Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 3 Oct 2006 12:19 In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" ><nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >> >>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message >>news:eftptn$c8p$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... >> >>> Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times >>> it >>> says "citizens." >> >>SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come >>to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in >>the US would you? >> >> > >Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those >people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held >elsewhere. > >John > > Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no. Then he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep some prospective EU members out even.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:08 <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:vlgUg.36$45.43(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <4-mdnUz58qFpoLzYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> >><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >>news:zzYTg.6$45.103(a)news.uchicago.edu... >>> In article <35ydnZvRUoF4z73YRVny2A(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >>>> >>>>I think you have too broad a definition of the term "war." I fight a war >>>>against grass in my garden every week. I seem to be losing. >>>> >>> How about cracking open Clausevitz and checking his definition. >>> >> >>How about Merriam Webster's dictionary: >> >>(1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between >>states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict >> >>Clausewitz defines war as: >> >>"War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our >>will." >> >>Who shall we pick as the authorative reference for the meaning of words? >>Clausewitz was defining the term in the manner he wanted it used through >>out >>the rest of his treatise. In your version how does Clausewitz define >>"Terrorism" and when he discusses examples and methods of war, which do >>you >>feel appropriate for the "War on Terror" (given that not all terrorists >>are >>Islamic, and not all hail from the middle east)? >> > Check "War is a continuation of policy, by means of force". Think > what it is about. And, no, it takes some more reading that checking a > dictionary. Especially for somebody who doesn't want to rely on > soundbites. It was nothing more than a brief response. Your responses go nowhere towards explaining what _you_ think war means and involves. You throw half formed responses with a "check yourself" riposte at the end. If I said "War" was a heated argument would you accept that (it is a common usage for the term in modern society). Your definitions largely stem from people setting a particular meaning to the word for their treatises. What does the Geneva Convention define "War" as? Surely that must be the definitive answer.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:09 "Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen(a)die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> wrote in message news:eft7gb$1g4$1(a)news.al.sw.ericsson.se... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:aqidnbfWDbnvorzYnZ2dnUVZ8qCdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > >> I do think the Arabs need to get over Palestine. Its not as if they dont >> have other countries to go to... > > It's rather the UN that needs to get over Palestine - without the UN > keeping the > camps running and maintaining status quo people would move. The Arabs > despise > the Palestine people as much as the jews. Very true.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:10 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:ev83i29p6vq1ugjnin0vbeqlvgeag7fobc(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >> In article <4520C55D.7B2F988C(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>> >> >>> >> >You need to do some reading. OBL for example. >>> >> >>> >> I'm doing my reading. It is your reading that appears quite >>> >> superficial. Try following memri.org for a while, and that's just >>> >> for >>> >> starters. >>> > >>> >I see they mention the Muslim Brotherhood. They're the ppl you really >>> >should be scared about. Not >Islam >>> generally. >>> >>> --- >>> Probably _you_ should be afraid. I don't think they've forgotten >>> the Crusades yet. >> >>Afraid of what exactly ? > > --- > Convert or die. > Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life?
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 17:12
<mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:4ngUg.37$45.164(a)news.uchicago.edu... > In article <g8OdnRoTOcYdo7zYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: >> >>So, if the West's actions have no impact on the behaviour of the >>"opponent," >>how can the war be won? Your post implies that nothing we [tinw] can do >>will >>change their behaviour. >> > We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we? Yes. Which country do you suggest we occupy to change the behaviour of Islamic extremists? Your original post said that nothing we [tinw] did would affect the behaviour of the enemy. >>Do you advocate armed conflict purely out of vengeful spite? > > No. "War is a continuation of policy by means of force". Policy is > aimed at shaping the future, not avenging the past. Not always the case. |