Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield

"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?

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.

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.

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.

You see, the survivors tend to be annoyed.

Like those at Dresden or Tokyo ?

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'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.

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 ?

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

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.



greg





--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

"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.

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?!