Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 14:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epaf5p$8qk_008(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B78122.2456F7C7(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message. >>> > >>> >> 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. >>> >>> These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days >>> is too long?! >> >>It is for someone who's innocent ! > > Your laws do assume innocence until proven guilty...right? Thus > all are innocent. "Until proven guilty" You seem to have some issue with having to prove people's guilt before you punish them. Is there any reason why you are happy to punish innocent people because you _think_ that some of them may be guilty? > Are you willing to wait until a mess is made > and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? > What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that > is what was messed up. More FUD. You are a dab hand at this. Did you work for MS in the past? >>> They don't care about jail. Most see it as a recruitment opportunity. >>> >>> You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western >>> civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking >>> them. You have an invalid assumption. >> >>And you keep thinking the answer is to lock up ppl on *suspicion* alone ! > > So far, until methods can be created to deal with this catefory of > people, yes. England extended the minimum holding time. That's not > going to be an adequate change. There will have to be more as new > methods of attack are created and carried out. Blimey. You are off your head. >>That's unacceptable in a civilised society. > > You mean, a Western civilized society. Any civilized society.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:10 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B807FE.9F5D5947(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled 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? > > I suspect, dumb Prong that it's the same as me. He's probably taken an > interest and > read up on matters of Islamic teaching and practice and maybe like me he > knows a few > Muslims himself, enough to get the general feel of what it's all about. An interest is a lot of it. A proper education as I was growing up helped and coming from a multicultural city, I have spent a large portion of my developing years in contact with other cultures and was encouraged to learn from them and about them. As a soldier I served in many foreign countries and we were always expected to learn local customs and behaviours. I am old enough to have spent many years learning about other cultures (amongst other things), for example we could always move the debate from Islam to the threat from Janism. Am I a Jane as well? I am intrigued as to the value of the question though. If I had said "Yes" would that have made my comments *more* authorative (although I have spent more time in the middle east than most Muslims I know). By saying "No" does that falsify any of my comments? Was it simple curiosity which led to the question (in which case the line of reasoning above is somewhat contrived)? Maybe in todays generations of "British people" foriign cultures are "totally alien" to them, but when I was growing up it certainly was not the case. >> We have an announced presidential candidate, Obama, here in >> the US who has been trying to cover his early childhood >> upbringing as a Muslim. > > Presumably because he's afraid of a bigoted response to it ? To be honest > I've seen > no evidence he's hiding it and it would be crazy to do so. If he is hiding it, it is a shame. That the country seems to obsess about a presidential candidate's religious orientation highlights a lack of freedome of religion in that country. If you are trying to imply a similarity and that I am trying to hide my Islamic upbringing, one side of my parents family are devout Catholics and the other Protestants. Both sides claim to have been "Pure" for many generations prior to my parents.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:20 "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:epacro$g2d$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > 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. It is a terminology issue. In the UK, when you are arrested you become a suspected criminal. (Often referred to as the suspect in the case) Surely probable cause is still "suspicion" until a jury finds the person guilty of the crime. Is probable cause enough to bypass the trial and move straight to sentencing?
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epad2s$8qk_001(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B766DF.30E71DA6(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: >>> >> "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. >>> >>> What if there isn't enough evidence that satisifies your legal >>> definitions? >> >>Then they won't be charged in the first place. > > Exactly. You people came very close to having > a big mess in your laps. Doesn't that small > window of time bother you? What are you talking about now? >>> >> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. >>> > >>> >Who were these people ? >>> >>> I don't remember. I remembered the incident because it pointed >>> to a chink in legal systems that wouldn't prevent a mess from >>> being made. >>> >>> >> 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. >>> >>> Of our (Western civilization) laws. >> >>That's why we can make a valid claim to have better standards than some >>other >>countries, yes. > > But there exists another culture that disagrees. Not only does it > disagree but your standards are against their religious beliefs. So what? > Now, how do you allow them to have their religious freedom when > their religion says your ways must be eradicated from the face > of the Earth. The same way all crackpot religions are tolerated. I suppose we could make all religion illegal, and I certainly would not mind that at all but I think you would have more than radical islam to worry about then. >>> >> 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. >>> >>> And what about judges who have a political agenda and are >>> very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making >>> plans? >> >>Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. > > A lot of them are elected. Shame. >> Ours seem to >>be very rational and level-headed. > > Just wait. For what? For them to become like you? >>In a very serious case I think the Home Secretary could over-rule bail in >>any >>case. > > What if that case has to do with my notion of danger which your > opinion is overblown, lies, and a figment of my imagination? Your ego is amazing. You think that you have a privileged insight into what can be considered a real threat and what can not. This is very different from other people telling you that you are overreacting but can you work out why? > It is your popular opinion that these don't exist because the > world disapproves the actions the US is taking. Nice strawman. >> >>> This is a problem that needs to be solved. >>> > >>> >> 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. >>> >>> IMO, 30 days isn't long enough. >> >>Hasn't been a problem. > > yet. It only takes one time to destroy London. Meaningless. Time destroys everything. >>> >Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >>> >>> I understand that. I don't think 30 days is long enough. >> >>As I said, it hasn't prevented any prosecutions here. > > I am not worried about prosecutions. I am talking exclusively > about preventing unrecoverable messes. So you are not worried about punishing the guilty, you just want to gather a lynch mob and kangaroo court anyone _you_ think is likely to cause a "mess." Brilliant. Remind me what it is about "western civilisation" you want to protect? >>> All these people have to do is include a contingency plan that allows >>> a 30-day delay. >> >>What a strange idea. 30-day delay of what ? > > Killing everybody in your Underground for example. What I find _really_ funny is you are oblivious to the fallacy with your post here. Imagine the case of Person X, suspected of being a terrorist based on information provided by an Afghani tribesman in return for $1000. In your world, this person would have to be detained in solitary and tortured [*] as quickly as possible because 1 second could be too long. No matter what the person says, or how much they deny being a terrorist they should either be detained in solitary for life or killed. Can you tell me what in that example I got wrong please? >>> I don't know what the correct thing to do is. >>> >>> Our legislators over here don't appear to be even thinking about >>> this problem. >> >>I know. We're way ahead of you. > > Sadly, you are way behind. And your neighbors across the > Channel are even further behind. You are looking in the wrong direction. Your fascination with some rose tinted view of the middle ages is confusing you as to the direction progress takes. -- [*] And we all know torture is a poor method for gathering intelligence. The victim invariably tells the interrogator what they think the interrogator _wants_ to hear rather than the truth.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:39
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epajci$8ss_001(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B8CDF1.C7D793F6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> It only takes one time to destroy London. >> >>The Nazis tried to destroy London with thousands of heavily armed planes >>and > the >>V1 and V2 rockets and failed. >> >>I really don't think a few Muslims with flour bombs are going to do it do >>you > ? > > All they need is a flu. All they need is fear, uncertainty and doubt. You have this in spades. Are you the threat? |