How The US Will Save Syria Four Chemical Attacks U.S. Wants You to Forget | Brainwash Update How Obama's rogue state tramples over every law it demands Syria uphold For 67 years the US has pursued its own interests at the expense of global justice – no wonder people are sceptical now US troops fire a white phosphorous mortar towards a Taliban position on 3 April 2009 in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photograph: John Moore/Getty You could almost pity these people. For 67 years successive US governments have resisted calls to reform the UN security council. They've defended a system which grants five nations a veto over world affairs, reducing all others to impotent spectators. Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. Through this tyrannical dispensation – created at a time when other nations were either broken or voiceless – the great warmongers of the past 60 years remain responsible for global peace. But now, as the veto powers of two permanent members (Russia and China) obstruct its attempt to pour petrol on another Middle Eastern fire, the US suddenly decides that the system is illegitimate. Source: The Guardian
The Significance of the Upcoming War with Syria SYRIA: 10 Thoughts On The Crisis A Few Questions for Those Upset by the Zimmerman Verdict Please read this first!: This survey focuses specifically on some of the most underreported (or misreported) facts in this case -- facts that challenge many of the preconceptions created by the news media's coverage of this topic. It is not meant to be a balanced or comprehensive list of all the evidence and is not a scientific poll. Here's some quick background: The primary issue in the Zimmerman Trial was whether there was enough evidence to conclude that Zimmerman may have legitimately acted in self-defense. Zimmerman's defense claim is basically this: Zimmerman was in his car when he spotted Trayvon Martin acting strange (wandering in the rain and staring at the houses), so he called the police. Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin, but since the dispatcher advised him not to continue following, he started walking back to meet the police. If that version of events was true, then Zimmerman had a legitimate self-defense claim.
5 Myths about Stand Your Ground Debunked Myth # 1: Stand Your Ground means that you can shoot people if you believe they are a threat to your life. Fact: No. That is basic self-defense, in all 50 states and every country in the world that has an advanced legal system, not Stand Your Ground. Remember that the belief that force is necessary to protect yourself must be reasonable and the amount of force used must be reasonable. Reasonableness is determined by a jury. Stand Your Ground simply means that you don't have to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force. Whether Stand Your Ground is a good policy or not is certainly debatable. Myth #2: Stand Your Ground is only the law in Florida and a handful of other red states. The other 12 states also have some version of Stand Your Ground, but it is limited in some states to when you are in your home, in other states to your home or vehicle, in other states home, vehicle, and workplace, and in other states it includes other peoples' homes as well.
George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case leaves many myths (opinion) View full sizeGeorge Zimmerman, left, talks to his attorney, Don West, during jury deliberations in his trial in Sanford, Fla., on Saturday, July 13, 2013. (AP Photo/Orlando Sentinel, Gary W. Green, Pool) It has been almost a week since a Florida jury acquitted George Zimmerman of murder in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, but the fury over the decision has hardly died down. In the commentary and analysis, there has been much irresponsible rhetoric –- from the U.S. attorney general to message board commenters. Message board commenters I can forgive. Here are a few: Trayvon Martin was killed over a bag of Skittles. The Skittles quickly became a symbol of this whole, sad affair. Respected CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin tweeted: “Trayvon got the death penalty for buying Skittles in a hoodie.” The implication seems to be that Zimmerman thought a black youth had no business making a candy run in his neighborhood and shot him down. The truth is, the Skittles had nothing to do with the case.