Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 11:29 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep55jg$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <vMednUyO_cVojSvYnZ2dnUVZ8qydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ep51pu$8qk_004(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>OK, try to realise that this works better with software than concepts. > > I know that. So I asked for word to describe certain concepts. > All I've gotten so far is smoke and mirrors and rotten bullshit. You must be reading your own posts then. >> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>Ha. You demand a noun to use and anything else is "bullshit." You are >>insane, aren't you? > > You are the one who says I must use a different word. So I asked > you for a word to use when I write these posts. So far, > you have not provided one. Actually, you have been given several options of multiple words to use. Did you ignore those posts? Several people have responded with terms which are better, but you demand a "single word." > Could this omission be due to > the fact that I am using the correct words? There is no omission and you are not using the correct words.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 11:51 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B61D27.BE19A06E(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> >When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found the >> >people guilty of terrorism? >> >> So, the only time the people, who have an intent to destroy Western >> civilization infrastructure and population, can be held in jail >> is after they have been convicted. > > Of course not. They can be remanded for trial if a criminal charge is > brought > against them. > > >> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. > > Who were these people ? > > >> If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation >> is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist >> is innocent until proven guilty. > > That is indeed the rule of law. > > >> But, wait! He hasn't made >> any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your police do >> manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue >> his plans to make a mess. > > No - the police can object to bail where there's a public risk and a judge > may > not be willing to grant bail anyway. As is normally the case in terrorism trials. >> If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then >> you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your >> life-style. > > It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police > have > powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without > charge > subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must indeed be > released > or charged. > > Any longer was rejected by Parliament. IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there.
From: Phil Carmody on 23 Jan 2007 11:58 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > You should have "warned him" to repair the emissions issue, or the > > FCC would do it for him. > > They didn't exist then. Oh, dear. The 20th century all a blur to you? The FCC predates your very existance. Unless you actually are as old as your senility indicates. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: T Wake on 23 Jan 2007 12:10 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a9ef5$45b618fb$4fe7715$22595(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > > Cite please, of Cuban law. GTMO is a US Military institution. It is not subject to Cuban law. It is not run by Cuban officials. The detainees are not interrogated by Cubans. Can you cite where in Cuban law the US FBI have the right to inspect detention centres? >>>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? > > They are bound by local laws. If we didn't observe local laws > we'd insult the host country. Are you implying that if a US offical does something which would be a crime in the US, but isn't in their host country they will be immune to any legal procedures? On US Military Bases in Europe, which laws do you think apply? >> <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. > > very soon. > >> Here you present the argument that the opposing views are incorrect >> because they are "nothing but America bashing," > > That's a fact > >> which is a fallacy to say the least. > > > Criticism of a democratic >> nation is something which should be encouraged at all times. > > "Criticism" is taken to mean "constructive criticism" and not > license to keep bashing with the same irrational points > repetitively. > >> 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. > > There is it again. This Antiamerican bias is so very much > part of you that you have no inkling it is even present. So the US has not established itself as "leader" of the coalition or that in doing so it should be immune to criticism? (smacks of Special Pleading to me). You are really mistaken if you think I have an anti-American bias.
From: Eeyore on 23 Jan 2007 12:15
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > The Police [in the UK] have powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 > days ( IIRC > ) without charge subject to regular judicial review. After that > time they must indeed be > > released or charged. > > > > Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > > IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. It's too long for someone who's innocent for sure. Hopefully the judicial review element will prevent abuses of that possibilty. The 60 days the police were asking for was totally over the top though. Graham |