"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:14:38 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:


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?


Ohh, a grammar flame, quelle surprise.

No, I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Obviously your Latin is
better than your English. Refusal to reword in English noted.

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.

You don't give a XXXX about 'civilians', they are just useful grist to
your
anti American mill.

How would you know what I care about, you sad bedwetter?

Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised
behaviour,
it is bad for business.

You mean like the German or Japanese 'civilians' were ?

Please tell the audience how your vast intellect would have dealt with the
very real threat of fascism without causing the death of 'civilians'.

I'm all ears.

We were actually talking about Libya, at least I was.

You see, the survivors tend to be annoyed.

Like those at Dresden or Tokyo ?

Attempt to change the subject noted. We were actually talking about Libya.
1986. Not WW2.

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.

Of course you did, hollow words easily spoken.

I get the feeling you would not know sincerity if your care worker showed
you it in a book.

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.

A profoundly silly piece of moral relativism.

"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?

Yet more canned cliche.

Evasion of direct question noted.

Are you suggesting that for example the UN shouldn't have intervened to
turn back the North Korean invasion in 1950 because

'two wrongs dont make a right'

How about the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ?

Attempt to change the subject noted.

How would *you* have dealt with a clear act of war on the part of the
Libyans ?

Probably not by bombing the Swiss embassy. Then again, I am not American.

Please enlighten the audience, tell us what measures *you* would have
undertaken to convince the Libyans to cease and desist forthwith.

Until you do so, I'll treat your **** & wind with the seriousness it
clearly deserves.

BTW : That *was* sarcastic.

Truly is it called a teenager's medium.

Or is it just thoughtless
posturing? Hmm.

I leave that to those who only post cliche.

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

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

Your sarcasm is noted.

Good.

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)

You're trying but failing miserably.
A broken pane of glass here and there does not a 'damaged' embassy make.

Really? What does 'damaged' mean to you then?

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.

You were the one to introduce them as a straw man.
Your lack of empathy for these 'civilians' is noted.

Bizarre response noted. I thought you were the one saying it was ok to kill
civilians.

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?

The real world one.

AFAIK the PIRA never published
records! Please feel free to provide a cite here if this is anything more
than idiotic posturing...

Hint: figure out when the last of the *4* arms shipments from Libya to the
provos was captured.

The date should enlighten you somewhat.

Hint: the captured ones were not the ones they *received* from Libya and
used to blow up British soldiers and civilians.

"The two main sources of weaponry for the IRA have been the USA and Libya"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e/weapons.html and it
has the shipments continuing until the 'early 90s' which was what I thought.
Do you actually understand what 'captured' means?

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.

Beyond any doubt at this stage.

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

Laugh, I nearly shat.

Shame you didn't. It would have been better than what you did produce.