Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:42:14 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 03/25/07 22:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip]
>>>> ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful
>>>> KIA status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."
>>> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA?
>> ..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its
>> equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which
>> incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals
>> Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention: "(6)
>> Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
>> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without
>> having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided
>> they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
> Terrorists aren't invaders,
..the passengers made up their own mind about that, if we are to believe
tho Official story. The circumstances being what they were at 1000 that
morning, I do not have many problems with the alternative stories either,
I can see a few lawful scenarios for a lawful USAF missile hit on UA93.
> the passengers didn't have any arms to carry.
..they made use of what they had available, I understand, fists.
Are good enough under the Conventions. An Hollywood style dream
would have had them succeed, instead of earn an Arlington slot.
>>> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another,
>> ..on take-off, correct. On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful
>> military force.
>>> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity".
>> ..yup, KIA, Arlington next.
> Really? You really believe that they were buried in Arlington National
..no, I know they weren't, and yes, I know they should have been.
> You've *got* to be jerking our chain. No one who is functional is as
> crazy as you appear to be.
..uhuh. Coming from a neocon shill, I can accept that as a compliment.
>>> killed in action
>>> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other
>>> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or
>>> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a
>>> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty
>> ..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act.
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.