Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 08:53 In article <45BA084E.ADF345E3(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > 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. > >Our judges keep out of politics. Sure they do. /BAH
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:03 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >>>You [jmfbahciv] 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. > >> > > > >No, but it does mean they have the right to a trial before they're punished. > > You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western > civilization are criminals. Under whose law? The relevant law of the land in question. > When a military group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills > > civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. When it's the military action of a country's armed forces it would indeed be war . In the case under discussion whre it's not the action of a country's armed forces it's terrorism. That's a crime pure and simple. By calling it a war you only 'inflate' the supposed legitimacy of criminals by letting them see themselves as 'soldiers in a cause'. This ploy has been used many times in the past with various degrees of success - e.g. IRA ( Irish Republic Army ) RAF ( Red Army Faction ) etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction Far better to call them criminals as they really are. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:07 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >>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. > > > >Democracies create laws and enforce them to deal with such issues. > > Those laws apply to the citizens of that country during peace time. And in wartime too. > >Totalitarians have more trouble than democracies in this area. In a > >democracy, nobody is above the law. This includes the police and > >the military. This way all criminals are subject to the law. IMO it is > >the best way to do things. > > But those, who intend to kill you, don't honor those laws. So ? Neither do criminals honour the laws relating to ownership of property. > They believe your laws are contrary to their religious laws. So ? It doesn't matter. Our laws apply anyway. If they break them they are criminals. > So they will not play using your rules. So ? Crminals don't 'play by the rules' do they. Nothing new here. > They will use your rules as tactics against you. How ? You're fantasising. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:11 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: > >> > > >> >> 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] You appear to think that they'll be arrested, held for 30 days, released and then they can just go and do what they had in mind regardless. Do you not imagine that in order to be ready to commit some crime, they must not have made preparations for it and the police will find evidence of that ? Do you not imagine the police would keep such suspects under surveillance ? They can be re-arrested too you know ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:13
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: > >> >> 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's Kings Cross got to do with it ? You won'r blow it up with a homebrew backpack bomb you know. Or even 3 or 4 of them. > >> >> 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. Even Hiroshima and Nagasaki got cleaned up. Humans are very industrious creatures. Graham |