Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 08:59 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eodgi5$8qk_005(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. > > 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. Do you mean like the war of American Independence? The American Civil War etc? When you eventually throw off your misguided "European" issues, you may be able to learn some new things. For example, the articles of war which make up the 1948 Geneva Accords (which the US signed, remember) also cover civil wars (which are not nation against nation). It may surprise you but even in Europe there have been civil wars.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eod8lb$8ss_002(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <CsGdncRAvqXihDTYnZ2dnUVZ8s2mnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>As I said, technology has advanced in leaps and bounds now. The effort you >>would have to go to, to establish this sort of medieval set up over a >>broadband connection far outweighs any benefit - real or imagined. > > You cannot monitor what is going back and forth over the line > _while you are working online_. Yes you can. And without working back to 1970 technology to manage it. >> >>With my broadband connection, I have not had a failed connection in two >>and >>a half years, and my router is connected pretty much 24 hours a day. > > My gear is only powered up when I'm using it. Same here. My PCs are only powered up when in use. >> >>I remember with dial up, having the modem speaker on so you could hear the >>connection tones was of some value if you didn't have any graphical >>display >>on the PC but since about 1998 it has been better handled graphically. >>With >>Broadband the whole concept goes away. The router does not call up in the >>same manner. > > So how do you detect that something is sniffing your bits or dumping > on your system without having to waste CPU cycles or any other system > resource? The CPU cycles used by my firewall (built into the router) are insignificant. The router does most of the hard work for intruder protection.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 09:16 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45AB78A2.85C71A50(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>So what do you expect from this 20K more troops? It isn't enough extra to >>>>make a difference so it must be symbolic or political. Please explain how >>>>they make anything better. >>> >>>I don't know if 20K more will do the job. I do know that the key >>>is to get the Iraqi middle class back and working. >> >>Working where ? > > > C'mon, eeyore. It does not become you to pretend to be that > stupid. He's not pretending.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:25 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:6ee2a$45aa7c38$4fe76e9$22338(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [....] > >>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. > >> No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >> Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >> someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >> safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called the >> criminals they are. > > Idealism will get you nowhere. It isn't idealism. It is how terrorists have been dealt with the world over for decades before 2001, when America decided to get involved. > Most terrorists are not considered criminals and > therefore not punishable under Islamic law. Not true.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:27
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eofssu$8u0_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eodof8$gus$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. To treat >>>their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >>>This implies that the arresting officiers have jurisdiction wherever >>>and whenever these extremists reside. This approach requires a >>>global police force that is not answerable to any single nation. >> >>No, you have it wrong. You don't need a global police force to do it. >>Criminals who have crossed borders are dealt with all the time. If >>someone commits a murder in the US and then runs to England, he is not >>safe. This is how it would be for the terrorists if they were called the >>criminals they are. >> >>When you call it a "war" you make them soldiers. When they are soldiers >>in a cause against you the other governments can't arrest them. When you >>stop calling it "war" and start calling it "crime", other governments can >>arrest them. This is part of why calling it a war is such an awful idea. >> > But nobody was arresting them, especially in Europe. Yes they were. Terrorists have been getting arrested (or shot if they go to Gibraltar) in Europe for decades. There are more terrorist organisations than the Al Qaeda bogey monster you know. Currently, if as you say the fight against terrorism is a "war" then there is no requirement for _any_ nation to arrest terrorists. Nations not explicitly allied to the US should actively _not_ impede the passage of the Terrorist Soldiers. |