"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what? Hide them in the nearest
armory and hope the invading army didn't think to look there? :-)

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ" spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in
civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

I'd probably get special privileges.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news
Duh. If WE were invaded by a sophisticated army, where would YOU
hide
weapons, Einstein? :-) In a big warehouse with the word "wEpinZ"
spray
painted on all four sides?

I believe it's against the Geneva Convention to hide them in
civilian
buildings.



So, in the scenario I described, you'd do what?

I'd surrender.

I guess even a POW camp needs dentists.

I'd probably get special privileges.



On kneepads.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On 15 Dec 2003 04:14:51 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

JohnH wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:52:10 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 08:06:08 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 21:28:17 +1100, K Smith wrote:


So far it's an unconfirm "Iranian" report,
but...................keeping our fingers crossed!!

Take care & well done.


K

Thanks, K!

Now I'm waiting to see how many congratulatory messages are posted by Harry,
jps, basskisser, et al. Should be interesting reading.

They are so immersed in hatred for everything Bush and anything
patriotic, there will be no positive comments.

Dean in '04 LOL


There is no connection whatsoever between true patriotism and the Bush
Adminstration. Bush and his crew are nothing but right-wing whores.

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is responsible.
Yippee. Can't wait to hear Dean. Gotta be fun to watch.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Huh, the way I understand it, it was the 4th infantry, and that was
with information supplied by Iraqis.

Wait a minute. When some soldier threatened to discipline another soldier who
failed to return to duty because of her kids, you folks blamed Bush. Now, when
something good happens, Bush had nothing to do with it. Huh?

Whether Bush does or does not deserve the credit is beside the point. The total
lack of logic in your arguments is the point.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:22:53 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:18:30 -0500, JohnH wrote:


Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It
is not becoming.

Medact estimates between 7,757 and 9,965 civilian deaths between March and
October.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...329608373.html

You should go read your sources.

Harry stated, "There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of
10,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

I accused him of telling a lie.

You made your statement above.

Reading the source of the data shows this for the city of Baghdad during the
period from April 14 to August 31:

"The morgue is said to record some 90% of "violent, suspicious" deaths in the
city. Currently about 60% and above of these deaths are the result of gunshot
wounds; this compares to approximately 10% pre-war. People killed by coalition
forces amount to an estimated 15-20% of gunshot victims brought to the morgue
according to a Newsweek report, but most of the violence is Iraqi-on-Iraqi."

Note that the great majority of deaths were "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" with only 15-20%
killed by coalition forces. Note also that these are not categorized as
"innocent woman and children."

These comments by Harry, supported by you, are intended to reflect badly on the
military and the administration, and are bull****.



John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:14 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:25:17 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"thunder" wrote in message
news On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 12:56:24 -0500, JohnH wrote:

The capture of Saddam is a good thing. The Bush administration is
responsible.

Are they? I thought he was captured by the 4th Infantry Division.

Who ordered them to Iraq...or did they go on their own?



Oh...so, then, George W. Bush is personally responsible for the 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians we killed recently?

No. I put the blame for their deaths on the guy that used them as human
shields.



I'd say you were rationalizing, but, then, you're a conservative and
such deaths do not concern you.

The guy chose to hide himself and his weapons among his civilian population.
There was a recent report from an independent group that concluded that
"several hundred" (*not* thousands) Iraqi civilian deaths could have been
prevented by avoiding the use of certain types of munitions. However, they
also concluded the US went to great measures to avoid civilian casualties.



There also are reports from independent groups that upwards of 10,000
non-combatant Iraqi civilians were killed as a result of wounds or bombs
from US troops.

As far as Saddam hiding himself among civilians, you've obviously not
been to Washington, D.C., where the federal government is mixed in with
hundreds of thousands of civilians who have nothing to do with the
federal government. Yeah, I know...Saddam and other dictators
deliberately build themselves bunkers next to apartment houses. But,
then, there are federal buildings - possible targets - adjacent to
apartment buildings, townhouses, subway stations, et cetera.

The fact remains that Bush invaded Iraq for strictly personal political
reasons. If he hadn't been tanking in the polls, and desperate to draw
attention away from his adminstration's failure to capture the perps of
9-11, we never would have invaded.

BTW, what evidence is there - I mean real evidence - that Osama was
responsible for 9-11? Yes, I know Osama has made some oblique
references, and so have his followers, but what irrefutable evidence is
there that we really, truly know what persons really are responsible for
9-11?

We aren't about to invade Saudia Arabia.

Where, Harry? Where are these reports of 10,000 non-combatant deaths you are
attributing to the US? Such bull**** coming from a Bay fisherman!

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Seek and ye shall find, but not on any of your right-wing "news" sources.

Nor from any legitimate news source. Methinks you're resorting to lies. It is
not becoming.

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Your search skills are lacking.

--
Email sent to is never read.