On 1 Aug 2002 at 1:25, email@example.com wrote:
> On 31 Jul 2002 at 22:40, Hermit wrote:
> > [Joe Dees] Members of that organization have already vaporized thousands of our citizens in a skyscraper.
> > [Joe Dees] The rest of them have pledged to kill as many of us as possible as long as they shall live.
> > [Joe Dees] We know where some of them are, and that they are planning to launch further attacks against us. The land in which they are preparing is unwilling, or unable, to stop them.
> > [Joe Dees] WE STOP THEM. It is what is NECESSARY to protect our citizens.
> > [Hermit] I'm think I'm confused. Which "land" are you talking about?
> None of the terrorists came from Aghanistan - or Iraq. They came from
> Saudi Arabia and other US sponsored totalitarian regimes, via a number
> of European countries - and Canada to the US. I don't recall the US
> bombing any of those countries - although we did bomb a number of
> Canadians. But I'm not sure which part of law you are arguing about here?
Fifteen of the nineteen were indeed Saudi, but the major funders and
planners were holed up in Afghanistan, which refused to relinquish them,
and had been for years. It is also from there that they sent word that they
planned to launch future attacks, and from where they, over a period of
years, provided religio-ideological indoctrination and terrorist training to
between ten and twenty thousand jihadists, including those who carried out the 9/11
Iraq's claims to infamy are:
1) the production of chemical and biological weapons, some of which they used against
a neighbor (Iran) and some of which they used against an oppressed minority, the
Kurds, within their own borders.
2) their invasion and occupation of (and attempt to annex) Kuwait, a nonagressive
3) their plot to assassinate former president Bush during a visit he made to Saudi
Arabia, for which seventeen, I think, were beheaded.
4) Iraq's flauting of UN inspections and their expulsion of the inspectors.
5) their willingness to provide safe have to terrorists of all stripes, providing their targets
include Israel and the US
6) their continued attacks on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in an effort to
prevent them from slaughtering their northern Kurdish and southern Shiite minorities.
The reason that Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facility is that Saddam hussein had made
clear his intention to use nukes built with the aid of that facility on Israel, which would
have provoked a response from the Israeli Dimona nuclear arsenal, and likely, in those
cold-war times, precipitated a wider war.
> > [Hermit] What happens if a member of a Canadian English "Free Quebec from the
> French" group, which had declared themselves prepared to sacrifice their lives against
> the French (for dumping Frenchmen in Canada), happened to train with the "patriots"
> on the West Coast, and then were to blow up the Eiffel Tower, killing thousands of
> Parisians. Would such an action entitle the French to bomb the US, or Canada, or both,
> if the Americans or Canadians couldn't track down other members of the group?
If the Canadians or Americans didn't try, or were outgunned (neither likely), and refused
to allow the French to help pursue the perpetrators, yes, the French would have the right
to bomb pinpointed locations of the "FQFTF" bases, and even send in troops to
apprehend them, but of course, the likelihood of 1) such a group committing such an act
and 2) the Canadian or American governments refusing to either apprehend them
themselves or allow the French to help them do so, is slightly less likely than the odds
that there are dwarves fellating unicorns beneath the mountains of the moon.
> > Regards
> > Hermit
> > ----
> > This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> > <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25909>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:17 MDT