Fahrenheit 9/11 Thread...

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by FromTexas
It is not rejected by the 4th Geneva Convention. Ken, you are wrong on this. I don't know how much more clear I can make the explanation up there. The land is there but can be under occupation or annexation of another country. Therefore, if Canada took us over, then we would all become Canadians. However, Canada could not abuse us, take our personal property without compensation, or keep us from leaving the country if we did not agree with staying under Candian rule (because the Geneva Convention protects certain rights of people under occupation/annexation by another country).
I guess where it says “nor by any annexation” you are saying that Israel has not annexed the land.

I still don’t understand why you do not understand the meaning of this article. Reading a little further along in article 49 I wonder what your take on the last phrase of that article means when it states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” I guess that establishing settlements is okay too since they aren’t occupying the land that they have annexed and these Israelis have voluntarily moved there?
 
C

czygvtwkr

Guest
Israel was attacked by those other countries because they wanted its land, wanted it gone. I find it fitting that they ended up defending their land and getting some from those other countries.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
Originally posted by Ken King
I guess where it says “nor by any annexation” you are saying that Israel has not annexed the land.

I still don’t understand why you do not understand the meaning of this article. Reading a little further along in article 49 I wonder what your take on the last phrase of that article means when it states, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” I guess that establishing settlements is okay too since they aren’t occupying the land that they have annexed and these Israelis have voluntarily moved there?

Ken, it is not talking about whether a country can or can not occupy/annex. It is talking about forceful actions against people. That last part says you can not force your own people to settle the area or purposefully transfer. However, your people can voluntarily move wherever, as long as you do not kick everyone out of thier homes in the new area and then move your people in.

Israel's situation, once again, does not deal with the Geneva Convention.
 

FromTexas

This Space for Rent
I will try this a different way. Let us go to the preamble of the Geneva Conventions.

The High Contracting Parties,
(the signers of this document)

Proclaiming their earnest wish to see peace prevail among peoples,
(we all wish peace to prevail..yada-yada)

Recalling that every State has the duty, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations,
(that outside of this Convention, all Charter states of the UN have obligated themselves to the Charter of the UN and will refrain from using force against other countries soveriegn and territorial rights)

Believing it necessary nevertheless to reaffirm and develop the provisions protecting the victims of armed conflicts and to supplement measures intended to reinforce their application,
(But knowing we are all a bunch of violent barbarians anyway and that we probably won't follow those proscriptions made upon us in the UN Charter or other international law, we must make this Convention to protect the VICTIMS [i.e. the people involed] in armed conflicts)

Expressing their conviction that nothing in this Protocol or in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 can be construed as legitimizing or authorizing any act of aggression or any other use of force inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,
(but just by saying we are all a bunch of violent scumbags doesn't mean we are legitimizing being a violent scumbag, but just in case we are.. we have these rules)

Reaffirming further that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of this Protocol must be fully applied in all circumstances to all persons who are protected by those instruments, without any adverse distinction based on the nature or origin of the armed conflict or on the causes espoused by or attributed to the Parties to the conflict,
(this protects all people who are part of the contracting parties [i.e. signers] nations)

As you can see, the Geneva Convention differs on the rights of territorial issues and such to the UN Charter and other international law. It states it is only there to protect the victims.

Further it states:
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949, for the purpose of establishing a Convention for the Protection of Civilians in Time of War, have agreed as follows:

This is the 4th Convention.

Other Conventions protect -
Persons protected by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea of 12 August 1949, or by the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, shall not be considered as protected persons within the meaning of the present Convention.

This Convention only refers to civilians.
 
D

Dixie

Guest
Saw it. Loved it! I laughed, I cried. I was on an emotional roller coaster. And how about that guy that played Bush???? Boy could he act! And talk about a dead ringer!
 

meme

The Smart Hooker
They played the movie down here where I'm at (surprisingly at most of the theaters.)

Couldn't pay me to go see the movie. Just by seeing the previews of the movie I saw that it was a waste of time and money. I wouldn't even pay to rent the DVD when it comes out.

I think Michael Moore is a complete fruitcake and used this tragedy to make money for himself. :boo:
 

Sparx

New Member
Originally posted by FromTexas
I love that everytime a libby says it -- Michael Moore and facts in the same sentence.

Which fact are you taking a shot at? I have not seen anyone prove anything that he said in the movie is false. They can only question his motives and he say's himself, when Kerry is elected he will be turning the camera on him.
 

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by Sparx
Which fact are you taking a shot at? I have not seen anyone prove anything that he said in the movie is false. They can only question his motives and he say's himself, when Kerry is elected he will be turning the camera on him.
yea right
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Originally posted by Sparx
Which fact are you taking a shot at? I have not seen anyone prove anything that he said in the movie is false. They can only question his motives and he say's himself, when Kerry is elected he will be turning the camera on him.

Maybe you missed this, Sparx, refute some of this, written by an aussie.

Bush's America is the true terrorist, Moore argues, at war with its own people. But to believe that, you must believe every foul smear, every childish deception, in his deeply deceitful movie. [/B][/QUOTE]
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Wow! I hadn't planned on seeing the film by Moore, and now I sure as h&ll don't want to, after reading the assessment from this Aussie gentleman.

The wrap up of his column is quite telling:

Moore ends his film by quoting George Orwell: "The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects . . . to keep the very structure of society intact."

Bush's America is the true terrorist, Moore argues, at war with its own people. But to believe that, you must believe every foul smear, every childish deception, in his deeply deceitful movie.

Sadly, though, many smart people do want to believe it. Facts mean nothing – they just want to hate the country that has fought hardest against tyrants and terrorists, from communists to Islamists.

***"They will not even wonder what it means that the Hizbollah terrorist group has offered to help distribute this film they so love."***

So heaven help America. Heaven help its allies, too, and all who defend freedom.

Michael Moore, terrorist hero!
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Originally posted by Sparx

What makes a conservative ausie any more credible than Moore?

Thats a dodge, please refute where the aussie got his facts wrong.
 

Otter

Nothing to see here
Originally posted by BuddyLee
Who's dodging now.:bubble:

Maybe if you would read up a few posts, Buddy, you would see where I asked him to shoot down the aussies story..All he's done is come back with questions...Was a very simple request and he has dodged it. So BTFO.
 

Penn

Dancing Up A Storm
Who's a more artful dodger?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Who's dodging now.:bubble:
BL, I posted earlier that I had no plans to see this flick, and sure as heck don't have anymore desire now.

Which of the dozen or so lies and/or misrepresentations do you feel are refutable?

I've heard of a few of them in other circles, but didn't know there were that many.
 

Pete

Repete
Originally posted by otter
Was a very simple request and he has dodged it. So BTFO.

Pete's daily log........forum date 080204........witnessed the first occurance of otter getting his dander up......have decided to call the phenominon "otter BLorealis"
 

Roy

New Member
Originally posted by Sparx
Which fact are you taking a shot at? I have not seen anyone prove anything that he said in the movie is false. They can only question his motives and he say's himself, when Kerry is elected he will be turning the camera on him.

A scene early in the movie shows newspaper headlines related to the contested 2000 presidential election. It includes a shot of The Pantagraph's Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election."

The newspaper says that headline never appeared on that day.

The paper said the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition but was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer."

"If (Moore) wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job," the paper said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MOORE_NEWSPAPER?SITE=ILBLO&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

tsk, tsk
 
Top