From: Eeyore on


jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote:
> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> Why do you people keep forgetting Syria? None seem to think
> >> >> about Egypt.
> >> >
> >> >No one forgets Syria and people do think of about Egypt. As I pointed out
> >> >to you in a previous post both those nations are important.
> >> >
> >> >From a military point of view Syria is almost a joke, Israel pretty much
> >> >ensures Syria is never going invade another country. Syria has no signs of
> >> >developing nuclear weapons.
> >>
> >> You are being foolish. They don't have to develop them; all
> >> they have to do is buy them or acquire them from a neighbor.
> >
> >Other than Pakistan who would that be ? Israel ! ?
>
> You really don't seem to be paying attention to what's going on.
> The guy in North Korea has already said he wants to sell some.

A. They're not exactly a neighbour.

B. They've only got duds so far.

Graham

From: unsettled on
Ken Smith wrote:

> In article <eonroo$8qk_004(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <45ACE296.27D86A40(a)hotmail.com>,
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
>
>>>This is yet another problem with declaring war on entities that exist only in
>>>some phantom way.
>>
>>Then you had better figure out how to deal with these phantoms,
>>because they are deadly and intend to kill as many people as
>>possible.
>
>
> Eeyore is in England. They have had to deal with the sort of folk we are
> talking about for quite a while now. They have done a moderately good job
> of it, so it appears that they already know how to do what you are
> suggesting they learn.

Correction:

*Some* of them know how to do, etc.

From: jmfbahciv on
In article <45AE2B74.BEEE3F19(a)hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
>
>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >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 !
>>
>> You can spend your time believing that only things you can
>> call a war will happen or you can start trying to thinking
>> about the current conflict. Not thinking about it will not
>> make it go away.
>
>The point is that *war* has a specific definition.

So give me a set of ASCII characters that defines a civilization vs.
civilzation conflict. It's been called war in the past; it has
also been called invasion. I dismissed the word invasion because
because the migrations have already happened.

>
>What we are talking about is not a war and does not justify 'war powers'.

Not only does it justify war powers, the conflict requires more than
the powers that have been spec'ed out. Thinking and discussing
these additional needs to address the different kinds of attacks
is what the politicians, on both sides of the pond, don't want
to do.

/BAH
From: unsettled on
Ken Smith wrote:

> In article <45AF7DB2.FB13F663(a)hotmail.com>,
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> [.. Islamic extremists vs the law ..]
>
>
>>They have no ability to undermine it.
>
>
> That may be true in England but it seems in the US they have found a way
> to undermine the law. It is quite a clever trick they are using. They
> pretend to be christians, spread fear and then claim that the laws must be
> undermined to make people safe.

Cute, but paranoid.



From: Eeyore on


jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:

> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:
> >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >You must be very feeble-minded to even contemplate such a scenario.
>
> Is that what you call that kind of thinking?

Foolish would be a possibility too.

Graham