Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 17:38 T Wake wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote > > > >>> "It" being radical Islam, > >> > >>Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal." > > > > --- > > I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the > > acquisition of unlimited power. > > Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are > often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal. > Interesting take. He simply doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about. I've repeatedly asked him to identify this 'radical Isalm' and all he can say is 'radical islam'. He's a total nitwit who has no idea about the real issues. Graham
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2006 17:41 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:16:58 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Michael A. Terrell" wrote: > >> Keith wrote: >> > >> > Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the >> > wild west, "Blazing Saddles". >> >> He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out >> the horse. > >Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted. The history of Europe is the history of war. The earliest Greek writings that survive are tales of war. Europe has been at war for most of the last 3000 years, culminating in the "total war" of the 20th century, killing tens of millions of non-combattants, surely the largest-scale terrorism in world history. It was the American occupation, Pax Americana, that enforced 60 years of peace in Europe for the first time in millennia. Spin that! John
From: lucasea on 4 Oct 2006 17:42 "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76(a)News.Individual.NET... > In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436(a)clgrps13>, nobody(a)nowhere.com > says... >> >> "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message >> news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69(a)News.Individual.NET... >> >> > Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without >> > warrant. Get with the program. Uhh...then why does even the White House refer to this as the "warrantless wiretap" program? And who cares if the phone that's tapped is in another country. If it is able to listen to something going on in a living room in the US, then it is *domestic* surveillance. >> How would you ever know? >> > *You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is > slipping. And you assume they aren't. If I'm wrong, no harm, they can still get post facto warrants, and we still catch the bad guys. If *you're* wrong, my Constitutional rights are being trampled. All I insist on is accountability. Right now, the NSA is accountable only to themselves, and this is a clear violation of the system of checks-and-balances built into the Constitution. As a citizen of this country, I demand of my government that the actions of one branch of the government *always* be subject to review and approval of another branch. It's the very basis of our Constitution...and Bush has duped you into believing that you must give up that right. Let me ask you a question.... FISA sets up courts and has a system whereby the NSA can get warrants within a certain number of hours after a tap is used. Why do we need anything else? Not for speed. Not for security of the warrant information. The only plausible reason that we would need approval for the President to do anything more than that is if he has already authorized the NSA to do something they're not currently allowed to do under FISA. FISA ensures that the NSA is at least accountable to some independent entity outside the Executive branch of the government. You don't want your government to be held accountable for their actions? Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 4 Oct 2006 17:43 On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:46:19 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >Damn Ghandi and his crazy ideas - not to mention that fool Jesus. Look at >how many arguments he lost in the long term. > Ghandi shamed the British into setting India free. It wouldn't have worked with the Russians or the Chinese... they would have disappeared him and his followers in weeks. John
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 17:45
Daniel Mandic wrote: > Lloyd Parker wrote: > > > Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to > > involve someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer > > "listens" for certain key words and phrases. > > No no. Special people do this in their freetime. As we do our Usenet > Job. > You just need the key. With ISDN and everything digital is this > technically no problem, as you surely know. You can listen it whenever > you want, comfortably with all digital features. > > But I think it is just in a test phase, bez the people doing the > observer job are not officially endorsed. Just picked out people. > With everything private (here the telekom and POST is still partly ;-( > in state-hand) in the near future, it will be no problem at all. > Formula ten. For every ten people, one observer (chef). That was how the Stasi worked wasn't it ? Graham |