11.29.07
wouldnt you say that the text I just pasted make it perfectly clear that article 3 does NOT cover captured people
yes RustyFord, so true.
awww
Rusty, do you have any idea what the modification of article 3 is about?
article 2 makes article 3 a moot point in the current conflict Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
apparently she was his girlfriend this is weird
“if the altter accepts and applies the provisions thereof”
Hook, I can read it myself I have it on a web page. article 3 has to do with NON international conflicts
special lady
the terrorists have neither accepted nor applied the provisions of the Geneva Convention
they dont make women like that any more
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: this is article 3: what I just pasted armed conflict not of an international character. so how does this apply to terrorist suspects captured in conflicts overseas? (it seems to me it doesn’t)
article 2 makes article 3 a moot point. article 2 is about where the Convention is applicable
sals, god damn it, its not a MODIFICATION
Hook, then why is Bush pushing for a change in article 3?
sweet. My Dell laptop was affected by that Sony-battery recall.. and they sent me not only a replacement, but a second free one.
because he’s a moron?
its not about modification of anything, its merely asking what does the law mean
oy. you’re an idiot Hook.
Bush wants to be absolutely positive he is following the law
I’m an idiot? for reading the original text? heh
that’s rich
and that the prosecutors who are prosecuting are absolutely following the law
Bush’s intentions are not for me to divine
Bush criticizing the UN for wasting US taxpayer dollars he should be up on the hill telling congress that
then the proper answer is “I don’t know” so stop wasting all the screen space with extraneous drivel, Hook.
I’d assume that if he’s trying to break down the 3rd article when the 2nd article doesn’t make it applicable in this situation… then it’s a political ploy.
hm whoa
either that, or he’s just trying to cover his bases.
this rebate form i’m filling out goes to el paso, tx
in any case, it’s a useless exercise.
the media is bending over backwards trying to claim that there will be a modification, when in fact its asking congress to describe and provide absolute clarity on what the law means
that sucks, it’s staying within the city and will still take 6-8weeks
RustyFord, why is article 3 relevant to anything going on right now?
because we want to know how far we can go with captives in our ability to garner information from them
Article 3 In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties
especially if it comes down to saving 1000’s of lives
captives from where, RustyFord?
from places like Iraq and Afghanistan or future conflicts in other countries
wouldn’t you say that the text I just pasted make it perfectly clear that article 3 does NOT cover captured people from Iraq and Afghanistan?
sals thats the problem some say it does, some say it doesn’t
yes/no. depends on who that person is.
some say harder methods don’t yield accurate information
oh i see, so possibly people are applying article 3 to the current captured prisoners
obviously some are non-combattants/civilians and some may be legit POW’s.
figure if you’re getting your nipples tweeked, you either lie or tell the truth, either way the point is to get them to stop tweeking your niples
i say may, because I honestly don’t know if there are any.. thou it is possible.
unless you’re Lupine in which case you beg for more
basically officials who are handling these cases don’t want to be held as war criminals later on because of vague interpretations and law under the geneva conventions which i can’t say i blame them
legit POW = basically a captive from enemy army right?
article 3 spells out the various requirements
it’s a tough subject to tackle
article 2 has some weird language at the end of it Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
so yes, article 3 “applies” to them, but they may not qualify for the protections there off not really, it means that even if the enemy is not a signee.. you must still abide by it
my friend Jim said that the approach should be not how we can treat our prisoners, but rather how we expect other nations to treat our POWs.
I want to send Ahmadinejad a nice bagged spinach gift basket.
lol
the geneva convention applies to everyone captured on the battlefield. That does not mean the captured enjoys the protections of article 2 or 3.
I think it says the opposite, Lupine
the US is not specifically bound by article 3 if article 2 does not encompass the nature of the dispute “Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.”
article 3 appears to be for the purpose of non international conflicts. I JUST PASTED THAT hook do you even read?
ARGH stupid rptiner
people need to go to a more fundmental understanding on some statements. yes, the geneva convention applies to them. that does _not_ mean they may qualify for each section. just like US/state law applies if you commit a theft crime, even thou certain sections [ say about rape ] do not apply
sorry… I pasted the wrong one
what that says is that if the Power that is not a party to the Convention ACCEPTS AND APPLIES THE PROVISIONS THEREOF, that then and only then must the other party abide by it in that conflict.
“In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
well al qaeda does NOT accept and apply the provisions thereof, nor do the “insurgents”
Bush/others were saying that these people do not qualify for the POW protections.. that doesn’t mean the geneva convention does not apply
Hook is just now catching up to what I said 15 minutes ago. way to go Hook.
they should have been clear: Yes, the convention applies.. No, they do not qualify for POW status they decided to “short hand” that, and come up with a term “illegal combattants” “They do not qualify for the protections as non-combattants, nor do they qualify for the protections of POW status”
they didn’t want the geneva convention to apply at all I don’t think no worries about inhumane treatement and no war crimes applications
the geneva convention itself states that it does not apply if a party to a war is not following its provisions
right.. this IS of an international nature, and it is NOT occurring in the terriroty of any of the “High Contracting Parties.” so regardless of article 2, article 3 is moot in and of itself in this conflict. sorry I wasn’t paying enough attention =] I’m at work and I sometimes read the scroll rather sloppily =]
okay Hook, now you get what I was trying to say initially
well, if you are not either: a non combatant, or a POW.. you have very little protections under the geneva convention
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_bi_ge/gm_ford
in fact, if you are not a POW or non combattant.. you can be summarily executed, and that is not a violation of the geneva convention.
being afforded humane treatement is more than a little in times of war and strife
in any event, the idea that US constitutional rights apply outside of the US is repugnant.
to repugnant people
No, think about it for a second.
lol
greed Lupine agreed
geez tthat only cost me 3 envelopes
You are claiming that US law applies outside of the US. It is offensive and repugnant to OTHER nations.
i hate printing envelopes, i can never get the stupid shit right
should Malyasian law apply inside of the US?
no you’re preaching to the choir
isn’t it sad that what people claim to be the best system around would be withheld for any reason
meant spal 
should shiara law be in force inside the united states?
anyway so can we go back to my original point, which is why is Bush interested in clarifying Article 3 when in fact it would appear that Article 3 does not relate to anything going on in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country but the US.
for someone to go somewhere else and start to represent the US in a way that would never fly in the US
if one says that US law should apply anywhere in the world, is to also say any other nation’s law should apply in the US.
I thought the supreme court ruled that article 3 did apply
that is repugnant on its face. yes/no. they did not rule that the combatants qualify for article 3 protections it is the same that US law applies to a criminal case, even thou sections may not be relevent. that is what you have to be careful about.. many people are so fucking sloppy in their thinking. that the 3rd amendment applies.. does not mean every individual qualifies for the protections thereof er.. 3rd article
3. That Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda.
but aren’t iraq and afghanistan both foreign powers why would it not apply to their soldiers
right, but that does not mean the captured person qualifies for the protections we havn’t fought their soldiers since what.. ~3 weeks after the invasion?
see I think the people who want to treat them humanely are just trying to keep the moral high ground
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/28/newsid_2520000/2520575.stm — here is a good story about mercenaries who were shot and tried under the geneva conventions
al quaeda nor taliban are the reocgnized government of afghanastan.. and al queada/insurgents are not the soldiers of the nation of iraq
the Court did not hold that all of the protections of the Geneva Conventions apply to suspected Al Qaeda detainees, or that they are entitled to all of the protections of POWs. It held “merely” that the minimum baseline protections of Common Article 3 are binding — which is a floor far, far higher than the practices of this Administration.
they are being treated humanly.
that’s from scotusblog
read the text… it’s pretty clear as to who/what/when/where the Conventions are applicable.
when the foreign version of lupine starts to say “the us is fighting an illegal war their soldiers are illegal comabtants” and they lose rights
such qualification is not in the geneva convention
definition of humane can differ…humane for ME would be..oh 30naked women fanning me, feeding me grapes… y’know…a real hell haha
we can either be better and get the chance that they will treat us better or we can redefine 50 year old texts and open the door for them to morally redefine texts
i geuss we will have to go back to Renditioning prisoners that was signed by Clintons executive order
does anyone have a link to the text of the supreme court’s decision about article 3?
the minimum baseline of article 3 are well, nto much at all.
i think that’s the issue though…to some extent we have to hope they treat our POWs humanely, but we can’t dictate i think at best we have to be able to keep a morale high ground on the issue otherwise we’re no better than them
history has shown us.. holding the upper moral road never buys our captured soldiers anything :-/ but that does not mean we have to treat them as civilian criminals, and give them the full rights thereof.
morals should be a guide, not a ball and chain.
we ARE better than them because we don’t hate people and want to kill them simply because they differ from us.
bread, water, clothes, shelter?
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities
yeah, i think that’s where this clarification is going
if these captured people were taking an active part int he hostilities, then the “baseline” does not apply
our guards aren’t stirring up feces/saliva/urine/semen cocktails and throwing it at the detainees… but the detainees are sure doing it to our guards
I think we have a High Ranking Al-Qaida Member in Jail in California but he was busted on drug charges not terrorists he wasn’t busted under terrorists ! Cause he was using a Mexican Alias !
simple english people:
I think in the face of such disgust, we are showing massive restraint. both as a country and as individuals
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons
Pancho Muhammed Al-Villa?
wow a man can get cooked easy in here
the “above mentioned persons” are (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities
biohazard environment
I just don’t understand the supreme court decision.
so, is a captured terrorist a member of this group? No. therefor, the protections of article 3 do not apply.
I want to find the text of it.
His name has Villarez in it !
it really was a non-decision, but most did not get it.
i agree…show honestly it shows them that we can’t be broken. that’s what they’re trying to do…get these guards to do something stupid…and is it worth it? why get into trouble for them
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf is that it?
it didnt’ change anything, other than um, say the governemnt is about by the geneva conventions, which duh.. they already were, since congress passed it, and the president signed it into law
Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld?
the irony of irony is.. the program that Bush setup, to use a tribuneral to determine if A particular detainy questions his POW status.. was stopped by a federal judge. Even thou, um.. that is what the geneva convention says to do!
there is another but that is the main one I think
so in essence, a federal judge ruled the president to stop doing what is spelled out in the geneva conventions :-/
great. 185 pages of legalize. that will surely enlighten me legaleez
the military tribunals were new I thought with different rules than before and the courts said there were already bodies in place to handle the situation
okay, there are TWO seperate tribunals here
I was curious what you guys thought of propoganda and the lack there of when it comes to saving lives.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200507/04-5393a.pdf
noncombattant b: lawful POW c: other
for instance the new york times and its security exploit
that one’s a bit smaller, but pertains to the same cse case
military tribunals are NOT new, old as the Country itself only been using them for what, 200 fucking years?
other.. try them
in fact, it predates US civil and criminal courts 
they haven’t had them in the past 2 days so america doesn’t believe they exist
Lupine I hate the media, I really do.
it’s some new fangled thing that bush created to take away terrorists rights
terrorists have a better chance of fairness in a military tribuneral
terrorists do not HAVE rights.
lol.. terrorist rights? bwahahahhaa
terrorists have rights?
but it’s another federal appeals court, not the SCOTUS. Ugh.
wow ok
why are lawyers messing up the world so much
Military Tribunal has a MUCH lower prosecution rate than the Civil courts.
fight on the field not from the stands?
someone who is captured on the battlefield, who are not 1) noncoms 2) POW’s as defined under the geneva convention can be summarily executed on the battle field
duh, didn’t you know? all terrorists are human beings and they should be given every right that americans have … it we don’t then we are just as bad as they are (sarcasm alert)
oh. heh the sad thing is, we get tons of people who actually believe such things :-/
what’s a noncom
cyberfrg almost pegged my meter!
lol darth
non combattant
sals a democrat who voted for Reagan
very sad isn’t it?
har darthburg
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause,
oh wait, thats NEOCON
as Americans we are told that our government divines it’s rights from what it believes “should be” rights for all humans
never mind
someone called me a neocon once .. i was like “wtf is that?”
noncom=noncombat
that doesn’t mean that all humans are extended American “rights”
i disagree strongly with “for all humans”
how come people don’t see what is already said in channel and then not say the exact thing again
public forums .. it happens
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html
it is true… our “rights” were created as a pattern of “what should be” as far as the founding fathers were concerned for all humanity.
hmmm
I am sorry but CNN is not a valid news source, find the AP version
thats a good point hook
but that doesn’t mean that all humanity enjoys “rights” in America
thats hilarious… shura council denounces popes speech, wich we all know he said, then goes on to say how everyone will convert to islam or die by the sword
AP is a valid news source? hahaha
lol, atleast they’re burning the pope instead of an american flag this time
sals not really, but you got what you got
American citizens are specifically endowed rights
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as “the worshipper of the cross” saying “you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. … We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword.”
non-Americans are not specifically endowed the same rights not under the Law unless you get someone that is more than willing to take liberties with the text a “liberal”
i will never understand football
woot! sounds like a fight to me, bring it on.
ircing at work is elite
agreed
i dont get people running around destroying themselves and people cheering it on
slacking off is also elite
a five-justice majority ruled that the commissions, which were outlined by Bush in a military order on Nov. 13, 2001, were neither authorized by federal law nor required by military necessity, and ran afoul of the Geneva Conventions.
i suggest you take the offer of converting 
if that were true, there wuold be no need for the 13/14/15/18th amendments
like the days of the gladiator
that is what I was talking about the tribunals on the whole weren’t found wrong, the ones bush outlines in 2001 were found wrong
more like, i’ll take as many down with me as i can
even thou.. *snort* they are explictely IN the geneva conventions
i need a cup of coffee
the supremes fucked it up
operate the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or ask Congress for specific permission to proceed differently.
in fact, there are almost no “due process” rights spelled out for military tribunals
thats what I told my lawyer when he divorced the wife and I
regular military court
all the whiny leftists screaming about outrages of the neocon bush administration would skulk down and cringe and cry were our enemies to defeat us.
i said you work a thankless job dont you he didnt reply
Death to the Al-Qaida
so yes tribunals are old but the ones that were found to be a breach of the geneva convention aren’t the old ones
which is a violation of the geneva convention
military courts aren’t outlawed the ones bush outlined are
why do people think of the geneva convention as if it is some manuscript sent down by god himself?
what I have to remember is I was in the arena of 60 percent of america
the geneva convention is clearly outdated and needs revision.
international treaty signed into law, there is something about that
*shrug* I say we should let all these guys rot in prison, until such time as Al Queada officially surrenders and lay down their arms
that they can do
ok so lets see here … the pope is about as much of a religious icon as it gets in the western world. there are pictures of them burning efiges of him and yet no one here does or says anything about it? … doesn’t our religious right have any balls to stand up and say “death to islamics”
our leftist lawyers won’t like that Lupine
wich is pretty sickening after I read that 90 percent aren’t charged and will not be charged
goes round and round
so many were handed over for bounties by third parties
eh? less than what.. 0.000001% were ever charged in WWII
and those 4 germans on US soil.. were executed
heh sucks
emotion and logic are from the same individual…just one supercedes the other these days
but when such a low number was actually apprehended by the US, we talk about a tribal society, one tribe turns in the other tribe as terrorists it takes a real jack ass to lie to get someone else in trouble but I bet it is pretty common
why quit….the job must be done im all about politics ………………. sorry folkz i feel like shit right about now
http://press-release.blogspot.com/ wow, just wow al qaeda propoganda
mmmmm al qaeda propaganda
anybody ever read the geneva convention? i’m on the first one - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convention its rather interesting to read actually
know thy enemy
fisher yes I have copies of all 4 here I read them all for my international relations degree
its a well-worded document
i wouldnt trade a hard worker for someone who spoke from the stands any day
fisher I agree
you wouldn’t have a copy of your coursesheet for that degree would you? i’d be interested in seeing what it’d require
rock thanks
fisher I got it back in 1999 I’d have to find my stuff lol
hey thanks for the great link hook
but I had general education
yeh not this minute but like sometime that’d be cool
and then I had international relations, international diplomacy and I took a bunch of language cause I love language
yeh me too, i speak a few
anyway it depends on what region you concentrate in and what school you go to I’d love to do international law but I’d never get into law school and I know it
i’d like to go to north korea
so you’d look at asian studies I don’t know what that’d require because I did Eastern European studies
yeh but i’ll never go to a formal school again there’s no need
thought you wanted a law degree
i should learn arabic and farsi and all the other languages … might come in handy in the next few years
did you change your mind?
hehe heya
of i want a law degrees worth of education but i can get that on my own oh*
cyber I want to learn georgian and uzbek just to say I speak them lol ok
mah bud is rebec we go way back
selfless
toomuch new nick my sweeet?
hehe heya precious how have u been?
haha, i have audiobooks for a bunch of random langauges that only about 2 people in the world speak .. it’s kinda fun
you don’t want to know cyber excellent
;( roger all that
when I tell most people I want to study georgian they tell me go to atlanta lol
work the dance floor like a champ these days
you never called me back!
hehe
remember you promised lol
i notice the term “High Contracting Party” keeps repeating itself
hehe
what does high-contracting mean?
it’s just legal mumbo jumbo don’t worry about it
hehe
um lol homie dont play that
lol why not?
because i don’t like to take anything for face value
fisher are you still looking at the first convention
i laugh with my friends
I don’t laugh anymore at all
you have not met the people I have met
yeh i’m reading
that’s true I haven’t I believe, in convetion 1 high contracting parties are the signatories but I’d have to go back and check my stuff
breeders make me sick sorry, unrelated note
high contracting parties = the main “beligerants” in the war
high contracting parties looks like it refers to the particular country whose at war countries
have to remember that war is a form of diplomacy between beligerant nations
that’ll learn em women that constantly talk about their husband or their children make me want to kick them in the tits i dont care about your kids, and especially not about your husband
fisher hey I don’t do that
cool, i didnt say you did hehe
fisher that may be as well, I don’t have them in front of me right now…in fact fisher I seem to recall talking about making out with you lol nothing about my husband or kids!
i sell nextel phones in a busy mall so i see a wide variety of nutjobs
seems to me only nutjobs sell phones in malls
its monday so all the people with no employment or things to do are walking here and they’re all lonely that could be true also
It is
i did the corporate thing for 2 years out of college i’ll never do it again fuck an office and fuck anybody boring enough to enjoy that life
yeah sounds like your on the right track then
i appreciate your condescending tone this job is the best one ive ever had so i got no issues with you picking fights.. doesnt make it any less great to me
rond1, whatever he’s doing, it’s honest work.
fisher ignore the pissant
haha my skin is pretty thick regardless i get to pick up beautiful females all day
lol
and all my coworkers smoke retarded amounts of herb.. its the best job ever. plus i get more money than my salaried 9-5 ever hinted at
fisherpri, well that’s a good way to lose your paycheck
haha if one were so inclined to buy it constantly
I mean picking up those wimmins
i tend to be a conserver of herb since its expensive where im from HAHA oh no doubt i just got that
everything is expensive where you’re from
smoking herb and railing on honest married folks trying to strike up a conversation buying a phone so fisher can make a commission to buy more herb
yeh no doubt i struggle to pay a high rent each month
sounds perfect
lol and yet, you’re jealous
rond1, or pay his rent and other bills, it’s honest work.
yeh i have a $1000 rent each month ese living alone
im gonna get off the floor before someone hits me with their swinging arms
Sales is sales
Breeders though ??
and just because i dont care for patronizing women with children rubbing their charaded marriage in my face, doesnt mean i think they’re dishonest they’re just sad lonely people
;(
we’ll be safe here rond stupid breeder parents have ruined the world
rond1, got a bug in your ass today?
some people should automatically be steralized what my children survived they never should have to survive
No just fucking with the stupid comments regarding breeders waiting for this process to finish
breeders should just go away
breeders are doing the Lord’s work =]
no
“go forth and multiply!”
not like that all folkz
hook lol
be fruitful!!!!
hook so am I
UNf UNf UNf
and I am not a breeder
lol if you have kids you damn sure are
uNfitty Unf! uNF!
I’ve only had 2 kids… does that eliminate me as a “breeder”?
Carson Palmer on C.Johnson after the game, “He’s a little loopy” haha that dude’s always looopy
Hook you are eliminated as a breeder because you’re not an idiot
er sorry
man now we have militant hindu’s in india..i just heard about that over the weekend on the radio…ain’t just islam militants anymore…what other religions are militant like this i wonder
wow, you may be the first person in this channel to call me “NOT” an idiot =]
you’re not an idiot hook you’re probably a better debater than me like most in here lol i suck at debating
debate is fun. you don’t even have to believe in what you are debating.
Four Nato peace-keeping soldiers were killed and children were injured today when a suicide bomber on a bicycle blew himself up in southern Afghanistan - just a day after Nato declared the area free of Taleban insurgents.
yea that’s true =]
i was retired along time ago as a debater
ahhh how nice of the peace loving muslims i wonder why muslims protest the pope but not the killing/wounding of children by their own things that make you go hmmmmm….
sometimes I’m just too “common sense” and I think it offends
truth is I have been chatting well over 20 years
Hook see that makes you not a breeder
starting with bbs’s but i just learned how to react with people within the last year or so im a slow learner
ah… the old days on my C64 and BBSing with a 1200 baud heh
and high phone bills
300 baud and music board my virginity was lost
my pops smashed many a modem because of high phone bills
I didn’t get a modem initially oh, and my brother had that US Videotel console heh
that poor music board i wrote a format program totalled the whole thing he was down 3 days cuz of me
It’s Peanuht Buttah Jellay Tiimmmmmme!!!
bat, baseball, with
http://www.outback6.com/images/usi27a.jpg hahahaha… now *THAT* is high tech!
peanuhtbuttahjellaypeanuhtbuttahjellay wif a baseball bat!
i was a kid he and I talked on the phone alot tho i told him I fucked him up
now break it down and freeze!
he was ok with it
5 Abusive Domain or User
i was umm 9 years old he was in his late 20’s good fella my computer driving priviledges were revoked by my father shortly after i was killing machine code and assembly by the age of 10.5
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/banana.php — wished i could find the good video that ones lame =(
no computer for me for over 8 years was in my 20’s when dad told me I could get on a computer again wasnt official lol
I think I have my political science teacher nearly sold on the idea of “compassionate fascism” “Freedom Camps” and all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=areyUfCNFxY Family Guy PBJTime!
hahahahaha hahah SOS Compassionate Facism haha thats good
It could work… if people don’t like it… they will learn to like it… whether they like it or not. At “Freedom Camps”
“I’m not really Hitler… but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night” heheh “Freedom Camp Express
With enough faceless bureaucracies we can ensure people do what they’re told while still letting them believe they have a choice.
i had alot of fun in those 8 years alot of fun i learned rap to don henley
that is how modern businesses operate
ok, there are some major questions I have regarding all of this pope stuff
US-Male… part of what gave me the idea.
first a “Team” is formed which is supposed to decide how to handle something
how come we are not allowed to lump extremist islam with the rest of Islam, while they lump all Christians to the pope? the pope doesn’t represent all christians
of course if the “Team” doesn’t get the expected answer, it has to go back and work on it for a while
US-Male… you just make the options available… but the options they are secretly not allowed require years of bureaucratic paperwork to get to… and by then, they’ve probably earned it… or lost their mind and said something against the Glorious State, which is fine because they can be productive members of a “Freedom Camp Family”
and what do you guys think the reaction would be in the Catholic world if Al-Qaeda did kill the pope?
ouch
ahh you know, it would work even better if you call those camps “Team Building”
given the attitude of most european nations after 9/11? perhaps they’d say he “asked for it”? =P
US-Male… it’d be a dead giveaway to the corporate types… they’d know too much.
i wonder if you would see a bunch of pissed off Irish catholics
Might as well call it a Starbucks Gulag
hrmmm RF interesting idea… get the IRA pissed at the shiites
not to mention the mafia
of course the IRA isn’t what it used to be
Irish Catholics tend to be indiscriminately pissed off at fill in the blank
the mafia would start fucking these dudes up I would imagine
don’t think they’d be up to the task
jfk is my daddy world was on brink of disaster
ball of confusion… that’s what the world is today… hey hey
yea….;(
I think “radical Islam” is making a HUGE miscalculation in wanting to start a jihad against catholics
i had to ponder that thought rusty
and by them reacting in the way they did, they just proved the pope is right
but you are definitely right
pretty fucking stupid to attaack a guy for clearly quoting an old speech as an example of why both sides need to talk peacefully bpretty fucking stupid to attaack a guy for clearly quoting an old speech as an example of why both sides need to talk peacefully/b
mmmm
niiiice…. hahaha Just saw a sign of a radical islamic that said “Jesus is the messenger of Islam”
lol
they take any chance to attack anyone for any grounds.. Think they are very happy they found something to complain on about the pope…
ox plowed that soil hard before it learned the man was in control
it’s like “…..As we can see by this speech from Pope Pontificus XIXXIII, where he said ‘Muslims are too violent’, Catholicism and Islam need to have rational peaceful discussions”
