Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
Honest Nev
new one just for you, 'tenwheels'.
da...@lexis-nexis.com (tenwheels) wrote in message news:<db00711.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Defense has held more than 600 men, some as young as 13, of 42
> > > > nationalities - including citizens of our closest allies - in a
> > > > concentration camp".
> > >
> > > IHT needs to be more careful about choosing the words to use in their
> > > _opinion_ page. The prisoners are being housed in a prison camp, not a
> > > concentration camp. The point of concentration camps were to herd
> > > (predominantly) Jews and other undesirables out of social integration and
> > > "concentrate" them in locations away from the German population. That is
> > > substantially different from a prison camp.
Incidentally, if it is a 'prison camp', what crimes have the brave
young inmates
committed? And on who's territory?
> > This is not true, Daniel: (for instance) Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald
> > were concentration camps, all of which held 'career-criminals',
> > political-prisoners and the 'work-shy' to begin with, later on also
> > _POWs_ and (at the very end) evacuated Jews from the forced-labour
> > camps and death-camps in the east.
>
> Comprehension not your strong suit, Neville? What part of "and other
> undesirables" wasn't clear to you? In any event, you misrepresent
> Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, each of which were either alone,
> or together with other camps, concentration camps designed to remove
> (principally) Jews
Daniel, if you think the camps I mentioned housed "(principally)
Jews", you are v. v. mistaken: the vast majority of inmates in those
three were Soviet POWS and political-prisoners (i.e. Commies and other
dissidents).
For example Dachau:
"The majority of the prisoners at Dachau were Christian. It was
primarily a camp for political prisoners, German criminals, and
Christian clergymen who opposed the Nazis." [1]
> and others deemed undesirable from society. To pretend that Jews were not
> the object of concentration and extermination is to whitewash history.
_At those three camps_, young Daniel, they were not.
Incidentally, do you know how many Soviet POWS are estimated to have
died in Nazi camps?
> you even use the euphemisms of
> the Nazis - "work-shy" my ass! What do you think that means?
I kindly refer you to:
"the "work shy" were also arrested (this fitted in exactly with
Hitler's plan to reduce unemployment as an unemployed person would be
offered work at a Labour Exchange and if they refused it as too menial
for them, they would be arrested as work shy. As no-one in
concentration camps counted as unemployed, the figures for
unemployment had to come down". [2]
> > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
> > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
> > become a death-camp too.
>
> Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
Daniel.
Regards 'death-camp': Donna's article said that an execution-chamber
is to be installed at the camp... sound familiar?
> > <snip>
> >
> > > In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
> >
> > At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
> > Daniel.
>
> You do an admirable job of spreading untruth.
When have I ever lied to you, Daniel?
> > Yrs,
> > As ever,
> > Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
>
> Good thing you use a lower case "e" in esquire, for an attorney, you
> are not. More pretention.
In this green and pleasent land an 'esquire' is not connected with the
law.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Neville
[1] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauFAQ
[2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm
tenwheels
You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend the written
word. What part of "each of which were either alone, or together with
other camps" do you not understand? While those particular camps may
have initially housed non-Jews, the simple fact is that Jews were
"concentrated" there and murdered. From the very link you provided:
"According to a book published by the US Seventh Army immediately
after the war ("Dachau Liberated, The Official Report by The U.S.
Seventh Army), there were a total of 29,138 Jews brought to Dachau
from other camps between June 20, 1944 and November 23, 1944. This
report says the Jews were brought to Dachau to be executed and that
they were gassed in the gas chamber disguised as a shower room and
also in the four smaller gas chambers." Or do 29,138 Jews not count?
[...]
> > > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
> > > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
> > > become a death-camp too.
> >
> > Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
>
> 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
> Daniel.
Perhaps you've not heard the news: there was a war in Afghanistan and
those prisoners were captured as part of the war. While I believe
they should be categorized as POWs and not the artifice employed by
the Bush administration, to label Guantanamo a concentration camp is
dishonest or overstated political rhetoric. Incidentally, it isn't
"Gitmo" so try to call it by its name and try less to be kewl.
> Regards 'death-camp': Donna's article said that an execution-chamber
> is to be installed at the camp... sound familiar?
Before that happens, you'll know I've been active in objecting to any
secret trial, let alone execution. If Bush wants to be reelected,
such a move would be political suicide.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > In other words, you have added _nothing_ to the discussion.
> > >
> > > At least he did not intend to spread mis-information, unlike you
> > > Daniel.
> >
> > You do an admirable job of spreading untruth.
>
> When have I ever lied to you, Daniel?
My friends call me by my personal name. You aren't my friend, so
kindly desist. FWIW, overblown political rhetoric is simply a
masquerade for lies. Perhaps if you could see your way through to
accuracy, you might gain some respect.
> > > Yrs,
> > > As ever,
> > > Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
> >
> > Good thing you use a lower case "e" in esquire, for an attorney, you
> > are not. More pretention.
>
> In this green and pleasent land an 'esquire' is not connected with the
> law.
According to your scrapbook source below, "Concentration camps were
first used by the British in the Boer War when 76,000 women and
children were incarcerated in South Africa." Pleasant isn't a word
I'd use to describe the history of England. Militarist. Racist.
Colonialist. Exploitist. Those are apt.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > > Comprehension not your strong suit, Neville? What part of "and other
> > > undesirables" wasn't clear to you? In any event, you misrepresent
> > > Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, each of which were either alone,
> > > or together with other camps, concentration camps designed to remove
> > > (principally) Jews
> >
> > Daniel, if you think the camps I mentioned housed "(principally)
> > Jews", you are v. v. mistaken: the vast majority of inmates in those
> > three were Soviet POWS and political-prisoners (i.e. Commies and other
> > dissidents).
>
> You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend the written
> word. What part of "each of which were either alone, or together with
> other camps" do you not understand? While those particular camps may
> have initially housed non-Jews, the simple fact is that Jews were
> "concentrated" there and murdered.
I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
death-camps for Jews.
That you mix up concentration-camps with death-camps (i.e. Birkenhau,
Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) is bad enough.
> From the very link you provided:
> "According to a book published by the US Seventh Army immediately
> after the war ("Dachau Liberated, The Official Report by The U.S.
> Seventh Army), there were a total of 29,138 Jews brought to Dachau
> from other camps between June 20, 1944 and November 23, 1944. This
> report says the Jews were brought to Dachau to be executed and that
> they were gassed in the gas chamber disguised as a shower room and
> also in the four smaller gas chambers." Or do 29,138 Jews not count?
Of course they do, young Daniel, but Jews account for 3 in 13 of the
dead at Dachau... Soviet POWS alone count for _5 in 13_.
Dachau was not a "concentration camps designed to remove (principally)
Jews".
I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
used:
"The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been
used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that
there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is
still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British
officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of
gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to
experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op.
cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War
Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics
expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only
relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were
murdered in this manner."" [1]
Dachau was not a 'death-camp'. Treblinka was a death-camp. Most Jews
executed were executed at death-camps. Dachau (like Belson (which had
no gas chamber) and Buchanwald) was a _concentration camp_. Like
'Gitmo', only bigger.
> [...]
>
> > > > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is a
> > > > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may soon
> > > > become a death-camp too.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
> >
> > 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
> > Daniel.
>
> Perhaps you've not heard the news: there was a war in Afghanistan and
> those prisoners were captured as part of the war. While I believe
> they should be categorized as POWs and not the artifice employed by
> the Bush administration, to label Guantanamo a concentration camp is
> dishonest or overstated political rhetoric.
In what way is it not a concentration camp? If they prisoners are not
POWs it is not a POW camp. The internees are basically
political-prisoners/dissidents who are concentrated there away from
the Merkin public/army. Just like Dachau housed
political-prisoners/dissidents way from the German public/army.
Again, it is worth noting that during the '39-'45 war itsen many such
'dissidents' were extracted from _occupied territories_ and then
interned by the Nazis.
> Incidentally, it isn't
> "Gitmo" so try to call it by its name and try less to be kewl.
>
> > Regards 'death-camp': Donna's article said that an execution-chamber
> > is to be installed at the camp... sound familiar?
>
> Before that happens, you'll know I've been active in objecting to any
> secret trial, let alone execution.
I'm glad to hear it. Maybe Dirtdog is right to give you some credit.
<snip>
> According to your scrapbook source below, "Concentration camps were
> first used by the British in the Boer War when 76,000 women and
> children were incarcerated in South Africa." Pleasant isn't a word
> I'd use to describe the history of England. Militarist. Racist.
Worth pointing out that the Boers were 'white'. Unlike the poor Japs
interned in the US during WW2 simply for having 'slitty eyes'.
> Colonialist. Exploitist. Those are apt.
I'm glad you have figured out what a concentration camp is. Of course
horrors happen at POW camps as well (and on Merkin soil too natch)...
i.e. Andersonville (12,912 dead).
Yrs,
Nev
> > Happy to have cleared things up for you,
> > Neville
> >
> > [1] http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/DachauFAQ
> > [2] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi_police_state.htm
danh
news:a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com...
> da...@lexis-nexis.com (tenwheels) wrote in message
news:<db00711.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Comprehension not your strong suit, Neville? What part of "and
other
> > > > undesirables" wasn't clear to you? In any event, you misrepresent
> > > > Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, each of which were either
alone,
> > > > or together with other camps, concentration camps designed to remove
> > > > (principally) Jews
> > >
> > > Daniel, if you think the camps I mentioned housed "(principally)
> > > Jews", you are v. v. mistaken: the vast majority of inmates in those
> > > three were Soviet POWS and political-prisoners (i.e. Commies and other
> > > dissidents).
> >
> > You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend the written
> > word. What part of "each of which were either alone, or together with
> > other camps" do you not understand? While those particular camps may
> > have initially housed non-Jews, the simple fact is that Jews were
> > "concentrated" there and murdered.
>
> I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
> death-camps for Jews.
Stress whatever you wish. Thousands of Jews were in fact, murdered there.
> That you mix up concentration-camps with death-camps (i.e. Birkenhau,
> Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) is bad enough.
It's your own lack of comprehension that has caused your confusion about
what I wrote and what those words mean. Either that or a desire to
misrepresent - your choice as to which you lay claim to.
> > From the very link you provided:
> > "According to a book published by the US Seventh Army immediately
> > after the war ("Dachau Liberated, The Official Report by The U.S.
> > Seventh Army), there were a total of 29,138 Jews brought to Dachau
> > from other camps between June 20, 1944 and November 23, 1944. This
> > report says the Jews were brought to Dachau to be executed and that
> > they were gassed in the gas chamber disguised as a shower room and
> > also in the four smaller gas chambers." Or do 29,138 Jews not count?
>
> Of course they do, young Daniel,
I've asked you not to refer to me by my personal name. Is there some reason
you are unwilling to abide by this simple request?
but Jews account for 3 in 13 of the
> dead at Dachau... Soviet POWS alone count for _5 in 13_.
True. So what? That other nationals were imprisoned and killed there does
not change what I wrote...unless you take it out of context, which is widely
recognized as inappropriate.
> Dachau was not a "concentration camps designed to remove (principally)
> Jews".
Yawn - more out of context quotation.
> I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
> Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
> 'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
> disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
> used:
I'll try to use small words so you can get it: if the "actual gas-chamber"
[sic] was used at all, then Dachau was a camp in which Jews were murdered.
That Dachau did not kill Jews on the scale of Auschwitz or Treblinka is a
rather trivial point to those murdered or to ascribing it the proper
description of a death camp.
> "The question of whether the gas chamber can be proved to have been
> used has not been definitively answered. Some historians say that
> there is no question: it was never used. Some say that the question is
> still open. It comes down to two testimonies: that of a British
> officer named Payne-Best who says he heard Dr. Rascher speak of
> gassings, and that of Dr. Franz Blaha, who testified under oath to
> experimental gassings. For more information, see Kogon et al., op.
> cit., pp. 202-204, and Blaha's testimony in Trial of the Major War
> Criminals, 1947, vol. V, pp. 167-199. Dr. Charles Larson, a forensics
> expert, also examined gassing victims at the camp, saying "only
> relatively few of the inmates I personally examined at Dachau were
> murdered in this manner."" [1]
>
> Dachau was not a 'death-camp'. Treblinka was a death-camp. Most Jews
> executed were executed at death-camps. Dachau (like Belson (which had
> no gas chamber) and Buchanwald) was a _concentration camp_. Like
> 'Gitmo', only bigger.
According to _your_ source, there were over 200,000 inmates in Dachau. The
number of detainees in Guantanamo is about 600. That ~350 _times_ the
number for Dachau - more than a minor difference. And 125 _times_ that
number of Boers were interned by the British, who invented concentration
camps.
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is
a
> > > > > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may
soon
> > > > > become a death-camp too.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
> > >
> > > 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
> > > Daniel.
> >
> > Perhaps you've not heard the news: there was a war in Afghanistan and
> > those prisoners were captured as part of the war. While I believe
> > they should be categorized as POWs and not the artifice employed by
> > the Bush administration, to label Guantanamo a concentration camp is
> > dishonest or overstated political rhetoric.
>
> In what way is it not a concentration camp?
No, no. _You_ said it was a concentration camp, twice - prove it. Show
that inmates were herded there and deprived of religious freedom of
expression. He who makes the claim must prove it.
If they prisoners are not
> POWs it is not a POW camp. The internees are basically
> political-prisoners/dissidents who are concentrated there away from
> the Merkin public/army. Just like Dachau housed
> political-prisoners/dissidents way from the German public/army.
>
> Again, it is worth noting that during the '39-'45 war itsen many such
> 'dissidents' were extracted from _occupied territories_ and then
> interned by the Nazis.
Nonsense. You might recall that the Guantanamo inmates were _combatants_,
not political prisoners or dissidents. Try not to whitewash reality.
> > Incidentally, it isn't
> > "Gitmo" so try to call it by its name and try less to be kewl.
> >
> > > Regards 'death-camp': Donna's article said that an execution-chamber
> > > is to be installed at the camp... sound familiar?
> >
> > Before that happens, you'll know I've been active in objecting to any
> > secret trial, let alone execution.
>
> I'm glad to hear it. Maybe Dirtdog is right to give you some credit.
>
> <snip>
>
> > According to your scrapbook source below, "Concentration camps were
> > first used by the British in the Boer War when 76,000 women and
> > children were incarcerated in South Africa." Pleasant isn't a word
> > I'd use to describe the history of England. Militarist. Racist.
>
> Worth pointing out that the Boers were 'white'.
And this is relevant, how?
> Unlike the poor Japs
> interned in the US during WW2 simply for having 'slitty eyes'.
A disgusting, shameful chapter in U.S. history. BTW, it wasn't due to their
eyes, it was due to the erroneous asusmption that their loyalty would be to
imperial Japan. Why are they "Japs" to you and not Japanese?
> > Colonialist. Exploitist. Those are apt.
>
> I'm glad you have figured out what a concentration camp is. Of course
> horrors happen at POW camps as well (and on Merkin soil too natch)...
> i.e. Andersonville (12,912 dead).
There are plenty of incidents in U.S. history that are cause of shame. We
face up to and deal with those problems.
dirtdog
>My friends call me by my personal name. You aren't my friend, so
>kindly desist.
I daresay that was a rather poorly considered statement to make,
Daniel.
<standard issue pompous assertion and vacuous posturing masquerading
as 'debate' from Daniel snipped>
w00f
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > > You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend the written
> > > word. What part of "each of which were either alone, or together with
> > > other camps" do you not understand? While those particular camps may
> > > have initially housed non-Jews, the simple fact is that Jews were
> > > "concentrated" there and murdered.
> >
> > I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
> > death-camps for Jews.
>
> Stress whatever you wish. Thousands of Jews were in fact, murdered there.
Okay, Danny, in plain English:
_Dachau was a concentration camp_.
_'Gitmo' is a concentration camp_.
Comprendhe?
All this ' "concentrated" ' bollox (see yr previous comment) is to
divert from this simple fact.
> > That you mix up concentration-camps with death-camps (i.e. Birkenhau,
> > Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) is bad enough.
>
> It's your own lack of comprehension that has caused your confusion about
> what I wrote and what those words mean. Either that or a desire to
> misrepresent - your choice as to which you lay claim to.
Soapy tit-wank.
> > > From the very link you provided:
> > > "According to a book published by the US Seventh Army immediately
> > > after the war ("Dachau Liberated, The Official Report by The U.S.
> > > Seventh Army), there were a total of 29,138 Jews brought to Dachau
> > > from other camps between June 20, 1944 and November 23, 1944. This
> > > report says the Jews were brought to Dachau to be executed and that
> > > they were gassed in the gas chamber disguised as a shower room and
> > > also in the four smaller gas chambers." Or do 29,138 Jews not count?
> >
> > Of course they do, young Daniel,
>
> I've asked you not to refer to me by my personal name. Is there some reason
> you are unwilling to abide by this simple request?
Danny... do one!
> but Jews account for 3 in 13 of the
> > dead at Dachau... Soviet POWS alone count for _5 in 13_.
>
> True. So what?
The clue was in the next sentence, the bit where I quote yr
misinformation back at you.
> That other nationals were imprisoned and killed there does
> not change what I wrote...unless you take it out of context, which is widely
> recognized as inappropriate.
'Inapproprate'? God! yr really up yoursen today, Master Daniel, sir.
> > Dachau was not a "concentration camps designed to remove (principally)
> > Jews".
>
> Yawn - more out of context quotation.
If you say so.
I once heard a Merkin say that 6 million Jews were exterminated in the
gas chamber at Dachau.
Why are Merkins so dim?
> > I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
> > Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
> > 'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
> > disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
> > used:
>
> I'll try to use small words so you can get it: if the "actual gas-chamber"
> [sic]
Whoa... what's that '[sic]' doing there?
> was used at all, then Dachau was a camp in which Jews were murdered.
We do not know who was gassed at Dachau.
We do know that the Dachau gas-chamber was not used extensively, if at
all.
> That Dachau did not kill Jews on the scale of Auschwitz or Treblinka is a
> rather trivial point to those murdered or to ascribing it the proper
> description of a death camp.
But that's the whole point of a death-camp... they are places where
people where taken _almost exclusively_ to be killed. This is not the
case with concentration-camps.
I think Wiesenthal has looked into this in much more depth than you or
I, and he says Dachau was not a death-camp... it was a
concentration-camp, like 'Gitmo'.
<snip>
> > Dachau was not a 'death-camp'. Treblinka was a death-camp. Most Jews
> > executed were executed at death-camps. Dachau (like Belson (which had
> > no gas chamber) and Buchanwald) was a _concentration camp_. Like
> > 'Gitmo', only bigger.
>
> According to _your_ source, there were over 200,000 inmates in Dachau. The
> number of detainees in Guantanamo is about 600. That ~350 _times_ the
> number for Dachau - more than a minor difference. And 125 _times_ that
> number of Boers were interned by the British, who invented concentration
> camps.
A concentration-camp is a concentration-camp. 'Gitmo' is a
concentration-camp. Albeit a relatively small one by WW2 standards.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo' is
> a
> > > > > > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it may
> soon
> > > > > > become a death-camp too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
> > > >
> > > > 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
> > > > Daniel.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you've not heard the news: there was a war in Afghanistan and
> > > those prisoners were captured as part of the war. While I believe
> > > they should be categorized as POWs and not the artifice employed by
> > > the Bush administration, to label Guantanamo a concentration camp is
> > > dishonest or overstated political rhetoric.
> >
> > In what way is it not a concentration camp?
>
> No, no. _You_ said it was a concentration camp, twice - prove it. Show
> that inmates were herded there and deprived of religious freedom of
> expression. He who makes the claim must prove it.
What a poxy answer.
"Deprivation of religious freedom" is not on the list. At Buchenwald
(I understand) the Commies were allowed access to a Commie library!
> If they prisoners are not
> > POWs it is not a POW camp. The internees are basically
> > political-prisoners/dissidents who are concentrated there away from
> > the Merkin public/army. Just like Dachau housed
> > political-prisoners/dissidents way from the German public/army.
> >
> > Again, it is worth noting that during the '39-'45 war itsen many such
> > 'dissidents' were extracted from _occupied territories_ and then
> > interned by the Nazis.
>
> Nonsense. You might recall that the Guantanamo inmates were _combatants_,
> not political prisoners or dissidents. Try not to whitewash reality.
Those WW2 'dissidents' included resistence fighters. As I say many
occupants of the Nazi concentration-camps were Soviet POWS who were
not recognised as such (another coincidence?) cos Russia had not
signed up to the Geneva Convention.
<snip>
> > > According to your scrapbook source below, "Concentration camps were
> > > first used by the British in the Boer War when 76,000 women and
> > > children were incarcerated in South Africa." Pleasant isn't a word
> > > I'd use to describe the history of England. Militarist. Racist.
> >
> > Worth pointing out that the Boers were 'white'.
>
> And this is relevant, how?
You wouldn't believe how dim some Merkins are, Daniel.
Of course I did not for one second think you were dim enough to think
the Boers were black... Boer War... concentration-camp... Africa...
racism...
> > Unlike the poor Japs
> > interned in the US during WW2 simply for having 'slitty eyes'.
>
> A disgusting, shameful chapter in U.S. history. BTW, it wasn't due to their
> eyes, it was due to the erroneous asusmption that their loyalty would be to
> imperial Japan.
Yeah, whatever.
Pleasant is not a word I would use to describe the history of the USA.
> Why are they "Japs" to you and not Japanese?
A term of affection for another tea-drinking island nation.
> > > Colonialist. Exploitist. Those are apt.
> >
> > I'm glad you have figured out what a concentration camp is. Of course
> > horrors happen at POW camps as well (and on Merkin soil too natch)...
> > i.e. Andersonville (12,912 dead).
>
> There are plenty of incidents in U.S. history that are cause of shame. We
> face up to and deal with those problems.
You may think you do, but what about yr countrymen?
A Planet Visitor
Because his name is Ol' Racist Nev. And he is currently being ripped a
new one here.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:g6iddvog7qf0vm3ft...@4ax.com...
snip
> >A disgusting, shameful chapter in U.S. history. BTW, it wasn't due to
their
> >eyes, it was due to the erroneous asusmption that their loyalty would be
to
> >imperial Japan. Why are they "Japs" to you and not Japanese?
> >
> Because his name is Ol' Racist Nev. And he is currently being ripped a
> new one here.
Having to trawl through 9kb just to find the above silly comment
shows that I have too much time to waste. Japs is a shorter
word than Japanese just as Brits is shorter than British - there is
no racial connotation whatsoever in the use of such a short form.
danh
news:<bb5dms$fdq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > You continue to demonstrate an inability to comprehend the written
> > > > word. What part of "each of which were either alone, or together
with
> > > > other camps" do you not understand? While those particular camps
may
> > > > have initially housed non-Jews, the simple fact is that Jews were
> > > > "concentrated" there and murdered.
> > >
> > > I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were _not_ used as
> > > death-camps for Jews.
> >
> > Stress whatever you wish. Thousands of Jews were in fact, murdered
there.
>
> Okay, Danny, in plain English:
Thank you. Now you've joined the rest of the population who refers to me by
that name - women.
> _Dachau was a concentration camp_.
>
> _'Gitmo' is a concentration camp_.
>
> Comprendhe?
>
> All this ' "concentrated" ' bollox (see yr previous comment) is to
> divert from this simple fact.
Mere repetition of false statements does not make them true. Proof instead
of assertion please.
> > > That you mix up concentration-camps with death-camps (i.e. Birkenhau,
> > > Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) is bad enough.
> >
> > It's your own lack of comprehension that has caused your confusion about
> > what I wrote and what those words mean. Either that or a desire to
> > misrepresent - your choice as to which you lay claim to.
>
> Soapy tit-wank.
Translation: you cannot choose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
conclude you're not bright enough to be malicious.
> > > > From the very link you provided:
> > > > "According to a book published by the US Seventh Army immediately
> > > > after the war ("Dachau Liberated, The Official Report by The U.S.
> > > > Seventh Army), there were a total of 29,138 Jews brought to Dachau
> > > > from other camps between June 20, 1944 and November 23, 1944. This
> > > > report says the Jews were brought to Dachau to be executed and that
> > > > they were gassed in the gas chamber disguised as a shower room and
> > > > also in the four smaller gas chambers." Or do 29,138 Jews not
count?
> > >
> > > Of course they do, young Daniel,
> >
> > I've asked you not to refer to me by my personal name. Is there some
reason
> > you are unwilling to abide by this simple request?
>
> Danny... do one!
All my girls call me that. Usually at more appropriate moments.
[...]
> > > I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
> > > Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
> > > 'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
> > > disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
> > > used:
> >
> > I'll try to use small words so you can get it: if the "actual
gas-chamber"
> > [sic]
>
> Whoa... what's that '[sic]' doing there?
"Four smaller gass [sic] chambers" do not equal an "actual gas chamber" they
equal 'actual gas chamberS'. This is third grade stuff - try harder to keep
up.
> > was used at all, then Dachau was a camp in which Jews were murdered.
>
> We do not know who was gassed at Dachau.
>
> We do know that the Dachau gas-chamber was not used extensively, if at
> all.
Not extensively is not the same thing as "at all".
> > That Dachau did not kill Jews on the scale of Auschwitz or Treblinka is
a
> > rather trivial point to those murdered or to ascribing it the proper
> > description of a death camp.
>
> But that's the whole point of a death-camp... they are places where
> people where taken _almost exclusively_ to be killed. This is not the
> case with concentration-camps.
I did not indicate there was no difference in scale. I indicated thousands
of inmates were murdered there. It was a camp in which death was a regular
occurence. It was therefore, a death camp. Is English not your first
language?
> I think Wiesenthal has looked into this in much more depth than you or
> I, and he says Dachau was not a death-camp
Mr. Wiesenthal has earned the right to call it anything he wants.
... it was a
> concentration-camp, like 'Gitmo'.
Your assertion remains unproven.
> <snip>
>
> > > Dachau was not a 'death-camp'. Treblinka was a death-camp. Most Jews
> > > executed were executed at death-camps. Dachau (like Belson (which had
> > > no gas chamber) and Buchanwald) was a _concentration camp_. Like
> > > 'Gitmo', only bigger.
> >
> > According to _your_ source, there were over 200,000 inmates in Dachau.
The
> > number of detainees in Guantanamo is about 600. That ~350 _times_ the
> > number for Dachau - more than a minor difference. And 125 _times_ that
> > number of Boers were interned by the British, who invented concentration
> > camps.
>
> A concentration-camp is a concentration-camp. 'Gitmo' is a
> concentration-camp. Albeit a relatively small one by WW2 standards.
Prove it. So far you haven't.
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > > All three camps I mention were _concentration camps_. _'Gitmo'
is
> > a
> > > > > > > concentration camp_. If Donna's article is to be believed it
may
> > soon
> > > > > > > become a death-camp too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit. What kind of assinine drivel do you believe anyway?
> > > > >
> > > > > 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. Tell me why you think it is not,
> > > > > Daniel.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you've not heard the news: there was a war in Afghanistan
and
> > > > those prisoners were captured as part of the war. While I believe
> > > > they should be categorized as POWs and not the artifice employed by
> > > > the Bush administration, to label Guantanamo a concentration camp is
> > > > dishonest or overstated political rhetoric.
> > >
> > > In what way is it not a concentration camp?
> >
> > No, no. _You_ said it was a concentration camp, twice - prove it. Show
> > that inmates were herded there and deprived of religious freedom of
> > expression. He who makes the claim must prove it.
>
> What a poxy answer.
Only to one who cannot support his claim.
> "Deprivation of religious freedom" is not on the list. At Buchenwald
> (I understand) the Commies were allowed access to a Commie library!
Jews were neither allowed to daven nor to observe dietary laws. Jews did
not have religious freedom.
> > If they prisoners are not
> > > POWs it is not a POW camp. The internees are basically
> > > political-prisoners/dissidents who are concentrated there away from
> > > the Merkin public/army. Just like Dachau housed
> > > political-prisoners/dissidents way from the German public/army.
> > >
> > > Again, it is worth noting that during the '39-'45 war itsen many such
> > > 'dissidents' were extracted from _occupied territories_ and then
> > > interned by the Nazis.
> >
> > Nonsense. You might recall that the Guantanamo inmates were
_combatants_,
> > not political prisoners or dissidents. Try not to whitewash reality.
>
> Those WW2 'dissidents' included resistence fighters. As I say many
> occupants of the Nazi concentration-camps were Soviet POWS who were
> not recognised as such (another coincidence?) cos Russia had not
> signed up to the Geneva Convention.
Yawn. Guantanamo includes citizens of numerous nations, none of which
belonged to a formal military organization. They were not there defending
their homeland.
> <snip>
>
> > > > According to your scrapbook source below, "Concentration camps were
> > > > first used by the British in the Boer War when 76,000 women and
> > > > children were incarcerated in South Africa." Pleasant isn't a word
> > > > I'd use to describe the history of England. Militarist. Racist.
> > >
> > > Worth pointing out that the Boers were 'white'.
> >
> > And this is relevant, how?
>
> You wouldn't believe how dim some Merkins are, Daniel.
>
> Of course I did not for one second think you were dim enough to think
> the Boers were black... Boer War... concentration-camp... Africa...
> racism...
Possibly the only intelligent thing you've done.
[Snipped due to boredom.]
If you cannot provide anything more than your own assertions, then there is
no further point in this thread.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > Okay, Danny, in plain English:
>
> Thank you. Now you've joined the rest of the population who refers to me by
> that name - women.
That's okay, young Daniel, there's nothing wrong with being amongst
bints.
Unless you think there is something awful about being female?
> > _Dachau was a concentration camp_.
> >
> > _'Gitmo' is a concentration camp_.
> >
> > Comprendhe?
> >
> > All this ' "concentrated" ' bollox (see yr previous comment) is to
> > divert from this simple fact.
>
> Mere repetition of false statements does not make them true. Proof instead
> of assertion please.
Dachau was a concentration camp. It was used to concentrate
dissidents, resistance types, Commies, anti-Nazi religious types,
unacknowledged POWS etc. in a small geographic location away from the
German population and out of the way of the German army. Those
interned were, on the whole, not allowed to leave and were forcably
detained for an indefinate period. No trials were held. They were held
incommunicado without legal redress.
'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. It is used to concentrate dissidents,
resistance types, anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc. in
a small geographic location away from the Merkin population and out of
the way of the Merkin army. Those interned are, on the whole, not
allowed to leave and are forcibly detained for an indefinate period.
No trials have been held. They are being held incommunicado without
illegal redress.
> > > > That you mix up concentration-camps with death-camps (i.e. Birkenhau,
> > > > Majdanek, Treblinka etc.) is bad enough.
> > >
> > > It's your own lack of comprehension that has caused your confusion about
> > > what I wrote and what those words mean. Either that or a desire to
> > > misrepresent - your choice as to which you lay claim to.
> >
> > Soapy tit-wank.
>
> Translation: you cannot choose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
> conclude you're not bright enough to be malicious.
LOL!
Very soapy tit-wank.
<snip>
> > > > Of course they do, young Daniel,
> > >
> > > I've asked you not to refer to me by my personal name. Is there some
> reason
> > > you are unwilling to abide by this simple request?
> >
> > Danny... do one!
>
> All my girls call me that. Usually at more appropriate moments.
"Danny, do them fucking dishes you boring twat, I'm trying to watch
'Eastenders'!"
> [...]
>
> > > > I should point out (as many Merkins seem confused about this) that
> > > > Holocaust historians (inc. Simon Wiesenthal) do not call Dachau a
> > > > 'death-camp'. Also the "four smaller gass chambers" mentioned were
> > > > disinfection chambers and the actual gas-chamber was not extensively
> > > > used:
> > >
> > > I'll try to use small words so you can get it: if the "actual
> gas-chamber"
> > > [sic]
> >
> > Whoa... what's that '[sic]' doing there?
>
> "Four smaller gass [sic] chambers" do not equal an "actual gas chamber" they
> equal 'actual gas chamberS'. This is third grade stuff - try harder to keep
> up.
Daniel, inmates were not gassed in disinfection chambers.
By 'actual gas chamber' I refer to the chamber that was designed as an
execution chamber.
There was one such gas chamber built at Dachau.
> > > was used at all, then Dachau was a camp in which Jews were murdered.
> >
> > We do not know who was gassed at Dachau.
> >
> > We do know that the Dachau gas-chamber was not used extensively, if at
> > all.
>
> Not extensively is not the same thing as "at all".
Yes, Daniel, I know. Most historians say it was 'tested' on a few
inmates and that was the extent of it's use.
> > > That Dachau did not kill Jews on the scale of Auschwitz or Treblinka is
> a
> > > rather trivial point to those murdered or to ascribing it the proper
> > > description of a death camp.
> >
> > But that's the whole point of a death-camp... they are places where
> > people where taken _almost exclusively_ to be killed. This is not the
> > case with concentration-camps.
>
> I did not indicate there was no difference in scale. I indicated thousands
> of inmates were murdered there. It was a camp in which death was a regular
> occurence. It was therefore, a death camp. Is English not your first
> language?
Thousands died in all the Nazi concentration camps mentioned. Get a
grip on yoursen, Daniel.
Which of these do you think should be classed as 'death camps':
Belson
Buchanwald
Dachau
Mauthousen
> > I think Wiesenthal has looked into this in much more depth than you or
> > I, and he says Dachau was not a death-camp
>
> Mr. Wiesenthal has earned the right to call it anything he wants.
And do you agree with his decision?
<snip more of Danny's repetition>
> > "Deprivation of religious freedom" is not on the list. At Buchenwald
> > (I understand) the Commies were allowed access to a Commie library!
>
> Jews were neither allowed to daven nor to observe dietary laws. Jews did
> not have religious freedom.
If the Jewish inmates of Dachau had been allowed to practice their
religion freely, does that mean that Dachau would have ceased to have
been a concentration camp?
And Daniel's answer is...
<snip>
> > Those WW2 'dissidents' included resistence fighters. As I say many
> > occupants of the Nazi concentration-camps were Soviet POWS who were
> > not recognised as such (another coincidence?) cos Russia had not
> > signed up to the Geneva Convention.
>
> Yawn. Guantanamo includes citizens of numerous nations, none of which
> belonged to a formal military organization. They were not there defending
> their homeland.
IYHO, what would have been the correct way for the Nazis to deal with
captured Polish pilots flying for the RAF?
BTW, we will assume they were not captured in Poland.
<snip more tiny tears from content-free young Daniel.>
Yrs,
As ever
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
Honest Nev
Main bit should have read:
--------
> > _Dachau was a concentration camp_.
> >
> > _'Gitmo' is a concentration camp_.
> >
> > Comprendhe?
> >
> > All this ' "concentrated" ' bollox (see yr previous comment) is to
> > divert from this simple fact.
>
> Mere repetition of false statements does not make them true. Proof instead
> of assertion please.
Dachau was a concentration camp. It was used to concentrate
dissidents, resistance types, Commies, anti-Nazi religious types,
unacknowledged POWS etc. in a small geographic location away from the
German population and out of the way of the German army. Those
interned were, on the whole, not allowed to leave and were forcably
detained for an indefinate period. No trials were held. They were held
incommunicado without legal redress.
'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. It is used to concentrate dissidents,
resistance types, anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc. in
a small geographic location away from the Merkin population and out of
the way of the Merkin army. Those interned are, on the whole, not
allowed to leave and are forcibly detained for an indefinate period.
No trials have been held. They are being held incommunicado without
legal redress.
--------
Anyway, I can't wait to see young Daniel shed his tiny tears about how
'Gitmo' is _undeniably_ a concentration camp.
John Rennie
It's no good, Nev. The United States is a knight in shining
white armour and can do no wrong. I've met the same blind
patriotism/nationalism before when trying to conduct reasonable
arguments with Russian young komosols. Hopeless!
Honest Nev
FuckWit, you've been 'bitch-slapped'!
BTW I agree with yr point, John.
That said, where do you stand regards 'Paki'?
dirtdog
wrote:
>"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com...
>> Danny... do one!
>
>All my girls call me that. Usually at more appropriate moments.
I'd never let any fourteen year-old talk to me like that!
Shame on you, Daniel!
<lots and lots of Daniel making oodles of unsupported assertions
before accusing his interlocutor of doing the same and using this as
an excuse to claim victory and withdraw from the thread snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
wrote:
*chortle*
Care to rub schlongs, Neville?
w00f
John Rennie
"dirtdog" <dirtdogF...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:8jufdvgefkvv6d0c5...@4ax.com...
It has become a racist term because of the way it is used and who
uses it. However many totally non-racists also use it including
President Bush who, although ignorant, is in no way a racist.
Neville 'the Jackal' FitzHerbert, esq.
Sorry if this has already been posted twice. Experiencing a few
technical problems.
> > >BTW I agree with yr point, John.
> > >
> > >That said, where do you stand regards 'Paki'?
> >
> > *chortle*
> >
> > Care to rub schlongs, Neville?
> >
> > w00f
> >
> >
>
>
> It has become a racist term because of the way it is used and who
> uses it. However many totally non-racists also use it including
> President Bush who, although ignorant, is in no way a racist.
Bush isn't a racist?
Regards 'Paki':
I don't think it's a racist term either (in the same way as you have
said 'Jap' and 'Brit' are not racist terms), as you say, it has been
appropriated as a 'racist' term used by some to refer to West Asians
in general.
_That does not mean that 'Paki' is a racist term in and of itsen._
One of my relatives is half-Ceylonese [1], and he doesn't find 'Paki'
at all offensive (suppose it depends how you say it), but his Dad was
v. v. offended if somebody called him an 'Indian'.
I suppose it's a case of 'horses for courses' if one wishes to be
offensive.
Yrs,
Nev
p.s. can you imagine the shit-storm if a UK politician used 'Paki'!?
It would be a hundred times worse than if they said 'Mick' or 'Taff'
or 'Jock' or 'Sassenach'!
But then, no one said it has to make sense.
A Planet Visitor
Ridiculous... the use of the word "Jap," has a very deep racist
connotation, dating back to WW II. It is not the fact that it is
_short_ for Japanese, that presumes to make it acceptable. It
is the context in which it is invariably used... that context being
disparaging to the Japanese. It is the same with the use of the
word "paki," which is short for Pakistani, but everyone knows
when it is used it is meant to insult. One must look to the context
to find that racist connotation, and the fact that "Brit" is a
shortened form of British, and almost never has such an insulting
connotation cannot detract from other shortened forms having
such an insulting connotation. "Mexs" is another shortened word
for Mexicans, that has a very clear intent to insult Mexicans in
a racial meaning.
It's ALL in the context. Do a search of "Mexs" and "racist" and
see what you come up with. Or "Japs" and "racist." Or "Paki"
and "racist." Of course, there are other clearly racist slurs that
do not form contractions, but that does not excuse using those
shortened forms when the meaning is clearly to insult. What
MAKES it a racist slur, is the context in which it is offered when
the shortened word is used.. "Swede" usually doesn't, "Pole"
usually doesn't, "Aussie" usually doesn't, but others USUALLY
do, and when they DO they become racist slurs.
PV
JIGSAW1695
From: A Planet Visitor abc...@zbqytr.ykq
Date: 5/31/2003 3:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <rkuhdvo039sak68sn...@4ax.com>
===============================
How about the term "Tex-Mex"?
A Planet Visitor
The argument in this particular case is NOT to defend Guantanamo,
but to argue that to presume there is a comparison between Dachau
and Guantanamo is to diminish the events surrounding Dachau.
Clearly no gas chambers are built in Guantanamo, as they were in
Dachau. Clearly there is evidence that SOME exterminations of
the Jews occurred there (obviously not to the degree of the TRUE
Death camps set outside of Germany). Clearly I see much here that
resembles the argument of euro, and supported by Ol' Racist Nev
that the DP, which executes some proven murderers, and slavery
which enslaves millions of innocent can be compared. In the latter
case, the ones saying that are hoping to make the DP look as bad
as slavery, and in the former case, Ol' Racist Nev is hoping to make
Guantanamo appear to be the same as the holocaust.
Ol' Racist Nev's words were "Dachau, Belson, Buchanwald were
concentration camps." and "_'Gitmo' is a concentration camp_."
And his most pathetic attempt to diminish the effect of those three
camps, trying to make them a _bit more bland_ with his comment
that "I must stress that Dachau, Belson, and Buchanwald were
_not_ used as death-camps for Jews." Of course he must STRESS
that, being the anti-Semite that he is.
Do YOU think that Dachau and Guantanamo are the same? See --
http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/
If not, why do I see you rather agreeing with Ol' Racist Nev?
If so, I am willing to argue the difference with you (in the limited
time left before I go on vacation). While it is rather obvious
that arguing with Ol' Racist Nev simply provides him a forum for
his further anti-Semitic (he contends the word does not hold a
specific meaning of "opposed to the Jews") ravings. I recognized
Ol' Racist Nev's racism when he first appeared here... but it is
now rather obvious that his anti-Semitic roots are much deeper
than what is usually ascribed to a racist in respect to "skin color."
PV
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
I think you meant to ask if they were similar not the same - if
they were the same they wouldn't have different names. And
yes, they do have similarities as well as disimilaries.
John Rennie
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:18:15 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> >news:g6iddvog7qf0vm3ft...@4ax.com...
> >
> >snip
> >
> >> >A disgusting, shameful chapter in U.S. history. BTW, it wasn't due to
> >their
> >> >eyes, it was due to the erroneous asusmption that their loyalty would
be
> >to
> >> >imperial Japan. Why are they "Japs" to you and not Japanese?
> >> >
> >> Because his name is Ol' Racist Nev. And he is currently being ripped a
> >> new one here.
> >
> >Having to trawl through 9kb just to find the above silly comment
> >shows that I have too much time to waste. Japs is a shorter
> >word than Japanese just as Brits is shorter than British - there is
> >no racial connotation whatsoever in the use of such a short form.
> >
> Ridiculous... the use of the word "Jap," has a very deep racist
> connotation, dating back to WW II. It is not the fact that it is
> _short_ for Japanese, that presumes to make it acceptable.
This may be the American view of the term - it isn't shared
by the Brits and as it's our language that ends that argument
:-)
It
> is the context in which it is invariably used... that context being
> disparaging to the Japanese. It is the same with the use of the
> word "paki," which is short for Pakistani, but everyone knows
> when it is used it is meant to insult.
Not everyone PV. Not President Bush who used the term
when talking about the recent troubled situation in Kashmir.
One must look to the context
> to find that racist connotation, and the fact that "Brit" is a
> shortened form of British, and almost never has such an insulting
> connotation cannot detract from other shortened forms having
> such an insulting connotation.
And then again I've seen the expression used in an insulting
manner but so what - it''s just a short form,
"Mexs" is another shortened word
> for Mexicans, that has a very clear intent to insult Mexicans in
> a racial meaning.
>
> It's ALL in the context. Do a search of "Mexs" and "racist" and
> see what you come up with. Or "Japs" and "racist." Or "Paki"
> and "racist." Of course, there are other clearly racist slurs that
> do not form contractions, but that does not excuse using those
> shortened forms when the meaning is clearly to insult. What
> MAKES it a racist slur, is the context in which it is offered when
> the shortened word is used.. "Swede" usually doesn't, "Pole"
> usually doesn't, "Aussie" usually doesn't, but others USUALLY
> do, and when they DO they become racist slurs.
>
> PV
>
It appears that anyone except the Brits regards a short form
of their nationality as an insult thus proving yet again what
a tolerant lot we Brits are.
Honest Nev
> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
> news:gr1idvkq0dbjdpq46...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:43:27 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> > Do YOU think that Dachau and Guantanamo are the same?
>
> I think you meant to ask if they were similar not the same - if
> they were the same they wouldn't have different names. And
> yes, they do have similarities as well as disimilaries.
I fear poor FuckWit doesn't know what a concentration camp is. :-(
But then, as he's inisinuated that I am a holocaust denier for
suggesting that Jews were mainly killed in death camps, what can you
do?
<snip FW's latest mitherings>
Yrs, Nev
Honest Nev
I have snipped FuckWit saying how short forms are offensive unless you
happen to be a 'Brit' [sic], even though FuckWit will no doubt explain
(given the chance) how the 'Brits' [sic] are a race [sic] descended
from Britannia [sic], just as "the Italian[s are] descended from
Romulus".
The man is a mega-thicko.
--------
>Of course I have heard "Brit" damned as a racist remark akin to using
"Paki".
Oh, come on... That's no different from Mercin, or something like
that. I know I have not even spelled it correctly, but that shows how
little it affects me. Brit is simply short for British subject. No
more offensive than calling James -- Jim. I've never heard anyone here
complain about the use of Brit... but if you find it offensive I will
not use it anymore. Just let me know. However, this seems very
pathetic and strange to me... since I see it as more of an
affectionate term. I know there are other words... that ARE offensive
toward the British, and I would not use them here, of course. [1]
-------
Naturally, I always use 'Merkin' as "an affectionate term", no doubt
many Paki-bashers use 'Paki' likewise.
In any case, FWs obviously been giving the matter some thought, as
earlier this year (09-03-2003) he stated that he had "no idea" 'how
"paki" as a term differs from "brit"'. [2]
> What MAKES it a racist slur, is the context in which it is offered when
> the shortened word is used..
I've never heard 'Japs' used to refer to anyone other than the
Japanese. So how is it 'racist'? [3]
> "Swede" usually doesn't, "Pole" usually doesn't,
Are these 'short' terms?
>"Aussie" usually doesn't,
You're soooooooo 1980s, FW: we call 'em 'Skippies' now.
<snip>
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
"No one, other than some jerk who has some anti-U.S. feelings at the
core, would claim that a Brazilian is an "American.""
A Planet Visitor
[3] BTW, what's the correct term for Japanese singular? 'Japaner'?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> Having to trawl through 9kb just to find the above silly comment
> shows that I have too much time to waste. Japs is a shorter
> word than Japanese just as Brits is shorter than British - there is
> no racial connotation whatsoever in the use of such a short form.
There is certainly no racial connotation in its use but it is generally
considered considerably more negative than "Brits". Don't ask me why.
The most derogatory word that I can think of for the English is "pom". Even
that one seems to have lost most of its sting these days and is most often
used as a term of endearment.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> On Fri, 30 May 2003 10:18:15 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>Having to trawl through 9kb just to find the above silly comment
>>shows that I have too much time to waste. Japs is a shorter
>>word than Japanese just as Brits is shorter than British - there is
>>no racial connotation whatsoever in the use of such a short form.
>>
> Ridiculous... the use of the word "Jap," has a very deep racist
> connotation, dating back to WW II.
I'd disagree about it being racist but see my reply to John regarding its
negative connotations.
> is the context in which it is invariably used... that context being
> disparaging to the Japanese.
As I said - it's negative but not necessarily racist. I regard "Japanese" as a
national rather than a racial group.
> the shortened word is used.. "Swede" usually doesn't, "Pole"
> usually doesn't,
I think that they're actually correct names for those national groups, although
I am quite prepared to be corrected.
>"Aussie" usually doesn't,
"Skippy" is a rather charming term of abuse for Anglo-Australians. It was first
coined, I believe, by Greek immigrants and has lost its sting somewhat over the
last couple of decades.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/1/2003 8:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <CywCa.1847$7E.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
In article <KoFBa.83$Rv4...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>, John Rennie wrote:
> Having to trawl through 9kb just to find the above silly comment
> shows that I have too much time to waste. Japs is a shorter
> word than Japanese just as Brits is shorter than British - there is
> no racial connotation whatsoever in the use of such a short form.
There is certainly no racial connotation in its use but it is generally
considered considerably more negative than "Brits". Don't ask me why.
The most derogatory word that I can think of for the English is "pom". Even
that one seems to have lost most of its sting these days and is most often
used as a term of endearment.
===============================
OK... you are at a pub. You have downed (I believe the proper word is "quaffed"
several pints of your favorite). A drunken fellow university male person sides
up to you, places his hand gently on your hip and whispers "I have been
admiring you for almost a month. Will you be my pom" as he tounges your ear.
Your reaction would be:
a) civilized
b) uncivilized
c) academic
d) polite
e) medieval
f) rude
e) flattered
f) Other (please define)
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <8JwCa.1854$7E.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>"Aussie" usually doesn't,
Mr Q. Z. D.
===============================
How about the somewhat dated "Nip" when refering to Jap(anese)s?
How about Remf when refering to a army clerk typist?
How about "sheep Shagger" when speaking of a Scotsman or fellow Aussie?
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
> OK... you are at a pub. You have downed (I believe the proper word is "quaffed"
> several pints of your favorite). A drunken fellow university male person sides
> up to you, places his hand gently on your hip and whispers "I have been
> admiring you for almost a month. Will you be my pom" as he tounges your ear.
You're weird, Jiggy. Really weird.
> Your reaction would be:
>
> a) civilized
> b) uncivilized
> c) academic
> d) polite
> e) medieval
> f) rude
> e) flattered
> f) Other (please define)
(d) and (f).
"Polite but firm in saying 'No'".
A Planet Visitor
>
>"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>news:gr1idvkq0dbjdpq46...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:43:27 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>>>
>> Do YOU think that Dachau and Guantanamo are the same?
>
>I think you meant to ask if they were similar not the same - if
>they were the same they wouldn't have different names. And
>yes, they do have similarities as well as disimilaries.
>
Arrrrggggg!!!! Do you intend to DEFEND the holocaust as well???
Let's look at some of the "similiarities" --
Guantanamo -- about 600 detainees... all former combatants
Dachau -- about 206,000 over the course of its existence. Huge
groups of non-combatants.
Guantanamo -- provided religious expressions. Fed regularly
provided medical care. Not required to work. Adequate living
accomodations.
Dachau -- none of the above for ANY of those aspects.
Guantamamo -- detainees are actually living in better conditions then
before their detainment, with the obvious difference that they are
being detained. For a PBS interview from Jan 2003 -- see
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june03/detainees_1-22.html
Dachau -- prisoner living conditions considered by any reputable
body to be INHUMAN... not simply deplorable... but INHUMAN.
Guananamo -- no gas chambers... no murders.
Dachau -- see my past comment below.
This is not an argument in which I intend to defend Guantanamo. What
will become of those detainees is a matter of concern to me... but I have
said before, that their relocation to where they are, probably saved the
lives of half of them, if they had been turned over to local authorities.
My point is...I am enraged that anyone would characterize it as Dachau,
or compare it in any way with anything connected to the holocaust. You
and others may certainly criticize the situation in Guantanamo, but to
compare it in any way with the holocaust is an insult to the holocaust,
and not to Guantanamo, and the U.S. keeping those detainees. You
DIMINISH the scop of the holocaust to an insignificant speck in any
such comparison, insulting each and every VICTIM of that event which
can be compared to no other in recorded history in scope and
methodology... making murder an assembly-line process. I will tell
you frankly.. I consider anyone who expects to compare Guantanamo
to the Nazi concentration camps is intending to take the first step toward
holocaust denial. No longer arguing that Guantanamo is so bad... but
that Dachau was _not so bad_.
A Planet Visitor
Too bad that the intolerant lot seems to have gravitated in large
part onto AADP. I have always (and you know this has been
stated by me before), held the British in high regard. Yes.. you
are tolerant.. yes.. you have breeding. yes... you've chosen your
friends wisely. yes... you have a civilized and refined society.
And yes... it seems every SOB who is NOT one of those I speak
of is presently posting to AADP. Of course... not you, John...
you're simply brilliant... SLURP...SLURP... SLURP . :-)
Okay... a bit serious... IMHO... obviously "Merkins" IS an insult,
because of the true meaning of the word. And I find it disgusting
of the OED to have incorporated it into the language, but I admit
that this was rather forced on them by those "tolerant" Brits you
speak of, who sometimes are intolerant of others.
While "Yank" is seen by me as having no intended insult at all.
Some Nationalities do not even have shortened forms, such as
Americans, Italians, or Germans, so usually when they ARE
attempted to be contracted they become distorted into other
words that MEAN those Nationalities but are clearly intended
as insults. I don't find "Yank" to be among them. While "Yankee"
very clearly in many contexts is clearly meant as an insult,
usually being used as an adjective accompanied by a noun
of some animal. The thing about Americans is that some might
feel they are safe saying anything, and could never be accused
of racism, because it is argued that an American is not a race,
in ANY respect, even the most liberal, unless one speaks of a
native American.
PV
>
A Planet Visitor
>"John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<E7aCa.174$784.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
>> "A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
>> news:gr1idvkq0dbjdpq46...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 30 May 2003 19:43:27 +0100, "John Rennie" <j.re...@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> > Do YOU think that Dachau and Guantanamo are the same?
>>
>> I think you meant to ask if they were similar not the same - if
>> they were the same they wouldn't have different names. And
>> yes, they do have similarities as well as disimilaries.
>
>I fear poor FuckWit doesn't know what a concentration camp is. :-(
>
I fear you do not know what the holocaust was. Or worse yet..
you do... but don't care.
>But then, as he's inisinuated that I am a holocaust denier for
>suggesting that Jews were mainly killed in death camps, what can you
>do?
Of course you're a holocaust denier. Who do you think you're
shitting? Who else would compare Dachau, which processed
206,000 humans, both combatants and non-combatants, Jews
and non-Jews, in which gas chambers exists having the intention
of mass extermination, with Guantanamo, housing 600 detainees,
all former combatants, given adequate food, religious freedom,
and no work? ONLY a holocaust denier would attempt
to diminish the scope of the holocaust in such a manner.
Only a holocaust denier.
PV
>
>Ol' Racist Nev
Ol' Racist Nev's murder threat against PV --
"stay the fuck out of Derbyshire, scum, else you'll be swimming in
the Erewash Canal with all the other old boots."
Ol' Racist Nev - March 30, 2003
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=a5ec705.0304300639.5cfabaf4%40posting.google.com
A Planet Visitor
All in the usage... It CAN be used as an insult, but it hardly ever is,
having fallen into the vernacular, and even advertised in restaurants as
food served in "Tex-Mex" style. But I don't see "Mexs" standing
alone as hardly ever being USED unless it has some insulting
meaning.
PV
danh
Finally you've made a attempt, however poor, to justify yourself. The point
you're entirely missing wrt Guantanamo is that the prisoners are _not_
"dissidents, resistance types, anti-US religious types" at all, but rather,
combatants against U.S. forces who were lucky enough to have been captured
and not killed. Further, 600 prisoners can hardly be labelled a
"concentration".
When we began this "dialog", I indicated that Guantanamo is current a prison
camp, albeit one wherein prisoners enjoy religious freedom and generous
rations. What's the problem with recognizing that it's a prison camp and
why are you trying to force it into a distinct pattern to make a superfluous
point - that has no merit in the first place?
> >It's no good, Nev. The United States is a knight in shining
> >white armour and can do no wrong. I've met the same blind
> >patriotism/nationalism before when trying to conduct reasonable
> >arguments with Russian young komosols. Hopeless!
Thanks John. As much heat as I've taken from _Americans_ on the issue of
patriotism, it's refreshing to be labelled such (though mistaken). Where in
any of my words did you fantasize your conclusions? Are you suggesting
Dachau and Guantanamo are comparable? A breath of reality would do much to
clear your head.
> The argument in this particular case is NOT to defend Guantanamo,
> but to argue that to presume there is a comparison between Dachau
> and Guantanamo is to diminish the events surrounding Dachau.
> Clearly no gas chambers are built in Guantanamo, as they were in
> Dachau. Clearly there is evidence that SOME exterminations of
> the Jews occurred there (obviously not to the degree of the TRUE
> Death camps set outside of Germany).
We got into this argument because of my use of the word "death camp" which
was accurate though not intended to be historically precise in the same way
that professional historians and survivors has distinguished death camps
from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered. It's
puerile foolishness akin to arguing the number of angels on the head of a
pin.
[...]
Honest Nev
<snip>
> >I fear poor FuckWit doesn't know what a concentration camp is. :-(
> >
> I fear you do not know what the holocaust was. Or worse yet..
> you do... but don't care.
FuckWit, IYHO, is 'Gitmo; a concentration camp?
> >But then, as he's inisinuated that I am a holocaust denier for
> >suggesting that Jews were mainly killed in death camps, what can you
> >do?
>
> Of course you're a holocaust denier.
Cos I say Dachau wasn't a death-camp? That's me, Simon Wiesenthal, and
every reputable Holocaust historian.
Ho hum.
"Another misconception which they have tried to dispel is that the
bulk of the extermination of the Jews took place within Germany itself
-- or, more properly, within the "Altreich," the prewar boundaries of
Germany. While there were indeed gas chambers and homicidal gassings
in the Altreich, they were on a much smaller scale than the gassings
in the camps in Nazi-occupied Poland, such as Belzec, Sobibor,
Treblinka, Kulmhof/Chelmno, Maidanek/Majdanek, and Auschwitz-Birkenau.
About three million people, almost exclusively Jews, were gassed to
death in those camps. Camp gassings in the Altreich probably claimed
the lives of only a few thousand people, almost certainly under ten
thousand. Aside from "small-scale" gassing in places like Dachau,
Gusen, Neuengamme, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, and Ravensbrück, and
Brandenburg, the site of the first gas chamber, it was largely
confined to the "euthanasia" program, which did claim the lives of
over a hundred thousand people, mostly non-Jews. " [1]
Go on, tell me the 'Nizkor Project' are Holocaust deniers.
FW, you are a daft twat.
<snip FW praising 'Gitmo'>
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
John Rennie
interpretation of just what sort of establishment/camp/prison
etc you consider Guantanamo to be?
JIGSAW1695
>Date: 6/2/2003 11:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <NXJCa.649$JX5...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
>
>Perhaps, PV, you would like to give your own
>interpretation of just what sort of establishment/camp/prison
>etc you consider Guantanamo to be?
Guantanamo is a US Naval base.
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > >> Dachau was a concentration camp. It was used to concentrate
> > >> dissidents, resistance types, Commies, anti-Nazi religious types,
> > >> unacknowledged POWS etc. in a small geographic location away from the
> > >> German population and out of the way of the German army. Those
> > >> interned were, on the whole, not allowed to leave and were forcably
> > >> detained for an indefinate period. No trials were held. They were held
> > >> incommunicado without legal redress.
> > >>
> > >> 'Gitmo' is a concentration camp. It is used to concentrate dissidents,
> > >> resistance types, anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc. in
> > >> a small geographic location away from the Merkin population and out of
> > >> the way of the Merkin army. Those interned are, on the whole, not
> > >> allowed to leave and are forcibly detained for an indefinate period.
> > >> No trials have been held. They are being held incommunicado without
> > >> legal redress.
>
> Finally you've made a attempt, however poor, to justify yourself.
ROTFLMFAO!!!!! And you picked fault with one part of this 'poor
attempt', which was:
> The point you're entirely missing wrt Guantanamo is that the prisoners are
> _not_ "dissidents, resistance types, anti-US religious types" at all,
Of course, they are, young Daniel.
"dissident noun [C]
a person who publicly disagrees with and criticizes their government"
[1]
This would include those Taliban, etc. who "publicly disagrees with
and criticizes their [sic] [US imposed] government [sic] [of
Afghanistan]."
Let's face it the Leader of the Free World (LOL!) doesn't want them
walking about, does he?
As to 'resistance types':
"4 the Resistance
an organization that secretly fights against an enemy that has taken
control of its country" [2]
As to 'anti-US religious types', I think we both know who I am talking
about, don't we?
> but rather, combatants against U.S. forces who were lucky enough to have been > captured and not killed.
I hope you're being sarcastic, Danny. Next time somebody invades the
US, I hope you are as 'lucky'.
> Further, 600 prisoners can hardly be labelled a "concentration".
"concentration noun [C][U]
1 a large number or amount of something in the same place" [3]
> When we began this "dialog", I indicated that Guantanamo is current a prison
> camp, albeit one wherein prisoners enjoy religious freedom and generous
> rations.
1. A well-fed concentration camps is still a concentration camp.
2. How do you know what's going on at 'Gitmo'?
3. From what has been disclosed about the camp, we know the inmates
have endured extremely bad conditions, including sensory-deprivation,
torture, communal outdoor cages, etc..
Here's them pictures again, Dan, look at their Happy Faces!
http://www.geocities.com/torturevictim/cuba.html
4. Children are being detained indefinately without
trial/incommunicado at 'Gitmo' for fucks sake, Danny, how is that
right?
5. Fifteen suicide attempts and counting... now how do you commit
suicide in a high-security camp such as 'Gitmo'? You've really got to
want, young Daniel. It's no fun being tortured (in Merkin
double-speak: 'interrogated') by the CIA.
> What's the problem with recognizing that it's a prison camp and
> why are you trying to force it into a distinct pattern to make a superfluous
> point - that has no merit in the first place?
What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You see, to
me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried and
convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in yr
average US prison?
<snip>
> We got into this argument because of my use of the word "death camp" which
> was accurate though not intended to be historically precise in the same way
> that professional historians and survivors has distinguished death camps
> from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered.
Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered. Nor
did the Nazis invent concentration camps.
You do realise this, don't you?
> It's puerile foolishness akin to arguing the number of angels on the head of a
> pin.
There are no angels in the heads of pins, dim-boy.
Yrs,
Nev.
> [...]
[1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22613&dict=CALD
[2] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=67233&dict=CALD
[3] http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=15856&dict=CALD
danh
[...]
> > The point you're entirely missing wrt Guantanamo is that the prisoners
are
> > _not_ "dissidents, resistance types, anti-US religious types" at all,
>
> Of course, they are, young Daniel.
>
> "dissident noun [C]
> a person who publicly disagrees with and criticizes their government"
> [1]
>
> This would include those Taliban, etc. who "publicly disagrees with
> and criticizes their [sic] [US imposed] government [sic] [of
> Afghanistan]."
Your timeline is faulty. The prisoners were captured during combat
operations in Afghanistan. They are not citizens of the US and they were
hardly dissidents from the Taliban (like _they_ got to live, anyway!). In
fact, many weren't even citizens of Afghanistan.
> Let's face it the Leader of the Free World (LOL!) doesn't want them
> walking about, does he?
So "dissidents" falls like a rotten tomato.
> As to 'resistance types':
>
> "4 the Resistance
>
> an organization that secretly fights against an enemy that has taken
> control of its country" [2]
Try to keep the timeline straight - it will help keep you from embarassing
yourself again. The enemy was the Taliban who failed to relinquish Al Qaeda
members after the U.S. was attacked. You may recall that incident in
between your giggles of joy.
> As to 'anti-US religious types', I think we both know who I am talking
> about, don't we?
No, who? Freedom of religion is a basic tenet of this country. We don't
object to anyone holding or not holding any silly
metaphysical/non-metaphysical belief and praying or not praying to whatever
talismans they choose. We do object and respond when such beliefs translate
into dead Americans, especially on our soil.
> > but rather, combatants against U.S. forces who were lucky enough to have
been > captured and not killed.
>
> I hope you're being sarcastic, Danny. Next time somebody invades the
> US, I hope you are as 'lucky'.
Compare conditions to the "Hanoi Hilton" or any of the POW camps of the last
century. Those in Guantanamo are lucky by comparison.
> > Further, 600 prisoners can hardly be labelled a "concentration".
>
> "concentration noun [C][U]
> 1 a large number or amount of something in the same place" [3]
Lessee, 600 versus 200,000+. Find your second grade teacher and have her
tell you which one is the (vastly) larger.
> > When we began this "dialog", I indicated that Guantanamo is current a
prison
> > camp, albeit one wherein prisoners enjoy religious freedom and generous
> > rations.
>
> 1. A well-fed concentration camps is still a concentration camp.
> 2. How do you know what's going on at 'Gitmo'?
Same way you do.
> 3. From what has been disclosed about the camp, we know the inmates
> have endured extremely bad conditions, including sensory-deprivation,
> torture, communal outdoor cages, etc..
>
> Here's them pictures again, Dan, look at their Happy Faces!
>
> http://www.geocities.com/torturevictim/cuba.html
Try to get a source that's recognized to report objectively. You seem to
have a habit of taking things out of context.
> 4. Children are being detained indefinately without
> trial/incommunicado at 'Gitmo' for fucks sake, Danny, how is that
> right?
I don't think it is, and have said so. And not just the children.
> 5. Fifteen suicide attempts and counting
Prove it. Provide a reliable source. Any successful? If not, maybe the
"attempts" weren't serious ones.
... now how do you commit
> suicide in a high-security camp such as 'Gitmo'? You've really got to
> want, young Daniel. It's no fun being tortured (in Merkin
> double-speak: 'interrogated') by the CIA.
>
> > What's the problem with recognizing that it's a prison camp and
> > why are you trying to force it into a distinct pattern to make a
superfluous
> > point - that has no merit in the first place?
>
> What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You see, to
> me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried and
> convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
It can also be a place pending trial. All the prisoners were captured
during hostilities in Afghanistan. By definition, there is reason to detain
them.
> A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
> conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
> forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
> period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
>
> Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in yr
> average US prison?
Don't know. Do you? When were you last in a U.S. prison? When were you
last in Guantanamo?
> <snip>
>
> > We got into this argument because of my use of the word "death camp"
which
> > was accurate though not intended to be historically precise in the same
way
> > that professional historians and survivors has distinguished death camps
> > from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered.
>
> Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
Baloney. Concentration camps as perfected by the Nazis murdered by neglect,
abuse and overwork and malnutrition as much as by bullets, beating and
gassings. Note than none of these have occured in Guantanamo.
Nor
> did the Nazis invent concentration camps.
No one said they did - that dubious honor belongs to Britain.
> You do realise this, don't you?
>
> > It's puerile foolishness akin to arguing the number of angels on the
head of a
> > pin.
>
> There are no angels in the heads of pins, dim-boy.
Are you _that_ ignorant that this reference eludes your understanding? Are
you thick, or what?
Honest Nev
<snip>
> How about the somewhat dated "Nip" when refering to Jap(anese)s?
>
> How about Remf when refering to a army clerk typist?
>
> How about "sheep Shagger" when speaking of a Scotsman or fellow Aussie?
A Scotchman? Are you sure, Jiggy? You are almost certainly confusing
them with the Taffies.
'Sheep Shagger' is not very offensive to yr average Skippy, as many
are openly in loving relationships with sheep. It'd be like trying to
offend a Po' White Trash Merkin by calling him a 'Mother Fucker'...
no, much better to call a Skippy a 'Roo Fucker' as any insinuation
that he'd fuck an 'aboriginal' is deeply offensive to the Skippy
psyche.
Anyhow, let's stop this talk of bestiality before FW cums in his pants
and produces another eulogy in favour of zoophiles and their hobbies.
Yrs,
Nev
Cerberus
"Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:8JwCa.1854$7E.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
: In article <rkuhdvo039sak68sn...@4ax.com>, A Planet Visitor{snip}
: >"Aussie" usually doesn't,
:
: "Skippy" is a rather charming term of abuse for Anglo-Australians. It was
first
: coined, I believe, by Greek immigrants and has lost its sting somewhat
over the
: last couple of decades.
I have noticed an increase in use of the term 'skippy'. Personally I don't
find it insulting at all. I have noticed Effie and her family use it a lot
in the rather poor knock-off of the 'Kumars at number 46' currently showing
on one of the networks. 'Greeks on the Roof' I think it is called. The one
that got me was the Yugoslav guy called 'fucken, fucken' in the 'Wog Boys'.
Laffed for days I did. Used to know a guy exactly like him.
I don't know if it is possible to really insult the Aussies is it? I can't
think of anything verbal that would even remotely come close to getting me
upset. Must have something to do with not giving too much of a fuck about,
too much. Unlike some others that walk around with their heads so far up
their own arses they don't know which way is up.
Egalitarian Societies like Australia are often hoped for and mistakenly
claimed, but they are few and far between.
People like this make me angry though.
url:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6535390%255E2703,00.html
--
WooF w00f WooF
Cerberus
"Cerberus" <Cerberus(nospam)@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:3edc1...@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
:
: "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
As an addenda to my previous post, here is some more light reading on the
same subject.
url:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6509170%255E2703,00.html
--
WooF w00f WooF
Cerberus
news:<20030601204320...@mb-m03.aol.com>...
:
: <snip>
:
: > How about the somewhat dated "Nip" when refering to Jap(anese)s?
: >
: > How about Remf when refering to a army clerk typist?
: >
: > How about "sheep Shagger" when speaking of a Scotsman or fellow Aussie?
:
: A Scotchman? Are you sure, Jiggy? You are almost certainly confusing
: them with the Taffies.
Jiggy has absolutely no idea what a 'Taffy' is, I'll wager, just as he
confuses the Scotsman with the Taffy, so he confuses the Kiwi with the
Aussie. Kiwis are world famous and renowned sheep shaggers. Aussies tend to
prefer more exotic animal life. If you have never been rove to advantage up
an angry old man roo, you havn't lived. The ride of a lifetime. The only
trouble is 'getting off' in mid flight. Plus the tail gets in the way a bit.
Emus are much more docile. You have to be a fast runner though.
{snip}
: no, much better to call a Skippy a 'Roo Fucker' as any insinuation
: that he'd fuck an 'aboriginal' is deeply offensive to the Skippy
: psyche.
Your fixation with different races is becoming a bit evident here 'Nev. Not
exactly racist in this sentence, not quite, but close. I will ignore your
reference to 'aboriginals' and just call it the bleating of an ignoramus,
which you tend to be when speak out on the subject of race.
Oh my goodness gracious me, 'Nev, what a silly buggar you are. Tell me, did
you get a smack from an Aussie for being a dickhead sometime in the past?,
or are you one of the nine out of ten British applicants that fail to
qualify for emigration to Valhalla? Do tell.
--
WooF w00f WooF
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
>
> "Mr Q. Z. Diablo" <sa...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:8JwCa.1854$7E.2...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>: "Skippy" is a rather charming term of abuse for Anglo-Australians. It was
> first
>: coined, I believe, by Greek immigrants and has lost its sting somewhat
> over the
>: last couple of decades.
>
> I have noticed an increase in use of the term 'skippy'.
I heard it lots in high school. After that it seemed to disappear. Perhaps
that was because I saw a whole heap less Greeks after finishing high school.
> Personally I don't
> find it insulting at all. I have noticed Effie and her family use it a lot
> in the rather poor knock-off of the 'Kumars at number 46' currently showing
> on one of the networks. 'Greeks on the Roof' I think it is called.
Missed it. Then again, I miss most things apart from The Bill (still
superb in its soap-opera incarnation) and the occasional look at Queer as
Folk (painfully well-observed soap-opera).
> I don't know if it is possible to really insult the Aussies is it? I can't
> think of anything verbal that would even remotely come close to getting me
> upset. Must have something to do with not giving too much of a fuck about,
> too much. Unlike some others that walk around with their heads so far up
> their own arses they don't know which way is up.
It's the only thing that I will contend is definitely a part of the
Australian character - the slowness to rise to verbal bait. I think that it
is more than a bit related to the laconic sense of humour that permeates
the nations psyche.
> Egalitarian Societies like Australia are often hoped for and mistakenly
> claimed, but they are few and far between.
Australia is at least on a par with the USA in that regard.
> People like this make me angry though.
>
> url:http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6535390%255E2703,00.html
Yes. A cunt through-and-through.
Honest Nev
> > > The point you're entirely missing wrt Guantanamo is that the prisoners
> are
> > > _not_ "dissidents, resistance types, anti-US religious types" at all,
> >
> > Of course, they are, young Daniel.
> >
> > "dissident noun [C]
> > a person who publicly disagrees with and criticizes their government"
> > [1]
> >
> > This would include those Taliban, etc. who "publicly disagrees with
> > and criticizes their [sic] [US imposed] government [sic] [of
> > Afghanistan]."
>
> Your timeline is faulty.
Danny, when were the first detainees brought to 'Gitmo'?
> The prisoners were captured during combat operations in Afghanistan.
That's right, Daniel, they were _forcibly removed_ from Afghanistan.
> They are not citizens of the US and they were
The US regime has made quite sure of that by not allowing them to set
foot on in the US, instead they are confined (without any rights
whatsoever under Merkin law) in US-occupied Cuba. That was done on
purpose, Danny.
Hardly the actions of a honourable state.
> hardly dissidents from the Taliban (like _they_ got to live, anyway!). In
> fact, many weren't even citizens of Afghanistan.
Many "weren't"?. Poor Danny makes another past-tense Freudian slip.
> > Let's face it the Leader of the Free World (LOL!) doesn't want them
> > walking about, does he?
>
> So "dissidents" falls like a rotten tomato.
Danny, they're not all 'dissidents', but many are, others are
unacknowledged POWs, others anti-US religious types, others resistance
types, and I daresay more than a few unfortunates who have been
dragged off the streets of Kabul for looking 'anti-American [sic]'.
> > As to 'resistance types':
> >
> > "4 the Resistance
> >
> > an organization that secretly fights against an enemy that has taken
> > control of its country" [2]
>
> Try to keep the timeline straight - it will help keep you from embarassing
> yourself again. The enemy was the Taliban who failed to relinquish Al Qaeda
> members after the U.S. was attacked.
Why should they? You had/have no evidence.
The Taliban and their supporters fought "against an enemy that has
taken control of its country"... do you not agree?
And look what a fuck-up you made of it.
> You may recall that incident in between your giggles of joy.
I don't find the deaths of civilians to be funny, but then that goes
for Merkin civilians and Afghani/Iraqi civilians alike. If you think
targeting the WTC was bad, what do you think of Merkins _deliberately_
bombing civilian TV stations and restaurants? If you think that those
US servicemen who dropped those bombs are any better than those who
flew those planes, you, sir, are morally a complete fuckwit.
> > As to 'anti-US religious types', I think we both know who I am talking
> > about, don't we?
>
> No, who? Freedom of religion is a basic tenet of this country. We don't
> object to anyone holding or not holding any silly
> metaphysical/non-metaphysical belief and praying or not praying to whatever
> talismans they choose. We do object and respond when such beliefs translate
> into dead Americans, especially on our soil.
Danny, would you label anti-US Islamic-fundamentalists as 'enemies of
the state'?
> > > but rather, combatants against U.S. forces who were lucky enough to have
> been > captured and not killed.
> >
> > I hope you're being sarcastic, Danny. Next time somebody invades the
> > US, I hope you are as 'lucky'.
>
> Compare conditions to the "Hanoi Hilton" or any of the POW camps of the last
> century. Those in Guantanamo are lucky by comparison.
As I say, let's hope you may be so lucky.
> > > Further, 600 prisoners can hardly be labelled a "concentration".
> >
> > "concentration noun [C][U]
> > 1 a large number or amount of something in the same place" [3]
>
> Lessee, 600 versus 200,000+. Find your second grade teacher and have her
> tell you which one is the (vastly) larger.
Danny, Storsien in Sweden held about "300-370 communists, syndicalists
and pacifists {who} where kept during the winter 1939-1940." [1]
Now I don't know enough about the terms under which the commies et el
were detained to know whether I would class it as a
concentration-camp, but if they were forcibly detained without trial
and incommunicado, I would say that it was.
> > > When we began this "dialog", I indicated that Guantanamo is current a
> prison
> > > camp, albeit one wherein prisoners enjoy religious freedom and generous
> > > rations.
> >
> > 1. A well-fed concentration camps is still a concentration camp.
> > 2. How do you know what's going on at 'Gitmo'?
>
> Same way you do.
But Danny, all I know is what's got out. And that's bad enough. You
believe what you are told and I'll believe what I see, okay?
> > 3. From what has been disclosed about the camp, we know the inmates
> > have endured extremely bad conditions, including sensory-deprivation,
> > torture, communal outdoor cages, etc..
> >
> > Here's them pictures again, Dan, look at their Happy Faces!
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/torturevictim/cuba.html
>
> Try to get a source that's recognized to report objectively.
Not too interested in the report. I wanted to show you the pictures.
> You seem to have a habit of taking things out of context.
Eh? Danny, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be photographed... and do
you think that yr government would have admitted what they had done
_without_ those photos being in the public domain?
> > 4. Children are being detained indefinately without
> > trial/incommunicado at 'Gitmo' for fucks sake, Danny, how is that
> > right?
>
> I don't think it is, and have said so. And not just the children.
Indeed, you have, which at least puts you one notch up on Ricardo
'Kill em all, including the kids' Jackson and the FuckWit.
> > 5. Fifteen suicide attempts and counting
>
> Prove it. Provide a reliable source. Any successful? If not, maybe the
> "attempts" weren't serious ones.
"Four detainees in the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay have attempted
suicide in the past three weeks, the Pentagon has confirmed.
It brings the total of serious suicide attempts in the camp, which
holds more than 600 Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects captured during the
war in Afghanistan, to 14 in the past year.
The most serious attempt was on 16 January, when a detainee was found
hanging in his cell before a guard rescued him. He remains in a stable
but serious condition."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2733397.stm
> ... now how do you commit
> > suicide in a high-security camp such as 'Gitmo'? You've really got to
> > want, young Daniel. It's no fun being tortured (in Merkin
> > double-speak: 'interrogated') by the CIA.
> >
> > > What's the problem with recognizing that it's a prison camp and
> > > why are you trying to force it into a distinct pattern to make a
> superfluous
> > > point - that has no merit in the first place?
> >
> > What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You see, to
> > me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried and
> > convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
>
> It can also be a place pending trial.
Yes, once you've been charged.
> All the prisoners were captured during hostilities in Afghanistan. By
> definition, there is reason to detain them.
Are you sure you want to say that, Daniel?
> > A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
> > conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
> > forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
> > period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
> >
> > Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in yr
> > average US prison?
>
> Don't know. Do you? When were you last in a U.S. prison? When were you
> last in Guantanamo?
TRANSLATION: "You are right, Nev. I'm a fucking twat, aren't I?"
> > <snip>
> >
> > > We got into this argument because of my use of the word "death camp"
> which
> > > was accurate though not intended to be historically precise in the same
> way
> > > that professional historians and survivors has distinguished death camps
> > > from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered.
> >
> > Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
>
> Baloney.
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
concentration camps are designed to exterminate the interned, or to
engage them in forced labor, while others are designed merely for
confinement." [1]
> Concentration camps as perfected by the Nazis murdered by neglect,
> abuse and overwork and malnutrition as much as by bullets, beating and
> gassings. Note than none of these have occured in Guantanamo.
No neglect and abuse at 'Gitmo'?
"It is a regime of total control; of 30 minutes spent outside a cell
per week; of shackles and interrogations; of starvation and suicides;
of the threat of the 'cooler box'; of being trussed up and carted to
hospital. Many inmates have gone on hunger strike; 34 have attempted
suicide or harmed themselves. Others have developed serious mental
illnesses." [2]
And that's just what's got out!
> Nor did the Nazis invent concentration camps.
>
> No one said they did - that dubious honor belongs to Britain.
Well... we christened them, _you_ invented them:
"The first large-scale confinement of a specific ethnic group in
detention centers began in the summer of 1838, when President Jackson
ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by
rounding up the Cherokee into prison camps before relocating them.
These camps were also not extermination camps, but were also noted for
their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high
mortality rates. Ultimately, this culminated in the Trail of Tears."
[1]
> > You do realise this, don't you?
> >
> > > It's puerile foolishness akin to arguing the number of angels on the
> head of a
> > > pin.
> >
> > There are no angels in the heads of pins, dim-boy.
>
> Are you _that_ ignorant that this reference eludes your understanding? Are
> you thick, or what?
Only somebody dim enough to suggest that 'Gitmo' isn't a concentration
camp (new arrivals all the time BTW) would wonder about how many are
angels on the head of a pin. You are very dim, Daniel.
Now you forget about them nasty men on US-occupied Cuba, who cares if
they are being detained illegally or tortured? And who cares about the
Iraqazoids without electricity, enough food or anything resembling law
and order, and possibly no legs, thanks to the oil-greedy Merkins?
Just kiss goodnight to yr pictures of Uncle Donald and Uncle George
(maybe a prayer for yr buddy King T*ny?), snuggle up to Mister Bear in
yr nice silk pajamas (made by children in a SE Asia sweatshop) and...
sleep tight, Merkin.
Nev
[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camps
[2] http://www.observer.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,825197,00.html
Rev. Don Kool
Honest Nev wrote:
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote...
[...snip...]
>>Try to keep the timeline straight - it will help keep you from embarassing
>>yourself again. The enemy was the Taliban who failed to relinquish Al Qaeda
>>members after the U.S. was attacked.
>
>
> Why should they? You had/have no evidence.
They found out why.
> The Taliban and their supporters fought "against an enemy that has
> taken control of its country"... do you not agree?
Afghanistan wasn't the Taliban's country. Afghanistan belongs to the
Afghans who are quite happy that the Taliban is gone.
> And look what a fuck-up you made of it.
Yeah; soccer played in the soccer stadium instead of the murdering and
torturing of innocents. The return of free speech and freedom of
religion. What a "fuck-up [sic]".
[...remainder of Nev's fantasies snipped...]
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Don
--
*************************** Q: How many frenchmen does it take
* Rev. Don McDonald, SCNA * to defend Paris?
* Baltimore, MD * A: No one knows, it's never been tried.
***************************
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/oldno7/TheFrench.mpg
Reluctant Yamaha YZF-R1 Owner
John Rennie
Nice one, Nev. I know comparisons are odious but
compare the suicide rate in the notorious Changi Japanese
POW camp (Singapore) during WWII where several
thousand British, Australian soldiers were confined for
three years. I believe there were just three suicides
during that time. (Source: The Naked Island - Russell
Brandon) We all know the Japanese guards
were no angels so just how badly are the Guantanamo
'detainees' being treated? I think this whole ghastly
episode has done as much to lose American credibility
and good will as her illegal war on Iraq.
danh
[...]
> > So "dissidents" falls like a rotten tomato.
>
> Danny, they're not all 'dissidents',
So, finally cornered, you agree. Thanks.
[...]
> > Try to keep the timeline straight - it will help keep you from
embarassing
> > yourself again. The enemy was the Taliban who failed to relinquish Al
Qaeda
> > members after the U.S. was attacked.
>
> Why should they? You had/have no evidence.
>
> The Taliban and their supporters fought "against an enemy that has
> taken control of its country"... do you not agree?
Once again, you strip a circumstance of its context and try to make a
foolish point with it. The Taliban was asked to turn over the Al Qaeda
members and refused to do so, repeatedly. It was the U.S. intent to break
Al Qaeda and any confederates masquerading as a legitimate government. We
did so, appropriately, IMO.
> And look what a fuck-up you made of it.
Al Qaeda was, at a minimum, disrupted from its activities. It also received
reciprocal treatment for its murderous efforts. The Taliban (recall the
many, many offenses it committed) could have remained in power had they
complied with the U.S. request to give up Al Qaeda, but instead, they chose
to fight. Not an especially bright idea to get into a heads-up
confrontation with a determined super-power, but they received what they
wished for, and now freedom of religion and speech have returned to the
country.
> > You may recall that incident in between your giggles of joy.
>
> I don't find the deaths of civilians to be funny, but then that goes
> for Merkin civilians and Afghani/Iraqi civilians alike. If you think
> targeting the WTC was bad, what do you think of Merkins _deliberately_
> bombing civilian TV stations and restaurants?
We don't deliberately target civilians.
If you think that those
> US servicemen who dropped those bombs are any better than those who
> flew those planes, you, sir, are morally a complete fuckwit.
If that's your opinion, then it's a badge of honor, so little value does
your opinion hold.
> > > As to 'anti-US religious types', I think we both know who I am talking
> > > about, don't we?
> >
> > No, who? Freedom of religion is a basic tenet of this country. We
don't
> > object to anyone holding or not holding any silly
> > metaphysical/non-metaphysical belief and praying or not praying to
whatever
> > talismans they choose. We do object and respond when such beliefs
translate
> > into dead Americans, especially on our soil.
>
> Danny, would you label anti-US Islamic-fundamentalists as 'enemies of
> the state'?
No. Beliefs don't amount to a reason to fight, actions do. Any fool
anywhere can hold any silly belief they want, so long as they don't carry
out attacks against the U.S. Once that line is crossed however, I'm not
overly interested in whining from their apologists.
[...]
> > Lessee, 600 versus 200,000+. Find your second grade teacher and have
her
> > tell you which one is the (vastly) larger.
>
> Danny, Storsien in Sweden held about "300-370 communists, syndicalists
> and pacifists {who} where kept during the winter 1939-1940." [1]
>
> Now I don't know enough
That's obvious.
about the terms under which the commies et el
> were detained to know whether I would class it as a
> concentration-camp, but if they were forcibly detained without trial
> and incommunicado, I would say that it was.
You've never allowed your ignorance to interfere with your foolish beliefs
before - why start now.
> > > > When we began this "dialog", I indicated that Guantanamo is current
a
> > prison
> > > > camp, albeit one wherein prisoners enjoy religious freedom and
generous
> > > > rations.
> > >
> > > 1. A well-fed concentration camps is still a concentration camp.
> > > 2. How do you know what's going on at 'Gitmo'?
> >
> > Same way you do.
>
> But Danny, all I know is what's got out. And that's bad enough. You
> believe what you are told and I'll believe what I see, okay?
You have a truly warped notion of what and how information is acquired.
[...]
> Not too interested in the report. I wanted to show you the pictures.
"Not too interested" in anything that doesn't support your
already-established view.
> > You seem to have a habit of taking things out of context.
>
> Eh? Danny, if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be photographed... and do
> you think that yr government would have admitted what they had done
> _without_ those photos being in the public domain?
>
> > > 4. Children are being detained indefinately without
> > > trial/incommunicado at 'Gitmo' for fucks sake, Danny, how is that
> > > right?
> >
> > I don't think it is, and have said so. And not just the children.
>
> Indeed, you have, which at least puts you one notch up on Ricardo
> 'Kill em all, including the kids' Jackson and the FuckWit.
Your efforts to suck up to me will come to naught. I may strongly disagree
at times with both PV and Jackson, but they're honest.
> > > 5. Fifteen suicide attempts and counting
> >
> > Prove it. Provide a reliable source. Any successful? If not, maybe
the
> > "attempts" weren't serious ones.
>
> "Four detainees in the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay have attempted
> suicide in the past three weeks, the Pentagon has confirmed.
>
> It brings the total of serious suicide attempts in the camp, which
> holds more than 600 Taleban and al-Qaeda suspects captured during the
> war in Afghanistan, to 14 in the past year.
>
> The most serious attempt was on 16 January, when a detainee was found
> hanging in his cell before a guard rescued him. He remains in a stable
> but serious condition."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2733397.stm
Thanks - do you think they know no virgins are waiting for them?
> > ... now how do you commit
> > > suicide in a high-security camp such as 'Gitmo'? You've really got to
> > > want, young Daniel. It's no fun being tortured (in Merkin
> > > double-speak: 'interrogated') by the CIA.
> > >
> > > > What's the problem with recognizing that it's a prison camp and
> > > > why are you trying to force it into a distinct pattern to make a
> > superfluous
> > > > point - that has no merit in the first place?
> > >
> > > What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You see, to
> > > me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried and
> > > convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
> >
> > It can also be a place pending trial.
>
> Yes, once you've been charged.
No - _before_ being charged. Why don't you know anything?
> > All the prisoners were captured during hostilities in Afghanistan. By
> > definition, there is reason to detain them.
>
> Are you sure you want to say that, Daniel?
I'll say it again - there is good reason to detain those captured during
hostilities in Afghanistan.
> > > A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
> > > conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
> > > forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
> > > period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
> > >
> > > Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in yr
> > > average US prison?
> >
> > Don't know. Do you? When were you last in a U.S. prison? When were
you
> > last in Guantanamo?
>
> TRANSLATION: "You are right, Nev. I'm a fucking twat, aren't I?"
You really _are_ a nitwit! What do you think you're "right" about - all you
did was ask a question, to which I don't have the answer and neither do you.
Maybe FT for short would suit you as a moniker.
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > We got into this argument because of my use of the word "death camp"
> > which
> > > > was accurate though not intended to be historically precise in the
same
> > way
> > > > that professional historians and survivors has distinguished death
camps
> > > > from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered.
> > >
> > > Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> "A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
> opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
> concentration camps are designed to exterminate the interned, or to
> engage them in forced labor, while others are designed merely for
> confinement." [1]
FT - note the phrase "Some concentration camps are designed to exterminate
the interned". Find that second grade teacher again and have her explain
that your source entirely contradicted your statement that "people are not
put in concentration camps to be murdered".
[...]
> > Nor did the Nazis invent concentration camps.
> >
> > No one said they did - that dubious honor belongs to Britain.
>
> Well... we christened them, _you_ invented them:
>
> "The first large-scale confinement of a specific ethnic group in
> detention centers began in the summer of 1838, when President Jackson
> ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by
> rounding up the Cherokee into prison camps before relocating them.
> These camps were also not extermination camps, but were also noted for
> their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high
> mortality rates. Ultimately, this culminated in the Trail of Tears."
> [1]
Sigh - your own source describes them as "prison camps". Do you have to
wear loafers because you haven't learned to tie your laces?
[...]
[Cretinous idiocy snipped.]
Honest Nev
> {snip}
>
> : no, much better to call a Skippy a 'Roo Fucker' as any insinuation
> : that he'd fuck an 'aboriginal' is deeply offensive to the Skippy
> : psyche.
>
> Your fixation with different races is becoming a bit evident here 'Nev. Not
> exactly racist in this sentence, not quite, but close. I will ignore your
> reference to 'aboriginals' and just call it the bleating of an ignoramus,
> which you tend to be when speak out on the subject of race.
=====================
Please tell me the 'Cerby' is a joke!
Surely nobody's that dim, not even a Skippy?
Yrs,
Nev
=====================
Honest Nev
> [...]
>
> > > So "dissidents" falls like a rotten tomato.
> >
> > Danny, they're not all 'dissidents',
>
> So, finally cornered, you agree. Thanks.
No, Danny, I never said they were _all_ 'dissidents'.
The statement: "... used to concentrate dissidents, resistance types,
anti-US religious types, unacknowledged POWS etc."
An inmate may fit into one or more of these catagories.
You're dim, Daniel, but I like you!
<snip thicky Daniel groping about>
> > I don't find the deaths of civilians to be funny, but then that goes
> > for Merkin civilians and Afghani/Iraqi civilians alike. If you think
> > targeting the WTC was bad, what do you think of Merkins _deliberately_
> > bombing civilian TV stations and restaurants?
>
> We don't deliberately target civilians.
Yes, Daniel you do. You targeted (at least) a TV station in Iraq and a
restaurant in which you reckoned Saddam to be dining (he wasn't
apparently). Others were (civilians as you'd expect in a restaurant),
they died.
<snip>
> > Danny, would you label anti-US Islamic-fundamentalists as 'enemies of
> > the state'?
>
> No. Beliefs don't amount to a reason to fight, actions do. Any fool
> anywhere can hold any silly belief they want, so long as they don't carry
> out attacks against the U.S. Once that line is crossed however, I'm not
> overly interested in whining from their apologists.
And did those poor brave lads at 'Gitmo' attack the US?
That's right, young Daniel, you attacked them!
LMAO!!
<snip>
> You've never allowed your ignorance to interfere with your foolish beliefs
> before - why start now.
Did 'content-free' Daniel really say that?
<snip>
> > > > 2. How do you know what's going on at 'Gitmo'?
> > >
> > > Same way you do.
> >
> > But Danny, all I know is what's got out. And that's bad enough. You
> > believe what you are told and I'll believe what I see, okay?
>
> You have a truly warped notion of what and how information is acquired.
?
<snip>
> > > > 4. Children are being detained indefinately without
> > > > trial/incommunicado at 'Gitmo' for fucks sake, Danny, how is that
> > > > right?
> > >
> > > I don't think it is, and have said so. And not just the children.
> >
> > Indeed, you have, which at least puts you one notch up on Ricardo
> > 'Kill em all, including the kids' Jackson and the FuckWit.
>
> Your efforts to suck up to me will come to naught.
Trust me, my ickle munchkin, I'm not 'sucking up to you'.
> I may strongly disagree at times with both PV and Jackson, but they're honest.
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
<snip Danny's tiny tears about how it is _fact_ that the detainees are
topping 'emsehns to get out of the hell-hole that is the 'Gitmo'
concentration camp>
<snip>
> > > > What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You see, to
> > > > me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried and
> > > > convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
> > >
> > > It can also be a place pending trial.
> >
> > Yes, once you've been charged.
>
> No - _before_ being charged. Why don't you know anything?
Danny, you're not put in chokey 'pending trial' until you've been
'charged' with an offence for which you are to be tried. I presume
even Merkins have something akin to Habeas Corpus?
I suggest you stick to things you understand, which naturally leaves
you very little to work with, but then yr not known as 'Content-free
Daniel' for nothing!
> > > All the prisoners were captured during hostilities in Afghanistan. By
> > > definition, there is reason to detain them.
> >
> > Are you sure you want to say that, Daniel?
>
> I'll say it again - there is good reason to detain those captured during
> hostilities in Afghanistan.
Which is?
BTW is that all Afghanis or just the ones you wish to put into
concentration camps?
> > > > A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
> > > > conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
> > > > forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
> > > > period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
> > > >
> > > > Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in yr
> > > > average US prison?
> > >
> > > Don't know. Do you? When were you last in a U.S. prison? When were
> you
> > > last in Guantanamo?
> >
> > TRANSLATION: "You are right, Nev. I'm a fucking twat, aren't I?"
>
> You really _are_ a nitwit!
Don't push me, Daniel, you fucking 'potty-mouth' [sic].
<snip>
> > > > > from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were murdered.
> > > >
> > > > Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
> > >
> > > Baloney.
> >
> > "A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
> > opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
> > concentration camps are designed to exterminate the interned, or to
> > engage them in forced labor, while others are designed merely for
> > confinement." [1]
>
> FT - note the phrase "Some concentration camps are designed to exterminate
> the interned". Find that second grade teacher again and have her explain
> that your source entirely contradicted your statement that "people are not
> put in concentration camps to be murdered".
'Entirely', young Daniel? 'partly' at best:
"... while others are designed merely for confinement", rather
supports my argument, which is sound as a pound regards 'Gitmo' being
a concentration camp.
Can you possibly disagree?
BTW, we've been through it before, but--- camps that are "designed to
exterminate the interned", are IMHO more correctly called
'death-camps' or 'extermination-camps', but I suppose you may also
technically call them concentration camps, in that they 'concentrate'
people to be killed rather than for 'forced labour' or 'mere
confinement'. It's up to you, really. That does not stop 'Gitmo' being
a concentration camp, does it.
> [...]
>
> > > Nor did the Nazis invent concentration camps.
> > >
> > > No one said they did - that dubious honor belongs to Britain.
> >
> > Well... we christened them, _you_ invented them:
> >
> > "The first large-scale confinement of a specific ethnic group in
> > detention centers began in the summer of 1838, when President Jackson
> > ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by
> > rounding up the Cherokee into prison camps before relocating them.
> > These camps were also not extermination camps, but were also noted for
> > their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high
> > mortality rates. Ultimately, this culminated in the Trail of Tears."
> > [1]
>
> Sigh - your own source describes them as "prison camps".
Okay, Daniel, you've fucked up again, and I am a patient man, so I
will show you how:
"The term "concentration camp" was first used by the British military
during the Boer War. British forces rounded up the Boer women and
children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to
camps scattered around South Africa. Though they were not
extermination camps, the Boer camps were noted for their poor
nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high mortality rates.
The Boer situation was only relieved when Emily Hobhouse brought the
conditions in the camps to the attention of the British public."
Now, do you notice any similarities between that description, and the
one for the Cherokee concentration camps? The only differene I note
(almost word for word) is that the Boers got treated better
eventually. Why do you think they are included under "concentration
camp"?
That's right you are a fuckwit.
Daniel, concentration camps are called many things:
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people" [same
source}
"In the Soviet Union, concentration camps were called Gulags" [same
source]
"Concentration camps in modern China are called Laogai" [same source]
"The term Internment Camp is often used as an equivalent in other
historical contexts" [same source talking about the racist WW2
concentration camps for 'Japanese Americans']
> Do you have to wear loafers because you haven't learned to tie your laces?
LOLOLOLOLO!!
Danny, come up with something to show how 'Gitmo' _isn't_ a
concentration camp, cos yr all wind and piss and it's getting boring.
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
Honest Nev
[on 'Gitmo':]
> I think this whole ghastly
> episode has done as much to lose American credibility
> and good will as her illegal war on Iraq.
Well when you think back to the sympathy after the '7-11' attacks, and
then see how the Bush regime has squandered it, it makes you wonder.
If anything the USA is less respected now than on 10-9-01, and Muslim
fundies are on an up-and-up. Now, if I was a Merkin, I'd be wondering
how that happened.
This whole 'Gitmo' isn't 'concentration camp' thing is ridiculous:
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
concentration camps... are designed merely for confinement." [1]
Now to distinguish that from a prison I would add that the inmates are
forcibly detained for an idefinate period without trial or legal
redress.
Now how is that _not_ 'Gitmo'? I foresee a similar drawn-out hissyfit
over yr recent use of the word 'colony'.
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
[1] http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/concentration%20camps
p.s. as you say comparisons are unhelpful in this case, but:
"The first large-scale confinement of a specific ethnic group in
detention centers began in the summer of 1838, when President Jackson
ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian Removal Act of 1830 by
rounding up the Cherokee into prison camps before relocating them.
These camps were also not extermination camps, but were also noted for
their poor nutrition and bad hygiene, and the associated high
mortality rates. Ultimately, this culminated in the Trail of Tears. "
[1]
Now FW was telling me how the US state (and onlt the US state) is
incapable of murder "by definition".
"... President Jackson ordered the U.S. Army to enforce the Indian
Removal Act of 1830... "
What a fucking rotter PV is. Mind you Daniel picked up on the 'prison
camp' bit to _prove_ how they weren't concentration camps!
Anyway, I'm gonna drop this thread soon as I think I've pretty much
exhausted my interest in what exactly a 'concentration camp' is.
Rev. Don Kool
John Rennie wrote:
> "Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote...
>
> Nice one, Nev. I know comparisons are odious but
> compare the suicide rate in the notorious Changi Japanese
> POW camp (Singapore) during WWII where several
> thousand British, Australian soldiers were confined for
> three years. I believe there were just three suicides
> during that time. (Source: The Naked Island - Russell
> Brandon) We all know the Japanese guards
> were no angels so just how badly are the Guantanamo
> 'detainees' being treated? I think this whole ghastly
> episode has done as much to lose American credibility
> and good will as her illegal war on Iraq.
If only you did think, young Rennie. Thanks to Champion of Freedom
President George W. Bush's deft and sure handling of the War on
Terrorism, there has not been another attack on American soil. The
frogs are the pariahs of the world, Al-Quiada and its Taliban supporters
have been routed and the innocent citizens of Iraq now have the freedom
of religion, freedom of speech and the freedom from having the UN use
their oil riches to line french pockets that they have prayed for. The
Jews and the Palestinians are going to have a shotgun wedding, oil flows
uninterrupted and sensible tax relief has ended the Clinton/Gore
recession. All is right with the world and President George W. Bush
will coast to a landslide victory over whatever fanatical liberal the
Democrats choose to field. It's a great time to be an American
(although a typically bad time to be part of "Old europe").
danh
[...]
> > > Danny, would you label anti-US Islamic-fundamentalists as 'enemies of
> > > the state'?
> >
> > No. Beliefs don't amount to a reason to fight, actions do. Any fool
> > anywhere can hold any silly belief they want, so long as they don't
carry
> > out attacks against the U.S. Once that line is crossed however, I'm not
> > overly interested in whining from their apologists.
>
> And did those poor brave lads at 'Gitmo' attack the US?
>
> That's right, young Daniel, you attacked them!
They were part of the organization that planned and attacked the U.S.
Hence, they were fair game. They wanted to get to heaven, we helped them.
> LMAO!!
So despite your angry denials that you don't take pleasure in others'
deaths, you laugh. What a loser!
[...]
> > Your efforts to suck up to me will come to naught.
>
> Trust me, my ickle munchkin, I'm not 'sucking up to you'.
Denial is the first phase. You'll get over it.
> > I may strongly disagree at times with both PV and Jackson, but they're
honest.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!
>
> <snip Danny's tiny tears about how it is _fact_ that the detainees are
> topping 'emsehns to get out of the hell-hole that is the 'Gitmo'
> concentration camp>
FT - you don't have a clue what a "hell-hole" is.
> <snip>
>
> > > > > What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You
see, to
> > > > > me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried
and
> > > > > convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
> > > >
> > > > It can also be a place pending trial.
> > >
> > > Yes, once you've been charged.
> >
> > No - _before_ being charged. Why don't you know anything?
>
> Danny, you're not put in chokey 'pending trial' until you've been
> 'charged' with an offence for which you are to be tried.
Also, not true. Why don't you know anything?
[...]
> > I'll say it again - there is good reason to detain those captured during
> > hostilities in Afghanistan.
>
> Which is?
>
> BTW is that all Afghanis or just the ones you wish to put into
> concentration camps?
IIRC, most of the detainees are not Afghanis. What do you suppose they were
doing there, armed and fighting?
> > > > > A 'concentration camp' is a 'prison camp' where you are sent for
> > > > > conforming to a 'type' rather than for committing a crime, you are
> > > > > forcibly held incommunicado and without trial for an indefinate
> > > > > period. Conditions are usually worse than in prisons.
> > > > >
> > > > > Danny, would you say that conditions at 'Gitmo' are worse that in
yr
> > > > > average US prison?
> > > >
> > > > Don't know. Do you? When were you last in a U.S. prison? When
were
> > you
> > > > last in Guantanamo?
> > >
> > > TRANSLATION: "You are right, Nev. I'm a fucking twat, aren't I?"
> >
> > You really _are_ a nitwit!
>
> Don't push me, Daniel, you fucking 'potty-mouth' [sic].
Or else, what, FT? You'll twist your panties? The fact is that you have no
experience with being imprisoned in Guantanamo (apparently you can't even
spell it) or a U.S. prison, so you're babbling on with no knowledge about
the subject.
> > > > > > from "regular" concentration camps in which thousands were
murdered.
> > > > >
> > > > > Daniel, people are not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
> > > >
> > > > Baloney.
> > >
> > > "A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
> > > opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
> > > concentration camps are designed to exterminate the interned, or to
> > > engage them in forced labor, while others are designed merely for
> > > confinement." [1]
> >
> > FT - note the phrase "Some concentration camps are designed to
exterminate
> > the interned". Find that second grade teacher again and have her
explain
> > that your source entirely contradicted your statement that "people are
not
> > put in concentration camps to be murdered".
>
> 'Entirely', young Daniel? 'partly' at best:
Not quite, FT. You made an unqualified blanket statement that people are
not put in concentration camps to be murdered. Even a single exception
invalidates that claim. Ask your second grade teacher, who by now is
probably tired of having to review material you should have learned when
your age matched your intellectual acumen.
[...]
> That's right you are a fuckwit.
>
> Daniel, concentration camps are called many things:
>
> "A concentration camp is a large detention centre
You must have your old teacher on speed dial. Did you figure out which is
larger: 600 or 200,000?
[...]
Honest Nev
> > > > Danny, would you label anti-US Islamic-fundamentalists as 'enemies of
> > > > the state'?
> > >
> > > No. Beliefs don't amount to a reason to fight, actions do. Any fool
> > > anywhere can hold any silly belief they want, so long as they don't
> carry
> > > out attacks against the U.S. Once that line is crossed however, I'm not
> > > overly interested in whining from their apologists.
> >
> > And did those poor brave lads at 'Gitmo' attack the US?
> >
> > That's right, young Daniel, you attacked them!
>
> They were part of the organization that planned and attacked the U.S.
Even if they 'were' [sic], I don't believe in 'guilt by association'.
> Hence, they were fair game. They wanted to get to heaven, we helped them.
What a horrible little man you are, Daniel.
<snip>
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > > What crimes have the brave young inmates committed, Danny? You
> see, to
> > > > > > me, a 'prison' is where you go when you've committed (been tried
> and
> > > > > > convicted and given a 'term' which you will then serve) a _crime_.
> > > > >
> > > > > It can also be a place pending trial.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, once you've been charged.
> > >
> > > No - _before_ being charged. Why don't you know anything?
> >
> > Danny, you're not put in chokey 'pending trial' until you've been
> > 'charged' with an offence for which you are to be tried.
>
> Also, not true. Why don't you know anything?
Danny, here's is how it goes (at least in Blighty):
Arrest--Charge? [N]--Release.
[Y]--Trial--Verdict? [Not Guilty]-- Released.
[Guilty] -- Sentenced.
People are only sent to prison (in England) after they have been
charged and have been refused bail. Before they are charged they are
either held at a police-station or released. They can only be detained
(except when T*ny meddles) under the provisions of Habeus Corpus (i.e
7 days maximum detention without charge I do believe). Throughout
these procedures one is entitled to legal redress and free legal
advice/representation.
<snip>
> > > > TRANSLATION: "You are right, Nev. I'm a fucking twat, aren't I?"
> > >
> > > You really _are_ a nitwit!
> >
> > Don't push me, Daniel, you fucking 'potty-mouth' [sic].
>
> Or else, what, FT? You'll twist your panties?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!
<snip>
> > 'Entirely', young Daniel? 'partly' at best:
>
> Not quite, FT. You made an unqualified blanket statement that people are
> not put in concentration camps to be murdered.
I already made a distinction between death-camps and
concentration-camps.
In the 'wikipedia.org' text they class Treblinka, etc. as
"concentration camps".
If you include death-camps as concentration-camps, then people may be
sent to "concentration camps" to be murdered.
That does not mean that concentration camps must be used as
extermination camps, it patently does not:
"A concentration camp is a large detention centre for political
opponents, specific ethnic groups or other groups of people. Some
concentration camps are designed to exterminate the interned, or to
engage them in forced labor, while others are designed merely for
confinement. "
You will note it has three catagories:
1. Extermination camps.
2. Forced Labour camps.
3. Confinement camps.
_All_ of which are concentration camps.
<snip>
> [...]
>
> > That's right you are a fuckwit.
> >
> > Daniel, concentration camps are called many things:
> >
> > "A concentration camp is a large detention centre
>
> You must have your old teacher on speed dial. Did you figure out which is
> larger: 600 or 200,000?
*cough*
Storsien.
> [...]
Yrs,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
danh
> > They were part of the organization that planned and attacked the U.S.
>
> Even if they 'were' [sic], I don't believe in 'guilt by association'.
In legal terms, it's called "conspiracy". All members of a conspiracy, even
if they are unaware of the others, are as legally guilty as the actual
perpetrators. So, whether _you_ believe in it or not, there is ample
precedent for their treatment.
> > Hence, they were fair game. They wanted to get to heaven, we helped
them.
>
> What a horrible little man you are, Daniel.
Ooh, - can I have that on a brass plate?
[...]
> Danny, here's is how it goes (at least in Blighty):
>
> Arrest--Charge? [N]--Release.
> [Y]--Trial--Verdict? [Not Guilty]-- Released.
> [Guilty] -- Sentenced.
>
> People are only sent to prison (in England) after they have been
> charged and have been refused bail. Before they are charged they are
> either held at a police-station or released. They can only be detained
> (except when T*ny meddles) under the provisions of Habeus Corpus (i.e
> 7 days maximum detention without charge I do believe).
So, you also have a provision that allows a suspect to be detained without
being charged, which is the case here. Having said that however, I think
the U.S. should either charge them with a crime or declare them POWs, with
all the attendant rights such people have.
[Tiresome drivel deleted.]
dirtdog
wrote:
>"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com...
>> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
>news:<bbkpka$tei$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>[...]
>> > They were part of the organization that planned and attacked the U.S.
>>
>> Even if they 'were' [sic], I don't believe in 'guilt by association'.
>
>In legal terms, it's called "conspiracy". All members of a conspiracy, even
>if they are unaware of the others, are as legally guilty as the actual
>perpetrators. So, whether _you_ believe in it or not, there is ample
>precedent for their treatment.
What utter, utter pubescent potato juice, Daniel - is this another
from your 'self-defence need not be reasonable' or 'the attacks on
Iraq were similar to the defence of the Falklands' book of idiotic
mumblings?
Aside from the clear fact that simple membership of an organisation
which has members who have conspired to cause offences does not in
itself constitute conspiracy, a person guilty of an inchoate offence
such as this is not 'as legally guilty' as the perpetrator of that
offence. Instead, they are guilty of a quite distinct crime which has
a quite different mens rea and actus reus to the offence proper. I
fear that your confusion stems from the fact that (certainly in my
jurisdiction) the maximum penalty imposed for conspiracy is that of
the full offence. You will note from a simple comparison of actual
sentences, however, that the courts rarely consider a conspirator as
culpable as the perpetrator. If you search the archives hard enough,
you will find a quite excellent piece on this subject (vis attempt)
written by my good self.
In any case, such talk is academic. Even conspirators have the luxury
of a public and (hopefully) fair trial - something denied to those
whose abuse you defend.
<cue unsupported declaration that I am 'wrong' together with
declaration of victory and maybe a spot of pompous posturing>
w00f
dirtdog
<old...@comcast.net> wrote:
<some monotone trolling snipped>
>sensible tax relief has ended the Clinton/Gore
>recession.
LOL! Excellent trolling, my little 'Orange Fella'!
<snip>
w00f
Rev. Don Kool
Simply a statement of the fact, dog.
Hope this helps,
danh
news:cshsdv0t3aqf20nbi...@4ax.com...
[...]
> You will note from a simple comparison of actual
> sentences, however, that the courts rarely consider a conspirator as
> culpable as the perpetrator.
Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did not
include committing the crime.
If you search the archives hard enough,
> you will find a quite excellent piece on this subject (vis attempt)
> written by my good self.
Like anyone who spends their time congratulating themselves, you again
luxuriate in pomposity. Here's a free clue for you: those who make good
arguments and valid points don't need to proclaim their wonderfulness.
Doing so only diminishes the value of the work, whatever that may be.
> In any case, such talk is academic. Even conspirators have the luxury
> of a public and (hopefully) fair trial - something denied to those
> whose abuse you defend.
I'm looking forward to such trials. It is not a "luxury" but an imperative.
> <cue unsupported declaration that I am 'wrong' together with
> declaration of victory and maybe a spot of pompous posturing>
Nah - just another fool with an ISP.
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/5/2003 8:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <bbndii$mr4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
"dirtdog" <dirtdogF...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
news:cshsdv0t3aqf20nbi...@4ax.com...
[...]
> You will note from a simple comparison of actual
> sentences, however, that the courts rarely consider a conspirator as
> culpable as the perpetrator.
Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did not
include committing the crime.
==============================
Under the law in just about every state, anyone who actively particpates in a
crime resulting in a death can be charged with the crime of murder, wheather he
or she killed the victim.
So in legal reasoning they committed the crime.
Jigsaw
dirtdog
What utter toss, Shit-For-Brains. Stick to wanking your tiny cock and
avoid trying to be clever. You're far better at the former.
A person guilty of an inchoate offence did not '[commit] the crime' -
in 'legal reasoning'* they are guilty of a quite seperate offence for
which the maximum available penalty just so happens to be the same as
that relating to the full offence itself.
As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
culpability to be the same, however.
Now, I feel that explaining this quite important fact to you any
further would be something of a complete waste of time, given that you
are a defective. So pop off and think about Dezi [sic], there's a good
chap.
w00f
*- Jiggy telling us about 'legal reasoning'! LOL!
danh
news:l5dvdv4ecjmjguqfi...@4ax.com...
Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"? And what "seperate offence"
[sic] do you think they're guilty of. Try to use declarative sentences
which actually address the question.
> As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
> culpability to be the same, however.
Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did not
include committing the crime.
[...]
Honest Nev
<snip>
> > As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
> > culpability to be the same, however.
>
> Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
> yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did not
> include committing the crime.
You mean the US sentences "many" folk to death for crimes other than
murder?
I never knew that, Daniel. It just gets worse. What a horrible,
backwards little country you live in.
Hope this helps,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
danh
news:<bbq2ht$c0v$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
> > > culpability to be the same, however.
> >
> > Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
> > yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did
not
> > include committing the crime.
>
> You mean the US sentences "many" folk to death for crimes other than
> murder?
>
> I never knew that,
It appears that you're uninformed on a variety of subjects. Accomplices to
murder are considered under law to be identical to the actual murderer.
Hence, one can receive the dp without being the actual triggerman (or
whatever).
This sometimes results in weird situations such as the Jesse Tafero case in
which it was subsequently shown that Tafero could not have been the
triggerman. The triggerman claimed Tafero did the shooting and he received
a 10 year sentence while Tafero was executed. IIRC, the guy was released
before Tafero was executed. There's good evidence to suggest that Tafero
was factually innocent and unaware of the shooting until it was over.
There was the Azikiwe Kambule case in Mississippi in which the DA, John
Kitchens, wanted to seek the dp against the juvenile accomplice while
cutting a deal with the triggerman. The judge however, ruled that Kambule
could not be given the death penalty as an accessory when the convicted
trigger-man Santonia Berry had plea bargained a life sentence without
possibility of parole.
I also recall a case from Arizona in which the dp was given to a person who
claimed he didn't know the other person was even committing a crime, let
alone murdering someone. This was while the guy waited in the car.
There are many reasons and examples of when the dp should not be an option.
There are some very good examples of people for whom the dp should be an
option. More care needs to be taken to keep these distinct.
[...]
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <bbqoic$2g8$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
"Honest Nev" <honest_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com...
> "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote in message
news:<bbq2ht$c0v$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
> > > culpability to be the same, however.
> >
> > Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
> > yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did
not
> > include committing the crime.
>
> You mean the US sentences "many" folk to death for crimes other than
> murder?
>
> I never knew that,
It appears that you're uninformed on a variety of subjects. Accomplices to
murder are considered under law to be identical to the actual murderer.
Hence, one can receive the dp without being the actual triggerman (or
whatever).
This sometimes results in weird situations such as the Jesse Tafero case in
which it was subsequently shown that Tafero could not have been the
triggerman. The triggerman claimed Tafero did the shooting and he received
a 10 year sentence while Tafero was executed. IIRC, the guy was released
before Tafero was executed. There's good evidence to suggest that Tafero
was factually innocent and unaware of the shooting until it was over.
There was also good evidence to prove, not just suggest, that Tafero was
involved and knowledgable of the crime.
===============================
There was the Azikiwe Kambule case in Mississippi in which the DA, John
Kitchens, wanted to seek the dp against the juvenile accomplice while
cutting a deal with the triggerman. The judge however, ruled that Kambule
could not be given the death penalty as an accessory when the convicted
trigger-man Santonia Berry had plea bargained a life sentence without
possibility of parole.
An interesting case..but to get to the point...Kambule admitted that he
participated in a carjacking that resulted in the death of the victim. He was
seventeen years old at the time.
This was a case where politics intervened in the admistration of justice.
Kambule was sentenced to the DP, but it was later reduced to imprisonment. It
shows that the system works, so what is the problem?
===============================
I also recall a case from Arizona in which the dp was given to a person who
claimed he didn't know the other person was even committing a crime, let
alone murdering someone. This was while the guy waited in the car.
The suspect can make all the claims that he wants to. Obviously the jury felt
these claims were not truthful and he was indeed involved in the crime.
===============================
There are many reasons and examples of when the dp should not be an option.
There are some very good examples of people for whom the dp should be an
option. More care needs to be taken to keep these distinct.
===============================
Trust me on this one...a jury always has that in mind. In his closing
arguments, the state attorney can recommend the DP, but it is up to the jury to
make the final decision of guilt.
Jigsaw
danh
news:20030606153502...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Based on the triggerman's testimony. Such cases _always_ have a conflict of
interest. It's a source of great caprice and error that prosecutors believe
one version and reject another.
> ===============================
> There was the Azikiwe Kambule case in Mississippi in which the DA, John
> Kitchens, wanted to seek the dp against the juvenile accomplice while
> cutting a deal with the triggerman. The judge however, ruled that Kambule
> could not be given the death penalty as an accessory when the convicted
> trigger-man Santonia Berry had plea bargained a life sentence without
> possibility of parole.
>
> An interesting case..but to get to the point...Kambule admitted that he
> participated in a carjacking that resulted in the death of the victim. He
was
> seventeen years old at the time.
>
> This was a case where politics intervened in the admistration of justice.
>
> Kambule was sentenced to the DP, but it was later reduced to imprisonment.
It
> shows that the system works, so what is the problem?
You too are grossly uninformed. Kambule never received the dp, he pleaded
guilty based on the judge's ruling that a justice demands a juvenile
accessory, unaware that the murder was taking place, not be subjected to a
greater penalty than the actual perpetrator. IIRC, he received 35 years w/o
parole.
The "problem" that you've blithely ignored is that Kitchens should never
have had the authority to make such a choice. Not all judges would have had
his good sense.
> ===============================
>
>
> I also recall a case from Arizona in which the dp was given to a person
who
> claimed he didn't know the other person was even committing a crime, let
> alone murdering someone. This was while the guy waited in the car.
>
> The suspect can make all the claims that he wants to. Obviously the jury
felt
> these claims were not truthful and he was indeed involved in the crime.
Yawn. Why don't you know anything about cases you comment on? There was no
evidence to suggest any false claims were made. The guy was convicted on
the basis of being an accessory only, receiving the dp while the perp also
received it.
> ===============================
>
> There are many reasons and examples of when the dp should not be an
option.
> There are some very good examples of people for whom the dp should be an
> option. More care needs to be taken to keep these distinct.
>
> ===============================
>
> Trust me on this one...a jury always has that in mind. In his closing
> arguments, the state attorney can recommend the DP, but it is up to the
jury to
> make the final decision of guilt.
Nope, don't think I'll "trust" you. You haven't demonstrated any reason to
think you know anything, that I would defer the judgment of what to make for
breakfast, let alone what proper legal procedures apply.
The simple fact is that prosecutors enjoy far and away too much discretion
in determining whether to seek the dp. One need only review the 4,000 or so
cases that were overturned and the 100+ innocents discovered thus far to
understand how dangerous the latitude given really is.
dirtdog
<da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>I wrote
>Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
>And what "seperate offence"
>[sic] do you think they're guilty of.
Conspiracy to murder.
>Try to use declarative sentences
>which actually address the question.
Rather it would be better if you just tried to keep up.
>> As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
>> culpability to be the same, however.
>
>Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
>yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did not
>include committing the crime.
But most are not. Conspiracy to murder rarely results in the DP, which
is precisely what I originally said.
Now, I appreciate that the word 'rarely' appears to cause you some
problems, Daniel. Perhaps a dictionary could help you out.
w00f
Honest Nev
> > > > As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge their
> > > > culpability to be the same, however.
> > >
> > > Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly, embarassing
> > > yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which did
> not
> > > include committing the crime.
> >
> > You mean the US sentences "many" folk to death for crimes other than
> > murder?
> >
> > I never knew that,
>
> It appears that you're uninformed on a variety of subjects. Accomplices to
> murder are considered under law to be identical to the actual murderer.
"Identical"?
Then why is there a seperate charge for being an accessory? It is, for
example, surely impossible to show 'intent' when somebody is an
accessory _only_ after the fact.
And why do people plea-bargain for an 'accessory' charge, rather than
the 'full' charge?
> Hence, one can receive the dp without being the actual triggerman (or
> whatever).
Er, yes... and...
> This sometimes results in weird situations such as the Jesse Tafero case
And for what crime was Tafero executed?
<snip>
> I also recall a case from Arizona in which the dp was given to a person who
> claimed he didn't know the other person was even committing a crime, let
> alone murdering someone. This was while the guy waited in the car.
Really? For what crime was he thus convicted and sentenced?
> There are many reasons and examples of when the dp should not be an option.
> There are some very good examples of people for whom the dp should be an
> option. More care needs to be taken to keep these distinct.
I was under the impression that since 1976 all executions in the US
have been for first degree murder.
I was shocked to learn that the last rape execution happened as
recently as 1964.
Is it true that in Louisiana has re-introduced the death penalty for
child rape?
> [...]
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 15:13:58 +0200
>
>On 31 May 2003 19:10:31 -0700, honest_...@yahoo.co.uk (Honest Nev)
>wrote:
>
>> I have snipped FuckWit saying how short forms are offensive unless you
>> happen to be a 'Brit' [sic], even though FuckWit will no doubt explain
>> (given the chance) how the 'Brits' [sic] are a race [sic] descended
>> from Britannia [sic], just as "the Italian[s are] descended from
>> Romulus".
>>
>> The man is a mega-thicko.
>
>What can you expect from a man who thinks that the Irish are really
>'Brits who talk funny', and who thinks that 'European flavor [sic]'
>can be used to describe a poster who opposes the death penalty ?
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!eusc.inter.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!acb62504.ipt
.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 15:13:58 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <5jb3evkktqvmumgui...@4ax.com>
>References: <a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com>
><db00711.03052...@posting.google.com>
><a5ec705.03052...@posting.google.com>
><bb5dms$fdq$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><g6iddvog7qf0vm3ft...@4ax.com>
><KoFBa.83$Rv4...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><rkuhdvo039sak68sn...@4ax.com>
><a5ec705.03053...@posting.google.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb62504.ipt.aol.com (172.182.37.4)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1054991421 13213738 172.182.37.4 (16 [91468])
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
Dolly B. Coughlan Jr, the legend continues!
Welcome to the Desmond Coughlan archive.
As Desi lies, the archive grows!
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/7/2003 8:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
<<snipped>>
Is it true that in Louisiana has re-introduced the death penalty for
child rape?
===============================
I have not heard anything about that.
And I seriously doubt if it would hold up under SCOTUS examination.
It does not meet the criteria set down under Furman v Georgia and upheld in
Gregg v. Georgia.
Jigsaw
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:58:38 +0200
>
>On 07 Jun 2003 17:34:45 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>>> Is it true that in Louisiana has re-introduced the death penalty for
>>> child rape?
>
>> I have not heard anything about that.
>>
>> And I seriously doubt if it would hold up under SCOTUS examination.
>>
>> It does not meet the criteria set down under Furman v Georgia and upheld
>in
>> Gregg v. Georgia.
>
><fx: goes to get some popcorn ...>
>
>And what would those criteria be, Shit-For-Brains ?
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-ber
lin.de!acb2afbf.ipt.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:58:38 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <gj94evkkjb7a8pgrf...@4ax.com>
>References: <a5ec705.03060...@posting.google.com>
><20030607133445...@mb-m15.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb2afbf.ipt.aol.com (172.178.175.191)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055008490 13972617 172.178.175.191 (16 [91468])
FitzHerbert
> Is it true that in Louisiana has re-introduced the death penalty for
> child rape?
> ===============================
>
> I have not heard anything about that.
Well there seems to be two 'versions':
"Louisiana's death penalty law is reserved for 1st-degree murder and
aggravated rape of a child younger than 12."
http://www.santegidio.org/pdm/news2002/05_01_02_b.htm
"On 17 February 2000, the latest attempt by prosecutors in Louisiana
to obtain a death sentence for the non-homicidal rape of a child ended
in a sentence of life imprisonment without parole after the jury
deadlocked on whether the defendant, Fred LeBlanc, should be executed.
The prosecution had sought a death sentence under a 1995 state law
making the rape of a child under the age of 12 a capital crime. In
1996, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for
such a crime was not unconstitutional (Louisiana v Wilson). However,
no defendant has yet been sentenced to death under this law, and the
US Supreme Court has therefore not ruled on its constitutionality. In
1977 (Coker v Georgia), the Court ruled that execution for rape was
excessive, but the Louisiana court argued that the Coker decision
applied only to the rape of an adult woman and left open the question
of the rape of a child."
danh
news:<bbqoic$2g8$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>...
>
> > > > > As I quite correctly stated, in sentencing, courts rarely judge
their
> > > > > culpability to be the same, however.
> > > >
> > > > Baloney. Do some research before you babble on endlessly,
embarassing
> > > > yourself. Many are on death row because of their involvement, which
did
> > not
> > > > include committing the crime.
> > >
> > > You mean the US sentences "many" folk to death for crimes other than
> > > murder?
> > >
> > > I never knew that,
> >
> > It appears that you're uninformed on a variety of subjects. Accomplices
to
> > murder are considered under law to be identical to the actual murderer.
>
> "Identical"?
>
> Then why is there a seperate charge for being an accessory? It is, for
> example, surely impossible to show 'intent' when somebody is an
> accessory _only_ after the fact.
>
> And why do people plea-bargain for an 'accessory' charge, rather than
> the 'full' charge?
Identical in terms of culpability. It does happen that the courts will
regard some defendants as being less responsible and impose lesser
sentences, but in terms of potential penalty, sitting in a car while another
robs and kills is as criminal as actually robbing and killing.
> > Hence, one can receive the dp without being the actual triggerman (or
> > whatever).
>
> Er, yes... and...
>
> > This sometimes results in weird situations such as the Jesse Tafero case
>
> And for what crime was Tafero executed?
Murder.
> <snip>
>
> > I also recall a case from Arizona in which the dp was given to a person
who
> > claimed he didn't know the other person was even committing a crime, let
> > alone murdering someone. This was while the guy waited in the car.
>
> Really? For what crime was he thus convicted and sentenced?
Murder.
> > There are many reasons and examples of when the dp should not be an
option.
> > There are some very good examples of people for whom the dp should be an
> > option. More care needs to be taken to keep these distinct.
>
> I was under the impression that since 1976 all executions in the US
> have been for first degree murder.
All executions, yes. All death sentences, no.
> I was shocked to learn that the last rape execution happened as
> recently as 1964.
Why were you "shocked"? Did it hurt your itty-bitty widdle feelings? Do
you know when Furman was decided? Do you know what Furman was about?
> Is it true that in Louisiana has re-introduced the death penalty for
> child rape?
Capital crimes include air piracy and druglordism. There are 38 Federal
crimes relating to homicide that carry the dp. There are 4 Federal crimes
_not_ relating to homicide that carry the dp.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=192
States that have the dp for non-homicide crimes include Mississippi for
aircraft piracy and Louisiana for child rape, Utah for aggravated assault by
a prisoner serving a life sentence if serious bodily injury is intentionally
caused, Kentucky for kidnapping with aggravating factors. I think that's
all, but there may be one or two I've missed.
danh
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2003 08:47:57 -0400, "Thickie Daniel"
> <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> >I wrote
>
> >Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
>
> I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
Mere repetition is not explanation. Inchoate means unformed, so "inchoate
offence" [sic] is meaningless.
[...]
danh
news:2689evgd8ecg6013p...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:50:02 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
>
> > > I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
>
> > Mere repetition is not explanation. Inchoate means unformed, so
"inchoate
> > offence" [sic] is meaningless.
>
> or 'begun'. Thus conspiracy would constitute an inchoate offence, as
> the offence was not in fact completed, i.e. the person did not commit
> the murder, to which my learnèd colleague is referring.
I realize this was his intention, however since conspiracy is itself an
offense, it isn't possible for it to be "inchoate". A poor choice of words.
>
> Of course, I only work with French law, so I may be wrong on the
> above, as 'inchoate' does not exist in our legal system, the term
> being 'complicité'
So it doesn't exist in either system. Complicity and conspiracy do exist
however these are not "inchoate".
dirtdog
Fuck me, Daniel, are you taking the piss, or is this the preamble to
some form of hilarious 'just trolling' declaration of defeat?
Evidently, Clarkson & Keating did not view the term 'inchoate offence'
as meaningless when they devoted a hundred pages to the subject in
their 1998 bible 'Criminal Law - Text and Materials'.
Nor did Williams in the 1982 edition of 'Textbook on Criminal Law'
when he said that an inchoate offence is 'committed by doing an act
with the purpose of effecting some other offence.
Strangely enough Fletcher in his 1978 work 'Rethinking Criminal Law'
also appeared to have consumed the same drugs as myself when he
incomprehensibly muttered that 'an inchoate offence is one relative to
the offence-in-chief'.
I could go on (and on and on), but I think you get the message.
Perhaps you would like to now withdraw your assertions that the term
'inchoate offence' is meaningless together with your earlier
implication (which I note you have now snipped) that a person guilty
of an inchoate offence (such as conspiracy to ....) is not guilty of
an offence quite separate from the offence-in-chief? Should you so
wish, I am in agreement that we can simply accept that you have spoken
on an issue regarding which you are absolutely fucking clueless, and
file your posts away in the 'Falklands' and 'Self-Defence' drawer of
the 'Idiotic Outbursts on aadp' Cabinet
w00f
danh
[...]
> Fuck me,
Not likely.
dirtdog
>"dirtdog" <dirtdogF...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
>news:4sm9ev4j45b4dmmqm...@4ax.com...
>
<snip by Daniel of his rather unseemly spanking?
>
>> Fuck me,
>
>Not likely.
I take that to be your withdrawal, apology and kiss of my wise feet.
On your way, scamp, I shall forgive your idiocy this time.
w00f
danh
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:19:33 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
> >"dirtdog" <dirtdogF...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message
> >news:4sm9ev4j45b4dmmqm...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> <snip by Daniel of his rather unseemly spanking?
>
> >
> >> Fuck me,
> >
> >Not likely.
>
> I take that to be
An acknowledgement that it is a term of art, which was not how I used it.
[pomposity snipped]
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:10:44 +0200
>
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:50:02 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
>> > >Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
>
>> > I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
>
>> Mere repetition is not explanation. Inchoate means unformed, so "inchoate
>> offence" [sic] is meaningless.
>
>The word itself resembles the Latin _inchoare_, meaning 'unfinished',
>or 'begun'. Thus conspiracy would constitute an inchoate offence, as
>the offence was not in fact completed, i.e. the person did not commit
>the murder, to which my learnèd colleague is referring.
>
>Of course, I only work with French law, so I may be wrong on the
>above, as 'inchoate' does not exist in our legal system, the term
>being 'complicité' (Article 121-7 of Code Pénal). Interestingly
>enough, attempting to be 'complice' to a crime is not in itself an
>offence (Decision of Criminal Chamber of Correctional Court, 23 March
>1978, Bulletin Criminel n° 116, 1979, notes Bouloc.). The other
>offence of participation à une 'association de malfaiteurs' (Title V,
>Article 450-1, Code Pénal) (belonging to a criminal organisation), was
>born (from the old Code Pénal, Articles 265 and 266, modified by Law
>n° 2001-420 of 15 May 2001) from the desire to target those on the
>periphery of the drugs 'scene', and bypasses in many ways Article
>121-1 of the Code Pénal, which limits penal responsibility to the
>author of an offence (and which may be incompatible with Articles VIII
>and XI of the European Declaration of Human Rights (Constitutional
>Council, 16 June 1999, JO 19 June 1999)).
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news
feed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!colt.net!peernews3.colt.net!newsfeed00.su
l.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berl
in.de!acb87cc2.ipt.aol.COM!
>not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2003 17:10:44 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 35
>Message-ID: <2689evgd8ecg6013p...@4ax.com>
>References: <bbndii$mr4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><20030605123112...@mb-m13.aol.com>
><l5dvdv4ecjmjguqfi...@4ax.com>
><bbq2ht$c0v$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><lvc2ev001a7rj2vjv...@4ax.com>
><bc1vpo$1tl$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb87cc2.ipt.aol.com (172.184.124.194)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055171214 14715305 172.184.124.194 (16 [91468])
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <72u9ev4335tbd7kbt...@4ax.com>
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:47:48 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
{ snip }
> > The word itself resembles the Latin _inchoare_, meaning 'unfinished',
> > or 'begun'. Thus conspiracy would constitute an inchoate offence, as
> > the offence was not in fact completed, i.e. the person did not commit
> > the murder, to which my learnèd colleague is referring.
> I realize this was his intention, however since conspiracy is itself an
> offense, it isn't possible for it to be "inchoate". A poor choice of words.
I've just read dirt's response, and I don't think anything else needs
to be said about that particular matter, particularly by me, ignorant
as I am of much of the niceties of anglo-saxon legal systems.
> > Of course, I only work with French law, so I may be wrong on the
> > above, as 'inchoate' does not exist in our legal system, the term
> > being 'complicité'
> So it doesn't exist in either system. Complicity and conspiracy do exist
> however these are not "inchoate".
I should have been more specific: the _term_ inchoate does not exist
in French jurisprudence, but the notion of an 'unfinished' (if this is
indeed what my learnèd colleague is getting at) offence certainly does
exist.
If you wish to know more about this aspect of French law, I shall be
glad to expand on it further: complicity in the famous case of a
French citizen who delivered Jews to the Nazis, being guilty of
'complicité' * was my end of term paper in second year here at law
school.
===============================
And what was the name of that law school?
dirtdog
perhaps the daftest post ever seen on Usenet:
>"French Ribbon Clerk" <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> wrote in message
>news:2689evgd8ecg6013p...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:50:02 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
>>
>> > > I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
>>
>> > Mere repetition is not explanation. Inchoate means unformed, so
>"inchoate
>> > offence" [sic] is meaningless.
>>
>> The word itself resembles the Latin _inchoare_, meaning 'unfinished',
>> or 'begun'. Thus conspiracy would constitute an inchoate offence, as
>> the offence was not in fact completed, i.e. the person did not commit
>> the murder, to which my learnèd colleague is referring.
>
>I realize this was his intention, however since conspiracy is itself an
>offense, it isn't possible for it to be "inchoate". A poor choice of words.
LOL! It was not a poor choice of words, Daniel. It was a _precisely
correct_ choice of words. If I may be so PV...
url:http://www.ukc.ac.uk/law/undergraduate/modules/criminal/inchoate.htm
url:http://www.umanitoba.ca/Law/Courses/esau/criminal/chap25.html
url:http://www.e-lexia.net/exampleChapters.cfm?subsubjectid=2193
url:http://www.silly.daniel.has.been.spanked.com
All (except one!) from the _first page_ of a simple Goggle [sic]
search!
>> Of course, I only work with French law, so I may be wrong on the
>> above, as 'inchoate' does not exist in our legal system, the term
>> being 'complicité'
>
>So it doesn't exist in either system. Complicity and conspiracy do exist
>however these are not "inchoate".
ROTFLMAO! 'Conspiracy and complicity do exist, however, these are not
"inchoate"'!
The next thing you'll be telling me is that the doctrine of
self-defence does not require reasonableness and that the illegal
invasion of Iraq can be compared to Britain's defence of the
Falklands!
You, Daniel, are in no position to call another poster dim ever again.
w00f
Neville 'the Jackal' FitzHerbert, esq.
> > > It appears that you're uninformed on a variety of subjects. Accomplices
> > > to murder are considered under law to be identical to the actual murderer.
> >
> > "Identical"?
> >
> > Then why is there a seperate charge for being an accessory? It is, for
> > example, surely impossible to show 'intent' when somebody is an
> > accessory _only_ after the fact.
> >
> > And why do people plea-bargain for an 'accessory' charge, rather than
> > the 'full' charge?
>
> Identical in terms of culpability.
So, the halfwit who buries the body is as "culpable" for murder as the
bloke with the long pointy knife? The same halfwit who only got roped
in _after_ the crime had been committed?
> It does happen that the courts will regard some defendants as being less
> responsible and impose lesser sentences, but in terms of potential penalty,
> sitting in a car while another robs and kills is as criminal as actually
> robbing and killing.
LMAO!! Are you telling me that a chap who happens to be in the
vacinity when an aquaintance robs and kills is "culpable" for his
aquaintance's crimes, even when he [the chap] is completely unaware of
said crimes until after they have been committed?
You really do seem to have a problem with seperating 'conspiracy' from
'guilt by association', young Daniel.
<snip>
> > I was shocked to learn that the last rape execution happened as
> > recently as 1964.
>
> Why were you "shocked"? Did it hurt your itty-bitty widdle feelings?
Well, in the same way (but not as strongly, naturally) as when Ricardo
suggested the inmates at 'Gitmo' be taken out and shot on the sly.
And then I remembered that the US's position on this issue has much
more in common with Iran's and China's, than those of any European
democracy, and the shock subsided somewhat.
<snip>
> States that have the dp for non-homicide crimes include Mississippi for
> aircraft piracy and Louisiana for child rape
See Jiggy, even young Daniel's heard about it.
<snip>
Yrs,
As ever,
Neville FitzHerbert, esq.
dirtdog
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 08:50:02 -0400, "danh" <da...@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
>> > >Just what do you mean by "inchoate offence"?
>
>> > I mean (quite astonishingly), an inchoate offence
>
>> Mere repetition is not explanation. Inchoate means unformed, so "inchoate
>> offence" [sic] is meaningless.
>
>The word itself resembles the Latin _inchoare_, meaning 'unfinished',
>or 'begun'. Thus conspiracy would constitute an inchoate offence, as
>the offence was not in fact completed, i.e. the person did not commit
>the murder, to which my learnèd colleague is referring.
>
Perfectly correct. Conspiracy to murder is an offence quite distinct
from murder. Both the requisite actus reus and mens rea are entirely
distinct from murder 'proper' - in fact, the requisite act and state
of mind are about as far removed from the elements of murder as can
be. THe offence is prosecuted under separate legislation and forms a
distinct offence. This particularly is something of which Dan could do
with accepting regardless of whether he wishes to bluster his way out
of this one or not.
Even the sentencing is different. In England, murder carries a
_mandatory_ life sentence. A person guilty of conspiracy to murder
_can_ be sentenced (although very rarely is) to life imprisonment.
Still, that the plebs can't get their heads round the _technicalities_
makes one feel rather safe in one's job, doesn't it, Desmond?
<not a little showboating snipped>
w00f
Mr. Desi Coughlan
>And what was the name of that law school?
I don't actually have a law degree from an accredited school. However I did
watch every episode of Ali McBeal with my lesbian friends. Doesn't that count?
Desi
I wish I was born in the U.S.A. and rode a Harley.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
billyarsehair inepty attempted to forge a post thusly:
> On 09 June 2003 22:09:59 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>>And what was the name of that law school?
>
> I don't actually have a law degree from an accredited school. However I did
> watch every episode of Ali McBeal with my lesbian friends. Doesn't that count?
Your ineptitude in every aspect of your life was never better illustrated,
billytard.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"They've got to be protected/All their rights respected ((o))
Until someone we like can be elected." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
JIGSAW1695
Date: 6/9/2003 8:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <20030609203935...@mb-m04.aol.com>
On 09 June 2003 22:09:59 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>And what was the name of that law school?
I don't actually have a law degree from an accredited school. However I did
watch every episode of Ali McBeal with my lesbian friends. Doesn't that count?
Desi
===============================
Why dont you tell us about that little episode with the fifteen year old
student that you invited out to diner and the subsequent action by her father.
Mr. Desi Coughlan
>Why dont you tell us about that little episode with the fifteen year old
>student that you invited out to diner and the subsequent action by her father.
When she realized how inexperienced I was, she refused to go with me. Her
father just laughed.
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
billytool wished he was 'desi' and whined:
> On 10 June 2003 03:50:22 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>>Why dont you tell us about that little episode with the fifteen year old
>>student that you invited out to diner and the subsequent action by her father.
>
> When she realized how inexperienced I was, she refused to go with me. Her
> father just laughed.
I never cease to be amazed at how complete and utter saddoes subscribe to
a.a.d-p. in order simply to stalk people they've never even _seen_, let alone
met.
billytwat, Nasty Little Dick and Donnie really need to get out a bit more.
As for the above piece of obsessive stalking...
*plonk*
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <pn9bevk3veq7on9oa...@4ax.com>
On 09 Jun 2003 22:09:59 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
{ snip }
>> If you wish to know more about this aspect of French law, I shall be
>> glad to expand on it further: complicity in the famous case of a
>> French citizen who delivered Jews to the Nazis, being guilty of
>> 'complicité' * was my end of term paper in second year here at law
>> school.
> And what was the name of that law school?
*clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
---
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
What French law school did you go to Dezi? What year did you get your degree?
JIGSAW1695
Message-id: <q4fbev4ddumvf9k6i...@4ax.com>
On 10 Jun 2003 10:17:12 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
{ snip }
>> > And what was the name of that law school?
>> *clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
> What French law school did you go to Dezi? What year did you get your
degree?
*clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
---
Desmond Coughlan
===============================
Come now Dezi...
You said you that you prosecuted cases in France.
WHy dont you want to tell us where you got your law school degree from?
Jigsaw
Mr. Desi Coughlan
>
>Come now Dezi...
>
>You said you that you prosecuted cases in France.
>
>WHy dont you want to tell us where you got your law school degree from?
I saw the offer on a pack of matches. It was either the mail-order law degree,
the mail-order diesel mechanic or the mail-order course that would teach me to
drive the big rigs.
Desi
>
>Jigsaw
Mr. Desi Coughlan
wrote:
>In article <20030610005716...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
>billytool wished he was 'desi' and whined:
>> On 10 June 2003 03:50:22 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>>
>>>Why dont you tell us about that little episode with the fifteen year old
>>>student that you invited out to diner and the subsequent action by her
father.
>>
>> When she realized how inexperienced I was, she refused to go with me. Her
>> father just laughed.
>
>I never cease to be amazed at how complete and utter saddoes subscribe to
>a.a.d-p. in order simply to stalk people they've never even _seen_, let alone
>met.
Jonathan, thank you for your blind support of my lies. Few would sacrifice
their personal integrity and JOB by encouraging my abhorrent behavior.
Desi
>Mr Q. Z. D.
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
(Mr. Desi Coughlan) writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 04:57:16 GMT
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>Lines: 12
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 04:57:16 GMT
>References: <20030609235022...@mb-m18.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Message-ID: <20030610005716...@mb-m18.aol.com>
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
(Mr. Desi Coughlan) writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 14:52:48 GMT
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>Lines: 19
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 14:52:48 GMT
>References: <20030610093521...@mb-m10.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Message-ID: <20030610105248...@mb-m06.aol.com>
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
(Mr. Desi Coughlan) writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 00:39:35 GMT
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m1.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>Lines: 13
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 00:39:35 GMT
>References: <20030609180959...@mb-m17.aol.com>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Message-ID: <20030609203935...@mb-m04.aol.com>
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:44:10 +0200
>
>On 09 Jun 2003 22:09:59 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> If you wish to know more about this aspect of French law, I shall be
>>> glad to expand on it further: complicity in the famous case of a
>>> French citizen who delivered Jews to the Nazis, being guilty of
>>> 'complicité' * was my end of term paper in second year here at law
>>> school.
>
>> And what was the name of that law school?
>
>*clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!skynet.be!skynet.
be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!acb13da1.ipt.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:44:10 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 19
>Message-ID: <pn9bevk3veq7on9oa...@4ax.com>
>References: <72u9ev4335tbd7kbt...@4ax.com>
><20030609180959...@mb-m17.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb13da1.ipt.aol.com (172.177.61.161)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055238022 16242643 172.177.61.161 (16 [91468])
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
>X-No-Archive: yes
>
>
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:13:37 +0200
>
>On 10 Jun 2003 10:17:12 GMT, jigsa...@aol.com (JIGSAW1695) wrote:
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> > And what was the name of that law school?
>
>>> *clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
>
>> What French law school did you go to Dezi? What year did you get your
>degree?
>
>*clickety-clack* ... *clickety-clack* ...
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar
.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!acb7d521.ipt.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 13:13:37 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 17
>Message-ID: <q4fbev4ddumvf9k6i...@4ax.com>
>References: <pn9bevk3veq7on9oa...@4ax.com>
><20030610061712...@mb-m21.aol.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb7d521.ipt.aol.com (172.183.213.33)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055243386 15957713 172.183.213.33 (16 [91468])
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
<FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr> writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:08:09 +0200
>
>On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:25:27 +0100, dirtdog
><dirtdogCHOCO...@fruffrant.com> wrote:
>
>{ snip}
>
>> <not a little showboating snipped>
>
>All of it taken from 'goggle' (sic), of course ... à la FuckWit. ;-)
>
>---
>Desmond Coughlan |desmond @ zeouane . org
>French Ribbon Clerk (FRC)
>Yamaha YZF-R1
>url:http://www.fruffrant.com/gimmicks/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!acb208
20.ipt.aol.COM!not-for-mail
>From: French Ribbon Clerk <FRC_Spnak...@noos.fr>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 14:08:09 +0200
>Organization: Aucune
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <s1hbevc1c7u953hcu...@4ax.com>
>References: <bbndii$mr4$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><20030605123112...@mb-m13.aol.com>
><l5dvdv4ecjmjguqfi...@4ax.com>
><bbq2ht$c0v$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><lvc2ev001a7rj2vjv...@4ax.com>
><bc1vpo$1tl$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com>
><2689evgd8ecg6013p...@4ax.com>
><5s8aevsql759vhivj...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: acb20820.ipt.aol.com (172.178.8.32)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055246659 16173619 172.178.8.32 (16 [91468])
Dolly B.Coughlan Jr
(Mr. Desi Coughlan) writes:
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 15:10:21 GMT
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>Path: lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!audrey-m2.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>Lines: 28
>X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
>From: desico...@aol.com (Mr. Desi Coughlan)
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Date: 10 Jun 2003 15:10:21 GMT
>References: <d8eFa.281$GU5....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
>Subject: Re: Concentrate, Young Daniel!!
>Message-ID: <20030610111021...@mb-m06.aol.com>