XPost: alt.revisionism, can.politics, us.politics
XPost: soc.culture.german
From: Barber@Seville.com
"Without Quarter" wrote in message
news:I7ednbW2xZEjWbXfRVn-3w@speakeasy.net...
> Without Quarter wrote:
>
>> Sara Salzman wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> Without Quarter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > In article <-KadnSEmweP3P7XfRVn-rQ@speakeasy.net>,
>>>> > Without Quarter wrote:
>>>> >>Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> In article <4MidnRzA2Lpfn7XfRVn-iQ@speakeasy.net>,
>>>> >>> Without Quarter wrote:
>>>> >>>>Without Quarter wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Sara Salzman wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> In article ,
>>>> >>>>>> Without Quarter wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> > In article ,
>>>> >>>>>>> > Without Quarter wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> >>Kenneth McVay OBC wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> I don't "wish" any such thing, Bubba. I am opposed to
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> Canada's hate laws, and have been since 1991. I am simply
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> pointing out what the LAW says. You DO believe in correct
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> interpretation of the law, do you not?
>>>> >>>>>>> >>
>>>> >>>>>>> >>"I was just following orders."
>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>> > You didn't answer the question, which isn't the least
>>>> >>>>>>> > surprising.
>>>> >>>>>>> >
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> You are correct that I did not /directly/ answer the question.
>>>> >>>>>>> I do believe in the correct interpretation of the law. As an
>>>> >>>>>>> American, and also a US Citizen, I would start with the
>>>> >>>>>>> Preamble
>>>> >>>>>>> of the Constitution of the United
>>>> >>>>>>> States of America. Correctly interpreting the law only means
>>>> >>>>>>> understanding
>>>> >>>>>>> what it says. It does not mean the law is right. Nor does it
>>>> >>>>>>> mean the law
>>>> >>>>>>> should be obeyed. There are times when personal morality
>>>> >>>>>>> trumps
>>>> >>>>>>> the letter of the law.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>[NB:My comment about US Law was an aside.]
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>>> No it doesn't. You can make a decision to "trump" the law, but
>>>> >>>>>> you will still be forced to accept the LEGAL consequences of
>>>> >>>>>> your
>>>> >>>>>> actions.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Sara
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> So. If I were standing infront of a hundred noncombatants
>>>> >>>>> collected by the secret police and was given an order to gun
>>>> >>>>> these
>>>> >>>>> people down for purposes of "collective punishment", should I
>>>> >>>>> obey
>>>> >>>>> the law?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>I do hope this question is addressed, and not ignored.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> My answer is the same given at Nurnberg: No, you should not obey
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> law, and would be held accoutable if you did.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ...which has nothing to do with Zundel.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>Witch Hunt: Fear, Part III - Peart
>>>> >
>>>> > Which has nothing to do with Zundel, who was deported upon being
>>>> > confirmed as a threat to our national security.
>>>>
>>>> Are the allegations made in Zündel's complaint to the UN regarding
>>>> arson, death threats, attempted murder, etc., against Zündel reasonably
>>>> credible?
>>>
>>> Apparently not, since the UN ignored him, and the UN is no friend to
>>> Israel.
>>>
>>> You also know damn well that Amnesty International refused to support
>>> him.
>>>
>>> Sara
>>
>> Is there a police record of the bomb incident? The arson?
>
> Can anyone provide an answer to this question?
It has already been answered, Herr Untersturmbahnfuhrer von Hattonen.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
