| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
20 Jun 2005 05:59:57 AM |
| Object: |
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Not content with trouncing Amnesty International for its "gulag" gaffe
or unleashing John Bolton on Kofi Annan, the Republicans have gone out
looking for some more do-gooders to turn into punching bags. Mother
Teresa is already dead, so they've had to make do with the International
Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC, the neutral, Swiss-based
organization that has spent 140 years aiding victims of armed conflicts
and monitoring compliance with the Geneva Convention.
On June 13, the Senate's Republican Policy Committee released a report
condemning the ICRC. While grudgingly acknowledging the organization's
past good deeds, the report insists that the ICRC's activities are now
in "direct opposition to the advancement of U.S. interests." The
evidence for this: The ICRC allegedly wants to "reinterpret and expand
international law," giving terrorists "the same rights" as prisoners of
war, and it has "inaccurately and unfairly accuse[d] the U.S. of not
adhering to the Geneva Conventions."
Et tu, ICRC? Such ingratitude is particularly galling, the Republicans
say, coming from an organization that, as they repeatedly remind us,
gets a quarter of its funding from the U.S.
Regrettably, from the perspective of these GOP stalwarts, no one else
has (yet) noticed just how sinister the ICRC really is. The report
laments that with its sterling reputation as "an impartial organization
conducting vital emergency relief," the ICRC "is exerting a very
powerful influence Š on how U.S. defense and foreign policy is perceived
by other countries."
It's sweet that the Republicans are suddenly so concerned about the U.S.
reputation abroad. Unless, of course, that's not really what this is
about.
In fact, the real issue underlying the attack is that the ICRC has
quietly but firmly pushed back against the Bush administration's
"anything goes" detention and interrogation policies. The ICRC doesn't
"denounce," it just "expresses concern." It nit-pickingly insists on
citing the actual text of the Geneva Convention in lieu of accepting
creative Defense Department phrases like "unlawful combatants," and,
still more hurtful to true believers, it never uses the phrase "war on
terrorism" without adding a laconic little "so-called."
That's what made the Republican Policy Committee so cross, and that's
why it devoted a report full of blatant exaggerations to undermining the
ICRC.
The ICRC has consistently chastised the U.S. for keeping an unknown
number of "ghost detainees" hidden away from legally mandated
monitoring, for its open-ended detentions at Guantanamo Bay, for its
"renditions" of detainees to states using torture and for its use of
interrogation techniques that themselves border on torture.
Last year, a confidential ICRC report on detention conditions in Iraq
was leaked. With its findings of widespread abuses at multiple U.S.
facilities, the ICRC report threatened to undermine the administration's
Abu Ghraib damage control strategy: Deny, deny and deny, and then when
you can't deny any longer insist that all abuses were the result of "bad
apples" rather than systemic failings or (oh, no, no, no!) orders from
on high.
With the "bad apple" defense now generating hoots of derision, the
Republicans are shifting into Phase 2 of the damage control strategy: If
you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. And if you can't
actually shoot the messenger (under the Geneva Convention, shooting a
Red Cross official is a definite no-no), discredit the messenger,
preferably by implying anti-American prejudice.
If that doesn't do the trick, you can always threaten them with Phase 3:
blackmail. The most ominous aspect of the report on the ICRC is its call
for an audit of all ICRC activities to determine whether the
organization is "advancing U.S. interests."
If it is determined that the ICRC isn't living up to its stated
"principles of neutrality, impartiality and humanity," the report urges
Congress to consider slashing the group's funds.
There is one glimmer of hope. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be
involved in the review called for in the report, and everyone knows
Rumsfeld is a exceedingly mellow guy when it comes to principles like
"impartiality" and "humanity." For instance, to him, treating detainees
humanely apparently encompasses "waterboarding."
So perhaps Rumsfeld will be consistent and stick up for the ICRC's right
to its own understanding of "impartiality" and "humanity."
Still, if I worked for the ICRC, I'd keep my hand on my wallet.
---
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0619-25.htm
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
| User: "Razor 616" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
20 Jun 2005 07:44:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
--
#1295
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 AM |
|
|
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gsscb1dopkaulmim0na41jsf8k62a0jloh@4ax.com:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
The ICRC broke its own rules by leaking certain reports, and of course
Shamnesty International has revealed its partiality and its anti-American
agenda in the clearest possible way.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gsscb1dopkaulmim0na41jsf8k62a0jloh@4ax.com:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
The ICRC broke its own rules by leaking certain reports, and of course
Shamnesty International has revealed its partiality and its anti-American
agenda in the clearest possible way.
Funny aint it, though?
I mean, the way that so much of the world, including half of your own
population, seems to hate the USA.
It sounds like the old "Everybody in the world is out of step, except me"
Or in this case, "except Dubya, and his republicans"
..
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
21 Jun 2005 12:59:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gsscb1dopkaulmim0na41jsf8k62a0jloh@4ax.com:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
The ICRC broke its own rules by leaking certain reports, and of course
Shamnesty International has revealed its partiality and its anti-American
agenda in the clearest possible way.
I suppose it's comforting to blame everybody else for your own
actions.
There is no "anti-American agenda".
There is a real-world reaction to what America does.
But some people pretend they can't tell the difference and prefer to
lie about a reaction that would not otherwise have happened.
Funny aint it, though?
I mean, the way that so much of the world, including half of your own
population, seems to hate the USA.
Most don't. They like the ideals the US used to stand for, even if it
did not always live up to them. They like a lot of American culture:
Jazz, Broadway, Hollywood etc. They even like American people as long
as they aren't the "ignorant ugly American abroad".
What they don't like are bullying American governments on the
international scene. Especially the present one which has unilaterally
reneged on major international treaties, and whose lies were so
transparent before going to war.
I don't think most Americans realise the enormity of Colin Powell's
speech to the United Nations. The delegates from the world's
governments knew he was lying [which destroyed the reputation for
somebody they previously had a lot of respect for], that the speech
was for domestic consumption and they were merely props in a
deception. Which is pretty insulting.
The US has to climb out of the hole the present administration is
digging itself ever deeper into.
It sounds like the old "Everybody in the world is out of step, except me"
Or in this case, "except Dubya, and his republicans"
.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling, Like any opinion stated here,
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
21 Jun 2005 02:53:39 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:2q2gb111nev0tilb03mt9ng0eqdm99oa0l@4ax.com:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gsscb1dopkaulmim0na41jsf8k62a0jloh@4ax.com:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>
wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
The ICRC broke its own rules by leaking certain reports, and of
course Shamnesty International has revealed its partiality and its
anti-American agenda in the clearest possible way.
I suppose it's comforting to blame everybody else for your own
actions.
There is no "anti-American agenda".
Like hell there isn't.
There is a real-world reaction to what America does.
There is a real-world reaction to the lies people tell about what
America does.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
28 Jun 2005 04:41:45 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:59:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
Razor 616 <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:gsscb1dopkaulmim0na41jsf8k62a0jloh@4ax.com:
On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 22:59:57 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
To be fair though, I trust the Red Cross, Amnesty etc. just a *tad*
more than I do Bush. Which is not at all...
The ICRC broke its own rules by leaking certain reports, and of course
Shamnesty International has revealed its partiality and its anti-American
agenda in the clearest possible way.
I suppose it's comforting to blame everybody else for your own
actions.
There is no "anti-American agenda".
There is a real-world reaction to what America does.
But some people pretend they can't tell the difference and prefer to
lie about a reaction that would not otherwise have happened.
Funny aint it, though?
I mean, the way that so much of the world, including half of your own
population, seems to hate the USA.
Most don't. They like the ideals the US used to stand for, even if it
did not always live up to them. They like a lot of American culture:
Jazz, Broadway, Hollywood etc. They even like American people as long
as they aren't the "ignorant ugly American abroad".
What they don't like are bullying American governments on the
international scene. Especially the present one which has unilaterally
reneged on major international treaties, and whose lies were so
transparent before going to war.
I don't think most Americans realise the enormity of Colin Powell's
speech to the United Nations. The delegates from the world's
governments knew he was lying [which destroyed the reputation for
somebody they previously had a lot of respect for], that the speech
was for domestic consumption and they were merely props in a
deception. Which is pretty insulting.
Yes, it was. Colin Powell self-destructed on the largest stage in the
world.
The US has to climb out of the hole the present administration is
digging itself ever deeper into.
Impossible.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
28 Jun 2005 07:23:49 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:41:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:59:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
snip
I don't think most Americans realise the enormity of Colin Powell's
speech to the United Nations. The delegates from the world's
governments knew he was lying [which destroyed the reputation for
somebody they previously had a lot of respect for], that the speech
was for domestic consumption and they were merely props in a
deception. Which is pretty insulting.
Yes, it was. Colin Powell self-destructed on the largest stage in the
world.
The US has to climb out of the hole the present administration is
digging itself ever deeper into.
Impossible.
Most people here are very fond of the US. Unlike people like Fred
they are able to distinguish between the country and what happens to
be its administration at a particular time. The knee-jerk response
that yells "anti-Americanism" every time something in America is
criticized is a pathetic, transparent attempt to stop any objective
consideration of problems in the real world. In my opinion it
reflects either the cynicism of the guilty or a self-deception fueled
by fear and provincialism.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
01 Jul 2005 03:44:08 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:23:49 +0200, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 21:41:45 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 08:59:31 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:38:32 GMT, Dubh Ghall <puck@pooks.hill.fey>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:34:49 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
snip
I don't think most Americans realise the enormity of Colin Powell's
speech to the United Nations. The delegates from the world's
governments knew he was lying [which destroyed the reputation for
somebody they previously had a lot of respect for], that the speech
was for domestic consumption and they were merely props in a
deception. Which is pretty insulting.
Yes, it was. Colin Powell self-destructed on the largest stage in the
world.
The US has to climb out of the hole the present administration is
digging itself ever deeper into.
Impossible.
Most people here are very fond of the US. Unlike people like Fred
they are able to distinguish between the country and what happens to
be its administration at a particular time. The knee-jerk response
that yells "anti-Americanism" every time something in America is
criticized is a pathetic, transparent attempt to stop any objective
consideration of problems in the real world. In my opinion it
reflects either the cynicism of the guilty or a self-deception fueled
by fear and provincialism.
Don't forget terminal ignorance. The former US is not the world.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
20 Jun 2005 11:17:51 AM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and paste?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
22 Jun 2005 06:32:01 AM |
|
|
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
22 Jun 2005 12:44:03 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 05:44:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 12:21:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations that
have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including the US,
criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the pale.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
25 Jun 2005 06:51:40 AM |
|
|
In article <vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations that
have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including the US,
criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the pale.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
Every administration that I have lived under has come in for criticism
at one time or another, some deserved, some not. However, I can't recall
an administration and a president so sensitive to the slightest
questioning of their actions. Presidents should expect it. It comes with
the territory. Harry Truman said it best: "If you can't stand the heat,
get out of the kitchen." Current occupant should heed old HST's advice.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
25 Jun 2005 01:01:11 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-1E2023.23514024062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com>,
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article
<1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want
and then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations
that have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including
the US, criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the
pale. Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must
be liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong -
yeah that's it!
Every administration that I have lived under has come in for criticism
at one time or another, some deserved, some not. However, I can't
recall an administration and a president so sensitive to the slightest
questioning of their actions. Presidents should expect it. It comes
with the territory. Harry Truman said it best: "If you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen." Current occupant should heed old HST's
advice.
Oh, piffle. Bush has basically ignored all the cavilers and the assholes
in the opposition with their stupid claims and their lies about him
personally.
But, very rightly, he will not tolerate lies and slanders about the
servicemen of the US military.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 02:14:55 PM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations that
have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including the US,
criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the pale.
When defenders of those *formerly* respectable organizations have to
resort to the kind of doubletalk and grossly slanted propaganda as Rosa
Brooks did, you have to wonder at the political basis for their anti-
American rhetoric.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
No, gee, it couldn't be that they are exaggerating to the point that
they have lost credibility! Goodness knows, there is no such thing as a
liberal double standard. America is a hell-hole and every right-thinking
liberal must never, ever, accept anything said by anyone who doesn't
acknowledge that the United States is the worst country in the whole
world.
Oh heaven forbid that anyone would bring liberals faith in the iniquity
of America into question. What would liberals do if they couldn't use
*previously* respected global organizations to flaunt their double
standards against America?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 04:26:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:14:55 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations that
have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including the US,
criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the pale.
When defenders of those *formerly* respectable organizations have to
resort to the kind of doubletalk and grossly slanted propaganda as Rosa
Brooks did, you have to wonder at the political basis for their anti-
American rhetoric.
One has to wonder when they (according to you and Bush) became
"formerly" respectable. What did it?
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
No, gee, it couldn't be that they are exaggerating to the point that
they have lost credibility!
Yes, it could be. Do you have any reason to believe that they are
lying about the facts claimed? Are there US run camps where people
are being held without charge, without the benefit of a lawyer, cut
off from any contact with family or friends, and told that they are
not covered by either American or international law? Have people been
held in those camps for years at a time not knowing if they are going
to be released or when? Is any of that an exaggeration?
Goodness knows, there is no such thing as a
liberal double standard. America is a hell-hole and every right-thinking
liberal must never, ever, accept anything said by anyone who doesn't
acknowledge that the United States is the worst country in the whole
world.
I am sorry, but I have never heard anyone say that. It really has
nothing to do with whether or not the testimony of the organisations
is reliable. The US accepted their word before. What happened to
change that? What is the evidence against them?
Oh heaven forbid that anyone would bring liberals faith in the iniquity
of America into question. What would liberals do if they couldn't use
*previously* respected global organizations to flaunt their double
standards against America?
Where I come from there is and always has been a great deal of respect
and admiration for the US. That respect is found in people of both
the left and right politically. I did not know, however, that such
respect and admiration required us to believe that any criticism of
the US administration must be false or evidence of being
anti-American, or that organisations respected by the US and most of
the world become disrespectable as soon as they criticise the US
administration; or that any criticism must have come from some
ill-defined group you call liberals. Fred do you have anything
concrete that would justify charges against the organisations, or are
all of your charges against them or against anyone who criticizes the
administration based on faith?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 06:18:57 PM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:45olb1dl1ciusp5jpjm26c7tdov406u013@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:14:55 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article
<1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want
and then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations
that have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including
the US, criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the
pale.
When defenders of those *formerly* respectable organizations have to
resort to the kind of doubletalk and grossly slanted propaganda as
Rosa Brooks did, you have to wonder at the political basis for their
anti- American rhetoric.
One has to wonder when they (according to you and Bush) became
"formerly" respectable. What did it?
In the case of Amnesty International, it's been well known for years
that they are a left-leaning organization which applies a serious double
standard against the United States. They have promulgated a long line of
equivocations between the occasional infractions of individuals in a
democratic society, who are punished for their infractions, and the
deliberate official policy of totalitarian regimes. And in their latest
fiasco, they have deliberately drawn a false equivalence between Gitmo
and the Soviet Gulags. And they even admit that they did it for
propaganda purposes.
In the case of the ICRC, they have leaked documents which their own
charter requires them to keep confidential. And they have made
unsubstantiated charges of "ghost detainees" whom they cannot identify
at places they cannot prove exist. In spite of that, we *still* allow
them access to the facility at Guantanamo.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
No, gee, it couldn't be that they are exaggerating to the point that
they have lost credibility!
Yes, it could be. Do you have any reason to believe that they are
lying about the facts claimed? Are there US run camps where people
are being held without charge, without the benefit of a lawyer, cut
off from any contact with family or friends, and told that they are
not covered by either American or international law?
They are military prisoners, not criminals. They are not entitled to
lawyers or contact with their families. They have all had their cases
reviewed by a military tribunal and have been determined to have been
illegal combatants not entitled to POW treatment under the Geneva
Conventions.
Have people been
held in those camps for years at a time not knowing if they are going
to be released or when? Is any of that an exaggeration?
It's a misapplication of the relevant international law. Military
prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities. They are *not*
charged with crimes, therefore their legal rights are not being
violated.
Goodness knows, there is no such thing as a
liberal double standard. America is a hell-hole and every
right-thinking liberal must never, ever, accept anything said by
anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the United States is the worst
country in the whole world.
I am sorry, but I have never heard anyone say that. It really has
nothing to do with whether or not the testimony of the organisations
is reliable. The US accepted their word before. What happened to
change that?
They became unreliable.
What is the evidence against them?
Their exaggerations and equivocations.
Oh heaven forbid that anyone would bring liberals faith in the
iniquity of America into question. What would liberals do if they
couldn't use *previously* respected global organizations to flaunt
their double standards against America?
Where I come from there is and always has been a great deal of respect
and admiration for the US. That respect is found in people of both
the left and right politically. I did not know, however, that such
respect and admiration required us to believe that any criticism of
the US administration must be false or evidence of being
anti-American, or that organisations respected by the US and most of
the world become disrespectable as soon as they criticise the US
administration; or that any criticism must have come from some
ill-defined group you call liberals. Fred do you have anything
concrete that would justify charges against the organisations, or are
all of your charges against them or against anyone who criticizes the
administration based on faith?
Yes, I have given, above, the solid basis for my charges.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 11:28:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:18:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:45olb1dl1ciusp5jpjm26c7tdov406u013@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:14:55 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article
<1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want
and then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations
that have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world, including
the US, criticize the US and instantly they are totally beyond the
pale.
When defenders of those *formerly* respectable organizations have to
resort to the kind of doubletalk and grossly slanted propaganda as
Rosa Brooks did, you have to wonder at the political basis for their
anti- American rhetoric.
One has to wonder when they (according to you and Bush) became
"formerly" respectable. What did it?
In the case of Amnesty International, it's been well known for years
that they are a left-leaning organization which applies a serious double
standard against the United States.
No, actually that is not well known. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations have referred to Amnesty International as reliable
sources. Many nations rely on Amnesty International.
They have promulgated a long line of
equivocations between the occasional infractions of individuals in a
democratic society, who are punished for their infractions, and the
deliberate official policy of totalitarian regimes. And in their latest
fiasco, they have deliberately drawn a false equivalence between Gitmo
and the Soviet Gulags. And they even admit that they did it for
propaganda purposes.
In the case of the ICRC, they have leaked documents which their own
charter requires them to keep confidential. And they have made
unsubstantiated charges of "ghost detainees" whom they cannot identify
at places they cannot prove exist. In spite of that, we *still* allow
them access to the facility at Guantanamo.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong - yeah
that's it!
No, gee, it couldn't be that they are exaggerating to the point that
they have lost credibility!
Yes, it could be. Do you have any reason to believe that they are
lying about the facts claimed? Are there US run camps where people
are being held without charge, without the benefit of a lawyer, cut
off from any contact with family or friends, and told that they are
not covered by either American or international law?
They are military prisoners, not criminals. They are not entitled to
lawyers or contact with their families. They have all had their cases
reviewed by a military tribunal and have been determined to have been
illegal combatants not entitled to POW treatment under the Geneva
Conventions.
You do realize that you contradicted yourself. They are military
prisoners but they are not prisoners of war? They have not, by the
way, been charged with a crime or been tried in any kind of legal
court military or civilian. They are being treated as non-persons.
There is no certainty that they have participated in any kind of
combat.
Have people been
held in those camps for years at a time not knowing if they are going
to be released or when? Is any of that an exaggeration?
It's a misapplication of the relevant international law. Military
prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities. They are *not*
charged with crimes, therefore their legal rights are not being
violated.
Military prisoners are prisoners of war, and they have rights under
international law. You claim that they are military prisoners, and,
simultaneously, you claim that they are not prisoners of war. They
have also not been charged with any crime or been tried in any court.
They are being treated as non-persons.
Goodness knows, there is no such thing as a
liberal double standard. America is a hell-hole and every
right-thinking liberal must never, ever, accept anything said by
anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the United States is the worst
country in the whole world.
I am sorry, but I have never heard anyone say that. It really has
nothing to do with whether or not the testimony of the organisations
is reliable. The US accepted their word before. What happened to
change that?
They became unreliable.
Fred you are not stupid enough to thinK that the above is a rational
answer.
What is the evidence against them?
Their exaggerations and equivocations.
See above.
Oh heaven forbid that anyone would bring liberals faith in the
iniquity of America into question. What would liberals do if they
couldn't use *previously* respected global organizations to flaunt
their double standards against America?
Where I come from there is and always has been a great deal of respect
and admiration for the US. That respect is found in people of both
the left and right politically. I did not know, however, that such
respect and admiration required us to believe that any criticism of
the US administration must be false or evidence of being
anti-American, or that organisations respected by the US and most of
the world become disrespectable as soon as they criticise the US
administration; or that any criticism must have come from some
ill-defined group you call liberals. Fred do you have anything
concrete that would justify charges against the organisations, or are
all of your charges against them or against anyone who criticizes the
administration based on faith?
Yes, I have given, above, the solid basis for my charges.
Once again: Fred you are not stupid enough to think that the above is
a rational answer. You have basically said that they are guilty
because they are guilty. Goodbye Fred.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
24 Jun 2005 12:20:47 AM |
|
|
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:1tgmb15gq25ij94afpkni1mjegqicq0pdd@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:18:57 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:45olb1dl1ciusp5jpjm26c7tdov406u013@4ax.com:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:14:55 GMT, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
thomas p <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in
news:vb8lb1tj0un6ogolmc7r0m1bmn53g4tpfs@4ax.com:
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:44:04 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com>
wrote:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article
<1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut
and paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright
lies and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House
these days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you
want and then some.
For an atheist Fred's faith seems to be unlimited. Organisations
that have always enjoyed the respect of the entire world,
including the US, criticize the US and instantly they are totally
beyond the pale.
When defenders of those *formerly* respectable organizations have to
resort to the kind of doubletalk and grossly slanted propaganda as
Rosa Brooks did, you have to wonder at the political basis for their
anti- American rhetoric.
One has to wonder when they (according to you and Bush) became
"formerly" respectable. What did it?
In the case of Amnesty International, it's been well known for years
that they are a left-leaning organization which applies a serious
double standard against the United States.
No, actually that is not well known. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations have referred to Amnesty International as reliable
sources.
They often are reliable. But as I noted below, they have a proven
tendency to equate acts by individuals in a democratic society with
official policy. Individuals who have clearly violated official policy,
and who have been punished for that violation.
Many nations rely on Amnesty International.
That doesn't prevent them from having blind spots.
They have promulgated a long line of
equivocations between the occasional infractions of individuals in a
democratic society, who are punished for their infractions, and the
deliberate official policy of totalitarian regimes. And in their
latest fiasco, they have deliberately drawn a false equivalence
between Gitmo and the Soviet Gulags. And they even admit that they did
it for propaganda purposes.
In the case of the ICRC, they have leaked documents which their own
charter requires them to keep confidential. And they have made
unsubstantiated charges of "ghost detainees" whom they cannot identify
at places they cannot prove exist. In spite of that, we *still* allow
them access to the facility at Guantanamo.
Clearly they hate the US and are making things up. They must be
liars, because - uh - because the US clearly can do no wrong -
yeah that's it!
No, gee, it couldn't be that they are exaggerating to the point that
they have lost credibility!
Yes, it could be. Do you have any reason to believe that they are
lying about the facts claimed? Are there US run camps where people
are being held without charge, without the benefit of a lawyer, cut
off from any contact with family or friends, and told that they are
not covered by either American or international law?
They are military prisoners, not criminals. They are not entitled to
lawyers or contact with their families. They have all had their cases
reviewed by a military tribunal and have been determined to have been
illegal combatants not entitled to POW treatment under the Geneva
Conventions.
You do realize that you contradicted yourself. They are military
prisoners but they are not prisoners of war?
That is not a contradiction. The Geneva Conventions clearly make a
distinction between lawful combatants and those not entitled to the full
POW protections.
They have not, by the
way, been charged with a crime or been tried in any kind of legal
court military or civilian.
They are not required to be charged with any crime, nor tried in any
court other than the military tribunal that determined their status as
combatants.
They are being treated as non-persons.
Not hardly. Their treatment is very little different from the way we
treated captured soldiers during World War II or Korea. They have full
access to representatives of the ICRC.
There is no certainty that they have participated in any kind of
combat.
Their cases have been reviewed by a duly constituted military tribunal.
That has been through the Supreme Court.
Have people been
held in those camps for years at a time not knowing if they are
going to be released or when? Is any of that an exaggeration?
It's a misapplication of the relevant international law. Military
prisoners may be held until the end of hostilities. They are *not*
charged with crimes, therefore their legal rights are not being
violated.
Military prisoners are prisoners of war, and they have rights under
international law. You claim that they are military prisoners, and,
simultaneously, you claim that they are not prisoners of war. They
have also not been charged with any crime or been tried in any court.
They are being treated as non-persons.
That's just a repeat of what you said above. You are failing to
recognize that the Geneva Conventions draw a distinction between
legitimate soldiers of national armies, who are entitled to the full
protections offered prisoners of war; and illegitimate fighters such as
terrorists and saboteurs who fight while disguised as civilians.
Goodness knows, there is no such thing as a
liberal double standard. America is a hell-hole and every
right-thinking liberal must never, ever, accept anything said by
anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the United States is the worst
country in the whole world.
I am sorry, but I have never heard anyone say that. It really has
nothing to do with whether or not the testimony of the organisations
is reliable. The US accepted their word before. What happened to
change that?
They became unreliable.
Fred you are not stupid enough to thinK that the above is a rational
answer.
I already answered you above.
What is the evidence against them?
Their exaggerations and equivocations.
See above.
See above yourself.
Oh heaven forbid that anyone would bring liberals faith in the
iniquity of America into question. What would liberals do if they
couldn't use *previously* respected global organizations to flaunt
their double standards against America?
Where I come from there is and always has been a great deal of
respect and admiration for the US. That respect is found in people
of both the left and right politically. I did not know, however,
that such respect and admiration required us to believe that any
criticism of the US administration must be false or evidence of
being anti-American, or that organisations respected by the US and
most of the world become disrespectable as soon as they criticise
the US administration; or that any criticism must have come from
some ill-defined group you call liberals. Fred do you have anything
concrete that would justify charges against the organisations, or
are all of your charges against them or against anyone who
criticizes the administration based on faith?
Yes, I have given, above, the solid basis for my charges.
Once again: Fred you are not stupid enough to think that the above is
a rational answer. You have basically said that they are guilty
because they are guilty. Goodbye Fred.
I have laid out the reasons. I am sorry that you choose to disregard my
reasoning in such a cavalier fashion.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 12:42:15 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-75899F.22440422062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
You can feel free to swallow all the anti-American propaganda that you
can stomach.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
25 Jun 2005 06:42:13 AM |
|
|
In article <1119530535.027b2619f168c65af6a2a2689fc59da4@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-75899F.22440422062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies and
loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want and
then some.
You can feel free to swallow all the anti-American propaganda that you
can stomach.
Like you swallowed the WMDs?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
25 Jun 2005 12:58:39 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-5C19A6.23421324062005@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119530535.027b2619f168c65af6a2a2689fc59da4@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in news:jhachm-75899F.22440422062005
@news.giganews.com:
In article <1119444243.8d3d50d34a07656c73b48daebf088e24@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-E3B3BA.23320121062005@news.giganews.com:
In article
<1119266273.6fbc7850c102763b71a3e6ae18f1096e@teranews>,
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote in
news:jhachm-DAE40D.22595719062005@news.giganews.com:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
Couldn't you find a more slanted piece of propaganda to cut and
paste?
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I must say, I am quite impressed with the number of outright lies
and loaded statements that you can swallow without choking.
Sorry. I don't believe anything coming out of the White House these
days. You can feel free to swallow as much of that BS as you want
and then some.
You can feel free to swallow all the anti-American propaganda that
you can stomach.
Like you swallowed the WMDs?
Non sequitur.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Metaphysics is almost always an attempt to prove
the incredible by an appeal to the unintelligible."
[H.L. Mencken, "Prejudices"]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "magilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
21 Jun 2005 01:32:40 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
[snip]
On June 13, the Senate's Republican Policy Committee released a report
condemning the ICRC. While grudgingly acknowledging the organization's
past good deeds, the report insists that the ICRC's activities are now
in "direct opposition to the advancement of U.S. interests." The
evidence for this: The ICRC allegedly wants to "reinterpret and expand
international law," giving terrorists "the same rights" as prisoners of
war, and it has "inaccurately and unfairly accuse[d] the U.S. of not
adhering to the Geneva Conventions."
Et tu, ICRC? Such ingratitude is particularly galling, the Republicans
say, coming from an organization that, as they repeatedly remind us,
gets a quarter of its funding from the U.S.
[snip]
Didn't this part jump out at anyone else? This is the exact same thing
they say about the UN, and it shows the mindset of the Repugnicans
beautifully: "We pay you so you have to do and say whatever we tell you
to do and say". They believe that with money they can own the world,
everyone in it, and dictate to all what their actions and thoughts
should be. Thankfully, there are some that are not willing to roll over
for cash. We do not fund the Red Cross so they will rubber-stamp any
evil me might perpetrate; we fund the Red Cross because it's the right
thing to do.
They are a bunch of sick, sick bastards.
Chris
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
22 Jun 2005 06:31:15 AM |
|
|
In article <1119360760.037322.263260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"magilla" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote:
johac wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
[snip]
On June 13, the Senate's Republican Policy Committee released a report
condemning the ICRC. While grudgingly acknowledging the organization's
past good deeds, the report insists that the ICRC's activities are now
in "direct opposition to the advancement of U.S. interests." The
evidence for this: The ICRC allegedly wants to "reinterpret and expand
international law," giving terrorists "the same rights" as prisoners of
war, and it has "inaccurately and unfairly accuse[d] the U.S. of not
adhering to the Geneva Conventions."
Et tu, ICRC? Such ingratitude is particularly galling, the Republicans
say, coming from an organization that, as they repeatedly remind us,
gets a quarter of its funding from the U.S.
[snip]
Didn't this part jump out at anyone else? This is the exact same thing
they say about the UN, and it shows the mindset of the Repugnicans
beautifully: "We pay you so you have to do and say whatever we tell you
to do and say". They believe that with money they can own the world,
everyone in it, and dictate to all what their actions and thoughts
should be. Thankfully, there are some that are not willing to roll over
for cash. We do not fund the Red Cross so they will rubber-stamp any
evil me might perpetrate; we fund the Red Cross because it's the right
thing to do.
They are a bunch of sick, sick bastards.
We pay you. We own you. That's their motto. Besides, "If you're not with
us, you're with the terrorists'.
Chris
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough? |
23 Jun 2005 06:45:16 AM |
|
|
magilla wrote:
johac wrote:
Somebody else has has upset little Bushy. Aw.
---
Published on Sunday, June 19, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Is the Red Cross Red, White and Blue Enough?
by Rosa Brooks
[snip]
On June 13, the Senate's Republican Policy Committee released a report
condemning the ICRC. While grudgingly acknowledging the organization's
past good deeds, the report insists that the ICRC's activities are now
in "direct opposition to the advancement of U.S. interests." The
evidence for this: The ICRC allegedly wants to "reinterpret and expand
international law," giving terrorists "the same rights" as prisoners of
war, and it has "inaccurately and unfairly accuse[d] the U.S. of not
adhering to the Geneva Conventions."
Et tu, ICRC? Such ingratitude is particularly galling, the Republicans
say, coming from an organization that, as they repeatedly remind us,
gets a quarter of its funding from the U.S.
[snip]
Didn't this part jump out at anyone else? This is the exact same thing
they say about the UN, and it shows the mindset of the Repugnicans
beautifully: "We pay you so you have to do and say whatever we tell you
to do and say". They believe that with money they can own the world,
everyone in it, and dictate to all what their actions and thoughts
should be. Thankfully, there are some that are not willing to roll over
for cash. We do not fund the Red Cross so they will rubber-stamp any
evil me might perpetrate;
It helps that their anti-Bush frenzy has driven them to whine about
terrorists being tortured. Thankfully the American Red Cross isn't as
pathetic. Don't cry.
we fund the Red Cross because it's the right
thing to do.
They are a bunch of sick, sick bastards.
Chris
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
