Re: Bush needs Poland as a future nuclear battlefield

[Guinnog65]

"BombJack" > wrote in message
...
> You are insane.

Beats being brain dead Jack.

[Guinnog65]

"Philippic" > wrote in message
...
>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
> bombing
>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
>> > responsible.
>
> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is even
> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do with
> it*...
>
> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he needs to
> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently predict
> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively confess
> to
> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
> Andrews Sisters.

LOL.

Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him, not
me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he would like
it to be.

Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors to
this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers telling
people things.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guinnog65" > wrote in message
...
> "Philippic" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
>> bombing
>>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
>>> > responsible.
>>
>> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is even
>> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do with
>> it*...
>>
>> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he needs
>> to
>> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently predict
>> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively confess
>> to
>> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
>> Andrews Sisters.
>
> LOL.
>
> Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him, not
> me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he would
> like it to be.
>
> Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors to
> this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers telling
> people things.

Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved in
the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No, you just
improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a "terrorist" act. Which
tells us that you really do not understand the meaning of the term
"terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.

Brooks
>
>

[Guinnog65]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> In article <E5FSc.83445$J06.45616@pd7tw2no>,
>>>>> "zolota" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > The US did not invade Libya in 1986.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> US aircraft piloted by navy fliers bombed Tripoli and the
>>>>>> presidential
>>>>>> palace, close enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Navy didn't fly too many F-111s, at least not in this universe.
>>>>
>>>> True but spurious. The OP didn't say anything about the F-111s which
>>>> were a USAF asset based in the UK. Plenty of Navy / MC aircraft did
>>>> take part in this act of terrorism. The OP has it right I believe.
>>>
>>> "This act of terrorism"? You have it basackwards (about par for the
>>> course in your case); it was a retaliatory action for the Berlin bombing
>>> which killed US military personnel. Since you will undoubtedly claim
>>> that Libya was not involved in that bombing, I'll jump ahead and point
>>> out that Libya just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations
>>> for that bombing (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite
>>> clear they were responsible. You need to learn to get your facts
>>> straight before you engage your fingers int that whole typing thing.
>>
>> Whereas you may need to type more carefully!
>>
>> Are you saying then that one act of terror always justifies another? Or
>> does this only apply to US actions?
>
> The bombing was not a terrorist act. Period.

Period, eh? So was it not a terrorist act because it was the US, or was it
not a terrorist act because it was a nation state acting?

>> Who do you mean by 'they'? Would you include Gaddafi's adoptive daughter
>> who I believe was killed in the attack?
>
> **** happens, especially around leaders of contries employing terrorism.

OK. Thing is, this is undoubtedly the same tough-minded logic Al Quaeda
employs to justify their atrocities too. So, are they terrorists because
they are not directly acting for a nation state?

Are the CIA terrorists sometimes?

>> Are unilateral actions by one nation against another (like the Tripoli
>> bombings) always justified if the aggressor nation can point to
>> involvement of the attacked nation or citizens thereof in terrorism?
>
> Yep, sure can be.

So is it a by-definition thing that the USA can never do wrong? Because it
is a well-known fact that, for example, successive US regimes at best turned
a blind eye to US citizens' support of the IRA killing UK troops and
civilians over here. By your logic, that makes the US an acceptable target
for unilateral attacks by other countries. I would say there is something
wrong with your definitions there.

>> Please try and get *your* facts straight before you engage your fingers
>> int that whole typing thing.
>
> I do have the facts straight--the US did not carry out a "terrorist" act
> when it bombed Libya. You are the guy who is confused.

Yes, it is a confusing subject. In a way, it would be simpler and easier to
take the 'my-country-right-or-wrong' stance you appear to be taking. I would
find that too simplistic though. Real life can be complex and confusing.

[Guinnog65]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Philippic" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>>>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
>>> bombing
>>>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
>>>> > responsible.
>>>
>>> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is
>>> even
>>> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do with
>>> it*...
>>>
>>> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he needs
>>> to
>>> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently predict
>>> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively confess
>>> to
>>> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
>>> Andrews Sisters.
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him,
>> not me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he
>> would like it to be.
>>
>> Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors to
>> this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers telling
>> people things.
>
> Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved in
> the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No, you just
> improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a "terrorist" act.
> Which tells us that you really do not understand the meaning of the term
> "terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.
As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or
any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social objectives".
This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
illegal and involve the use of force. (2) The actions are intended to
intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of political
or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html

It might also be interesting to consider the saying 'One man's terrorist is
another man's freedom fighter'

By the defiinition above, the US retaliation against Libya was terrorism as
it was illegal. Of course that then brings in what definition one uses for
'illegal'. As the closest we have at the moment to a world government is the
UN (for all its imperfections), perhaps we should agree that 'UN-sanctioned'
counts as legal. Certainly, the alternative POV, that one's own country's
actions are never by definition illegal (which seems to be your definition;
correct me if I am wrong) seems somewhat flawed.

Which makes not just the 1986 attack but the current occupation of Iraq both
totally illegal.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Like I said in another post, these things are
complicated.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guinnog65" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Philippic" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>>>>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
>>>> bombing
>>>>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
>>>>> > responsible.
>>>>
>>>> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is
>>>> even
>>>> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do with
>>>> it*...
>>>>
>>>> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he needs
>>>> to
>>>> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently
>>>> predict
>>>> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively
>>>> confess to
>>>> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
>>>> Andrews Sisters.
>>>
>>> LOL.
>>>
>>> Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him,
>>> not me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he
>>> would like it to be.
>>>
>>> Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors
>>> to this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers
>>> telling people things.
>>
>> Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved
>> in the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No, you
>> just improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a "terrorist"
>> act. Which tells us that you really do not understand the meaning of the
>> term "terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.

> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or
> any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social
> objectives".

"Unlawful". The US attack has never been so defined.

> This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
> illegal and involve the use of force.

See above.

(2) The actions are intended to
> intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of
> political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
> www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html
>
> It might also be interesting to consider the saying 'One man's terrorist
> is another man's freedom fighter'

Then you have a strange perception of reality. You don't like that the
attack was conducted, fine--but don't try and label it a "terrorist act".

>
> By the defiinition above, the US retaliation against Libya was terrorism
> as it was illegal.

You have not shown that. The UN charter and international law recognizes the
right of a state to act against another militarily when provocation exists.
Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
Germany had claimed for many years.


Of course that then brings in what definition one uses for
> 'illegal'. As the closest we have at the moment to a world government is
> the UN (for all its imperfections), perhaps we should agree that
> 'UN-sanctioned' counts as legal.

LOL! Hardly. membership in the UN does not remove a nation's right to
respond to attacks against it, its citizens, or its interests. Try again.

Brooks

Certainly, the alternative POV, that one's own country's
> actions are never by definition illegal (which seems to be your
> definition; correct me if I am wrong) seems somewhat flawed.
>
> Which makes not just the 1986 attack but the current occupation of Iraq
> both totally illegal.
>
> Sorry to burst your bubble. Like I said in another post, these things are
> complicated.
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guinnog65" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> In article <E5FSc.83445$J06.45616@pd7tw2no>,
>>>>>> "zolota" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > The US did not invade Libya in 1986.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> US aircraft piloted by navy fliers bombed Tripoli and the
>>>>>>> presidential
>>>>>>> palace, close enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Navy didn't fly too many F-111s, at least not in this universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> True but spurious. The OP didn't say anything about the F-111s which
>>>>> were a USAF asset based in the UK. Plenty of Navy / MC aircraft did
>>>>> take part in this act of terrorism. The OP has it right I believe.
>>>>
>>>> "This act of terrorism"? You have it basackwards (about par for the
>>>> course in your case); it was a retaliatory action for the Berlin
>>>> bombing which killed US military personnel. Since you will undoubtedly
>>>> claim that Libya was not involved in that bombing, I'll jump ahead and
>>>> point out that Libya just signed an agreement with Germany to pay
>>>> reparations for that bombing (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it
>>>> is quite clear they were responsible. You need to learn to get your
>>>> facts straight before you engage your fingers int that whole typing
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> Whereas you may need to type more carefully!
>>>
>>> Are you saying then that one act of terror always justifies another? Or
>>> does this only apply to US actions?
>>
>> The bombing was not a terrorist act. Period.
>
> Period, eh? So was it not a terrorist act because it was the US, or was it
> not a terrorist act because it was a nation state acting?

Because it was a nation state acting to protect its citizens and interests.

>
>>> Who do you mean by 'they'? Would you include Gaddafi's adoptive daughter
>>> who I believe was killed in the attack?
>>
>> **** happens, especially around leaders of contries employing terrorism.
>
> OK. Thing is, this is undoubtedly the same tough-minded logic Al Quaeda
> employs to justify their atrocities too. So, are they terrorists because
> they are not directly acting for a nation state?

Nice try, but no, it is not the same thing, for a number of reasons.

>
> Are the CIA terrorists sometimes?

Pretty broad--be specific with your request.

>
>>> Are unilateral actions by one nation against another (like the Tripoli
>>> bombings) always justified if the aggressor nation can point to
>>> involvement of the attacked nation or citizens thereof in terrorism?
>>
>> Yep, sure can be.
>
> So is it a by-definition thing that the USA can never do wrong?

Didn't say that. But in this case we did not.

Because it
> is a well-known fact that, for example, successive US regimes at best
> turned a blind eye to US citizens' support of the IRA killing UK troops
> and civilians over here. By your logic, that makes the US an acceptable
> target for unilateral attacks by other countries. I would say there is
> something wrong with your definitions there.

Nope. A case could have been made for the UK to attack the US over the IRA
situation--but they didn't. Try again.

>
>>> Please try and get *your* facts straight before you engage your fingers
>>> int that whole typing thing.
>>
>> I do have the facts straight--the US did not carry out a "terrorist" act
>> when it bombed Libya. You are the guy who is confused.
>
> Yes, it is a confusing subject. In a way, it would be simpler and easier
> to take the 'my-country-right-or-wrong' stance you appear to be taking. I
> would find that too simplistic though. Real life can be complex and
> confusing.

LOL! Check out my comments above and you will see just how dreadfully wrong
you are.

Brooks

>
>

[Guinnog65]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Philippic" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>>>>>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
>>>>> bombing
>>>>>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they were
>>>>>> > responsible.
>>>>>
>>>>> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is
>>>>> even
>>>>> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do
>>>>> with
>>>>> it*...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he
>>>>> needs to
>>>>> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently
>>>>> predict
>>>>> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively
>>>>> confess to
>>>>> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered the
>>>>> Andrews Sisters.
>>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him,
>>>> not me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he
>>>> would like it to be.
>>>>
>>>> Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors
>>>> to this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers
>>>> telling people things.
>>>
>>> Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved
>>> in the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No, you
>>> just improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a "terrorist"
>>> act. Which tells us that you really do not understand the meaning of the
>>> term "terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.
>
>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
>> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or
>> any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social
>> objectives".
>
> "Unlawful". The US attack has never been so defined.
>
>> This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
>> illegal and involve the use of force.
>
> See above.
>
> (2) The actions are intended to
>> intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of
>> political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
>> www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html
>>
>> It might also be interesting to consider the saying 'One man's terrorist
>> is another man's freedom fighter'
>
> Then you have a strange perception of reality. You don't like that the
> attack was conducted, fine--but don't try and label it a "terrorist act".
>
>>
>> By the defiinition above, the US retaliation against Libya was terrorism
>> as it was illegal.
>
> You have not shown that. The UN charter and international law recognizes
> the right of a state to act against another militarily when provocation
> exists.

Not quite.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the
exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the
Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at
any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore
international peace and security.

Note that it doesn't say 'when provocation exists'.

I don't believe that the US itself was threatened by Libya. Rather, the US
believed Libyan secret services were to blame for a bombing attack in which
one of its servicemen in Germany was killed.

Neither do I believe that the US referred this through the UN at the time
and got approval for the attack codenamed El Dorado.

If you can show me I was wrong, and that the UN gave permission at the time
for the attack, then of course I will retract the 'terrorism' charge; or
indeed if you can show me any other evidence that the attack was morally or
legally justified.

I do not believe the attack was legal; I do not even believe that
pragmatically it achieved its results. Libya continued to supply arms to
international terrorists like our own IRA for years after this, as, of
course did the US.

> Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
> Germany had claimed for many years.

And they may well have been involved in it. Or, like with the Lockerbie
bombing, they may have just been 'fessing up' to something they know they
had nothing to do with so they can sell their oil again.

I should add perhaps that I do not claim to be an expert in international
law (as I can see you are not either) and I know just how grey some of these
areas can be. But I think it is important for the US to at least try to act
legally. Without a legal framework, with every country defining for itself
what its rights are, we are back to the 19th century and each country
grabbing what it can.

[Guinnog65]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>
> You have no idea of the strike plans period.

Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night. They
killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi. They also caused damage to
several embassies in Tripoli, which was presumably not their intention. They
lost a F-111, presumed to have been downed by AAA.

Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed. In the
longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
unabated.

> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.

Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Guinnog65" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Guinnog65" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Philippic" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> > I'll jump ahead and point out that Libya
>>>>>>> > just signed an agreement with Germany to pay reparations for that
>>>>>> bombing
>>>>>>> > (www.iht.com/articles/537276.html ), so it is quite clear they
>>>>>>> > were
>>>>>>> > responsible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An action like this is not proof of *anything*, dip****: Gaddaffi is
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> paying through the nose for *Lockerbie*, and he had *nothing to do
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> it*...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gaddaffi is happy to jump through such ludicrous hoops because he
>>>>>> needs to
>>>>>> see Libya allowed to rejoin the 'world community'. I confidently
>>>>>> predict
>>>>>> that the next six months will see him cheerfully and expensively
>>>>>> confess to
>>>>>> having blown up the Hindenburg; murdered Jimmy Hoffa; and fathered
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Andrews Sisters.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't be nasty to poor Kevin (I assume you were talking to him,
>>>>> not me). He is only trying to understand a world more complex than he
>>>>> would like it to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Behind his bluster he can be one of the most knowledgable contributors
>>>>> to this forum. Sadly he does not do debate very well, as he prefers
>>>>> telling people things.
>>>>
>>>> Not much to debate; *you* have yet to claim that Libya was NOT involved
>>>> in the Berlin bombing that they have now acknowledged, have you? No,
>>>> you just improperly classified the US retaliatory action as a
>>>> "terrorist" act. Which tells us that you really do not understand the
>>>> meaning of the term "terrorism". Look it up and educate yourself.
>>
>>> As defined by the FBI, "the unlawful use of force against persons or
>>> property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population
>>> or any segment thereof, in the furtherance of political or social
>>> objectives".
>>
>> "Unlawful". The US attack has never been so defined.
>>
>>> This definition includes three elements: (1) Terrorist activities are
>>> illegal and involve the use of force.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>> (2) The actions are intended to
>>> intimidate or coerce. (3) The actions are committed in support of
>>> political or social objectives. (FEMA-SS)
>>> www.mema.domestic-preparedness.net/glossary.html
>>>
>>> It might also be interesting to consider the saying 'One man's terrorist
>>> is another man's freedom fighter'
>>
>> Then you have a strange perception of reality. You don't like that the
>> attack was conducted, fine--but don't try and label it a "terrorist act".
>>
>>>
>>> By the defiinition above, the US retaliation against Libya was terrorism
>>> as it was illegal.
>>
>> You have not shown that. The UN charter and international law recognizes
>> the right of a state to act against another militarily when provocation
>> exists.
>
> Not quite.
>
> Article 51
> Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of
> individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs

An armed attack occured--or do you think a bomb was not an "arm"? Case
closed--we were acting legally in response to that armed attack, and to
prevent further attacks.

<snip>

>
> Note that it doesn't say 'when provocation exists'.

No, it says armed attack, which did occur.

>
> I don't believe that the US itself was threatened by Libya. Rather, the US
> believed Libyan secret services were to blame for a bombing attack in
> which one of its servicemen in Germany was killed.
>
> Neither do I believe that the US referred this through the UN at the time
> and got approval for the attack codenamed El Dorado.

We don't have to; nor does any other member state when it is subjected to an
armed attack. The bomb was planted by Libyan agents, we had evidence of
that, and we acted in rataliation to prevent further attacks. It is really
rather simple--even you should be able to grasp it.

>
> If you can show me I was wrong, and that the UN gave permission at the
> time for the attack,

The US, nor any other state subjected to an attack on it, its citizens, or
its interests, does not have to get permission. You have this strange idea
that any action not specifically sanctioned by the UN is "illegal", and that
is not the case.

then of course I will retract the 'terrorism' charge; or
> indeed if you can show me any other evidence that the attack was morally
> or legally justified.

It was, and evidence has been presented--but you won't accept it because it
gets in the way of your strange ideas about the UN usurping national
responsibilities and your greater pet peeve, the US in general.

Brooks

>
> I do not believe the attack was legal; I do not even believe that
> pragmatically it achieved its results. Libya continued to supply arms to
> international terrorists like our own IRA for years after this, as, of
> course did the US.
>
>> Iraq has 'fessed up to being behind the disco bombing, just as the US and
>> Germany had claimed for many years.
>
> And they may well have been involved in it. Or, like with the Lockerbie
> bombing, they may have just been 'fessing up' to something they know they
> had nothing to do with so they can sell their oil again.
>
> I should add perhaps that I do not claim to be an expert in international
> law (as I can see you are not either) and I know just how grey some of
> these areas can be. But I think it is important for the US to at least try
> to act legally. Without a legal framework, with every country defining for
> itself what its rights are, we are back to the 19th century and each
> country grabbing what it can.
>

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:40 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
wrote:

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>>
>> You have no idea of the strike plans period.
>
>Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night.

Considering your clueless comments w.r.t USN Operations,
How would you exactly ?

On what are you basing your insightful commentary ?

> They killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi.

Your faux concern for 'civilians' is noted yet again.

I'll repeat the inconvenient fact you've just attempted airbrush away.

Article 28 of the 4th (1949) convention

"The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render
certain points or areas immune from military operations."

It Libya had not engaged in an act of war by engaging in terrorist actions,
these 'civilians' would be alive today.

Their 'deaths' are not the fault of the US.

Please feel free to continue emoting your 'concern'. Its so touching.

> They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,

So what.

>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed.

Another inductive fallacy.

>In the longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
>unabated.

The record says otherwise. The bulk of Libyan logistical support for the
provos was shipped before events of El-Dorado canyon.

>> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.
>
>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.

ROTFL Another posturing idiot who doesn't know what a tu quoque is.


greg



--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/22/2004 5:21 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>>
>> You have no idea of the strike plans period.
>
>Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night. They
>killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi. They also caused damage to
>several embassies in Tripoli, which was presumably not their intention. They
>lost a F-111, presumed to have been downed by AAA.
>
>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed. In the
>longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
>unabated.
>
>> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.
>
>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.

Are you that anti American that you feel the need to keep accusing us of
targeting civilians? Do you know so little about war that you don't understand
innocent people die in war?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Guinnog65]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:21 AM Central Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>>>
>>> You have no idea of the strike plans period.
>>
>>Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night. They
>>killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi. They also caused damage to
>>several embassies in Tripoli, which was presumably not their intention.
>>They
>>lost a F-111, presumed to have been downed by AAA.
>>
>>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed. In
>>the
>>longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
>>unabated.
>>
>>> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.
>>
>>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.
>
> Are you that anti American that you feel the need to keep accusing us of
> targeting civilians? Do you know so little about war that you don't
> understand
> innocent people die in war?

Ah Dan. This is no doubt just what Al Quaeda operatives tell themselves
before training young men to fly airliners into buildings. Presumably you
are ok about that as well?

Or is it only foreign civilians who may die for your leaders' geopolitical
vision?

Not at all anti-American though, but somewhat anti- your current policy.

[Guinnog65]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 11:21:40 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>>>
>>> You have no idea of the strike plans period.
>>
>>Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night.
>
> Considering your clueless comments w.r.t USN Operations,
> How would you exactly ?

I've tried parsing this seven different ways and it just isn't English. Care
to reword it so that it means something?

> On what are you basing your insightful commentary ?
>
>> They killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi.
>
> Your faux concern for 'civilians' is noted yet again.

Oh, it is not 'faux' at all. Killing civilians is not just against all basic
rules of civilised behaviour, it is bad for business. You see, the survivors
tend to be annoyed.

Remember a few years ago, when a few thousand civilians were killed in New
York? I assure you, I felt just the same way about them.

> I'll repeat the inconvenient fact you've just attempted airbrush away.
>
> Article 28 of the 4th (1949) convention
>
> "The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render
> certain points or areas immune from military operations."
>
> It Libya had not engaged in an act of war by engaging in terrorist
> actions,
> these 'civilians' would be alive today.

I can just imagine you in a burkah (sp?), telling your acolytes this one to
justify suicide bombing of western targets.

"Yes, Abdul, you see if those evil Americans had not engaged in acts of war
against us, these civilians would still be alive"

Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right? Or is it just thoughtless
posturing? Hmm.

> Their 'deaths' are not the fault of the US.
>
> Please feel free to continue emoting your 'concern'. Its so touching.

Your sarcasm is noted.

>> They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,
>
> So what.

So... you aren't supposed to damage embassies? Like... duh. (I hope you
realise I'm talking down to you here)

>>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed.
>
> Another inductive fallacy.

And I'm sure that was a great comfort to them as they died.

>>In the longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA
>>continued
>>unabated.
>
> The record says otherwise. The bulk of Libyan logistical support for the
> provos was shipped before events of El-Dorado canyon.

Which record are you looking at there? AFAIK the PIRA never published
records! Please feel free to provide a cite here if this is anything more
than idiotic posturing...

>>> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.
>>
>>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.
>
> ROTFL Another posturing idiot who doesn't know what a tu quoque is.

You are so right. They didn't teach Latin tags at my school. Is it a fancy
haircut?

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:14:38 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
wrote:


>> Considering your clueless comments w.r.t USN Operations,
>> How would you exactly ?
>
>I've tried parsing this seven different ways and it just isn't English. Care
>to reword it so that it means something?
>

Ohh, a grammar flame, quelle surprise.

>> On what are you basing your insightful commentary ?
>>
>>> They killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi.
>>
>> Your faux concern for 'civilians' is noted yet again.
>
>Oh, it is not 'faux' at all.

You don't give a XXXX about 'civilians', they are just useful grist to your
anti American mill.

> Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised behaviour,
>it is bad for business.

You mean like the German or Japanese 'civilians' were ?

Please tell the audience how your vast intellect would have dealt with the
very real threat of fascism without causing the death of 'civilians'.

I'm all ears.

>You see, the survivors tend to be annoyed.

Like those at Dresden or Tokyo ?

>Remember a few years ago, when a few thousand civilians were killed in New
>York? I assure you, I felt just the same way about them.

Of course you did, hollow words easily spoken.

>> I'll repeat the inconvenient fact you've just attempted airbrush away.
>>
>> Article 28 of the 4th (1949) convention
>>
>> "The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to render
>> certain points or areas immune from military operations."
>>
>> It Libya had not engaged in an act of war by engaging in terrorist
>> actions,
>> these 'civilians' would be alive today.
>
>I can just imagine you in a burkah (sp?), telling your acolytes this one to
>justify suicide bombing of western targets.

A profoundly silly piece of moral relativism.

>"Yes, Abdul, you see if those evil Americans had not engaged in acts of war
>against us, these civilians would still be alive"
>
>Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right?

Yet more canned cliche.

Are you suggesting that for example the UN shouldn't have intervened to
turn back the North Korean invasion in 1950 because

'two wrongs dont make a right'

How about the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ?

How would *you* have dealt with a clear act of war on the part of the
Libyans ?

Please enlighten the audience, tell us what measures *you* would have
undertaken to convince the Libyans to cease and desist forthwith.

Until you do so, I'll treat your **** & wind with the seriousness it
clearly deserves.

BTW : That *was* sarcastic.


>Or is it just thoughtless
>posturing? Hmm.

I leave that to those who only post cliche.

>> Their 'deaths' are not the fault of the US.
>>
>> Please feel free to continue emoting your 'concern'. Its so touching.
>
>Your sarcasm is noted.

Good.

>>> They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,
>>
>> So what.
>
>So... you aren't supposed to damage embassies? Like... duh. (I hope you
>realise I'm talking down to you here)

You're trying but failing miserably.
A broken pane of glass here and there does not a 'damaged' embassy make.


>>>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed.
>>
>> Another inductive fallacy.
>
>And I'm sure that was a great comfort to them as they died.

You were the one to introduce them as a straw man.
Your lack of empathy for these 'civilians' is noted.

>>>In the longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA
>>>continued
>>>unabated.
>>
>> The record says otherwise. The bulk of Libyan logistical support for the
>> provos was shipped before events of El-Dorado canyon.
>
>Which record are you looking at there?

The real world one.

>AFAIK the PIRA never published
>records! Please feel free to provide a cite here if this is anything more
>than idiotic posturing...

Hint: figure out when the last of the *4* arms shipments from Libya to the
provos was captured.

The date should enlighten you somewhat.

>>>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.
>>
>> ROTFL Another posturing idiot who doesn't know what a tu quoque is.
>
>You are so right.

Beyond any doubt at this stage.

>They didn't teach Latin tags at my school. Is it a fancy
>haircut?

Laugh, I nearly shat.



greg





--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

[Guinnog65]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:14:38 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Considering your clueless comments w.r.t USN Operations,
>>> How would you exactly ?
>>
>>I've tried parsing this seven different ways and it just isn't English.
>>Care
>>to reword it so that it means something?
>>
>
> Ohh, a grammar flame, quelle surprise.

No, I didn't understand what you were trying to say. Obviously your Latin is
better than your English. Refusal to reword in English noted.

>>> On what are you basing your insightful commentary ?
>>>
>>>> They killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi.
>>>
>>> Your faux concern for 'civilians' is noted yet again.
>>
>>Oh, it is not 'faux' at all.
>
> You don't give a XXXX about 'civilians', they are just useful grist to
> your
> anti American mill.

How would you know what I care about, you sad bedwetter?

>> Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised
>> behaviour,
>>it is bad for business.
>
> You mean like the German or Japanese 'civilians' were ?
>
> Please tell the audience how your vast intellect would have dealt with the
> very real threat of fascism without causing the death of 'civilians'.
>
> I'm all ears.

We were actually talking about Libya, at least I was.

>>You see, the survivors tend to be annoyed.
>
> Like those at Dresden or Tokyo ?

Attempt to change the subject noted. We were actually talking about Libya.
1986. Not WW2.

>>Remember a few years ago, when a few thousand civilians were killed in New
>>York? I assure you, I felt just the same way about them.
>
> Of course you did, hollow words easily spoken.

I get the feeling you would not know sincerity if your care worker showed
you it in a book.

>>> I'll repeat the inconvenient fact you've just attempted airbrush away.
>>>
>>> Article 28 of the 4th (1949) convention
>>>
>>> "The presence of a protected person [a civilian] may not be used to
>>> render
>>> certain points or areas immune from military operations."
>>>
>>> It Libya had not engaged in an act of war by engaging in terrorist
>>> actions,
>>> these 'civilians' would be alive today.
>>
>>I can just imagine you in a burkah (sp?), telling your acolytes this one
>>to
>>justify suicide bombing of western targets.
>
> A profoundly silly piece of moral relativism.
>
>>"Yes, Abdul, you see if those evil Americans had not engaged in acts of
>>war
>>against us, these civilians would still be alive"
>>
>>Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right?
>
> Yet more canned cliche.

Evasion of direct question noted.

> Are you suggesting that for example the UN shouldn't have intervened to
> turn back the North Korean invasion in 1950 because
>
> 'two wrongs dont make a right'
>
> How about the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ?

Attempt to change the subject noted.

> How would *you* have dealt with a clear act of war on the part of the
> Libyans ?

Probably not by bombing the Swiss embassy. Then again, I am not American.

> Please enlighten the audience, tell us what measures *you* would have
> undertaken to convince the Libyans to cease and desist forthwith.
>
> Until you do so, I'll treat your **** & wind with the seriousness it
> clearly deserves.
>
> BTW : That *was* sarcastic.

Truly is it called a teenager's medium.

>>Or is it just thoughtless
>>posturing? Hmm.
>
> I leave that to those who only post cliche.
>
>>> Their 'deaths' are not the fault of the US.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to continue emoting your 'concern'. Its so touching.
>>
>>Your sarcasm is noted.
>
> Good.
>
>>>> They also caused damage to several embassies in Tripoli,
>>>
>>> So what.
>>
>>So... you aren't supposed to damage embassies? Like... duh. (I hope you
>>realise I'm talking down to you here)
>
> You're trying but failing miserably.
> A broken pane of glass here and there does not a 'damaged' embassy make.

Really? What does 'damaged' mean to you then?

>>>>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed.
>>>
>>> Another inductive fallacy.
>>
>>And I'm sure that was a great comfort to them as they died.
>
> You were the one to introduce them as a straw man.
> Your lack of empathy for these 'civilians' is noted.

Bizarre response noted. I thought you were the one saying it was ok to kill
civilians.

>>>>In the longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA
>>>>continued
>>>>unabated.
>>>
>>> The record says otherwise. The bulk of Libyan logistical support for the
>>> provos was shipped before events of El-Dorado canyon.
>>
>>Which record are you looking at there?
>
> The real world one.
>
>>AFAIK the PIRA never published
>>records! Please feel free to provide a cite here if this is anything more
>>than idiotic posturing...
>
> Hint: figure out when the last of the *4* arms shipments from Libya to the
> provos was captured.
>
> The date should enlighten you somewhat.

Hint: the captured ones were not the ones they *received* from Libya and
used to blow up British soldiers and civilians.

"The two main sources of weaponry for the IRA have been the USA and Libya"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/inside/weapons.html and it
has the shipments continuing until the 'early 90s' which was what I thought.
Do you actually understand what 'captured' means?

>>>>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.
>>>
>>> ROTFL Another posturing idiot who doesn't know what a tu quoque is.
>>
>>You are so right.
>
> Beyond any doubt at this stage.
>
>>They didn't teach Latin tags at my school. Is it a fancy
>>haircut?
>
> Laugh, I nearly shat.

Shame you didn't. It would have been better than what you did produce.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:11:39 +0100, "Guinnog65" >
wrote:

>>>Oh, it is not 'faux' at all.
>>
>> You don't give a XXXX about 'civilians', they are just useful grist to
>> your
>> anti American mill.
>
>How would you know what I care about, you sad bedwetter?

Aww bless, ad hominem.

>> You mean like the German or Japanese 'civilians' were ?
>>
>> Please tell the audience how your vast intellect would have dealt with the
>> very real threat of fascism without causing the death of 'civilians'.
>>
>> I'm all ears.
>
>We were actually talking about Libya, at least I was.

You unequivocally asserted the following

" Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised
behaviour, it is bad for business. "

The discussion context is clearly about 'civilians'.

Its not the fault of the audience that you are incapable of supporting what
you posted previously.


>>>You see, the survivors tend to be annoyed.
>>
>> Like those at Dresden or Tokyo ?
>
>Attempt to change the subject noted. We were actually talking about Libya.
>1986. Not WW2.

I'm not changing the subject. You were the one to assert

" Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised
behaviour, it is bad for business. "

I've asked you to detail alternatives, what are they.

>>>Remember a few years ago, when a few thousand civilians were killed in New
>>>York? I assure you, I felt just the same way about them.
>>
>> Of course you did, hollow words easily spoken.
>
>I get the feeling you would not know sincerity if your care worker showed
>you it in a book.

This coming from the intellectual giant who emoted

" Killing civilians is not just against all basic rules of civilised
behaviour, it is bad for business. "

If you were truly 'sincere' you'd enlighten the audience with your
alternatives.

>>>"Yes, Abdul, you see if those evil Americans had not engaged in acts of
>>>war
>>>against us, these civilians would still be alive"
>>>
>>>Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right?
>>
>> Yet more canned cliche.
>
>Evasion of direct question noted.

You cannot tell the audience what your 'civilian' sparing alternative was
w.r.t confronting
Japanese & German fascism,
North Korean/Iraqi invasions of their neighbours
& state sanctioned terrorist attacks by Libya on 120 odd German
'civilians'.

How could one possibly 'evade' such trite fallacious nonsense.


>> Are you suggesting that for example the UN shouldn't have intervened to
>> turn back the North Korean invasion in 1950 because
>>
>> 'two wrongs dont make a right'
>>
>> How about the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 ?
>
>Attempt to change the subject noted.

That's not changing the subject. You unequivocally asked above.

"Do you *really* think two wrongs make a right?"

When referring to civilian casualties.

I cannot help it if your ego wont permit you to accept the inherent
contradiction in such cliched nonsense.

>> How would *you* have dealt with a clear act of war on the part of the
>> Libyans ?
>
>Probably not by bombing the Swiss embassy. Then again, I am not American.

Now that *is* an evasion.

You cannot tell the audience what *your* response would have to been to
clear act of state terrorism by Libya.

You are unable to detail anything resembling a alternative to an act of war
on Libya's part and the US right under article 51 to respond.



[evasive nonsense binned unread]
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

[B2431]

>From: "Guinnog65"
>Date: 9/22/2004 11:55 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "Guinnog65"
>>>Date: 9/22/2004 5:21 AM Central Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:44:28 +0100, "Guinnog65"
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I had forgotten the details of the strike plans.
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea of the strike plans period.
>>>
>>>Neither, it seems, did the bold aviators and airmen on the night. They
>>>killed civilians but failed to kill Gaddafi. They also caused damage to
>>>several embassies in Tripoli, which was presumably not their intention.
>>>They
>>>lost a F-111, presumed to have been downed by AAA.
>>>
>>>Afterwards, in the short term, several Western hostages were killed. In
>>>the
>>>longer term, Libyan support for (among other groups) the IRA continued
>>>unabated.
>>>
>>>> Please continue to emit some more straw men and non sequiturs.
>>>
>>>Straw men and non sequiturs I will leave up to you. You do them so well.
>>
>> Are you that anti American that you feel the need to keep accusing us of
>> targeting civilians? Do you know so little about war that you don't
>> understand
>> innocent people die in war?
>
>Ah Dan. This is no doubt just what Al Quaeda operatives tell themselves
>before training young men to fly airliners into buildings. Presumably you
>are ok about that as well?

OK, since you are incapable of understanding the difference between 9/11 where
they wanted a big civilian body count and strikes against military targets
where civilian casualties are not intended let me give you an example of a
military strike where civilian casualties can be expected but are not the
intended target.

In WW2 the USAAF is flying a mission to update the landscape of the haupt
bahnhof in Munich. Let's say this happens some day in early 1944. A B-17
piloted by Matthew Arthur Kramer is navigated to the target by a navigator
named Stephen Arthur Kramer. As he lines up on the bahnhof the pilot hands
control over to bombardier Henry Arthur Kramer who peers his bomb sight locates
the aiming point, steers the B-17 to the release point and pickles. Let's say
you are an innocent 10 year old. As you step off a train a 500 pound bomb taps
you on your head just before it works as advertised to move a few yards of
earth. Were you targetted? No, you would be collateral damage.

Now let's change the scenario a bit. Pilot Kramer deviates from the intended
mission plan, and decides to visit Switzerland where he flies into an building
full of accountants killing a hundred innocent civilians. Are civilians
intentionally targetted? Yes.

Do you see the difference now?

>
>Or is it only foreign civilians who may die for your leaders' geopolitical
>vision?

The only way you could have inferred that in anything I have ever posted in
this or other threads is your view of U.S. citizens is we are imperialists.
Perhaps you say silly things as above in an attempt to goad, irritate or
otherwise antagonise.
>
>Not at all anti-American though, but somewhat anti- your current policy.

Does that include our policy of providing more aid to Palestinian refugees than
all Arab countries combined? Does that include our policy of sending aid to
disater victims in countries like Iran where their people are taught to hate
us? Does that include our policy to provide training for your air forces at
facilities in our country? Does that include our policy of providing medical
and educational aid to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Perhaps you should look at policies in your own country. Example: my brother in
law, a German citizen since birth, was a conscientious objector who was given
alternate duty in an abortion clinic. Makes sense to me since he would probably
never have seen combat but would have most assuredly been involved with the
killing of babies.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Greg Hennessy]

On 22 Sep 2004 23:08:37 GMT, (B2431) wrote:


>Now let's change the scenario a bit. Pilot Kramer deviates from the intended
>mission plan, and decides to visit Switzerland where he flies into an building
>full of accountants

Luckily you didnt say a building full of barristers, you would have put me
on the horns of a dilemma otherwise Dan LOL.
--
Felicitations, malefactors! I am endeavoring to misappropriate
the formulary for the preparation of affordable comestibles.
Who will join me?!

[B2431]

>From: Greg Hennessy
>Date: 9/23/2004 2:45 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 22 Sep 2004 23:08:37 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>
>>Now let's change the scenario a bit. Pilot Kramer deviates from the intended
>>mission plan, and decides to visit Switzerland where he flies into an
>building
>>full of accountants
>
>Luckily you didnt say a building full of barristers, you would have put me
>on the horns of a dilemma otherwise Dan LOL.
>--

Oh come on, just because 99% of barristers/lawyers/solicitors give the rest a
bad name is no reason to have such a low opinion of them. <g>

Question: if two politicians from different parties jump off of a tall building
at the same time which will hit the ground first?

Answer: does it really matter?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired