Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 10 Nov 2006 22:52 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4554FF00.B444C9D0(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>For credit points: What cease fire violations did Saddam commit? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Didn't they 'lock on' to various flight with their AA radars a few >>>>>>>>times ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes. Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by >>>>>>>strikes as >>>>>>>were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft. >>>>>> >>>>>>That used to be called "target illumination." When >>>>>>detected it is rightfully understood to be a threat. >>>> >>>>Yes it is a threat. What is your point? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>"Painting"? >>>>> >>>>>So ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Now there's a bit of doublespeak for you. >>>>> >>>>>What's your point ? >>>> >>>> >>>>Not sure why it considers "painting" doublespeak, seems fairly >>>>appropriate >>>>considering how AD radar systems work. >>> >>>Because it is doublespeak, concealing the threatening nature >>>of the act. But you knew that. >> >>Good Lord ! >> >>Talk about grabbing at straws. > > > Yes he is clutching for dear life. There is the same threat by a radar paint > as there is by a soldier looking at you with binoculars. The platforms which > were taken out during the NFZ enforcement included height finders, range > finders, air traffic control systems and (yes) AD equipment. > > I am not sure what Unsettled thinks he is gaining here. My original post did > say "Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by strikes as > were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft" - so I > don't know why he thinks I am trying to hide the "threat" nature of an Air > Defence system. > > It is likely that Unsettled is blinded by his urge to argue and insult, and > as such is no longer aware of my stance on this particular part of the > argument. Your stance on any subject is, for the purposes of this discussion, only what you post here. I take your statements one at a time. Target illumination is *not* the same as looking at someone with binoculars. It is the same as looking at a person through a scope on a loaded and cocked rifle. Tasrget illumination is a completely different thing from aerial surveillance radar in that target illumination is a lock on to the target for the purpose of illuminating it for a missile to locate, track, and hit. It has no other purpose for being. Calling it a radar paint conceals the sinister aspects of the military purpose.
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 22:10 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:29:14 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Several of you need to get back on your meds. You seem to think lots of posters need "meds". You also state that "inappropriate" humour is a sign of bipolar disorder. Do you by any chance come across a lot of humour, directed at you perhaps, that you deem inappropriate? Just asking.
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 22:30 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:39:18 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:28d7l29uofp8nriijbl2h4mvntbaqrvei4(a)4ax.com... > >>>They wouldn't do that in the USA would they? Ah no, they do it in Cuba >>>instead and pretend it's the USA. Unless it is more convenient to say >>>it's Cuba, of course. And it's years there, not days... > >> Yep and that coming from the supposed bastions of freedom and democracy. It >> is good to see hypocrisy is alive an well in the Western world. > >Why do you suppose Castro backed off complaining about >the imprisonment of terrorists on "his island"? I have no idea. Maybe he is wary of all the guns they have in there. *Alleged* terrorists. Many of them, including several British subjects, were entirely innocent, but held for years nonetheless. American citizens were treated differently.
From: Ben Newsam on 10 Nov 2006 22:27 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 19:13:37 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >news:28d7l29uofp8nriijbl2h4mvntbaqrvei4(a)4ax.com... >> Don't forget the recent partial removal of the "double jeopardy" rules >> too. Again, in that particular case I tend to agree with the changes. > >Yes, in that case I agree. The problem here is (obviously all this is IMHO) >that law is supposed to be impartial and unemotional. In the UK we change >laws to pander to the press and public opinion. Where do they draw the line. > >The changes to double jeopardy in the Steven Lawrence case seem "fair" but >the problem is trial two is likely to be a farce. How can you pick an >impartial, unbiased jury when the case facts have already be pre-judged as >guilty enough to allow a re-trial? I think the double jeopardy rules were changed after the 20 year campaign by the amazing persistence of the victim's mother in this case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5144722.stm There was an interview with her on the radio, and I was struck by her calm rationality and her refusal to give up. >I suspect we both agree with the change to the law in Lawrence case because >we have both decided the defendants are actually guilty. Does that not >strike you as a strange way to run trials? I haven't decided anything about the Stephen Lawrence case, and in fact know very little about it at all.
From: unsettled on 10 Nov 2006 23:10
Ben Newsam wrote: > On Fri, 10 Nov 06 14:45:00 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>In article <4553638B.5813A8BC(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>What real objection do you have to an 'NHS' ? >> >>It's unconstitutional. > > > Ha! Tell that to the Marines. They're nationalised, maybe they're > unconstitutional too, lol. > > >> [emoticon now retreats into its >>tornado cellar] It is also a waste of resources, ineffcient, >>and hands over all approvals to politicians and bureaucrats. > > > And your system doesn't have bureaucrats? I suspect that the > bureaucracy involved in deciding claims must be *huge*, whole layers > of office staff processing paperwork that we simply don't have at all. Medicare, that is the national health insurance plan for folks over 65 (they don't provide the facilities or services, they merely pay for them) is, for my part of the US anyway, operated by a contractor. As they at best cover 80% of costs (not including medicines) I also purchase a suplemental insurance policy that covers the remaining 20% plus some things not covered by medicare. I am fortunate that my supplemental insurance is provided by a not-for-profit firm, so it is purely a risk redistribution operation. |