Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:05:43 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in
[🔎] 20070326150543.GD31497@santiago.connexer.com:
> 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.
..it's a plenty strong enough tip for any investigative branch of law
enforcement, I however agree I haven't put together a Kimball-style
watertight non-appealable court martial verdict yet. ;o)
That job belongs in the courts, of court martials.
>> > 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. :-)
..here we agree, if you're trying to say war criminals can and should be
held accountable.
>> > 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?
..see above on argument strenght and below for hunting rationale.
>> > 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.
.."handing over a POW" by some neocon scheme so "he became the legal
responsbility of" a quisling type regime is illegal under the full 3'rd
Convention, regardless of how popular or democratic that marionette
regime is _during_ the occupation, POW's remains the Occupant's
responsibility for the duration of the occupation itself and until the
post war Article 90 hearing on each POW.
> Or do you deny that the Iraqis elected
> a government and instituted a constitution?
..in no way, it however remains a quisling type of regime until after the
Occupant has handed over and left the territory, and thenafter having
held a new election and then after that election until it hands over the
military etc control of that formerly occupied territory to the newly
elected administration.
>> > 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?
..then it appears my imagination has had quite an impact: ;o)
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/genevaconventions?
OpenDocument
..the reason I like you to hunt is I prefer to prevent war crime by
making you hunt and meanwhile learn to make use of these Conventions.
Having learned to make use of these Conventions will also make you both a
better educated citizen and a potentially better soldier (even if you
would just happen to be a wannabe).
..if you _are_ a war criminal, knowledge of the Conventions will still
help you both mitigate and/or cover up the damage you have done.
..had you been on the enemy side like the Serbs in the 1990'ies Balkan
wars, I might have treated you the same way I treated them on Usenet.
Doing that, I wound up as some kinda flame war referee, quite fun, and
denied the Serbs the "I didn't know" defense too, like you have been
denied it now on these not completely useless threads here on D-U.
>> > 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.
..hum. "KJV" is King James the 5'th of England's version of the bible,
and does not ever mention POW, maybe "war prisoner"? Are there other
wersions online? I was surfing the web, and I do remember seeing Lego
biblical figures on this particular site. But it is a post-9/11 site,
was "being built" a coupla years or so back.
>> ..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.
..and ignores the invading occupant's obligation to protect the civilian
population, POW etc under the full 4 Geneva Convention until a new viable
quisling type regime can be set up and take over on retreat.
..it does not have to be democratic, (although I think we agree that's
our preference,) however it is a requirement that the quisling regime is
capable of taking over and maintain military control over the territory
under the full 4 Conventions, and remains so able after the Occupant's
retreats.
> 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.
..you forget _who_ stopped Stormin' Norman when an invasion _was_ welcome
and when a quick exit was possible. Meanwhile, "we" have thaught Muslims
a few lessons the Jews could have used to evade Auschwitz-Birkenau.
>> > 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?
..even the bible mention where the Jews came from, and who where there
when they arrived the first time. Later sources tells more. Relevant
now however, is who were living there when "we" "tried to stop" the Jews
this time around, WWI and onwards. Zionists "repute" this too.
..and we have wasted enough time 'n D-U bw on this particular crusade.
>> > 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.
..you make this sound like "Adolf Hitler had no problems with Quisling."
Not quite true. Google. ;o)
..I agree "Anti-Semite" is a broad generalization of attitudes against a
set of ethnic groups, but I wouldn't go as far as "overly" because there
several of these ethnic groups now, all sharing the same Semitic origin,
and all sharing basically the same challenges from racism.
..the Semites has been pitched against each other, some has gotten as far
as see thru "our" scheme and is fighting us now, since nothing else has
proven workable except for "our" side. Taliban and al-Qaida is still
fighting us in Afghanistan, al-Qaida is just one of many "groups"
fighting us in Iraq, and Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, _etc_ was kicked over
to the enemy side _precisely_ like Finland in WWII, when "Israel" was
allowed to join our (NATO's) side around November 21'st 2001.
..Iran too, soon, who's next? And where does that list stop?
>> > 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
..yep. And against war crime.
>(to the exclusion of other legitimate legal authorities)
..nope.
..we have several, e.g. Sharia, the US War Crimes Act and the Hague
Convention on Methods of Warfare of 1929(?), but _does_ _any_ "other
legitimate legal authority" override the full 4 Geneva Conventions in
this "war on terror"? ;o)
> because it suits you and your position.
..that too. ;o)
> You are a classic legalist.
..here we can agree. ;o)
You might even wanna read another "classical legalist's opinion":
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
opendocument
Again, on one line in the URL window, like:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/5kzjav?opendocument
>> > 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.
..the Ukrainians also faced a "true 53% win". _They_ acted on it.
That's how Ukraine _became_ a democracy, _without_ ballot machines
running Wintendo with Election Day Patches And Built On Stolen But
Intact!!! Source Code Not Sent On Email To Russia in 2000. ;o)
--
..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: