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)

I doubt the US military is *deliberately* killing civilians

I've never seen anybody claim that.


NOYB wrote:
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? "


Well, there's a reason why I read very few of his posts.

But it's stupid to claim that the U.S. military deliberately targets
civilians... it's pointless and expensive. Now, they *do* kill people
based on intel that may not be entirely correct, and they have been
blowing things up so that Halliburton can rebuild them... minimizing
"collateral damage" while doing so...

The problem here is that when you're playing with such powerful toys,
it's easy to hurt lots of people. Look at that pilot who flew under the
ski lift cable... totally an accident, totally caused by an excess of
testosterone, those people are all still totally dead...

You can understand why many people are skeptical of the motives of the
U.S. military; and *definitely* why many more are skeptical of the
Bush/Cheney administration. But the point stands- the U.S. military has
no interest in slaughtering hapless civilians.

DSK

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:16:07 -0500, DSK wrote:


But the point stands- the U.S. military has
no interest in slaughtering hapless civilians.


It warms my heart to hear you say that.


Dave

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:16:07 -0500, DSK wrote:



But the point stands- the U.S. military has no interest in slaughtering
hapless civilians.



It warms my heart to hear you say that.


Dave



Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, My Lai, Kent State...

No interest in slaughtering innocent civilians, eh?

Kent State is not the same as Nagasaki, Hiroshima, or Dresden, where tens of
thousands (even hundreds of thousands) were killed. In those three cities,
we*did* intentionally target civilian populations in order to break their
morale...and it worked.

As I've said before, you should not go to war unless you're willing to take
it to the worst extremes. In the wars which we have won, we certainly can
not claim the moral high ground. In the wars in which we *did* try to take
the moral high ground, we lost. Unfortunately, in this war on terror, we
*are* taking the moral high ground...and it's costing us the lives of
hundreds of American troops. We'll still prevail. But our guys are
needlessly getting killed because liberalism and political correctness are
handcuffing our troops.

If history has taught us anything, it that the winning side gets to define
what is moral and what is a war crime.

Jim Carter wrote:
"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


Absolutely gorgeous.

Stella

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
snip
It would be the same thing as if Canada and Mexico were sending men,
money, and
weapons to Compton, Detroit, and the Bronx, and then inciting the
"oppressed" to start blowing up police cars, and killing any civilians who
support the government. You wouldn't stop such an uprising by
carpet-bombing the "insurgents" in those areas (although you could)
because
it would just tip the fence-sitters in other cities around the country to
form against you. Instead, you blow the **** out of Canada and Mexico,
and
stop the influx of arms and trouble-makers from those neighboring
countries.


Correction...we'd start with Florida and Cuba would be part of the mix.

Don White wrote:
"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)



$145,000 Gasp! Choke! (but sweeeeeeet)

This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html

$40,000 - still more than we can afford - but it is sooo cute - and it
was built in Lunenburg, which has some sentimental value since I am
originally a bluenoser (although my British-born Ontario-raised husband
is more sentimenal about Nova Scotia than I am)

I love the song too. Once, when pressed by my fellow geologists to
"sing a song from your country", I sang it in the middle of the jungle
in Sri Lanka. Nova Scotia never felt quite so far far away as it did
then and there.

Stella
(my singing would probably make Don cry too, but not in a good way)

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
snip
It would be the same thing as if Canada and Mexico were sending men,
money, and
weapons to Compton, Detroit, and the Bronx, and then inciting the
"oppressed" to start blowing up police cars, and killing any civilians
who
support the government. You wouldn't stop such an uprising by
carpet-bombing the "insurgents" in those areas (although you could)
because
it would just tip the fence-sitters in other cities around the country to
form against you. Instead, you blow the **** out of Canada and Mexico,
and
stop the influx of arms and trouble-makers from those neighboring
countries.


Correction...we'd start with Florida and Cuba would be part of the mix.

But we like Cubans down here in Florida. They're clean, neat, proud,
industrious people...and their food is pretty darn good. We're just not
real fond of Canadians...especially those from Quebec. They're terrible
drivers, rude, and they have awful oral hygiene.

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
snip
This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html

$40,000 - still more than we can afford - but it is sooo cute - and it
was built in Lunenburg, which has some sentimental value since I am
originally a bluenoser (although my British-born Ontario-raised husband
is more sentimenal about Nova Scotia than I am)
snip

That price seems reasonable...if not too much work is required.
Where would you sail?

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
$145,000 Gasp! Choke! (but sweeeeeeet)
This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html
.....................snip............
Stella
(my singing would probably make Don cry too, but not in a good way)

Hi Stella:
At my marina in Bayfield is a beautiful Bayfield 25 sloop that is very
reasonably priced.
You can check it out at ......

http://www.boatcan.com/halfscreen.in...brokerlist&b=3

This is a good buy if you can negotiate the price with him now that it is
winter.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
$145,000 Gasp! Choke! (but sweeeeeeet)
This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html
....................snip............
Stella
(my singing would probably make Don cry too, but not in a good way)

Hi Stella:
At my marina in Bayfield is a beautiful Bayfield 25 sloop that is very
reasonably priced.
You can check it out at ......

http://www.boatcan.com/halfscreen.in...brokerlist&b=3

This is a good buy if you can negotiate the price with him now that it is
winter.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:12:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:16:07 -0500, DSK wrote:



But the point stands- the U.S. military has
no interest in slaughtering hapless civilians.



It warms my heart to hear you say that.


Dave


But that isn't true.

Says you. And you have no credibility.

Dave

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:14:36 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:16:07 -0500, DSK wrote:



But the point stands- the U.S. military has
no interest in slaughtering hapless civilians.



It warms my heart to hear you say that.


Dave



Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, My Lai, Kent State...

No interest in slaughtering innocent civilians, eh?


Remember the first Gulf War and that footage of our military knocking
out that car heading across the bridge and the jokes made about it?
Classic. And who was in the car? Who knows. There was no intel
indicating it was any connected with the military. Probably just an
innocent civilian.


No, I don't remember that scene at all. I *do* remember the car
crossing the bridge moments before the missile hit the bridge just
behind the car, and the jokes were about the color of the stain in the
shorts of the driver, who missed death by mere seconds.

Dave

Don White wrote:
"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
snip

This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html

$40,000 - still more than we can afford - but it is sooo cute - and it
was built in Lunenburg, which has some sentimental value since I am
originally a bluenoser (although my British-born Ontario-raised husband
is more sentimenal about Nova Scotia than I am)
snip


That price seems reasonable...if not too much work is required.
Where would you sail?


The price is reasonable. And I have relatives at A.F. Theriault & Sons
shipyard where much of her work was done so I could find out what shape
she REALLY is in. But it is an WOODEN boat. Hubby really doesn't
comprehend the upkeep involved. He should, he has seen how surprised my
Mom is every spring when we just drop the boat into the water instead of
spending a few weeks caulking and painting and doing all the stuff she
watched men do to boats during her girlhood.

We are fresh water sailors and if this were to come to pass (it is just
a dream at the moment - but that's what I thought about the FIRST
sailboat too) she would probably lie in Little Current, Manitoulin
Island. He would like to sail her from St.John up the St.Lawerence and
into the Lakes.

OTOH, he is very near retirement and has a fancy to retire to Nova
Scotia (I told you he was more sentimental than me). I like the south
shore, Mahone Bay/Lunenburg area, unfortunately it is so popular with
our southern neighbours the price of real estate has skyrocketed. So
(were she to become ours) she could end up in Meteghan, on St. Mary's
Bay. The price of land on the French Shore is still reasonable (likely
to remain so as long the Yanks hate french people - luckily, many
Americans are too ignorant to know the 400 year-old difference between
an Acadian and someone from France).

Stella

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
snip
I like the south shore, Mahone Bay/Lunenburg area, unfortunately it is so
popular with
our southern neighbours the price of real estate has skyrocketed. So
(were she to become ours) she could end up in Meteghan, on St. Mary's
Bay. The price of land on the French Shore is still reasonable (likely
to remain so as long the Yanks hate french people - luckily, many
Americans are too ignorant to know the 400 year-old difference between
an Acadian and someone from France).

Stella


Yes, those %#$$^% Yankees and Germans have made it so expensive that locals
can't afford a nice piece of cottage property on the Bras d'Or Lakes or
South Shore any more.

During our insurgency against the Brits, there were non-Americans stirring
the attacks and aiding and abetting them. So what?


NOYB wrote:
Perhaps Great Britain would still "own" the United States if they would have
gone after those countries stirring up the trouble, eh?



They did. Guess you must have slept through history class. They just
plain did not have the manpower, and failed.

DSK

... Ideology-driven reality-defying wild
guesses have no weight... unless they come from the White House, of
course...


NOYB wrote:
Which means they carry a lot of weight. Certainly a lot more than the
opinions of a couple of guys arguing on the internet.


You mean one guy arguing on the internet. I am stating figures given by
others backed by careful research. You are simply trying to shout louder
while typing.

DSK

Black Dog wrote:
This is the one he wants:
http://www.yachtsales.com/msandy/sa5531.html


That's a gorgeous boat. A bit small for a schooner rig, but very nicely
proportioned and seems to have a reasonable cabin plan too.



The price is reasonable. And I have relatives at A.F. Theriault & Sons
shipyard where much of her work was done so I could find out what shape
she REALLY is in. But it is an WOODEN boat. Hubby really doesn't
comprehend the upkeep involved.

Hmmm... Maybe I've been lucky, but I've owned a number of wooden boats
including 40 footer from the 1930s, and IMHO it's only about 10% more
work than keeping a fiberglass boat of similar complexity... provided
that the wooden boat is already fully sound. Rebuilding an old woody is
a labor for Hercules, but those who undertake it are benefactors of
humanity.


... The price of land on the French Shore is still reasonable (likely
to remain so as long the Yanks hate french people - luckily, many
Americans are too ignorant to know the 400 year-old difference between
an Acadian and someone from France).

Maybe so, but it looks to me like most Americans are interested in
moving south, not north. I was lucky enough to be born & raised in the
South and am considering moving north to get away from all the Yankees.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:31:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


But that isn't true.


Says you. And you have no credibility.

Dave


Uh, Dave...stop living in the cave. The US Military has targeted
"civilians" since at least the Civil War.

You're very naive, Dave. You've proved it over and over and over.

Just a few posts ago, you were indirectly extolling the virtues of the
FBI, which has been shown to be an organization made up of liars,
thieves, evidence tamperers, and perjurers. And those are its positive
attributes.

You seem to have some deep rooted authority issues. You should seek
counseling.

Dave

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:12:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:31:48 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:



But that isn't true.


Says you. And you have no credibility.

Dave


Uh, Dave...stop living in the cave. The US Military has targeted
"civilians" since at least the Civil War.

You're very naive, Dave. You've proved it over and over and over.

Just a few posts ago, you were indirectly extolling the virtues of the
FBI, which has been shown to be an organization made up of liars,
thieves, evidence tamperers, and perjurers. And those are its positive
attributes.


You seem to have some deep rooted authority issues. You should seek
counseling.

Dave


Because I don't believe in the FBI? Where have you been the last few
years, Dave, when that institution was shown to be involved in witness
and evidence tampering, and just plain incompetence?

It was never on a grand scale. The institution itself is credible,
despite the mistakes made by a few people in it.

But you are ready to trash the whole organization.

I suppose you'd feel better if we had no law enforcement or
intelligence gathering agencies then? After all, they could be come
corrupt at any time.....


Dave