On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 09:45:58AM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:28:24 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in > [🔎] 20070326062824.GJ19415@santiago.connexer.com: > > > You keep claiming this, but have not provided evidence. > > ..I have provided ample pointers for anything but neocon shills and war > criminals, if you want further Court Martial Defense advice, get a lawyer. > You see, when I point out that you have not (and clearly cannot) provide evidence, you respond with an ad hominem attack. Your position is quite weak. > > Right. I imagine that they would get hang you as well for constantly > > imaging things that are not there? > > ..only if _I_ commit a war crime. Or is this a threat on my life for > aguing against Sissy Boy George's theory? > No. No personal threat there. I was simply pointing that if I can be held liable, as you claim, then so can you. :-) > > 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. > > ..then you're a neocon shill promoting war crime. If you are an USAF > serviceman or officer, you just incriminated yourself. > Another ad hominem attack. Where's your real argument? Don't have one? > >> > > Really? And what competent legal authority says that he was a POW? > > ..Sissy Boy George himself, on the same day Saddam was dug out of that > hole. > Right. I am not disputing that. However, once the Iraqis *elected* their new government and instituted their new constitution, he became the legal responsbility of Iraq. Or do you deny that the Iraqis elected a government and instituted a constitution? > > Again. Who makes the determination that he was a POW? > > ..your Supreme Commander accepting him as POW the same day Saddam was dug > out of that hole. > Ibid. > > 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? > > ..are you trying to tell us you cannot find the 4 Geneva Conventions? > Try again. > Why don't you provide an actual reference instead of making me hunt for something that apparently only exists in your imagination? > > 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? > > ..try the _whole_ bible, I see only Genesis searched here. > I *did*. The way the bible-kjv package works is that it defaults to searching the *whole* bible unless you restrict to a smaller section. > ..I forgot to mention that ability also obliges us to stop when they have > been defeated, "stopping too late" is a war crime, and topping too soon > like Sissy Boy George's "Mission Accomplished!" probably treason. > Umm, the mission was to topple Saddam Hussein. That mission *was* accomplished early on. They people who want to stop before the job is done are the *Democrats*. You know, your liberal buddies. > > Huh? Let's see, you want to remove the Jews from their homeland, > > ..not their, and yes, Jews too need to be welcome somewhere, both Norway > and the US are better places for Jews than make them steal Palestine. > What part of "they were rightfully there first" don't you get? > > 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. > > ..yeah, except that's not good enough if they have oil or live in the > Middle East. > > > Your claiming that my sentiments make me anti-Semitic > > ..yes. "Pro Jew" is not good enough to evade it, Arabs too are Semites. > Right. Except that I don't have a problem with all Arabs, only the extremists. That is like saying someone who has a problem with or is against the Black Panthers is racist against blacks. It is an overly broad generalization. > > would be like me claiming that your vitriolic hatred of US military > > personnel means that you hate every American. > > ..I hate? I argue against war crime, and for the full application of the > full 4 Geneva Conventions. That pits me against Bush, Cheney, Olmert, > not against Americans or Jews. > Many Jews and Americans are war criminals. Some Norwegians too are. > You argue for the GCs (to the exclusion of other legitimate legal authorities) because it suits you and your position. You are a classic legalist. > > Clearly, you hate lots of Americans, but you likely love your liberal > > buddies like the Clintons, Pelosi and so on. > > ..bull, and you know it. Fun thing is, _all_ RL Americans I meet hate > the neocons ruling the US. > You must meet very few Americans. Because the funny thing is that around half of Americans *like* them for some reason or another. Remember, Bush was reelected. The Senate only carries a 1 seat majority for the Democrats and the House only around 30 seats, or 6%, majority for the Democrats. So, yes, *every* American just *hates* the Republican neo-cons. You clearly know what's going on. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature