Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 11:24 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote > > > > 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 > > Nonsense. I truly wonder where they get this stuff. You really couldn't make it up if you tried ! Graham
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:25 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epctbr$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Eventually you will realise the logical flaw with your line of reasoning here. (Maybe) The 30 day detention is only for Innocent people. The ones with enough evidence of guilt will be charged and tried. The ones released by the court are actually innocent. Or do you disagree with the legal process? Your strawman is that all terrorists are just put away for 30 days in a hotel. This is nonsense. >>> >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. The western civilisation (in my opinion and I think Eeyores) is indeed decent. Decent is not defined by being western. > Take a look at > what constitutes a "decent" civilized society when the > extremists are in charge. Have a word with yourself. This is nonsense. When the "extremists" are in charge is not a decent civilised society. You are trying to overhaul decent, western, civilisation to match your extremists ideas. > 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. Again, your posts have too many logical fallacies for a reasonable response.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:27 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcu03$8qk_001(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B94793.F24C904C(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: >>> >> "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 ? > > Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure > is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, > go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What > makes you think that he will stop his plans? What makes you think your ideas will be more infallible than a legal process option? >>> 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. > > A very small huff and puff happened in New Orleans. It's infrastructure > is still in shatters. It doesn't seem that anyone knows how to rebuild > it without calling in the US Army. (far from small, but your sense of scale is as insane as your ideas about civilised behaviour) Did it cause the downfall of western civilisation? Why is calling in the US Army a sign of failure? That means people _do_ know how to fix things. It is like saying no one knew how to re-wire the electric in my house without calling in an electrician. > One passenger boat sinking in (I think) the Red Sea caused a riot > and shut down a port. > > I am assuming that all welfare, upper-middle class neighborhoods will > be in the same situation. Noone knows how to fix stuff nor cope > with stuff that breaks. Or so you assume.
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 11:30 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > If given > > enough time, the Islamic moderates will be willing and capable > > of dealing with their rouges before those rouges become organized > > and establish large enough cash flows to acquire weapons that > > make global messes. > > Not when the Islamic moderates are being herded up with the extremists. There are two more issues here. If you're rounding up Muslims on suspicion alone, that will breed discontent in their community and the moderates may very likely become radicalised themselves to some degree. Even if they aren't radicalised themselves, they will be undermined in their efforts by these actions. Who would listen to a moderate when your friends are being locked up without reasonable evidence ? I can't imagine anything worse and indeed more likely to cause greater conflict and ill-will. Graham
From: Eeyore on 26 Jan 2007 11:35
T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> 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 ? > > > > Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure > > is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, > > go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What > > makes you think that he will stop his plans? > > What makes you think your ideas will be more infallible than a legal process > option? Internment in Northern Ireland didn't work either. Graham |