Re: A newbie's confusion about GPL
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:05:56 -0400,
Bijan Soleymani <email@example.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:59:08 -0400,
> > Bijan Soleymani <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> > <20031019205908.GA11299@server.crasseux.com>:
> > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:07:12AM -0700, Tom wrote:
> > ..really? ;-)
> > > > > ..as in; "Where _is_ Osama and Saddam?". And playing the
> > > > > "west bank settler" games on the Iraqis, is _not_ gonna help.
> > > By waging war on Iraq when there was no clear link between Iraq
> > > and Al Quaeda and when there was no clear evidence of weapons of
> > > mass destruction, the U.S. wanted to show that they can wage war
> > > without even making up semi-coherent reasons. I mean Bush kept
> > > flip-flopping:
> > > This is about weapons of mass destruction,
> > > then
> > > This is about terrorism
> > > then
> > > This is about regime change
> > ..the removal of _any_ "terrorist" war criminal regime
> > is a requirement to _any_ legal regime: Check out
> > "Art. 85 Repression of breaches of this Protocol",
> > "Art. 86 Failure to act",
> > "Art. 87 Duty of commanders",
> > "Art. 88 Mutual assistance in criminal matters",
> > "Art. 89 Co-operation" and
> > "Art. 90 International Fact-Finding Commission" of
> > http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebCONVART?OpenView&Start=1&Count=150&Expand=5#5
> You quoted:
> Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
> relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
> (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
> This is for the protection of victims in international armed
> conflicts, in other words this applies to wars.
> The breaches that you mention are all things that are banned in war.
> That's what all those articles are about: *war* and not *terrorism*.
..I said "check out". Sissy Boy George declared war on 9/11/2001.
Both Bush Presidents has violated Arts. 87 and 86 in Iraq and Israel
enough to earn a death sentence under US law. As has Castro on
his failure to free "the unlawful combattants". Forcing this obligation
on Castro, is treason by Bush, as it endangers Gitmo.
..on declaring war, Bush won his lawful right to qualify al-Quaeda
members as mercenaries under article 47 in Protocol additional I:
and lawful right to take Taliban members as POW's. POW's in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Gitmo all earn 8 Swiss Franc a day and up:...
_regardless_ of nationality. Sue "for substantially in excess of"
that and see what happens to yer legal status, rednecks. ;-)
..one over 60 year old definition of "terrorism" was(?) trying to stop
the gassing of Jews. Pretty fat bits of irony in those definitions.
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...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.