Guantanamo Bay or Camp X-Ray.
Gavin Staples
being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are being harshly treated are
very much missing the point. In relation to the crimes that have been
committed they have not been harshly treated at all.
When these people were arrested, they were engaged in arms fire with the
Americans in which several were injured in the process. These people who
have been arrested are hardly innocents.
In the midst of the debate, which is taking place, what must not be
forgotten are the events that set off this whole process in the first
instance. It seems that those who are calling for various forms of leniency
have forgotten the real seriousness of what happened on September 11th.
The events of September 11th have shown just what colossal lengths that some
people are prepared to go to murder masses of innocent people. The people
who were slaughtered on September 11th 2001 were ordinary people going about
their daily lives.
Any suggestion that these terrorists should be treated as though they are
ordinary criminals is missing the point. These Al Qaeda members are
brainwashed hardened trained killers who will stop at absolutely nothing to
achieve their objectives. They need to be treated in the firmest manner
possible. Indeed they are capable of undertaking terrorist outrages at any
moment, which is why they were tied up and blind folded when they were
arrested.
These people present a serious risk to humanity, which is why they have been
transported to the US base in Cuba in such drastic security. What happens to
them next is controversial in the eyes of many. It is highly likely that
some of them may face military courts and be given the death penalty.
In US law, crimes against the state, in which innocents have been murdered
carries the death penalty. There is nothing wrong in this, except that the
detached elites of Europe seem to think that the death penalty is wrong.
They are forgetting of course that when Europe hosted the Nuremberg Trials
after the Second World War the death penalty was an integral part of the
punishment.
There are several people who are being held in Guantanamo Bay or Camp X-Ray
as it has become known, who happen to be British citizens. It was these
people that Home Secretary Jack Straw said should be extradited to Britain.
What Jack Straw was really inferring was that he didn't want these people to
face US justice.
If indeed these British citizens were extradited to Britain to face trial
and were found guilty here, this would mean that they could in theory end up
in jail occupying rooms next to Myra Hindley. If this isn't a miscarriage of
justice then I don't know what is.
Britain and Europe are grossly out of touch when it comes to dealing with
crime, and especially so with a situation as serious as this. The events of
September 11th rank as one of the worst crimes in modern history.
The main problem in Britain and Europe in contrast to America is that the
legal process this side of the Atlantic is not conducted in a particularly
democratic manner.
The US is built on the assumption that only the people ought to be trusted
to legislate on crime and punishment - with the direct result that in most
states many if not all of the top and influential law enforcement positions,
from the senior judges and chief prosecutors to the local county sheriffs
are not appointed but elected. Politicians then have to reflect what the
voters think on law and order. If they did a fraction of what our law
enforcement officials do they would be out on their ear in no time. In
America there is no "detached elite consensus", separate from popular views
about crime and punishment. For example if voters want the death penalty,
chain gangs for hardened criminals and the more recent "three strikes and
your out", the voters will get it. These are examples of a democratic
society, which is in touch with reality and indeed in touch with what
ordinary people want.
It is not in the least bit surprising then that Donald Rumsfeld the US
defence secretary was getting a bit fed up with some of the criticisms that
the US has been getting from Britain and Europe.
What is especially bad about the criticisms that America has been recently
getting is that not only have the comments been unjustified but also Britain
and Europe have been behaving as though they are still colonial powers and
thinking they have a right to tell the Americans what they should and should
not do. This sort of arrogance was what the US War of Independence was all
about. Then the American colonies as they were then were deeply offended
with regard to the treatment they experienced at the hands of the British
Crown.
Today we should have learned a bit. It seems not. What happened in America
on September 11th was beyond comprehension. America has a right to defend
itself. America has a right to deliver what justice it seems fit to those
who were captured and have links to terrorism. The Americans have a written
constitution, which they are very good at adhering to. It is this and the
American people who should decide what happens to the prisoners in Camp
X-Ray and not anyone else.
GAVIN STAPLES.
athomik
news:101378444...@eos.uk.clara.net...
> The comments that have been made recently in the news that the terrorists
> being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are being harshly treated
are
> very much missing the point. In relation to the crimes that have been
> committed they have not been harshly treated at all.
I have no problem with the treatment of prisoners there. My biggest worry is
that the US is setting a precedent by making up it's own laws, to be able to
do what they want, in what really is their own war. The ultimate goal of the
US may well be to assert itself as a unilateraly chosen, global police
force, whose primary function will be to exclusively protect US interests.
--
athomik
Adrian
even met them. Until proven otherwise, they are suspects.... and should be
treated as such. If cases are proved against them then they should expect
appropriate punishment, until then they should be accorded humane
treatment.
>
Jon°
global power the USA hold at the moment is indeed worrying. It is in the
nature of men to make use of any positive factor they hold. To much power in
anybody's hand is always dangerous.
Nobody is walking behind the Leaders of America and whispering in their ears
to remember them they are only mortal, there is no one to do so. We may
have had that advantage at one time, when for example Macmillan said we were
Greeks in a Roman camp but I reckon those days are over now. Our so called
statesmen are miniature figures compared to the one's we had then. They are
similar figures to the one Neville Chamberlain was once called, 2nd rate
mayors of Birmingham in a bad year.
It will only get worse if it goes on in this way, ordinary Yanks are great
and I am very grateful to them in many ways. They are only people though. No
nation can control the world and do as it wishes without it affecting the
way they think. I don't trust the Europeans and I cannot see any other
grouping that can be powerful enough to stop hubris doing it's deadly job on
the top boys in the States.Maybe we should join them and try to influence
from within.
"athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4j9co$km31$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <101378444...@eos.uk.clara.net>, "Gavin Staples"
<gsta...@clara.co.uk> a écrit :
> The comments that have been made recently in the news that the terrorists
> being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are being harshly treated are
> very much missing the point. In relation to the crimes that have been
> committed they have not been harshly treated at all. When these people were
> arrested, they were engaged in arms fire with the Americans in which several
> were injured in the process.
The US entered into a civil war situation in another country looking for
Al Qaida people with whom the Taliban had made allies with. We don`t know
yet which of the people being held have taken an active part in the
international conspiracy against the USA, and other countries. In terms
of just civil war situation the US had no particular right being in
Afghanistan and if they got shot at in that part of the campaign those
who did the shooting are guilty of another.
This is an apple and orange situation, which are which.
That is the point you and almost every American I have seen write something
on this is missing.
> In the midst of the debate, which is taking place, what must not be
> forgotten are the events that set off this whole process in the first
> instance. It seems that those who are calling for various forms of leniency
> have forgotten the real seriousness of what happened on September 11th.
Again, you are mixing issues. Nobody has any difficulty with responding to
the crimes of September 11th.
> Any suggestion that these terrorists should be treated as though they are
> ordinary criminals is missing the point.
You have missed the point in classing all these people as terrorists. We
don`t know. Bush has already backed off and classed the Afghan Talibans
as legal combattants! Have you really missed this news item????
>These Al Qaeda members are brainwashed hardened trained killers
> who will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their objectives.
Again, we don`t know now who among those detained are Al Qaeda. The
term "brain washed" also misses the point. Those people who
entered Al Qaeda did so freely, they were conviced before that
the US was an enemy of Islam, the "jihad", protection of Islam,
was on. This is why the went and joined up. They were "brain
washed" in the same degree that a fundamentalist Christian
will go to Bible College to get a more solid foundation in what
he or she believes. Most Al Qaeda members sought out the
organization to take part in the jihad.
> They need to be treated in the firmest manner possible.
And understatement. But the dangerous Al Qaeda members are
probably already distributed around the country side, I suspect
we picked up a lot of debris in Afghanistan. The ones I am worried
about are already in Europe and the USA.
> It is highly likely that some of them may face military courts
> and be given the death penalty.
I really now thing you don`t understand the likely punishment of
those who are stopped before the fact. I`ll state now that nobody
who is being held at Guantanamo will be given the death penlaty.
It is highly UNLIKELY that the US will do anything like that
unless we get a top person like Bin Laden. Remember the first
WTC bombing killed several people, no death penalties were
handed down in those cases. The idea of executing a suicide oriented
person is absurd in any case, even the NY jury decided against this.
Wake up and start thinking. These guys become martyrs at dead
and get a load of virgins to hump.
> In US law, crimes against the state, in which innocents have been murdered
> carries the death penalty.
Those that carried out the attacks on 911 are dead. The one guy who did
not make the flight is under inditement and the Justice Department did not
ask for the DP.
> There is nothing wrong in this, except that the
> detached elites of Europe seem to think that the death penalty is wrong.
In this particular case it is ludicrous. Just try and think it through.
Earl
Mike
much with those arrogant bastards in the US. It strikes me that the
same patriots that attack Europe and Blair and try to defend our way
of life cannot be so quick to support a country that has so often
relegated us to 'poodle' status.
I'm not fighting against being ruled by Europe just to be ruled by
America on the rebound. What do right wingers see in them?! True right
wingers - true patriots - cannot look at the state of Britain in the
world and blame Blair, or immigrants, or privatisation. The real
reason is that Britain is seen as subsidiary of America, a vassal. A
joke. Even the French have more independence, let's face it.
That is not right... and the right wing, being the only people willing
to defend Britain at all, should realise this.
arealman
and simulate Sept 11th.
We could the phone them up as the flames licked around their feet and ask:
" Can you find it heart to forgive us for doing this to you"
arealman
Gavin Staples wrote in message <101378444...@eos.uk.clara.net>...
Kurt Knoll
Saudis. You people make your own politics it was you who invaded
Afghanistan. It was you people who invaded Vietnam. It was you people
who waged war in Korea. It was you people who invaded Panama. It was you
people who invaded Germany. It was you people who were involved in
Byelorussia. Has there been any Conflict where the Americans have not
been involved in. Stop Glorifying yourself you have bigger things on
hand your Jewish masters have America under Control.
Kurt Knoll.
Canada.
===========
"Gavin Staples" <gsta...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:101378444...@eos.uk.clara.net...
Kurt Knoll
can not wait for this instead they invade other Countries. If any other
country would do the same America would certainly object to it. And you
guys are talking big who to declare war on next. Hitler was
Groesenwansinig so is America. And full of false bride.
Kurt Knoll.
==========
"athomik" <ma...@askadrian.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4j9co$km31$1...@ID-109418.news.dfncis.de...
Richard Jackson
> Under International law Terrorist people can be extradited.
They can be extradited, but may not be. The United States asked for
the Taliban of Afghanistan to extradite bin Laden some time prior to
Sept. 11th. Following Sept. 11th, the Taliban was told to give him
over again, but this time there were consequences if they did not.
They didn't and we destroyed them as a group. Tough. The World is a
hard place for hard heads.
But America
> can not wait for this instead they invade other Countries.
We weren't, and still are not, in a mood for a great deal of waiting.
That time passed when the airplanes went into the Pentagon, the WTC,
and into the ground in Penn.
If any other
> country would do the same America would certainly object to it. And you
> guys are talking big who to declare war on next.
So what? If you don't like it, you will likely do exactly what the
rest of Europe did when Hitler started expanding his armed forces in
violation of the Versailles Treaty, and later when he started claiming
parts of the former Fatherland. You will talk about it.
Hitler was
> Groesenwansinig so is America. And full of false bride.
>
That was probably meant to be false pride, I am guessing. Call it
what you want, we ARE the biggest kid on the block. Bin Laden decided
to attack the US directly on our home soil, thinking we would not,
could not respond to the tyrrany of the weak. He was very mistaken.
What he did was to unify the United States in a common cause. He woke
up the Rotweiller by kicking it, and it started chewing off his legs.
Too bad! Islamic extreemist wanted to get our attention, and now they
have it. If they, or for that matter you, don't like what we did,
bugger off. Someone here will probably be so concerned about that
that they lose four, perhaps five seconds sleep tonight.
This should be a lesson for all. Attack the US at your own peril. We
would prefer to be liked, but barring that, will settle for being
feared, and we DO have the weapons and will to back that up!
--
Richard Jackson
> >
Richard Jackson
> What proof do you have? Already looks as if YOU'VE judged them! You haven't
> even met them. Until proven otherwise, they are suspects.... and should be
> treated as such. If cases are proved against them then they should expect
> appropriate punishment, until then they should be accorded humane
> treatment.
I ask you the same question. What proof do you have they are not
being treated well? These are dangerous men, and are accorded
security which dangerous men require for the safety of those handeling
them. You look at photographs of them arriving and see them still in
blindfolds, hearing protection, and restriction. These are standard
security proceedures in such cases to prevent them from getting
orientated for excape as they are transported to their holding areas.
Temporary security measures ARE permissable under the Geneva
Convention, and are standard practice among many different forces
(including the SAS, Belgian Para, and other elite forces). Once they
are inside, the blindfolds and hearing protection are removed, they
are given basic packages, and assigned cells. Inside their cells,
they do not wear any restraints. Whenever they move outside their
cells, they wear handcuffs and manacles which are chained together via
a leather restraint belt, as is befitting people of such a nature.
The prisoners have diets which conform to Islamic law, are allowed to
practice their faith, and have a Muslim chaplan at their disposal.
They are properly dressed and in bunks with beds. They have medical
care, and special medical needs are met.
The IRC is on site and monitors the treatment of the prisoners.
Others from some of the nations the prisoners are from have also
visited without reporting any mistreatment. In general, although
they are not declared POW by the US, the prisoners are treated in
accord with the Geneva Convention of 1949. If you have evidence they
are not, please present it now.
--
Richard Jackson
> >
Richard Jackson
> Question have the people in New York killed by the Talipan or was it the
> Saudis. You people make your own politics it was you who invaded
> Afghanistan. It was you people who invaded Vietnam. It was you people
> who waged war in Korea. It was you people who invaded Panama. It was you
> people who invaded Germany. It was you people who were involved in
> Byelorussia. Has there been any Conflict where the Americans have not
> been involved in. Stop Glorifying yourself you have bigger things on
> hand your Jewish masters have America under Control.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
> Canada.
Hey Kurt. Don't take it so hard. One of these days, Canada might be
nearly as good as the US. In the mean time, I truely enjoy spending
my strong American dollars up there on occasion.
--
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.0202...@posting.google.com...
You know, Richard, your chest thumping is becoming
positively ridiculous. May I remind you that bin Laden
is still at large and may I further remind you that I told
you prior to the Afghanistan conflict that it was probable
that he would not be caught. He still thinks he's won
and the more enemies that America invents for itself,
the more he and his kind will be pleased.
Adrian
original post where you appear to have already judged and condemned the
prisoners.
You have spouted most eloquently about the integrety of the US legal system,
isn't it also true that under your law aswell as mine, a man is innocent
until PROVEN guilty?
Adrian
Gregory
Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> "Adrian" <wher...@here.com> wrote in message
>
> > What proof do you have? Already looks as if YOU'VE judged them! You haven't
> > even met them. Until proven otherwise, they are suspects.... and should be
> > treated as such. If cases are proved against them then they should expect
> > appropriate punishment, until then they should be accorded humane
> > treatment.
>
> I ask you the same question. What proof do you have they are not
> being treated well? These are dangerous men, and are accorded
> security which dangerous men require for the safety of those handeling
> them.
They didn't look too dangerous to me. They just looked as if they were
being mistreated. Whether POWs are dangerous or not is hardly the
point.
The Waffen SS were *very* dangerous but they were treated a lot better.
They should be allowed barrack meetings to elect their OC if they want
to appoint a hierarchy.
They should be in a barracks like the soldiers they are and not kept in
cages like animals. The United States has an appalling history of
torturing non-white POWs.
> You look at photographs of them arriving and see them still in
> blindfolds, hearing protection, and restriction. These are standard
> security proceedures in such cases to prevent them from getting
> orientated for excape as they are transported to their holding areas.
Standard method of torture you mean. However if the United States wants
it's soldiers treated that way it should go on the record and state that
it doesn't care if it's troops are afforded the *exact* same treatment
as the POWs captured in Afghanistan.
I can't see that boosting enlistment. The USA is promoting a charter
which makes it okay to torture POWs. Hopefully the USA can keep it's
rules to itself.
Gregory
Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message news:<3c6e26ca$1...@binaries.vphos.net>...
> > Under International law Terrorist people can be extradited.
>
> They can be extradited, but may not be. The United States asked for
> the Taliban of Afghanistan to extradite bin Laden some time prior to
> Sept. 11th. Following Sept. 11th, the Taliban was told to give him
> over again, but this time there were consequences if they did not.
> They didn't and we destroyed them as a group. Tough. The World is a
> hard place for hard heads.
The USA had no evidence at the time. The Taliban had agreed to a
tribunal. The USA robustly turned that down. In fact it talked about
waging war instead. The USA was never able to produce evidence in any
court of law nor was it prepared to do so. The USA has nothing but
contempt for the ICJ and the ICC.
Recently it has been discovered that the FBI have lied consistently
about the evidence they claimed to possess. That British magistrate was
most unimpressed with respect to the French-Algerian pilot case, the FBI
talked a good fight but when push came to shove it was discovered the
FBI had been lying from the beginning to the end.
Richard Jackson
It wasn't my post.
> You have spouted most eloquently about the integrety of the US legal system,
> isn't it also true that under your law aswell as mine, a man is innocent
> until PROVEN guilty?
>
> Adrian
That is quite true Adrian. In this case, however, the involvement of
these people, their "guilt" for being either al Qaida or Taliban is
not in question. What is in question is to what degree they each,
individually, were involved, and in what capacity. What you do not
seem to understand is that they are not being charged with any other
crime than being members of terrorism. That is all that is needed,
and no formal trial will be forthcoming unless some are identified
with specific acts of terrorism, such as the Cole bombing. In that
case, they will be tried in accordance with the law, and will, in
fact, be innocent until proven guilty.
The legal status of these prisoners is a grey area. Perhaps those
identified as Taliban might marginally meet the status of POWs. Those
identified as al Qai'da, especially, are not POWs, but members of a
multi-national terrorist organization. Organised crime if you will.
The World has never had an organization such as this to deal with, nor
prisoners from a terrorist organization such as this to deal with.
To tell the truth, about the hardest thing we could do for these me
would be to idenify them as POW's. As POW's under the Geneva
Convention, they would not have to be released until a formal peace is
reached between warring parties. I sincerely doubt either al Qai'da
or the taliban will ever come to the peace table, so declaring them
POW would effectively put them in LWOP without any other charges being
necessary, nor trial needed. That's right, as POWs, we could keep
them prisoners possibly forever in Cuba.
There would need to be more permament facilities built, but that is
already in the works.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
Whatever. He's running for his life if he is still alive. You assume
he is alive although there is no evidence which backs that up. I
think he's probably dead, or near death. You know my theory, we don't
have to kill or catch bin Laden. We just need to kill as many al
Qai'da as we can when we find them.
--
Richard Jackson
Exador
Precisely and concisely put John.
Cheers,
Craig
Freeman
"The comments that have been made recently in the news that the
terrorists
being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are being harshly
treated are
very much missing the point. In relation to the crimes that have been
"It seems that those who are calling for various forms of leniency
have forgotten the real seriousness of what happened on September
11th.
The events of September 11th have shown just what colossal lengths
that some
people are prepared to go to murder masses of innocent people. The
people
who were slaughtered on September 11th 2001 were ordinary people going
about
--------------------------------------
It depends on who the real terrorists who carried out these atrocities
are. The evidence points to elements of the CIA and US military in
conjunction with right-wing Republican politicians. The CIA has been
involved in the organization of al-Qaeda since the mid 1990s. The
September 11 (and anthrax) attacks were evidently carried out to
provide an excuse to curtail democracy and to lay the foundations of a
US world empire.
We don't know who the inmates of Camp X-Ray really are. The real
al-Qaeda bigwigs may have been already massacred by the Special Forces
in Afghanistan (e.g. at Qala-e-Jangi), to remove material witnesses.
We don't want any more self-appointed judges, juries -- and
executioners? -- at Guantanamo.
Freeman
www.geocities.com/LibertyStrikesBack/
The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui.
John Rennie
Oh that is a new theory. The old Richard Jackson theory
was quite different. However my attitude between then and now
has not changed one iota and stands the test of time. If only
Bush and Rumsfelt had the benefit of my acumen. ;-)
Post dated 12/11/01
"Humph! Although I strongly support the military action in this war
I do wish that America and Bush hadn't set such store in the
capture and/or death of bin Laden. It is enough to destroy his
riches and his power base and, probably even more important,
to demonstrate effectively that it does not pay to harbour
terrorists. Putting so much emphasis on the finding of bin Laden
is an error; he can hide for ever. I believe the person
responsible for the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic Games is
still in hiding in America somewhere; if the forces of 'law and
order' cant find him, what chance have we in a huge
mountainous foreign country of finding bin Laden who,
however damaged his reputation will be, will always find
supporters willing to help him?"
Masterly, what?
Richard Jackson
> Richard Jackson wrote:
> >
> > "Adrian" <wher...@here.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > What proof do you have? Already looks as if YOU'VE judged them! You haven't
> > > even met them. Until proven otherwise, they are suspects.... and should be
> > > treated as such. If cases are proved against them then they should expect
> > > appropriate punishment, until then they should be accorded humane
> > > treatment.
> >
> > I ask you the same question. What proof do you have they are not
> > being treated well? These are dangerous men, and are accorded
> > security which dangerous men require for the safety of those handeling
> > them.
>
> They didn't look too dangerous to me.
And you are an expert in such things? One reason they did not look
dangerous is because they have no weapons, are properly secured, and
under maximum supervision.
They just looked as if they were
> being mistreated. Whether POWs are dangerous or not is hardly the
> point.
There are actually two points here. One is that these are not POWs,
expecially al Qai'da prisoners.
The second point is that the danger IS a major point in any
imprisonment situation. These are men who swore to specifically kill
Americans if they ever have the opportunity. This is a very real
threat make since their capture.
>
> The Waffen SS were *very* dangerous but they were treated a lot better.
> They should be allowed barrack meetings to elect their OC if they want
> to appoint a hierarchy.
The SS were members of a regularly instituted military unit, and were
dangerous on the field of battle, as any well trained armed force is.
They were not a threat to kill in captivity, nor were they clandestine
terrorists.
>
> They should be in a barracks like the soldiers they are and not kept in
> cages like animals. The United States has an appalling history of
> torturing non-white POWs.
They are not soldiers. The present confinement is a temporary holding
camp. Such camps are used until the prisoners can be placed in more
permament barracks. They have been used in the past by all nations.
As far as you second statement, prove what you say. Where was the
torture of Japanese POWs, or Korean? Where is the proof that the US
tortured Vietnamese, or Cubans taken in Grenada? Did we torture
Panama's soldiers we captured. You, sir, are full of bullshit.
>
>
> > You look at photographs of them arriving and see them still in
> > blindfolds, hearing protection, and restriction. These are standard
> > security proceedures in such cases to prevent them from getting
> > orientated for excape as they are transported to their holding areas.
>
>
> Standard method of torture you mean.
Nope. It would be torture if it continued. It does not. The only
measures which continue once the prisoners are checked into their
cells is the securing of them with handcuffs and manacles when moving
them outside their cells.
However if the United States wants
> it's soldiers treated that way it should go on the record and state that
> it doesn't care if it's troops are afforded the *exact* same treatment
> as the POWs captured in Afghanistan.
You mean do we want our POWs to be given medical care, allowed to
practice their faith, live in sanitary conditions with clean clothes
in a Carribean climate? I can live with that.
>
> I can't see that boosting enlistment. The USA is promoting a charter
> which makes it okay to torture POWs. Hopefully the USA can keep it's
> rules to itself.
Again, more bullshit. The International Red Cross is on the scene and
sees prisoners daily as well as monitoring the overall and specific
treatment of ALL prisoners. There is no report or complaint of
mistreatment from the IRC. Neither has their been any mistreatment
reported from representatives of nations which have visited the camp.
You are a lightweight with little substance to your claims. Show me
data, complaints from the Red Cross. Just because you saw a
photograph which shows prisoners arriving that "looks like torture to
me" does not make it fact for the rest of the World. Send a
representative, if you have one, to actually evaluate the proceedures
and honestly report them. Then I will give more credence to your
claims.
--
Richard Jackson
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
> There are actually two points here. One is that these are not POWs,
> expecially al Qai'da prisoners.
We don`t know yet what the composition of these prisoners is.
Bush backed off with regard to the "Afghan Talibans", as we discussed
previously, but we know nothing.
The whole operation has the strong odor of bullshit. If they are going
to be charged with specific war crimes, lets here the charge. But
the relationship even of a Al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan with those
who actually took part in acts outside of the area is going to be difficult
to establish. I think they will get a 10% yield, at best, of authentic
terrorists. I`d like to see if I am very right or very wrong.
> The second point is that the danger IS a major point in any
> imprisonment situation. These are men who swore to specifically kill
> Americans if they ever have the opportunity. This is a very real
> threat make since their capture.
We don`t know which of the men swore that at all. Certainly those
fighting for the Taliban swore that with regard to the American
"invaders", so did the Germans and Japanese in WWII.
>> The Waffen SS were *very* dangerous but they were treated a lot better.
>> They should be allowed barrack meetings to elect their OC if they want
>> to appoint a hierarchy.
>
> The SS were members of a regularly instituted military unit, and were
> dangerous on the field of battle, as any well trained armed force is.
> They were not a threat to kill in captivity, nor were they clandestine
> terrorists.
The SS group best remembered in France took over 600 French men, women
and children in Oradour sur Glan, in early June of 1944 and killed them.
The women and children were put into a church, fired on with machine guns
and then the building set afire. This town was not a center of resistance
activity. What is true is that German troups were having difficulty
reaching
the battle field in Normandy and were frustrated by resistance actions such
as
blowing up bridges, downing telegraph poles and mining the railroads. The
Germans considered the resistance a terrorist organization.
Elite units of the German army were given carte blanche to kill anybody
if they felt like, Jews were their main targets. In fact the Russian front
suffered
more from such kinds of massacres.
After the war some members of these units were tried for war crimes.
However, those that participated in the Oradour massacre went mainly
unpunished.
German reprisals against civilians have to be classed as "terrorist"
activities. They were meant to terrorize. Interestingly, the
Israelis use some of the same tactics as the Germans in repressing
the Palestians, such as blowing up the homes of the families of terrorists.
Germans typically shot many more hostages than Germans killed in a
resistance attack. The ratio could be 10 or 20 to 1, depending on who
was available. Jews and Communists were the early victims fo these
reprisals. The Israelis try and keep the kill ratio of more Palestinians
than Israelis. They have so far always succeeded. That is a terrorist
technique.
Again, shooting of hostages (innocents) or destroying the property of
innocents are acts of terrorism.
The bombing strategies on the central cities of England and Europe,
by the Germans and Allies respectively, were also terrorist acts.
We knew at the time that these bombings would not have an impact
on war production but would "demoralize" the civilian populations.
The screaming sirens on the Stukas were instruments of terror,
etc etc.
Need I go on?
>> They should be in a barracks like the soldiers they are and not kept in
>> cages like animals. The United States has an appalling history of
>> torturing non-white POWs.
The cages look a bit like dog kennels, except most dog kennels have a
sheltered
area to crawl into. The message will get through 3rd world that the
Americans are treating these people "like dogs". The prisoners may
not suffer under these conditions, this part of the Caribbean permits
sleeping comfortably at night under the stars without bed covers. BUT
that is not the message the 3rd world will pick up.
> They are not soldiers.
Were the Afghan fighters of the Northern Alliance? Many were out of
uniform. Soldiers, not soldiers? That is nitpicking in that part of the
world where kids carry around machine guns. 3rd world areas
are not known for the neat and clean situations.
> The present confinement is a temporary holding camp.
So we've heard over and over.
> Such camps are used until the prisoners can be placed in more
> permament barracks.
Or released!
> They have been used in the past by all nations.
Again, the structure of these cages do not carry a positive PR
message! But they were used previously for Haitians and Cubans
but that was a local problem. Now we have a "global" problem.
Global images are being sent around the world. Global reaction.
>> I can't see that boosting enlistment. The USA is promoting a charter
>> which makes it okay to torture POWs. Hopefully the USA can keep it's
>> rules to itself.
>
> Again, more bullshit. The International Red Cross is on the scene and
> sees prisoners daily as well as monitoring the overall and specific
> treatment of ALL prisoners. There is no report or complaint of
> mistreatment from the IRC.
An article in Le Monde this weekend says that the IRC only communicates
its observations to the (in this case) the USA. For good reason. If they
went around holding press conferences blaming particular countries
they`d never get access. So they shut up and work quietly. We may hear
later through leaks what they really think.
> Neither has their been any mistreatment
> reported from representatives of nations which have visited the camp.
So far that is true, but I am not sure how much access has been granted.
I think the French have been talking with a couple of "their people", no
big problems.
Again, the big points I push is that we don`t know the composition of the
captured and the film presentation of the conditions will not be favorably
received in 3rd world countries. So it is a PR negative on that latter
point. I don`t think Europeans think things look that great either.
Our daughter in Florida thinks things are OK, but I don`t argue with
family on anything. Bascially there is a split between Americans and
the rest of the world. Bush thinks the Europeans are "weak kneed" and
the Europeans think Bush is "weak minded".
Earl
Richard Jackson
> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
>
> > There are actually two points here. One is that these are not POWs,
> > expecially al Qai'da prisoners.
>
> We don`t know yet what the composition of these prisoners is.
> Bush backed off with regard to the "Afghan Talibans", as we discussed
> previously, but we know nothing.
>
> The whole operation has the strong odor of bullshit. If they are going
> to be charged with specific war crimes, lets here the charge. But
> the relationship even of a Al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan with those
> who actually took part in acts outside of the area is going to be difficult
> to establish. I think they will get a 10% yield, at best, of authentic
> terrorists. I`d like to see if I am very right or very wrong.
Perhaps we will find out. The situation with al Qai'da is very
unclear. No one has had ot work with an internationally ranging
terrorist group before.
>
> > The second point is that the danger IS a major point in any
> > imprisonment situation. These are men who swore to specifically kill
> > Americans if they ever have the opportunity. This is a very real
> > threat make since their capture.
>
> We don`t know which of the men swore that at all. Certainly those
> fighting for the Taliban swore that with regard to the American
> "invaders", so did the Germans and Japanese in WWII.
These swore it AFTER captivity.
>
> >> The Waffen SS were *very* dangerous but they were treated a lot better.
> >> They should be allowed barrack meetings to elect their OC if they want
> >> to appoint a hierarchy.
> >
> > The SS were members of a regularly instituted military unit, and were
> > dangerous on the field of battle, as any well trained armed force is.
> > They were not a threat to kill in captivity, nor were they clandestine
> > terrorists.
>
> The SS group best remembered in France took over 600 French men, women
> and children in Oradour sur Glan, in early June of 1944 and killed them.
> The women and children were put into a church, fired on with machine guns
> and then the building set afire. This town was not a center of resistance
> activity. What is true is that German troups were having difficulty
> reaching
> the battle field in Normandy and were frustrated by resistance actions such
> as
> blowing up bridges, downing telegraph poles and mining the railroads. The
> Germans considered the resistance a terrorist organization.
Still, these acts were on what had been, and continued to be with
resistance fighters, an active batlefield. I'm not approving of what
the SS did, only that that was a totally different situation.
>
> Elite units of the German army were given carte blanche to kill anybody
> if they felt like, Jews were their main targets. In fact the Russian front
> suffered
> more from such kinds of massacres.
>
> After the war some members of these units were tried for war crimes.
> However, those that participated in the Oradour massacre went mainly
> unpunished.
Both statements true. Both actions took place on the battlefield or
in occupied territory, and are one primary reason for the Geneva
Convention of 1949, which identified who was to be treated as a POW.
Al Qai'da do not fit in that category. If you think they do, please
cite the part of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention of 1949 which you
believe identifies them as such.
>
> German reprisals against civilians have to be classed as "terrorist"
> activities. They were meant to terrorize. Interestingly, the
> Israelis use some of the same tactics as the Germans in repressing
> the Palestians, such as blowing up the homes of the families of terrorists.
> Germans typically shot many more hostages than Germans killed in a
> resistance attack. The ratio could be 10 or 20 to 1, depending on who
> was available. Jews and Communists were the early victims fo these
> reprisals. The Israelis try and keep the kill ratio of more Palestinians
> than Israelis. They have so far always succeeded. That is a terrorist
> technique.
>
> Again, shooting of hostages (innocents) or destroying the property of
> innocents are acts of terrorism.
>
> The bombing strategies on the central cities of England and Europe,
> by the Germans and Allies respectively, were also terrorist acts.
> We knew at the time that these bombings would not have an impact
> on war production but would "demoralize" the civilian populations.
>
> The screaming sirens on the Stukas were instruments of terror,
> etc etc.
>
> Need I go on?
You forgot to mention the Alied bombings of German cities. The
bombing of Dresden specifically comes to mind. Another city with
little or no military value which was purposefully bombed in specific
manner in order to cause a firestorm which killed thousands of
civilians. Need I continue?
War crimes are often defined by the victors, who conveniently forget
their own, similar, acts.
>
> >> They should be in a barracks like the soldiers they are and not kept in
> >> cages like animals. The United States has an appalling history of
> >> torturing non-white POWs.
>
> The cages look a bit like dog kennels, except most dog kennels have a
> sheltered
> area to crawl into. The message will get through 3rd world that the
> Americans are treating these people "like dogs". The prisoners may
> not suffer under these conditions, this part of the Caribbean permits
> sleeping comfortably at night under the stars without bed covers. BUT
> that is not the message the 3rd world will pick up.
The conditions probably look pretty good after taking a gander at
where the Afghan Northern Alliance held such prisoners.
>
> > They are not soldiers.
>
> Were the Afghan fighters of the Northern Alliance? Many were out of
> uniform. Soldiers, not soldiers? That is nitpicking in that part of the
> world where kids carry around machine guns. 3rd world areas
> are not known for the neat and clean situations.
They also are not known for organized armies. Most of these guys
fought for, and still fight for, warlords. in essence, most of them
are bandit bands which unite when convenient.
>
> > The present confinement is a temporary holding camp.
>
> So we've heard over and over.
>
> > Such camps are used until the prisoners can be placed in more
> > permament barracks.
>
> Or released!
Or released, as some are sure to be. The others will be moved into
more permament quarters in a couple of months.
>
> > They have been used in the past by all nations.
>
> Again, the structure of these cages do not carry a positive PR
> message! But they were used previously for Haitians and Cubans
> but that was a local problem. Now we have a "global" problem.
> Global images are being sent around the world. Global reaction.
OK. so they talk. what's new.
Again, this is nothing new. To tell the truth, Earl, most Americans
are getting pretty hardened to the attitudes of Europeans.
--
Richard Jackson
>
> Earl
Richard Jackson
Just who do you think gives a damn what you think. Fuck off.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
Let me put this short and sweet to you Gergory. Bugger off you wanker.
--
Richard Jackson
Earl Evleth
-
>> The bombing strategies on the central cities of England and Europe,
>> by the Germans and Allies respectively, were also terrorist acts.
>> We knew at the time that these bombings would not have an impact
>> on war production but would "demoralize" the civilian populations.
>> The screaming sirens on the Stukas were instruments of terror,
>> etc etc.
>>
>> Need I go on?
>
> You forgot to mention the Alied bombings of German cities.
You misread my statement since I said "by the Germans and Allies
respectively". That is OK since we agree.
>The bombing of Dresden specifically comes to mind. Another city with
> little or no military value which was purposefully bombed in specific
> manner in order to cause a firestorm which killed thousands of
> civilians. Need I continue?
From my readings, I think the US bombings were more directed towards
industrial targets than the British. Early on the British determined that
their average error on target (night bombings) was 1 km, so the decided
the they might as well hit the cities since they could not hit the
industrial targets with precision. The "precision" daylight bombing tactics
of the Americans was supposed to be more accurate. But Speer, in his book
said that had the Allies kept up industrial target bombing, they war would
have been over in the Fall of 1944. There was a period of industrial
bombing, particularly gasoline production, in 1944, especially the summer,
which was extremely productive, but not kept up into the fall.
So the US had an on-again, off again approach to the bombing. Dresden was
one of those errors of choice, terrorism over strategy. Speer argues that
that choice prolong the war and therefore cost the lives on not only German
civilians but Allied soldiers. The strategy of concentrating on industrial
targets existed early on in the bombing campaign but Allied planars drifted
constantly from it.
This was less true in the Japanese air campaign, maintly because there was
not much choice, the production and residential areas were not separated.
The fire bombing of Tokyo possesses some questions but the use of the atomic
bombs is closer to pure terrorism. So much so, that their use has not been
repeated since.
> War crimes are often defined by the victors, who conveniently forget
> their own, similar, acts.
Less and less so on the world scale. But the Milosovic trial is not much
approved by the USA because it does not like the idea of this kind of court.
This is also the driving force in trying to do it unilaterally in Cuba using
an American judging body. American conservatives do not want the
development of an international court in criminal matters. Their idea
of globalism is purely American, mainly commercial and using the
American capitalist model. There is no search for a consensus system.
> The conditions probably look pretty good after taking a gander at
> where the Afghan Northern Alliance held such prisoners.
I have already commented on the the situation in Afghanistan.
However, the standards of the western world are what controls
the relationship between the advanced nations, and these standards
may not be 100% American.
This came up in our own work with regard to prison conditions and the
American Embassy staff`s relationship with Americans in prison or jail
overseas. One consular agent told us that they don`t pay to much attention
to the situation in European prisons because they pretty much are like
US prisons. They are more worried about Americans held in 3rd world
prisons. This is reasonable. Americans trust European prison conditions
(unless they read the French press!).
However, Europeans do not trust American prisons conditions. The
hyperincarceration figures alone indicates a pathological situation.
Programs like Oz are projected on European cable channels. Violence
in American prison is reported, and naturally, here, the death penalty
is poorly viewed.
So one is able to claim that Guantanamo is better than anything in
Afghanistan but is it better than the prisoners being held under
international control in European based prisons?
Basically, the Americans are viewed as not trustworthy. Nobody
thinks the prisoners will be tortured or even as badly treated
as the Israelis treat some accused terrorists however. But
not strictly following the Geneva conventions are trying to
dodge around them with terms like "illegal combattants"
increases the distrust.
> Now we have a "global" problem.
>> Global images are being sent around the world. Global reaction.
>
> OK. so they talk. what's new.
Clearly, the WTC was new. It also was a form of "talking",
a wake up message that woke up a lot of people. It is
prudent to get "conversations" back at the normal level.
I noticed that the FBI was giving its agents "sensitivity"
training in dealing with Muslims. We might be sensitive
to the images that we project to the 3rd world, especially
now that some of them have learned to talk back.
They are not powerless in the sense we previously presumed.
They might fight back in ways that we can not oppose. If
Saudi Arabia should have a revolution with the take over
by a religiously radical regime what do we do? Wait since they
have to sell oil to somewone? Right now Bush thinks he can
arrange getting rid of Saddam, the substituted regime is not
evident. We don`t know what the future is, it will be interesting
to see if the US can control things in the manner it thinks it can.
Earl
Earl
Richard Jackson
> -
> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
>
> >> The bombing strategies on the central cities of England and Europe,
> >> by the Germans and Allies respectively, were also terrorist acts.
> >> We knew at the time that these bombings would not have an impact
> >> on war production but would "demoralize" the civilian populations.
> >> The screaming sirens on the Stukas were instruments of terror,
> >> etc etc.
> >>
> >> Need I go on?
> >
> > You forgot to mention the Alied bombings of German cities.
You are correct. My apology.
>
> You misread my statement since I said "by the Germans and Allies
> respectively". That is OK since we agree.
>
> >The bombing of Dresden specifically comes to mind. Another city with
> > little or no military value which was purposefully bombed in specific
> > manner in order to cause a firestorm which killed thousands of
> > civilians. Need I continue?
>
> From my readings, I think the US bombings were more directed towards
> industrial targets than the British. Early on the British determined that
> their average error on target (night bombings) was 1 km, so the decided
> the they might as well hit the cities since they could not hit the
> industrial targets with precision. The "precision" daylight bombing tactics
> of the Americans was supposed to be more accurate.
They were more accurate at lower altitudes. Unfortunately, so were
the German anti-aircraft guns, so the US Air Corps (my father was a
member) moved the altitude for such runs very high. With the
increased altitude came a loss of accuracy due to bomb dispersal.
But Speer, in his book
> said that had the Allies kept up industrial target bombing, they war would
> have been over in the Fall of 1944. There was a period of industrial
> bombing, particularly gasoline production, in 1944, especially the summer,
> which was extremely productive, but not kept up into the fall.
Casualities were horrible. Many bomber groups' flight personnel were
replaced completely in only a couple of months. There was a film a
while back about the first flight crew to complete 25 missions and
return home from England. That took a while to happen.
> So the US had an on-again, off again approach to the bombing. Dresden was
> one of those errors of choice, terrorism over strategy. Speer argues that
> that choice prolong the war and therefore cost the lives on not only German
> civilians but Allied soldiers. The strategy of concentrating on industrial
> targets existed early on in the bombing campaign but Allied planars drifted
> constantly from it.
Oilfields and industrial complexes were heavily defended. Poleski
(sp?) caused casualities as high as 85% in some B-17 groups in a
single raid. To compensate for the industrial losses, what industry
could be moved undergroumd was, and yet other industries made into
"cottage industries". These moves, coupled with the high casualities,
prompted the US to go for easier targets. What occurred at Dresden
and Tokyo, however, was very near worthless for military purposes,
and, as you stated, hardened the people's will to fight on. The
German bombing of London had the same effect on the Brits.
>
> This was less true in the Japanese air campaign, maintly because there was
> not much choice, the production and residential areas were not separated.
> The fire bombing of Tokyo possesses some questions but the use of the atomic
> bombs is closer to pure terrorism. So much so, that their use has not been
> repeated since.
I find the use of the atomic bombs more defensable than the
firebombing of Japanese cities. The idea with the nuclear weapons was
to create such concern, such horror, and such a feeling of
hopelessness that Japan would surrender without an invasion. I
personally believe, after having studied this quite a bit, that Japan
would not have surrendered unconditionally otherwise, and that the US
would not have accepted conditions. This situation left only two
senarios IMO, invade and lose tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of
thousands of US lives, or use nuclear weapons to create an immediate
surrender. I agree with Truman's decision.
The firebombing of Japanese cities, however, was a systematic
destruction of the civillian population with little decent cause.
Japan by this time, was cut off from much of the resources needed to
wage war on a major scale. Her fleet, was mostly destroyed, and she
had little in the way of air defense. The one resource Japan had left
was her people, which the Japanese high command had no scruples about
sacrificing, believing Americans would tire of the war and sue for
peace with conditions eventually. They miscalculated how deeply
angered and vindictive the American people were as a whole. So, I
might add, did the Taliban and Al Qai'da.
I was sort of wondering about that. Many Europeans want the US to
declare the prisoners in Cuba as POWs regardless of their status. I
wonder if any of those same people are aware that if that is so, those
held in prison in Europe may also claim the same right? If that right
is granted, those nations holding Al Qai'da prisoners would be in
violation of the geneva Convention, which forbids placing POW's in
prisons or jails with regular criminals.
>
> Basically, the Americans are viewed as not trustworthy. Nobody
> thinks the prisoners will be tortured or even as badly treated
> as the Israelis treat some accused terrorists however. But
> not strictly following the Geneva conventions are trying to
> dodge around them with terms like "illegal combattants"
> increases the distrust.
That's OK Earl. We don't exactly trust some of our European allies,
either.
>
> > Now we have a "global" problem.
> >> Global images are being sent around the world. Global reaction.
> >
> > OK. so they talk. what's new.
>
> Clearly, the WTC was new. It also was a form of "talking",
> a wake up message that woke up a lot of people. It is
> prudent to get "conversations" back at the normal level.
As I said above, that isn't going to be easy here.
>
> I noticed that the FBI was giving its agents "sensitivity"
> training in dealing with Muslims. We might be sensitive
> to the images that we project to the 3rd world, especially
> now that some of them have learned to talk back.
>
> They are not powerless in the sense we previously presumed.
> They might fight back in ways that we can not oppose.
If
>Saudi Arabia should have a revolution with the take over
> by a religiously radical regime what do we do? Wait since they
> have to sell oil to somewone?
That's true. Of course, that can also be a two edged sword. Like
what would the Saudis do if Iraq threatened again, and we just stayed
here and did nothing?
Right now Bush thinks he can
> arrange getting rid of Saddam, the substituted regime is not
> evident. We don`t know what the future is, it will be interesting
> to see if the US can control things in the manner it thinks it can.
>
> Earl
Remember the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."?
We do.
Personally, I rather see us pull out of the Middle East completely,
dealing with whoever has the money to buy from us. Cash basis only
and "Thank you very much, how many F-16's do you wish to buy?" Let
those suckers fight it out and deal with whoever is left. Me, I'd bet
on the Jews. Pakistan for their area unless India wanted to take
everything over, and perhaps the Turks somewhere in there.
--
Richard Jackson
--
Richard Jackson
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
===========
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.0202...@posting.google.com...
Kurt Knoll
America assumes they have more rights than anyone else. Already they are
talking who to Attack next. Bush already found his new excuses yesterday
when he was talking about north Korea [The have weapons of mass
destructions] Well tell me who has more weapons of mass destructions
besides Russia ?.
Kurt Knoll.
=============
"Gregory" <gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C705853...@ntlworld.com...
>
>
Kurt Knoll
German Soldiers would capitulate.
Kurt Knoll.
========
"Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:a4tvn1$77m$1...@neon.noos.net...
Earl Evleth
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> news:<a4tvn1$77m$1...@neon.noos.net>...
>> -
>> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
>> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
> They were more accurate at lower altitudes. Unfortunately, so were
> the German anti-aircraft guns, so the US Air Corps (my father was a
> member) moved the altitude for such runs very high. With the
> increased altitude came a loss of accuracy due to bomb dispersal.
There was a fairly recent book, "The Mighty Eight, The Air War in Europe",
Gerald Astor,
Donald Fine books 1997" . It deals with what your father did. However, my
impressions o
f the difference between the US and British bomber commands was based on
readings prior
to that. Galbraith was a member of an post war bombing evaluation
commission and used
Hambourg as an example of where bombing the central city actually increased
war
production in the factories on the outside of the city. I think he deals
with this in his
book "The Aflluent society". He also attacks a lot of what he considered to
be as myths.
He claims that it was not America's industrial capacity as such that won the
war but its
unused industrial capacity. I think he proved that consumer consumption,
globally,
rose during the war so there was not a repression of consumption to permit
war production.
Another myth destroyed by academic research was that women rushed off
the to war factories from "all walks of life". In my family and my wife`s
none of the women worked during the war. Donna`s mother "contributed" by
losing her full time maid to a war factory! What did happen is that
working
class women, who had worked off and on in the depression years,
suddenly got job opportunities and went to work. Shifts occurred to in
that secretarial salaries, about $25 a week were lower, than factory level
jobs at $40. So a switch to higher paying jobs ocurred. The book, "Rosie
the Reveter", deal with the details of this employment. But some of today`s
feminists forget that the middle class and higher housewives are not part
of this revolution. It was also a period with the fastest increase in real
incomes for the lower classes in American history, the 1950s were also
important but from 1970s on the lower classes fell into to longer, still
continuing, period of income deterioration (among the lowest groups) and
stagnation.
In Germany, ideology prevented the same wartime moblisation of women
and actually more women were employed in the factories during WWI that
WWII. Slave labor was employed in the second war, who efficiency can
be discussed, but I have never read any analysis of how inefficient it was.
>> But Speer, in his book
>> said that had the Allies kept up industrial target bombing, they war would
>> have been over in the Fall of 1944. There was a period of industrial
>> bombing, particularly gasoline production, in 1944, especially the summer,
>> which was extremely productive, but not kept up into the fall.
>
> Casualities were horrible. Many bomber groups' flight personnel were
> replaced completely in only a couple of months. There was a film a
> while back about the first flight crew to complete 25 missions and
> return home from England. That took a while to happen.
I know this, but in the summer of 44 several key raids destroyed
something like 70% of the aviation fuel production and crippled the German
Air defenses. Then the Allies let up and some comeback occurred during
the Fall. The idea of hitting key and vulnerable targets was there, just
not
carried out. I think also that the not hitting and knocking out key
dams was also an error, this, proportedly, would have flooded the Ruhr
plus knock out electrical supplies. The cost of hitting these targets was
high
but one does not have to repeat some of these attacks often.
The US Air Force historians learned a lot from WWII and it got
translated into action in later conflicts.
>I agree with Truman's decision.
Some military at the time did not. For a recent pro and con views
see
"Downfall" by Richard Frank (1999). This is a defense of the decision
to drop the bomb
"The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American
Myth" by Gar Alperovitz (1995).
The latter gives a lot of surprising statements by Pacific command people.
I had not realized that Eisenhower was against the use of the bomb, for
instance. Some of the reaction of classic miltitary people might be taken
as jealosy of the fact that the bomb, at the time, seemed to destroy the
need
for them. This proved not to be so, however;
Finally, the same people who wrote "Who Owns Death" wrote
"Hiroshima n America"; R. J. Lifton and G. Mitchell, Avon History (1995).
This is excellent in some respects since it treats American reaction long
after the WWII, and people`s second thoughts. For instance, at the time
85% of the American people thought using the bomb justified, by
in more recent years, the support has dropped to around 50/50.
This involves "hindsight", a useful human trait in that people think over
their actions or those of others, long after the fact and decided whether
they would "do it again" if they had a chance. This is moral reflection and
so I don`t denigrate hindsight at all. Basically, if one
reads the suffering of the people in the target cities (I read at the time
and still
have the same copy of the book "Hiroshima", John Hersey, (1946)), the
horror
and the attempted coverup of that horror (especially the effect of
radiation) by
American authorities at the time, one might not do it again. There are
a lot of things "we" would not do again if we read history, starting with
the execution of Jesus. Of course, in doing so if we could, we would mess
up history, certainly the theology surrounded that execution. We don`t have
a choice anyway and only use these reflections to control future actions.
>> So one is able to claim that Guantanamo is better than anything in
>> Afghanistan but is it better than the prisoners being held under
>> international control in European based prisons?
> I was sort of wondering about that. Many Europeans want the US to
> declare the prisoners in Cuba as POWs regardless of their status. I
> wonder if any of those same people are aware that if that is so, those
> held in prison in Europe may also claim the same right? If that right
> is granted, those nations holding Al Qai'da prisoners would be in
> violation of the geneva Convention, which forbids placing POW's in
> prisons or jails with regular criminals.
That can be arranged, the high security prison Barry is in at Clairvaux
holds about 300 prisoners, it could be emptied the war prisoners placed
there!
The point I was making is that the camps could be put under international
control
and progessive separation of the combattants from those involved in the
Al-Quaeda
international conspiracy be separated. The Europeans are very interested in
the latter.
This week's Time magazine (international edition) has an article on Reid,
and the people
he has associated with. Af fair number of them are French-ethnic Algerians
and the French
are quite worried about them. The article mentions that one of the
directors of the
Al-Quaeda camp specializing in those being placed in Europe is at
Guantanamo. These
are the kind of people the French are interested in. The British too. One
area of
London is referred to as "Londenstan" because of its high density of Islamic
extremists.
Today`s news brings the arrest in Rome of four Moroccans having a large
quanity
of cyanide and in possession of maps of the water system, with the placement
of the American Embassy.
To paraphrase George W;: "make no mistake" in realizing that authorities
here
are quite worried. They think themselves as more likely future immediate
targets than in the USA. It is very hard to operated in the USA at the
terrorist
level, here it is easier. A lot of borders and a ethnic populationi to draw
raw material from.
> That's true. Of course, that can also be a two edged sword. Like
> what would the Saudis do if Iraq threatened again, and we just stayed
> here and did nothing?
We will protect "our oil", as last time.
> Personally, I rather see us pull out of the Middle East completely,
> dealing with whoever has the money to buy from us. Cash basis only
> and "Thank you very much, how many F-16's do you wish to buy?" Let
> those suckers fight it out and deal with whoever is left. Me, I'd bet
> on the Jews. Pakistan for their area unless India wanted to take
> everything over, and perhaps the Turks somewhere in there.
>
Israel has a long term demographic problem with neighbors, they
won`t win very the long run and in 50 or 100 years are likely
to be subject to a new blood bath unless---. Unless commercial
interests become so entwined that nobody can afford a conflict.
That is why I am an advocate of economic globalization although
modulated in some way and not along a hypercapitalist model. The latter
is the American extreme and won`t work on the world scale.
Jews and Arabs won`t war against one another if it is to their
mutual economic disadvantage.
Earl
Richard Jackson
> Bomber Harris admits his goal was to destroy German Civilians so the
> German Soldiers would capitulate.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
> ========
> "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
It should be noted, however, that while the Brits started
indiscriminate bombing of civillians, the Germans switched from
bombing RAF airfields to bombing London civillians. There isn't any
such thing as a clean side in war.
One thing the allies didn't have, however, were concentration camps
where millions were killed, starved and worked to death. Neither did
the Allies line up civillions of what they considered "inferior" races
and put bullets in their head as did the Germans.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> You trained Bin Laden against the Russians was he a terrorist then ?.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
NO. At that time he was operating in one nation, fighting Russia. He
was engaged in para-military actions as a combatant against military
forces. Bin Laden crossed the line into terrorism, IMO, when his
organization started attacking innocent civillians as predetermined
targets..
--
Richard Jackson
Earl Evleth
Dans l'article <3c737...@binaries.vphos.net>, "Kurt Knoll"
<kkn...@yellowhead16.net> a écrit :
> Bomber Harris admits his goal was to destroy German Civilians so the
> German Soldiers would capitulate.
For those who have not heard of Bomber Harris, he was the British
Air commander and is still a controversal individual.
The story goes that the diversion of the German airforce into bombing
London and other population centers was due to the British bombing
Berlin in order to provoke the Germans to lay off the British air fields.
It worked since the Goering had to change his name to Meyer (Jewish) as he
swore to do if the British every bombed Berlin. He got mad and Hitler got
mad and decided to destroy London.
That said, the British did not instigate terror bombing during WWII since
the Germans had practiced it in Poland and Holland. The problem in war
is adapting one`s enemy`s tactics. If they are monsterous, one also becomes
a monster. And in part, this was the pathogenic effect of taking up
terrorist bombing tactics.
This is exactly my approach to the Death Penalty. The original murder
is a pathogenic act, it infects others, those who would not normally want
to kill now want to kill.
It is also my approach in treating prisoners are Guantanamo. We has to
be careful not only for the prisoners' sakes but oneself. Humanitarianism
is a two edged sword of rightousness. The main beneficaries are ourselves
in not doing harm to others.
Earl
Werner Knoll
Enemy Forces in order to get around the Geneva convention too!
**********************************************************
Eisenhower:
*From the book "OTHER LOSSES" by James Bacque. The book order number is
ISBN 0 - 7736 - 7309 - 1 This is a Revised Edition.
Page VIII 1947 - 1950s Most records of U.S. prison camps are destroyed.
Germans determine that over 1,700,000 soldiers alive at war's end, never
returned home. All Allies deny responsibility; the U.S., Britain and
France accuse Russia of atrocities in camps.
1960 - 1972 The West German Foreign Office under Willi Brandt subsidizes
books that deny atrocities in U.S. camps. U.S. Senators accuse Russians
of atrocities, but say nothing of U.S. camps.
Page 9 There would be massive starvation if the industrial base were
destroyed. According to Gordel Hull the secretary of state, "the
Morgenthau Plan would wipe out everything in Germany except land, and
the Germans would have to live on the land. This meant that only 60
percent of the German population could support themselves on German
land, and the other 40 percent would die." Hull is speaking here of the
deaths of about 20 million German civilians. Churchill said the plan was
"unnatural, unchristian and unnecessary"
Page 17 Eisenhower and his staff were responsible for the care and
feeding of all prisoners according to the Geneva Convention.
Page 25 The minimum to maintain life for adults lying down, doing no
work but self-care, varies from 1,000 to 2,250 calories per day,
according to various experts.
Page 30 The "chaos" which Eisenhower had said would prevent the Germans
from feeding themselves was of course going to be created by the Allies
themselves, because they would dismantle the central German
institutions, including welfare agencies. There was no more German
institution.
Page 34 "German supplies were uncovered in huge quantities. The supply
officers in the field could not get what they needed for the prisoners,
because the commanding general refused to issue it. In some camps, the
men were so crowded they could not even lie down.
Page 36 The German Division Commander reported that the men had not
eaten for the last two day's, and the provision of water was a mayor
problem-yet only 200 yards away was the river Rhine running bank-full.
One inmate at Rheinberg was over 80 years old and another was nine...
Page 38 Our clothing was infected and so was the mud where we had to
walk and sit and lie down. There was no water at all at first, except
the rain, then after a couple of weeks we could get a little water from
a standpipe. But most of use had nothing to carry it in, so we could
get only get a few mouthfuls after hours of lining up.
Page 179 Brigadier General Bayne-Jones admits that one of the causes of
disaster in the camp was that the prisoners were deprived of their
messing equipment so that food could not be cooked or distributed
properly.
Page 39 "The Americans were really shitty to us," said Heinz T. at the
beginning, when there were still trees in the camp, some men managed to
cut of some limbs to build a fire. The guards ordered them to put it
out. In many of the cages, there were forbidden to dig holes in the
ground for shelter. "All we had to eat was grass,"
Page 40 Georg Weiss, a tank repairman, said his camp on the Rhine was so
crowded that "we couldn't even lie down properly. All night we had to
sit up jammed against each other. But the lack of water was the worst
think of all. For three and a half days we had no water at all. We
would drink our own urine. It tasted terrible, but what could you do?
Some men got down on the ground and licked the ground to get some
moisture. I was so weak I was already on my knees, when finally got a
little water to drink. I think I would have died without that water.
But the Rhine was just outside the wire. The guards sold us water
through wire and cigarettes. One cigarette cost 900 marks. I saw
thousands dying. They took the bodies away on trucks.
Page 45 Wolfgang Iff said that in his sub-section of perhaps 10,000
people at Rheinberg, 30 to 40 bodies were dragged out every day. A
member of the burial commando, Iff was well placed to see what was going
on. He got extra food so he would help drag the dead from the cage to
the gate of the camp, where they carried them in wheelbarrows to several
big steel garages. They stripped the corpses of clothing, snapped of
half the aluminum dog tag, spread the bodies in layers of fifteen to
twenty, threw ten shovelsfull of quicklime lime over them, and stacked
them one meter high.
Page 46 The prisoners were never told what happened to the corpses, but
German construction crews in the fifties and gravediggers in the
eighties have discovered at Rheinberg human remains with German Army
World War II aluminum dog tags jumbled closely together in a common
graves with no sign of coffin or gravemarker.
Page 58 Field Marshal Montgomery believed the Americans had loaded
themselves down with huge numbers of prisoners out of vainglory, not
military necessity.
Page 64 May first and June 15, 1945 the Medical Corps officers recorded
a horrendous death rate, 80 times as high as anything they had ever
observed in their lives. They efficiently totted up the cause of death:
so many from dysentery and diarrhea, so many from typhoid fever,
tetanus, septicemia.
Page 65 The surveying doctors were calm in their knowledge the "former
patients" like young Heinz T. Were taken from their hospital beds and
send sick and half-naked into barbed wire cages to sleep in mud, while
thousands of beds in the hospitals went empty.
Page 68 "This wasn't good journalism," said Charles Lynch, the
Canadian war correspondent. "It wasn't journalism at all." By the end
of May more people had died in the U.S. camps than died in the atomic
blast at Hiroshima. Not a word reached the press.
Page 73 and Page 74 As the French, American, British and Canadian
prisoners numbering about 2,000,000 were leaving German barbed wire for
freedom that spring, the Red Cross was there to welcome them with food
parcels drawn from the millions still in storage in their warehouses in
Switzerland. The returning prisoners thanked the Red Cross for saving
their lives with the food parcels send to them in the camps. From the
Germans the had received about 1,500 calories per day. The
effectiveness of the Red Cross care was demonstrated in a single figure:
over 98% of the captured men were coming home safe, according to a news
release or the American Red Cross in May 1945. They were in good health
thanks not only to the food but also the clothing and medicine, which
had arrived safely by mail.
Page 80 So vengeance assumed the name of duty. In order to keep Quakers
from helping children, Eisenhower invokes the "duty" of the Germans to
do what they were prevented from doing. The "German Agencies" that he
mentioned to Marshall did not exist, because they were forbidden or
drastically curtailed in the U.S. zone of Germany and remained so for
over a year. "Strictly speaking, there was no German Red Cross,"
because it had been abolished by the Allies.
Page 147 Inside Germany, Eisenhower or his deputies ran everything, so
censorship was much easier to maintain. Newspapers, radio-stations,
book publishers, even movie theaters had to have licenses to operate in
the U.S. zone. For a long time, they had no freedom, but free
propaganda.
Page 184 Former West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer who deplored the
U.S. death camps along the Rhine in very strong terms. He said: Some of
the German POWs are being held in camps in a manner contrary to all
humanitarian principles and flagrantly contrary to the Geneva
Convention. The German prisoners have been penned up for weeks without
any protection from the weather without drinking water, without medical
care and with only a few slices of bread to eat. They could not even
lie down on the ground. But ordinary people say "Any person who treats
POWs this way is not much better than the Nazis. I know that the
Russian prisoners were badly treated by the Germans in 1941 and 1942 and
we ought to be ashamed of the fact, but I feel that you ought not to do
the same thing. German prisoners too in camps ate grass and picked
leaves from the trees because they were hungry exactly as the Russians
unfortunately did.... Please allow me to say frankly, in very important
matters... the Allies have used the same methods as the Germans.
End
Werner Knoll
Jewish Organizations have made the deeds of the Nazis into a shield
against criticism
Doug Collins
Richard Jackson
> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
>
> > "Earl Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message
> > news:<a4tvn1$77m$1...@neon.noos.net>...
> >> -
> >> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.02021...@posting.google.com>,
> >> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
<snipped, interesting discussion of changes in wartime>
> >> But Speer, in his book
> >> said that had the Allies kept up industrial target bombing, they war would
> >> have been over in the Fall of 1944. There was a period of industrial
> >> bombing, particularly gasoline production, in 1944, especially the summer,
> >> which was extremely productive, but not kept up into the fall.
> >
> > Casualities were horrible. Many bomber groups' flight personnel were
> > replaced completely in only a couple of months. There was a film a
> > while back about the first flight crew to complete 25 missions and
> > return home from England. That took a while to happen.
>
> I know this, but in the summer of 44 several key raids destroyed
> something like 70% of the aviation fuel production and crippled the German
> Air defenses. Then the Allies let up and some comeback occurred during
> the Fall. The idea of hitting key and vulnerable targets was there, just
> not
> carried out. I think also that the not hitting and knocking out key
> dams was also an error, this, proportedly, would have flooded the Ruhr
> plus knock out electrical supplies. The cost of hitting these targets was
> high
> but one does not have to repeat some of these attacks often.
The costs were not worth the gains in the opinion of many. Actually,
the asme argument was used on the switch of the Germans from airfields
to cities during the Battle of Britain. Had they kept on hitting the
Royal Airforce, they might have brought air protection to a standstill
in another month. As it was, they allowed the air defense system to
rebuild and re-equip.
>
> The US Air Force historians learned a lot from WWII and it got
> translated into action in later conflicts.
It did.
I've seen many of the after action photographs and reports, having
been privy to them at one time during some training I undertook. I
also saw the projected death figure during the 60's for those yet to
die from the effects. The results were surprising, but not too much
so, for by that time I was fairly aware of the effects of nuclear war.
Nuclear and thermonuclear weapons are horrible beyond most humans'
comprehension. Their effects, both short and long term, are not known
to the general public to any degree. They should be, but people just
don't want to even imagine the possibilities.
>
> >> So one is able to claim that Guantanamo is better than anything in
> >> Afghanistan but is it better than the prisoners being held under
> >> international control in European based prisons?
>
> > I was sort of wondering about that. Many Europeans want the US to
> > declare the prisoners in Cuba as POWs regardless of their status. I
> > wonder if any of those same people are aware that if that is so, those
> > held in prison in Europe may also claim the same right? If that right
> > is granted, those nations holding Al Qai'da prisoners would be in
> > violation of the geneva Convention, which forbids placing POW's in
> > prisons or jails with regular criminals.
>
> That can be arranged, the high security prison Barry is in at Clairvaux
> holds about 300 prisoners, it could be emptied the war prisoners placed
> there!
That prison does not meet the qualifcation of a POW camp under the
Geneva Convention. Neither does Camp X-Ray, except as a temporary
camp.
> The point I was making is that the camps could be put under international
> control
> and progessive separation of the combattants from those involved in the
> Al-Quaeda
> international conspiracy be separated.
Why? What part does, for instance, Norway have in this problem?
The Europeans are very interested in
> the latter.
They can be interested for all they want. That does not mean it will
occur.
>
> This week's Time magazine (international edition) has an article on Reid,
> and the people
> he has associated with. Af fair number of them are French-ethnic Algerians
> and the French
> are quite worried about them. The article mentions that one of the
> directors of the
> Al-Quaeda camp specializing in those being placed in Europe is at
> Guantanamo. These
> are the kind of people the French are interested in.
Are they French citizens? If so, France has interests. If they are
simply the bastard sons of Frenchmen left over from colonial days, too
bad.
The British too. One
> area of
> London is referred to as "Londenstan" because of its high density of Islamic
> extremists.
That is a Brit problem. The British have been allowed to inspect the
situation both in Afghanistan and in Cuba. They were satisfied with
what they saw.
>
> Today`s news brings the arrest in Rome of four Moroccans having a large
> quanity
> of cyanide and in possession of maps of the water system, with the placement
> of the American Embassy.
Suprised?
>
> To paraphrase George W;: "make no mistake" in realizing that authorities
> here
> are quite worried. They think themselves as more likely future immediate
> targets than in the USA. It is very hard to operated in the USA at the
> terrorist
> level, here it is easier. A lot of borders and a ethnic populationi to draw
> raw material from.
And perhaps the lessening of national border security due to the EU?
You guys made you bed by placating the Muslim population repeatedly to
keep them from making trouble in France. Now you have to live with
the results. We in the US haven't forgotten where many of these
terrorist found succor, especially parts of Germany.
>
> > That's true. Of course, that can also be a two edged sword. Like
> > what would the Saudis do if Iraq threatened again, and we just stayed
> > here and did nothing?
>
> We will protect "our oil", as last time.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The last figure I saw on Saudi oil was that it
comprised about 15% of the total imports of the US supply. We could
make it without if need be.
>
> > Personally, I rather see us pull out of the Middle East completely,
> > dealing with whoever has the money to buy from us. Cash basis only
> > and "Thank you very much, how many F-16's do you wish to buy?" Let
> > those suckers fight it out and deal with whoever is left. Me, I'd bet
> > on the Jews. Pakistan for their area unless India wanted to take
> > everything over, and perhaps the Turks somewhere in there.
> >
>
> Israel has a long term demographic problem with neighbors, they
> won`t win very the long run and in 50 or 100 years are likely
> to be subject to a new blood bath unless---. Unless commercial
> interests become so entwined that nobody can afford a conflict.
> That is why I am an advocate of economic globalization although
> modulated in some way and not along a hypercapitalist model. The latter
> is the American extreme and won`t work on the world scale.
> Jews and Arabs won`t war against one another if it is to their
> mutual economic disadvantage.
>
> Earl
One reason the Arabs will not currently war with the Jews is they are
well aware of the consequences of beating Israel in war. The Arabs
might well defeat the Jews on the conventional field of battle
someday, only to lose the whole region as the Jews unleash the
thermonuclear arsenal they are not supposed to have. Rather than give
up the Holy Land, Israel would destroy all they could with total
ruthlessness. Including themselves.
That is what I think scares the crap out of US planners about Iraq. I
believe the thought is that Hussen will use nuclear attack if he gets
the capability. He sill, IMO, use a first strike senario in order to
destroy Israel with one horrible blow. The danger is that if he is
unsuccessful (and given his military proclivity for screwing up he
will not be) that the retaliation of Israel will cause death on a
scale never before seen by humanity.
The Jews have never shied away from being ruthless in battle. In one
ancient rebellion in Israel, a neighboring region sent an army to
invade. After defeating that army, Israel stationed guards at the
borders and killed an additional 42,000 fleeing members of the
invading army to make sure there was no future problem. There was
never a problem with those people again.
Just as bin Laden and the Taliban underestimated how far the US would
go following Sept. 11th, the thought that an idiot like Hussen might
underestimate what the Jews would do in a life or death situation
scares the Hell out of me.
--
Richard Jackson
Le Trôle
> Enemy Forces in order to get around the Geneva convention too!
>
> **********************************************************
`---------------------`()'---------------------'
||
__ || __
] """"._ .' /
_,-"""========-. .'/)/
,' ) ,--. .--. `.______________.' ///_
.' / /___| |__| We're Watching You! () _>
/ / /____| |__| ,------`// \
.<`=='========================.' (/`. \
( `.-------------------------/ `._\
`-._\CIA-MOSSAD-BILDERBERG--'
"""--ii--'"""77"---'
.____//______//___,
`-----------------'
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <3C73CCD8...@telus.net>, Werner Knoll
<wern...@telus.net> a écrit :
> Your Eisenhower Gangster changed the status of POW to DEF "Disarmed
> Enemy Forces in order to get around the Geneva convention too!
I won`t list all the accusations you made but they are overdone.
First it was never a matter of policy by the Western Governements to get
around
the Geneva accords on prisoners. Russia was a different thing and
ultimately
Germany started the criminal abuses in their treatement of Russian soldiers.
They were sent to concentration camps and worked to death. So the Russians
practiced the revenge of the "untermenschens" by working German soldiers to
death, and committing unprecidented number of rapes on invading Germany.
This was a perfect pathogenic situation.
There was not problem in the treatment of captured German and Italian
soldiers
for most of the war. With the mass surrenders in the Spring of 45, however,
more German prisoners were taken than could be even put behind barbwire.
My brother told me of one group of Germans he ssaw kept in a field with no
fences and
no food and water for days, since they had nothing to give them. Some of
the
hungry Germans tried to escape and were shot. It is also known that in
France that
the first months of captivity of these Germans results in a high death rate
from
typus, running perhaps 10% a month.
So the stories told of these period have a ring of truth. But it was not
policy to
mistreat these soldiers.
Next, one has to remember that with the total occupation of Germany, Western
solidiers came into contact with the death camps. My brother took photos as
the
time with his little camera, he was shocked, that shock has not worn off in
over 50 years.
When the death camps were discovered, not only were German soldiers held in
great distain but the German civilian population. Near the camps, German
civilians were first rounded up and forced to march through the camps to
show "what they had done". Then some of them were forced to go to work
to help bury the bodies. It took a few years of "fraternization" before
this shock wore off. At the beginning, there was a plan to deindustrialize
Germany forever, since the Germans were considered permanently
dangerous. But this foolish dream went away as the west faced the
threat of an ambitious Russia.
The reaction against the Japanese was somewhat different. First, few
attrocities had occurred on Japanese territory and it was recognized
that the civilians were "brain washed" by the culture. Japanese
soldiers, however, were inordinately cruel at times. Few of them
were taken prisoner because of their culture of death so prisoner
treatment by the Allies was not a problem until the Russians took
large numbers and also exploited their labor for years in Siberia.
The overall record shows that poor treatment of prisoners was the practice
of the Japanese, Germans and Russians. The British, the Americans, the
Canadians and French were much less "guilty" in this regard.
The most dangerous time for a capture soldier is right after it happens
since
they can be killed by their capturers without too much recrimination.
Some Americans were extremely disturbed by the foolish suicide behavior
of Japanese soldiers and, especially, civilians and would try and pursade
them
not to kill themselves. Although I personally thing using the atomic bomb
on Japan was a criminal act, the one positive thing was that hundreds of
thousands
of Japanese civilians did not die in what would have been suicide attacks
against
invading Allies.
The irony of the sometimes cruelty of Americans is that their enemies rarely
suffered
very much after surrendering to Americans. At the end of WWII, they more
likely
got a cigarette, chewing gum and a chocolate bar than a slap in face. The
Germans
and Japanese of 1970 were better off than those of 1940. The losers were
the dead
and all that dying was a waste of human life when another course could have
been
taken in history. Those they died for their countries never wished to do
so.
Earl
was not a problem
The big difficulty in treating German prisoners occurred at the end of the
war when large numbers of them were captured or gave up. My brother
reported that in one case he saw they had so many and no food for them, and
no compound to put them in. In that case, the parameter of the prison was
an invisible circle. A prisoner who stepped beyond it was shot by guards.
There was not enough food to feed them. The hunger
Werner Knoll
Donna Evleth wrote:
>
> Dans l'article <3C73CCD8...@telus.net>, Werner Knoll
> <wern...@telus.net> a écrit :
>
> > Your Eisenhower Gangster changed the status of POW to DEF "Disarmed
> > Enemy Forces in order to get around the Geneva convention too!
>
> I won`t list all the accusations you made but they are overdone.
>
> First it was never a matter of policy by the Western Governements to get
> around
The story is about Eisenhower not the German government!
> the Geneva accords on prisoners. Russia was a different thing and
> ultimately
> Germany started the criminal abuses in their treatement of Russian soldiers.
> They were sent to concentration camps and worked to death. So the Russians
> practiced the revenge of the "untermenschens" by working German soldiers to
> death, and committing unprecidented number of rapes on invading Germany.
> This was a perfect pathogenic situation.
I am fully aware of what the Germans have done. As for the Russian's?
They were suppose not civilized. Whit other words the couldn't help
themselves.
>
> There was not problem in the treatment of captured German and Italian
> soldiers
That's not what my brothers and relatives told me?
> for most of the war. With the mass surrenders in the Spring of 45, however,
> more German prisoners were taken than could be even put behind barbwire.
> My brother told me of one group of Germans he ssaw kept in a field with no
> fences and
> no food and water for days, since they had nothing to give them. Some of
> the
In some of this camps a river was closed by!
> hungry Germans tried to escape and were shot. It is also known that in
> France that
> the first months of captivity of these Germans results in a high death rate
> from
> typus, running perhaps 10% a month.
My brother Jean was in one of this French camps. I could cry by just
remembering how he looked when he came back in 1947...
He came to the door and asked for our mother. I closed the door and and
shouted for mom. He knocked on the door and said... I am your brother
Schank ( Jean ) don't you remember me?
>
> So the stories told of these period have a ring of truth. But it was not
> policy to
> mistreat these soldiers.
How is that? I remember in 1945 trying to bring water to captured German
soldiers being driven away by American soldiers!
>
> Next, one has to remember that with the total occupation of Germany, Western
> solidiers came into contact with the death camps. My brother took photos as
> the
> time with his little camera, he was shocked, that shock has not worn off in
> over 50 years.
You should have asked him why he didn't take picture from us kid's and
which condition we were in?
>
> When the death camps were discovered, not only were German soldiers held in
> great distain but the German civilian population. Near the camps, German
> civilians were first rounded up and forced to march through the camps to
> show "what they had done". Then some of them were forced to go to work
> to help bury the bodies. It took a few years of "fraternization" before
> this shock wore off. At the beginning, there was a plan to deindustrialize
> Germany forever, since the Germans were considered permanently
> dangerous. But this foolish dream went away as the west faced the
> threat of an ambitious Russia.
I know all about it.
>
> The reaction against the Japanese was somewhat different. First, few
> attrocities had occurred on Japanese territory and it was recognized
> that the civilians were "brain washed" by the culture. Japanese
> soldiers, however, were inordinately cruel at times. Few of them
> were taken prisoner because of their culture of death so prisoner
> treatment by the Allies was not a problem until the Russians took
> large numbers and also exploited their labor for years in Siberia.
It was different with the Japanes because they were not exposed to the
Holocaust propaganda machine!
>
> The overall record shows that poor treatment of prisoners was the practice
> of the Japanese, Germans and Russians. The British, the Americans, the
> Canadians and French were much less "guilty" in this regard.
If you have nothing to feed your prisoners with is one story. If you
have not enough food to feed German prisoner of War in 1945 but not
allow Germans to share with this POW with what little you have, that's a
different story.
>
> The most dangerous time for a capture soldier is right after it happens
> since
> they can be killed by their capturers without too much recrimination.
> Some Americans were extremely disturbed by the foolish suicide behavior
> of Japanese soldiers and, especially, civilians and would try and pursade
> them
> not to kill themselves. Although I personally thing using the atomic bomb
> on Japan was a criminal act, the one positive thing was that hundreds of
> thousands
> of Japanese civilians did not die in what would have been suicide attacks
> against
> invading Allies.
>
> The irony of the sometimes cruelty of Americans is that their enemies rarely
> suffered
> very much after surrendering to Americans. At the end of WWII, they more
> likely
> got a cigarette, chewing gum and a chocolate bar than a slap in face. The
> Germans
It was not the American soldiers who were to blame but the American
administration who made up rules to prevent American soldiers from
helping us.
> and Japanese of 1970 were better off than those of 1940. The losers were
> the dead
> and all that dying was a waste of human life when another course could have
> been
> taken in history. Those they died for their countries never wished to do
> so.
>
> Earl
>
> was not a problem
>
> The big difficulty in treating German prisoners occurred at the end of the
> war when large numbers of them were captured or gave up. My brother
> reported that in one case he saw they had so many and no food for them, and
> no compound to put them in. In that case, the parameter of the prison was
> an invisible circle. A prisoner who stepped beyond it was shot by guards.
> There was not enough food to feed them. The hunger
Werner Knoll
Donna Evleth
Dans l'article <8cb86b49.0202...@posting.google.com>,
> That is a Brit problem. The British have been allowed to inspect the
> situation both in Afghanistan and in Cuba. They were satisfied with
> what they saw.
Latest news in the French paper Le Monde tonight is that they are not. Or
at least their families are not. The families of two Brits have filed suit
in Washington District Court for habeas corpus. They want their guys
either formally charged in court or released. They are talking about
"arbitrary and indefinite detention." The suit is filed against George Bush
and Donald Rumsfeld. Agreed, this is not talking about actual physical
conditions, but it does nonetheless indicate a certain unhappiness with the
situation. The Australian detainee's family has done the same.
The French have not to my knowledge filed such a suit to date. The two
thusfar identified French citizens - there may be four more, who still are
to be checked out - are, by the way, French citizens of Arab descent, but
nonetheless French citizens by virtue of having been born in France.
France, like the US, has right of soil, as opposed to right of blood, as has
traditionally been the case in Germany. In Germany it is possible for a
person to be born in Germany, never live anywhere else, and still not be a
citizen of any country other than the one his parents were born in. They
are trying to change this, but I don't know how well it's been going.
Donna Evleth
Richard Jackson
> Donna Evleth wrote:
> >
> > Dans l'article <3C73CCD8...@telus.net>, Werner Knoll
> > <wern...@telus.net> a écrit :
> >
> > > Your Eisenhower Gangster changed the status of POW to DEF "Disarmed
> > > Enemy Forces in order to get around the Geneva convention too!
> >
> > I won`t list all the accusations you made but they are overdone.
> >
> > First it was never a matter of policy by the Western Governements to get
> > around
>
> The story is about Eisenhower not the German government!
No Werner. Your post is about attempting to cast aspersions on the US
to make it seem as bad as what the Germans did. Sorry, it just
doesn't work.
In battle, first line assault troops rarely take prisoners.
Experienced troops know this and hide until the reserves come up if
they wish to surrender. They know thier chances of surviving a
surrender to front line assault troops is at best 50-50. This is true
of all armies.
Secondly, after what occurred in the Battle of the Bulge with American
prisoners at the hands of the German Army, and in more than a few
occupied villages at the hands of Germany, the things you speak of are
relatively scattered acts. Germany seemed to make a habit of breaking
the Geneva convention. One major reason the Geneva Convention of 1949
was held was to specifically address abuses of para-military, support
personel, and civillians like those at the hands of the German Army
during WWII.
You can read the document for yourself if you like in English at
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
>
> > the Geneva accords on prisoners. Russia was a different thing and
> > ultimately
> > Germany started the criminal abuses in their treatement of Russian soldiers.
> > They were sent to concentration camps and worked to death. So the Russians
> > practiced the revenge of the "untermenschens" by working German soldiers to
> > death, and committing unprecidented number of rapes on invading Germany.
> > This was a perfect pathogenic situation.
>
> I am fully aware of what the Germans have done. As for the Russian's?
> They were suppose not civilized. Whit other words the couldn't help
> themselves.
That's exactly what the Nazis said about the Russians, Werner.
>
>
> >
> > There was not problem in the treatment of captured German and Italian
> > soldiers
>
> That's not what my brothers and relatives told me?
>
> > for most of the war. With the mass surrenders in the Spring of 45, however,
> > more German prisoners were taken than could be even put behind barbwire.
> > My brother told me of one group of Germans he ssaw kept in a field with no
> > fences and
> > no food and water for days, since they had nothing to give them. Some of
> > the
>
> In some of this camps a river was closed by!
>
> > hungry Germans tried to escape and were shot. It is also known that in
> > France that
> > the first months of captivity of these Germans results in a high death rate
> > from
> > typus, running perhaps 10% a month.
>
> My brother Jean was in one of this French camps. I could cry by just
> remembering how he looked when he came back in 1947...
You at least had him to look at. My uncle Hugh, captured and killed
by Germans outside fo Bastone was in a grave somewhere in the area.
>
> He came to the door and asked for our mother. I closed the door and and
> shouted for mom. He knocked on the door and said... I am your brother
> Schank ( Jean ) don't you remember me?
>
> >
> > So the stories told of these period have a ring of truth. But it was not
> > policy to
> > mistreat these soldiers.
>
> How is that? I remember in 1945 trying to bring water to captured German
> soldiers being driven away by American soldiers!
How did they know what else you brought, Werner? I would not allow
anyone in a conquered nation to approach captives I had either in such
circumstances. I had friends killed by kids carrying grenades. You
might be lucky to be alive. If one of the guards had similar
experiences, he might have shot you out of hand rather than take the
chance.
>
> >
> > Next, one has to remember that with the total occupation of Germany, Western
> > solidiers came into contact with the death camps. My brother took photos as
> > the
> > time with his little camera, he was shocked, that shock has not worn off in
> > over 50 years.
>
> You should have asked him why he didn't take picture from us kid's and
> which condition we were in?
Why blame the Allies? Hitleer started the war, and the German people
supported him and allowed him to do it. The population suffered
because Hitler, after the war was hopeless, continued to order his
troops to fight until the bitter end. Things didn't have to end the
way they did.
>
>
> >
> > When the death camps were discovered, not only were German soldiers held in
> > great distain but the German civilian population. Near the camps, German
> > civilians were first rounded up and forced to march through the camps to
> > show "what they had done". Then some of them were forced to go to work
> > to help bury the bodies. It took a few years of "fraternization" before
> > this shock wore off. At the beginning, there was a plan to deindustrialize
> > Germany forever, since the Germans were considered permanently
> > dangerous. But this foolish dream went away as the west faced the
> > threat of an ambitious Russia.
>
> I know all about it.
>
> >
> > The reaction against the Japanese was somewhat different. First, few
> > attrocities had occurred on Japanese territory and it was recognized
> > that the civilians were "brain washed" by the culture. Japanese
> > soldiers, however, were inordinately cruel at times. Few of them
> > were taken prisoner because of their culture of death so prisoner
> > treatment by the Allies was not a problem until the Russians took
> > large numbers and also exploited their labor for years in Siberia.
>
> It was different with the Japanes because they were not exposed to the
> Holocaust propaganda machine!
You consider the Holocaust, propaganda? Did you aver visit any of the
camps?
That happens in all wars. In the end, Werner, Allied forces were
advancing so fast they vastly overextended their supply lines. The
German military put all its remaining resources into defending against
the Russian advance, and basically allowed the Brits and Americans to
advance at will. In addition, as many German troops as could,
surrendered to the US and English rather than face surrender to the
Russians. They knew how much mercy they could expect after what had
occurred in Russia. They were not mistaken.
In any event, they had little food to share themselves for some days.
As the food became available, it was shared. The plight of the German
POWs was made worse by their condition when they surrendered. Those
in front line units had already eaten any rations they had, and any
other edible substance they could scrounge. They were hungry when
captured, and the lack of rations did not help things.
There is one thing I would point out to you about your brother,
though. He was released and came home fairly quickly after the end of
the war, did he not? How many German POWs never got out of Russia
alive? It could have been worse.
--
Richard Jackson
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
============
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02022...@posting.google.com...
Kurt Knoll
The Palestinians lost heir home to the Jews. When they fight back with
what little the have they are Terrorists. Is this because they have no
uniform.
Kurt Knoll.
==========
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02022...@posting.google.com...
A Planet Visitor
PV
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote:
> Interesting the Victors write the History.
You're a turkey, mate. With luck, someone will put your head on a block
and make themselves a nice, roast dinner.
I hesitate to point out that eugenics and anti-Semitism were still
relatively popular right through to the mid 1950s, even though the
stigma of the Nazis should have dictated otherwise. Sure, we didn't
build concentration camps or kill those from "inferior" races but a
certain amount of racism and discrimination was certainly present in
mainstream society.
Thankfully, we've moved on since then, to the point where holocaust
revisionists like ol' Grassy Knoll are regarded as babbling lunatics.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"My parents always told me I could be what I wanted to be. ((o))
So I became a complete bastard." ((O))
Richard Jackson
> Dans l'article <8cb86b49.0202...@posting.google.com>,
> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
>
>
> > That is a Brit problem. The British have been allowed to inspect the
> > situation both in Afghanistan and in Cuba. They were satisfied with
> > what they saw.
>
> Latest news in the French paper Le Monde tonight is that they are not. Or
> at least their families are not.
It is important to make the distinction, Donna. The families would
not be satisfied unless their relatives were free to wander around and
kill some more people, or bomb a few more. They can pleasantly go to
Hell as far as I'm concerned.
The families of two Brits have filed suit
> in Washington District Court for habeas corpus. They want their guys
> either formally charged in court or released. They are talking about
> "arbitrary and indefinite detention." The suit is filed against George Bush
> and Donald Rumsfeld. Agreed, this is not talking about actual physical
> conditions, but it does nonetheless indicate a certain unhappiness with the
> situation. The Australian detainee's family has done the same.
I say release all of the foreign Al Qai'da back into the custody of
the Northern Alliance. That works for me.
>
> The French have not to my knowledge filed such a suit to date. The two
> thusfar identified French citizens - there may be four more, who still are
> to be checked out - are, by the way, French citizens of Arab descent, but
> nonetheless French citizens by virtue of having been born in France.
> France, like the US, has right of soil, as opposed to right of blood, as has
> traditionally been the case in Germany. In Germany it is possible for a
> person to be born in Germany, never live anywhere else, and still not be a
> citizen of any country other than the one his parents were born in. They
> are trying to change this, but I don't know how well it's been going.
>
> Donna Evleth
I understand the situation with the families, and would be doing the
same thing in their case. Their chances of swaying the government in
this matter, however, are slim. To tell the truth, if we didn't want
to question these guys for intelligence info, they probably would much
easier to deal with dead.
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> Interesting the Victors write the History.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
It goes with the territory. If you have proof of the
allies creating concentration camps such as the Nazis did, please
present it. Otherwise, fuck off.
--
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
Finally the penny has dropped. You have taken
a long time to agree to my solution. Unfortunately it
is now too late and America sinks deeper and deeper
into a self inflicted mess.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
> "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message
> news:<3c765...@binaries.vphos.net>...
> > Interesting the Victors write the History.
> >
> > Kurt Knoll.
>
> It goes with the territory. If you have proof of the
> allies creating concentration camps such as the Nazis did, please
> present it. Otherwise, fuck off.
Somehow, I can't imagine the words "fuck off" in a Texan (or any other
Southern) accent. In fact, the expression seems comparatively rare in
US popular culture and I can't remember having heard it very often in
American films.
The delightful exception that springs to mind is Woody Allen's hilarious
New-York-Jewish "f'kawff!"
Kurt Knoll
something to think about it for you.
In Mauthausen they did kill prisoners by using a Gas Van. As Daniel
Keren describes it the Gas Van Drove From Mauthausen to Gussen Gassing
Prisoners. And the they drove from Gussen to Mauthausen and Killed the
Prisoners. Many time they found out the prisoners were death halfway so
they Just Dumped the death Bodies into the Ditch. Just remember the
Highway From Mauthausen to Gussen is a busy highway wit a lot of
traffic. What I like to know from you is how did the Prisoners Get to
the Mauthausen Crematorium.
I have no problem with Jews except when you create constant hate against
the Germans then it becomes my duty to make anyone aware what you guys
really are and What you Represent.
Kurt Knoll.
Kurt Knoll
For Hate mongers it is also a very popular word especially if you are
not the right Race like a German. I would say the word Nazi is more
often used by under educated people to Blow of steam against the Germans
and no one has to use his Brain to spit it out. An the other hand the
word F u c k o f f is quite commonly used by people that do not lift
their head when they spit it out. Hows that ?.
Kurt Knoll.
=============
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-44CE7F....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
Gregory
Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message news:<3c765...@binaries.vphos.net>...
> > Interesting the Victors write the History.
> >
> > Kurt Knoll.
>
> It goes with the territory. If you have proof of the
> allies creating concentration camps such as the Nazis did, please
> present it. Otherwise, fuck off.
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
The British might have invented concentration camps. It is difficult to
distinguish between photographs of Dachau and of the dying kids in the
Boer camps. Anybody sent by to the Soviets by the allies was going to a
camp, in fact the Soviets were the allies, a lot of POWs in Austria were
shipped to their deaths as well. Sweden shipped a lot of Germans to
death camps.
The Japanese, Soviets and Nazis ran most of the death camps in WWII. The
other allies were fairly easy going, Japanese POWs were murdered out of
hand though. The Pacific war and the war in China was a dirty war on
all sides. Most of the Japanese captured by the allies in China or
Manchuria ended up in death camps, about 650,000 of them.
Gregory
Richard Jackson wrote:
>
> "Donna Evleth" <dev...@noos.fr> wrote in message news:<a53llu$4s5$1...@neon.noos.net>...
> > Dans l'article <8cb86b49.0202...@posting.google.com>,
> > ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) a écrit :
> >
> >
> > > That is a Brit problem. The British have been allowed to inspect the
> > > situation both in Afghanistan and in Cuba. They were satisfied with
> > > what they saw.
> >
> > Latest news in the French paper Le Monde tonight is that they are not. Or
> > at least their families are not.
>
> It is important to make the distinction, Donna. The families would
> not be satisfied unless their relatives were free to wander around and
> kill some more people, or bomb a few more. They can pleasantly go to
> Hell as far as I'm concerned.
The Brits are content to see the POWs in Cuba treated after any old
fashion because they don't want to upset the Yanks. Officials from the
Foreign Office I've spoken to (privately) conceded that the POWs were
being tortured as far as they knew. The methods are similar to both
Vietnam and Korea. The truth of the matter is that the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office is rather ashamed to be associated with the venture.
Most Europeans (IMO) believe the POWs are being tortured. I got a
bizarre letter from the F&CO on the 18th of this month talking about the
ear muffs, hoods, googles and masks and chains being for 'health
reasons'. The British are currently pretending that they have no idea
how the prisoners are going to be treated, I was told that officially on
the 18th of Feb. They are affecting complete ignorance (officially).
As a HRA, I'm a bit upset at the idea of alleged terrorists being held
with POWS, that is illegal, however there doesn't seem to be any
evidence against the alleged terrorists, so maybe there are no
terrorists in Cuba. The Taliban and the British and the United States
all habitually used foreign mercenaries as do the French, the Spanish
and the Holy Father in Rome.
He has a Swiss Guard, he pays them money, it is traditional, the Swiss
were famous for their mercenary armies. The Pope is keeping five hundred
years of military history alive. There is nothing illegal about using
mercenaries. It is official British government policy to expand on the
use of mercenaries.
The FBI lied to a British court about one of their top suspects, they
kept the man in jail for four months. Their lawyers had to assure the
British Magistrate that they had played no part in any deception or
contempt. The FBI had lied through their teeth from the beginning of
the extradition process to the end. They've no evidence of any kind
against their prime suspect.
Richard Jackson
> ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
>
> > "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3c765...@binaries.vphos.net>...
> > > Interesting the Victors write the History.
> > >
> > > Kurt Knoll.
> >
> > It goes with the territory. If you have proof of the
> > allies creating concentration camps such as the Nazis did, please
> > present it. Otherwise, fuck off.
>
> Somehow, I can't imagine the words "fuck off" in a Texan (or any other
> Southern) accent. In fact, the expression seems comparatively rare in
> US popular culture and I can't remember having heard it very often in
> American films.
>
> The delightful exception that springs to mind is Woody Allen's hilarious
> New-York-Jewish "f'kawff!"
>
> Mr Q. Z. D.
It is more common for someone to say "fuck you" than "fuck off". Both
phrases are used by my generation. In this case, however, I wanted to
make my meaning clear so there could be no misunderstanding on Kurt's
part. I didn't want to use that most British of expressions, "bugger
you" for the very same reason. No need to lead the poor boy on, was
there?
--
Richard Jackson
--
Richard Jackson
Richard Jackson
> I don't know how to Fuck off because I know where I am.
That sounds like a personal problem to me.
Here is
> something to think about it for you.
>
> In Mauthausen they did kill prisoners by using a Gas Van. As Daniel
> Keren describes it the Gas Van Drove From Mauthausen to Gussen Gassing
> Prisoners. And the they drove from Gussen to Mauthausen and Killed the
> Prisoners. Many time they found out the prisoners were death halfway so
> they Just Dumped the death Bodies into the Ditch. Just remember the
> Highway From Mauthausen to Gussen is a busy highway wit a lot of
> traffic. What I like to know from you is how did the Prisoners Get to
> the Mauthausen Crematorium.
I remember reading of the use of diesel trucks to kill prisoners in
the earlier years as the Nazis looked for efficient ways to murder
them, but I do not recall the solution for the problem you describe.
The solution was not as successful as the planners wished it to be if
I remember correctly.
>
> I have no problem with Jews except when you create constant hate against
> the Germans then it becomes my duty to make anyone aware what you guys
> really are and What you Represent.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
I guess if I were Jewish, I could take offense at that. I am of
German (one grandfather full blood) , English, and Scot-Irish
anscestry with a bit of Native American thrown in, and Catholic. Any
hatred created against Germans comes from the actions of the Germans
in the Second World War, as well as some of the neo-nazis we see on
the news from time to time. I sometimes feel contempt for some of the
more arrogant Germans I meet, but they really seem to be the
abberation than the norm. For the most part, I get along well with
Germans otherwise. For people like you, however, I am willing to make
exceptions.
--
Richard Jackson
A Planet Visitor
> You are very Lucky. I live in a 3 Union Town and you hear it every day.
> For Hate mongers it is also a very popular word especially if you are
> not the right Race like a German.
Is this an implication that you believe the 'right' race is the German
race??
PV
<rest clipped>
A Planet Visitor
> I don't know how to Fuck off because I know where I am. Here is
> something to think about it for you.
>
> In Mauthausen they did kill prisoners by using a Gas Van. As Daniel
> Keren describes it the Gas Van Drove From Mauthausen to Gussen Gassing
> Prisoners. And the they drove from Gussen to Mauthausen and Killed the
> Prisoners. Many time they found out the prisoners were death halfway so
> they Just Dumped the death Bodies into the Ditch. Just remember the
> Highway From Mauthausen to Gussen is a busy highway wit a lot of
> traffic. What I like to know from you is how did the Prisoners Get to
> the Mauthausen Crematorium.
>
There are a number of really demented people in this
world... we know that. But the MOST demented
are those who would deny the holocaust. And the MOST
demented among that infamous hard-core group of 'most
demented,' are ANY Germans who would presume to deny
that holocaust as well.
It will take hundreds of years to erase the shame that the
German must endure because of the disgrace his forefathers
placed upon him. You do your race no favor, by hoping to
perpetuate a myth of denial. We place the past behind us,
and in recognition that the present German abhors the events
of those years, and the acts of their fathers and grandfathers;
find it reasonable to presume that the NEW German abhors
those events as well. Thus, we should not place the burden
of the guilt of the Father on the Son. But we MUST NEVER
presume that they never occurred. Because those who
refuse to remember the past, are doomed to repeat it.
I would hope that I never mention the present day German
as deserved of guilt for the acts of his forebearers. But I
WILL certainly mention that any present day German,
who DENIES those acts ever happened, deserves as much
shame as those forebearers. Schäm dich!!
> I have no problem with Jews except when you create constant hate against
> the Germans then it becomes my duty to make anyone aware what you guys
> really are and What you Represent.
>
Oh, you have a problem with Jews, all right. There's no
doubt about that. And it's MY duty to show what YOU really
are, and what YOU represent, you slimy piece of shit. I am
reminded of your VERY first post to AADP, when you
wrote "your Jewish masters have America under Control."
But now you claim YOU don't have a problem with Jews...
you lying hypocrite.
PV
> Kurt Knoll.
> =======
<Rest clipped>
Harry Krause
Sometimes I think it sad Germany surrended before we have the atomic
bomb ready to roll.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Trade unions are the mouthpiece for the struggle of social justice. -
Pope John Paul II
John Rennie
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C77BD07...@mindspring.com...
You now place yourself in the same category
as Herr Kroll, you are no better than he.
Harry Krause
Really? I think for the atrocities Germany committed, a few nukes might
have served as a reminder.
--
Harry Krause
- -
Mon Feb 18 2002 - TOKYO - The yen dipped against the dollar Monday after
U.S. President George W. Bush said he had discussed devaluation with
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. White House officials quickly
said Bush had misspoken, and that he had meant to say the two leaders
had talked about deflation.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I was convinced that Grassy Knoll was a holocaust denier but I'm
presently far, far too drunk to differentiate/ I think that my best bet
is probably to go to bed,
A Planet Visitor
moron, a nasty and utterly disgusting purveyor of
obscene lies and filth, who possesses a brain that
can only be compared to an incontinent colon.
PV
"Gregory" <gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C778E15...@ntlworld.com...
A Planet Visitor
moron, a nasty and utterly disgusting purveyor of
obscene lies and filth, who possesses a brain that
can only be compared to an incontinent colon.
PV
"Gregory" <gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3C778A7B...@ntlworld.com...
Richard Jackson
> So in effect Bomber Harris was a Terrorist because he killed Civilians.
> The Palestinians lost heir home to the Jews. When they fight back with
> what little the have they are Terrorists. Is this because they have no
> uniform.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
Actually Kurt, it can be argued that the Jews lost their homes to the
Palestinians and have taken back what was theirs. There was never a
Nation of Palestine, although there was a small kingdom of Palestine
on the coast in one area. In fact, there wasn't a nation of
independent state in the area of the Holy Land for some hundreds of
years.
--
Richard Jackson
John Rennie
A Planet Visitor
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jUIe8.50155$Ah1.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:%gOe8.286703$jO5.37...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Good old Cromwell
http://www.jewishgates.org/history/jewhis/febhis3.stm
John Rennie
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1843000/1843452.stm
As is usual when it comes to politics, current affairs etc I have been
proved right yet again.
As I foretold, the US made itself a deep hole for itself when it decided in
its unwisdom to transport these terrorists/ freedom fighters/ undesirables/
unlawful combatants/ POW's to Cuba. Of course I do not expect Richard or PV
to admit I was right. To do that would mean having to admit that they were
wrong and miracles are rare on a.a.d.p. I am not happy about this outcome
because I believe Bush and Rumsfelt have combined to blur the issues
surrounding the atrocities of the 11th of September and have managed,
against all the odds, to hand a propaganda victory to its (and my) enemies.
A Planet Visitor
brought to Cuba, and might not be brought to trial before a
military tribunal is totally disconnected. Quite seriously,
I never expected a military tribunal, since they were never
Prisoners of War. It has ALWAYS been a paradoxical
situation. One can hardly imagine a Nurnberg war crimes
trial for those who are seen as intending terrorism. I always
felt the removal was 1) part of a temporary incapacitation
precluding their reintroduction into the terrorist forces,
2) identifying exactly who they were and their connections
to terrorist operations, 3) determining what to do with them
as an ultimate end, 4) probably save many of their lives from
summary execution, and 5) extract meaningful intel regarding
future terrorist plots in a more secure environment.
My argument in all of this has been with dirt, who supposed that
we MUST be 'at war,' because of the Bush rhetorical claim of
a 'war on terrorism.' I've never felt we were 'at war' in the sense
of ACTUAL war with another nation. I've never felt we were
dealing with any structured or recognized military force. I've
never felt we had captured 'prisoners of war.' I never felt
we had the LEGAL responsibility to comply with the GC,
although I've never denied any MORAL responsibility. And
I never felt that any abuse to those captives was anything
more than a kneejerk reaction from the media and those who
are looking to find flaws in a quite reasonable action taken
by the U.S. in response to a DIRECT attack on our nation.
I am surprised that we still think in terms of military trial for
more than a small handful of those detainees who can be
very definitely connected to having engaged in 'crimes against
humanity.' I would much prefer that those we cannot try in
U.S. courts or assure prosecution in home country courts,
be tried in an International Court. Who REALLY gives a
shit about them? I only wish to minimize FUTURE threats
from them. Punishment of those DIRECTLY responsible
for the attack on my nation are either dead, or are parts of
the highest decision making arm of the terrorist organization,
and can hardly be more than one or two at most of the part of
the detainees in Cuba.
PV
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7qdk5.8h0.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 18:55:13 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> >
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1843000/1843452.stm
> >
> > As is usual when it comes to politics, current affairs etc I have been
> > proved right yet again.
>
> faced by US officials appears to have been building a case against
> the al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects.'
>
> Hardly surprising, bearing in mind that they had nothing to do with '911'
> (sic).
Ignoring your wild fantasising about who did perform the bombings, you are
of course correct. The Cuban detainees did not perform the atrocities of
911, those that did were incinerated with their victims.
Any chance that you might present a scenario involving either Pakistan,
Mossad or Bush in the bombings? Should be a sell out.
John Rennie
>
> "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:eZ9f8.15681$Hg1.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> >
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1843000/1843452.stm
> >
> > As is usual when it comes to politics, current affairs etc I have been
> > proved right yet again.
> > As I foretold, the US made itself a deep hole for itself when it decided
in
> > its unwisdom to transport these terrorists/ freedom fighters/
undesirables/
> > unlawful combatants/ POW's to Cuba. Of course I do not expect Richard
or PV
> > to admit I was right. To do that would mean having to admit that they
were
> > wrong and miracles are rare on a.a.d.p. I am not happy about this
outcome
> > because I believe Bush and Rumsfelt have combined to blur the issues
> > surrounding the atrocities of the 11th of September and have managed,
> > against all the odds, to hand a propaganda victory to its (and my)
enemies.
> >
> What the hell are you babbling about? The fact they were
> brought to Cuba, and might not be brought to trial before a
> military tribunal is totally disconnected. Quite seriously,
> I never expected a military tribunal, since they were never
> Prisoners of War.
ROTFLMAO What a load of b******s. I'll pick
one little horror up, gingerly. Prisoners of War do
NOT have military tribunals because they have not
committed an offence. Rumsfelt said that it was
because they were NOT POWs that they would
be subject to military tribunals
It has ALWAYS been a paradoxical
> situation. One can hardly imagine a Nurnberg war crimes
> trial for those who are seen as intending terrorism. I always
> felt the removal was 1) part of a temporary incapacitation
> precluding their reintroduction into the terrorist forces,
> 2) identifying exactly who they were and their connections
> to terrorist operations, 3) determining what to do with them
> as an ultimate end, 4) probably save many of their lives from
> summary execution, and 5) extract meaningful intel regarding
> future terrorist plots in a more secure environment.
All these feelings you had that you didn't share
with us. Don't believe a word of it PV - you, Bush,
Rumsfelt (not Powell) have been well and truly shot
down. All that 'secure' treatment, all that intense
questioning and not enough proof to being a case
against one detainee.
snip
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in
snip
the unnamed American
> official who gave the order for Andrews F-15s _not_ to intercept the
> aircraft on its way to the Pentagon.
>
Any chance of a cite?
A Planet Visitor
of this discussion, I've NEVER claimed they were
Prisoners of War, and I've never claimed that they
should have Military tribunal trials. You'd better
research my postings and provide where you think
you've found that to be my claim. Do you think
because I've made one of those statements and
not the other that I simply believe in EVERYTHING
that Rumsfelt says? Obviously you have me
confused with a Continental.
>
> It has ALWAYS been a paradoxical
> > situation. One can hardly imagine a Nurnberg war crimes
> > trial for those who are seen as intending terrorism. I always
> > felt the removal was 1) part of a temporary incapacitation
> > precluding their reintroduction into the terrorist forces,
> > 2) identifying exactly who they were and their connections
> > to terrorist operations, 3) determining what to do with them
> > as an ultimate end, 4) probably save many of their lives from
> > summary execution, and 5) extract meaningful intel regarding
> > future terrorist plots in a more secure environment.
>
> All these feelings you had that you didn't share
> with us. Don't believe a word of it PV - you, Bush,
> Rumsfelt (not Powell) have been well and truly shot
> down. All that 'secure' treatment, all that intense
> questioning and not enough proof to being a case
> against one detainee.
>
in daily press briefings? Get real. I am speaking of
the PURPOSE, if they found not one piece of intel.
The PURPOSE of taking them to Cuba. And I was
speaking of how 'I' felt about the reasoning behind
the extraction.
PV
> snip
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7r7ov.9df.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2002 02:28:18 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@abcxyz.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> ROTFLMAO What a load of b******s. I'll pick
> >> one little horror up, gingerly. Prisoners of War do
> >> NOT have military tribunals because they have not
> >> committed an offence. Rumsfelt said that it was
> >> because they were NOT POWs that they would
> >> be subject to military tribunals
>
> > I don't give a shit what Rumsfelt said in the context
> > of this discussion, I've NEVER claimed they were
> > Prisoners of War, and I've never claimed that they
> > should have Military tribunal trials. You'd better
> > research my postings and provide where you think
> > you've found that to be my claim. Do you think
> > because I've made one of those statements and
> > not the other that I simply believe in EVERYTHING
> > that Rumsfelt says? Obviously you have me
> > confused with a Continental.
>
> beyond defining his own words, applying definitions where they don't
> apply, and who doesn't dodge direct questions about 'war crimes', 'Geneva
> Convention', and 'societal self defence [sic]'.
>
> He's obviously in error.
>
How stupid is Desmond... let me count the ways -- Desmond believes --
1) God should protect murderers in an escape to Mexico.
2) The Lockerbie terrorist attack was caused by a wind gust.
3) Switzerland is not in Europe.
4) The dead cannot be honored.
5) It is Better that Theodore Frank be free to murder 3-year old
girls again rather than he be executed.
6) There is such a person as a 'selective' abolitionist.
7) He cannot tear his eyes away from the firm, comely , just turned
16 year-old thighs of Sarah Hughes.
8) Although defense is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary
specifically as 'protection,' in its main definitional meaning,
he disagrees, finding himself far superior in defining words.
9) Europe does not violate its citizens' human
rights. Bosnia thus also not in Europe.
10) America and The United States are not synonyms,
although every dictionary defines them thusly.
11) PV is 'evil' because he is Catholic, obviously presuming
ALL Catholics are 'evil.'
12) bin Laden, didn't plan or carry out the attacks of 911,
but he knows who did.
13) The Bush Administration,and Mossad also know.
He places his money on either Israel, or Pakistan being
behind the attacks.
I intend to add to this list from time to time, hoping that
bandwidth will allow me to do before his stupidities overwhelm
the capacity of this group.
PV
> { snip }
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
> desmond @ noos.fr |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
> http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/
> Clé Publique : http://mapage.noos.fr/desmond/pgp/pubring.pkr
>
Kurt Knoll
in Mauthausen Treblinka and Poland. But oddly not a single one is on
display anywhere. Could it be this too a hot potato to investigate
because most likely there never was one.
Kurt Knoll.
=========
Kurt Knoll
investigate we will never find out what is true and what is exaggerated.
I can not see the Holocaust being and established fact when no neutral
source was ever allowed to scrutinize. And for some researchers some
Archives are of limit simply because not supporting the Jewish version.
Kurt Knoll.
==========
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:E_Od8.249491$jO5.32...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Kurt Knoll
propaganda by the Jews.
Kurt Knoll.
============
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:D_Od8.249490$jO5.32...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Kurt Knoll
conversation. I think the person how did this indents to confuse the
issue here. The example here was how easy it is to turn people into a
mob. My example was how easy it is to turn a union membership into a
mob.
Kurt Knoll.
=======
"Harry Krause" <hkr...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3C77C231...@mindspring.com...
Kurt Knoll
will sleep all night.
Kurt Knoll.
===========
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:diablo-F1A186....@newsroom.utas.edu.au...
Kurt Knoll
was over and I have seen the Americans how the can show off. Of course
when you listen to all of them they have seen more the people who were
there all the time.
Kurt Knoll.
============
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:_bfe8.225721$Gb1.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Kurt Knoll
every second word was Fuck him Fuck that and all the other Fucks. So I
have to disappoint you if you think you can turn me on. As a matter of
fact I am ready to compete with you any time.
Kurt Knoll.
===========
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02022...@posting.google.com...
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <dia...@prometheus.humsoc.utas.edu.au> wrote in
message news:<diablo-44CE7F....@newsroom.utas.edu.au>...
> > In article <8cb86b49.02022...@posting.google.com>,
> > ri...@lcc.net (Richard Jackson) wrote:
> >
> > > "Kurt Knoll" <kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote in message
> > > news:<3c765...@binaries.vphos.net>...
> > > > Interesting the Victors write the History.
> > > >
> > > > Kurt Knoll.
> > >
> > > It goes with the territory. If you have proof of the
> > > allies creating concentration camps such as the Nazis did, please
> > > present it. Otherwise, fuck off.
> >
> > Somehow, I can't imagine the words "fuck off" in a Texan (or any
other
> > Southern) accent. In fact, the expression seems comparatively rare
in
> > US popular culture and I can't remember having heard it very often
in
> > American films.
> >
> > The delightful exception that springs to mind is Woody Allen's
hilarious
> > New-York-Jewish "f'kawff!"
> >
> > Mr Q. Z. D.
>
> It is more common for someone to say "fuck you" than "fuck off". Both
> phrases are used by my generation. In this case, however, I wanted to
> make my meaning clear so there could be no misunderstanding on Kurt's
> part. I didn't want to use that most British of expressions, "bugger
> you" for the very same reason. No need to lead the poor boy on, was
> there?
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
>
> --
> Richard Jackson
Kurt Knoll
civilized or not not. First of all the American were only show offs.
They always made everyone feel that they were the once who won the war.
I did not take very much to get them drunk either then of course they
did behave like Biggs. The second wave were Canadian and we rarely knew
the were there and I have never seen any outbursts from them. It did
hear some rumors from the British sector about mistreatment but nothing
on a large scale. For me this was understandable since they did suffer
in the Bombardments. I do have a lot of British neighbors her in Kitimat
British Columbia Canada and I have never seen one Hostile to me. I think
the American can learn from the British. And this can also be seen when
on watches war movies on a British Cannel "Always Fair and objective"
Kurt Knoll.
===========
"Gregory" <gregory....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
Kurt Knoll
Kurt Knoll.
=========
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:_bfe8.225720$Gb1.34...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
John Rennie
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@noos.fr> wrote in message
news:slrna7r884.9f9.p...@tortue.voute.net...
> Le Wed, 27 Feb 2002 20:55:03 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> > the unnamed American
> >> official who gave the order for Andrews F-15s _not_ to intercept the
> >> aircraft on its way to the Pentagon.
>
> > Any chance of a cite?
>
>
> http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm
>
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
I do not find it convincing, Desmond. No consideration is taken of the
incredibly short time span available to take any action at all. I concede
that if everything was working as it was meant to work, fighter planes
should have been in the air prior to the crash - they would not have been
able to prevent it but they should have been in the air. But I happen to
expect failure rather than success when it comes to our highly technical
modern world.
Richard Jackson
> Don't Bragg Jackson I did work in an Aluminum Smelter for 9 years and
> every second word was Fuck him Fuck that and all the other Fucks. So I
> have to disappoint you if you think you can turn me on. As a matter of
> fact I am ready to compete with you any time.
>
> Kurt Knoll.
> ===========
Were I a few years younger, and the contest more even, I might take
you up on your challenge, Kurt. As it is, there is just too much
difference between you and I, and I wouldn't want to embarrass you
that badly. You could attempt to compete with me, I guess, but do so
at your own risk. I still think a duel with you on any level would be
as if I had an opponent with an unloaded weapon.
--
Richard Jackson
<snip>
A Planet Visitor
> You don't have a case here what he said were facts I was 12 when the war
> was over and I have seen the Americans how the can show off. Of course
> when you listen to all of them they have seen more the people who were
> there all the time.
Funny enough, I was 11 when the war ended, and saw
my Father and 5 uncles return in disbelief of what they
had seen after helping clean up the bloody carnage your
Father created. If anyone was trying to 'show off,' it was
the 'Third Reich' and their sickening try to rule the world and
rid that world from Jews through a process which will
continue to disgust all civilized humans for centuries. When
one speaks of 'vermin,' one instantly draws a mental image
of your Father, who, when asked what HE did in the War,
perhaps remarks 'Oh, I spent some time in Poland,
pumping bullets into both the living and the corpuses of
Jewish women and children we had shoved into open pits."
PV
A Planet Visitor
> I do not know who cut of the previous comments. it started out with hate
> propaganda by the Jews.
>
propaganda from you, sport. Isn't THAT what started it all?
PV
A Planet Visitor
> Looks like you are Brain Sick.
>
devastating ripostes? An unspeakable poisonous
monster, claims that I look like I am 'brain sick.'
There is no doubt that newsgroups you post to
should be shrouded in black, in sorrow for the death
of 'truth,' that you have -- with premeditation -- murdered.
PV
Kurt Knoll
swearing. I do not think you are much older than me I am going on to the
70s.
Kurt Knoll.
==========
"Richard Jackson" <ri...@lcc.net> wrote in message
news:8cb86b49.02022...@posting.google.com...
Kurt Knoll
behave in the past.
Kurt Knoll.
============
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:IItf8.4009$lX4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Kurt Knoll
Uncle must have seen the devastation you guys left behind or did they
only have one eye.
Kurt Knoll.
========
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote in message
news:IItf8.4010$lX4.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
A Planet Visitor
> First of all my old man was never in the war. But on the other hand your
> Uncle must have seen the devastation you guys left behind or did they
> only have one eye.
>
that excludes you) would recognize the SOURCE of that
devastation. And I can honestly say 'I don't believe YOU,'
when you say your Father was never in the war. It's obvious
that the apple didn't fall too far from the tree in the early years
of YOUR nuturing. I can well picture your Father, after
being released from his war crimes sentence, reading
Mein Kampf and the thousand year Reich to you by candlelight,
since the electricity was extinguished by my Father and Uncles
in the LIBERATION of Europe from the goose-stepping boot
of Fascism and Nazism. You, of course, had the shit torn
out of you, that's a fact. But it's also a fact you well deserved
it.
PV
John Rennie
"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:eZ9f8.15681$Hg1.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
And now the hunger strikes begin. There will be the usual huffing and
puffing on this news group 'Let 'em starve' 'why should we care?'
'solves the problem of what do with them' etc.
but the hole gets deeper all the time and America's prestige sinks with it.
LMac
Based on how we are treated by most other countries, John, we have little to
lose. Being harangued and insulted by other nations has become routine to
the point where most of us couldn't care less about how the rest of the
world perceives us. I find that a little bit sad, but justified. Regardless
of our faults, we are fiercely independent.
Mac
LMac
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:27:25 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I do not find it convincing, Desmond. No consideration is taken of the
> > incredibly short time span available to take any action at all. I
concede
> > that if everything was working as it was meant to work, fighter planes
> > should have been in the air prior to the crash - they would not have
been
> > able to prevent it but they should have been in the air. But I happen
to
> > expect failure rather than success when it comes to our highly technical
> > modern world.
>
> that the events of '911' (sic) were so exceptional, so unexpected, that
> everyone was in a state of panic.
>
> Unfortunately, the military aren't paid to be in a panic. They're paid to
> defend the nation, irrespective of the nature of the attack. Before going
> into the school in Florida, to hear children reading stories, Bush _must_
> have been aware of the attack on the Twin Towers. Yet he carried on with
> his schedule. There was time to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit the
> Pentagon, yet the only aircraft scrambled, were from an air station in
> Massachussetts. They were 70 miles from Washington when the Pentagon was
> hit.
>
> The F-16s (I correct my previous post; not F-15s, but F-16s) at Andrews
> did not scramble, despite having more than enough time to intercept the
> aircraft heading towards D.C.
>
> The evidence is crystal clear. It's a case of either criminal neglicence,
> or treason.
It is unlikely that you would have found an American pilot willing to shoot
down an American jetliner (orders or no) without having some very convincing
evidence at hand, even if they had scrambled. Our problem was that we felt
"it can't happen to us, not here". Like so many things, this will probably
be different from here on out.
Mac
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
<kkn...@yellowhead16.net> wrote:
[regarding Richard...]
> I was not talking about physical Fighting but competing with you in
> swearing. I do not think you are much older than me I am going on to the
> 70s.
I think that Richard _was_ talking about swearing. I think that he
probably keeps his rich, fruity, Texan vocabulary under control around
here...
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
Visitor" <abc...@abcxyz.com> wrote:
> How stupid is Desmond... let me count the ways -- Desmond believes --
Let us examine these things in detail.
> 1) God should protect murderers in an escape to Mexico.
Silly, yes. I would hope just a consequence of Des' predeliction
towards hyperbole.
> 2) The Lockerbie terrorist attack was caused by a wind gust.
Possible but waaaaaay too conspiracy theory-esque for my taste.
> 3) Switzerland is not in Europe.
Don't recall this one. My guess is that you're deliberately
misinterpreting a piece of pro-EU jingoism.
> 4) The dead cannot be honored.
_I_ know what he was saying. The way he said it was insensitive but the
meaning was clear and reasonable.
> 5) It is Better that Theodore Frank be free to murder 3-year old
> girls again rather than he be executed.
Very, very silly.
> 6) There is such a person as a 'selective' abolitionist.
There ain't.
> 7) He cannot tear his eyes away from the firm, comely , just turned
> 16 year-old thighs of Sarah Hughes.
Nothing wrong with that. I'm coping with orientation week at the moment
and the undeniable fact that I feel like a dirty old man for perving at
(Australian for "ogling") 17 and 18 year old girls.
> 8) Although defense is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary
> specifically as 'protection,' in its main definitional meaning,
> he disagrees, finding himself far superior in defining words.
Not even going there. I don't participate in threads where this is
discussed when I can avoid it.
> 9) Europe does not violate its citizens' human
> rights. Bosnia thus also not in Europe.
More misinterpretation of pro-EU jingoism, perhaps?
> 10) America and The United States are not synonyms,
> although every dictionary defines them thusly.
That is the curse of common usage. America should really be used to
refer collectively to North and South America. The USA is a confederacy
in North America.
The dictionary be damned in this case.
> 11) PV is 'evil' because he is Catholic, obviously presuming
> ALL Catholics are 'evil.'
Although liturgically superior to most other churches in many respects
(I do like bells, smells and idols), the Roman Catholic Church _has_
been responsible for some pretty awful things in its time - right up to
the present day.
I honestly don't know why he latched on to this one, though. Some
people's antipathy towards the RCC is sufficient for extreme judgements
to be passed upon those who would belong to it.
> 12) bin Laden, didn't plan or carry out the attacks of 911,
> but he knows who did.
Not out of the question. Maybe he didn't but I'm flat-out believing
that if it wasn't bin Laden then it was _someone_ high up in al Qui'da.
> 13) The Bush Administration,and Mossad also know.
I don't know whether they _do_, actually.
> He places his money on either Israel, or Pakistan being
> behind the attacks.
This is very, very silly indeed, IMHO.
> I intend to add to this list from time to time, hoping that
> bandwidth will allow me to do before his stupidities overwhelm
> the capacity of this group.
We all know that Des can say some silly things from time to time. If
you are to post a list of them then, perhaps, you might seek to balance
that by posting a list of silly things that _you've_ said or, perhaps, a
list of silly things that _every_ regular has said.
I answered each of your illustrations for my _own_ benefit, BTW.
Conclusion: I don't really agree with Des about very much but it is
easy to take what he says out of context and use it as the basis for
ridicule.
John Rennie
> Le Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:27:25 -0000, John Rennie <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > I do not find it convincing, Desmond. No consideration is taken of the
> > incredibly short time span available to take any action at all. I
concede
> > that if everything was working as it was meant to work, fighter planes
> > should have been in the air prior to the crash - they would not have
been
> > able to prevent it but they should have been in the air. But I happen
to
> > expect failure rather than success when it comes to our highly technical
> > modern world.
>
> that the events of '911' (sic) were so exceptional, so unexpected, that
> everyone was in a state of panic.
>
> Unfortunately, the military aren't paid to be in a panic. They're paid to
> defend the nation, irrespective of the nature of the attack. Before going
> into the school in Florida, to hear children reading stories, Bush _must_
> have been aware of the attack on the Twin Towers. Yet he carried on with
> his schedule. There was time to shoot down Flight 77 before it hit the
> Pentagon, yet the only aircraft scrambled, were from an air station in
> Massachussetts. They were 70 miles from Washington when the Pentagon was
> hit.
>
> The F-16s (I correct my previous post; not F-15s, but F-16s) at Andrews
> did not scramble, despite having more than enough time to intercept the
> aircraft heading towards D.C.
They did not have enough to intercept. They did not have enough time to
scramble because there was no warning given in time.
>
> The evidence is crystal clear. It's a case of either criminal neglicence,
> or treason.
The evidence is only crystal clear to you because that is what you want to
believe. When you want to believe something Desmond, you don't bother to
let the facts get in the way. PV is quite right to list your inanities in
the way he is at the moment. They show you to be basically unreliable and
emotionally unsound.
> --
> Desmond Coughlan
John Rennie
"LMac" <lmck...@ev1.net> wrote in message news:3c7e8...@newsa.ev1.net...
It is not a bit sad, it is disastrous. America is going to need every bit
of cooperation and goodwill that is available from other countries
in the years ahead. The treatment of the Cuban detainees is not the way to
get it. You may have missed my earlier prescient posts on this matter.
Basically I stated that the detainees should have been left in Afghanistan.
The Northern Alliance chiefs would have dealt with them and no opprobrium
would have fallen on the US. The whole Cuban operation has been a ghastly
self inflicted mess.