Subject:
|
Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 20:03:17 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
243 times
|
| |
|
|
"John Grubber" <jgrubber2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:GqCuAF.n30@lugnet.com...
snip
>
> Oh well, they are only dark-skinned
> third-world foreigners, its not like they *matter*. After all- they have no
> money, so nokia, pepsi and walmart won't have much reason to set up shop there.
Several of them are British.
Hardly as you describe.
Though many in the UK would say 'serve them right'
lawrence
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
| (...) Yes, but that is just about the only thing they can say about the issue. Interestingly, I heard Rumsfeld say quite clearly yesterday that they were "terrorists". Comments like that should help make in future jury impartial... not! Scott A (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
| (...) hasn't come up in this forum before. (...) treated fairly? (...) Dubya conveniently avoided having to worry about that distinction by not actually declaring war. The 'war on terror' is a colloquialism, a title for a foreign policy inititive (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
