If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Jim, you've made too little sense for far too long. While you show
glimmers of intelligence, you steadfastly refuse to use it. Goodbye. plonk Jim Watt wrote: :On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 14:44:42 -0700, "TinCanman" wrote: : : :"Jim Watt" wrote in message . .. : On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 05:35:55 -0700, "TinCanman" : wrote: : : : "Jim Watt" wrote in message : .. . : On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 19:52:14 -0700, "TinCanman" : wrote: : : Your observation there is no war IS irrelevant : : Its a legal point, and the reason for introducing the Japanese : premptive strike was that after the war your country used that : to prosecute the Japanese. : : The reasons why America refuses to accept an international : criminal court to deal with these problems is clear. You are : the criminals. : : : -- : Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com : : Well, that does it for me. If there was ever the slightest doubt why the : U.S. has not signed on to the Uropeen IKK, there exists none now. Not :even a : glimmer. : : International not Euopean. : -- : Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com : :Not from my perspective. It's merely a continuation of the Uropeen Diplomacy :model designed to hamstring the powerful and level the playing field for the :has beens. That model is in failure mode and is no longer appropriate as is :the U.N. The U.N. as an international forum for mediation has failed. It :sucks up a tremendous amount of resources and provides a platform for the :worlds despots with little to show for the effort; IOW, just more jawboning :lawyers and politicians. I doubt the new world order will be as you have :envisioned it. : :How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp :everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise :international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea :and do a lot of good in the world. : :Its a big world, and some parts of it are more civilised than :the extended version of the Jerry Springer show that your erspective is based on. : :Mind you he might make a better president than the one :you have at present. : :http://www.runjerryrun.com/ |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 22:30:05 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Given your earlier predilections for distortion of the facts, no, it's not. You went into their homes, so they started coming out after you. Hardly the same thing as international terrorism, Can't recall going into anyone's home in Belfast, although I did recently visit the RUC, who were very decent guys. I am aware that the IRA came to mine with the intention of blowing up a bank, along with an adjoining catholic middle school, a jewish retirement home, some tourists and a few bandsmen with 100 lbs of Semtex. Those things are facts. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
David Evans wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : :David Evans wrote: : ::Fred J. McCall wrote: :: ::: Yet the Americans continued to sponsor terrorism by the IRA ::: who did exactly that, demanded POW status if caught and ::: have now been released. ::: :::I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland. :: ::Most of us don't, but there's always the UK odd sod who feels the need ::to bring them up at every opportunity as an equivalent to any bad ::thing you care to name. :: ::Most of that sort, as Mr Watt above, are unable to differentiate ::between "some Americans" and "the Americans". :: ::"The Americans" did nothing to prevent NORAID collections. That is ::tacit support. : :So the IRA was supported by the British (who also did nothing :effective to prevent various collections of funds in various places :and hence must also have been in tacit support)? : :Given the fact that most IRA members are British I find the above :comment totally ignorant. Well, **** you too. In case you haven't figured it out yet, most IRA members DO NOT WANT TO BE BRITISH (as in subjects of the UK government), which is sort of the point of what they're doing, no? So calling them 'the British' is something of a misnomer, tantamount to calling the Canadians 'Americans', since, after all, they live on North America too. :Various British governments tried various strategies to bring a halt :to IRA terrorism. This included imploring the US to ban collections :for the terrorist organisation. So, as I said above, by your reasoning, the IRA was supported by the British (even the British government, now), since they really did nothing but talk. :See what happens when you start trying to stretch reality to make an :incorrect statement on your part correct? : :Yes, I make you look a fool. Of course you do. You just keep telling yourself that, if it helps you get through the day.... -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Fred J. McCall wrote:
Jim Watt wrote: :On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 16:10:48 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote: : :Jim Watt wrote: : ::On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 18:55:04 -0700, "TinCanman" wrote: :: ::I really don't give a tinkers damn about the IRA and Northern Ireland. :: ::Its a convenient example of international terrorism funded and ::supported by Americans. : :International only if you consider Northern Ireland a separate nation :from England. : :No, the IRA murdered people in Germany, Holland and planned :a substantial operation in Gibraltar And who were they going after in Germany? In Holland? Anyone english speaking with short hair if the results are anything to go by. In Gibraltar (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way). But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand. In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part of the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed and which part of the British security services he was a member of at the time. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
"Gary Carson" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:13:54 -0700, "TinCanMan" wrote: Well, no. Criminals are entitled to be charged and tried. The folks enjoying the tropical breezes at Gitmo are not criminals. They are combatants, having been taken on the battlefield or having been found hiding among the populace. According to what passes as the laws of war, they will be detained in camps for such and will be released when hostillities are over. And the war on terror will be finished before or after the war on drugs? And the war on drugs has exactly what to do with the war on terror? |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Iain Rae wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote: : In Gibraltar : (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way). : :But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating :in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand. Try again. The first part of your sentence is true. The last part is not, as all those live folks in Cuba demonstrate. :In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part f the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed The part that managed to get its independence while you were distracted. Sorry, it's hard to consider the other part of Ireland (the part you don't hold any more) as constituting 'international', given the aims of the IRA and such. As worked up as some of you folks get over this, I'd think you'd have a MUCH better case put together by now than you seem to be able to present. -- "You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not. It's who you are." -- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:57:42 -0700, "TinCanMan"
wrote: How easy it is to dismiss the UN when it does not rubber stamp everything that suits you. The UN and its agencies organise international telecommunications, air travel, safety of life at sea and do a lot of good in the world. Dismiss? I did no such thing. I've carefully analyzed the available information on their performance and come to the conclusion we aren't getting good value for our investment. The U.N. performs almost no useful function, which could not be accomplished more effectively in another venue, the ITU not withstanding. That could easily be wrapped up in the ISO as can any other standards body. Safety of life at sea???? Give me a break here. I have over 20 years at sea and still maintain a seaman's document and a close relationship with those who do. I haven't seen one damn thing in that time with a U.N. influence. I, also, work in a shipyard (23 years) and we work to no U.N. standards and use no U.N. documents. So tell me, just what is it they do with this safety at sea. Perhaps jawbone and wring their hands, maybe hold a conference or two at some resort. You'll note nations have been negotiating treaties regarding the sea for centuries without the U.N. Just because the UN would not rubber stamp the American invasion of Iraq - based on the evidence presented, who would, you have it in for the organisation as a whole. It may have flaws but it provides a lot of services of value and its clearly not run by your government. My only dealings with the IMO was when the company I worked for purchased their rules for container loading and I implemented them. The level of safety increased. The IMO introduction says it better than I can: "Shipping is perhaps the most international of all the world's great industries and one of the most dangerous. It has always been recognized that the best way of improving safety at sea is by developing international regulations that are followed by all shipping nations and from the mid-19th century onwards a number of such treaties were adopted. Several countries proposed that a permanent international body should be established to promote maritime safety more effectively, but it was not until the establishment of the United Nations itself that these hopes were realized" You presume I have a TV. Big mistake. I put a torch to mine 10 years ago and haven't seen one since. Which is exactly what should be done with all useless things, the U.N. included. Your presumption the U.S. is like the TV tends to lead me to believe you are watching entirely too much of it and are unable to separate reality from entertainment. It's much more interesting to watch these "diplomats" who formerly lived in grass shacks, mud huts or tents, cruising the streets of New York in limousines, escorting their hired whores to black tie functions on the public teat. You'll note the Iraqi diplomatic corp to the U.N.. with one exception, remains in New York, paid by the U.N., although they have no one to represent. Why should they return to the mud hovel when life is good in N.Y. Intersting. What powers of vision you must have to see all this without the aid of television. However, despite what you might think, a lot of the world is more civilised than many parts of New York and has fewer cockroaches. Bagdad had a lot of very nice modern buildings before it was bombed by the Bush family. I may be visiting the UN C24 in October can you come and pick me up in a limo and we can discuss this further. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 05:28:29 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote: Iain Rae wrote: :Fred J. McCall wrote: : In Gibraltar : (where they were pretty much shot out of hand, by the way). : :But but the US's current rules they were unlawful combatants operating :in the battlefield and therefore eliglble to be shot out of hand. Try again. The first part of your sentence is true. The last part is not, as all those live folks in Cuba demonstrate. :In terms of being international well perhaps you could tell me what part f the UK Jerry McCabe was in when he was killed The part that managed to get its independence while you were distracted. Sorry, it's hard to consider the other part of Ireland (the part you don't hold any more) as constituting 'international', given the aims of the IRA and such. As worked up as some of you folks get over this, I'd think you'd have a MUCH better case put together by now than you seem to be able to present. Theres a quote about the value of singing to pigs that applies. -- Jim Watt http://www.gibnet.com |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS :: another reason to kill americans abroad ??? | suckthis.com | Naval Aviation | 12 | August 7th 03 06:56 AM |
YANK CHILD ABUSERS | TMOliver | Naval Aviation | 19 | July 24th 03 06:59 PM |