From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #333 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, December 11 2001 Volume 05 : Number 333 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Rather disturbing ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point [aj@locicero.org (A.J. LoCicero)] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 05:50:10 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: Rather disturbing Rachel Rai of Ghostiness wrote: > Now how do we convince the rest of the world that this is indeed > Fr|vous and not TMBG? All due respect to TMBG, love 'em too, but my > loyalty remains with the Canadian boys! I don't know, but while we are at it can we convince the world that Fruvous did not record "Istanbul" or "Breakfast At Tiffany's?" Please????? A.J. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 2001 08:18:00 -0800 From: aj@locicero.org (A.J. LoCicero) Subject: Re: his point "N Wood" wrote in message news:... > I haven't heard anyone shouting "War crimes!". Good grief, > diesel fuel and freezing water? Is this what we've come to? I'm curious what > others think. I am obviously greatly saddened by details of what happend there. (I hadn't heard them before, thanks to the wonderful job of censoship that is going on with our press lately), however I have to say that I don't see how this is a war crime. War is hell. I see nothing here which is especially different than the behavior of our forces in World War II. (Ever seen a flamethrower in action?) The prisoners in the fortress were all combatants, they weren't civilians. They had surrendered, and then attacked their captors. (The typical punishment for that is summary execution.) Granted, it MAY have only been a few and not the majority (although if that were the case, how did they manage to hold off the US and Norther Alliance forces for hours and hours, and why didn't the majority overpower them, knowing that the few were placing all their lives at risk?). If it were only a few, then I would agree that the response was may have been overkill (at least in hindsight). But I have to say, I am a bit leery of trying to second guess the commanders on the ground at the time. We can assume that Those commanders are a bunch of butchers and be totally outraged, or we can assume that they are normal compassionate people who used the amount of force that they did because they thought it was necessary. I suspect, as usual, that the truth lies somewhere in between. But let me put this to you. You have a large number of hostile troops barricaded in a basement (i.e. and underground bunker). They have an unknown number of weapons and ammunition, but clearly a sufficiant ammount for them to be shooting at and killing your troups. There are only one or two ways into this place and they have them heavily defended. Are you going to sacrifice the lives of your own troops in a frontal assault on that position, or are you going to hit them with heavy weapons and other means, like the flaming diesel fuel, which you can use from a position of relative safety? I know If I were the commander, which course of action I'd have to follow. My first responsiblity would be to my own troops. The logic of warfare is very very nasty, but it isn't difficult to understand. A.J. ------------------------------ Date: 10 Dec 2001 15:04:48 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point aj@locicero.org (A.J. LoCicero) wrote in message news:<1cf2e575.0112100818.4d208c55@posting.google.com>... > But let me put this to you. You have a large number of hostile troops > barricaded in a basement (i.e. and underground bunker). They have an > unknown number of weapons and ammunition, but clearly a sufficiant > ammount for them to be shooting at and killing your troups. There are > only one or two ways into this place and they have them heavily > defended. Are you going to sacrifice the lives of your own troops in > a frontal assault on that position, or are you going to hit them with > heavy weapons and other means, like the flaming diesel fuel, which you > can use from a position of relative safety? No, you're going to follow the Geneva Convention or you're going to be accused of war crimes. I'm not second guessing what went on any more than you, but those troops had surrendered as part of the negotiations of Mazaar-e Sharif. So how did thet gey hold of arms? The first journalists on the scene found bodies of the dead with their hands tied behind their backs and their legs tied together. Whether this is a war crime or not, its still a travesty that it went unreported in the US. Just to remind you (and seeing as you insist on comparing this conflict to WWII, AJ, I'd point out that Nazi Germany upheld the Geneva Convention, at least with respect to US and British troops)... Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Article 13 Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. - -- Yes, war is hell. Particularly when the `civilised' side breaks its own rules. Richard ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #333 ********************************************