Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 07:18 In article <ifvnq25pdonj1eq57u1q2u9qm3apfqkmec(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 15 Jan 07 13:19:27 GMT, 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. > >Some of the legal loopholes, as you call them, at least in the US were >created because of horrible abuses of power by police earlier on. They >were not created without some context. Do you not remember any of >those contexts? > >Aside from that, what exact legal loop hole are you discussing? Or is >this just some broad hand-sweep without any facts? Who is being let >go, what is the exact reason, and why do you disagree with it? I cannot remember details. Italy had to let some terrorists go because they said there wasn't any Italian law that allowed Italy to keep them in jail. At the time, there were quite a few news reports coming from Europe that were similar. I recall one from France and there was soemthing from Germany. IIRC, Germany was the first European country to begin breaking up these cells. France didn't act until the field tests of urban riots happened. Spain seems to be slow to respond even after the trains were blown up. I didn't understand that one but I got the sense that it had to do with their long history of civil war and they had to tread very carefully to prevent another one. If my time recall is correct (which isn't very often these days), this happened two, maybe 1-1/2, years ago. There are reports coming out of Indonesia where dealing with these extremist organization is tricky. Certainly the ones in Russia are problematic. We only hear news from that one place but there's a former Soviet area that I'm told is unstable. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 07:47 In article <45ACE553.DDB02D57(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Why do you think there was a conflict in Southeast Asia after >> France left? > >You mean *before* France left actually. I know. It was one of those areas that wasn't cleared up as a part of WWII. Now, read my question again and note the use of the word _after_. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 07:51 In article <up7qq2915be8ep5rv69kfmrjv47e60f599(a)4ax.com>, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:35:41 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >wrote: > >>In article <eoinhq$8qk_006(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <eogiqt$9v7$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>><snippage for poor bah's reader> > >>>>Actually, since we ratified the UN charter as a treaty, it already is US >>law. >>> >>>uh...No. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>Uh, yes. Read what the constitution says about treaties. > >Good recommendation. They are the "supreme Law of the Land." They >take precedence over most everything. The phrase there is, "and the >Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the >Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is what is underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 08:03 In article <eold9h$r1j$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eol4kn$8ss_002(a)s906.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eohe7e$rri$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>>I note your phrase "seemed to forget". Brave people will often carry on >>>with the course of action they have chosen in the face of fear. Do you >>>think that Washington forgot that the Brits would hang him? >> >>That guy, according to news reports, was making unwanted messes. > >As far as a lot of people were concerned, he was. Not all of the "news >reports" said this of him however. There were several presses printing >"new" that favored him. They ignored what he was doing. I'm getting a tad irritated by these Liberals who ignore facts. If this guy was heavily involved with illegal arms trafficing, what does that tell you about the news reports that portray him as an innocent victim? > >[....] >>>You say that often and yet I see very little evidence of it. Many houses >>>in the middle east have satelite dishes. >> >>And it will take time for those regular people to figure out >>that a side effect of "Islam winning" will cause them to >>lose technology produced by Western civilization. > >Are you suggesting that folks in the middle east are that thick. No, I am talking about what will happen if Western civilization is eradicated. > The >dishes in Iran are moved to inside the roof of the house and otherwise >disguised. Yes. Most of their use of Western technology has to be disguised. This is a direct effect by new living-style rules imposed by Islamic extremists. This is what the conflict is all about-- the world's living style. > This all happened as an indirect result of a comedy program >produced in LA. > >A few years back there was a program on satellite TV that among its many >features had its own mullah. This "mullah" would quote the statements of >one of the Iranian mullahs. Instead of just reading the statement he >would rant with exagerated anger, screeming and waving his arms for >emphasis. The result was something that in the average Iranian's opinion >was "fall down laughing" funny. The mullahs in Iran didn't like this and >tried to get rid of the dishes that picked it up. They were only partly >successful in this. People really wanted to see the program and went to >great lengths to hide the dishes. The general population of Iran likes Westerners and their products. It is the religious leaders who don't and desire to get rid of it all. Since they can't make their peoples obey them, the logical action is to destroy the source of the irritation. This means all of the Western-style of doing trade, business, manufacturing and development. This is a clash civilizations. This is what I've been talking about all along. > > >[....] >>>>Who considered atomic bombs useless? I know of nobody who did. >>> >>>Note I said "mostly useless". If you don't know people who thought the >>>nukes were mostly useless, you need to get out more. Consider why the US >>>didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. In both cases, the risk of using >>>them was considered too great. >> >>I wouldn't call that consideration [risk too great] as thinking >>of the weapons as useless. > >If something can never be used, it is useless. If it can't be used in >most situations where it seems like a thing you would use, it is mostly >useless. Would you consider house, car, and life insurance useless? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 18 Jan 2007 08:11
In article <eoinmp$keo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eoilbd$8qk_003(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>And the enemy of Western Civilization hasn't signed any of those >>agreements. Perhaps you should consider that and spend at least >>three days considering that. > >Keeping to the agreements and following their rules will allow the west to >win. Breaking with them ensures a loss. The rules are part of the moral >standard that the west stands for. They are the core of what will sway >the "hearts and minds". Give them up and you fall into the terrorists >trap. All that does is make you a martyr. If there isn't anybody left to remember and admire your foolishness, it's all for naught and the "bad guys" are still in power and running the trade biz. /BAH |