[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue.

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:31:03 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070320003103.GJ31767@santiago.connexer.com:

> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:24:23 -0400, Roberto wrote in message
>> <[🔎] 20070319012423.GC12152@santiago.connexer.com>:
>> > 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)
> Reference?  Where has President Bush stated that war criminals should
> not be prosecuted?  

..here I should have said "US war criminals", Sissy Boy George decided 
back in October 2001 he wanted to be able to commit war crimes legally.
Google for "executive orders 2001".

> Where is the evidence that troops are committing war crimes?

..eh, I did this dance with Slobo's Shills too, 10-15 years back, 
chk your media against the full 4 Geneva Conventions.

>> > 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.
> Well, there is the whole thing about lawful combatants being required to
> wear a distinguishable uniform with distinctive insignia.

..one of these suffices, both together are preferred, and you deny the 
"Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA status, when 
they "took up arms against the invading enemy."

>> > 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.
> Again, engaing in combat while not in uniform == automatically not
> lawful combatant.

..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful KIA 
status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy."

>> > 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?
> Well, in this case, no matter what the US does, they are wrong.  Kill
> them on sight (they are not lawful combatants) and 

> there is public outcry.  

..is irrelevant, as lawful occupant you have to educate them on their 
rights under Article 144 in the 4'th Convention:

> Take them prisoner and the there is public outcry.  What other
> options are there?

..full compliance to the full 4 Geneva Conventions.  
Would have allowed a fully lawful hanging of Saddam.
Will allow a fully lawful hanging of W and his entire regime,
Which is precisely why Sissy Boy George tries to destroy 
the US War Crimes Act and the Conventions, NATO and the US.

..taking action on full compliance to the full 4 Geneva Conventions,
is how peace negotiations with Muslims, become _credible_. 

>> > 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.
> Cite?  The New Testament tells Christians to pray for their enemies,
> unless your translation mistranslates "pray" as "kill".
> I do know that there is at least one instance in the Old Testament where
> the Israelite were commanded to wipe out an entire people.  Is that what
> you are referring to?

..aye.  POW's too have a specific mention.

>> ..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.
> What makes you think that I am an anti-Semite and more generally that
> anyone in full compliance with the Bible is an anti-Semite?

..you say you're ok with making Jew Semites and Jew non-Semites suppress 
Christian and Muslim Semites in Palestine and the Middle East in full 
compliance with the Bible and in violation to both Sharia and the full 4 
Geneva Conventions.

>> ..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?
> You remember your history incorrectly.  The muslims conquered Jerusalem
> in AD 638.  The First Crusade besieged Jerusalem in 1099.  So, the
> muslims were making war against the Jews and Christians for 461 years
> before the start of the First Crusade.  Care to revise your statement?

..irrelevant, your sophisticated Slobo-style shill dance proves you fully 
understand the "_if_" concept.

>> > 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."
> This argument always gets trotted out. 

..me being comfortable with converting to Islam is "This argument always 
gets trotted out" how?  Or are you arguing "the Nazis never gassed the 

> Christians who kill those who
> refuse to accept Jesus are in direct *violation* of the Bible.  Muslims
> who kill "infidels" are in *compliance* with the Koran.  Huge
> difference.
>> >  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.
> What glimmer of hope could you/we offer that prevent them from wanting
> to exterminate Christianity or Judaism?

..full compliance to the full 4 Geneva Conventions,  as in arrest and try 
and jail or hang our own war criminals first, airlift out the Jews, then 
disengage and offer peace negotiations and a fair deal.

..the fact is, white christian EUropeans (yanks 'n dixies 'n Jews 
included) has _NEVER_ tried truthfully offering non-whites or Muslims, 
Hindus etc a fair deal.  So, I think it is worth a try, even if your 
Regime has a problem with it, it is however supposed to be replaced with 
an Administration on Jan 20'th 2009 or as soon as the USA Complies.

..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: