Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 15:27 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>>America *chose* to enter WWI. The Germans were already almost beaten by > >>>the time US troops arrived. > >> > >>Everything I've read had Europe at a standoff. It took the US > >>to come in and break it up. > > > > Really? Might actually be the case. The US didn't get involved just because > > Europe asked for it though, otherwise they would have been there in 1914 > > when they would have really helped. > > To review the accepted history, there was some question > in 1914 which side we would take if we entered the war. Really ? Cite please. > That issue was solved with the torpedo sinking of the > passenger liner Lusitania which was carrying illegal > munitions, turning American sentiments against Germany. The Germans alleged she was carrying munitions. It was denied at the time. How would Germany have *known* ? > If it hadn't been for the lies about the munitions actually > aboard the Lusitania you'd probably be speaking German today > and British royalty would have reverted to their original > Germanic names. You're an idiot. Britain and France would have defeated Germany without your 'help' anyway. Graham
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 15:37 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:ef099$45bb6805$4fe7573$21090(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > <snip> > >>That's as nonsensical as T. Wake having as much insight into >>Islamic culture as someone who lives the life and walks in >>the shoes > > > <snip> > > It is good to see you drag me into your appeal to ridicule there. No appeal intended, sorry you misunderstood. > I see you have given up any meaningful response to my > posts / questions You haven't given me very much that's not, as you call it, FUD, to work with. > (did you ever get round to telling me > what you thought the purpose of the Geneva Convention on > treatment of POW was?) and are just resorting to side swipes > now. I'm surprised you don't know. "The conventions were the results of efforts by Henry Dunant, who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino in 1859." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Read the rest for yourself. In essence it criminalizes specific conduct by signatory nations. It does not apply to terrorists acting outside the approval of a signatory government. Perhaps the US needs to send nationless militias against the terrorists so we can meet them on their own terms? > Nice. Nicer than your responses to BAH.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 15:49 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote > >T Wake wrote: > > > >> I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. > > > > Where's the bright line distinguishing fundamentalist from sane? > > Difficult question to answer. > > On a personal level I feel any adult who converses with an invisible friend > could well be described as insane so for me 'Harvey' ! Definitely one of James Stewart's best. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042546/ Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 15:52 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:3a73e$45bbb814$4fe72dd$24686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:ef099$45bb6805$4fe7573$21090(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> <snip> >> >>>That's as nonsensical as T. Wake having as much insight into >>>Islamic culture as someone who lives the life and walks in >>>the shoes >> >> >> <snip> >> >> It is good to see you drag me into your appeal to ridicule there. > > No appeal intended, sorry you misunderstood. OK, sorry I read it as if you were trying to ridicule the comments made by either myself or eeyore. >> I see you have given up any meaningful response to my posts / questions > > You haven't given me very much that's not, as you call it, FUD, > to work with. Really? I wasnt aware I was spreading fear, uncertainty or doubt. I though I was trying to be quite certain with my posts and remove doubt. I can only assume the fear is coming from elsewhere. I will try harder in future. >> (did you ever get round to telling me what you thought the purpose of the >> Geneva Convention on > > treatment of POW was?) and are just resorting to side swipes >> now. > > I'm surprised you don't know. You seem to have misread my post. I asked what _you_ thought it's purpose was, not what the Wikipedia page on it said. > "The conventions were the results of efforts by Henry Dunant, > who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the > Battle of Solferino in 1859." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions > > Read the rest for yourself. I have done, thanks. > In essence it criminalizes specific conduct by signatory nations. Of which the US is a signatory. I am aware of what the conventions *do* in this context. I am still curious as to *your* thoughts on the reason and purpose of the convention. > It does not apply to terrorists acting outside the approval of > a signatory government. > > Perhaps the US needs to send nationless militias against the > terrorists so we can meet them on their own terms? That would be an option. This is why I asked what you (and BAH) thought the purpose was. It strikes me that you both feel the Convention is there to limit the options warring nations can take when they wage war and I wondered if that was the case. If it is, do you feel it is the only reason for the conventions? >> Nice. > > Nicer than your responses to BAH. So two wrongs do indeed make a right then? My responses to BAH are nicer than your responses to Eeyore....
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 16:00
unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > > > Oddly, they are only released because there is not enough evidence they are > > a terrorist. > > That's not true. There isn't enough evidence to prove > beyond the shadow of a doubt (in the US) that they're > engaged in terrorist activities. LMAO ! From the country that just passed a presidential decree ? to remove the human rights of terrorist suspects and deny them habeas corpus ! A country that practices covert and highly illegal kidnapping of suspects outside its own borders without the agreement of the countries concerned and also tortures them in prisons outside its own borders ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Rendition Pull the other one. It's got bells on it. Graham |