On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 08:02:55PM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 21:24:23 -0400, Roberto wrote in message > <[🔎] 20070319012423.GC12152@santiago.connexer.com>: > > > Now, if any coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the > > Geneva conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted. > > ..here you are in disagrement with Sissy Boy George and in agreement > with me and any other decent person on this planet. :o) Carry on. ;o) > Reference? Where has President Bush stated that war criminals should not be prosecuted? Where is the evidence that troops are committing war crimes? > > Now, the terrorists are afforded no such protection under the Geneva > > Conventions. > > ..if you define "terrorist" as mercenary in Article 47 in Protocol I, > and assume they are not shipwrecked or wounded under the full > 4 Geneva Conventions, agreed, otherwise disagreed. > Well, there is the whole thing about lawful combatants being required to wear a distinguishable uniform with distinctive insignia. > > In fact, they don't even have to be taken prisoner. They can simply > > be shot on sight. > > ..actually Article 47 does require you to identify them correctly as > mercenaries first. > Again, engaing in combat while not in uniform == automatically not lawful combatant. > > It is the grace of the US government that efforts are made to capture > > and detain rather than just kill outright. > > ..like on Gitmo and Abu Graib? > Well, in this case, no matter what the US does, they are wrong. Kill them on sight (they are not lawful combatants) and there is public outcry. Take them prisoner and the there is public outcry. What other options are there? > > As far as Sharia, why should the US subject its military forces to the > > laws of Islam, when it doesn't even subject them to the laws of > > Christianity? > > ..I dunno all the details, but Sharia has rules on POW and war > casualties etc treatment that are in compliance to the full 4 Geneva > Conventians, if I can believe an Indian english 1978 translation of the > Qouran. The Bible asks Jews and Christians to kill all POW's. > Cite? The New Testament tells Christians to pray for their enemies, unless your translation mistranslates "pray" as "kill". I do know that there is at least one instance in the Old Testament where the Israelite were commanded to wipe out an entire people. Is that what you are referring to? > ..as a serviceman or even officer in the USAF, in war, you're required > to know that Article 2 and 3 in all 4 Geneva Conventions require all > combattants to apply the strictest combination of war waging rules > to award any protected persons such as civilians, POW, internees, > shipwrecked paratroopers, wounded mercenaries or objects such as > hospitals, POW camps etc, the best possible protection from war, > and war crime. > > > > As far as foreign laws, they should have no bearing. The same way > > that US laws should have no bearing on the actions of other countries' > > soldiers. > > ..you wanna make sure your opinions help you comply to the Conventions, > and the War Crimes Act, and local Law, if you wanna be a lawful > combattant. > > > > Or, you will have to _forgive_ Osama for felling the WTC. ;o) > > > > I have, personally, forgiven OBL. However, that does not absolve the > > government of protecting its people. > > ..nor their POW's, nor "enemy" civilians in occupied territories. Etc. > > > > Thenafter we can make peace last by moving the Jews out of the > > > Middle East to whereever they please to go, or watch Hezbollah 'n > > > Hamas mow 'em. > > > > > I see, so you are an anti-Semite. > > ..precisely like youself and Adolf and all other members of > any christian churches and in full compliance to the Bible. > What makes you think that I am an anti-Semite and more generally that anyone in full compliance with the Bible is an anti-Semite? > ..now, like some orthodox Jews and Muslims I would like > to stop this christian Zionist nonsense, and stop the Zionist > war crimes against Muslim Semites and christian Semites. > > ..unfortunately, the Jew Semites and the other Jews blew their > welcome in "Israel" by comitting anti-Semitic war crimes. > So, the Jews need a new home. > > > The fact is that the Jews were there long before the Muslims. > > ..aye. Depending on how you define Human, Semite und Herrmänch, > it can be argued, all ways, whether there has ever been people there. > The Bible does mention "caananites" and "samarians" and "filistinians" > without clarifing whether these Semites are human, and these were there > before the Jews arrived, and the vast majority of the Jews left before > the remaining Semites became Muslims or Christian etc. > > > > ..the root cause of this war is not that "the Jews got a home land", > > > but that we (the UN) stole it from the Filistinians and renamed it > > > to "Palestine" and let Hitler gas the Jews to scare them "home", to > > > piiage Arab oil and stall Muslim Capitalism. > > > > > Wooh! I don't think I could have fit so many conspiracy theories into > > such a small space, even if I tried. > > ..try. Could even help you see what part _you_ play in it. ;o) > > > > ..we need to fix that, _if_ we want peace. If we don't, there is > > > absolutely _no_ way you can convince me, "the Muslims does > > > not need nukes." > > > > > Clearly, you are naive, so I will explain something to you. The > > Muslims will not be satisfied until the Jews have been *exterminated*. > > ..what part of "_if_", is it you do not understand? ;o) > > ..has _anyone_ offered to airlift the Jews out, yet? > Isn't it about damned time? > > > Not relocated, but exterminated. The same with Christians. > > ..how come there was peace between Christian and Muslim Semites > _until_ the First Crusade? And then between the crusades? > You remember your history incorrectly. The muslims conquered Jerusalem in AD 638. The First Crusade besieged Jerusalem in 1099. So, the muslims were making war against the Jews and Christians for 461 years before the start of the First Crusade. Care to revise your statement? > > Remember that the Muslims have three options when dealing with > > infidels: > > > > 1. enslave them > > 2. convert them > > ..I'm ok with #2, the Christians killed off at least 3/4 of > the Norwegians "Christianizing Norway By the Sword." > This argument always gets trotted out. Christians who kill those who refuse to accept Jesus are in direct *violation* of the Bible. Muslims who kill "infidels" are in *compliance* with the Koran. Huge difference. > > 3. kill them > > ..because "we" anti-Norwegian anti-Semites have denied them > the 4'th option, "a fair deal." Denying Muslims any glimmer > of hope of that, leaves no real choise other than nuclear war. > What glimmer of hope could you/we offer that prevent them from wanting to exterminate Christianity or Judaism? Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature