Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Jan 2007 05:05 In article <epctbr$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45B946A9.FB9C416(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: >>> > >>> >> 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. >> >>The category known as *suspects* ? >> >> >>> England extended the minimum holding time. >> >>To a period long enough for the police to search for and find sufficient >>evidence to convict. >> >> >>> 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. > >> >> >>> >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. 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. So we should become like them to deal with them? Then they win -- our democratic society has been destroyed. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Jan 2007 05:02 In article <a987c$45b9e85e$4fe725d$6399(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:epaaq8$8qk_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>>It >>>has continued to underestimate dangers and doesn't seem >>>to learn from its mistakes. They can afford to make >>>these errors because their governments assume the US will >>>save them with its military might. When we don't succeed >>>according to their expectations, we get dismissed as not >>>knowing anything about how to do foreign policy nor >>>statemanship. > >> You round up with this drivel, which simply shows your lack of >> understanding. > >Less than a year ago, in February 2006: > >"Lebanon's interior minister has quit after protesters >sacked Beirut's Danish embassy in more ructions over >cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad." > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684250.stm > >And we said nothing > >Lebanon, over the past few days, has had its Krystalnacht. > >"One person is reported dead and several others >injured in violent clashes between university students >in the Lebanese capital of Beirut. > >"Officials said the rioting broke out after students >belonging to a Shiite group, which supports the >Hezbollah-led opposition, argued with members of a >pro-government group over Tuesday's general strike. > >"The violence spilled into nearby streets as protesters >tossed rocks at one another. Several fires were set in >the streets. > >"Hezbollah has pledged to topple the western-backed >democratic government in the country." > >http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=46566 >(and others.) > >This rioting has gone on several days. > >And we said nothing > >The handwriting is on the wall, with nobody reading it (again). > >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 Another civil war. Let them settle it. Suppose Britain or France had imposed a settlement during our Civil War. Resentments and grudges would have festered for a long time and then exploded. Better to settle things.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:11 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcvkk$8qk_001(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <c866$45b94bf5$49ecf8f$1275(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <6f37f$45b7d4b2$4fe74e1$20782(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ep7plh$8qk_001(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's >>>>>>what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's >>>>>>legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged >>>>>>the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. >>>>>>This is not adequate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>These "loop holes" you see are the rights of defendants to a trial etc. >>>> >>>>Usually they're mistakes made by legislators when they're >>>>drafting a new law. >>>> >>>> >>>>>You are arguing that the government should be able to hold people >>>>>without >>>>>cause for as long as the government chooses to do so. >>>> >>>>I haven't seen that. Has she actually said that? >>> >>> >>> No, I haven't. They jumped off the deep end with their assumption >>> that these matters fall into the criminal category and claim >>> that this will deal with the dangers of these terrorists. What is >>> really puzzling is that their method did not stop their >>> home grown terrorists at all. Their methods allowed those people >>> to continue to make messes and they appear to be willing clean >>> up the messes. >> >>The never have gotten over Ghandi and their guilt for >>their wholesale mistrating of all their colonials for >>centuries. There appears to be some British sense that >>if they spoil their criminals the government will >>finally be better loved around the world. LOL > > I think this has more to do with the West figuring out that > exspansionism wasn't working and started to stop. It took > until WWII for Germany and Japan to change their minds. > France still has wafts of it hanging around but is no > longer willing to military might behind their ideas. > Now we have society centers in the Middle East who are > finally rich enough to fund expansionistic projects. > India and Pakistan haven't settled their boundary differences. > China is inching their boundaries slowly out. > > It isn't guilt that causes the English to behave the way they do > in these matters. It is socialism that does. Amazing. You leap from unsettled's nonsense to this. I will ask again, are you trolling or are you just insane? > It only takes > a teensy upset of the society to push it into communistic dictatorship > or an anarchy. Either way, the Western civ piece of the > society will disappear. Nonsense.
From: Phil Carmody on 26 Jan 2007 11:14 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: [SNIP - gibberings] > You're losing the plot again. She's an American sitcom. She doesn't have a plot. 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./.
From: Lloyd Parker on 26 Jan 2007 05:04
In article <epcrmf$8ss_006(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <RpudnXjBi_-ulCTYnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epak56$8ss_005(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45B782A7.A2676982(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: >>>>> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >T Wake wrote: >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >> You see, here you demand that people be punished on the suspicion >>> that >>>>> >> >> they intend to do harm. >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> It is sad you do not see this is a morally wrong thing to do. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Naive views. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a >>>>> >> >criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. >>>>> >> >People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. >>>>> >> > >>>>> >> >Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that >>>>> >> >are the basis of these discussions. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post >>>>> >> bail and get out? Why would such a person stop making >>>>> >> plans to make a mess just because he's been arrested and >>>>> >> may have a trial in two years? >>>>> > >>>>> >In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. >>>>> >It's >>>>> >down to the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more >>>>> >serious >>>>> cases >>>>> >whether bail will be offered. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >> >>This is another sign of your dislike of democracy and people's rights. Why >>you live in the West is beyond me. Other than the religious orientation you >>would be much more suited in the Middle East. > >Not at all. > >> >>What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be >>punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. > >You keep assuming that those who are planning to destroy your >infrastructure are innocent. They are not. You keep assuming people are planning to do that. They are not until convicted. >> >>You are really off the rails. >> >>>>> >Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand >>>>> >pending >>>>> >their trial. >>>>> >>>>> But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there >>>>> is a likelihood of guilt. >>>> >>>>That's how a decent justice system woorks. Correct. We don't lock ppl up >>>>on >>>>suspicion alone. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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. 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. > >/BAH |