Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 09:41 In article <45BB596C.6B6BAC91(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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. Everything I've read had Europe at a standoff. It took the US to come in and break it up. > >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 ? Because France asked for help. The US gave it. Then it got stuck with it. This seems to be France's SOP.
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 09:46 In article <45BB5F73.55484113(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: >> >> >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. Since we've had high school kids make them, I assumed that people living in Europe had enough brains to make them, too. You do know that these things are getting taught in the mosques; don't you? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 27 Jan 2007 09:48 In article <45BB6022.97E0C7D7(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >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. We were talking about emails, too. > There is no such >restriction on other means of electronic communication. > >You can also always apply for a warrant to tap a phone anyway. Before or after they blow up your Soho stop? /BAH
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 09:56 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. MP is an "angry man" who lashes out for the sake of lashing out. In the course of his postings he said, "That STILL doesn't preclude the FACT that *I* SAID that*I* could MAKE a shielded case for the same amount it would cost me to MAKE a poorly shielded case." <0t9lr25f2c3rkpbkpjrmmqgfv179o1ng4v(a)4ax.com> That's as nonsensical as T. Wake having as much insight into Islamic culture as someone who lives the life and walks in the shoes and DumbDonkey's comment above combined. This thread has had some ups and downs, but right about now it appears to have hit a new low.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 10:17
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45BB5F73.55484113(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: >>>>> >>>>>>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. > > > Since we've had high school kids make them, I assumed that people > living in Europe had enough brains to make them, too. You > do know that these things are getting taught in the mosques; > don't you? There's no reason to believe that McVeigh couldn't have built his truck bomb single handedly. |