Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:52 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:2c02e$45aba54a$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><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. >> >>Wrong. Any military force crossing neutral territory must have >>permission from that country to transit, otherwise they are >>violating that country's neutrality and territory. Check out >>German ships entering neutral ports during WW2. > > > Only if the countries are declared "neutral." I said not allied to the US. > If the country does not recognise the declaration of war then it is not > treated as "neutral" under the Geneva accords (which were written in 1948 > following the problems of WW2). In that case they fall under the laws regarding immigration and weapons controls along with whatever "conspiracy to commit" laws are on the books in the host country, "soldiers" or not.
From: unsettled on 15 Jan 2007 11:57 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:45ABA0D5.D518B9EC(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> 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. >> >>In that case it's not a *war* - period ! >> > > > I concur. As a signatory to the Geneva Accords of 1948, the US does not have > the "right" to decide which wars the accords apply to and which they don't. Words and terms always evolve in advance of legal formalities. Take a look at "government by right" and "defacto government". The concepts are, while not identical, similar.
From: John Fields on 15 Jan 2007 12:24 On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 08:16:08 -0600, 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. --- Good one, LOL! :-) -- JF
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 13:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eog50b$8qk_003(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. This should act as a warning to you. If they are not even appearing to function like sane people, why has no one else taken action to see they get psychiatric help? Are insane people in public office so common place in the US that no one notices any more? Or, just maybe, is it a case of when every one else in the world seems insane................
From: T Wake on 15 Jan 2007 13:29
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:13d56$45abb02e$49ecfc6$17870(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:a92a7$45aba47f$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > > >>>It is the fate of any of the larger powers that >>>dominate any part of the world. > >>>The day the US looks to the world for approval is the day the >>>US is doomed. > >> I hadn't thought any of this was about approval. > > A good bit of the "jihad" discussion brings that into play Possibly, but nothing I can pass real comment on. World "approval" is not something I can grant or remove. I can say what "I" think the world opinion is, but that is as relevant and authorative as any one else's (even JoeBloe) ideas. >> It is worth remembering that sometimes short term interests conflict with >> long term interests. > > You betcha! And then there are micro/macro views to consider > as well. We agree. |