Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 13:02 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >MassiveProng wrote: > >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> > > >> >> >You mean Iran ? Simply not proven. > >> >> > >> >> You see... there you go... and you had almost made it completely > >> >> out of the retard barrel. > >> >> > >> >> I guess it's in your genes. You'll wash up on shore... Whale on the > >> >> beach. > >> > > >> >You have some *PROOF* ? I do mean proof not conjecture. With regard to > >> >conjecture I'd agree it's very likely they don't have an interest but > >> >they're*way* off being able to do anything. > >> > >> So you are willing to wait until Iran bombs somebody before > >> you will believe that 1. they have the bombs > > > >They don't have nukes. > > How do you know this? Common sense ! Look at what was needed for the Manhattan project. > >> and 2. they will use them. > > > >They'd be mad to use them offensively. > > In your opinion, they will be mad. In their opinion, they > will be good obedient Muslims. > > This is what the conflict is about. Do elaborate ! > >> I suggest you write them a letter and volunteer > >> to be their first target. I personally prefer mess prevention > >> rather than cleaning it up. > > > >You could start with Israel and Pakistan in that case. Since you're supplying > >nuclear material to India I don't suppose you fancy cleaning up that one ? > > When did I supply nuclear material to India? Be specific w.r.t. > dates. The USA has signed an agreement with India to supply nuclear fuel for their reactors. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 13:05 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "MassiveProng" <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote > >>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. > > So what you and the dumb donkey are saying is that we now > need to revitalize a police model based on the Gestapo? What have the Gestapo got to do with it ? Throwing round emotive terms willy-nilly is truly a cheap debating tactic. The 'Gestapo' is actually more like what Bush and co are currently creating in fact. More like a Stasi or BOSS probably actually. Graham
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 13:11 Ken Smith wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. > > > >After all the lies he's told and laws he's broken, who in their right mind would > >? > > It is well documented that some fraction of mankind is not in its right > mind. Democracy tends to wash their affect out over the long term. It > isn't the perfect answer because you can have the "one person one vote one > time" situation where people will elect someone who will destroy the > democracy. 1930s Germany even ! Graham
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 12 Jan 2007 13:15 On Fri, 12 Jan 07 13:12:25 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some >>folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to >>declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all >>issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. > >Sigh! I see nobody trusting the President. I see a few people >noticing that rpoblems are getting sorted out with interactions >between all four structures of the US govnerment: voters, legislative, >executive and judicial. I wasn't talking about people, per se. I was talking about the arguments I often see here, which amount to little other than that. I gave here a pretty good exposition of exactly why such arguments are simply wrong and dealing fully with FISA so that anyone can follow my logic and premises -- none of which you deal with I see -- culminating in my point, which was: >>The argument that Congress somehow implicitly authorized the NSA >>program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force >>(AUMF) against al Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September >>18, 2001), is without any merit at all. There is nothing in the text >>or in the congressional record or history of the AUMF to suggest that >>Congress in any way intended to permit the Executive to engage in any >>and all warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States >>without judicial approval or a showing of probable cause as required >>by FISA. More, the AUMF was decidely NOT a declaration of war. And >>even it it were, the explicit words only permit 15 days at most for >>the Administration. Which is, I think, a proper and almost inevitable conclusion from the facts. However, taking you squarely on your point, quite a few arguing here (and I sometimes include you in this group) seem to imagine that the President is right when he claims he is above the law. In doing so, you must be 'trusting' him. Because it is certain that there is no other means by which such a rogue administration is being constrained when they choose to place themselves outside of law. If you agree with their approach, I can __only__ conclude that you trust them. That isn't and shouldn't ever be an acceptable thought to anyone. Jon
From: Eeyore on 12 Jan 2007 13:17
unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote:. > > > > Did a legitimate, legally empowered authority in your government declare > > war? Is your government able to declare war on behalf of a civilisation? > > How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? If you > win, who signs the surrender documents? You don't need to any more than the police have to declare war on crime ! When there were European terrorist groups Like Bader Meinhof / the Red Brigade we didn't declare war on them ! Nor on ETA or the IRA either. Graham |