Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:30 In article <eogjdo$9v7$16(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eog4pk$8qk_002(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>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. >> >>/BAH > >Now you're being stupid. I assume you won't protest if some of our people are >captured and tortured either then. I guess you haven't been listening to the news reports of those who have been captured. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:32 In article <45ABA0D5.D518B9EC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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 ! You can spend your time believing that only things you can call a war will happen or you can start trying to thinking about the current conflict. Not thinking about it will not make it go away. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:33 In article <-OidnQ6ZMtcwMDbYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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. The US isn't the one who has decided this. The people who intend to kill you and yours are the ones who have decided. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:40 In article <91109$45abaa9c$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > >His stupidity keeps boiling to the surface. There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. Since this is a fallacy and the denigration of all US attempts to deal with this global threat is based on this fallacy, there is going to have to be extremely big messes before their minds are changed. For you to dismiss this as stupidity make you worse than them because you are, in your own way, ignoring the real problem, too. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 17 Jan 2007 07:45
In article <eogjeu$9v7$17(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <eog50b$8qk_003(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <hOadnbBCsMP0DjbYnZ2dnUVZ8siknZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eod9rm$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <M-WdnVK9qJOtgzTYnZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:eoanun$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think >>>>>> it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I >>>>>> trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only >>>>>> one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Every now and then it helps to re-assess opinions and ideas such as this. >>>>>If >>>>>you honestly think that Bush is the _only_ person in Washington dealing >>>>>with >>>>>the national security problem you have to wonder why no one else seems to >>>>>be >>>>>concerned about this >>>> >>>> I have wondered and have tried to figure out why. The only conclusion >>>> left is that the Democrat leadership is insane. >>> >>>Like I said, maybe you should try to re-assess this conclusion. It also >>>remains that you havent accounted for the rest of the republicans - you said >>>Bush was the "only one" in washington... >>> >>>Now, if you are correct and the _entire_ Democrat leadership are insane, >>>then how many others must also be insane to allow them to appear to function >>>normally? >> >>That is the point. The Democrat leadership is not functioning normally >>and they aren't appearing to function normally. >><snip> >> >>/BAH > >You know, when you've got about 25% of the American people on your side, you'd >better reassess what "normal" means. Why? A majority of people also go out and buy those cabbage patch dolls whenever they become the Christmas fad. Am I also supposed to do what everybody else does? Are you ignoring the existence of this danger because you might be socially ostracized if you appear to agree with Bush? That's what's going on in the US at the moment. Anybody who does approve of dealing with this problem has effectively been silenced with "peer pressure". I heard examples of this the night of Bush's speech on a radio talk show. /BAH |