Dave,

You condemn Ganz view,which I'll not defend, but you say nothing about
Oz's who has already labelled the Marine
a War Criminal. Do you consider that fair judgement?

Dave, I wonder if we'll hear the same cries of indignation for the death
of the Care worker who was killed by the Terrorist *******s! There was
certainly no mistaking her status.

Ole Thom

Wounded enemy soldiers? Bwahahahah! The dead man was not a wounded
enemy soldier. He was a terrorist. He was rabble. He was a common thug
and murderer and, as such, he has no right to expect to be treated as if he
were covered under the Geneva Convention. He probably realized this.

I wonder why you and the other pacifist ilk do not.

CN

"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:32:31 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said:

You condemn Ganz view,which I'll not defend, but you say nothing about
Oz's who has already labelled the Marine
a War Criminal. Do you consider that fair judgement?

Just selecting one example of the consistent use of the technique. Oz
doesn't follow me about like a puppy dog responding to my every post as Ganz
does, so I'm less conscious of the nonsense he spouts.

Dave, I wonder if we'll hear the same cries of indignation for the death
of the Care worker who was killed by the Terrorist *******s! There was
certainly no mistaking her status.

I say again, one doesn't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad
behavior. Kidnapping and killing civilians is bad behavior. Shooting wounded
enemy soldiers without good reason (if that's how it turns out) is also bad
behavior. Neither justifies the other.

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:55:03 -0800, (Thom Stewart) said:

So, call me if you must, but call me after you look at all the evidence.
You're a Lawyer, isn't that what you have been taught to do? Don't rush
to judgement!

I didn't mean to suggest the contrary, Thom. Just noting the difference
between relevant argument and the Ganz game of trying to change the subject
in lieu of argument.

Sort of like what you're attempting to do? Got it.




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

In article ,
Dave wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 13:40:27 -0500, Capt. Neal®
said:

I wonder why you and the other pacifist ilk.

You've been away too long, Neal.


Hey Neal, looks like you've got another potential boyfriend...




--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Oz,

You're sure he was un-armed and injured?
I've seen no conformation of what you are saying. If this is true there
is no need for an investigation.

Oz, so far everything is alligations but you have already made up your
mind. Anything less is a lie, correct?

Ole Thom

Jon,

I have no idea how the death is being handled in the Islamic Press. Do
you?

Ole Thom

Thom,I'm a realist

By whose definition? The popular vote in your Country? The vote in the
USA?

You will pardon me if I reserve my acceptance of your definition.

Ole Thom

OzOne wrote in message ...


(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

Oz,
The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans.


Regards


Donal
--

If what you say is true they fall under the Geneva Convention and
responsible for their War Crimes

"Donal" wrote in message ...
OzOne wrote in message ...


(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for."

Oz,
The Geneva Convention was not intended to protect non-Americans.



Hey you non-American losers,

The Geneva convention was not intended to protect terrorist.

The purpose of the Geneva convention was to protect innocent civilians
by distingushing clearly between combatants and non-combatants.

This is why the convention requires soldiers to wear uniforms that
distinquish them from the civilain population.

The insurgent terrorist fighting from inside the mosque did not wear
distinctive signs, insignias, symbols or uniforms. They were just
plain out murdering thugs who deserve what they got.


Regards,
Joe


Regards


Donal
--