From: "Robert Comer" 

>they will torture and behead our POWs regardless -- that is who they are.

That is not who *we* are, that's my point.

--
Bob Comer


"Mark"  wrote in message
news:43603abe$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Damn Rich, are you being purposely obtuse? I'm not advocating not
> following the Geneva Conventions (where they apply) I'm saying that the
> friggin' terrorists don't a flying fig either way -- they will torture and
> behead our POWs regardless -- that is who they are.
>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
> news:4360391e$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> The point is that we shouldn't reduce ourselves to the barbarism we
>> condemn. Doing so makes us no better than those we rail against.
>>
>>
>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>> news:43603435$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> You miss my point too. I'm merely saying that the *argument* that our
>>> own troops will meet with greater torture because we don't follow the
>>> GC, is specious. Our POWs will be tortured and beheaded regardless.
>>>
>>> This does not mean that I advocate not following the GC where
>>> appropriate. Nor does it mean that when not following the GC because it
>>> doesn't apply, translates to torture of POWs.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Robert Comer"  wrote
in message
>>> news:43603199{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> You miss my point John, whether we follow it or not, they won't.
>>>>
>>>> We're supposed to be better than them...
>>>>
>>>>>nor am I for giving those GC considerations to POWs
that don't qualify
>>>>>for them
>>>>
>>>> I sure am, it's the right thing to do.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bob Comer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>>> news:43601d34$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>>> You miss my point John, whether we follow it or not, they won't.
>>>>> That's a fact. So using that argument, that they'll
mistreat our POWs
>>>>> because we don't, as a point for why we should, isn't
relevant. >>>> as I said, I'm not for torture, nor am I for giving those GC
>>>>> considerations to POWs that don't qualify for them>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "John Cuccia" 
wrote in message
>>>>> news:5f60m1hu2optq0mf1b1tcqu5o9jhtvobj2{at}4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:55:22 -0400,
"Mark" 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Has any other country at any time, in any war,
ever followed the
>>>>>>>Geneva
>>>>>>>Conventions in their treatment of our prisoners
of war? Has any
>>>>>>>stateless
>>>>>>>terrorist group ever done so? Do you really
think if we hire
>>>>>>>bi-planes to
>>>>>>>tow banners across the world that we absolutely
follow the Geneva
>>>>>>>Conventions in all cases, even when not
warranted, that any less
>>>>>>>heads will
>>>>>>>be cut off on video?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's irrelevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are signatories to the Geneva Convention.  We,
the United States
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> America, are either a principled nation whose word
can be trusted or
>>>>>> we are liars and cheats.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which do you prefer we be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>the reasoning above is simply faulty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5