On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 05:10:19AM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 21:00:39 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in > [🔎] 20070326010039.GA18402@santiago.connexer.com: > > > Well, let's see. Here is a list of every executive order published in > > 2001 [0]: > > <SNIP EO list> > > > > Now, I read all the orders relating to anything military. Nothing in > > there about war crimes. > > ..interesting, both Adolf and Slobodan played similar games with words. > > ..anything on "international courts" or "the 4 Geneva Conventions"? > Nope. What I find interesting is that you claimed that Bush issued some executive allowing him to "evade" war crimes prosecution (or some such nonsense). Then, when I present you with a list of *all* the executive orders published, there is no such thing and you effectively claim that they are trying to hide it. Why don't you point us to this mythical executive order? > > Would that be the media that refuses to report any positive occurences > > ..try my method of balancing Fox against al-Jazeera, Xinhua, Kommersant, > CNN etc against the full 4 Geneva Conventions. ;o) > Yes, well your method is "flawed" to say the least. > > (like making neighborhoods safer, building power infrastructure, > > building schools, providing medical care, capturing bad guys and so on)? > > Because if it is the same media, I won't believe anything they say. What > > you fail to understand is that nearly everyone in the military takes the > > law *very* seriously. Now, just as in any large organization, there are > > a few bad apples. For example, just because someone at the telephone > > company sells a list of phone numbers to telemarketers does not mean > > that every single employee of the phone company is a criminal. Same with > > the military, as 99.9% of the people in uniform are decent, law abiding > > and doing their jobs in accordance with the law. > > ..see below. > > >> > 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." > >> > > Umm, they were acting in self-defense. > > ..yes. > > > Big difference. > > ..no, self defence is _no_ different to _any_ other kinda bellingerence > in its requirement for _full_ compliance. > I don't get it. Who do you think was not complying in the UA93 situation? > > Of course, your > > continued ranting only serves to reinforce that you are either just > > intent on stirring the pot, or that you really don't get it. > > ..I am fully aware of the fact Sissy Boy George is trying to escape the > US War Crimes Act and the Coventions. Both authorize hanging. > You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence. > > Any civilian, military, police or other authorities, who in time of > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > war assume responsibilities in respect of protected persons, must > > possess the text of the Convention and be specially instructed as to > > its provisions. > > > > Yup. Military police and lawyers receive extra training on the GCs. > > Having never been a police or a lawyer, however, I can't say whether > > they carry the text with them, but I imagine that they do. > > ..yes they are supposed to, and you're entitled to hang anyone to argues > them the way you do in the face of the language of the Conventions, just > go by the rules in them. > Right. I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly imaging things that are not there? > > What do you mean would have? > > .."going by the book" in full compliance of the full 4 Geneva Conventions > would have provided a firm and full legal foundation of Saddam's hanging, > even if he cooked laws to allow himself "Jew babies for dinner" kinda war > crimes. > Umm, considering that he was an Iraqi citizen, was tried by the Iraqis by a tribunal under the authority of Iraq's constitution, I'd say it was by the book. > > It did? > > ..no. > Yes. > > He was hanged. > > ..yes. Murder on a POW. > Really? And what competent legal authority says that he was a POW? > > Tried by the Iraqis. > > Remember? There were a couple of news reports about it. > > ..yes, illegally so. As a POW, he should have had an Article 90 hearing. > Again. Who makes the determination that he was a POW? > >> Will allow a fully lawful hanging of W and his entire regime, > > > > See, first you have to prove that he was involved in war crimes, which > > you have not. > > ..see below. > > >> Which is precisely why Sissy Boy George tries to destroy the US War > >> Crimes Act and the Conventions, NATO and the US. > >> > > You keep making this claim, but you can't provide evidence to that > > effect. > > ..I havent? Chk Google News for Iraq or Afghanistan or Abu Graib or > Gitmo and chk some of the news stories against the Conventions in > http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions? > OpenDocument > This was the page from the News link: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/News?OpenDocument Looking at news items back to the beginning of 2006, here is what I found related to Iraq and Afghanistan: * condemnation of sectarian violence * appeals for respect of humanitarian law * appeals for relief of kidnapped aid workers (these workers were kidnapped by insurgents) * announcements of aid rendered with respect to food, water, etc Nothing about the GCs specifically, nothing calling out the US, the UK or any other coalition partner, nothing at all really. The only thing related to Guantanamo is how the RC is facilitating contact for family members of detainees. So, where is the evidence of the rampant war crimes being committed? > >> > Cite? The New Testament tells Christians to pray for their enemies, > >> > unless your translation mistranslates "pray" as "kill". > > ..historically, I can see how these "compromises" were made. > > >> > 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. > > > > Where? > > ..chk your bible for "prisoner of war" and "prisoners of war", not > "POW's", I can't remember whether or not it the singular or pluralis term > or even the language I read it in, but I do remember it did not use the > abbreviation. ;o) > Nothing: bible: Debian/BRS Release 4.18, $Date: 2005/01/23 11:29:22 $ Hit '?' for help. Genesis 1 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ??prisoner Searching for 'prisoner'... [13 refs] bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ?and war Searching for 'war'... [220 refs] [0 refs in combined list] bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ??prisoners Searching for 'prisoners'... [21 refs] bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> ?and war Searching for 'war'... [220 refs] [0 refs in combined list] bible(KJV) [Gen1:1]> Anything else? > >> > 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. > >> > > More of this nonsense, huh? > > ..this is nonsense how? > Because, no matter how many times you say it, it will not change the fact that it is the rightful home of the Jews. > >> > 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. > >> > > What are you talking about? > > ..chk out soc.culture.yugoslavia or alt.war.yugoslavia for the 1990ies > Balkan propaganda war treads I took part in and compare your own style > and line of argument with those of the Slobo shills. > What are you babbling on about? You claimed that Jews and Christians were somehow at fault for "attacking" the Muslims in Jerusalem. When I point out that the Muslims had in fact conquered Jerusalem over 4 centuries before the start of the first crusade, you accuse me of being some sort of shill? So, I refute your argument and you respond with an ad hominem attack? Can I now presume that you don't have any real substance to your argument? > >> > 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 Jews"??? > >> > > No. The argument to which I was referring was with regard to the > > violent way in which Christianity has been spread. That way is not at > > all in compliance with the Bible. > > ..no? The Bible does not authorize genocide on "pagan nations"? > In fact, it does not. > >> > 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. > >> > >> > > Wow. You are even more naive than I though. > > ..uhuh. You have convinced me you will serve Mankind and the US best in > a noose like Saddam. The fact that the US. Israel and NATO is _able_ to > exterminate Muslims with nukes, does _not_ give us a _right_ to do it. > Huh? Let's see, you want to remove the Jews from their homeland, prosecute the people charged with protecting and rebuilding Iraq, and go to the negotiating table with people who seek nothing but the extermination of Jews and Christians? Wow, you must live in bizarro world or something. > >> ..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. > >> > > A fair deal? To the people who within 30 years of coming into existence > > as a group went about conquering lands which had rightfully belonged to > > the Jews for thousands of years? Oh yeah, they are most deserving. > > Perhaps they are ones who need to give the rest of the world a "fair > > deal." > > ..this here is not anti-Semitic how? > Umm, because the problem I have is with islamic *extremists*? Seriously, there are millions of peace-loving muslims out there. They are content to live their lives, worship as they choose, leave everyone alone and be left alone themselves. Your claiming that my sentiments make me anti-Semitic would be like me claiming that your vitriolic hatred of US military personnel means that you hate every American. Clearly, you hate lots of Americans, but you likely love your liberal buddies like the Clintons, Pelosi and so on. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature