 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Neocon Gulags
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
jim rozen wrote: In article .com, says... Summary execution of spies was also prohibited in the Hague Conventions since at least the early 20th century. Don't trust me, read them for yourself. I applaud your appeal to reason. I'm not sure Stuart can read though. There may be lurkers. -- FF |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
On 2 Jun 2005 16:45:57 -0700, jim rozen
wrote: In article .com, says... Summary execution of spies was also prohibited in the Hague Conventions since at least the early 20th century. Don't trust me, read them for yourself. I applaud your appeal to reason. I'm not sure Stuart can read though. Jim Spies (and the Accords have an interesting definiton) may be tried by a conviened tribunal, then sentenced and shot on the spot. A 5 minute trial followed by a firing party. All quite legal under the Conventions. Gunner "Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules. Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Note followups
Stuart Grey wrote: wrote: Note followups: Stuart Grey wrote: wrote: Follow-ups to: alt.politics Stuart Grey wrote: ... Remember that pro-Communist presidential candidate? No. His name is John Forbes Kerry. No. Yes. John Kerry's opposition to US policy during the War in Vietnam does not make him pro-communist any more than your opposition to US policy in WWII makes you pro-Nazi. You have committed the logical fallicy of false delima. No, I simply though you were equating Kerry's opposition to US policy with being pro-communist. It is spretty hard to figure out how you arrive at your conclusions, rather like clutching at straws. There is sufficent evidence to indicate that John F. Kerry was pro-communist; 1) The VVAW had leaders who were openly communist. Some people opposed to FDRs policy in the North Atlantic were openly pronazi. Is that evidence you are pronazi? 2) Kerry and one other VVAW leader went to conspire with the communist enemy during the war at least twice. They went to Paris and met with the diplomats there. No one but they, and most certainly not you, know what they discussed. It is known that the other VVAW leader brags that he sang the Ballad of Ho Chi Minh and the International while there. It is not known by me, I certainly won't take your word for it. Even if it is true it does not prove your assertion.. 3) Kerry's voting record in the Senate is consistant with a pro-communist stand. Ludicrous 'evidence'. I do remember reading that according to the FBI when persons in the VVAW first proposed violent action Kerry spoke out against the plan arguing that the VVAW should remain nonviolent, and it was overwhelmingly voted down. He left the VVAW shortly afterward. The FBI files put the down your lies. Kerry only resigned from the executive committee of the VVAW, he did not resign from the VVAW. Kerry was there for the meeting on Operation Phoenix, the criminal conspiracy to commit murder and sedition against the United States. Kerry's claim started out that he wasn't there, but the FBI papers proved he was lying; to he didn't recall, but again, the FBI was there and knew what was going on; to the latest of his lies that you repeated: he was there, he recalls it, and he said he wanted it to be a non-violent group and that he quit. The last part is an obvious lie, he only quit from the VVAW exec committee, not the VVAW. He's on FBI record as saying he would continue to speak for the VVAW. Offering to act as spokesman is not the same as continued participation as a member. Kerry resigned, it is as simple as that. Same logical error as before, and in addition, you've made the fallicy of the straw dog. I clearly stated that he mearly resigned from the VVAW executive committee, while doing the same things he did that were his duties on the Executive committee. Yes, you clearly state a lot of things. You come up short on evidence. Can you show evidence that he never resigned? It is no surprise that one might be confused as to exactly when one resigned or attended meetings thirty years in the past. Most people don't have FBI records to remind them when they claim to have done what. Speaking of which, don't those records say he resigned? The problem is that EVERYONE who attended the meeting is involved in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder. It doesn't matter if the murder plot is carried out; there is a burden to report such to the FBI. Since Kerry was very concerned that the FBI was investigating them, and never reported the plot, Kerry is guilty as sin of this crime, and should have gone to prison. False and false, respectively. Even if there had been a consipracy, mere knowledge of the conspiracy does not constitute a crime Actually, it does constitute a crime. Actually, you are lying. Attending a meeting at shich others advocate a criminal act does not constitute a crim. In particular, a person who argues against the commision of that act is most certainly no comitting a crime. and there is no general legal obligation to report knowledge of conspiracies, crimes and criminal activity to law enforcement. Yes there is, if one does not wish to be considered part of the conspiracy. No, there is not. Again you lie. Your making excuses for John F. Kerry's conspiracy to commit murder and sedition against the United States is interesting, as is your lame excuses for it. No, you are lying again. I am simply pointing out that you made statements that are factually incorrect regardless of the person about whom you said it. Whether or not there is a moral obligation is a matter of personal morality and for most people will be predicated on their perception of the reality of the danger. Besides, as you note, the FBI was THERE, no need for anyone else to inform them of anything. I see, so Kerry's excuse for not reporting the conspiracy was that he ****ed up and failed to exclused the FBI from the meeting, even though the executive concil tried to do so? That doesn't work. You can't offer as a defence against conspiracy the very fact that the FBI caught you. That was a joke. The real reason why Nixon was impeached was that he ordered the Justice department to investigate and prosecute acts on the left such as this. Splorf! Nixon was impeached because he refused to resign even after he began serving his sentence in Federal Prison. The articles of impeachment themselves were based on the charges for which he was convicted, but he would never have been impeached or removed from the judiciary had he simply resigned. At the meeting in question, a proposal was made to commit criminal acts. Kerry spoke against it, and it was overwhelmingly voted down. Thus no conspiracy arose from the meeting. To claim that Kerry was part of a conspiracy when in fact, he acted to prevent that conspiracy is as despicable a lie as one can imagine. LOL! Are you trying to be funny? Kerry said NOTHING. Not according to the FBI. According to the FBI he spoke against any plan to commit a criminal act. Kerry defended their plotting, even if their plot was voted down. He defended that which he oposed and was voted down? You make no sense. Kerry, and his VVAW created lies and propaganda against the United States, making false war crime claims, slandering our troops, ... Perhaps you can show which of the accusations were lies. Damn, there are so many lies, where to start? The entire Winter Soldier investigation was a lie! Many of the soldiers they interviewed had never been to Vietnam. Some of the "soldiers" were just dirty hippies who had never been in the military at all! Please name some witnesses who appeared at the WSI who were not whom they said they were. You have made yet another logical fallicy of distraction. Do you want proof of the assertion that the Winter soldier investigation, or do youw want names? Yes, and yes, respectively. You claimed "Some of the "soldiers" were just dirty hippies who had never been in the military at all!" I want you to prove that. If you cannot even name any, you can hardly claim to prove anything about any. Clearly, proof doesn't require names. False. You are just obfuscating becuase you have no evidence to support your assertion. That Winter Soldier was a fabrication is well documented in none other than the New York Times, Dec 27, 1970. The paragraphs(s) you included form the NYTs appear to have not been propogated. Could you please try again? Even the Detroit Free Press couldn't corroborate the stories. The WSI had no affidavits. Argument from irrelevency. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service found that many of those named in WSI as having testified had not taken part in the WSI. Fine. Name some. The implication was that the names of real veterans was being used to fake the evidence. That is, identity theft for the purpose of spreading liberal lies. The implication is that since you cannot name EVEN ONE such fake vet, you are just repeating lies. An investigation by Burkett for the book "Stolen Valor" shows that 11 out of the aproximately 100 who testified had no military service records at all. Theyw were complete frauds. Did Burkett name them? If not, why not? Here is an account of how Kerry 'defended' Hubbard: Kerry and Hubbard had a heated argument at the St. Louis meeting in July that was "witnessed by 200 veterans," according to Nicosia. Despite the presidential candidate's claim last week that Hubbard had not hurt the anti-war group's credibility in 1971, Kerry actually believed otherwise, according to Nicosia. "There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him and they were screaming at each other across the hall," Nicosia explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers group, and Kerry "couldn't have been more opposite personalities," Nicosia said. The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, "Who are you, Al Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran? Even if, this doesn't prove that Kerry did not defend Hubbard. Correct. (Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.) When Hubbard was first accused, Kerry defended him as anyone would defend an associate. But evidently Kerry looked into the accusations and upon finding that they were true, outed Hubbard. Uh did you not know that Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, or that Germany and Italy declared war on the US on December 11, 1941? Don't trust me, check it out for yourself. Read some history. Stalin was pressuring FDR to get the United States into the War. War with Japan could have easily been avoided, FDR didn't care too much about Japan, as his support was for Stalin, not the Chinese communist. Recall that the Chinese communist did the bulk of the war against Japan. FDR made a big speech, the "day of infamy" about how Japan was late, by a couple of hours, in declaring war against the United States before Pearl Harbor. A state of war between the United States and Japan had existed for some time prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor. Some time? The Japanese Intent was to give the declaration of war to the US just before the attack. Some would say that they gave it after the attack, for various reasons. So? That doesn't change the fact that the US and Japan were at war on the Asian mainland before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Unlike yourself, I am proud that my country fought against Japanese imperialism on the Asian Mainland. I'm sure that you are. The Japanese main intent was to attack the communist. 75% of the battles the Japanese fought were against the Communist Chinese. Is that why they attacked the Dutch East Indies, because the Dutch were commies? Is that why they attacked French Indochina, because the French were commies? Is that why the took Nanking? Is that why they avoided attacking any part of Soviet territory, because the Soviets weren't commies? Crimony. War between Japan and the United States could have been avoided. Most of the American people didn't want to get involved in the war. Congress didn't want to get involved in the war. It appears that: 1) FDR willfully gave orders to the Navy to commit violations of U.S. neutrality, which was a war crime, in an attempt to provolk the Germans into war. 2) FDR tried to provolk the Japanese into war. The truth is somewhat different, but to get an idea of what a liar FDR was, consider that he had declared a de facto war against Germany, without a declaration of war, MONTHS before the Germans declared war against the United States! Again, I am pround that the United States fought against Naziim. Yes, yes. The war to make the world safe for the communist. The only war that the American left ever approved of, and even then, they ridicule those Americans who fought it. Most American leftist claim that the Soviets are the real heros, and that the U.S. played only a minor part. How typical. Read it in the German declaration of war: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gerdec41.htm So, you are impuning FDR by quoting Adolf Hitler? Fallicy of irrelevant ad hominem. BFD, your fallacy was argument from authority and your authority was Adolf Hitler! Statements have to stand on their own truth. I've investigated the claims made in the German declaration of war, and they actually happened. Further, if you read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History", by Woods, you'd find that there were other acts and policies of FDR that were clear violations of the GCs that were designed to unconstitutionally declare war on Germany and violate international law. Which GCs? It's odd, but as far as this issue goes, it seems Hitler told the truth, and FDR was a bald faced liar and war criminal. I'm well aware that FDR ttok military action against German U-boats and the Japanese beofor either declared War on the US. (Now I expect you to go into some irrational rant about conventional wisdom, appeals to authority, and other logical fallicies in a celebration of your stupidity.) The facts in the German declaration of war can easily be checked on the web. Most websites claim them as heroic acts, but even a passing knowledge of what constitutes "neutrality" will show that we are NOT allowed, as a neutral party, to drop depth charges on German subs who have not attacked us, we can't spot German subs for their hostile forces, nor can we spot their battleships and report back to parties hostile to the Germans. Our ships were defending British shipping, a gross violation of our declared neutrality. Well that certainly was my attitude when Reagan sent the US Navy into the Persian Gulf to defend Saddam Hussein's shipping. So quite frankly, I agree with you here, though at least FDR did not make the morally repugnant choice that Reagan did. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/.../DD/dd424.html On 10 April 1941, as she was nearing the coast, the ship picked up three boatloads of survivors from a torpedoed merchantman. When a submarine was detected preparing to attack, the division commander ordered a depth charge attack which drove off the U-boat. I realize you people have no military experience at all, but the GCs do not allow neutral war vessels to attack unless they are first attacked. I doubt that the GCs required that a ship wait to be hit by a torpedo beofor taking defensive action. Attacking enemy war shipping is allowed under the GCs. So a sub preparing to attack (fast turning screws, charging tubes, opening doors and such can be heard) there was no way to tell if they were attacking life boats (which was not policy to waste torpedos on lifeboats) or other shipping. I'm quite sure that attacking life boats (something at least one British Admiral was notorious for doing himself) was contrary to the GCs. And the sub had no business attacking the US destroyer. This bloodless battle apparently was the first action between American and German forces in World War II. http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/1826.html 10 Apr, 1941 On 10 April, 1941 the US destroyer USS Niblack attacked a German U-boat with 3 depth charges. This attack followed the sinking of the Dutch merchant Saleier that U-52 had sunk and the destroyer was nearby and after rescuing 3 boatloads of survivors dropped the 3 charges when the boat was detected. This was the first military action between Germany and the USA in the second world war. Sounds justified to me. Humm. So, you support war crimes. I support defensive fire when being attacked. Later: 16 October 1941 US destroyer Kearney is sunk off the coast of Iceland while escorting a convoy in the Atlantic [actually she was topedoes but survived.] ... You do realize that this is another violation of US neutrality, and it was a war crime as we did not give Germany a declaration of war, right? That depends on the nationality of the ships in the convoy, right? What the Kearney had done was aid a British warplane by echolocating the submarine, so the warplane could drop a torpedo. This was a violation of our neutrality. Then, when the British plane had to leave station, the USS Kearney again violated neutrality and maintained contact with the U-Boat, and hunted it. It was in responce to this hostile act that the U-Boat attacked the Kearney. The U-Boat was within its rights under the GCs to do so. Sorry, but neutral means NEUTRAL, as in stand back and watch the war happen. The Kearney violated neutrality twice. Probably so. It is my understanding that FDR did as much as he could get away with to fight Naziim befor there was a declaration of war. BTW, you still haven't explained why FDR armed the Finns when Stalin attacked Finland. .... You said "shooting of spies". That was sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification. As I said, you clearly don't know the Geneva conventions. As I said, you were ambiguaous. Yet, you offer yourself as an authority on what they say with your "sounds justified to me" and other comments. I think the colloqual term for what you're posting is "talking out of your ass". Ergo, all the insurgents who do not wear a uniform (or distinctive emblem) commit a grave breach, and may be, after due process, punished by death, that is, SHOT. Not if the following from the Third Geneva Convention Part 4. A. is applicable: (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. True enough that this is the ONLY exception to the distinctive emblem rule. However, it doesn't apply for these reasons: 1) Iraq is occupied. Which is why I pointe dout that this is possibly applicable to battlefield captives taken in AFGHANISTAN who engaged the US and Northern Aliance troops in the proverbial 'stand-up fight.' Which, in larg emeasure, is why the Afghanistan campaign went as well as it did. Whether or that section is applicable to any particular individual is a matter for a competent court or tribunal to determine. That would seem to apply to battlefield captives from Afghanistan. Again, see above. One wonders if an official policy of denying POW status to captives without first bringing those captives befor a competent court or tribunal is a grave breach of the GCs. I daresay it is. POW status is a set of rights. If it is a "grave breach" or not depends on what is done in violation of those rights. Even non-POW captive enemy combatants have SOME rights. Including the right to a proper hearing to determine if they should be treated as POWs. But then, you have to show what the violations were, and you can't just take the word of the captives. The captives are obviously not entitled to POW status, even if the stupid Bush policy is not to put them on trial. Agreed as to the stupidity of the policy. It would be trivial to make the necessary showing to a REAL court martial. It is as if the Bush administarion goes out of its way to commit crimes abrogate the Constitution flout the rule of law and offend morality. It is also clear from captive al Qaeda manuals that they were told to tell lies of abuse in captivivity, as they are working with the left or using the left as useful idiots. So yeah, having pictures of a POW naked on a leash is a violation. At least, intentionally publishing it is, if you can show it was published by the government. Degrading acts are prohibitted by the GCs and acts of cruelty are prohibitted by the UCMJ. It wouldn't be a violation if it was shown that he was not a POW. Nonsense. It is prohibitted by The Fouth Geneva Convention which protects all captives who are not POWS. The US has not ratified all of the fourth protocol, I have not found a list what has or has not been ratified. But the US has ratified the convention against torture which bans more than torture. It also bans degrading and humiliating treatment, without exception. As you say, that was not proven at the time, even if it's obvious to any idiot that he isn't. Here is the list of WSI witnesses: It is a list of names, about half of the number of "witnesses" and thus not a complete list. Can you show any evidence to support your claim? If you want me, or anyone that has two brain cells to rub together to believe you, you should post some names. Otherwise it is obvious that you, to use a phrase you introduced into the, er, discussion, are talking out of your ass. As mentioned, many witnesses were never in the military, and some were victims of identify theft. Mention it all you want, but why not show us some reason to beleive it is true? -- FF |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Follow-ups to: alt.politics Stuart Grey wrote: wrote: ... No, I simply though you were equating Kerry's opposition to US policy with being pro-communist. Your admission that you thought simply and failed to think logically is noted. Actually, you are lying on both counts. .... Some people opposed to FDRs policy in the North Atlantic were openly pronazi. Is that evidence you are pronazi? You have made yet another logical failure. This one is called tu quequo. It is also irrlevant. Precisely my point. Your 'evidence is as also irrelevent to the conclusion you advocate, as mine is to the conclusion I chose to not advocate. .... They went to Paris and met with the diplomats there. No one but they, and most certainly not you, know what they discussed. 1) Going to talk to the enemy was either a violation of the UCMJ (a capital offense) or the USC (a felony). You fail to cite any relevent statutes under either. I also note that you have thus far declined to address my other challenges, jsut like every other liar who claims Burkett proved WSI witnesses were nto whom they claimed to be. -- FF |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:14:30 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: To see how I arrived at my conclusion, one would have to read what I wrote. I always wondered who wrote "My Pet Goat". -- Cliff |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:12:52 -0700, Stuart Grey
wrote: Again, your ignorance. You can google my posts and find the statutes both under the UCMJ and the USC. Quite frankly, you're an ass and if I dig them out for you, you'd just ignore them and blather on stupidly about something else. He's going to call for Nixon's impeachment soon .... -- Cliff |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Strabo wrote:
In OT - Neocon Gulags on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:14:30 -0700, by Stuart Grey, we read: wrote: Note followups snipped It is not known by me, I certainly won't take your word for it. Even if it is true it does not prove your assertion.. Your profession of ignorance is noted. Your stupidity is also noted. Why do you continue to say that something or other is "Noted?" What else can I do about stupid people other than to note that they are stupid? No amount of reason is going to convince the stupid to not be stupid. When someone tells me that they are willfully ignorant, and then refuses to follow or offer logic and reason, then yeah, all you can do is "note" that they are ignorant or stupid. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 21:53:56 GMT, Strabo
wrote: In OT - Neocon Gulags on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:14:30 -0700, by Stuart Grey, we read: wrote: Note followups snipped It is not known by me, I certainly won't take your word for it. Even if it is true it does not prove your assertion.. Your profession of ignorance is noted. Your stupidity is also noted. Why do you continue to say that something or other is "Noted?" He's making a list for after the fall ...... -- Cliff |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Strabo" wrote in message ... In OT - Neocon Gulags on Sun, 19 Jun 2005 11:14:30 -0700, by Stuart Grey, we read: wrote: Note followups snipped It is not known by me, I certainly won't take your word for it. Even if it is true it does not prove your assertion.. Your profession of ignorance is noted. Your stupidity is also noted. Why do you continue to say that something or other is "Noted?" Has anyone ever seen Runner and Stuey at the same time? Hmmm... Dan -- "After the long detour of Second and Third World pseudosocialism, capitalism has resumed the path Marx and Engels foresaw: toward one wholly rationalized, seamlessly integrated world; with everything for sale; with no one and no activity exempt from the pressure of competition, the risk of obsolescence, the specter of ruin; with no rest, no external haven, no inner sanctuary. A flat world." - George Scialabba in The Nation - "All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive." - Ralph Waldo Emerson - |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT - Warning: Wingers, Fundies & neocns at work | Metalworking | |||
| O.T Ban cell phones while driving | Metalworking | |||
Linear Mode
