Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:24:23 -0400, Roberto wrote in message
<[🔎] 20070319012423.GC12152@santiago.connexer.com>:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:04:42AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 22:03:45 -0500, Roberto wrote in message
> > <[🔎] 20070307030345.GD27399@santiago.connexer.com>:
> >
> > > Really? Sweden is a member of NATO
> >
> > ..errr, no. they are Neutral. ;o)
> >
>
> They are members in all but name [0]:
..aye. ;o)
> "While the government parties in Sweden have opposed membership,
> they have participated in NATO-led missions in Bosnia (IFOR and
> SFOR), Kosovo (KFOR) and Afghanistan (ISAF)."
>
> > > and the UN. Sweden also sent
> > > troops to Afghanistan. Under your definition, that constitutes
> > > interference. I mean, heck, why would Sweden send troops to
> > > Afghanistan if they weren't even attacked?
> >
> > ..as EU members? The EU has its own (token) military force,
> > but I am not aware of any Swedish troops in Afghanistan.
> >
> Here [1]:
>
> "Soldiers from Sweden's Sarskilda Skyddsgruppen (Special Protection
> Group) have served in Afghanistan and two SSG troopers were killed
> by a roadside bomb in late 2005."
>
> Not sure if they are still there, though.
>
> > > War is a bloody business. It is unfortunate. What alternate
> > > solutions would you propose?
> >
> > ..peace. First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they
> > have to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia,
> > the full 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw.
> > Military penal code etc.
>
> Sorry. Geneva conventions applies to lawful combatants.
..are you one?
> Now, if any coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the
> Geneva conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted.
..here you are in disagrement with Sissy Boy George and in agreement
with me and any other decent person on this planet. :o) Carry on. ;o)
> Now, the terrorists are afforded no such protection under the Geneva
> Conventions.
..if you define "terrorist" as mercenary in Article 47 in Protocol I,
and assume they are not shipwrecked or wounded under the full
4 Geneva Conventions, agreed, otherwise disagreed.
> In fact, they don't even have to be taken prisoner. They can simply
> be shot on sight.
..actually Article 47 does require you to identify them correctly as
mercenaries first.
> It is the grace of the US government that efforts are made to capture
> and detain rather than just kill outright.
..like on Gitmo and Abu Graib?
> As far as Sharia, why should the US subject its military forces to the
> laws of Islam, when it doesn't even subject them to the laws of
> Christianity?
..I dunno all the details, but Sharia has rules on POW and war
casualties etc treatment that are in compliance to the full 4 Geneva
Conventians, if I can believe an Indian english 1978 translation of the
Qouran. The Bible asks Jews and Christians to kill all POW's.
..as a serviceman or even officer in the USAF, in war, you're required
to know that Article 2 and 3 in all 4 Geneva Conventions require all
combattants to apply the strictest combination of war waging rules
to award any protected persons such as civilians, POW, internees,
shipwrecked paratroopers, wounded mercenaries or objects such as
hospitals, POW camps etc, the best possible protection from war,
and war crime.
> As far as foreign laws, they should have no bearing. The same way
> that US laws should have no bearing on the actions of other countries'
> soldiers.
..you wanna make sure your opinions help you comply to the Conventions,
and the War Crimes Act, and local Law, if you wanna be a lawful
combattant.
> > Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC. ;o)
>
> I have, personally, forgiven OBL. However, that does not absolve the
> government of protecting its people.
..nor their POW's, nor "enemy" civilians in occupied territories. Etc.
> > Thenafter we can make peace last by moving the Jews out of the
> > Middle East to whereever they please to go, or watch Hezbollah 'n
> > Hamas mow 'em.
> >
> I see, so you are an anti-Semite.
..precisely like youself and Adolf and all other members of
any christian churches and in full compliance to the Bible.
..now, like some orthodox Jews and Muslims I would like
to stop this christian Zionist nonsense, and stop the Zionist
war crimes against Muslim Semites and christian Semites.
..unfortunately, the Jew Semites and the other Jews blew their
welcome in "Israel" by comitting anti-Semitic war crimes.
So, the Jews need a new home.
> The fact is that the Jews were there long before the Muslims.
..aye. Depending on how you define Human, Semite und Herrmänch,
it can be argued, all ways, whether there has ever been people there.
The Bible does mention "caananites" and "samarians" and "filistinians"
without clarifing whether these Semites are human, and these were there
before the Jews arrived, and the vast majority of the Jews left before
the remaining Semites became Muslims or Christian etc.
> > ..the root cause of this war is not that "the Jews got a home land",
> > but that we (the UN) stole it from the Filistinians and renamed it
> > to "Palestine" and let Hitler gas the Jews to scare them "home", to
> > piiage Arab oil and stall Muslim Capitalism.
> >
> Wooh! I don't think I could have fit so many conspiracy theories into
> such a small space, even if I tried.
..try. Could even help you see what part _you_ play in it. ;o)
> > ..we need to fix that, _if_ we want peace. If we don't, there is
> > absolutely _no_ way you can convince me, "the Muslims does
> > not need nukes."
> >
> Clearly, you are naive, so I will explain something to you. The
> Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews have been *exterminated*.
..what part of "_if_", is it you do not understand? ;o)
..has _anyone_ offered to airlift the Jews out, yet?
Isn't it about damned time?
> Not relocated, but exterminated. The same with Christians.
..how come there was peace between Christian and Muslim Semites
_until_ the First Crusade? And then between the crusades?
> Remember that the Muslims have three options when dealing with
> infidels:
>
> 1. enslave them
> 2. convert them
..I'm ok with #2, the Christians killed off at least 3/4 of
the Norwegians "Christianizing Norway By the Sword."
> 3. kill them
..because "we" anti-Norwegian anti-Semites have denied them
the 4'th option, "a fair deal." Denying Muslims any glimmer
of hope of that, leaves no real choise other than nuclear war.
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>
> [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Sweden
> [1]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan_War_order_of_battle#United_States
--
..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.
Reply to: