Re: OT: sponge burning!
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:36:18 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070326023618.GC19415@santiago.connexer.com:
> 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.
..aye, beyond prominent Republicans like Daddy Boy George.
Still no excuse.
> 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.
..I do? You should check those "Yugoslav" newsgroups.
>> >> 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!
..I havent? Chk Groklaw for "Sissy Boy George", I have a habit of
starting with my own side, to set an honorable standard of decency.
Why should I, or you, criticize Muslims when our side is even worse?
>> >> 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.
..I have pointed you to the murder on Saddam the POW, to POW's denied POW
or Internee status and instead tortured on Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and you
"refute" the Geneva Conventions in precisely the same way Nazis "refute"
Jews were gassed. Etc.
> The closest you can probably get is the rape/murders committed by some
> Marines. That was a despicable act, but hardly a war crime.
..this bit you argue here, _is_ a war crime, just like rape Marines or
Serb Wolwes(?) rape on civilians etc are.
>> > 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.
..I|we have _you_ incriminating yourself right here on D-U.
--
..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: