Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 03:56 In article <11014$45b7f4f1$4fe743d$22557(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Eeyore wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: > >>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>Nonsense. > >>>I have to ask this. Are you by any chance a Muslim? > >> LOL ! > >> All Americans seem to think that not to consider Muslims contemptible devious >> plotters and liars must mean you're a Muslim yourself ! > >T Wake must have a lot of insight into a culture one is led to >believe by his "Britishness" is completely alien to him because >he answers frequently, thoroughly, and authoritatively to all >issues about Islam and the many middle eastern mentalities. The >question, then, is a natural one. Perhaps he isn't but one of >his parents is, or somesuch. He must draw all this wisdom from >somewhere, after all. Or do you think he's just talking through >his hat? Is he a loser like you, making believe he knows more than >he does? Tell us, dumb donkey, which is it? > >We have an announced presidential candidate, Obama, here in >the US who has been trying to cover his early childhood >upbringing as a Muslim. How is he trying to hide it? And again you show your contempt for the constitution. > >"Sleepers" on usenet are not unusual though they are so rare >that this is the first one as a presidential candidate. We >have an excellent example of one who has been around physics >newsgroups for years, Claude Masse. > >You don't have any idea about "all Americans seem to" this or >that. Hell, you can't seem to spend a day understanding the >most elementary discussions in this thread, let alone >understand an entire nation and culture over an equal period. > >> Americans are *very* dangerous. And that's now majority UK thinking AIUI. Most >> Britons see the USA as a danger to world stability and peace. > >You're certainly fucked up enough to really believe that sort >of thing and also to think an entire majority in your nation >believes as you do. You're a classic loser who turns to usenet >to help you to make believe you have any sort of a life at all >so you hardly know what most Brits let alone Americans think >let alone any actual form of reality. > >I'll now return to leaving you to your self imposed misery. > >Civil discourse is appropriately engaged in with civil people, >which leaves you out. > LOL! You're the one claiming all Muslims are terrorists.
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 03:50 In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>This is not adequate. >> >> >> These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. > >Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >drafting a new law. > >> You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people without >> cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. > >I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? > >Besides, they have probable cause sufficient to make the arrest, >and that's not nothing usually. Probably cause is NOT the standard for making an arrest. "You're under arrest because you probably robbed a bank!" > >> The terrorists have already won. You have given up everything > > you hoped to defend. > >Not true either. Certainly not "everything." I'd like to see a >law under which a person is paid whatever their usual earnings >are while they're incarcerated until they are convicted, including >fringe benefits. That would move justice along much faster. >
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 03:48 In article <30857$45b7d03a$4fe74e1$20032(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ep7p9v$8qk_005(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>>In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. It's >>> >>>down to >>> >>>>the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more serious cases >>> >>>whether >>> >>>>bail will be offered. >>> >>>What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>>threats by these terrorists? >> >> >> In that case, chances are he is right. In England, however, the person is >> still likely to be remanded (held) pending the trial. The trial will >> happen soon there after. Bail is less frequent in the UK than in the US. >> On a serious charge, the judge is not as likely to offer it. >> >> >>>>Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand pending >>> >>>their >>> >>>>trial. >>> >>>But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >>>is a likelihood of guilt. I think London escaped a mess by the >>>skin of their teeth. >> >> >> If the police don't have enough evidence, the person is not very likely to >> be in front of the judge in the first place. The police don't go around >> arresting people at random. >> >> > >Read about probable cause. The threshold to arrest is >less than the threshold to indict is less than the >threshold to convict. > No. Probable cause is the standard for a search or a search warrant. You don't arrest someone on that standard.
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 03:54 In article <ed40e$45b7d8bd$4fe74e1$21422(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > > >>>These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days >>>is too long?! > >> Yes. You dont know what you are talking about here, you just felt the need >> to throw in a soundbite. > >> How long do *you* think a suspected criminal should be detained before he or >> she is charged with a crime? > >Arrest is under probable cause, not merely suspicion. > Which must be decided by a judge promptly at the preliminary hearing, or bail hearing, etc. And if the police didn't have probable cause, they open themselves to a lawsuit for false arrest. >>>They don't care about jail. > >> Incorrect. > >How do you know? > >>>Most see it as a recruitment opportunity. > >> False assumption. > >How do you know? > >>>You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western >>>civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking >>>them. You have an invalid assumption. > >> Nonsense. > >I have to ask this. Are you by any chance a Muslim? > > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 25 Jan 2007 03:49
In article <4b867$45b7d141$4fe74e1$20240(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <7539e$45b764bc$4fe7370$11158(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> [.....] >> >>>Unless they're held under conditions not acceptable to some >>>of our "friends" they'll continue with their program from >>>jail. >> >> >> This is simply false and I believe beneath you. > >For Christs sakes it has been done. The lawyer is in >prison for being the carrier. Get a grip already. > >These people need to be held under conditions which don't >allow any communication with the outside. That includes >prevention of contact with randomly chosen or appointed >lawyers and clergy. And if we were a fascist state, you'd be right. Unfortunately, we've got that pesky bill of rights. I know you right-wingers hate it. > >I can hear the objections already. > Yes, the US constitution, which you despise. >> The things that have been >> objected to by myself and others are things like torture of prisoners. > >Your threshold of what constitutes torture and mine differ vastly. > >> You appear to be arguing that prisoners must be tortured to prevent them >> from continuing in their effort. Please tell me this isn't true. > >Whose standards are you using. > > > |