Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:28 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eofv0v$8qk_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45AB7C5E.4BB0A12(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> > >>> >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. >> >>We are now. > > And then letting them go because of legal loop holes. This > is utter nonsense. Damn the law. Let us arrest everyone suspected of terrorism and detain them for at least 20 years. You really do have _no_ idea what you are talking about.
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:28 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45AB7C5E.4BB0A12(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >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. > > We are now. We always have.
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 09:26 In article <d8a21$45ab8ca9$4fe773b$16654(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. In this case, eeyore was trying be cute. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 09:37 T Wake wrote: > What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not > "soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. Certainly the way Guantanamo is run suggests that too. Soldiers should be treated according to the Geneva Convention(s). Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 09:33
In article <B_Wdnfnog6rFFzbYnZ2dnUVZ8taknZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. I'm talking about monitoring without interfering with the performance. <snip> >>>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. Routers, and thus firewalls, are not immune. The guaranteed final block is the human who can switch the power off the modem (or computer) when unwanted bits make it through. This is even more important now since backdoors are deemed a requirement on certain PCs. /BAH |