If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
David Evans wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Fortunately, you aren't an arbiter of international law, since you :seem to not understand it very well. Or do you not think that the :attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center constitute :sufficient cassus belli? If they don't, what would? : :Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide. True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote:
:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: : :They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's : :In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US urports to support it says: : :Article 9 :No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next? -- You have never lived until you have almost died. Life has a special meaning that the protected will never know. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Watt wrote:
:On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: : :We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those :who gave them aid and comfort. : :I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed :their country and buildings. Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Iain Rae" wrote in message ... TinCanMan wrote: "Jim Watt" wrote in message ... On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US purports to support it says: Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. You can find the rest at http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any justification for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are detained in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all. Very objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration. or indeed, get grabbed by the Pakistani police, find yourself in a cellar in Afghanistan, get locked up for the duration. Actually they were taken by the Pakistani Army with the assistance of their security agency and turned over to the U.S. as Al Qaeda members. In acting as a stateless army they will find themselves on the battlefield wherever they might be. They choose the venue. The U.S. responded. That they hide among the populace till they perform their good deeds costs them the privledges of POW status. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
David Evans wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : ::Even the 911 attacks are no excuse for genocide. : :True. It's no excuse for Brazilian wax jobs, either. So what? : :The US isn't having a Brazilian wax job. It is committing genocide. On anyone we know? Or do you not know what 'genocide' means? The US is closer to having a Brazilian wax job than it is to committing genocide on anyone. -- "If told to fight regardless of the consequences, I shall run wild the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year. Thus, I hope you will avoid war with the United States." -- Admiral Yamamoto |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:29:06 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Jim Watt wrote: :On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 12:30:30 -0500, "Jim" wrote: : :We have every right to stomp the crap out of the Talaban and Osoma and those :who gave them aid and comfort. : :I wonder if the Iraqis feel the same about the people who trashed :their country and buildings. Yeah, they do. Most of 'em still don't like Saddam and the Baathists. I have not seen the Disney version yet. Thats the one where the American troops are welcomed and the mosques are demolished to make way for McDonalds and Baptist churches? -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 17:07:50 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote: "Jim Watt" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US purports to support it says: Article 9 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. You can find the rest at http://www.gibnet.com/texts/udhr.htm -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com Oh, my! Perhaps in your zeal to find some justification, any justification for your belief, you've skipped over the operative word. That word is arbitrary. Did you miss that or did that part not suit your preconceived agenda? You see, they are detained within the laws of war and are detained in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. The reason is because they are combatants or supported combatants. Nothing arbitrary about it at all. Very objective. Get caught under arms, get locked up for the duration. Duration of what? the Bush dynasty? There is nothing in the UDHR that says it only applies to civilians and there is no war in progress. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:28:08 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Jim Watt wrote: :On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 06:25:37 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: : :They are not, therefore they have no rights as POW's : :In the UN declaration of Human rights, which the US urports to support it says: : :Article 9 :No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. And so they aren't. Nothing 'arbitrary' about it. Next? I appreciate you may not find the word in the McDonalds dictionary (given away free with large fries) or on American television where words of more than six letters are avoided to prevent confusion. ar·bi·trary (adjective) 1. Depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law. 2.1 Not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority 2.2 Marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power 2.3 Using unlimited personal power without considering other people's wishes: -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:11:05 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote: I find it interesting they, as did the U.S. choose to disregard them. Had they believed it important to their "culture" to legitimize sniping at an armed force and hiding among the populace while claiming protection as POW's, they would have signed. Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and have now been released. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |