New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: joseph2k on 4 Aug 2006 08:41 Eeyore wrote: > > > Jim Thompson wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:59:08 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Jim Thompson wrote: >> > >> >> Eeyore? I think he IS French... didn't you notice the smell ? >> > >> >You are a clown with a big red nose and giant floppy shoes and spiky >> >orange hair. >> > >> >You know damn well I'm of Scottish ancestry like yourself. Sadly it >> >seems you lost the civilised part of your honourable background. >> > >> > >> > >> >Graham >> >> But you lost the uncivilized part that helped the Scots survive the >> scum-bag Brits. >> >> ...Jim Thompson > > The Scots didn't win those wars you know ! > > Graham Maybe, maybe not. The result is that they rather consistently won in the negotiations / peace that followed. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: joseph2k on 4 Aug 2006 08:45 Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:19:51 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>You mean the USA would happily kill them otherwise ( making America troops >>war criminals btw ) ? > > It is legal to execute war criminals, you retard. But only after you convict them at trial, and observe certain rules of procedure in doing so. For a recent example see the Milsovick (sp?) trial. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: joseph2k on 4 Aug 2006 08:57 John Larkin wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:06:46 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> Well? We all know that "peace in our time" is a workable proposition, >>> all men are good to their word, and terrorists obey the Geneva >>> Convention ;-) >> >>It would be nice if the USA which likes to tout itself as a civilised >>example to the rest of the world could obey the Geneva Convention wouldn't >>it ? >> >>Graham > > I guess the question is whether terrorists are military combatants, > which they need to be in order to be covered by Geneva. There are some > formal definitions, that include rank and uniforms and stuff. Solders > are given protections that, for example, spies and saboteurs and > criminals aren't. > > John You might want to read the original text. Try starting in these places: http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/texts/doc_geneva_con.html www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/fe20c3d903ce27e3c125641e004a92f3 -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: Bill Sloman on 4 Aug 2006 08:58 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> schreef in bericht news:ctg5d25shks5iqhppentfg521cpm6io0pq(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:26:05 GMT, Phat Bytestard > <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> wrote: > > >>>England would have starved if the US Navy hadn't been helping the >>>convoys, loaded with American food and ammo, get through. Those >>>millions of Indian troops couldn't have reached Britain, and would >>>have had nothing to eat and nothing to shoot if they had swum all the >>>way. Germany was just too far ahead in militarization, and the U-boats >>>were too good. >>> >> >> Yes. We escorted hundreds of ships. > > > Full of American food, vehicles, fuel, and ammo. Britain imported 70% > of its food just before the war, and had no substantial domestic > source of aviation fuel. Texas saved England, and England prefers not > to remember. Texas got very well paid for saving England - the phrase "over a barrell" does come to mind - and the gratitude that Texas can can expect to get over and above getting paid extortionate prices has to be correspondingly limited. That won't be the story that they fed you in civics class at school, but you don't believe in Father Christmas these days, and you should really outgrow the tales of the benevoltent Uncle Sam. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: joseph2k on 4 Aug 2006 09:01
Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:42:02 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 02:09:35 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: >>> > >>> [snip] >>> >> >>> >> More proof that you are insane. :( >>> > >>> >More proof that you're two-faced. >>> > >>> >If a well-regulated militia is good for America why shouldn't it be >>> >good elsewhere ? >>> > >>> >Graham >>> >>> Show us the "well-regulated". They're thugs. >>> >>> ...Jim Thompson >> >>They're far better regulated than your backwoods hicks. > > Like I said. You don't even know what the word means. >> >>In any case didn't J.L. say regulated meant armed in this context ? > > You're an idiot. Compare your response to Jim's, it is easy to see where yours is found lacking. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller |