Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 08:43 In article <45BA0612.FE184521(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: >> > >> >> 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 ? [emoticon becomes temporarily stunned at lack of thinking ability] <snip> /BAH
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 08:53 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: > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> >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? > > WWI, WWII, Viet Nam, Korea, West Germany, Balkans. America *chose* to enter WWI. The Germans were already almost beaten by the time US troops arrived. Korea was a *UN* action and was far from just the USA. Neither West Germany or the Balkans have *asked* for US forces. In both cases US forces were there as part of the NATO alliance anyway. Viernam was a disaster. Why do you mention it ? Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 08:46 In article <45BA077E.46DB6DEF(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: >> >> 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? > >If someone's let go they can still be arrested again if there's new evidence. Before or after King's Cross is rubble? > > >> >> 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. > >Thaty just goes to show how powerless the Islamist terrorists are compared to >mother nature. It shows that cleaning up a big mess may be impossible. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 08:48 In article <MPG.20241a38fb7acff1989f3c(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <epcu6k$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... >> In article <4031e$45b949ce$49ecf8f$1217(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(a)hotmail.com>, >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>>>And what about judges who have a political agenda and are >> >>>>>>very willing to set bail so they can go about their mess-making >> >>>>>>plans? >> >>>>> >> >>>>>Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. >> >>>> >> >>>>A lot of them are elected. >> >>> >> >>>Judges here aren't elected. We would shudder at the very idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> Each US State has their own way of getting their judges. >> > >> >Federal judicial appointments are extremely politicized, with >> >Supreme Court justice appointments the most politicized of all. >> >> Sure. Massachusetts has their judges appointed. There was >> talk about changing this to elections when our lovely Liberal >> judges started sentencing those who go after kids with only a few >> months in jail, if that. That talk has died down even though >> the problem still remains. > >Yeah, we just had another child rapist (with a rap sheet as long as >my arm) get probation. The oil is heating, but amazingly the heat >is on the messengers not the judge(s). We managed to get rid of one judge but only because the idiot yelled at a prosecutor--not because she was always siding with the child molesters/killers. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 08:52
In article <epd5e3$f3g$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <epcv0t$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <epb5e7$all$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) 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. >>>> >>>>Graham >>>> >>> >>>You should. We elect judges here in Georgia, and it's a real mess. >> >>We don't in Massachusetts and it, also, is a mess because of one >>political party being dominant for too long. >But you've had a string of Republican governors and Democratic legislatures. What part of the phrase "party being dominant" did you not understand? A Republican governor didn't stop the Democrat legislature. After a few years of trying to do their job, all Republican governors gave up and started looking for work elsewhere. /BAH |