Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 11:59 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b50cb$45b95dc0$4fe73cc$1598(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> I am intrigued as to the value of the question though. If I had said >> "Yes" would that have made my comments *more* authorative > > Yes, because you would actually have a grounding on which to > base what are, without being Muslim, merely another westerner's > opinions. If I was a Muslim all you would get is merely another Muslims opinions. There is no priveledged knowlege about the topic that can only be gathered by being a member of a broad spectrum religion. If I was (for example) a Tunisian Muslim, my experience and contact would be radically different than an Azeri Sufi Muslim. My comments will always reflect nothing more (or less) than my opinions and my religion (or lack thereof) does not give them any additional weight. Despite being an atheist, I have read many holy books and, as religious education is taught in UK schools, have been exposed to large quantities of islamic teachings including the Sufi, Shi'a and Sunni variations. You seem to ascribe a false authority to some one based on their religion - I know many Muslims who know less about their religion than I do. I know many Christians who know less about their religion than I do. I know many physicists who know more about physics than I do. >> (although I have spent more time in the middle east than most Muslims I >> know). > > Career prison guards spend a lot more time in prisons than > short term convicts. But they *never* experience or understand > what that convict does. Very true but it the analogy is not a perfect match. For example, if you asked a Saudi street cleaner about how his government negotiates international trade deals he would have little or no understanding that was unavailable to a westerner. With this analogy you seem to create the impression that the "Middle East" is a culture impenetrable to outsiders. While there is (as always) a kernel of truth, it is far from being the whole truth. > I've addressed what things look like from the outside. You've > negated my opinions as though you had either God's wisdom > behind yours, or intimate personal knowledge. I am quite > certain now that you have neither. Ok. As I have said with pretty much every one of my posts it was simply my opinion. If you feel that disagreeing with you (such as when you make comments like "Prison is not a deterrent") means I have to have "Gods" wisdom then there is nothing I can do about that. When you negate mine, or other peoples, opinions in the same manner (remember phrases like "prison is not a deterrent") obviously you must have Gods wisdom or intimate personal knowledge. Either that, or you are putting forward your own opinions and have become aggravated that some one disagrees with you. >> By saying "No" does that falsify any of my comments? > > It converts them from an authentic source to speculative > opinion. I am flattered you once thought my opinions were ever authentic sources. >> Was it simple curiosity which led to the question (in which case the line >> of reasoning above is somewhat contrived)? > > Your reasoning, more in this particular subthread, is more > flawed than usual. Oh right, did God tell you this or is it just your speculative opinion? If you were just being curious as to my religion, then the reason stated (i.e. the credence it lent my posts) would be something you had made up to justify your curiousity. I am sorry you can not follow that line of reasoning. If, as I suspect, you were simply trying to find a pidgeonhole you could put me in (vilifile me if I was a Muslim, dismiss as I am not), then it wasn't simple curiousity and the line of reasoning was more legitimate. >> Maybe in todays generations of "British people" foriign cultures are >> "totally alien" to them, but when I was growing up it certainly was not >> the case. > > You can only guess. Very true. > My personal history as a child immigrant > to the US gives me a great deal of understanding about how > little Americans understand of the immigrant cultures in > their midst. From that I have been able to extrapolate a > similar British understanding of the immigrants in your > midst as well as people of the same cultures living in > other parts of the world. You have no idea how British people treat immigrants. Your experience as a child immigrant into the US has shown how the people you met treated you and the people you knew. It gives no special insight to any other culture and could be argued it gives no special insight to how people elsewhere in the US were treated. Where I grew up immigrants were, on the main, treated benevolently and tended to integrate into "British society" quite quickly. There were some cultures which ghettoised themselves (or were forced into it by external pressure) but not many. This gives me _no_ insight into how immigrants in places where the British Nationalist Party have strong support. They will go through an entirely different process. As a child, I lived in North Wales for a while, and found the Welsh people I met, rude, impolite and offensive. I also lived in Mid Wales for a while and found the Welsh people I met polite and friendly. I have gone back to North Wales as an adult and found the Welsh people I have met polite and friendly. Any generalised ideas and attitudes I may have picked up as a child were simply indications of the people I met. Broadening those ideas to encompass all Welsh people would have been false. Assuming my personal experiences were the same as any one elses would also be false. >>>>We have an announced presidential candidate, Obama, here in >>>>the US who has been trying to cover his early childhood >>>>upbringing as a Muslim. >> >>>Presumably because he's afraid of a bigoted response to it ? To be honest >>>I've seen >>>no evidence he's hiding it and it would be crazy to do so. > >> If he is hiding it, it is a shame. > > The US has had one Roman Catholic president. The rest have > all been Christian Protestants of one stripe or another. > IMO chances of electing a Muslim have to be so close to > zero as to be indistinguishable from zero. As I said, a shame. >> That the country seems to obsess about a presidential candidate's >> religious orientation highlights a lack of > > freedome of religion in that country. > > This is one of the most absurd and most anti-American > statements to come from you so far. Thank you. You didn't understand what I said though, but dont let that change anything. It is certainly not Anti-American to say I feel that being able to influence a presidential candidates chances by calling him a Moslem shows a lack of freedom of religion. I am sure your laws do allow everyone to have the right to choose their own religion and follow their own religious practices as long as they are in keeping with other laws. If you are happy that shows a full freedom of religion then fine. I agree. Personally, I feel that as the electorate are apparently prohibitive of certain religions getting public office, then shows shows a lack of freedom of religion. There is more to providing freedoms than legislation. Discrimination can exist even when the law does not support it. > Because as a nation > we elect people of Christian genre has no bearing whatever > on freedom of religion in this country. Well, this is an interesting argument. If there is no issue of freedom of religion, why would you suggest that the chances of electing a Muslim would be effectively zero? > Perhaps you're against free elections? Because that's how > our president acquires office. Not against it at all. As you well know. >> If you are trying to imply a similarity and that I am trying to hide my >> Islamic upbringing, one side of my parents family are devout Catholics >> and the other Protestants. Both sides claim to have been "Pure" for many >> generations prior to my parents. > > Funny wording that. LOL "...I am trying to hide *my* Islamic > upbringing....." That's one of the most highly provocative > proactively positive negations I've ever seen. Read into it anything you want. Saying you are trying to imply I have had an Islamic upbringing and I am trying to hide does not mean I had an Islamic upbringing.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 12:32 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:564ef$45b94a90$49ecf8f$1251(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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. Nonsense. This is, I feel, further projection. > 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". Not at all. BAH said 30 days was not long enough[*] which removes the sliding scale of detention length. Feel free to spend some time re-reading the post BAH has made on this issue, if they are not available on your server Google Groups has them. The question I was asking BAH was if 30 days is not long enough, how long does she think it should be. Not how long does she think the maximum the law should allow (i.e. may legitimately) the suspected terrorist to be detained. Your desire to attack me and my posts, largely based on your ideas that I am "anti-American" continues to cloud your reasoning. Even if you are correct and "may" was the correct term (which it wasn't), BAH has not answered and neither have you. There is a strong tendency for both BAH and yourself to avoid difficult questions, often replying with diversions (in the case of BAH) or mild ad hominems as you seem to have begun. -- [*] Implied in the above post, stated outright in others.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 12:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epcur3$8qk_001(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <564ef$45b94a90$49ecf8f$1251(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>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". > > His use of the word 'should' is a secondary issue. It is of no issue. You know it was the correct term, and I suspect unsettled does as well. > The more > important one is his implication that all these problems > will be resolved under the English criminal justice system. Terrorism is a crime. Crime is resolved under the criminal justice system. > There a problem with this assumption because those, who intend > to kill him, do not regard his justice system to be legal. So what? > They don't play by the same legal rules that he does. So what? They are not required to. > When > these enemies of his "cheat" by not following his rules, he > will blame his enforcement infrastructure and his prime minister > and the US for not killing these people before the mess > was made in his back yard. Massively false assumption with no basis in _anything_ I have ever posted. > This will happen in each, and every country, that has a > Western civilization living style. So to preserve the western civilisation living style we should get rid of it? > Now, those who used > to be subject to the USSR seem to understand that this > political movement has to be stopped. They just got out > from underneath a viscious dictatorship; they don't want > another one that is even more viscious and plans to use > slavery to do the work. Another BAHTangent� well done.
From: T Wake on 26 Jan 2007 13:18 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BA2B32.FE8F64C1(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ! > I suspect there was supposed to be some humour in it, but I am not sure.
From: krw on 26 Jan 2007 14:02
In article <epcu6k$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <4031e$45b949ce$49ecf8f$1217(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >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. > > Sure. Massachusetts has their judges appointed. There was > talk about changing this to elections when our lovely Liberal > judges started sentencing those who go after kids with only a few > months in jail, if that. That talk has died down even though > the problem still remains. Yeah, we just had another child rapist (with a rap sheet as long as my arm) get probation. The oil is heating, but amazingly the heat is on the messengers not the judge(s). |