Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 07:17 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:qe6eq25v7vr2l8gqjagd38781phaa5v4kq(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 00:15:18 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >>The simple answer is that the terrorists are criminals and what's required >>is >>international *police* action to stop it. > > > There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, > > AND IT IS A WAR. No it isn't. You do not declare war on things like terrorism any more than you declare war on poverty or childhood obesity. It sounds good, it makes a nice rallying call and fits soundbites. But it is not a declaration of war. Unless of course I missed the bit where the declaration was made official by a duly recognised authority.
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 07:22 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:1veeq2tvqbjskrjcc46ca3s1uhdpjkqbld(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:07:32 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >> >>It isn't worldwide. It's certainly no longer called a 'war on terror' in >>the UK >>for one thing. >> > Tell that to the Somalians. I wasn't aware the Somali government were able to declare a worldwide war. As most of them were themselves branded terrorists not to long ago it strikes me as hypocritical. > Those in power there now are certainly > on the "war against terror" bandwagon, and obviously countless other > countries you are unaware of. Just goes to show, a get a good bandwagon going and all the third world dictatorships will jump on it just in case it means they get a bit of support from the US (and more importantly, not bombed by the US). Are you saying this, in itself, validates the term? > You are unaware of so much... And you aren't?
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 07:29 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:qqgeq25oqqb4hjhepj0ncbu9g3q7a82gmg(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:01:32 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>> >> There is. It's called the Worldwide Struggle Against Terrorism, >>> > >>> >It isn't worldwide. It's certainly no longer called a 'war on terror' >>> >in the UK >>> >for one thing. >>> >>> Tell that to the Somalians. Those in power there now are certainly >>> on the "war against terror" bandwagon, and obviously countless other >>> countries you are unaware of. You are unaware of so much... >> >>Have you forgotten already that there are always at least 2 sides in every >>dispute ? >>One man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'. > > Are you trying to say that the invading Islamic factions that over > ran Somalia Where did they invade from? > deserved to be there as they were "fighting" for "their > freedom"???? No, learn to read his post before jumping in. Eeyore said one mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. There are lots of Somalis who look to the Islamic Courts Union as saviours from the "government" of thugs and war lords who cruelly oppressed them. The ICU (like most terrorists trying to legitimise themselves) played up to this and built schools, bridges etc., which the government forces tried to take over. There are lots of "ordinary" Somalis who think the ICU are a good thing. Just because you and I think of them as "terrorists" does not mean the term has an abstract, definite, value. > They were not fighting. They were raping and pillagin', son. The ICU were doing lots of things. > Do you know what the word "pirate" means? They were not considered > military combatants either. They were immediate targets for death, > and considered rogue criminal, despite any hardware they were sailing > in/with... military or otherwise. Is it still the seventeenth century? The Geneva Convention on the High Seas describes piracy in articles 14 - 22 of the 1958 convention and in summary, pirates are to be detained for international trial and their goods may be seized by what ever signatory power seizes their ships. More importantly, what has piracy got to do with anything?
From: T Wake on 12 Jan 2007 07:31 "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:13feq2h52uo2d5dp3rfur44s64skc9c4no(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:08:19 +0000, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> > >>> >Armies are no good for this. >>> >>> You're an idiot. We are there to train them, and clean up the arms >>> stockpiles. We'll be coming home soon enough. >> >>Armies are for fighting wars. Armies are not policemen. > > > Peanut gallery mutterings don't get anything done about the problem > either. Don't try to mutter that there isn't one either. There's a > big problem. It is not like cleaning up a town with a biker problem. > > Those boys got big toys, and we have to counter that, and you need > to get that past that 4 inches of bone, donkey skull. Nothing you have said, ad hominems or otherwise, disagrees with anything Eeyore said. Armies are for fighting wars. Police are very different. The hard ware the enemy has is not relevant no matter how you try to include it.
From: jmfbahciv on 12 Jan 2007 07:29
In article <45A6D193.A694451(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of >> mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has >> a headache and will cause comm eruptions. > >I used to do that. > >With broadband it's not necessary. <shrug> I was in the biz; we used sound pattern differences for cues to prevent messes. /BAH |