From: T Wake on
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eol4ti$8ss_004(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> 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.

Once more I suspect the point has totally gone over your head.

You say the GC should not apply to this war, which in turn could be taken as
implying you will not protest if American prisoners are not protected by it.

The fact that the criminals who have captured the American soldiers are not
bound by the GC is not relevant to this. Two wrongs do not make a right.


From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eol51s$8ss_006(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> 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.

Nope. Islamic extremists and other criminals can not decide my actions.
Think about what you are saying.


From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eol500$8ss_005(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> 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.

Calling something, which isn't a war, a war will not make it go away either.


From: T Wake on

<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
news:eol5fk$8ss_007(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
> 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.

Who on Earth would think that?

People expect police men to abide by the law but no one thinks criminals
will.

> Since this is a fallacy

It is a strawman.

> 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.

A false conclusion based on a strawman. Are you saying the US should be
"allowed" to do whatever it takes to "win" no matter what war crimes are
committed?


From: jmfbahciv on
In article <eohgj8$rri$10(a)blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
>In article <ec574$45aba9a4$49ecfc6$17678(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>,
>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:
>[.....]
>>I think the problem is that she takes politicians at their word.
>>While the democratic rhetoric has for some time been along the
>>lines of "cut and run"
>
>I think you may be near the truth here. The democrats have not uniformly
>been saying "cut and run". This is how the republican spin machine has
>characterized it. They have been all over the map with suggestions like
>moving the troops out of the cities and over the horizon and forcing the
>Iraqi army to do most of the work, moving the troops to the border areas
>and just getting the heck out. They certainly haven't spoken with one
>voice. BAH however seems to think that they have. The obvious way that
>whe could have gotten this impression is if she thought republican talking
>points were "the news".

Honey, I live in Massachusetts. I do know what the Democrats
are saying and I do know how and when they begin their herding in
any direction. Next door to Massachusetts is New Hampshire where
all of them congregate to begin their Presidential campaigns. We
get that news instead of car accidents. This area's second
hobby is politics.
<snip>

/BAH