Attacks on Civilians

[sealadaigh]

That's not the professor's home page.......interesting, though. It appears to be a wide range of OPINION pieces about current events (or near-current)

i am well aware that it is not the professor's homepage. it is however the homepage from where you got your article...from where your article came. it is a bizarre opinion homepage in my opininion, not unlike rense.

i was just curious as to why you would use that link instead of a more "normal" link.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Well, the professor may of course have his opinion, but the link I just posted here is to a court decision holding East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. The International Court of Justice is the highest intl legal authority in our world and they have already decided this issue.

Israel attacked no nation named Palestine, how could she occupy Palestinian territory?

Well, if you do not understand it you should read the courts opinion, the court explains it in its opinion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Well, the professor may of course have his opinion, but the link I just posted here is to a court decision holding East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. The International Court of Justice is the highest intl legal authority in our world and they have already decided this issue.

Israel attacked no nation named Palestine, how could she occupy Palestinian territory?

Well, if you do not understand it you should read the courts opinion, the court explains it in its opinion.

I don't need to read the opinion to understand Israel attacked no nation named Palestine.

 

[sealadaigh]

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Well, the professor may of course have his opinion, but the link I just posted here is to a court decision holding East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. The International Court of Justice is the highest intl legal authority in our world and they have already decided this issue.

Israel attacked no nation named Palestine, how could she occupy Palestinian territory?

now you are just being silly. are you suggesting that it is part of israel?

also, you may want to acknowledge the artist who authored the words in you sig line. sig lines are not exempt from copyright law and your sig line is a violation of copyright law until you acknowledge the author.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The paragraphs of the courts opinion that address the legal status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza begin in Paragraph 70, here is part of that discussion and a link to a document that fully sets forth that discussion.

70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that:"Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the*International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131).The territorial boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine were laid down by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border by a British memorandum of 16 September 1922 and an Anglo Transjordanian Treaty of 20 February 1928.

71. In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, the General Assembly had on 29 November 1947 adopted resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, which "Recommends*to the United Kingdom . . . and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation . . . of the Plan of Partition" of the territory, as set forth in the resolution, between two independent States, one Arab, the other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régime for the City of Jerusalem. The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan, contending that it was unbalanced; on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.

72. By resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948, the Security Council decided that "an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine" and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agreement to this end. In conformity with this decision, general armistice agreements were concluded in 1949 between Israel and the neighbouring States through mediation by the United Nations. In particular, one such agreement was signed in Rhodes on 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan. Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armistice demarcation line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the "Green Line" owing to the colour used for it on maps; hereinafter the "Green Line"). Article III, paragraph 2, provided that "No element of the . . . military or para military forces of either Party . . . shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . ." It was agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be "interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties". It was also stated that "the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto". The Demarcation Line was subject to such rectification as might be agreed upon by the parties.

73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency".

75. From 1967 onwards, Israel took a number of measures in these territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:"all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status".Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic Law making Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel, the Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law and that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are null and void". It further decided "not to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem".

http://www.israellawresourcecenter....nion2003/studyguides/icj2003sglegalstatus.htm

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The paragraphs of the courts opinion that address the legal status of East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza begin in Paragraph 70, here is part of that discussion and a link to a document that fully sets forth that discussion.

70. Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire. At the end of the First World War, a class "A" Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain by the League of Nations, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the Covenant, which provided that:"Certain communities, formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."The Court recalls that in its Advisory Opinion on the*International Status of South West Africa, speaking of mandates in general, it observed that "The Mandate was created, in the interest of the inhabitants of the territory, and of humanity in general, as an international institution with an international object a sacred trust of civilization." (I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 132.) The Court also held in this regard that "two principles were considered to be of paramount importance: the principle of non annexation and the principle that the well being and development of . . . peoples [not yet able to govern themselves] form[ed] 'a sacred trust of civilization'" (ibid., p. 131).The territorial boundaries of the Mandate for Palestine were laid down by various instruments, in particular on the eastern border by a British memorandum of 16 September 1922 and an Anglo Transjordanian Treaty of 20 February 1928.

71. In 1947 the United Kingdom announced its intention to complete evacuation of the mandated territory by 1 August 1948, subsequently advancing that date to 15 May 1948. In the meantime, the General Assembly had on 29 November 1947 adopted resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, which "Recommends*to the United Kingdom . . . and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation . . . of the Plan of Partition" of the territory, as set forth in the resolution, between two independent States, one Arab, the other Jewish, as well as the creation of a special international régime for the City of Jerusalem. The Arab population of Palestine and the Arab States rejected this plan, contending that it was unbalanced; on 14 May 1948, Israel proclaimed its independence on the strength of the General Assembly resolution; armed conflict then broke out between Israel and a number of Arab States and the Plan of Partition was not implemented.

72. By resolution 62 (1948) of 16 November 1948, the Security Council decided that "an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine" and called upon the parties directly involved in the conflict to seek agreement to this end. In conformity with this decision, general armistice agreements were concluded in 1949 between Israel and the neighbouring States through mediation by the United Nations. In particular, one such agreement was signed in Rhodes on 3 April 1949 between Israel and Jordan. Articles V and VI of that Agreement fixed the armistice demarcation line between Israeli and Arab forces (often later called the "Green Line" owing to the colour used for it on maps; hereinafter the "Green Line"). Article III, paragraph 2, provided that "No element of the . . . military or para military forces of either Party . . . shall advance beyond or pass over for any purpose whatsoever the Armistice Demarcation Lines . . ." It was agreed in Article VI, paragraph 8, that these provisions would not be "interpreted as prejudicing, in any sense, an ultimate political settlement between the Parties". It was also stated that "the Armistice Demarcation Lines defined in articles V and VI of [the] Agreement [were] agreed upon by the Parties without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto". The Demarcation Line was subject to such rectification as might be agreed upon by the parties.

73. In the 1967 armed conflict, Israeli forces occupied all the territories which had constituted Palestine under British Mandate (including those known as the West Bank, lying to the east of the Green Line).

74. On 22 November 1967, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 242 (1967), which emphasized the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war and called for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict", and "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency".

75. From 1967 onwards, Israel took a number of measures in these territories aimed at changing the status of the City of Jerusalem. The Security Council, after recalling on a number of occasions "the principle that acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible", condemned those measures and, by resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, confirmed in the clearest possible terms that:"all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change the status of the City of Jerusalem, including expropriation of land and properties, transfer of populations and legislation aimed at the incorporation of the occupied section, are totally invalid and cannot change that status".Later, following the adoption by Israel on 30 July 1980 of the Basic Law making Jerusalem the "complete and united" capital of Israel, the Security Council, by resolution 478 (1980) of 20 August 1980, stated that the enactment of that Law constituted a violation of international law and that "all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem . . . are null and void". It further decided "not to recognize the 'basic law' and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem".

Study Guide: legal status of territories and Jerusalem

Thanks for posting proof of my claim.

 

[sealadaigh]

here ya go, todd, ol' buddy. no need to thank me. i was glad to help bring you in compliance with copyright law.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

(I Won't Get Fooled Again by Peter Townshend)

 

[Hossfly]

here ya go, todd, ol' buddy. no need to thank me. i was glad to help bring you in compliance with copyright law.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

(I Won't Get Fooled Again by Peter Townshend)

Go refresh your Lipstick, Stoolie.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Professor Louis Rene Beres -- The Myth Of The "Occupied" Territories

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalem. Professor Beres's columns appear often in major American, Israeli and European newspapers.

Louis Rene Beres

Professor of International Law

Department of Political Science

Purdue University

West Lafayette IN 47907 USA

E MAIL [email protected]


Media references to territories administered by Israel since the June 1967 war now routinely describe them as "occupied." Yet, this description conveniently overlooks the pertinent history of these lands, especially the authentic Israeli claims supported by international law, the unwitting manner in which West Bank and Gaza fell into Israel's hands after sustained Arab aggression and the overwhelming security considerations involved. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a State of Palestine was not promised by authoritative UN Security Council Resolution 242; indeed, a State of Palestine has never existed.

Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948;...

What is the relevance for this statement?

 

[Saigon]

Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948;...

In other words, neither Armenia, South Sudan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania or a dozen other states have no claim to modern statehood - because they did not exist in 1948 either.

 

[sealadaigh]

here ya go, todd, ol' buddy. no need to thank me. i was glad to help bring you in compliance with copyright law.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

(I Won't Get Fooled Again by Peter Townshend)

Go refresh your Lipstick, Stoolie.

oh, quit yer whinin'. ya little dweeb.

i merely told this whiz bang smart guy to acknowledge the person who wrote this material. i happen to believe in copyright protection. my god, do you think i am a zionist or some other kind of crook and i have a god given right to steal anything that isn't nailed down.

so, a good christian like you believes in stealing. OK.

now can we get back to the topic at hand which is...are civilians protected people...and the whole thing is just a mess, but most people actually do know what the right thing to do is...and they apply those principles across the board, disregarding politics.

there are a wholoe lot of shades of gray in this matter...like are children protected people...the answer screams "YES"...but what about the increasing use of child soldiers?

there really are no easy answes now, are there?

(one easy answer is that toddsterplasticpatriot oughta be giving pete townshend credit unless he thinks he is above american copyright law.)

 

[Hossfly]

here ya go, todd, ol' buddy. no need to thank me. i was glad to help bring you in compliance with copyright law.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again

(I Won't Get Fooled Again by Peter Townshend)

Go refresh your Lipstick, Stoolie.

oh, quit yer whinin'. ya little dweeb.

i merely told this whiz bang smart guy to acknowledge the person who wrote this material. i happen to believe in copyright protection. my god, do you think i am a zionist or some other kind of crook and i have a god given right to steal anything that isn't nailed down.

so, a good christian like you believes in stealing. OK.

now can we get back to the topic at hand which is...are civilians protected people...and the whole thing is just a mess, but most people actually do know what the right thing to do is...and they apply those principles across the board, disregarding politics.

there are a wholoe lot of shades of gray in this matter...like are children protected people...the answer screams "YES"...but what about the increasing use of child soldiers?

there really are no easy answes now, are there?

(one easy answer is that toddsterplasticpatriot oughta be giving pete townshend credit unless he thinks he is above american copyright law.)

Are you that dense that you don't realize I wasn't referring to what you said to Todd. Meanwhile, throughout the years many posters have used different quotes as their taglines without attributing them to their authors, and I never saw you whining about copywrite laws then. However, if you want to start whining about copywrite laws now, go right ahead if it makes you feel good.

 

[sealadaigh]

Go refresh your Lipstick, Stoolie.

oh, quit yer whinin'. ya little dweeb.

i merely told this whiz bang smart guy to acknowledge the person who wrote this material. i happen to believe in copyright protection. my god, do you think i am a zionist or some other kind of crook and i have a god given right to steal anything that isn't nailed down.

so, a good christian like you believes in stealing. OK.

now can we get back to the topic at hand which is...are civilians protected people...and the whole thing is just a mess, but most people actually do know what the right thing to do is...and they apply those principles across the board, disregarding politics.

there are a wholoe lot of shades of gray in this matter...like are children protected people...the answer screams "YES"...but what about the increasing use of child soldiers?

there really are no easy answes now, are there?

(one easy answer is that toddsterplasticpatriot oughta be giving pete townshend credit unless he thinks he is above american copyright law.)

Are you that dense that you don't realize I wasn't referring to what you said to Todd. Meanwhile, throughout the years many posters have used different quotes as their taglines without attributing them to their authors, and I never saw you whining about copywrite laws then. However, if you want to start whining about copywrite laws now, go right ahead if it makes you feel good.

i have always spoken out against copyright infringement when i see it and actually check sometime to see if something is in the public domain, just to be sure.

lets see now, i'm dense for not understanding that your silly little comments do not refer to what i said to todd, and yet, the only silly little comments you make (of this particular genre) follow my comments to todd. yeah, how dense of me.

this ones for you, todd. how about acknowledging the author though...still. it is the right thing to do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxyjkXrUzdE]Harry Caray Singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame. Wrigley Field 7 - YouTube[/ame]

now, child soldiers??? you seem to really be avoiding the issue, mr. americal.

 

[Coyote]

Lets get back on topic folks...

 

[Uncensored2008]

That justifies actions by both sides then.

I don't agree with what you say about international law. We started out with tribal laws and governance and moved on to city-states and then nation-states -- a progression/evolution. I think, post WW1 - we saw the beginnings of a transition from nation-states to a degree of internationalism. That is already apparent in business and economy. So I think international law does mean something, especially in view of preventing horrible genocides.

Right, because Obama knows there have been no genocides since WWI....

Kulaks
Holocaust
Purges
Great Leap Forward
Cultural Revolution
Killing Fields
Baby Doc
Ortega slaughtering the Mesquito Indians

 

[Hossfly]

oh, quit yer whinin'. ya little dweeb.

i merely told this whiz bang smart guy to acknowledge the person who wrote this material. i happen to believe in copyright protection. my god, do you think i am a zionist or some other kind of crook and i have a god given right to steal anything that isn't nailed down.

so, a good christian like you believes in stealing. OK.

now can we get back to the topic at hand which is...are civilians protected people...and the whole thing is just a mess, but most people actually do know what the right thing to do is...and they apply those principles across the board, disregarding politics.

there are a wholoe lot of shades of gray in this matter...like are children protected people...the answer screams "YES"...but what about the increasing use of child soldiers?

there really are no easy answes now, are there?

(one easy answer is that toddsterplasticpatriot oughta be giving pete townshend credit unless he thinks he is above american copyright law.)

Are you that dense that you don't realize I wasn't referring to what you said to Todd. Meanwhile, throughout the years many posters have used different quotes as their taglines without attributing them to their authors, and I never saw you whining about copywrite laws then. However, if you want to start whining about copywrite laws now, go right ahead if it makes you feel good.

i have always spoken out against copyright infringement when i see it and actually check sometime to see if something is in the public domain, just to be sure.

lets see now, i'm dense for not understanding that your silly little comments do not refer to what i said to todd, and yet, the only silly little comments you make (of this particular genre) follow my comments to todd. yeah, how dense of me.

this ones for you, todd. how about acknowledging the author though...still. it is the right thing to do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxyjkXrUzdE]Harry Caray Singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame. Wrigley Field 7 - YouTube[/ame]

now, child soldiers??? you seem to really be avoiding the issue, mr. americal.

Tell us another good silly story about how over all the years you have been posting that you were so concerned with copywrite infringement. Since I don't think anyone saw you bringing it up, I guess all the posters and readers must have been comatose. Meanwhile, speaking of child soldiers, thanks for bringing it up because we know that in many places there are Muslim child soldiers as well as adults convincing children to become suicide bombers. Sad how these children never have a chance at a normal childhood because of the grownups.

Mali's Islamic radicals recruiting child soldiers at schools - Washington Times

 

[sealadaigh]

Are you that dense that you don't realize I wasn't referring to what you said to Todd. Meanwhile, throughout the years many posters have used different quotes as their taglines without attributing them to their authors, and I never saw you whining about copywrite laws then. However, if you want to start whining about copywrite laws now, go right ahead if it makes you feel good.

i have always spoken out against copyright infringement when i see it and actually check sometime to see if something is in the public domain, just to be sure.

lets see now, i'm dense for not understanding that your silly little comments do not refer to what i said to todd, and yet, the only silly little comments you make (of this particular genre) follow my comments to todd. yeah, how dense of me.

this ones for you, todd. how about acknowledging the author though...still. it is the right thing to do.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxyjkXrUzdE]Harry Caray Singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame. Wrigley Field 7 - YouTube[/ame]

now, child soldiers??? you seem to really be avoiding the issue, mr. americal.

Tell us another good silly story about how over all the years you have been posting that you were so concerned with copywrite infringement. Since I don't think anyone saw you bringing it up, I guess all the posters and readers must have been comatose. Meanwhile, speaking of child soldiers, thanks for bringing it up because we know that in many places there are Muslim child soldiers as well as adults convincing children to become suicide bombers. Sad how these children never have a chance at a normal childhood because of the grownups.

Mali's Islamic radicals recruiting child soldiers at schools - Washington Times

i have never condoned child soldiers. it hasn't really come up but is, i think. appropriate for this discussion to some extent.

i think those militias or militaries that use child soldiers need to be tried for war crimes.

as for me and copyright, fine. i will keep quiet about it and report it when i see it, mr. americal.

 

[Hossfly]

i have always spoken out against copyright infringement when i see it and actually check sometime to see if something is in the public domain, just to be sure.

lets see now, i'm dense for not understanding that your silly little comments do not refer to what i said to todd, and yet, the only silly little comments you make (of this particular genre) follow my comments to todd. yeah, how dense of me.

this ones for you, todd. how about acknowledging the author though...still. it is the right thing to do.

Harry Caray Singing Take Me Out to the Ballgame. Wrigley Field 7 - YouTube

now, child soldiers??? you seem to really be avoiding the issue, mr. americal.

Tell us another good silly story about how over all the years you have been posting that you were so concerned with copywrite infringement. Since I don't think anyone saw you bringing it up, I guess all the posters and readers must have been comatose. Meanwhile, speaking of child soldiers, thanks for bringing it up because we know that in many places there are Muslim child soldiers as well as adults convincing children to become suicide bombers. Sad how these children never have a chance at a normal childhood because of the grownups.

Mali's Islamic radicals recruiting child soldiers at schools - Washington Times

i have never condoned child soldiers. it hasn't really come up but is, i think. appropriate for this discussion to some extent.

i think those militias or militaries that use child soldiers need to be tried for war crimes.

as for me and copyright, fine. i will keep quiet about it and report it when i see it, mr. americal.

That's good. About the reporting, I mean. Gives you a chance to repair your Lipstick.

 

[sealadaigh]

Tell us another good silly story about how over all the years you have been posting that you were so concerned with copywrite infringement. Since I don't think anyone saw you bringing it up, I guess all the posters and readers must have been comatose. Meanwhile, speaking of child soldiers, thanks for bringing it up because we know that in many places there are Muslim child soldiers as well as adults convincing children to become suicide bombers. Sad how these children never have a chance at a normal childhood because of the grownups.

Mali's Islamic radicals recruiting child soldiers at schools - Washington Times

i have never condoned child soldiers. it hasn't really come up but is, i think. appropriate for this discussion to some extent.

i think those militias or militaries that use child soldiers need to be tried for war crimes.

as for me and copyright, fine. i will keep quiet about it and report it when i see it, mr. americal.

That's good. About the reporting, I mean. Gives you a chance to repair your Lipstick.

tell ya what i'm gonna do. i will start a thread in the badlands and we can have this ridiculous discussion about our make up tips over there instead of trashing this thread further.

kay hon?

smootchies.

 

[Hossfly]

i have never condoned child soldiers. it hasn't really come up but is, i think. appropriate for this discussion to some extent.

i think those militias or militaries that use child soldiers need to be tried for war crimes.

as for me and copyright, fine. i will keep quiet about it and report it when i see it, mr. americal.

That's good. About the reporting, I mean. Gives you a chance to repair your Lipstick.

tell ya what i'm gonna do. i will start a thread in the badlands and we can have this ridiculous discussion about our make up tips over there instead of trashing this thread further.

kay hon?

smootchies.

Is it really necessary for you to keep on reporting things? Does it make you feel important? Let the Administration do their jobs. If they feel it is important enough, they will contact the offender. Meanwhile, your mascara is running, sweetie.