"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:40 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65"

wrote:


I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.

You have no idea of the strike plans period.

Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night.

Considering your clueless comments w.r.t USN Operations,
How would you exactly ?

I've tried parsing this seven different ways and it just isn't English. Care
to reword it so that it means something?

On what are you basing your insightful commentary ?

They killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi.

Your faux concern for 'civilians' is noted yet again.

Oh, it is not 'faux' at all. Killing civilians is not just against all basic
rules of civilised behaviour, it is bad for business. You see, the survivors
tend to be annoyed.

Remember a few years ago, when a few thousand civilians were killed in New
York? I assure you, I felt just the same way about them.

I'll repeat the inconvenient fact you've just attempted airbrush away.

Article 28 of the 4th (1949) convention

"The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations."

It Libya had not engaged in an act of war by engaging in terrorist
actions,
these 'civilians' would be alive today.

I can just imagine you in a burkah (sp?), telling your acolytes this one to
justify suicide bombing of western targets.

"Yes, Abdul, you see if those evil Americans had not engaged in acts of war
against us, these civilians would still be alive"

Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right? Or is it just thoughtless
posturing? Hmm.

Their 'deaths' are not the fault of the US.

Please feel free to continue emoting your 'concern'. Its so touching.

Your sarcasm is noted.

They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,

So what.

So... you aren't supposed to damage embassies? Like... duh. (I hope you
realise I'm talking down to you here)

Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed.

Another inductive fallacy.

And I'm sure that was a great comfort to them as they died.

In the longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA
continued
unabated.

The record says otherwise. The bulk of Libyan logistical support for the
provos was shipped before events of El-Dorado canyon.

Which record are you looking at there? AFAIK the PIRA never published
records! Please feel free to provide a cite here if this is anything more
than idiotic posturing...

Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.

Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.

ROTFL Another posturing idiot who doesn't know what a tu quoque is.

You are so right. They didn't teach Latin tags at my school. Is it a fancy
haircut?