Nomen Nescio [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main
reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the
aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of being
treated as dogs and paying to heavy
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Sunder wrote:
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or
at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we
the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important
nations under the guise of
At 2:06 PM -0500 12/19/03, Michael Kalus wrote:
I don't think Castro is a bad guy either.
Ah. I feel much better now. Thank you for sparing me the rest of your
drivel from now on...
Plonk!
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 19:50, Nomen Nescio wrote:
I don't think I've ever heard that the Nazi prisoners where
drugged, abused or otherwice tortured or mistreated and
humiliated. Feel free to enlighten me on this.
if you count a haircut as abuse, torture, and mistreatment, I
expect that they
James A. Donald wrote:
Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature applies.
Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got. Hang him by his
feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for his victims to use as
pinata
Bear in mind that we could probably find plenty of
On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated
in the way Saddam has been treated.
So far he's avoided being treated like Mussolini.
At 11:35 AM 12/19/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote:
And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to
invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the
rules of the peace of Westphalia.
The
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the main reasons
Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the aggressions that started
the war. He managed to use these feelings of being treated as dogs and paying to heavy
for the first war. Also they were
At 02:00 AM 12/19/2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
After WWI the winners humiliated the loosers badly. This is one of the
main reasons Hitler came to power and got support from the Germans for the
aggressions that started the war. He managed to use these feelings of
being treated as dogs and paying to
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the way Saddam has been treated.
Eh?
And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
Greetings
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet?
Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being recognized
internationally?
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 19:34:00 -0800
From: James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
--
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Different rules apply in war.
J.A
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 18 Dec 2003 at 5:40, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
I think you might have forgotten about the other half the
system, due process. Even if you KNOW something, you've got
to go through the motions.
Different rules apply in war.
One
--
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Different rules apply in war.
J.A. Terranson wrote:
One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war.
Sure looks like war to me.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Jim Dixon wrote:
huge snip
The evidence points to deep ties between Russia, France, and Iraq that
goes back decades, plus somewhat weaker ties to China and Germany.
Relations between the US and Baath-controlled Iraq were bad from the
beginning; American bodies dangling
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 19:09, J.A. Terranson wrote:
And all of this is meaningless: we simply had no right to
invade a foreign, *sovereign* nation.
Although you probably do not know it, you are invoking the
rules of the peace of Westphalia.
The Soviet Union never respected the peace of
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 14:07, Michael Kalus wrote:
The west traded heavily with [Saddam], be it the US, France,
Germany, the UK.
The west, including the US traded and continues to trade
heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to
believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote:
By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the
United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf
that the defeat of Iraq would be contrary to U.S.
interests. That sent the message that America would not
object to
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or
at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we
the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important
nations under the guise of protecting democracy.
So, while he was our
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Dec-03, at 11:55 AM, ken wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated in the
way Saddam has been treated.
Eh?
And have you heard about the Soviet Union?
I'll take it then that the US has
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 11:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Let's face it: not even the Nazi war criminals were treated
in the way Saddam has been treated.
Oh no, he got a shave and a dental examination, the horror, the
horror.
And in due course he is going to get an execution, which is
exactly what
Ken, Eh what?
Yes I've heard a lot of the Soviet union, however I don't see what you meant by that
comment here.
What I was referring to was the winning powers' treatment of the Nazi war criminals
after WWII, Nurnburg trials and so on. (Note the word trials here)
I don't think I've ever heard
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Greetings
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet?
Will Saddam be judged by a court having jurisdiction and being
recognized internationally?
The Hague has no jurisdiction over crimes committed in the past
due to the Henry Kissinger clause insisted upon by the US.
--
Has Saddam recieved a lawyer yet? Will Saddam be judged by a
court having jurisdiction and being recognized
internationally?
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me. Who cares whether the guys at the Hague agree?
Hague claims of jurisdiction have
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:11:32AM -0500, Sunder wrote:
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, we put, or
at least helped, that monster into power.
Not really, no.
So, while he was our puppet,
He was never out puppet.
he was the good guy,
He was never the good guy,
--
J.A. Terranson:
One leettllleee problem: we are not really at war.
James A. Donald:
Sure looks like war to me.
J.A. Terranson:
I guess that's why the congresscritters told Shrub to GFY
when he tried to get a declaration?
After 9/11 Congress gave the president a blank declaration
--
James A. Donald:
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of
natural right to see justice done against this tyrant. The
problem is that the there is no one in Iraq with
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote:
--
Saddam will be judged by his victims, who have jurisdiction
enough for me.
It is tempting to say that the victims have some kind of natural right
to see justice done against this tyrant. The problem is that the there
is no one in Iraq with legitimate
On 19 Dec, James A. Donald wrote:
Well if there is no legitimate authority, then state of nature
applies. Give him the justice that Mussolini and Ceasescu got.
Hang him by his feet from a lamp post in central Baghdad for
his victims to use as pinata
This would be an argument that the
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote:
That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all,
we put, or at least helped, that monster into power.
No we did not.
in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a
power struggle proceeded between the communist and
At 11:06 AM 12/19/2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything
Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too?
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
We are much beholden to Machiavelli and others that write what men do, not
--
James A. Donald:
Every citation Chomsky gives is fraudulent.
I recently posted a paragraph by paragraph examination of
one of his more notorious articles. Every single citation
he gave was false in some central and crucial way.
See my very long posting:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people
that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations.
Like the Soviets. Or [now], the Americans...
Such high moral sentiments from someone who claims that
Americans
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The west, including the US traded and continues to trade
heavily with Castro, yet somehow that does not lead you to
believe they think Castro a good guy, nor does it lead you to
believe they are actively supporting him.
I don't think Castro is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18-Dec-03, at 9:34 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 15:42, Michael Kalus wrote:
By January 1984, /The Washington Post/ was reporting that the
United States had told friendly nations in the Persian Gulf
that the defeat of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
National Sovereignty, like the divine
right of kings, just is not taken seriously any more, and the
only people weeping big salt tears about its passing are those
who enthusiastically hailed all the Soviet violations of it as
wars of national
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
I'll have a look at it. But I guess you also tell me that anything
Michael Moore said in Bowling for Columbine is wrong too?
Not wrong exactly, just completely biased, wrong headed,
snuffling at the ass of anti-gun Hollywood so it would be
hailed in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 19-Dec-03, at 2:35 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 18 Dec 2003 at 21:57, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Yet, I shed and continue to shed tears for a race of people
that refuses to respect the rights of men and their nations.
Like the Soviets. Or
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote:
Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter
what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment.
Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the
enlightened western society, no?
This isn't a ski
--
Michael Kalus:
he [Saddam] is shown and paraded on TV (and don't tell me
he wasn't because showing a man in his state, showing how he
gets examined is clearly an attempt to break the morale).
James A. Donald;
Secondly; It is being overly sensitive about the feelings
of those poor
James A, Donald writes:
I see: So when the US army is so unkind as to film Saddam
acting submissive, this is a shocking violation of his human
rights, and your bleeding heart feels for him deeply.
But when, however, people fly a plainload of passengers into
two tall buildings and murder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report
similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position
that these are all propagandists?
Dismissing as propaganda any reports that oppose your argument,
. The US
is there in Saudi, Israel, Iraq, and wherever...not the French, not the
Italians, and not the Chinese or the Russians.
-TD
From: Anatoly Vorobey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:08:46 +0200
On Wed, Dec
Harmon Seaver wrote:
This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq.
We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism.
No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us.
Twenty years ago it was a different story.
The propaganda mills were working for
--
On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote:
No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't
matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by
that I mean the Western world general).
You are making up your own history. When Saddam came to power,
he seized western
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote:
Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January
2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of
weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie
Russia), East Germany,
James A. Donald wrote:
--
On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote:
No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't
matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by
that I mean the Western world general).
You are making up your own history.
Am I? The west
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote:
No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't
matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by
that I mean the Western world general).
You are making up your own history. When
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, BillyGOTO wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 07:18:04PM +, Jim Dixon wrote:
Relevant numbers from the Times today, quoting Air Force Monthly, January
2003: from 1980 to 1990 Iraq imported 28.9 billion pounds worth of
weapons. 19% by value were from France; 57% from
Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-12-18/19:18]:
19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia),
East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China.
[...]
It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to
taking any action on Iraq's repeated violations were
Jim Dixon wrote:
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:54, Michael Kalus wrote:
No, but it is very interresting that all of this didn't
matter while Saddam was the good guy for our causes (and by
that I mean the Western world general).
You are making up
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. If you are
interested in an expanded and predictive analysis, check here.
US aggression leads predictably to bad results: Take action to stop the war now
http://proclus.tripod.com/radical/wartext4.html
I wrote it in April, while US bombs were
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...]
OTO
Ordo Templi Orientalis?
You don't mean *that*, do you?
I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading.
Peter
On 18 Dec, Trei, Peter wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to throw in with the OTO gunners here. [...]
OTO
Ordo Templi Orientalis?
You don't mean *that*, do you?
Why not?
I suspect I'm suffering from acronym overloading.
I was simply agreeing with the post of Eric
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
BTW, can you provide me with a reference for the dangling bodies'?
Because I was unable to find anything on this so far.
I was travelling in the area (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Turkey)
at the time. In the 1960s the usual overland traveller's
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Daniel Roethlisberger wrote:
19% by value were from France; 57% from the Soviet Union (ie Russia),
East Germany, and Czechoslovakia; 8% from China.
[...]
It is not coincidental that the Security Council members opposed to
taking any action on Iraq's repeated
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
Your whole post is based on the feeling that we're gonna do what they
did to us.
There were at least three points made in my post:
* The treatment of Saddam seems well within the rules laid down by the
Geneva conventions.
* On the other hand, he and
Tim, sorry it was unclear from my post whom I was referring to. It was James A.
Donald. I did put his message id in a reply-to header.
Jim Dixon wrote:
Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind?
No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some other high ranking
coalition
In a message dated 12/17/2003 1:00:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention:
How so?
we will
cheerfully wade knee deep through blood and the body parts of
innocents to destroy those that threaten us, as the crusaders
--
On 17 Dec 2003 at 9:00, Nomen Nescio wrote:
No what I meant was what IF somehow Bush or Blaire or some
other high ranking coalition politician were captured by Iraq
during the war and was treated in the same way. I can only
presume you would support Saddam's soldiers checking Bush
Truly great.
In doing so you have manifested what has been written here
about gasing into the abyss and so on.
On 17 Dec 2003 at 8:36, Jim Dixon wrote:
I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked
and getting a haircut. :-|
--
Jim Dixon [EMAIL
On Tuesday 16 December 2003 21:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a
prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of
Natt writes:
You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on
a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific
question of does parading Saddam around violate the Geneva convention.?
Rumsfeld also revealed that the CIA has taken over the Saddam
In a message dated 12/15/2003 9:44:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are specific clauses which refer to not publically humiliating a
prisoner. I'm surprised the Agitprop Division didn't show video of
Saddam taking his first dump while in custody.
Saddam is not a
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:04:43 -0800 (PST)
Natt writes:
You're one-hundred percent correct. I saw that sack of shit Rumsfeld on
a press conference this afternoon where he answered the specific
question of does parading Saddam
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Michael Kalus wrote:
I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and
getting a haircut. :-|
And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and
get a haircut with the whole world watching?
You have omitted a bit. A better
Jim Dixon wrote:
And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and
get a haircut with the whole world watching?
You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have
felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others,
Jim Dixon wrote:
I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and
getting a haircut. :-|
And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and
get a haircut with the whole world watching?
M.
James A. Donald wrote:
Firstly, the US army has not violated the Geneva convention:
Saddam was eligible for being shot on sight.
That might have been. But he was not, and he is shown and paraded on
TV (and don't tell me he wasn't because showing a man in his state,
showing how he gets
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:41:07PM +, Jim Dixon wrote:
You have omitted a bit. A better question might be: how would you have
felt if you had looted an entire country for 30 years, invaded two others,
annihilated any who objected, butchered hundreds of thousands of people,
dispatched
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote:
Damn lucky, to be honest.
No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question.
Oh but it is.
Ah? Why?
Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a
court of law. You
Anatoly Vorobey wrote:
If I had record like Saddam's on me?
Gee, I'd be real happy I wasn't shot on the spot, or maybe cruelly
tortured and then shot, the way I'd behaved to people I'd captured.
Or maybe torn into pieces by a shrieking mob.
Instead of doing any of that, they check my teeth and
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter
what he has done (or we say he has done).
Of course it matters.
This is not a punishment.
Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the
You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500:
Jim Dixon wrote:
I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and
getting a haircut. :-|
And how would you have felt to be the one who got your teeth checked and
get a haircut with the whole world
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter
what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment.
Innocent until proofen guilty anyone? This is the basis for the
enlightened western
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 12:12:55PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq.
We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism.
No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. Twenty years
ago it was a different story.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:53:56PM -0500, BillyGOTO wrote:
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:46:51PM -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
Nice, but the problem still remains: At this point it doesn't matter
what he has done (or we say he has done). This is not a punishment.
Innocent until proofen
. in violation of Geneva convention?
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:54:57 +0200
You wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 03:19:43PM -0500:
Jim Dixon wrote:
I have gazed into the abyss and seen a man having his teeth checked and
getting a haircut. :-|
And how would you have felt to be the one who got your
Tyler Durden wrote:
Later today, a source close to the interrogation said that Saddam
would be
subjected to stress and sleep deprivation. Basically, teams of
interrogators will ask questions over and over again, and no one will get
any rest until answers are provided.
At least here in NYC
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Tyler Durden wrote:
A thread that started out quasi-interesting has descended into
non-Cypherpunk levels of triviality.
I thought it was trivial all along.
The original point stands, and is valid. The Islamic world and, in
particular, the Arabic
Harmon Seaver wrote:
This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq.
We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism.
No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us.
Twenty years ago it was a different story.
The propaganda mills were working for
--
On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote:
I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva
convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on
this field from another country commenting on the issue
stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In
either of these
On Dec 15, 2003, at 5:36 PM, Anonymous wrote:
I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several
people commenting the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the
day. Also I saw an expert on this field from another country
commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear
At 8:43 PM -0600 12/15/03, J.A. Terranson wrote:
This report contains all the earmarks of pure propaganda.
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
--
On 15 Dec 2003 at 20:06, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
The image of an Arab leader (however terrible) being
objectivised by a white gloved American medic like a bug on a
lab bench, will not be read in the Arab world as a moment of
liberation. It will be seen as a special kind
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
At 5:21 PM + 12/15/03, Dave Howe wrote:
Iraq was somehow involved in
the Trade Center attacks too
For those who wondered why Abu Nidal took two in the hat shortly before the
daisycutters came to play:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Anonymous wrote:
The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are
embarrassing. Not only are they cheering we got him like a child who
can not withhold his enthusiasm. Displaying Saddam the way they did
are also possibly a clear violation of the Geneva
The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not only
are they cheering we got him like a child who can not withhold his enthusiasm.
Displaying Saddam the way they did are also possibly a clear violation of the Geneva
convention as far as I can tell.
What was
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear
uniforms. Maybe it was just the movies, but I do believe that in the
first and second world wars combatants dressed in civilian clothes were
routinely shot.
But Saddam isn't a
At 03:47 PM 12/15/2003 +, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, Anonymous wrote:
The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are
embarrassing. Not only are they cheering we got him like a child who
can not withhold his enthusiasm. Displaying Saddam the way they did
are also
At 5:21 PM + 12/15/03, Dave Howe wrote:
Iraq was somehow involved in
the Trade Center attacks too
For those who wondered why Abu Nidal took two in the hat shortly before the
daisycutters came to play:
Jim Dixon wrote:
The Geneva conventions require, among other things, that soldiers wear
uniforms.
No, they don't.
Fox news repeats this enough that more than half of america believes it,
but then, more than half of america believes Iraq was somehow involved in
the Trade Center attacks
The U.S. official's way of behaving like Texas rednecks are embarrassing. Not
Crosspost from nettime:
Subject: nettime wrong signals
If symbols really do matter we might conclude that American
administration's PR machine has got it badly wrong. In the carefully
orchestrated news management of
I am not sure I agree. I am no expert on this however. I saw several people commenting
the issue of Geneva convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on this
field from another country commenting on the issue stating that it was a clear
violation of the convention. In either of
94 matches
Mail list logo
