Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 04:55 In article <8b250$45bbd232$4fe72dd$25487(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "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? > >Because everyone likes to put a nice face to unpleasantness. > >>>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? > >No, but I am saying it can safely be ignores if America wins. >I won't attempt to draw moral judgments on what amounts to >the massive immorality of wholesale killing. Nor will I >approve of war nor condemn it, because warfare is one of those >human conditions which have and will always exist. > >>>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? > >I am saying it should not be unexpected. > >>>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. > >The situation of Gitmo was created with the intent to avoid >laws and conventions. Now think how that sounds. To us and to people in other countries. >To the mind of those charged with the >warfare in this instance, the alternatives are to kill them >when captured or to take them to secret prisons in countries >which will gladly accommodate them for a few. > Or follow the Geneva convention, determine their status legally, charge those that should be charged... >>>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? > >Who knows. This is the first time we're facing this sort of >problem. >
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:12 In article <45BE072B.60A48DA6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: [....] >> So now, under whose law? > >The relevant law of the land in question. .... or lands. It is often true that more than one law of more than one place is broken by a single crime. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:19 In article <epktr6$8qk_007(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >Yes. And it is the method these people are using to deny >reality. No, it is how we don't end up believing in fantasies about what is really going on. You misapply the word "war" and then suggest that because you call it "a war" certain actions are the correct ones. As I suggested somewhere else, if you call a peanut butter sandwich a lemming, it won't start jumping off of cliffs. You belief system seems to be populated with whole heards of plumetting sandwiches. > They are not the only ones. We have political leaders >who are doing the same thing and encouraging this blindness. We now have some political leaders who have taken a look at the real situation and have noticed that Bush has done a bunch of thunderingly stupid things. Even the folks who watch Faux News, not agree that Bush is an idiot. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: ���hw��f on 29 Jan 2007 10:23 unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> pinched out a steaming pile of<6e523$45bcc278$4fe745f$4997(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>: >���hw��f wrote: > >> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> >> pinched out a steaming pile >> of<pan.2007.01.28.13.34.41.98896(a)hell.corn>: >> >> >>>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:31:59 -0600, unsettled did the cha-cha, and >> >> screamed: >> >>>>>>Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? >>>>> >>>>>The two are not mutually exclusive. >>>>> >>>>>In my experience, most zealots err on the side of "inhumanity" and >> >> if >> >>>>>you use that a definition of evil, they are evil. >> >> (www.godhatesfags.com >> >>>>>- are they zealots or simply evil?) >>>> >>>>Most fags are zealots of a sort. >>> >>>So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their >>>sexuality is in any way rational? >>> >> >> Try as you might; you cant fix stupid. >> FYI >> HTH >> >Q.E.D. I havent read that book...
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:26
In article <epktnf$8qk_006(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <epg0dh$pn5$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >> >>Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the >>UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. > >Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. You are absolutely right they did. Are you suggesting they didn't? >The Germans didn't care about French law. If I don't care about the speeding laws, do they somehow not apply to me? The question was about breaking a law. The answer I gave was correct. > They intended to enforce >their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were >to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the >world. Yes, this is exactly what they intended to do. They were a country doing these actions. > >We are in a war no matter how mealy mouths try to pretend it's not >there. The assertion certainly doesn't follow from the above argument so I assume it is a simple stand alone declaration. It is completely false and unsupporteed by any arguments you have made. >>> When a military >>>group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >>>civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. >> >>But that isn't what is happening so why to you bring it up? > >It is happening. Until a few decades ago, the only "nation" Muslims >recognized was the Nation of Islam. The "until a few decades ago" is an interesting part of your argument. Does the fact that they did not recognize nations as we know them more than 10 years ago make a real difference to the situation today? 500 years ago there was no US so how can the US be at war with anyone? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |