Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 10:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcvt4$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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 beg to differ. Unless you have some amazing insights, which you have hidden from this thread, then I suspect you really do not know how most people behave. You conflate your own limited experience with a generalised attitude across the entire world. >>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. While you may not have said the exact phrase "all the good things have been done by the US," you certainly have made that implication through out many of your posts on this thread. For example, your obsession that the US is clearing up everyone else's messes without leaving any of its own fits the critera. >> 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. Blimey. Your alternate identity must be making a lot of posts here then. > The US is trying to deal with preventing > these messes. Again, you appear to be incorrect. > 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.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 10:26 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epd04r$8qk_003(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Can you give a couple of examples? > England isn't as bad as > the rest of, what used to be, free Europe. "Used to be free?" When did it change? Are you still thinking about the Holy Roman Empire and it's dominance over the Franks? > 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. An interesting revisionist approach to history. Unless you really are stuck in some time loop and are talking about Pitt the Younger or some such, I can only assume you mean Thatcher here. If so, you are way off base here. Her attitude was not one which made the UK [note, the UK is a different entity than "England"] self sufficient by any means. >>> 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. I am not sure where you get this idea from, other than the tortured logic which underpins most of your (ahem) reasoning.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 10:27 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:2cda2$45b94c58$49ecf8f$1275(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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. > > We saved them twice in the last century. They've done nothing > to improve their security situation since then, so eventually > we'll probably have to save them again. > In the past, I'd have expected better from you. Obviously I was wrong.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 10:42 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a987c$45b9e85e$4fe725d$6399(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:06:31 -0600 > Message ID: <R9GdnWobLK3FuijYnZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d(a)pipex.net> > > [BAH] > >If you try to think a little bit, Iran won't need to have > >> bases in the beginning. > > [T Wake] > Blimey. This means your earlier post was nonsense then? > > http://www.silentera.com/CBD/img/elephant.jpg I agree. BAH is like a blind person trying to work out what an elephant is.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 10:51
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcqla$8ss_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <9ZWdnVA-cKYNmiTYRVnyvgA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epacgd$8qk_002(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <ru2dnXYbBez24CrYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ep7jd1$8ss_006(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45B64130.D6F8E740(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><snip> >>>> >>>>>>In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or >>>>>>aid/abet >>>>>>one. >>>>>>Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report >>>>> knowledge >>>>>>of such things. >>>>>> >>>>>>That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. >>>>> >>>>> Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail >>>>> before they are tried in your country? >>>> >>>>Anyone who is arrested _may_ be released on bail, however if they are >>>>considered a danger then it is unlikely. Most people charged under the >>>>various Prevention of Terrorism Acts we have had over the years have >>>>been >>>>refused bail. >>>> >>>>Are you worried that a guilty person may be offered bail? Is it worse if >>>>a >>>>guilty rapist is offered bail? >>> >>> It's a similar problem. Take that guy who goes after boys. He >>> can get out because the judge allowed bail. I don't trust judges' >>> descretions any further than I can spit. >> >>You really do not want to live in a representative democracy do you? > > Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal > with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds > of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that > all people can do anything they want without punishment. That is not, and was never, implied by my post. Re-read your posts. You disagree with the rule of law and feel _your_ idea of justice and _your_ sole judgement as to the innocent or guilt of the defendant should over rule that of "judges" (and presumably juries). Look at your posts. You assume because what ever newspaper or book you read says Person X is guilty then they are guilty. If a judge or jury finds otherwise you assume _they_ are mistaken. That is not "having some way to deal with people who [commit crimes]" and it certainly is not justice. > I am noticing an attitude that believes a democracy implies > absolute freedom to do anything a person wants. Where on Earth are you noticing that? Remember most people arguing with you are *supporting* the rule of law and *you* are arguing for lynch mobs and crowd justice. > This is > what an anarchist strives for....until one of his group > burns his house down. Strawman. |