On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:11:39 +0100, "Guinnog65"
wrote:

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?

Aww bless, ad hominem.

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 unequivocally asserted the following

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

The discussion context is clearly about 'civilians'.

Its not the fault of the audience that you are incapable of supporting what
you posted previously.


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.

I'm not changing the subject. You were the one to assert

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

I've asked you to detail alternatives, what are they.

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.

This coming from the intellectual giant who emoted

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

If you were truly 'sincere' you'd enlighten the audience with your
alternatives.

"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.

You cannot tell the audience what your 'civilian' sparing alternative was
w.r.t confronting
Japanese & German fascism,
North Korean/Iraqi invasions of their neighbours
& state sanctioned terrorist attacks by Libya on 120 odd German
'civilians'.

How could one possibly 'evade' such trite fallacious nonsense.


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.

That's not changing the subject. You unequivocally asked above.

"Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right?"

When referring to civilian casualties.

I cannot help it if your ego wont permit you to accept the inherent
contradiction in such cliched nonsense.

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.

Now that *is* an evasion.

You cannot tell the audience what *your* response would have to been to
clear act of state terrorism by Libya.

You are unable to detail anything resembling a alternative to an act of war
on Libya's part and the US right under article 51 to respond.



[evasive nonsense binned unread]
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!