Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:04 In article <eofv0v$8qk_004(a)s960.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. > >/BAH See, they have this wierd sense of justice that the courts determine if somebody is guilty or not, instead of letting one person do that.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:07 In article <eog4pk$8qk_002(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 Now you're being stupid. I assume you won't protest if some of our people are captured and tortured either then.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:06 In article <eog43r$8qk_001(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <LbydnZ88mZ_CEzbYRVnytAA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eodeen$8qk_004(a)s849.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <PuKdnXT24fnphzTYnZ2dnUVZ8tqqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:eoapml$8qk_002(a)s914.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >><snip> >>>>> >>>>> Will you please note that they are saying that the United >>>>> Nations (or whatever an organization of all countries is called) >>>>> should do this. >>>> >>>>Who is the "they" saying this? >>> >>> Anybody who insists that the extremists are criminals. >> >>You are heading into interesting territory for a change. >> >>From what I see, most people are suggesting the extremists be ignored & >>marginalised and the terrorists be treated as criminals. > >How can you marginalize a billion people? >> >>What else can you treat terrorists as, other than criminals? They are not >>"soldiers" fighting for an opposing power. > >It is worse; they are soldiers fighting in behalf of a religion. >In case you haven't noticed, Islam is in its expansionist period, >politically. > >>Was Tim McVeigh a criminal? > >His was an isolated incident. If he had the organization, funding >and backing of governments, his actions would not have been >tried under the criminal system. > >> >>> To treat >>> their actions as criminal, you must arrest and put them on trial. >> >>This is only true if you believe that something is only a crime until after >>the offender has been arrested and convicted. >> >>The actions by which terrorists are marked as terrorists are often covered >>by criminal law codes, does this not imply they are criminals? > >If you demand that they be treated as criminals, then they cannot >be arrested until they make a mess. Sure they can; we do it with criminals too -- it's called "conspiracy." You arrest a gang before they rob a bank, for example, if you've got proof they're planning it.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:07 In article <eog50b$8qk_003(a)s992.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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 You know, when you've got about 25% of the American people on your side, you'd better reassess what "normal" means.
From: Lloyd Parker on 15 Jan 2007 09:08
In article <a92a7$45aba47f$49ecfc6$17552(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > >How many terrorists in the century before 9/11? > >They weren't dealt with very well in any of the instances >regarding terrorist attacks on the US, like embassy bombings, >embassy takeover, USS Cole, and so forth. > >The US finally said "enough is enough." > But what Bush did is like looking at all Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s and deciding to invade Canada. >I think we're doing the right thing, whether that's popular >or not. Europe certainly won't look out for US interests, >neither will the UN, or any other nation or group of >nations. > >The international love/hate of the US relationship has existed >almost since the inception of the US as an independent nation. >Look at the Brit history, with the long term love/hate >relationships with your nearest neighbors let alone the world >at large. 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. > |