measl@mfn.org wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
mattd wrote:
Al-Quaeda is not a military force by any reasonable reckoning;
I don't know what your definition of military force is Marc, but any *group* of persons who are armed and engaged in common cause qualify as a military force in my book.
Okay - it DEFINITELY isn't a military force for Geneva purposes. How's that? You're welcome to your definition, but it won't wash here.
it is a criminal association whose victims are defenseless and innocent of any involvement (pro or anti) in the cause that the criminal association claims to espouse.
I assume you are referring to the WTC victims here. Sorry, but they were not "innocent". They, as participants in the selection of the rulers of this country, are 100% guilty of the many crimes perpetrated by the United States against other peoples.
We definitely differ here, and I disrespectfully submit that your line of reasoning is that of a terrorist: who is not for me is against me. By that "logic" everyone is fair game. And of course that's the purpose of the doctrine: to justify murder.
As for AQ being a "criminal association": how do you arrive at this? I suspect you get there by considering their acts to be outside of accepted behaviour (of any "lawful" society).
My reasoning is simpler and less legalistic than that which you impute top me. Murder is a crime. These guys conspired to commit murder, and did so. They are criminals, and associated in crime; therefore they are a criminal association.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, ya?
Nonsense. No reasonable definition of criminal conduct would put the US government and al-Quaeda in the same category. Marc de Piolenc