Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 19:13 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> >> 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. Are you willing to wait until a mess is made > and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? Are you trying to suggest that there would be suspects who were simply allowed to continue do their evil deed ? > What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that > is what was messed up. You overestimate what a few ppl can achieve. You're quite obsessed by the curious idea that our society is so flimsy that it'll fall over if anyone so much as huffs and puffs at it. I don't share your fears. Graham
From: Eeyore on 25 Jan 2007 19:18 unsettled wrote: > With no oil tankers, the coal suppliers will not ship to UK because they'll > need the coal in their own countries. It'll only be useful to them if they have suddenly acquired a whole load of plants using the Fischer-Tropsch process ! Graham
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:19 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <epacvf$g2d$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: > [.....] > >>How is he trying to hide it? And again you show your contempt for the >>constitution. > > > Fox news etc published an out right lie about him. Now they are lieing > and saying that it was the Clinton folks that started the rumor. > > http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_smears_Sen._Obama_0119.html > I have yet to see or hear either a denial or a retraction. The web page you sent us to doesn't deny or retract either. I don't download videos so I don't know what that has in it.
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(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: >>>> >>>> >>>>>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. >> >>Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. > > > Each US State has their own way of getting their judges. Federal judicial appointments are extremely politicized, with Supreme Court justice appointments the most politicized of all.
From: unsettled on 25 Jan 2007 19:25
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <PbOdne7Gj_BKHCrYnZ2dneKdnZypnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ep7p0e$8qk_003(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <qNedneB6CY-woCvYRVnyjQA(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"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. >>> >>>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? > > > I don't consider these people criminals. I consider them enemies. Wake writes these "questions" is a highly propagandized mode. The legitimate question would be "How long do you think a suspected criminal may legitimately be detained....." By using the word "should" he's altered the entire implication of his "question". |