyś się pochorował i o to, żeby to Twoje komórki spowodowały chorobę. |
|
| Odważni eksperci z USA, Rosji i Czech mówią prawdę o szczepieniach |
|
| |
|
| Dyrektorzy Moderny i AstraZeneca obwiniają Rządy za niebezpieczne szczepionki |
|
Chciałbym poznać datę, jeśli to możliwe, kiedy rozszyfrowaliście całą sekwencję DNA tego wirusa, czy też opieraliście się wyłącznie na sekwencji dostarczonej przez rząd chiński?
Czy podczas prób na ludziach umierali u was ludzie, a jeśli tak, to na jaką chorobę umierali? |
|
| Dr. L.Palevsky tłumaczy mechanizm działania szczepionki mRNA i wypływające z niej jej zagrożenia |
|
| Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, certyfikowany pediatra, autor i wykładowca, wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób szczepionka na COVID instaluje instrukcje genetyczne mRNA z białka wypustek SARS-Cov2, które następnie wykorzystuje nasze ciało do powielania się, co powoduje bezpłodność, krzepnięcie krwi i zakażenia przez wydzielanie cząstek białka wypustki dla bliskich członków rodziny poprzez oddech, ślinę, pot i złuszczanie się skóry, którzy z kolei doświadczają objawów krzepnięcia, siniaków i niepłodności, mimo że nie byli zaszczepieni szczepionka na COVID-19. |
|
| Ceremonia otwarcia tunelu drogowego św. Gotarda |
|
| Zapowiedź tego - co mamy dzisiaj |
|
| Warto posłuchać |
|
| Chociaż scyzoryk się w kieszeni otwiera - to musimy zapamiętać takie zdarzenia i przypomnieć przed Trybunałem do spraw zbrodni kowidowych |
|
| Meredith Miller - Trauma w relacjach ludzi z rządem. Psychologiczne aspekty operacji „Covid-19” |
|
Jak robi się z ludzi idiotów czy zmanipulowane marionetki i jak ludzie robią to sobie sami !
|
|
| Wirusowe kłamstwa. Komu zależy na straszeniu nas przeziebieniem? |
|
| |
|
| Ljubljana - protesty przeciwko szczepieniom |
|
29 września 2020 roku po incydencie na obwodnicy Lublany trwa na Placu Republiki protest przeciwko szczepieniom Covid-19
|
więcej -> |
|
Ciekawostka - wojna z Irakiem była nielegalna
|
|
 Surprise, surprise: War on Iraq was illegal
War on Iraq was illegal, say top lawyers
A panel of eminent experts will warn that UN authority has been 'seriously weakened' by conflict
By Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik
25 May 2003
The war on Iraq will be condemned as illegal by a panel of eminent international lawyers at a conference being organised by the actor Corin Redgrave.
The symposium, to be held next Sunday at the Young Vic theatre in London, will also hear senior legal experts allege that the conflict has seriously weakened the authority of the United Nations and potentially threatened global security.
The panellists include Professor Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers, Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, and Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly and former Czech foreign minister.
Another prominent speaker, Professor Burns Weston, a human rights lawyer at the University of Iowa in the US, fears that other countries might use the American decision to wage war illegally to justify their own unlawful wars.
He is most concerned about India and Pakistan - two nuclear powers in dispute over Kashmir. "It is a very bad precedent for other countries that might seek, in their own lack of wisdom, to emulate the United States," he said.
The event, called "Liberation or War Crime" will be chaired by the former Radio 4 Today programme presenter Sue MacGregor and is expected to attract other prominent figures, including the playwright David Hare, the Booker
Prize-winning Indian writer Arundhati Roy and the former foreign secretary Robin Cook.
Prof Sands, one of 16 prominent international lawyers who earlier this year publicly warned Tony Blair that the war was illegal, said the conflict raised two major issues.
"First, did the Security Council authorise the use of force, and the answer to that is no. And [second] were we misled about the presence of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently, yes. These things are going to come back to haunt us," Prof Sands said.
Mr Redgrave, whose film roles include parts in Four Weddings and A Funeral, Enigma and In the Name of the Father, said one objective in staging and paying for the event was to investigate the damage caused by the war to international peace.
"Very early on, before the war began, it seemed that one of the main casualties of war was the whole fabric of international law and convention," he said. "It seemed to me there was a willingness, indeed a desire, on the part of America at least, to rend that fabric in a way that would almost make it irreparable."
The controversy over the legality of the war partly subsided on Thursday after the US supported an unexpectedly far-reaching resolution at the Security Council guaranteeing Iraq's independence and giving the UN a more powerful role in its reconstruction.
Although the resolution answered widespread concerns that the occupation of Iraq was also illegal - concerns shared by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - British lawyers warned there were still serious worries over the legality of the coalition's conduct.
Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar Council's human rights committee, said coalition forces were in breach of UN Resolution 1325, which requires participants in a conflict to have particular regard to the rights of women.
Since the war, Mr Carter said, women feared more for their safety because of the frequent looting, chaos and unlawfulness. "Women must feel free to walk the streets and go about their business. It is true to say that Iraqi women during Saddam's rule experienced greater freedoms than in other Arab countries."
Prof Sands said the new UN resolution had, for the first time, cancelled all previous legal or contractual rights to Iraq's oil - giving the coalition freedom to sell the oil to whichever firm they wanted. This raised "far-reaching" questions about the rights of an occupier to control a country's natural resources.
'There was no threat. There was no resolution'
Professor Philippe Sands QC
Director of the Centre on International Courts and Tribunals, University
College London
The war was contrary to international law and it was contrary to international law whether or not they find weapons of mass destruction. The illegality was based on the absence of a Security Council resolution authorising the use of force. I think that is the view of almost every independent commentator.
The claim by the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith - that the war was legal because Saddam Hussein had failed to comply with UN resolutions dating back to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - has received almost no support outside the UK or the United States from independent academic commentators.
Professor Robert Black QC
Professor of Scots law, Edinburgh University, and architect of the Lockerbie trial in The Hague
It's simple and straightforward. There are only two legal justifications for attacking another country: self-defence, or if the Security Council authorises you to do so. It is perfectly plain that none of the Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq authorised armed intervention. It's possible to cobble together what looks like a legal argument, but the real test of any legal argument is whether a court would accept that argument. I challenged the Attorney General to say what he thought the odds were of the International Court of Justice in The Hague accepting his argument. In my view, the odds against were greater than 10 to 1.
Professor Sean Murphy
Associate professor of law at George Washington University, Washington DC
I think there's a real question to be raised about whether the US, UK and Australian coalition properly intervened in Iraq without Security Council authorisation, and I think there are very sound reasons for saying that the intervention was not permitted. The US-UK legal justification, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating back to 1990-91, isn't credible. When you look closely at the resolutions and the practice of the Security Council, it's clear that the majority of members of the Security Council believed that further authorisation was needed in March 2003 than, in fact, existed.
Professor Vaughan
Lowe Chichele Professor of Public International Law, All Souls College, Oxford
The new resolution provides a firm legal basis for the coalition occupation of Iraq.
It gives the UN a role that is prominent on paper but which, in fact, is not at all powerful on the ground. The coalition practically has a free hand in 'promoting' reform and the formation of an interim administration ... The key question is how far the coalition may proceed with economic and political restructuring in Iraq before the election of a government by the Iraqi people. The resolution does not spell that out; nor does it fix any timetable for the return of power to the Iraqi people. Nor does it stipulate how the massive reconstruction costs of the programme - and the benefits, in terms of commercial contracts - will be distributed.
Professor James Crawford
Whewell Professor of International Law, Jesus College, Cambridge
On the information available, none of the exceptions that permit the use of force applied. There was no UN Security Council authorisation, and no
imminent humanitarian catastrophe, and no imminent threat of the use of force by Iraq. I think it was unlawful in the beginning, and they haven't found anything since to make one change one's mind.
The earlier Security Council resolutions were related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed. It's very contrived to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorises the use of force.
Professor Mary Kaldor
Professor of global governance, London School of Economics
Going back to the 1991 UN resolutions is the real weakness of their
argument. It is an awfully long time ago, and it's as though this isn't a new war - as if it is the same war we fought in 1991. I think that it is an incredibly weak legal case. I don't think there's any way we can argue that the Iraq intervention was legitimate, and it's illegitimate for two reasons.
There was no real case that the inspectors weren't dealing with the weapons of mass destruction. And, we're now seeing what a lot of people warned we would see: that this will be bad for [curbing] terrorism rather than good.
26 May 2003 11:27
|
|
3 czerwiec 2003
|
|
przesłała Elżbieta
|
|
|
|
POECI, ANIOŁY, DOBROĆ
listopad 19, 2008
Zygmunt Jan Prusiński
|
Prawo nie mówi, jakie mają być pochodnie - Wywiad ze Stanisławem Michalkiewiczem
grudzień 8, 2006
rozmawiała Magdalena Kula
|
Polacy Jako "Kozly Ofiarne" Fałszywego Mitu Żydowskiego w USA
marzec 8, 2005
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Specjaliści od kropek i plecenia
lipiec 6, 2007
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Aby Kwaśniewską stać było na charytatywność, przy współudziale jej męża umierają ludzie
listopad 30, 2003
http://www.se.pl
|
To tylko biznes
lipiec 17, 2002
PAP
|
Odłożona prywatyzacja
lipiec 4, 2002
PAP
|
Między młotem a kowadłem
grudzień 4, 2003
|
Pensje
maj 14, 2003
red. Krzysztof
|
Tabu polityczne
sierpień 8, 2006
Stanisław Michalkiewicz
|
Minister Izraela: "Musimy być częścią Unii Europejskiej i NATO"
styczeń 4, 2007
BIBUŁA - pismo
|
Wiwat populizm!
czerwiec 5, 2004
|
.Pl.Jokes..O protestach lekarzy ciut dluzej ..i z ciut dalszej perspektywy...
lipiec 15, 2007
fF>Dz
|
Singer to stand down as President of Claims Conference
czerwiec 17, 2007
przysłał ICP
|
Śmiertelne pasje
sierpień 11, 2008
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Kwaśniewski spotka się z Putinem na Wawelu
styczeń 26, 2005
|
XVIII Memoriał Jana Strzeleckiego
luty 1, 2006
|
Kiedy znieczulica powstaje
marzec 28, 2008
Marek Jastrząb
|
Jak oszukać PKB?
czerwiec 17, 2006
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Słowiański bazar
sierpień 28, 2007
nadesłał Marduk
|
więcej -> |
|
