Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phil Carmody on 25 Jan 2007 15:43 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote:. > > > > > >> What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious > > >> threats by these terrorists? > > > > > >If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. > > > > > >You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a charge > > > is even brought in the first place. > > > > Exactly. Your chances of having a mess becomes more likely than > > less likely. > > You're quite crazy. This country will not lock ppl up without any evidence. It may not be prepared to lock up millions of muslims, but it's prepared to shoot a brazillion! 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./. Yes, I know.
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:44 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45B7E675.870AE2BF(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: >> >> T Wake did the cha-cha, and screamed: >> >> > >> >> > You claim the courts can not be used because judges may have an >> >> > agenda, >> >> > but secretive military systems are ok because there is no chance >> >> > they >> >> > will..... >> >> > >> >> > Can you see how crackpot this is? >> >> >> >> Why, what's so crackpot about complaining about judges with hidden >> >> agendas and demanding that military judges who are accountable to no >> >> one >> >> outside the military try accused terrorists in secret? Apart from >> >> apparently wanting to make it easier for conspiracies to form and >> >> operate, that is. >> > >> > No such problems exist in the UK. >> > >> > You'd better put your own house in order I reckon. >> >> I suspect you have missed the element of sarcasm which runs through the >> post. > > I've obviously spent too long talking to BAH ! :-)
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:47 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epab2u$8qk_008(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B61DBC.34732159(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >>> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>> > >>> > 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. >> >>I agree. > > We will never live "up" to your standards because those standards > are based in a political philosophy different from ours. Until this thread, I would have thought you were wrong here. It seems that this one time, you are quite correct. > You keep > insisting that we do everything perfectly while you all set back > and watch us do the mess cleaning for you. And there you go, back to being massively wrong again. >>> 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. >> >>Curious isn't it. Americans actually seem to proud of their 'rougher >>edges'. > > See? The thing you need from us you describe as inelegant and crude > and not acceptable in polite society. Make up your mind. > > /BAH
From: T Wake on 25 Jan 2007 15:50 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epal4m$8ss_008(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B8C531.7FF0433D(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: >>> >> jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Please measure the miles between Israel and the Mediteranean. >>> >> > >>> >> >0 >>> >> > >>> >> >> Note the number of miles between Israel and the Suez Canal. >>> >> > >>> >> >about 120 at closest approach, 140 from Beersheba, 160 from Tel Aviv >>> >> > >>> >> >> Now consider that Iran does its atomic bomb testing on >>> >> >> Israel soil. How long do you think the Canal will be closed? >>> >> >> You may assume that Iran doesn't "miss" and take out the >>> >> >> core of Egyptian commerce with the same single attack. >>> >> > >>> >> >at that range? a couple of months. >>> >> >>> >> Possibly, if all political winds blow exactly the correct way. >>> >> I can't even guess the effects of no oil tankers delivering >>> >> oil for a couple of months. From Thatcher's book about her >>> >> government and the coal miners' strikes, England had about >>> >> 3 months reserve. >>> > >>> >Of *COAL* ! >>> >>> Yes, child. If no oil is delivered, then your country >>> will have to use its coal reserves. Right? >> >>Hey Granny, we don't have any coal reserves any more. We import coal now. >> >>The genius Thatcher saw to that by shutting the mines. Did she mention >>that > in >>her book too ? > > Yes. She wanted to shut the ones that weren't productive and > were costing lots of money just to keep open. The unions > didn't agree and shut down all of them with their strikes. > Unions never have thought long-term. She lies with forked tongue there. Does she say what happened after the strikes?
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 16:02
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> They [Europeans] can afford to make > >> these errors because their governments assume the US will > >> save them with its military might. > > > >What do we need your military might for ? > > I don't know. Neither do I. The 'host countries' for your overseas bases quite like the income from them though. > I suspect so the politicians can point at the > US and call us the bad people when things don't go perfectly. For whatever reason 'things' *never* seem to go that well when your lot are involved ! > Smoke and mirrors. Pardon ? Graham |