Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 10:27 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >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. My understanding is that they're expected to keep out of party 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. Have you heard of this thing called 'judgement'. I expect our judges to have good judgement. The only complaint I've heard about them is from politicians who get angry that judges sometimes over-rule them when the politicians excede their powers. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 10:30 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Who did the mechanical design ? That's the important part. Whoever actually bashes the tin is irrelevant. It's about good design you see and good design need not be expensive. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 10:44 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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 > >> > > >> >> 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. Wrong. It was merely a matter of time before the Germans were defeated. > >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. No. The French had wisely got out of it having signed a peace agreement in 1954. > The US gave it. Then it got stuck with it. This seems to be France's SOP. You've got it wrong again. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 10:46 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >You still haven't addressed how a group make a bomb [without people meeting]. > 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. So how does an unskilled single person make a bomb ? > You do know that these things are getting taught in the mosques; > don't you? You do know that you're making that up don't you ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 10:50
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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? You can only usefully tap the phone line of someone who's already suspected of illegal behaviour. There will always be cases where the police/intelligence simply don't know of a plot and nothing can change that. The truth AIUI is that they rely far more on human intelligence than intercepted communications. Graham |