Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 18:05 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > >> > Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal > >> > jurisdiction in the area. Also there is no requirement that it > >> > use terror methods either. > >> > >> This is pedantry. > > > > Not to me. It's a subtle but precise distinction. > > > > in?sur?gent? [in-sur-juhnt] - noun > > 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a > > person > > who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its > > laws; rebel. > > > > ter?ror?ism? [ter-uh-riz-uhm] -noun > > 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for > > political purposes. > > 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or > > terrorization. > > 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. > > The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorists fight against a legal > government. Insurgents use violence to intimidate / coerce (eg overthrow the > government). > > Not at all precise. The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist. Graham
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 18:05 "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> > wrote: > >>In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >> >>> I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in >>> my >>> living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your >>> listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights. >> >> Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over >>that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone >>doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone >>is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair >>game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the >>country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone >>who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather >>interesting case to make. > > And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all > calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party. > > All I need to do is push a button ;-) > It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 18:06 "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:29b8i2hsic1aohfjan0703vugt8mk480re(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:55 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote >>> > Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my >>> >> guess is janitor ;-) >>> > >>> > >>> > Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility? >>> >>> >>> It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and >>> explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined >>> work >>> status. >>> >>> Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has >>> not >>> claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on >>> Earth, >>> does his job matter? >>> >>> Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you >>> think is >>> in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be >>> ashamed >>> of yourselves. >> >>Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting here. >>JoeBloe >>beats them hands down though. >> >>Graham >> > > At least we're not impotent like you. > Soon Teacher will turn up to put a stop to this playground fight.
From: T Wake on 4 Oct 2006 18:07 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:f9WUg.13325$7I1.11767(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net... > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > news:WcGdnX5vtrSegrnYRVnygw(a)pipex.net... >> >> >> All part of the quest to oust the commies. > > Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has > been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have > furthered the current mess? > Sadly, yes. Bring back the cold war. :-)
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 18:08
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:49:06 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> >news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua(a)4ax.com... >> >> >> --- >> >> "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. > >Since you're incapable even of identifying 'radical Islam' your thoughts count for >nothing. --- Sheesh, as if the opinions of a pinhead like you mattered. You even have to get clarification after clarification from T Wake because you can't understand his lucid prose and you dare to criticize others? For shame. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |