On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 02:42:14 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 03/25/07 22:39, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 18:41:22 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> On 03/25/07 17:47, Arnt Karlsen wrote: [snip] >>>> ..you deny the "Let's roll!"-people aboard flight UA93 their lawful >>>> KIA status, when they "took up arms against the invading enemy." >>> Who says the UA93 passengers were KIA? >> >> ..I do, under Art. 108 in the Norw. Military Penal Law (and its >> equivalent in the US War Crimes Act and eq. military penal code), which >> incorporates all full 4 Geneva Conventions and all their 3 Protocals >> Additional, incorporating Article 4A(6) of the 3'rd Convention: "(6) >> Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the >> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without >> having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided >> they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." >> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590007?OpenDocument >> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007?OpenDocument > > Terrorists aren't invaders, ..the passengers made up their own mind about that, if we are to believe tho Official story. The circumstances being what they were at 1000 that morning, I do not have many problems with the alternative stories either, I can see a few lawful scenarios for a lawful USAF missile hit on UA93. > the passengers didn't have any arms to carry. ..they made use of what they had available, I understand, fists. Are good enough under the Conventions. An Hollywood style dream would have had them succeed, instead of earn an Arlington slot. >>> For one thing, those passengers weren't in the military, and another, >> >> ..on take-off, correct. On "Let's Roll!", they _became_ a lawful >> military force. >> >>> their deaths were "other than the victim of a terrorist activity". >> >> ..yup, KIA, Arlington next. > > Really? You really believe that they were buried in Arlington National > Cemetery? ..no, I know they weren't, and yes, I know they should have been. > You've *got* to be jerking our chain. No one who is functional is as > crazy as you appear to be. ..uhuh. Coming from a neocon shill, I can accept that as a compliment. >>> http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/k/02986.html >>> killed in action >>> (DOD) A casualty category applicable to a hostile casualty, other >>> than the victim of a terrorist activity, who is killed outright or >>> who dies as a result of wounds or other injuries before reaching a >>> medical treatment facility. Also called KIA. See also casualty >>> category. >> >> ..neocon BS snip by Sissy Boys trying to escape the US War Crimes Act. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
