Re: News Release

"Volker Birk" <bumens@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Cliff <> wrote:
1- You claim that there is no real war therefore the illegal combatants
cannot be illegal combatants.
I supplied links to osama's declaration of war against the US for you to
read. Apparently you have ignored this, we haven't.

And if your uncle or my mother would declare war against the US, this
would be no war in the meaning of international law, too.

Osama bin laden is the head of a terrorist organization that was supported
by a state (Afghanistan) a far cry from your mother ( I hope :))

A war in international law is something between states. And Osama does
not represent a state, fortunately.

2- You claim that the war in Iraq is a illegal war.
I have supplied you with links to the 18+ UN resolutions against Iraq.

None of them is enough to justify an invasion at this point of time

Again we'll jsut have to disagree.

I have supplied you with the Iraq war resolution that passed with a super
majority in both the US house and Senate that reference the inablity of
UN to take action on their own resolutions. Apparently you have ignored

No, I haven't. It's very sad to see, that the US are leaving the
international community of states with this act.

Many people see it the other way around, we did not abandon the UN, the UN
abandoned us. Under this we do have a right.

3- You fail to take into account that the UN does not stop countries from
acting on their own.

The UN are the American states, the European states, the Asian states,
the African states, and the states of Australia and Oceania. The UN is
nothing which is acting like a person or something like that.

That still does not stop countrie from acting on their own.

The battle that we fight today is a battle against rhetoric and

Cliff, it's very easy to say "everybody who has not my opinion, only is
using rhetoric and propaganda".

And it's a little bit easy to see through.

It is not a matter not agreeing with opinions. It is a matter of ignoring
the fact or not acknowledging them.

This rethoric (to use your own word for what you're doing here) even led
to condemning the French in the US, who brought the ideas of fraternalism,
civil liberty and equality to the US after their revolution, helping to
establish the independence and the constitution of the US.

That is a totally different scenario, I do not agree either. We are not
talking rivalries between countries we are talking about following laws and

and side with the
religious mullahs

This is just ridiculous. I never did, I never will.

By default you are. While I am not saying that you support them I am saying
with your refusal to see the laws and rules that we used to make the
decisions we made is by default sideing with "them".
not work, you cannot
say that you are with us in one breath and in the same breath claim that
are doing things illegally by ignoring the meanings of the laws and rules
that we all follow.

Sounds good. Matthew, 12:30?

Cliff. 11:29 :)