Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epne9d$8ss_003(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <osedne1yDtkuqCPYnZ2dnUVZ8qWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epl056$8qk_007(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45BBC4FF.E0BD2CFA(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>unsettled wrote: >>>> >>>>> Only losing nations and their executives ever face the >>>>> consequences. No nation or national executive engages >>>>> in war with the thought of losing. >>>> >>>>Hmmmm, well there's more than few in the UK who would like to see Tony >>>>Blair >>>>prosecuted for war crimes. >>> >>> Under whose law? Islam's? >> >>No. You might be surprised but the UK is not run under Sharia law (which >>is >>what I assume you mean when you say "islam's"). The implications Eeyore is >>talking about are people using UK law and internationally agreed treaties >>/ >>articles which carry the weight of law. >> >>I am surprised you haven't heard of this concept. >> >>You may discover the acts and process *you* advocate fit into "Islamic >>law" >>much better than to any Western Civilisations legal system. >> >>>> >>>>Channel 4 TV even made the concept into a 2 part drama. >>> >>> And this doesn't worry you about the hidden agenda of your >>> media? >> >>There certainly was no "hidden" agenda about that drama. It was pretty >>blatantly obvious. >> >>That said, most people are aware it was a "drama." You may want to >>investigate that concept. 24 is not reality TV. > > You seem to have believed it. Really? How do you come to that conclusion? Are you talking about 24 (which I watch) or the "Trial of Tony Blair" thing (which I never saw)?
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epnhp6$8qk_008(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. 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. >> >>>>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. > > This is the most important sentence in this thread. It seems > as if most people are unable to understand this. Is that why you have ignored the rest of the comments and questions people have directed towards you?
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:48 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epnmlp$df5$6(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <0cmdnfDA0boaqiPYnZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > [.. What law they broke..] >>The Nation they are resident in. If I travel to the US and break the law, >>am >>I immune because it is an American law which has been broken? > > As I pointed out before. For some countries, some of their laws apply to > your actions everywhere. Germany has such laws as does the US. > > [.....] > >>> Your IRA had a tacit agreement that they were breaking your laws. >> >>Did they buggery. Where on Earth did you get this line of nonsense from? >> >>> These Muslims don't. >> >>Amazing. I am glad you are certainly far from being representative. > > She is allowed to vote > (look of horror) Yeah (damn those suffragettes..) but she is still only one person..... There is always the chance the vote gets spoilt each time anyway.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epnqmk$8ss_015(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45BCCBF6.D0445A6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>> making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>> each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>> a field somewhere and shoot at each other >> >>That's pretty much it. >> >> >>> thus, conflicts of any other nature has to be treated as criminal and >>> apply >>> a country's criminal law to each individual. >> >>And what precisely is mistaken about that ? > > There is a non-Western war going on. If you do not adapt, > you will lose. Remove the word "western" and your first sentence is correct.
From: T Wake on 30 Jan 2007 15:51
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epnqqm$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <MvidnQbxmY5PSCHYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>> I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are >>> making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, >>> each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on >>> a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of >>> any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply >>> a country's criminal law to each individual. >> >>Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, >>haven't they? > > I'm still working on the original problem; I haven't solved it. > While you are doing that you can remind us what the purpose of the Geneva convention is (in your opinion) and what European country asked the US for help in Korea. That would be an excellent start. |