Prev: Glass quality and f stop question.
Next: The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
From: Bill Graham on 13 Sep 2009 18:44
"DG" <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>Bush is not a great orator, but he thinks pretty damn well. I see nothing
>>wrong in his response to the attack.
> That shows your drive and initiative. Who do you work for and do they
> know that in an emergency situation you think sitting is a proper
>>After all, it took months for us to
>>prepare for our response, and you are bitching about 4 or 5 minutes? Give
> It wasn't "our response". It was scrambling the military into the
> highest state of alert. "My Pet Goat" was more important than
> Americans being murdered.
> A man of action he isn't...
As I said above, it wasn't until the second plane hit the other tower that
there was any reason at all to suspect it was anything other than an
accident. As usual, you Bush bashers are dead wrong.....
From: Bill Graham on 13 Sep 2009 18:50
"DG" <xxxxxxxx(a)xxxxxx.xxxxxx> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" wrote:
>>In WW-II spies were routinely shot on site, without any trial whatsoever.
>>Any enemy not in uniform was the definition of a "spy". Under this
>>definition, all of the Gitmo detainees could have been shot.....They are
>>lucky they are still alive.
> The country would be in a better position today if they had done that.
> Just one more bushie fuckup...
Why? Death is a permanent, non-reversible solution. Capture and detainment,
if at all possible, is always preferable. If we had never exercised capitol
punishment, many who would be found innocent by DNA testing could be
released from our prisons today. As it is, we can only release those who are
From: Bill Graham on 13 Sep 2009 20:29
"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> In message <rPudnYwqprXDXDfXnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Bill Graham
> <weg9(a)comcast.net> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:l+pvJHTbVoqKFAU8@p
>>> 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
>>They have all the validity they need. A law against torture means
>>nothing unless and until you define, "Torture" If you exclude water
>>boarding, then so be it.
> Water boarding was not excluded by anyone except the Bush
> administration. The whole world and International law says
> waterboarding IS torture.
> So if N. Korea says it is find to pick up Us citizens around the world,
> lock them up and burn them with cigarettes it is OK because the N.
> Koreans decided that is not torture and the rest of the world is wrong?
If you write a legal document, then you should define your terms, or it will
have no meaning....this is especially true in international law.
From: ray on 13 Sep 2009 21:08
On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:03:28 -0400, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> Kulvinder Singh Matharu wrote:
>> Came across this article about AP publishing a photo of a dying US
>> marine and the controversy surrounding it. There hasn't been much news
>> here in the UK about it but I expect that it's big news in the US.
>> I'm all up for showing how things are and the press have done so on may
>> occasions, but at the same time the family must be very upset. So I'm
>> in two minds about this. Storm in a tea cup? Or genuine concern on
>> showing dead or dying NATO/ISAF soldiers?
> I feel images like this might make just some of the "pro war" people
> realize that yes fighting wars does cost lives. Shots of soldiers lined
> up in a parade might be more pleasant but isn't reality.
I don't know anyone who is "pro war". Some of the most anti-war folks I
know are in the military. Many of them realize that, at times, war is
necessary if we are to have freedom. I suppose you'd rather the
Revolution, WWI, WWII had not been fought.
From: editor on 13 Sep 2009 22:17
It was right to publish it. War is an unavoidably unsafe activity -
and the only reason the general public now isn't all aware of it is
that America hasn't fought in a really big war like WWII or even Nam
leaving everyone either a combat veteran or a relative of a soldier or
combat veteran in a generation plus. Reminding the sheeple - and
politicians - that those fighting America's wars, and their families,
pay a high price is a good thing.
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!