On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:18:18 +0000, Guido wrote:

Footy wrote:

And just what do any of these statistics have to do with each other? You
have demonstrated no cause and effect relationship.


Read n weep boy, read n weep. UK handgun ban 1997:

"The survey suggests violent crime is 36% lower
now than its 1995 peak."

Read n weep boy, read n weep, who is this asshole?
http://www.americandaily.com/article/4939

Lott's counting the pushing & shoving G.

A true American idiot. And trying to lie his way to
fame & fortune, on the backs of the US taxpayer and the
gunlobby.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:14:03 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

In the US, if one removes minorities

Like the new new neocon party's plan for Social Security?
That would strip benefits from Blacks, women, most
minorities, most hourly employees, ........

Think about it. 10% of fewer dollars is fewer benefits,
even assuming a breakeven after inflation & taxes in the
the market (and expenses).

OTOH If you make well over US$ 100,000 per year ....
what's wrong with your current retirement plan & 401K?

And we know how those *existing* government
guaranteed pension plans in the US are working out .....
except for government employees, I expect.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:12 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 15:53:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Guido" wrote in message
...
In a shock for US gunnuts that have pointed to UK crime
figures since the handgun ban in 1997, the latest UK crime
statistics show:

"Serious injuries from gun crime fell 5% and
the use of handguns was down 15%."

"Murder down by 18%"

"Burglary down 23%"

The downside being that violent offences of "pushing and
shoving" increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204843.stm

Have you ever looked to see what percentage of gun-related crimes are
committed by recent immigrants? Sometimes that's a really interesting
figure.


In the US, if one removes minorities between the ages of 13 and 24,
and illegal immigrants from the crime rates....firearms crime in the
US is about 1.5 points higher per 100,000 than in the UK. With few
firearms in the UK and 300 million of them in the US.

Truely some interesting ramifications.

Yeah, it's a very un-PC subject, but the FBI's UCR gun-crime figures for
Seattle some years back -- which were atrocious -- declined to rough
equivalence with those of Paris, France if you took out the Mexican
immigrants from the Seattle figure.

Is Gunner a bigot?
Does he want to remove the rights to shoot off shiney things
at anything that moves from Hispanics & Blacks? And put age
restrictions on everybody's rights on top of that?

Sure sounds like it.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:58:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .

Huh? Are you saying that Bush and the neocons are behind the destruction
of
the WTC? Or what are you saying?

It was a *criminal* act.
Then bush & the neocons promoted it to further their *existing*
agenda to start wars in the Middle East and gain vast powers in
the US.

So you think that flying airplanes into the WTC was a criminal act, rather
than an act of policital terror?

How easily some wish to toss out the rule of law, the US
constitution, international treaties, the UN's charter, people's
rights. etc.

Do you think that it was NOT criminal? Can you think
of even one nation on the face of the planet that would
not have said that it was criminal?

Do you have some evidence of this, because virtually the entire world
disagrees with you, based on the evidence.

Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:08:54 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:58:12 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:02:47 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .


Well, I don't have to restate the facts for you, as I'm sure you
know
them
well. What would you do in this situation?

There are two separate groups, as I see it: The ones captured on
the
battlefield, primarily in Afghanistan,

Clearly POWs & the Geneva Conventions, among others, apply.

Ok, then here's a sanity check: How long would you keep them as POWs?

What's normal?

Until the top military officers or political leaders from their side
formally surrender.

Huh? Who? Where? WHY??

Why not?

Because it was unrelated?
Who? Where? WHY??
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:30:02 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:53:20 GMT, Jeff Lowe
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.


Non-uniformed perhaps by a very narrow western European standard,
however the tribal peoples of South Asia have modalities of dress that
clearly establishes a person's identity within their culture. Both
toponym and ethnonym are publicly declared by clothing as plainly and
openly as any uniform with name and rank insignias.

Perhaps...but those modalities were not covered under the Hague
Accords.

Sez you. Who declared that YOU get to define "uniform" and
make those defending themselves form sudden US attack go
buy ones that you approve of, probably from approved
sources. One shiney medal out of place & ......

Btw..those culturaly unique traits do not allow anyone to
distinguish if the subject is a civilian or a combatant, which is a
major and not negotiable requirement in the Hague Accords (Geneva
Convention)

Which explains why all those civilians were tortured, right?

If you are going to be a combatant, you must be clearly marked so your
intent and is unmistakable.

(Big sign taped to back: GUNNER.)

If you do not so clearly indicate, and
you act as a combatant, you are either a spy, or a terrorist and as
such, are not protected.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

Then the neocon crazies had best get their terrorists out
of places like Iran fast, right?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:26:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:32:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We screwed up several things, but I don't know enough about the law to
judge
if we screwed up in our handling of the Taliban captives. I would have
thought they were subject to treatment as POWs, and I'd feel better if
they
were, but, again, I don't know the details of international law regarding
prisoners taken in various types of combat.

Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.

Assuming that's correct under the conventions you've cited, are you sure
that's the way it works out for the detainees in question under the broader
scope of international law?

My limited experience with international law is that it's a minefield for
the unwary.


Yes, and yes. Which is why the various lawyers had a hayday
researching the subject, and why Gitmo was used to avoid the only laws
that might apply..US criminal and civil laws that would be in effect
if the prisoners were held in CONUS.

It was very smart using the loopholes in the law to our advantage.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio

US law applies to all US actions and the US has claimed that
it applies OUTSIDE the US as well.
See the recent "homeland insecurity" & "patriot act" arrests
for things like porn & sex outside the US or arrests in places
like Panama.

In addition, such acts as these, knowingly trying to evade
the laws, are in themselves illegal.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:44:25 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Fri, 28 Jan 2005 05:11:00 GMT
in alt.machines.cnc :
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We screwed up several things, but I don't know enough about the law to judge
if we screwed up in our handling of the Taliban captives. I would have
thought they were subject to treatment as POWs, and I'd feel better if they
were, but, again, I don't know the details of international law regarding
prisoners taken in various types of combat.

Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.

Those aren't "combatants" those are bandits.


(Yeah, I know, every tyranny calls the "Resistance", bandits or
terrorists. But then, those who support tyrannies will also call
terrorists "Insurgents".)

tschus
pyotr

Gunner wants to give the US back to the French, Spanish, Mexicans &
British as the terrorists were not wearing the proper red uniforms.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:10:56 +0000, Guido wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


We screwed up several things, but I don't know enough about the law to judge
if we screwed up in our handling of the Taliban captives. I would have
thought they were subject to treatment as POWs, and I'd feel better if they
were, but, again, I don't know the details of international law regarding
prisoners taken in various types of combat.


Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.


Once again Gunner is seen ****ing in the wind.

[
Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall
remain in force, with the exception that they may be
repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where
they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to
the application of the present Convention.

Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for
ensuring the effective administration of justice, the
tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to
function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.

The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of
the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to
enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under
the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government
of the territory, and to ensure the security of the
Occupying Power, of the members and property of the
occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the
establishments and lines of communication used by them.

Art. 65. The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power
shall not come into force before they have been published
and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own
language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be
retroactive.

Art. 66. In case of a breach of the penal provisions
promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of
Article 64 the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to
its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on
condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country.
Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.

Art. 67. The courts shall apply only those provisions of law
which were applicable prior to the offence, and which are in
accordance with general principles of law, in particular the
principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the
offence. They shall take into consideration the fact the
accused is not a national of the Occupying Power.

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is
solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does
not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of
the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave
collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the
occupying forces or administration or the installations used
by them, shall be liable to internment or simple
imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or
imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.
Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such
offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving
protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under
Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion
convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for
the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in
accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death
penalty against a protected person only in cases where the
person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage
against the military installations of the Occupying Power or
of intentional offences which have caused the death of one
or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable
by death under the law of the occupied territory in force
before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected
person unless the attention of the court has been
particularly called to the fact that since the accused is
not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it
by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a
protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the
time of the offence.

Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during
which a protected person accused of an offence is under
arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from
any period of imprisonment of awarded.

Art. 70. Protected persons shall not be arrested, prosecuted
or convicted by the Occupying Power for acts committed or
for opinions expressed before the occupation, or during a
temporary interruption thereof, with the exception of
breaches of the laws and customs of war.

Nationals of the occupying Power who, before the outbreak of
hostilities, have sought refuge in the territory of the
occupied State, shall not be arrested, prosecuted, convicted
or deported from the occupied territory, except for offences
committed after the outbreak of hostilities, or for offences
under common law committed before the outbreak of
hostilities which, according to the law of the occupied
State, would have justified extradition in time of peace.

Art. 71. No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent
courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial.

Accused persons who are prosecuted by the Occupying Power
shall be promptly informed, in writing, in a language which
they understand, of the particulars of the charges preferred
against them, and shall be brought to trial as rapidly as
possible. The Protecting Power shall be informed of all
proceedings instituted by the Occupying Power against
protected persons in respect of charges involving the death
penalty or imprisonment for two years or more; it shall be
enabled, at any time, to obtain information regarding the
state of such proceedings. Furthermore, the Protecting Power
shall be entitled, on request, to be furnished with all
particulars of these and of any other proceedings instituted
by the Occupying Power against protected persons.

The notification to the Protecting Power, as provided for in
the second paragraph above, shall be sent immediately, and
shall in any case reach the Protecting Power three weeks
before the date of the first hearing. Unless, at the opening
of the trial, evidence is submitted that the provisions of
this Article are fully complied with, the trial shall not
proceed. The notification shall include the following
particulars: (a) description of the accused; (b) place of
residence or detention; (c) specification of the charge or
charges (with mention of the penal provisions under which it
is brought); (d) designation of the court which will hear
the case; (e) place and date of the first hearing.

Art. 72. Accused persons shall have the right to present
evidence necessary to their defence and may, in particular,
call witnesses. They shall have the right to be assisted by
a qualified advocate or counsel of their own choice, who
shall be able to visit them freely and shall enjoy the
necessary facilities for preparing the defence.

Failing a choice by the accused, the Protecting Power may
provide him with an advocate or counsel. When an accused
person has to meet a serious charge and the Protecting Power
is not functioning, the Occupying Power, subject to the
consent of the accused, shall provide an advocate or counsel.

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such
assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during
preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court.
They shall have the right at any time to object to the
interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
]

Probably his outhouse basement is flooded so he
had to move.
--
Cliff

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:58:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .

Huh? Are you saying that Bush and the neocons are behind the
destruction
of
the WTC? Or what are you saying?

It was a *criminal* act.
Then bush & the neocons promoted it to further their *existing*
agenda to start wars in the Middle East and gain vast powers in
the US.

So you think that flying airplanes into the WTC was a criminal act,
rather
than an act of policital terror?

How easily some wish to toss out the rule of law, the US
constitution, international treaties, the UN's charter, people's
rights. etc.

What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep your eye
on the ball, Cliff.


Do you think that it was NOT criminal? Can you think
of even one nation on the face of the planet that would
not have said that it was criminal?

Yeah. Practically every one. First they'd say it was criminal, since they
would lack for words to say what it really is. Then they'd realize how silly
that sounds, and they'd start looking for words that are more appropriate.

'Have any?


Do you have some evidence of this, because virtually the entire world
disagrees with you, based on the evidence.

Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......

Which ones would have stopped the planes flying into the WTC?

--
Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
news

Ok, then here's a sanity check: How long would you keep them as
POWs?

What's normal?

Until the top military officers or political leaders from their side
formally surrender.

Huh? Who? Where? WHY??

Why not?

Because it was unrelated?
Who? Where? WHY??
--
Cliff

Can you cite something in international law that says you're supposed to
release POWs before the war is over?

There's a big part of the dilemma.

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:24:25 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
news

Ok, then here's a sanity check: How long would you keep them as
POWs?

What's normal?

Until the top military officers or political leaders from their side
formally surrender.

Huh? Who? Where? WHY??

Why not?

Because it was unrelated?
Who? Where? WHY??

Can you cite something in international law that says you're supposed to
release POWs before the war is over?

Step A) Fake up some nice wars.
Step B) Get some POWs.
--
Cliff
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep your eye
on the ball, Cliff.


It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?


Think of the reaction if 12-26 had happened of the US coast
rather than the Indonesian. There'd be calls to bomb every
church in the land.

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep
your eye
on the ball, Cliff.

It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?

But first subtract off the number whose death was beneficial to society.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:26:08 -0700, Louis Boyd
wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep
your eye
on the ball, Cliff.

It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?

But first subtract off the number whose death was beneficial to society.

Well, IIRC the US IS one of only four nations on the face of the
planet that executes children.

Most human rights groups are upset at all the executions anyway.
--
Cliff

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:38:32 -0500, Cliff said:



Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......


**** THE WORLD (FTW) !!!

"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:58:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .

Huh? Are you saying that Bush and the neocons are behind the
destruction
of
the WTC? Or what are you saying?

It was a *criminal* act.
Then bush & the neocons promoted it to further their *existing*
agenda to start wars in the Middle East and gain vast powers in
the US.

So you think that flying airplanes into the WTC was a criminal act,
rather
than an act of policital terror?

How easily some wish to toss out the rule of law, the US
constitution, international treaties, the UN's charter, people's
rights. etc.

What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep your
eye
on the ball, Cliff.

It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?

You may, but in doing so you would only demonstrate that you have no clue
about what the consequences are of terrorism and attempted mass murder
versus the consequences of one-on-one criminality. They're both problems,
but they are unrelated problems.

People die in car crashes. In one year about ten times as many die in car
crashes as in the WTC on 9/11. The consequences for each in social terms are
unrelated to each other, and have vastly different social consequences. If
you don't see that -- if you even remotely confuse the issue by bringing up
deaths from criminal use of guns or irresponsible use of cars in a
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack -- you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......

Which ones would have stopped the planes flying into the WTC?

You tell me.

You were the one who said "had existing world laws been used." My feeling is
that no then-existing international laws would have prevented 9/11. You seem
to think otherwise. So, which ones?

--
Ed Huntress

"Cliff" wrote in message
...

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such
assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during
preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court.
They shall have the right at any time to object to the
interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
]

Probably his outhouse basement is flooded so he
had to move.

I can't tell if you noticed this, but Guido's entire, lengthy quotation has
nothing whatsoever to do with what Gunner was talking about. Did you notice?

With all due respect to you guys, neither you, nor Guido, nor Gunner is
likely to have the slightest clue about how international law shakes out in
this case. I've been careful to say I know little about it. But I have
studied it, at some length. What I've learned is that it is the most
difficult aspect of law, one that requires great expertise and full-time
involvement, or you are, almost certainly, going to lead yourself down a
primrose path.

Only a fool would argue about it, IMO. Or a half-fast editorialist.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such
assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during
preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court.
They shall have the right at any time to object to the
interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
]

Probably his outhouse basement is flooded so he
had to move.

I can't tell if you noticed this, but Guido's entire, lengthy quotation
has
nothing whatsoever to do with what Gunner was talking about. Did you
notice?

With all due respect to you guys, neither you, nor Guido, nor Gunner is
likely to have the slightest clue about how international law shakes out
in
this case. I've been careful to say I know little about it. But I have
studied it, at some length. What I've learned is that it is the most
difficult aspect of law, one that requires great expertise and full-time
involvement, or you are, almost certainly, going to lead yourself down a
primrose path.

Amen to that. My law school had an exchange program with students and
professors from the former Yugoslavia, just as things there were starting to
fall apart. An interesting time, but a good way to learn from people who
were there and actually working on some of the international law issues.

Only a fool would argue about it, IMO. Or a half-fast editorialist.

Or just about any of us on misc.survivalism!

Jeff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 15:10:33 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
said:


Only a fool would argue about it, IMO. Or a half-fast editorialist.

Or just about any of us on misc.survivalism!

Jeff


Sumthin to do :-)

"Jeffrey McCann" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
"Cliff" wrote in message
...

Accused persons shall, unless they freely waive such
assistance, be aided by an interpreter, both during
preliminary investigation and during the hearing in court.
They shall have the right at any time to object to the
interpreter and to ask for his replacement.
]

Probably his outhouse basement is flooded so he
had to move.

I can't tell if you noticed this, but Guido's entire, lengthy quotation
has
nothing whatsoever to do with what Gunner was talking about. Did you
notice?

With all due respect to you guys, neither you, nor Guido, nor Gunner is
likely to have the slightest clue about how international law shakes out
in
this case. I've been careful to say I know little about it. But I have
studied it, at some length. What I've learned is that it is the most
difficult aspect of law, one that requires great expertise and full-time
involvement, or you are, almost certainly, going to lead yourself down a
primrose path.

Amen to that. My law school had an exchange program with students and
professors from the former Yugoslavia, just as things there were starting
to
fall apart. An interesting time, but a good way to learn from people who
were there and actually working on some of the international law issues.

Only a fool would argue about it, IMO. Or a half-fast editorialist.

Or just about any of us on misc.survivalism!

FWIW, it's a good time to point out what we *can* talk about sensibly, which
is how we think it *ought* to work, in this case, at least.

An opinion about that, based on a half-century of living and some personal
ideas about what is just and sensible, is a very good topic. Trying to
resolve the ins and outs of international conventions and the precedents of
international law since WWII is a fools' game.

--
Ed Huntress

begin Cliff piddled around and finally wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:26:08 -0700, Louis Boyd
wrote:


Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep
your eye
on the ball, Cliff.

It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?

But first subtract off the number whose death was beneficial to society.

Well, IIRC the US IS one of only four nations on the face of the
planet that executes children.

Good! Children who would grow to be no different as adults...thus still
needing to be executed.


Most human rights groups are upset at all the executions anyway.

**** 'em if they can't take a joke, and joke 'em if they can't take a ****.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?
--snip--
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack -- you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

Why, when so many people feel this way, do so many people continually
prespond to each of Cliff's posts? Bloody 'ell.


----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
================================================== ==

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:32 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Cliff" wrote in message
. ..

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?
--snip--
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack -- you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

Why, when so many people feel this way, do so many people continually
prespond to each of Cliff's posts? Bloody 'ell.


Cliff who?

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:18:26 -0500, North wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:38:32 -0500, Cliff said:



Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......


**** THE WORLD (FTW) !!!

Don't you have some bible verses to peddle? Or do
you burn those in starting fires?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:08:01 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:58:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .

Huh? Are you saying that Bush and the neocons are behind the
destruction
of
the WTC? Or what are you saying?

It was a *criminal* act.
Then bush & the neocons promoted it to further their *existing*
agenda to start wars in the Middle East and gain vast powers in
the US.

So you think that flying airplanes into the WTC was a criminal act,
rather
than an act of policital terror?

How easily some wish to toss out the rule of law, the US
constitution, international treaties, the UN's charter, people's
rights. etc.

What does that have to do with flying airplanes into the WTC? Keep your
eye
on the ball, Cliff.

It's quite clear where it is.

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?

You may, but in doing so you would only demonstrate that you have no clue
about what the consequences are of terrorism and attempted mass murder
versus the consequences of one-on-one criminality. They're both problems,
but they are unrelated problems.

But comparable numbers of people are dead in EITHER case. Well, not
really, as the gunfire goes on year after year ...

People die in car crashes. In one year about ten times as many die in car
crashes as in the WTC on 9/11. The consequences for each in social terms are
unrelated to each other, and have vastly different social consequences.

Because you are going to panic over the one case?

If
you don't see that -- if you even remotely confuse the issue by bringing up
deaths from criminal use of guns or irresponsible use of cars in a
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack --

I gather that the long swim just makes them a bit more grumpy.

you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

The neocons are a huge threat. So are many groups of fundies.

So are the effects of growth of various things now being *caused*
by the neocons, like huge recruitment *against* the US & it's
special interests.

Virtually the entire world knows that the neocons
are lying fundie winger loons too. And fewer than
7% of it's population outside the UK & he US NOW
have any respect for the US. Down from about 78%
IIRC (before the lying neocon loons).

Had existing world laws been used ......

Which ones would have stopped the planes flying into the WTC?

You tell me.

You were the one who said "had existing world laws been used." My feeling is
that no then-existing international laws would have prevented 9/11. You seem
to think otherwise. So, which ones?

Like Gunner sez at times: things happen.
Don't panic. That's one of the real dangers (but being
promoted as part of the neocon agendas).

Bring your towel
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/towel.shtml
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:08:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Cliff" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

This entire episode is cause for concern and if these **** birds do end
up
as participants in an act of terror I would be looking a great deal
closer
to home for the people responsible for letting them have the freedom
necessary.

"Cause for concern"? There's one of the understatements of the decade.
This
is a mess of unprecedented proportions.

Many are going to be very, very rich when their lawyers get done
with the neocons, Herr shrubbie & the US.
Very, very rich indeed.

I seriously doubt if any of it will come to a court case. No one will touch
it with a ten-foot pole.

"Rumsfeld charged with war crimes in Germany ...."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/ja...rums-j29.shtml

A few examples ....

http://news.google.com/news?num=100&...anamo+lawsuits

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 00:04:27 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:08:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Many are going to be very, very rich when their lawyers get done
with the neocons, Herr shrubbie & the US.
Very, very rich indeed.

I seriously doubt if any of it will come to a court case. No one will touch
it with a ten-foot pole.

Least of all when the moment such suits are filed, the US may simply
set up a tribunal, try them in an hours work to make it look good, and
take them out and simply shoot them.

Gunner thinks he can save millions .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:52:08 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:32 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Cliff" wrote in message
...

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?
--snip--
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack -- you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

Why, when so many people feel this way, do so many people continually
prespond to each of Cliff's posts? Bloody 'ell.


Cliff who?

Cliffy, Gunny. Y'know, the guy you quote lebenty times daily.
insert loud raspberry here


----------------------------------------------------
Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
http://diversify.com Dynamic Website Applications
================================================== ==

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:19:31 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:13:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 10:08:45 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Many are going to be very, very rich when their lawyers get done
with the neocons, Herr shrubbie & the US.
Very, very rich indeed.

I seriously doubt if any of it will come to a court case. No one will
touch
it with a ten-foot pole.

--
Ed Huntress

Least of all when the moment such suits are filed, the US may simply
set up a tribunal, try them in an hours work to make it look good, and
take them out and simply shoot them.
All quite legally and according to the GC.

Gunner

Keeping your day job would be a wise idea, Gunner. g

Of course. However..have YOU read the GC on the subject?

Nope. It would be a waste of time. International law is much more than the
Geneva Conventions. You won't get an interpretation from any court in any
civilized country that allows you to shoot prisoners.

Good little neocons & idiot wingers say that the courts & the laws
can just be ignored; that they don't apply to *them*.

See: Bush, Supreme Court, Gonzales, etc.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:35:33 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 05:52:08 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 21:21:32 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:49:53 -0500, the inscrutable "Ed Huntress"
spake:

"Cliff" wrote in message
m...

May I remind you that far more people in the US are killed by
gunfire each year than in the *criminal* events of 9-11?
--snip--
discussion about what to do when you're under concerted attack -- you show
us only that you a lost in the maze of your own sophistry.

Why, when so many people feel this way, do so many people continually
prespond to each of Cliff's posts? Bloody 'ell.


Cliff who?

Cliffy, Gunny. Y'know, the guy you quote lebenty times daily.
insert loud raspberry here

Sarcasm detector on the blink? I hear PC Club has em on sale.

Gunner

"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."
unknown

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 01:13:14 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Again, it's time for some fresh thinking, eh? Or would you just turn them
all loose for lack of evidence

Ed,
If you don't have any evidence you can just grab & disappear &
torture anybody, anywhere, any time; no reasons needed. Nobody
to answer to either; it's all secret and even revealing that it's
being done is illegal.

Is this the plan you are advocating? It's clearly part of the
neocon's (and, by extension, that of the US).
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:30:58 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

Wow...I dont think Ive ever seen that many cliches tacked together at
one time, in my life. Im impressed.

So it's true then.
You neither read nor comprehend those blogs you steal & post.

What exactly is your solution to the pressing problems? As you are
likely aware, amending the Constitution will not happen anytime soon,

So bush & the neocons lied again? No church in the schools and
gays get to live after all? What about the deficits?
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:45:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Take a good look at what Al Qaeda is doing, and at the words of bin Laden et
al which I'll collectively call "he"), and see if you don't find this
pattern: It's not simply to intimidate, it's to destroy. He doesn't have a
political or territorial objective, he has a religious and spiritual
objective, which is death -- glorious in the case of his fighters;
ignominious, so delightfully performed with a handsaw, in the case of his
victims. His method is not simply to slip behind the lines and raise havoc
for the sake of coercion. It's to terrorize in the purest sense, for its own
sake, to destroy the social and spiritual structure of the West

So, by killing fewer than gunsfire alone does in one year in the US,
he has already won, right?
Sure has those crazed neocons yammering & grabbing for unlimited
power ... it's not like ANY of them were in the military, right?

Don't support crazies, fundies or scared chicken-s*** wingers.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:45:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

On bin Laden ....

His genius is in finding the weaknesses in our strengths. I'm sure you know
where that concept comes from, and there's no doubt he's read the same
source.

Nobody ever said that he was dumber than bush or a neocon, did they?

BTW, IIRC The events of 9-11 were far, far more damaging to the WTC
than was expected. An accident, in that respect.
--
Cliff

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:45:50 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

His is an all-fronts assault, and blood is only one of his tools.
When it comes to blood, he has an almost unique advantage in the modern
history of warfare that he can recruit human bombs at will, using blood from
both sides of the battle to demoralize and confound his enemy, forcing them
(us) to torture our institutions from their liberal purposes in order to try
to put a stop to the killing and destruction. All the while, blood is a
sanctifying purification for his zealots. They live for it, and die for it.

Sounds like he's in bed with Gunner.
Flag wavers & bible thumpers always make nice cannon fodder.

Ed, it's just another case of Winger's Disease. Plain & simple.
Don't forget: bin Laden & crew are *CONSERVATIVES* s
well as (perhaps) fundies!
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:40:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On 30 Jan 2005 08:27:47 -0800, "bb" wrote:


Guido wrote:
In a shock for US gunnuts that have pointed to UK crime
figures since the handgun ban in 1997, the latest UK crime
statistics show:

"Serious injuries from gun crime fell 5% and
the use of handguns was down 15%."

"Murder down by 18%"

"Burglary down 23%"

The downside being that violent offences of "pushing and
shoving" increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204843.stm

Cool. But do you trust the Biased Broadcasting Corporation to tell you
the truth?

He shouldnt..but will if it backs his premise..which unfortunately is
in error...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...423380,00.html

The Sunday Times - Britain

January 02, 2005

UK police among worst in the world, says report
David Cracknell, Political Editor
BRITAIN has one of the world’s most ineffective police forces and
highest crime rates, according to an authoritative report to be
published this week.

It says the police spend too much time behind desks instead of
tackling and preventing crime. The result, it says, is that crime is
“a very low-risk activity for the criminal”.

America, France and Germany have suffered similar sharp rises in crime
to Britain since the 1960s but have tackled them more effectively, the
report says.

LOL ..... Gummer's funny !!!

Then the rates of "crime" in such places *fell*, not had "similar
sharp rises" due to "tackled them more effectively", right?

Reading comprehension .... what a wonderful thing to have G.

OTOH Probably Gummer should look at how reported "crimes"
have changed (what's reported & how & where) & compare the
changes based on that.

Blog reading 101 .....
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 17:40:23 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

unknown

He may have one right ......
--
Cliff

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:07:40 +0000, Guido wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On 30 Jan 2005 08:27:47 -0800, "bb" wrote:


Guido wrote:

In a shock for US gunnuts that have pointed to UK crime
figures since the handgun ban in 1997, the latest UK crime
statistics show:

"Serious injuries from gun crime fell 5% and
the use of handguns was down 15%."

"Murder down by 18%"

"Burglary down 23%"

The downside being that violent offences of "pushing and
shoving" increased.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4204843.stm

Cool. But do you trust the Biased Broadcasting Corporation to tell you
the truth?


He shouldnt..but will if it backs his premise..which unfortunately is
in error...


As we know Gunner doesn't actually read past the first 3-4
lines of anything he posts. Right at the end of this report
is the bombshell:

Wait for it G.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) questioned the
findings. It said the authors had accepted that crime had dropped to
the levels of 1981 but failed to give the police credit. Chris Fox,
Acpo’s president, said the think tank’s conclusions did not “reflect
the reality” of the police force’s achievements in recent years.
"Considering the events of recent years,
the world has a long way to go to regain
its credibility and reputation with the US."


Whooee Gunner's cut and pasted report says that UK crime
levels have dropped to a 24 year low.

Well, what did you expect from someone with a bad case of
Winger's Disease?
--
Cliff

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 08:48:24 GMT, the inscrutable Gunner
spake:

Cliff who?

Cliffy, Gunny. Y'know, the guy you quote lebenty times daily.
insert loud raspberry here

Sarcasm detector on the blink? I hear PC Club has em on sale.

Nope, it saw it right away. I just couldn't resist the jab.
I've had the gent plonked since about day 3 of lurking here,
and the amount of play his posts get astounds me. All the good
posters reply to him so I can't just eliminate them, too. Drat!
and Bother! sigh


================================================== =======
The Titanic. The Hindenburg. + http://www.diversify.com
The Clintons. + Website & Graphic Design
================================================== =======