Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eog4pk$8qk_002(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are >>> not >>> "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >> >>Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be >>treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). > > This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. You used three excess words there.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 11:36 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45ABA0D5.D518B9EC(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are >> >> not >> >> "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. >> > >> >Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should >> >be >> >treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). >> >> This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. > > In that case it's not a *war* - period ! > I concur. As a signatory to the Geneva Accords of 1948, the US does not have the "right" to decide which wars the accords apply to and which they don't.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:42 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:4b2bb$45aa932c$4fe76e9$25519(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > <snip> > >>We did what was best for the US. You don't like that, it is >>historical fact, so tough. Iranian greed was the trigger. > > > While, with the benefit of hindsight it seems the 1953 operation was > misguided, I do actually agree with you here. > > The UK and US acted in their national best interests at the time. The fact > it _may_ have been linked to the subsequent events of 1979 isn't the issue. > It *could* be argued that a better solution would have been establishing an > equitable deal with the Iranians (it is "their" oil etc), and that this may > have prevented the Iranian revolution from ever happening - but we will > never know for sure. The French provided a strings free haven for Ayatollah Khomeini and allowed him to pursue anti-western international intrigue for decades. Had today's standards been applied that should not have been permitted. If we (the USA) were caught by surprise at his return to power then we did a lousy job that we're still paying for. Unfortunately I believe that's the case. > As an aside, this is why I tend to think trying to argue over the pros and > cons of things which happened decades ago is always going to be flawed. But we do need to look at these things, hopefully not to repeat them.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:47 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:a92a7$45aba47f$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>It is the fate of any of the larger powers that >>dominate any part of the world. >>The day the US looks to the world for approval is the day the >>US is doomed. > I hadn't thought any of this was about approval. A good bit of the "jihad" discussion brings that into play > It is worth remembering > that sometimes short term interests conflict with long term interests. You betcha! And then there are micro/macro views to consider as well.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:50
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45AB9242.557FE4A7(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. >>>>> >>>>>We are now. >>>> >>>>And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This >>>>is utter nonsense. >>> >>>Damn the law. Let us arrest everyone suspected of terrorism and detain >>>them >>>for at least 20 years. >> >>Like they can be detained without trial now in the USA ? > > > :-) Exactly. If the law stops you "winning" then change the law and to > [insert religious punishment place of choice] with the consequences. Actually the Geneva Convention permits incarcerating POW's till hostilities have ceased. No trial necessary. Could be a few hundred years, no? |