|
| Los Angeles - piekło na ziemi |
|
Ubóstwo w Kalifornii. Zrujnowana gospodarka najbogatszej kiedyś części świata.
To czeka nas jutro.
|
|
| Nanotechnologia w szczepionkach |
|
| PIĄTA KOLUMNA - SPRAWOZDANIE Z PRAC NAD ANALIZĄ ZAWARTOŚCI I DZIAŁANIA "SZCZEPIONEK" NA COVID |
|
| Szczepienia pełne kłamstw |
|
To szczepionki, a nie wirusy, powodują choroby.
Wirusy pobudzają proces zdrowienia. Nie są naszymi wrogami, stoją po naszej stronie.
Wybuch epidemii świńskiej grypy z 2009 roku ma swoje korzenie w inżynierii genetycznej i jest wynikiem działania człowieka. |
|
| Kolędowanie w Alternatywie dla Niemiec |
|
| |
|
| Milcz Lekarzu !!! |
|
Szczepionkowy bandytyzm w natarciu przeciw polskim lekarzom.
Mimo wielkiego doświadczenia i obserwacji pacjentów, lekarzowi nie wolno mówić o swoich obserwacjach gdy jest to nie zgodne z obowiązującym, chorym, systemem "opieki" zdrowotnej. |
|
| Strona Krzysztofa Wyszkowskiego |
|
| Strona domowa Krzystofa Wyszkowskiego |
|
| Częstotliwości radiowe i mikrofalowe a manipulacja ludzkimi emocjami i zachowaniem |
|
|
|
| Komuszy dogmat «Zielonej Energii» zamroził Teksas |
|
| Sieć energetyczna w Teksasie załamała się pod wpływem temperatur bardziej prawdopodobnych w Sioux Falls niż w San Antonio, pogrążając ponad 4 miliony ludzi w ciemności i pozostawiających ich bez ogrzewania |
|
| Ludobójstwo COVID- konferencja w Wiedniu 23 październik 2020 |
|
| 23 października 2020 zespół złożony z Claire Edwards (byłej redaktor pracującej dla ONZ, badaczki i mówczyni), Stevena Whybrow (dziennikarza śledczego, aktywisty, badacza Prawa Naturalnego i mówcy), Lucasa Alexandra (dziennikarza i prowadzącego telewizję internetową Age of Truth) oraz kilku innych osób, doręczył prezydentowi Austrii pismo, które następnie zostało odczytane i wyjaśnione bardziej szczegółowo na konferencji prasowej. |
|
| Wielkie pytania o 9/11 |
|
| Strona poświęcona analizie wydarzeń z 11 września 2001 |
|
| Niepożądane Odczyny Poszczepienne po szczepionkach przeciw COVID-19 w Polsce |
|
Narodowy Instytut Zdrowia Publicznego podaje jedynie zarejestrowane ubytki zdrowia po szczepieniach. Ale tylko do 4 tygodni po szczepieniu.
|
|
| Świat dał się ogłupić lewackiej religii klimatycznej. Wpływ CO2 na klimat jest znikomy |
|
| Wpływ CO2 na wzrost temperatury? Nie zostało przeprowadzone żadne potwierdzające badanie |
|
| Peruwianski sad uznal B. Gatesa G. Sorosa i Rokefelerow odpowiedzialnych za tworzenie "pandemii" COVID 19 |
|
| |
|
| 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
|
|
| www.globalresearch.ca |
|
| świetne analizy polityczne i gospodarcze w skali mikro i makro + anty-NWO |
|
| 5 przykładów izraelskich zbrodni wojennych w Strefie Gazy |
|
| |
|
| "Górale to męczą konie" |
|
| Powiedziałam prezesowi (Kaczyńskiemu), że górale bardzo na nich liczą, to są ich wyborcy, a prezes odpowiedział mi na to: "Górale to męczą konie". Byłam w szoku, że przy tak ważnym temacie gospodarczym mówi takie rzeczy - relacjonuje posłanka. |
|
| Nie dajmy się lobbystom energetyki jądrowej! Wywiad z prof. Mirosławem |
|
| Energetyka jądrowa jest przeżytkiem - nadzieje na tanią energię dawała w latach 60. ubiegłego stulecia, czyli przed pół wiekiem. Okazało się natomiast, że jest kosztowna, niebezpieczna, i nie wiadomo, jak poradzić sobie np. z jej odpadami. Istnieje jednak silne lobby łapówkarskie, które wciska energię jądrową do krajów słabych politycznie i gospodarczo. Nie możemy się mu poddać. |
|
| Pożary w Kaliforni - poważna analiza |
|
Jak lewacy spalili Los Angeles
|
|
| Próba upodmiotowienia obywateli za pośrednictwem internetu |
|
| Celem serwisu jest umożliwienie obywatelom wyrażenia swojej woli w najważniejszych dla nich sprawach. |
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
|
|
|
|
Ustawa a dziennikarze
styczeń 22, 2006
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
niestrudzeni - z kart historii
marzec 4, 2003
Miroslaw M. Krupinski (maj 1998)
|
Maleńka cegiełka..
kwiecień 12, 2005
Krystyna
|
Bez etykietek (koalicje lokalne)
Z profesor Jadwigą Staniszkis, socjologiem, rozmawia Ewa Sadura
listopad 22, 2002
http://www.trybuna.com.pl/
|
Odwaga cywilna
czerwiec 28, 2005
|
Złodziejskie rekomendacje
kwiecień 24, 2003
Artur Łoboda
|
Polski sen Prezydenta Rosji, Władimira P.
styczeń 4, 2007
W.P.
|
Kolejne buble i robota dla Trybunału
październik 30, 2004
Mirosław Naleziński
|
Wielka Loża Anglii
grudzień 12, 2003
S.B.
|
Eksport durak-kracji
czerwiec 18, 2006
PAP
|
Leszek Miller zachwycony polską gospodarką
grudzień 23, 2003
|
Tajemnicza droga izraelskiej broni
sierpień 29, 2002
PAP
|
"Wasze ulice, nasze kamienice"
październik 27, 2004
|
Nie utopmy przyszłości w tej krwi
lipiec 16, 2003
Andrzej Kumor
|
Pacyfikacja Polski Przez NKWD a Nowy Film o Jedwabnem
kwiecień 24, 2005
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Żołnierzom poświęcone...
sierpień 24, 2008
jobstalker
|
Iran nadal opiera się osi USA-Izrael
marzec 13, 2007
Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
|
Samoobrona może poprzeć Kołodkę
lipiec 5, 2002
PAP
|
Społeczeństwo tworzy język a nie językoznawcy
listopad 2, 2007
Mirosław Naleziński, Gdynia
|
Profesjonalizm
czerwiec 6, 2005
Artur Łoboda
|
więcej -> |
|
