Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 17:18 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:87f48$45bbc045$4fe72dd$24989(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> 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. > > No. Ok. Thanks for clearing it up. >> If it is, do you feel it is the only reason for the conventions? > > The only reason is to criminalize conduct the convention > defines to be illegal. That can be used to describe pretty much every law as well. It also leaves more of the question remaining. What is the reason the signatories decided to agree that the conduct the convention described as illegal should be described as illegal? > Only losing nations and their executives ever face the > consequences. No nation or national executive engages > in war with the thought of losing. Very true. The lack of consequences for the victor is part of a different problem. Are you saying the convention should be ignored because America will probably win? > How many nations have conducted significant torture since > becoming signatories of the convention? Several, actually. So what? Are you saying it is OK to torture because other countries do so / have done so? > Does Israel, a signatory, abide by the convention? It doesn't > seem so, because the people they're fighting against aren't > accorded POW status. > > Since you say that the people at Gitmo aren't soldiers, they're > not subject to the convention and, as the Russians used to tell > the world, how we treat criminals is an internal matter. I agree. I have said that several times in this thread. The detainees at GTMO can easily be declared illegal combatants under the terms of the convention. I even pointed to the articles which said that. Now, the problem is (and the reason it was raised) is that some people insist the war on terror is a war. If that is so, the convention does indeed apply. I do not think it is a war, so the convention does not apply. Some people, and I am not sure if you are one of them, think that it is a war so the rule of national law should not apply. If this is the case, then the GC should apply. I suspect some people, and again I am not sure if you are one of them, want neither the rule of national law nor the geneva convention to apply. > If it turns out they're being abused we should probably do > as the Turkish government did after the Armenian genocide, > claim it was carried out by "bad officials" who will be > punished once we identify them. That is always an option. Is that the sort of thing Americans do?
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 17:19 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45BBC61A.51BF754C(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I don't recall anyone saying fundamentalist Muslims were not insane. >>> >>>I did question what we mean by "insane". >> >>Both T Wake and I consider it crazy to believe in a 'God' or >>divine/ultimate >>being. >> >>Does that make all Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc insane ? > > > If you ask me. Yes. Since that is the default human condition, the definition might ought to be reversed if we accept that "insane" equates in some way to "abnormal" or "aberrant." This is precisely why I wanted a differentiation into degrees of insanity.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 17:20 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epgg4o$a46$5(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <M9GdnS-x7KLMOSbYnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [....] >>Which country has invaded the US? > > Pakistan. Didn't you hear about 7/11. :) LOL > > Note to nonUSAians: Yes, that is a joke. 7/11 is a type of store and a > stereotype is that they are run by pakistanies. (it's ok, I got it :-) There are some advantages to watching the Simpson's :-) )
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Jan 2007 17:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <45BA08CD.A94D6585(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> The only thing I've been discussing in this thread is about very > >> speicfic mess preventions. The US is trying to deal with preventing > >> these messes. > > > >But it's the USA that's responsible for the underlying scenarios that causes > >these 'messes' in the first place. > > hmm....Thus, using your reasoning, if you get shot during a bank > robbery, it is your fault for being in the bank. If you're the robber, then yes. My god, you like running into other people's fists, don't you? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Phil Carmody on 27 Jan 2007 17:23
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > It would in fact be a very serious mistake to underestimate the Islamists by > assuming they're insane. > > The way they've planned and executed attacks with minimal materials to hand > shows a great deal of inventiveness/resourcefulness. Sociopathic? Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./. |