Re: OT: (Perhaps You Could Remeber To Note This In The Future) Re: Driveway Made Of Wood?
fredf...@spamcop.net
precedent article in, absurdly rec.woodworking.
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> ...
> >
> > October 5 is going to be a big day. God bless all my American friends!
> >
> > http://www.worldcantwait.org/
> >
> > ...and NO.. I am not some kinda 'lefty', in fact the opposite is
> > true...but enough is enough.
> >
> > r
> >
> > (I seldom voice my political views, here, or anywhere else...but for
> > fuck sakes WAKE UP!!!)
> >
>
> Here we go again. From the web site (my comments indented):
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous
> and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their
> sights.
>
> Along with the governments of the UK, Italy, & Russia who all agreed
> in the early going that the threat was real. "Outrageous lies"
> is at the very least a vast overstatement and at worst an outrageous
> lie in its own right. A mistake, perhaps.
No one claimed that Bush was the ONLY liar.
However, do you know any other country that claimed the
81 mm Medusa missile tubes were inteded, or even suitable
for cetrifuges?
Do you know any other country that claimed the Iraq-Niger emails
were genuine?
> But then again,
> the dictator in question *did* have a rather spotty human rights
> and weapons history. It was understandable that most of the
> Grownups thought he might just be a teensy threat.
Only the 'Grownups' who ignored the condition of the Iraqi army,
and the destruction of the Iraqi WMD facilites and stockpiles.
> But, heck, who
> cares about killing a few oddball Kurds anyway? They never vote
> for Progressive Causes (tm) and are of no use to the New American
> Intellectual.
Some of us were aware that the Kurds had achieved autonomy under
our protection.
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
>
> "Openly"? Really? Where's the video? Can I buy tickets? ...
Rules of evidecne that accept evidence esttracted under torture
condone torture. Promulgating those rules promotes torture.
The administrations opposition to anti-torture legislation that
would enforce basic moral values, as well as our treaty obligations
demonstrates that the governent has tortured and intends to
torture people.
You're right, they're not _open_ about it. Bush SAYS we never
tortured and never will. But his actions tell us the truth.
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing
> them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in
> the dead of night.
>
> The "people" in question are foreign invaders who do not wear uniforms
> and are thus legally spies.
You know this how, exactly?
> When our government does these things
> to its own citizens, as it did in the Padilla case, I am 100% opposed
> to them. But when it drops the hammer on foreign fighters, I applaud
> the action. Spies are not entitled to the same protections a uniformed
> combatant is. This has always been the case and remains so today,
> notwithstanding the Drooly Craven commentary above. Personally, I'd
> prefer that such foreign spies be hanged nightly for all to see - and
> then have their remains fed to feral pigs so they can spend eternity
> as pig feces ... but that's just me.
Until the USSC ruled, the Bush administration denied POW status and
1949 GC III protections to Taliban fighters who DID fight in uniform.
Denial of _some_ of the GC protections are permitted, only on a
case-by-case basis after a competent court or tribunal has found
that the person in question is not so entitled. Collective punishments
are strictly prohibitted. No person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay
has received a hearing before a competent court or tribunal.
But do not forget, only a minority of the prisoners are Guantanamo
Bay are captured combatants. The overwhelming majority were
arrested in Pakistan, other countries, or were turned over to the
US by Afghans, many for rewards.
What evidence have you seen that ANY of those ever bore arms
against anyone?
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow
> and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
>
> Sure it is. That's why Islamists enjoy as good or better freedom
> of expression and faith here as they do anywhere else in the world.
> Ditto, Catholics, Scientologists, Pagans, Atheists, and Wiccans...
That is NOT because the use is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
That is because those backsliders have been held in check.
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious,
> political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to
> pay a terrible price.
>
> Because we all know that science is a matter of popular opinion
> first, and if everyone is scared enough of, say, so-called Global
> Warming, we should all rush out to adjust policy accordingly,
> notwithstanding the considerable debate *within* the scientific
> community. ...
I have seen no evidence that the edits demanded by the Bush
administration are motivated by popular opinion or debate within
the scientific community.
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving to deny women here, and all over the world,
> the right to birth control and abortion.
>
> Right on! ...
No need to commnet.
>
>
> YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and
> ignorance.
>
> Right again. My government is so much worse than the enlightened
> Islamic world that murders Christians, abuses women, engages in
> African slave trade, keeps people in abject poverty and disease
> by promising them heavenly rewards. ...
There are worse governments than ours. Ours is much better than
the governments of Russia, China, Vietnam, Egypt, and a host of
others. Bush is a better man than bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or
Hitler.
For some of us, that's not good enough.
--
FF
Joe S.
<fredf...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1159838684....@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Note Followups. Readers in alt.politcs are encourage to read the
> precedent article in, absurdly rec.woodworking.
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> ...
>> >
>> > October 5 is going to be a big day. God bless all my American friends!
>> >
Hey, asshole -- don't you clowns pull any shit on 5 October. My son is
getting married on 7 October and I gotta do a lot of stuff between now and
then. If you so some bad shit on 5 October, all the damn airlines will be
locked down, roads blocked, etc., etc. Hold off until the 8th then knock
yourselves out.
Tim Daneliuk
> Note Followups. Readers in alt.politcs are encourage to read the
> precedent article in, absurdly rec.woodworking.
Since I don't waste my time in alt.politics, I'll never see your
further drooling on these matters, but I'll leave you with ...
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>> Robatoy wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> October 5 is going to be a big day. God bless all my American friends!
>>>
>>> http://www.worldcantwait.org/
>>>
>>> ...and NO.. I am not some kinda 'lefty', in fact the opposite is
>>> true...but enough is enough.
>>>
>>> r
>>>
>>> (I seldom voice my political views, here, or anywhere else...but for
>>> fuck sakes WAKE UP!!!)
>>>
>> Here we go again. From the web site (my comments indented):
>>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous
>> and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their
>> sights.
>>
>> Along with the governments of the UK, Italy, & Russia who all agreed
>> in the early going that the threat was real. "Outrageous lies"
>> is at the very least a vast overstatement and at worst an outrageous
>> lie in its own right. A mistake, perhaps.
>
> No one claimed that Bush was the ONLY liar.
And you can, of course, demonstrate that this worldwide conspiracy to
lie existed? That is, the co-conspirators all knew ahead of time
they were lying and proceeded anyway. You need to hang out with
Oliver Stone. You seem to be enjoying the same pharma products.
>
> However, do you know any other country that claimed the
> 81 mm Medusa missile tubes were inteded, or even suitable
> for cetrifuges?
I don't. Nor do I even know the details of the referrant claim.
If you want me to defend every single utterance of W's, you're
barking up the wrong conspiracy tree. Mistakes were made. But
there is considerable difference between an error an an intentional
lie ... a lie which has yet to be demonstrated as such except among
the Silly Little Progressives wetting their pants on a regular basis.
>
> Do you know any other country that claimed the Iraq-Niger emails
> were genuine?
>
>> But then again,
>> the dictator in question *did* have a rather spotty human rights
>> and weapons history. It was understandable that most of the
>> Grownups thought he might just be a teensy threat.
>
> Only the 'Grownups' who ignored the condition of the Iraqi army,
> and the destruction of the Iraqi WMD facilites and stockpiles.
I know, I know... who cares if he kills his own ... they're not Lefties,
Progressives, Englightened (tm) ... or even white enough to care about.
>
>> But, heck, who
>> cares about killing a few oddball Kurds anyway? They never vote
>> for Progressive Causes (tm) and are of no use to the New American
>> Intellectual.
>
> Some of us were aware that the Kurds had achieved autonomy under
> our protection.
Not most of "you" though. The leftie squealing when Sadaam was
taken out made it seem that a Really Nice Fellow, One Of Us
had just been harmed ...
>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
>>
>> "Openly"? Really? Where's the video? Can I buy tickets? ...
>
> Rules of evidecne that accept evidence esttracted under torture
> condone torture. Promulgating those rules promotes torture.
> The administrations opposition to anti-torture legislation that
> would enforce basic moral values, as well as our treaty obligations
> demonstrates that the governent has tortured and intends to
> torture people.
You have a marvelous future on Broadway as a tap dancer. All of what you
say is true but irrelevant to the point. The central question is, "Just
how much/little intimidation is legitimate when interrogating foreign
invaders with the stated purpose of annihilating the West?" Can the
interrogator use bluster? Intimidation? Can they say unkind things? Can
the slap the detainee? Can they be really cruel and make the detainee
listen to Barbara Streisand while being shown nude photographs of Susan
Sarandon or Rosie O'Donnell? Just *what* constitutes torture and how far
can an interrogator go. And, no, Sparky, the US rules of evidence and
its gathering do not apply to the Jihadist army invading us or one of our
allies.
> You're right, they're not _open_ about it. Bush SAYS we never
> tortured and never will. But his actions tell us the truth.
Because you and your fellow Englightened Ones (tm) always tell the truth
and are thereby more trustworthy? In this case, I'll take W's word,
notwithstanding his warts, and not withstanding the fact that I almost
never vote for the Republicans. W's political opposition is so absurd,
so vile, and so generally disconnected from anything resembling sane
analysis it makes him and the neo-cons look like geniuses.
>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing
>> them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in
>> the dead of night.
>>
>> The "people" in question are foreign invaders who do not wear uniforms
>> and are thus legally spies.
>
> You know this how, exactly?
Because, to date, I am unaware of *any* terrorist, insurgent, "Palestinian
Freedom Fighter", or other any of the other forms of pig excrement that
eminate from the bowels of this debate who *have* worn uniforms.
I could be wrong, of course, and am prepared to be properly reeducated
by the madrassas of the Left.
>
>> When our government does these things
>> to its own citizens, as it did in the Padilla case, I am 100% opposed
>> to them. But when it drops the hammer on foreign fighters, I applaud
>> the action. Spies are not entitled to the same protections a uniformed
>> combatant is. This has always been the case and remains so today,
>> notwithstanding the Drooly Craven commentary above. Personally, I'd
>> prefer that such foreign spies be hanged nightly for all to see - and
>> then have their remains fed to feral pigs so they can spend eternity
>> as pig feces ... but that's just me.
>
> Until the USSC ruled, the Bush administration denied POW status and
> 1949 GC III protections to Taliban fighters who DID fight in uniform.
And this uniform was distinguishable from the every day attire of the
surrounding citizens how? It isn't a "uniform" just because someone says
so. It's a uniform when it clearly separates an individual visually from
their civilian surroundings. In the many hours I sat watching the
Taliban Entertainment Network, I didn't see anything remotely resembling
this ... then again, I wasn't there myself for all the fun.
>
> Denial of _some_ of the GC protections are permitted, only on a
> case-by-case basis after a competent court or tribunal has found
Tsk, tsk, a "tribunal"? The very idea.
> that the person in question is not so entitled. Collective punishments
> are strictly prohibitted. No person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay
> has received a hearing before a competent court or tribunal.
Sez you, but you're wrong. There were plenty of "competent" tribunals
at Gitmo ... tribunals that would have been deemed so in any preceding
US military action like Korea or WWII. But since the administration
hasn't seen fit to clue in Maureen Dowd or National Public Whiner Radio
with the details, it doesn't count apparently.
>
> But do not forget, only a minority of the prisoners are Guantanamo
> Bay are captured combatants. The overwhelming majority were
> arrested in Pakistan, other countries, or were turned over to the
> US by Afghans, many for rewards.
>
> What evidence have you seen that ANY of those ever bore arms
> against anyone?
And what evidence have you they did not? Everyone - including you -
has to either take the published evidence at face value, prove
otherwise, or make outrageous claims absent evidence (the current
tactic of the slackjawed lefties).
>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow
>> and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
>>
>> Sure it is. That's why Islamists enjoy as good or better freedom
>> of expression and faith here as they do anywhere else in the world.
>> Ditto, Catholics, Scientologists, Pagans, Atheists, and Wiccans...
>
> That is NOT because the use is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
> where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
> That is because those backsliders have been held in check.
Sorry, could not parse this entirely. We are and will remain pluralistic.
At the moment, a correction is taking place wherein the culture is moving
back to the Right after years of theLeft having it its own way without
much real opposition. This too shall pass. The idea that the US
will become a Fundamentalist theocracy is absurd. We're far more
likely to become overrun with the foul smelly hippie offspring with
their pantheist theology and muddleheaded earth worshiping.
>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious,
>> political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to
>> pay a terrible price.
>>
>> Because we all know that science is a matter of popular opinion
>> first, and if everyone is scared enough of, say, so-called Global
>> Warming, we should all rush out to adjust policy accordingly,
>> notwithstanding the considerable debate *within* the scientific
>> community. ...
>
> I have seen no evidence that the edits demanded by the Bush
> administration are motivated by popular opinion or debate within
> the scientific community.
And I have seen no indisputable scientific confirmation that the positions
taken by the Bush administration are scientifically "wrong". Topics
like global warming and fetal stem cell efficacy are very much still
debatable. Evolutionary theory less so. But even here, we have the
Idiot Left to thank. It was, after all, the Idiot Left that insisted
that the Federal Government exceed its Constitutional powers and
get into the research and education business decades ago. Now this comes back
to haunt them. Too bad. When you start with bad premises you reach
lousy conclusions. The Feds have *no* business in any of these issues
and it was the Left who made it otherwise.
>
>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving to deny women here, and all over the world,
>> the right to birth control and abortion.
>>
>> Right on! ...
>
> No need to commnet.
>
>>
>> YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and
>> ignorance.
>>
>> Right again. My government is so much worse than the enlightened
>> Islamic world that murders Christians, abuses women, engages in
>> African slave trade, keeps people in abject poverty and disease
>> by promising them heavenly rewards. ...
>
> There are worse governments than ours. Ours is much better than
> the governments of Russia, China, Vietnam, Egypt, and a host of
> others. Bush is a better man than bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or
> Hitler.
>
> For some of us, that's not good enough.
For people like you, *nothing* is *ever* good enough. Noting for
a moment that the political Right is a vast cesspool of equivocation,
lost principle, and moral timidity, it isn't remotely the open
sewer that is the Left. It is the Left (and the people in orbit
around it who are not properly full Lefties) that can never accept
that life involves compromise, that the choices are often between
bad and worse, not good and bad, and that you have to look at the long
arc of things to get the drift of what's going on.
W is a flawed president - they all are. But at least his mistakes were
made in the apparently honest intent to defend his nation from what he
percieved to be imminent threat (so did lots of other nations). He did
have the little bit of ruble in downtown NYC to remind him of said
threat. W's mistakes and missteps, however bad, at least weren't made
while abandoning our troops in foreign lands, or having nasty office sex
with the fat chick that makes copies ...
>
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
fredf...@spamcop.net
> fredf...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > Note Followups. Readers in alt.politcs are encourage to read the
> > precedent article in, absurdly rec.woodworking.
>
> Since I don't waste my time in alt.politics,
As opposed to wasting everyone else's time by posting off-topic in
in rec.woodworking one supposes.
I could email you a 'courtesy copy' of my reply.
> ...I'll never see your
> further drooling on these matters, but I'll leave you with ...
>
> >
> > Tim Daneliuk wrote:
> >> Robatoy wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> October 5 is going to be a big day. God bless all my American friends!
> >>>
> >>> http://www.worldcantwait.org/
> >>>
> >>> ...and NO.. I am not some kinda 'lefty', in fact the opposite is
> >>> true...but enough is enough.
> >>>
> >>> r
> >>>
> >>> (I seldom voice my political views, here, or anywhere else...but for
> >>> fuck sakes WAKE UP!!!)
> >>>
> >> Here we go again. From the web site (my comments indented):
> >>
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT, on the basis of outrageous lies, is waging a murderous
> >> and utterly illegitimate war in Iraq, with other countries in their
> >> sights.
> >>
> >> Along with the governments of the UK, Italy, & Russia who all agreed
> >> in the early going that the threat was real. "Outrageous lies"
> >> is at the very least a vast overstatement and at worst an outrageous
> >> lie in its own right. A mistake, perhaps.
> >
> > No one claimed that Bush was the ONLY liar.
>
> And you can, of course, demonstrate that this worldwide conspiracy to
> lie existed?
The Dowing street memo p[retty well demonstates a conspiracy of
two such nations, eh?
...
> > However, do you know any other country that claimed the
> > 81 mm Medusa missile tubes were inteded, or even suitable
> > for cetrifuges?
>
> I don't. Nor do I even know the details of the referrant claim.
> If you want me to defend every single utterance of W's, you're
> barking up the wrong conspiracy tree. Mistakes were made. But
> there is considerable difference between an error an an intentional
> lie ...
Yes, that is why the resonable characterisation of the false claim
about he 81 mm missiles is as a lie.
The administration was told by Uranium centrifuge experts that
the tubes were usnuitable for centrifuges. The adminstration
then turned aroudn and claimed that they were. Had the
administration been given incorrect information it would have
been an error. But since they were given the correct informaiton,
it was not.
>
> >
> > Do you know any other country that claimed the Iraq-Niger emails
> > were genuine?
...
> >
> >> But then again,
> >> the dictator in question *did* have a rather spotty human rights
> >> and weapons history. It was understandable that most of the
> >> Grownups thought he might just be a teensy threat.
> >
> > Only the 'Grownups' who ignored the condition of the Iraqi army,
> > and the destruction of the Iraqi WMD facilites and stockpiles.
>
> I know, I know... who cares if he kills his own ... they're not Lefties,
> Progressives, Englightened (tm) ... or even white enough to care about.
Obviously not the present administration, considering how many\
of his own Bashir has killed.
Are the Iraqi collateral casualties of Coalition acition or
killed by insurgents, militias or common criminals less
dead than if Saddam Hussein had killed them?
>
> >
> >> But, heck, who
> >> cares about killing a few oddball Kurds anyway? They never vote
> >> for Progressive Causes (tm) and are of no use to the New American
> >> Intellectual.
> >
> > Some of us were aware that the Kurds had achieved autonomy under
> > our protection.
>
> Not most of "you" though. The leftie squealing when Sadaam was
> taken out made it seem that a Really Nice Fellow, One Of Us
> had just been harmed ...
Not to anyone I know. Not even to you, I daresay.
>
> >
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT is openly torturing people, and justifying it.
> >>
> >> "Openly"? Really? Where's the video? Can I buy tickets? ...
> >
> > Rules of evidecne that accept evidence esttracted under torture
> > condone torture. Promulgating those rules promotes torture.
> > The administrations opposition to anti-torture legislation that
> > would enforce basic moral values, as well as our treaty obligations
> > demonstrates that the governent has tortured and intends to
> > torture people.
>
>
> You have a marvelous future on Broadway as a tap dancer. All of what you
> say is true but irrelevant to the point. The central question is, "Just
> how much/little intimidation is legitimate when interrogating foreign
> invaders with the stated purpose of annihilating the West?"
I would say that we should look to precedent. Any act that has
been held by the courts to be cruel and unusual punishment when
inflicted on a convicted criminal should be considered torture and
prohibited against anyone suspected of violating the LOAC.
Surely you cannot object to treating persons who are merely
suspects, no worse than we treat convicted criminals.
>
>
> > You're right, they're not _open_ about it. Bush SAYS we never
> > tortured and never will. But his actions tell us the truth.
>
> Because you and your fellow Englightened Ones (tm) always tell the truth
> and are thereby more trustworthy? In this case, I'll take W's word,
> notwithstanding his warts, and not withstanding the fact that I almost
> never vote for the Republicans. W's political opposition is so absurd,
> so vile, and so generally disconnected from anything resembling sane
> analysis it makes him and the neo-cons look like geniuses.
Do you take his word when he speaks publicly, or when he writes
executive orders? After all, the two don't agree.
>
> >
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT puts people in jail on the merest suspicion, refusing
> >> them lawyers, and either holding them indefinitely or deporting them in
> >> the dead of night.
> >>
> >> The "people" in question are foreign invaders who do not wear uniforms
> >> and are thus legally spies.
> >
> > You know this how, exactly?
>
> Because, to date, I am unaware of *any* terrorist, insurgent, "Palestinian
> Freedom Fighter", or other any of the other forms of pig excrement that
> eminate from the bowels of this debate who *have* worn uniforms.
AFAIK, you are unaware of anything at all about any of the persons
about whom you speak.
> I could be wrong, of course, and am prepared to be properly reeducated
> by the madrassas of the Left.
> ...
>
> >
> >> When our government does these things
> >> to its own citizens, as it did in the Padilla case, I am 100% opposed
> >> to them. But when it drops the hammer on foreign fighters, I applaud
> >> the action. Spies are not entitled to the same protections a uniformed
> >> combatant is. This has always been the case and remains so today,
> >> notwithstanding the Drooly Craven commentary above. Personally, I'd
> >> prefer that such foreign spies be hanged nightly for all to see - and
> >> then have their remains fed to feral pigs so they can spend eternity
> >> as pig feces ... but that's just me.
> >
> > Until the USSC ruled, the Bush administration denied POW status and
> > 1949 GC III protections to Taliban fighters who DID fight in uniform.
>
> And this uniform was distinguishable from the every day attire of the
> surrounding citizens how? It isn't a "uniform" just because someone says
> so. It's a uniform when it clearly separates an individual visually from
> their civilian surroundings. In the many hours I sat watching the
> Taliban Entertainment Network, I didn't see anything remotely resembling
> this ... then again, I wasn't there myself for all the fun.
My understing is the the Taliban fighters wore a green turban,
which was not worn by the general population. OTOH members
of the regularly constituted armed forces of a country are, when
captured, protected as POWs even if they were not wearing
their uniforms when they were captured.
>
> >
> > Denial of _some_ of the GC protections are permitted, only on a
> > case-by-case basis after a competent court or tribunal has found
>
> Tsk, tsk, a "tribunal"? The very idea.
Yes, I uinderstand you find respect for the rule of law to be
repugnant.
>
> > that the person in question is not so entitled. Collective punishments
> > are strictly prohibitted. No person imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay
> > has received a hearing before a competent court or tribunal.
>
> Sez you, but you're wrong. There were plenty of "competent" tribunals
> at Gitmo ...
False. As I wrote before, the tribunals established by the Bush
administration were not of competent jurisdiction because the
Constitution grants to the Congress, not the President, the
authority to create courts inferior to the USSC, and to make
rules for captures on land and sea and rules and regulations
for the armed forces.
Moreover, the USSC agrees with me.
> tribunals that would have been deemed so in any preceding
> US military action like Korea or WWII. But since the administration
> hasn't seen fit to clue in Maureen Dowd or National Public Whiner Radio
> with the details, it doesn't count apparently.
Wrong again. The tribunals established under FDR were consistant
with the Articles of War, those used since 1950 have been consistant
with the UCMJ.
>
> >
> > But do not forget, only a minority of the prisoners are Guantanamo
> > Bay are captured combatants. The overwhelming majority were
> > arrested in Pakistan, other countries, or were turned over to the
> > US by Afghans, many for rewards.
> >
> > What evidence have you seen that ANY of those ever bore arms
> > against anyone?
>
> And what evidence have you they did not?
I have no evidence that you did not. Neither do Bush or Musharrif.
Think about that.
> Everyone - including you -
> has to either take the published evidence at face value, prove
> otherwise, or make outrageous claims absent evidence (the current
> tactic of the slackjawed lefties).
NO evidence has been published. I take that at face value,.
Don't forget, Bush released Hamdi and several others rather than
even attempt to show even the merest evidence.
>
> >
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow
> >> and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
> >>
> >> Sure it is. That's why Islamists enjoy as good or better freedom
> >> of expression and faith here as they do anywhere else in the world.
> >> Ditto, Catholics, Scientologists, Pagans, Atheists, and Wiccans...
> >
> > That is NOT because the use is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
> > where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
> > That is because those backsliders have been held in check.
>
> Sorry, could not parse this entirely.
Sorry, that was a typod, corrected below.
> > That is NOT because the government is moving each day closer to a theocracy,
> > where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule.
> > That is because those backsliders have been held in check.
> ...
>
> >
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT suppresses the science that doesn't fit its religious,
> >> political and economic agenda, forcing present and future generations to
> >> pay a terrible price.
> >>
> >> Because we all know that science is a matter of popular opinion
> >> first, and if everyone is scared enough of, say, so-called Global
> >> Warming, we should all rush out to adjust policy accordingly,
> >> notwithstanding the considerable debate *within* the scientific
> >> community. ...
> >
> > I have seen no evidence that the edits demanded by the Bush
> > administration are motivated by popular opinion or debate within
> > the scientific community.
>
> And I have seen no indisputable scientific confirmation that the positions
> taken by the Bush administration are scientifically "wrong".
Neither you, nor the politions requiring the edits, know dick about
science.
> >>
> >> YOUR GOVERNMENT enforces a culture of greed, bigotry, intolerance and
> >> ignorance.
> >>
> >> Right again. My government is so much worse than the enlightened
> >> Islamic world that murders Christians, abuses women, engages in
> >> African slave trade, keeps people in abject poverty and disease
> >> by promising them heavenly rewards. ...
> >
> > There are worse governments than ours. Ours is much better than
> > the governments of Russia, China, Vietnam, Egypt, and a host of
> > others. Bush is a better man than bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or
> > Hitler.
> >
> > For some of us, that's not good enough.
>
> For people like you, *nothing* is *ever* good enough. ...
Always trying to do better, is that so wrong?
>
> W is a flawed president - they all are. But at least his mistakes were
> made in the apparently honest intent to defend his nation from what he
> percieved to be imminent threat (so did lots of other nations). ...
We disagree on what constitutes the appearance of honesty.
--
FF