Whoops...we bomb more civilians.
 

Come on professor,,

For a self proclaimed family law expert as you claim,,, hmmmmm A lot of
maybe in your statement. but lets look at your statement krause


""""Maybe I was wrong.''""""

you are uncertain as to the accuracy of your statement??? lol,,, krause it
is obvious,, and no doubt,, you are not wrong about some of the stuff you
post, obviously you are familiar with your topic,, it is just that you are
the lowest form of life,, your claims are made in false statements and you
lie like a cheap rug,,,,

I have been collecting your negative statements, lies, invective statements,
insults etc etc,, the real negative ones,,, I will email them to some
friends and associates as they cannot believe krause,,, no they cannot
believe there is a connection.

"""''Maybe you are as dumb as DumTuuk."'''''"


Why wouldn't you put your money where your mouth was??? offer expires
today....









"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

U.S. bomb mistakenly destroys home in village, killing civilians


Why don't you go away krouse?

You are a pectore.


Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are as dumb as DumTuuk.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

The statement said that five people had been killed and that the military
"deeply regretted the loss of possibly innocent lives."

When was the last time the terrorists issued an apology? Of course, when
you intentionally target civilians it isn't logical to issue a statement of
regret afterwards.

"We deeply regret severing that innocent lady's head from her body". (nope,
doesn't seem to work)

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:43:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The definition of "abuse" is up for debate IMO. If it leaves no permanent
physical defect, and the prisoner doesn't die, it should be permissable
under certain circumstances (for example, the "ticking time bomb
scenario").

As if torture works? If you are looking for accurate intelligence,
torture isn't the answer. When a man is squealing in pain, or quaking in
fear, he will tell you anything to make the treatment stop. Throughout
history, those that endorse torture have belonged to a special club. You
know the one. Nazi Germany, Latin American Death Squads, Communist Police
States, are all members. Frankly, I would rather my country didn't join
that club.


They are organized *non-uniformed* military personnel who use mosques,
hospitals, and civilian populations for shelter and weapons
storage...which means they're unlawful combatants not entitled to the
protections of the Geneva Convention.

You keep repeating this, as if repetition will some how make it true.
*All* combatants are protected under the Geneva Convention. They are just
not afforded the same protections as prisoners of war.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...




The statement said that five people had been killed and that the
military "deeply regretted the loss of possibly innocent lives."


When was the last time the terrorists issued an apology? Of course,
when you intentionally target civilians it isn't logical to issue a
statement of regret afterwards.


The US military deliberately targets civilians, doh-doh.


Are you kidding me!?!?

No, why should I?

And why should I believe our military forces don't deliberately target
civilians? Because our military claims it doesn't? Because the Bush
Administration says it doesn't?

Bullship.


Then why didn't we drop a half dozen MOAB's on Fallujah and be done with
it?


Perhaps even the Bush Administration realizes there are some limits to
what it can pull off, eh?

Not by your logic. You seem to think that there's no limit to their
destructive ways. Remember? If Bush is the guy that is going to bring on
the end of the World, then why not start in the Sunni triangle?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:43:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The definition of "abuse" is up for debate IMO. If it leaves no
permanent
physical defect, and the prisoner doesn't die, it should be permissable
under certain circumstances (for example, the "ticking time bomb
scenario").

As if torture works?

Yeah, it works.

If you are looking for accurate intelligence,
torture isn't the answer. When a man is squealing in pain, or quaking in
fear, he will tell you anything to make the treatment stop.

We're not trying to get confessions out of these guys in order to use it
for propaganda in the way the Vietcong abused our men. We're trying to get
information on the planning of the next attack. We're not looking for them
to "tell us anything". We're asking where they're staging from, who else is
behind the attacks, where the money and weapons are from, and where the next
attack is going to occur. The answer to any of these is verifiable in a
very short time period.


Throughout
history, those that endorse torture have belonged to a special club. You
know the one. Nazi Germany, Latin American Death Squads, Communist Police
States, are all members. Frankly, I would rather my country didn't join
that club.

Too late. Your country entered that club when the founding fathers fought
the American Revolution. Imprisonment, beatings, the stockades, deprivation
of food, etc. were all commonplance in that conflict and virtually all
others that we fought in.

I'm not advocating torture beyond anything that our Special Forces go
through during Hell Week. That's enough to break most men...especially a
terrorist who doesn't know to what limit we might actually take the abuse.
We have to at least create doubt in the detainee that they might never live
to see the light of day again...even if that's not true.





They are organized *non-uniformed* military personnel who use mosques,
hospitals, and civilian populations for shelter and weapons
storage...which means they're unlawful combatants not entitled to the
protections of the Geneva Convention.

You keep repeating this, as if repetition will some how make it true.
*All* combatants are protected under the Geneva Convention. They are just
not afforded the same protections as prisoners of war.

And you keep repeating this. But it's simply not true of terrorists coming
in to the country from neighboring countries that aren't party to the
conflict. I've already explained this to you.

Black Dog wrote:
Gentlemen,
Nobody knows the exact figures. The US military is purposefully not
keeping score (just one of the fishy things about this war).

I agree, but it's really not their job.


I doubt the US military is *deliberately* killing civilians

I've never seen anybody claim that.


(and would
hate to be shown otherwise), but that does NOT absolve them of
responsibility.

Agreed. And from both a legal and moral standpoint, that responisibility
goes all the way to the top of the chain of command.


Stella
On topic - help! - my husband wants to buy a schooner!


You want us to help him buy it? Or you want us to help you prevent him?
Why? A schooner sounds like an awful lot of fun, I've always wanted one
myself. But I already have too many boats.

Regards
Doug King

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
.........................snip....................
Stella
On topic - help! - my husband wants to buy a schooner!

Hi Stella:

So, your husband wants to buy a schooner. Have you looked at this one?

www.coveyisland.com then look under the, "brokerage", for the schooner

"Tree of Life" this is the largest vessel built by Covey Island Boats. It
is rated among the 100 best in the Americas.

It is one of the most beautiful sail boats that I have ever seen!

Length over all of 93 feet
Beam of 18 feet 6 inches.

This is a magnificent vessel.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..

Stella
On topic - help! - my husband wants to buy a schooner!

Here's one for sale, although I'd hate to see it leave Nova Scotia.
http://tinyurl.com/462uv

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Black Dog wrote:
Gentlemen,
Nobody knows the exact figures. The US military is purposefully not
keeping score (just one of the fishy things about this war).

I agree, but it's really not their job.


I doubt the US military is *deliberately* killing civilians

I've never seen anybody claim that.

Harry wrote:
"The US military deliberately targets civilians, doh-doh. Why do you
believe that our "hits" on non-combatants are accidental? Because we
say they are? "

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

But then you could join in a chorus of our favorite song...

'Farewell to Nova Scotia' always brings a tear to the eye...especially when
sung by Catherine MacKinnon.
(or at least the way she used to sing it in her younger days)