My friend you should be in the Hague and become a member of the ongoing circus too and continue to entertain us all. Look, this is the problem with this case, the witnesses claims “I was there, I saw it, I carried it, I heard it, I negotiated it, and I am telling you”. These are the punch lines for defense witnesses. I am not discrediting your claims, but the only way you could have known where Taylor slept was unless you were like Zig Zag, a member of his, “inner circle” (which of course was later discredited). Let’s be real with ourselves, until impeachable evidence is presented, THERE IS NO CASE! So if you have somethings that the court does not have and you have, I would recommend that you contact them that they might consider a motion to add it into their file–of course, it would be objected and “sustained” by the judges.

I don’t think George Bush can be used as a good moral compass here neither can Tony Blair. Lets say your accusation against Taylor is right, OK (remember this is for the sake of discussion, I am not rendering an guilty verdict). So Taylor financed acts of “terror against defenceless civilians” (I am quoting you, my friend Tamba), right? So lets take a look at the leaders of the “freeworld” (Bush and Blair) and their recent adventure in Iraq. Bush said that it would be a war of “shock and awe” referring to the aerial bombardment of Iraq. Fast forward, over 4,000 US and British troops have lost their lives. The action inflamed radicalism, and its believed up to a 1m people, Iraqis lost their lives, many innocent. There are reports of rape, false imprisonment; got the point? So your moral compass is not pointing north my friend; its actually point southward.

So what’s the difference between the CT, and Bush and Blair on the other? So how would you classify the attacks in Iraq? So should GW and TB be put on trail too? The reality is this will never happen, because their respective countries will fight against it—notice a pattern here, they show unity and they then divide us.

Thanks Tamba, we appreciate your passion–and I understand, but we have to look at “justice for all”, albeit, SL, Liberia, Iraq, or where ever injustice exist, it needs to be stamped out. Yet, the evidence don’t reflect your and the court’s accusation on CT–I am sorry it does not.

Not at all. There exist two differing contexts and individuals in question. You have one representing the views and opinions of a freeworld(Bush) and another whose objective is self ended designed to be achieved by the execution of series of calculated acts of terror directed against defenceless civilians(Taylor). Taylors role in the Command and Control structure of the RUF/SL and the AFRC was made evident at that time.

Perhaps we need to be cautious in the application of words here. Taylors role in the 11 year civil war of Sierra Leone remains an issue considered as an open secret. Now coming to the issue of International Law, being a mediator or negotiator implies the absence of not playing an active role in the prevailing crisis. In this context, given the intstrumentality of Taylor in the Command and Control of the RUF/AFRC his role as a genuine mediator or negatiator remains an issue of debate to the very conscience of those who bore the brunt of the madness of his Ideology. Now I would like to perhaps have someone reminded here that history needs to be recalled as to the etimiology of the Sierra Leonean War. You please revisit ( should you have previously done it) this and continue tracking the role the indictee played in the Sierra Leonean Civil War. Just a word of caution, I urge you to look before you leap lest you fall in a pit infested with savage animals. In short do not take sides with the Devil, rather have him exposed as this is the only way we will be able to deter others from undertaking any such mischievous ventures in the near and distant future.

Given this logic then you accept because George Bush told Charles Taylor he had to leave and he left. Then this makes George Bush Taylor’s so called leader right?