Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:16 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Are you being sarcastic ? I suggest you don't try that on with stuff you have zero knowledge about. Our judges have to be politically impartial since they are occasionally called on to rule about the legality of government legislation. They do turn some of it over from time to time. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:19 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >T Wake wrote: > >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I suppose you'd have them round them up now and detain them without > >> >> > trial ? > >> >> > >> >> Because in BAH's world that is so much better than following them and > >> >> finding out who else they interact with...... > >> >> > >> >> I mean, why attack the network when you can get caught up swatting the > >> >> little flies at the edges. > >> > > >> >Silly me, I forgot to mention that aspect of it. > >> > > >> >Yes of course they can get more and better intelligence by giving their > >> >suspects a sense of false security. > >> > > >> >In fact 5 Muslims were arrested earlier this week in connection with an > >> >ongoing enquiry AIUI. All this stuff requires intelligence ( both sorts ! > >> >). > >> > >> The best way to traceback contacts isn't by noting people > >> contacts but by watching the cash flows. You people are > >> aware that an internet exists? People no longer have to > >> physically meet to plan to make a mess. > > > >But they do physically meet. How else do you think they make their bombs etc > >? > > The members of each group do not have to meet their handlers any > more. This is no longer the Cold War and email, cell phones, and > FedEx are available commercially. What 'handlers' LMAO ? All the evidence to date has shown that these UK groups have acted entirely independently. You still haven't addressed how a group make a bomb. It can't be done single handedly. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 09:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > >> You people are > >> aware that an internet exists? People no longer have to > >> physically meet to plan to make a mess. > > > >Nice strawman. While the internet can be used to make the plans, terrorist > >cells need to be physically given things like explosives. The people the > >terrorists interact with may well include others of extremist leanings. You > >also assume surveillance does not include electronic surveillance, which is > >a mistake on your behalf. > > <ahem> You objected to that electronic surveillance, too. I believe T Wake objected to unconstitutional phone-tapping. There is no such restriction on other means of electronic communication. You can also always apply for a warrant to tap a phone anyway. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 09:31 In article <45BB5EB4.E7CCC38A(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: >> >> 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. > >Are you being sarcastic ? Yes :-). > I suggest you don't try that on with stuff you have >zero knowledge about. They are humans. Most humans can't help but dabble in politics. > >Our judges have to be politically impartial since they are >occasionally called on to rule about the legality of government >legislation. They do turn some of it >over from time to time. What rule book do these judges use so they can try to be impartial. There is no such thing as an impartial human being. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 09:33
In article <45BB57F0.621024C2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> MassiveProng wrote: >> >> > Indeed, dipshit. Laugh. You certainly don't have enough brains to >> > put forth a real argument. >> >> LOL, I work with what you give us to work with, which >> is actually nothing at all. > >It has to be said the Mr Massive Pong has nailed you on this one. Not really. MP's company didn't manufacture the cases; they were ordered. That is not manufacturing them. /BAH |