At 12:49 23-8-01 -0400, Gautum Mukunda wrote:
>If you're going to accuse a country of something as drastic as crimes
>against humanity, then support your arguments with the contention that it
>can predict everything, it behooves you to know something this basic, it
>seems to me.
Those were two different arguments, Gautam (as I have pointed out in a
previous post). And because I'm such a nice guy, I'll save you the trouble
of having to find that particular post: I'll quote the relevant section of it.
At 11:19 20-8-01 +0200, I wrote:
>You (plural) have mixed up two separate arguments. I made two of them:
>
>1. Refusing to sign the Landmine Ban Treaty should be considered a crime
>against humanity.
>2. Using landmines is a bad idea, and here are some sources <insert URL's>
>that show you why.
According to you, I said "Military Intelligence should be able to predict
an invasion" to prove that the US is guilty of crimes against humanity. It
should be quite obvious that such an argument can't be used as prove of
crimes against humanity -- it doesn't make sense. How could such an
argument be evidence of said crime?
Please explain how the expected performance of a Military Intelligence
service can be used to prove that a country has committed a crime against
humanity.
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
