Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:32 In article <VNednWkdg7-EmiTYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epal0o$8ss_007(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45B8C4A5.BCD7F27C(a)hotmail.com>, >> 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. I suspect so the politicians can point at the >> US and call us the bad people when things don't go perfectly. >> Smoke and mirrors. > >Do you feel like every one is out to get you? Do you see conspiracies every >where you look? Do you feel like all the other nations are talking about you >behind your back? None of the above. I just know how people behave. > >I am sure just as many European politicians say this about the US as US >politicians say similar things about Europe. > >You [*] are a prime example of this double standard. You try to say all the >good things have been done by the US, I've never said that. > but anything remotely negative is down >to "European Broken thinking." The fact you are blind to the double standard >is massively entertaining. The only thing I've been discussing in this thread is about very speicfic mess preventions. The US is trying to deal with preventing these messes. In a few years, it will stop--that's how our political pendumlum is swinging. Those, who are planning to make these mesess, are waiting. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 08:40 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >jjmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think London escaped a mess by the skin of their teeth. > >>> > >>>Which supposed 'mess' did you have in mind ? > >> > >> I think it was on the news this past summer. > > > >There were lots of things on the news. Can you be any more specific? > > > >Is this another example of where your memory may have conflated multiple > >bits of information and caused you to conclude something different to > >everyone else? > > Perhaps the BBC made up another story. That's just your prejudice talking there. > There were a lot of > news items here that talked about a terrorist cell who had > plans to blow up the Underground. The news here reported > that the cops decided to move in and arrest them because > the cops thought the date of the bombings were within > the next week. Nobody blinked about the delay of picking them > up. What delay ? You said the cops picked them up before they could do any damage. Sounds to me like the police were doing their job. In any case, you have got things mixed up. I suspect you mean the plan to bomb an aircraft with 'liquid explosives' ( joke ) where the plotters were indeed arrested before they could do anything and the current trial of those who did indeed try to bomb the undergound and failed. Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 08:43 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >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? > > You keep, it seems on purpose, assuming that the only way to deal > with these Islamic extremists is to allow them to make their > messes and then you can put them in jail. That's not what he said and nor have I. The answer is to have good intelligence and arrest them before they can do any damage. Would you lock up every Muslim instead ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 26 Jan 2007 08:36 In article <45B91AD6.7B9E306D(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: >> > >> >> 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. And you also keep asking for our help. England isn't as bad as the rest of, what used to be, free Europe. However, the PM who did have the balls to deal with England's messes is villified for having the kind of attitude that makes self-sufficiency a high priority. > > >> 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 ! You expect the US to clean up and make things "be as they were before". Nobody can do that. <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 08:45
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> That's not going to be an adequate change. > > > >It's worked just fine so far. > > > >> There will have to be more as new methods of attack are created and > >> carried out. > > > >What have terrorist 'methods' got to do with investigating a crime ? > > Sigh! They include the 30 day retention time in their plans. Sigh! What's the problem with that ? > >> >That's unacceptable in a civilised society. > >> > >> You mean, a Western civilized society. > > > >No, any decent civilised society. > > Which, by your definition is the Western. No. How about Japan for example ? > Take a look at > what constitutes a "decent" civilized society when the > extremists are in charge. That is what they intend the > world to have; these politicians are expansionists. > The West, who has dropped that tactic, is going to have to > deal with it. You're losing the plot again. Graham |