Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (2181)	1/13/2003 4:38:06 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

The reason you don't want to answer my question, "what is the basis of the Palestinian claim to the land, if not history?" is because you don't want to admit that the answer is "history." Actually, no. I was going to say they are already living on that land and so "history" is not part of the equation, but I wanted to hear from your first about the "conquered" part, because if those are conquered lands, than there could be some talk of "history". . It should be simple, there are two basic differences between POWs and unlawful combatants. That was not even the issue. Brumar did NOT ask me the difference between a POW and an "unlawful combatant" (if he had, I would say such a term is not even covered in the Geneva Convention), his question was on what would change in detainees' lives if they were given POW status - i.e. the differences between how a POW is treated and how the detainees are treated. There are a zillion little points of difference in the Convention on this subject...