Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Jan 2007 08:09 In article <7708d$45b4e6e8$49ecfc1$10152(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >> <snip> >> >>>And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider >>>your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively >>>trying to destroy its infrastructure. >> >> >> This is funny. Do you feel "normal" criminals recognise the law and respect >> it? > >I would say yes, they do, since most "normal" criminals, >as opposed to the clearly insane ones, work hard not to >get caught. > >"This enemy" as BAH puts it, does not recognize (meaning >actually acceptance of validity) of your laws. Our western >criminals see an opportunity and they think they can avoid >the consequences. But that clearly is not the same thing as >refusing to recognize the laws. Thank you. I'm finding that not many people understand the difference nor the consequences. It is worrisome. /BAH
From: unsettled on 23 Jan 2007 08:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <7708d$45b4e6e8$49ecfc1$10152(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:eontsk$8qk_002(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>And this enemy does not recognize your law. They consider >>>>your law illegal. So they will never obey it and are actively >>>>trying to destroy its infrastructure. >>> >>> >>>This is funny. Do you feel "normal" criminals recognise the law and respect >>>it? >> >>I would say yes, they do, since most "normal" criminals, >>as opposed to the clearly insane ones, work hard not to >>get caught. >> >>"This enemy" as BAH puts it, does not recognize (meaning >>actually acceptance of validity) of your laws. Our western >>criminals see an opportunity and they think they can avoid >>the consequences. But that clearly is not the same thing as >>refusing to recognize the laws. > > > Thank you. I'm finding that not many people understand the > difference nor the consequences. It is worrisome. Problem solved. Representative government.
From: jmfbahciv on 23 Jan 2007 08:15 In article <UNOdnfbDoKbweSnYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eonuch$8qk_001(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45AF76BD.DD7EB5F5(a)hotmail.com>, > > ><snip> >> >> Sigh! So you don't like my use of the word civilization either. >> ><snip> > >Part of the problem is you have an almost arbitrary definition of words. >These words often have a different definition in more common use, but you >stick to the word fitting your meaning. > >In addition, you seem obsessed with giving complex concepts single word >definitions - this is flawed. Naming things was part of my job. I do it as naturally as breathing. > >Still, I doubt you'll change and I suspect you like tilting at windmills - >the verbal confusion just helps create more windmills. This is all bullshit on your part. I have asked you for nouns to use in this thread and everybody has blown smoke across the request. I understand why you do this. Your comment above shows the reason; you won't have to think about the real problems if you keep requesting that I produce a simple word for a complex description. /BAH
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 08:33 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:ca129$45b603e6$4fe7715$22116(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >> news:ep42ff$fib$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >>>In article <zISdnY4yq_45cinYRVnyiQA(a)pipex.net>, >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>> >>>>>We can only hold ourselves accountable for our actions, not >>>>>those of insurgents and terrorists. So what is it you're >>>>>actually trying to say here. I smell doublespeak. >>>> >>>>I thought he was referring to the treatment of Iraqi prisoners taken by >>>>the >>>>US forces, and the treatment of people at Guantanamo. I may be wrong. >>> >>>Yes exactly. The US needs to hold to its standards in what it does. > > Armchair philosophers emerged again. And you consider yourself something different? > The "standard" is what the law allows, nothing more, > nothing less. This is an argument heading down a moral maze. If this is true, then the prisoners must be detained and treated in a manner fully in keeping with the law. Chaining them in the foetal position is not in keeping with the law. > That law is different from place to place. Do you mean to say that American soldiers / government representatives in foreign countries are not bound by American laws? <snip> > I hear nothing in this thread other than America bashing at > every turn. Perhaps you both need to take a look at your > motivations because they sure don't rise to any "standard" > of reasonability. Perhaps you need to stop reading this thread. Here you present the argument that the opposing views are incorrect because they are "nothing but America bashing," which is a fallacy to say the least. Criticism of a democratic nation is something which should be encouraged at all times. My comments are equally aimed at the rest of the coalition, but as the US has established itself as the "leadership" it shares the brunt of the blame.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 08:37
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:7f314$45b60722$4fe7715$22176(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: ><snip preamble> > >> Yet here we have an example of how it is still fraught with problems. My >> parents were also in touch with what went on, but certainly in an age >> before the Internet (before TV in the UK), their knowledge and >> understanding of what went on in the colonies and elsewhere was biased. > > Time has no hold on bias. People are just as biased about > an event that happened 5 minutes ago as one that happened > 36,500 days ago. Your persistent America bashing shows your > bias despite the internet and TV, so it isn't a communications > and information issue. It is a shame you think I am bashing America. I think America has a lot going for it and should be prepared to live up to the high standards. Your comments seem to imply America is a barbaric nation, where suspected criminals are denied their rights and convicted prisoners are treated in an arbritrarily cruel manner. But I am the one bashing America. Oh well. >>>I have every reason to believe that there are lots of people >>>in the middle east with a similar history, and at my age we >>>tend to be community leaders. 100 year old history is pertinent >>>to today. > >>>>Lawrence was there stirring up the currently existing issues the tribes >>>>in the region had, so blaming him is a bit arbitrary. > >>>That's what we call a copout. That there were pre-existing >>>issues is true enough, but that Lawrence didn't increase the >>>problems isn't a realistic conclusion. > >> Well, here we hit an impasse. I say it is bad practice to make judgements >> like this based on an arbritrary date in the past, and you seem to want >> to use it when you get to pick the dates and interpretation. > > Then there's never any discussion to be had because whether we > speak of 5 minutes ago, or 5 hours ago, or 5 days ago, or 5000 > days ago, or even 36,500 days ago we encounter exactly the same > problem. > > Yet clearly we have discussions, so the premise must be flawed. No, the conclusion is flawed. I said it was bad practice to make judgements not that there could never be any discussion. >>>He also showed the >>>Arabs of the day how to beat the British Army, not a very >>>cool move then or now. This is kind of like the 4 minute >>>mile. Once someone did it it became commonplace. Until that >>>time, it was considered an insurmountable barrier. > >> The British Army had been beaten many times prior to this. > > But the Arabs sure didn't know that and didn't have any of the > tools to do it with. Actually they did. |