Prev: Glass quality and f stop question.
Next: The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
From: Giftzwerg on 11 Sep 2009 07:20
In article <_dGdnb7HNaji6jTXnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, weg9
> No, but the problem wasn't just Arabs learning to fly. there was no harm in
> that. It was the fact that they were learning to fly, but not to
> land.....this should have raised a flag to their instructors.....Or, at
> least, that was the contention at the time. Had your microbiology students
> only been interested in deadly pathogens, you might have been rightfully
> suspicious, also.
Oh, bullshit. Lesson 1 in flight school is maneuvering an aircraft
already in flight. Lesson 2 is taking off. Lesson 3 is landing.
This is SOP, for obvious reasons. Flying a plane already in the air is
almost trivial; just about anyone can do it. Taking off is more
challenging. And landing the thing is the toughest part.
So give us a break. The 9/11 terrorists didn't sail into flight school
bleating, "We don't need to know how to take off! We don't need to know
how to land! Just show us how to steer the airplane into a building!!!"
"Preventative care does save lives, but it costs more money, not less.
Nothing costs less than a dead patient. Dont forget that. Ever."
- Stephen Greene
From: mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH on 11 Sep 2009 12:59
>> He tried hard to do the right thing.
> Then why did he shred the Constitution?
He didn't. Not at all. He wanted to keep the Constitution, that's why he
got good people on the Supreme Court.
> Then why did he push people
> to violate the Geneva Convention?
He didn't. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners
of war taken on a battlefield for formal battle. It does not apply to
terrorists or spies.
> Why did he commit war crimes?
From: Chris H on 11 Sep 2009 13:14
In message <h8dvlt$if4$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY
REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu writes
>> Then why did he push people
>> to violate the Geneva Convention?
>He didn't. The Geneva Convention applies only to prisoners
>of war taken on a battlefield for formal battle. It does not apply to
>terrorists or spies.
This is correct. Terrorist and spies etc come under LOCAL CIVILIAN LAW.
The are *EITHER* enemy combatants under the Geneva Convention or
Civilians. In either case due process should be applied and this does
not include tourture.
>> Why did he commit war crimes?
Just saying he didn't when you are a no one does not count when the
international organisations say the opposite.
On the other hand Bush admitted it. Water boarding is torture.
Actually Bush and co... devised their own definitions which the rest of
the world (and many Americans) say are simply made up and have no
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
From: mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH on 11 Sep 2009 13:19
Chris H wrote:
> On the other hand Bush admitted it. Water boarding is torture.
Waterboarding is NOT repeat NOT torture. It does
not result in permanent harm, or even temporary harm.
Of course, al Qaeda and the Taliban do routinely use
things that are essentially torture. So did Saddam.
The Left of course never worries about such things.
I WONDER WHY.
From: Neil Harrington on 11 Sep 2009 13:35
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
> Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> No matter how you slice it, bush was horrible.
>>Bush tried very hard to do right.
> Given that he spent some 500 days of his terms on vacation that's
> a tough claim to justify.
That would be about one day out of six. And his "vacations" were working
vacations as most people understand. In the short time he's been president
Obama has spent more time on vacations (Hawaii and Martha's Vineyard) as
well as retreats and European junkets, than Bush did over the same period.
>> Very hard indeed.
>>The Democrats tried very very very very hard to foil him.
> Liar. They didn't even get a majority of Congress until two years
> before his term ended.
Are you really not aware that congressional minorities still have plenty of
means of blocking presidential objectives? Look at Obama -- with big
majorities in both houses and a veto-proof Senate, he's still complaining
about Republicans keeping him from getting what he wants!
Bush actually warned about the dangers of all those risky mortgages during
his first year in office. McCain and several other senators tried to get
better regulation of lending in 2003. They were not joined by a single
Democrat. Not a single one.
Now Barney Frank wants to do the same thing all over again.