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 Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134590)	5/27/2004 1:21:50 PM
From: Sig	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<<Your thin logic, your positions that shift erratically depending upon which position currently seems to support the Bush stance on Iraq or our past actions there, and your seeming failure to maintain a consistent conceptual point of view on these complex issues, seems to reveal a knee-jerk, blind follower attitude.>>> And which can easily be overcome by even thinner logic haphazardly applied by a bigger jerk like yourself. Sig

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134590)	5/27/2004 1:23:48 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

." Just use your head here Hawk, if you wanted to create a terrorist network would you have to run around asking for a nation to "help?" If you couldn't find a sponsor would you have to just give up? Of course not. look at the number of terrorist networks that exist in nations that are being attacked by those same networks Follow the money, cnyndwllr. Terrorist networks don't come cheap! You find a big one, you will also find either a state sponsor or a massive extortion or drug smuggling operation to pay for it. Thus, either a terrorist-supporting state or a failed state. Because there are limited means of raising the millions of dollars that a big network needs.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134590)	5/27/2004 1:30:47 PM
From: Dr. Id	Respond to of 281500

Your thin logic, your positions that shift erratically depending upon which position currently seems to support the Bush stance on Iraq or our past actions there, and your seeming failure to maintain a consistent conceptual point of view on these complex issues, seems to reveal a knee-jerk, blind follower attitude. Exactly. He can never admit that the Bush Administration has screwed up in any way (though he will say that he does but never gives an example...), and will rationalize ANYTHING that they do. At this point, it's obvious that the folks on this list have their pride at stake, and will say absolutely anything to defend it.

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (134590)	5/27/2004 2:39:31 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<They are only entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention IF, and ONLY IF, their own government is a signatory to that convention. And, if I'm not mistaken...> He is mistaken. States, not governments, sign the Geneva Convention (and all other treaties). This should be self-evident. When the U.S. changes from a Democratic to a Republican-run government, do all treaties become void? (No, not unless the Republican is GWB.) So, to give the relevant example: most of the Disappeared currently in Guantanamo were Taliban soldiers. Afghanistan was, and is, a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Taliban was the government of the Nation of Afghanistan. The fact that the Taliban didn't (re-)sign the Geneva Conventions, or the fact that the U.S. did not recognise the Taliban, doesn't void the Treaty. Most of the people in Guantanamo (and elsewhere in the American Gulag) are, by the clear wording of the Geneva Conventions, entitled to POW status. See Message 18673637