On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 02:20:52AM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ..reposting, last try was lost in gmane's auth queue. > > On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:57:02 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in > [🔎] 20070319225702.GF31767@santiago.connexer.com: > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 05:18:40PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > >> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 05:47:49 -0700, Paul wrote in message > >> <[🔎] 12791738.FNnmshGOLz@ursa-major.ursine.ca>: > >> > >> > Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in Article > >> > <[🔎] 20070319023612.GA14000@santiago.connexer.com> posted to > >> > gmane.linux.debian.user: > >> > > >> > > I don't suppose you have ever served in the U.S. military, have > >> > > you? > >> > >> ..no, I drew a firm line at war crime. If you want me serving for the > > > > Fascinating. So toppling a dictator who killed tens of thousands to > > hundreds of thousands of people is a war crime? > > ..no, that _would_ have been legal under Articles 87 and 86 in Protocol > Additional 1 of the Conventions. Instead we got W's _flawed_ WMD story. > Yeah, well that story originated long before W took office. Of course, *every* leading Democrat during the Clinton administration affirmed it, as did the Brits. I like how you conveniently ignore things when they are detrimental to your argument. > >> US, you will first have to either surrender, or, fight in full > >> compliance to both the full 4 Geneva Conventions and to Sharia > >> whereever > > > > I see, and blowing up innocent women and children is *not* a war crime! > > ..BS, you know it is. > Heh. I see you criticizing the coalition forces (specifically US) quite a bit, but not a peep about the terrorists/insrugents/freedom fighters (or whatever you want to call them) out there blowing up *innocent* women and children in public markets. Of course, the "evidence" against the coalition forces is shaky at best, while it is mounting against the death squads and militias. Yet, people maximize the former and minimize the latter. Oh yeah. That's balance for you! > >> Sharia provides a stricter protection for civilians, POW, internees, > >> shipwrecked and the wounded than the full 4 Geneva Convention. > >> > >> ..that means you will arrest, try and hang Sissy Boy George. And crew. > >> > > Actually, you arrest and try every congressional representative who > > voted to authorize the military action in Iraq. > > ..if they authorized war crimes, yes. I understood however Congress > Authorized War, not war Crime? > And I understood that you have yet to provide actual proof of war crimes. You ramble on about the GCs and NATO treaties, but you have yet to point out even one *specific* instance which when brought before a court has a reasonable chance as being found to be a war crime. The closest you can probably get is the rape/murders committed by some Marines. That was a despicable act, but hardly a war crime. > > Of course, your lack of > > knowledge concerning politics and government is not surprising. > > ..my understanding of US Gov details is not relevant to this war, your > understanding and application of the full 4 Geneva Conventions in this > war, _is_, if you're an US or NATO or Taliban serviceman. > More ramblings. No evidence. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature