Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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

They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,

So what.

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

Another inductive fallacy.

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.

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.


greg



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