Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2007 08:24 In article <a633e$459c0f5b$4fe756c$30709(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:engenc$8qk_012(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> >>>There isn't much >>>going on is there? And Iran's delaying tactics are working. >>>In two years, we'll see if these tactics worked as well as >>>they did in the 1930s. > >> Iran didn't use delaying tactics in the 1930s. > >She's talking about European delaying tactics and appeasement >of the 1930's bing replayed by Iran. I realize that sometimes >BAH skips a few steps which makes discussions difficult for >some folks to follow. For some of us those skipped steps are >more necessary than for others. Since we had already covered the steps I skipped in this thread, I saw no need to reiterate. My apologies. > >>>>> The US anti-Bushers >>>>>seem to want European law rather than US Constituional law. > >>>>There is no "European Law". > >>>Exactly. > >> Blimey. IKWYABWAI variant if ever I saw one. > >Part of the disagreements in this thread are real legitimate >head on crashes. Some of them are the product of a significant >cultural mismatch which perhaps neither of the two of you >actually grasps. I know that gap exists. I'm working on trying to learn their mindset. I have discovered that the reason people who think European-style, w.r.t. culture, cannot comprehend how our Constitution works, is because they have been immersed in royalty-flavored thinking. It was always the case that the roylaty were the ones who had the responsibility of dealing with these kinds of problems (threats to their subjects). They equate our President with their king or queen. >The cultural difference is not related to >national origins, but rather to workplaces and how >communications are delivered. I don't think that's the cause. The cause is who inherantly shoulders the responsibility of security, fincance, and statesmanship decisions. We hire ours and replace them every few years. Theirs is based on promengeniture, slightly modified. > The underlying assumptions >disclosed by participants in this thread are as diverse >as the technique of delivering them. In one environment >two or three keywords amount to the same amount of >communicating as half a page of dialog means in another. > >In saying this I am not taking sides, merely making an >observation. I often disagree strongly with some of the >stuff being promoted. I often don't bother to comment >where the things I disagree with appear to have become >an issue of quasi-religious belief. > >Hope this helps. This (differences) is one of the things I'm studying. Since SOP of European thought is what happened in the 1930s, my style is to study it and then try to figure out a way to do mess prevention. Appeasement is a fact of life in European politics and foreign policies. So that has to be taken as a fact when thinking about dealing with this global danger. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Jan 2007 08:48 In article <fbWdnV_HIsVVfwbYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:engg2h$8qk_004(a)s827.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <enbata$6p7$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <enb17e$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <en90n9$5un$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <em3gds$8qk_001(a)s969.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>You should care. It is the very things that have made the US a free >>>>>country that are being lost. >>>> >>>>I see. You cannot list those who are denied their US Constituional >>>>rights. Perhaps those who are being monitored under this law >>>>are those who have no Constitutional rights? IOW, they are not >>>>of this country but are an enemy of this country. >>> >>>I listed one that should matter to you. You BAH have been denied your >>>Constitutional rights. >> >> No, I haven't. It is only your opinion that I have, but you are >> wrong. >> >>> Bush has made the claim that he can listen to your >>>phone calls. In your opinion, perhaps you don't deserve these rights. >> >> He can listen using the procedures described in the Patriot Act >> if, and only if, I cause attraction to myself by talking about >> procurement and disbrusement of mess-making subjects. So I don't >> do that. I also haven't said the word bomb in an airport since >> 1975 or so. >> >> Has my Constitutional rights been taken away because it is no >> longer a prudent thing to say the word bomb when I'm going >> through security? >> >> Use your noodle. > >But you have used it in an USENET post now, so I assume from this point >forward all your electronic comms are monitored. I do not falsely believe that my posts to newsgroups can be considered private. Do you believe that newsgroups is a private communication? Do you believe that email is a private communication? When you use your wireless telephone, do you believe that conversation is a private communication? /BAH
From: Eeyore on 4 Jan 2007 09:09 JoeBloe wrote: > On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave > us: > > >No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an enemy > >combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. > > In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. > > He can also declare marshall law, and beat down every door in the > country in a search too. LMAO @ Marshall Law cowboy ! Graham
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Jan 2007 06:04 In article <itqpp29sjamikrggoj2u7eng3jng5lretq(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an enemy >>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. > > In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. > We're not at war. Congress has not declared war. > He can also declare marshall law, and beat down every door in the >country in a search too. Yeah, in a fascist society.
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Jan 2007 06:05
In article <itqpp29sjamikrggoj2u7eng3jng5lretq(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 03 Jan 07 11:55:22 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>No, it says the president can designate anyone, anytime, anywhere as an enemy >>combatant, and gives the person no way to challenge that. > > In time of war, it has always been that way, dumbass. > > He can also declare marshall law, and beat down every door in the >country in a search too. The constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus only in 2 instances: invasion and rebellion. Neither applies now. |