Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 17 Jan 2007 08:55 MassiveProng wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >MassiveProng wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> Why do you think there was a conflict in Southeast Asia after > >> >> France left? > >> > > >> >You mean *before* France left actually. > >> > >> Give me the year the Vietnam "conflict" started. I'll bet that you > >> are wrong. > > > >1946. > > > >The First Indochina War (also called the French Indochina War, the French War or > >the Franco-Vietnamese War) was fought in Indochina between 1946 and 1954 between > >the imperial forces of the French Republic and the H? Ch? Minh-led Vi?t Minh > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War > > > I didn't say "look it up and reiterate what you read", you dumbfuck. I gave you a reference you fathead ! > I said that YOU didn't know it, and I still contend that you didn't > know it until you looked it up. The fact is that there was conflict with the original colonial power, the French before the USA ever got involved. And I've known that for decades btw. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Jan 2007 08:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. The point is that *war* has a specific definition. What we are talking about is not a war and does not justify 'war powers'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Jan 2007 08:59 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> 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. Don't be so feeble minded. The UK never declared war on the IRA for example. Graham
From: Eeyore on 17 Jan 2007 09:01 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.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. > > > >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. Really ? I didn't hear anyone say that. What I did hear was the argument that just because they "don't obey the rules" it's not excuse for us to lower ourselves to their level ! That's how we've 'surrendered' to them - can't you see ? Graham
From: Ken Smith on 17 Jan 2007 09:30
In article <eol5fk$8ss_007(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >There happen to be a lot of people who think that, if the US >plays by Geneva convention rules, the Islamic extremists will. I have never met one but given a few billion people total, it is quite likely there would be over 100. >Since this is a fallacy and the denigration of all US attempts to >deal with this global threat is based on this fallacy You have that absolutely wrong. The people who oppose US policy do so because they see it as making the situation far worse. They don't think the terrorists are nice people. When the US claims the right to commit torture etc, it becomes no better than the terrorist. When they call it a war they elevate the terrorist to soldier. People see this for the follishness it is and suggest that the US stop doing it. You, believing that Bush can do no wrong, look for some flaw in the other countries to explain their disagreement. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |