Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Jan 2007 09:40 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > > >>> 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. Like they can be detained without trial now in the USA ? Graham
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 09:44 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eod9rm$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <M-WdnVK9qJOtgzTYnZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eoanun$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>> >>> I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think >>> it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I >>> trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only >>> one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. >>> >> >>Every now and then it helps to re-assess opinions and ideas such as this. >>If >>you honestly think that Bush is the _only_ person in Washington dealing >>with >>the national security problem you have to wonder why no one else seems to >>be >>concerned about this > > I have wondered and have tried to figure out why. The only conclusion > left is that the Democrat leadership is insane. Like I said, maybe you should try to re-assess this conclusion. It also remains that you havent accounted for the rest of the republicans - you said Bush was the "only one" in washington... Now, if you are correct and the _entire_ Democrat leadership are insane, then how many others must also be insane to allow them to appear to function normally? It seems that insanity must be very common in the US. When an insanity becomes that common, "sanity" is often re-defined to allow the previous insanity become sane again. (For example, if some one says they hear God talking to them, they are not normally put in a padded cell. If some one routinely claimed a green dinosaur was talking to them, things would be different). You may discover that, in reality, the Democrat leadership are not insane.... >>and maybe, just maybe, it could be a misconception you >>have formed. > > I reexamine all the time. So you claim. I have noticed that none of your re-examinations that I have been privy to have lead you to change your opinion of something. This makes me suspect your re-examination is more a re-affirmation. >I also know how denial works. The past > two months I've been trying to figure out why European-type > thinking is broken. You see, when you have a false assumption you get nowhere. You need to re-examine the idea that the thinking is broken, not re-examine the reasons why. >I've pretty much figured the diagnosis. I doubt it. You have too many (incorrect) assumptions which you are wedded to. > I > have no idea if a cure is even possible other than allowing > things to become broken hard. >> >>Sometimes, when the majority of people disagree with you they are actually >>correct. > > The extremists don't care what your idea of majority thinks. You see, I wasn't talking about the extremists here. You really are stuck in mental ruts. > In fact, it's a minority if you consider the world population rather > than your small party opinions. I have _no_ idea what this is about or what it is supposed to mean.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 09:55 John Fields forever looking in a mirror produced: <nothing worthy of consideration>
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 09:57 In article <45AB91C2.CF5D0E83(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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). This isn't a Geneva convention styled war. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 15 Jan 2007 10:01
In article <hOadnbBCsMP0DjbYnZ2dnUVZ8siknZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eod9rm$8qk_001(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <M-WdnVK9qJOtgzTYnZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eoanun$8qk_001(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>>> >>>> I've only been talking about one problem in this thread. I think >>>> it's very stupid for people reading this thread to believe that I >>>> trust Bush about everything just because I see him as the only >>>> one in Washington who is dealing with this national security problem. >>>> >>> >>>Every now and then it helps to re-assess opinions and ideas such as this. >>>If >>>you honestly think that Bush is the _only_ person in Washington dealing >>>with >>>the national security problem you have to wonder why no one else seems to >>>be >>>concerned about this >> >> I have wondered and have tried to figure out why. The only conclusion >> left is that the Democrat leadership is insane. > >Like I said, maybe you should try to re-assess this conclusion. It also >remains that you havent accounted for the rest of the republicans - you said >Bush was the "only one" in washington... > >Now, if you are correct and the _entire_ Democrat leadership are insane, >then how many others must also be insane to allow them to appear to function >normally? That is the point. The Democrat leadership is not functioning normally and they aren't appearing to function normally. <snip> /BAH |