New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2006 11:48 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:26:21 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Phat Bytestard wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:54:54 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >Killing civilians is an odd way of conducting 'defence'. >> >> They were told to leave DAYS in advance and on a continual basis for >> days running. > >Which makes it OK ? > >I'm not entirely sure that's true of all the bombed areas anyway ! Even if I thought it was >acceptable in the first place. Certainly not true of the UN post that Israel shelled, killing 4 >unarmed peace monitors. > >Israel's out of control. > >Graham "Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said he doesn't believe Israel deliberately attacked the UN post." http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5161&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 "The words of a Canadian United Nations observer written just days before he was killed in an Israeli bombing of a UN post in Lebanon are evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a "shield" to fire rockets into Israel, says a former UN commander in Bosnia." http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=37278180-a261-421d-84a9-7f94d5fc6d50 John
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2006 11:50 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:59:36 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > >> > John Larkin wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:15:04 +0100, Eeyore >> > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > >Automatic assault weapons are certainly legal. >> > > > >> > > >Graham >> > > >> > > Possession of an automatic weapon (or a bazooka, or explosives, or a >> > > sawed-off shotgun) is a Federal felony here. >> > >> > It seems I had semi-autos in mind. It's a tricky distinction to someone not used to >> > them. Don't semi-atos simply have a single shot mode too ? Doesn't stop them being used >> > for automatic fire AIUI. >> > >> > Graham >> >> You have it backwards. Automatic fire requires a fully automatic >> weapon, but they can be fired in single shot or short bursts like the >> M16 and M60. > >Ok. Got it although there seems to have been some dispute over the terms. > >" There is some casual dispute over the correct use of the words automatic and >semi-automatic. Gun enthusiasts sometimes argue that the word automatic is incorrectly linked >to fully-automatic fire and that an automatic weapon is simply any weapon that chambers a new >round during the extraction of the previous cartridge's casing. " >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic > >Graham > Whatever. A gun that fires multiple rounds for a single trigger pull is illegal here. John
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2006 12:01 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 07:38:40 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:00:38 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >We'll see how things turn out then ! >> > >> >The crazy thing is that Israel's simply stirring up a hornet's nest. It's going to >> >prove counter-productive IMHO. >> >> They should just sit snug and enjoy the colorful rockets? > >I'd hardly suggest that ! > > >> What if the end result is that Iran and Syria stop meddling with >> Lebanon, > >I suspect the current war is sheer joy to both Syria and Iran. Syria had just been >kicked out of Lebanon and now they can see a way back in. Obviously. They fund it, ship in the rockets and the fighters, and assissinate any Lebanese politicos who get in its way. This is not about Israel and Lebanon, it's about Israel and Syria and Iran. > >> and let the Lebanese run their own country and army? > >The trouble is that there *never has been* a credible Lebanese army. If there was - >there likely wouldn't be a problem. > No argument there. >The only sensible answer I can see would be UN forces to act as a defence force for >Lebanon. > > NATO would be better. The UN is a joke. >> What if >> Israel were to be recognized as a country by all the neighboring >> countries, and all were at peace? > >I'm sure Lebanon would be delighted not to get invaded again ! Egypt's already at peace >with Israel. Not sure what the exact situation is with Jordan but it's been peaceful >enough on that border for ages. So that leaves Syria. > > >> What so many Arabs don't appreciate is that Israel could have been a >> nucleus for democracy, prosperity, technology, and progress for all >> the Arab world. > >Shame that Israel kicked out and / or made unwelcome so many Arabs then ? That's what >the 'refugee' thing is about. Didn't you know ? Partially. The Irgun and the Stern Gang were indeed Zionist terrorist groups that drove native arabs out of Israel in the early days, but after Israel was declared, the grownups called them in, told them to stop, and they did. Many more locals fled "temporarily" just before the first big arab attack on Israel. The ones who stayed became full Israeli citizens. John
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2006 12:02 On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:00:07 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >Are you unaware of the how Moslems 'stick together' when one is attacked ? > Except when the Sunnis attack the Shiites and vice versa. John
From: John Larkin on 1 Aug 2006 12:03
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 06:10:19 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 05:14:11 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >Phat Bytestard wrote: >> > >> >> On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:47:16 +0100, Eeyore >> >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >> >> >They see things from another perspective of course. Maybe you should think about >> >> >that. >> >> >> >> The word for today for you is propaganda. That is what you are a >> >> victim of. >> > >> >Fuuny how I see it *exactly* the other way. Along with the other 95% of humanity. >> >> Hardly 95%. The Indians and, even more, the Chinese see radical Islam >> as a threat. 2.5 billion right there. > >It wasn't Islam I had in mind. > Well, the Chinese and the Indians seem more friendly to the US than the Europeans are lately. John |