Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 10:16 In article <eobnu0$oor$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <8af1c$45a7b0e1$4fe7610$13591(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >[...] >>How do you declare war on Hesbalah or al qaeda? > >You don't any more than you declare war on the Mafia. > >> If you >>win, who signs the surrender documents? > >When the jail door goes "clang" on them, no signing is needed. > >[....] >>> I agree, the conflict is far from simple. It is not a war either, therefore >>> invoking "war powers" is dishonest. >> >>For the US it is the only tool currently available. I believe >>UK has a strong history of dealing with Irish terrorism in >>precisely the same way. >> >>I'm open to hearing about some other model. There's no one to >>negotiate with, so what's left? > >Treat them like the IRA and or the Mafia. To help take down organized >crime, the RICO law was created. If tools are needed, they can be made. So you are expecting a UN jurisdiction to handle these people and the messes they make. Are you also willing to subject the Constitution to the UN charter? That's what you are asking for and demanding. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 14 Jan 2007 10:18 In article <8764b9myhm.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> In article <CsGdncRAvqXihDTYnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> You cannot monitor what is going back and forth over the line >> _while you are working online_. > >Of course you can. You just need some kind of tap on the line. That would change the behaviour, wouldn't it? I didn't think you could tap an ethernet (I think we're still talking about ethernet) cable in parallel. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 14 Jan 2007 11:06 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <8764b9myhm.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, > Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > >> In article <CsGdncRAvqXihDTYnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> You cannot monitor what is going back and forth over the line > >> _while you are working online_. > > > >Of course you can. You just need some kind of tap on the line. > > That would change the behaviour, wouldn't it? I didn't think you > could tap an ethernet (I think we're still talking about ethernet) > cable in parallel. Your knowledge of computer history really is as poor as I always suspected from your ill-founded gibberings on alt.senile.nerds. Ethernet was originally implemented as a bus. You could have 2 things on it, you could have a dozen. Each device on the bus was responsible for ignoring everything that it had no interest in, or processing it otherwise. There was no restriction on the number of devices that could take an interest. The old ethernet connectors could easily be described as actual "taps". Of course, ethernet still is a bus, but the star-topology induced by modern switching hubs and routers use has made that feature less important. Of course, with hubs, you still get the ability to tap a connection trivially. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 14 Jan 2007 11:14 On Sun, 14 Jan 07 15:00:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <o57hq2hgacs104ki37lf6fd2d8lgjjulru(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 22:37:27 -0000, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:l6hfq2hq3pl65gn8pceon4g8l0fbhvc9r3(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:17:34 -0000, "T Wake" >>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"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. >>>> >>>> It's rhetoric from the administration with no other purpose at all >>>> than to give it an excuse it can use to justify anything and >>>> everything it does without having to make a rational argument to >>>> anyone about it. The really sad thing is that the rhetoric actually >>>> seems to gell with far too many here in the US. >>> >>>Aren't there certain conditions which have to be met before a "war" can be >>>declared by the US? >> >>You know? I had thought so in my earlier years. Honestly believed in >>the idea I was taught, that Congress declares wars. Of course, >>reality has a way of making one more circumspect about this issue. >><snip of most of my better argument on this issue> > >I'm starting to think whether the Constitution has assumed that >the only kinds of war can be the European-style in which the >conflict is clearly nation against nation. I'm wondering if >any Constitutional scholars have thought about a war that can't >be nation against nation. > ><reluctant snip> I have several comments to this: (1) You abuse the word 'war,' I think, conflating it with semantics you shouldn't. Instead, I think we should work to clearly delineate important meanings rather than mush them up into a goo. It serves us better, for example, to distinguish the idea of a feather from hair on animals rather than, say, just calling it all a 'coat.' We can speak more precisely and deal with questions far better when the terms are disambiguated cleanly. (2) They were aware of more vague situations than just nation on nation. I don't have the time/interest right now to go track down the specific statements made that point this up, but there has already been some recent talk here about the Barbary Coast situation and that was proximate to the Constitution formation. (3) Are you becoming a Constitutional Revisionist, now?? Are you now granting the idea that Activist Justices on the Supreme Court make good sense to you?? ;) But I can say this, in conclusion. I am fairly sure from my readings of letters and diaries and other materials that a Constitution that granted the powers we see today in the Presidency, even if they were able to fast-forward ahead and "see" our situation today, would never have passed. They also had their own direct experiences that would also have been taken into account and as I pointed out earlier, they almost didn't give the Presidency any powers at all. I have no right to speak for the dead, of course, but that's my take on it. Jon
From: Eeyore on 14 Jan 2007 12:12
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> I do it today with the my 14,400 modem. > >> > > >> >Can you not even get anything faster than that ? > >> > >> Why? 14400 is faster than anything I've used before. I > >> don't need anything faster. > > > >You lack imagination. > > Quite the opposite. I only use the internet to transfer a > small number of ASCII characters. 14400 is more than sufficient > for that. As I asid, you lack imagination. The internet can do so much more. Graham |