Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 12:30 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [.....] >>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the > UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. >> When a military >>group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >>civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. > But that isn't what is happening so why to you bring it up? The definition seems to be a large part of the problem. Is a private militia acting as though it were a military unit engaged in espionage and open hostilities, or even one secretly sponsored by a government, or perhaps openly sponsored by a government in exile (meaning it has no official or recognized status), a military unit, or a gang? For each of the following, what sort of status do you accord them? Hesbalah IRA PLO Hamas Boers Partisan (Various. Remember these all operated against the official government.)
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 12:38 Ken Smith wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> The only thing I've been discussing in this thread is about very > >>> speicfic mess preventions. The US is trying to deal with preventing > >>> these messes. > >> > >>But it's the USA that's responsible for the underlying scenarios that causes > >>these 'messes' in the first place. > > > >hmm....Thus, using your reasoning, if you get shot during a bank > >robbery, it is your fault for being in the bank. > > No. If you go around opening the cage door on rabid pitbulls, you are > responsible for people getting bitten. Doubly so if you also then go on to enrage the pit bull. Graham
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 12:48 unsettled wrote: > Ken Smith wrote: > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > > >>You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western > >>civilization are criminals. Under whose law? > > > Those who acted in the US broke many US laws before 9/11. The ones in the > > UK broke many law of the UK. The ones in Spain broke spanish law. > > >> When a military > >>group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills > >>civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. > > > But that isn't what is happening so why to you bring it up? > > The definition seems to be a large part of the problem. > > Is a private militia acting as though it were a military > unit engaged in espionage and open hostilities, or even > one secretly sponsored by a government, or perhaps openly > sponsored by a government in exile (meaning it has no > official or recognized status), a military unit, or a gang? > > For each of the following, what sort of status do you accord them? > > Hesbalah > > IRA > > PLO > > Hamas > > Boers Militias of varying degrees of formal structure. > Partisan (Various. Remember these all operated against the > official government.) As in the French Resistance etc ? Technically insurgents but the same could be said to some degree of the IRA ( they operated both within and from outisde the UK border ). The big difference is that there is not really any such thing as Al Qaeda AIUI except as an 'umbrella term'. It's a bunch of disparate groups rather than a formal entity with a command structure. It seems many groups just call themselves Al Qaeda to look important. Graham
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 13:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfing$8qk_004(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <EZCdnXAW06sMgCfYnZ2dnUVZ8tyqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epd04r$8qk_003(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45B91AD6.7B9E306D(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: >>>>> > >>>>> >> They [Europeans] can afford to make >>>>> >> these errors because their governments assume the US will >>>>> >> save them with its military might. >>>>> > >>>>> >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. Your history books are broken again. It could be argued a European nation asked for the US's help in Vietnam, but I suspect this is a very weak argument, as although there were US advisors there while the French were I have yet to see any evidence they were there at the request of the French. Largely the US got involved at the request of RVN government and a reluctance to allow Communism to spread. Korea - interesting claim to make. Now I could be wrong, but I am fairly sure the US intervention was at the request of the South Koreans. Last time I looked, South Korea was not in Europe. Even the existence of South Korea was decided upon between the US and the USSR. Again, while parts of the USSR are in the geographical region which can be called "Europe" it is more than a little dishonest to try and use that as evidence the US were asked to help by Europe. (Especially as the USSR didn't want the US there...) WWI and WWII have been dealt with to death previously. West Germany - I am not sure what you mean by this, I have my suspicions but I will wait to see if you can clarify when Europe asked for US help in West Germany. The Balkans - it was the UN who were asked for help, not Europe nor the US. >>> England isn't as bad as >>> the rest of, what used to be, free Europe. >> >>"Used to be free?" >> >>When did it change? Are you still thinking about the Holy Roman Empire and >>it's dominance over the Franks? > > Europe used to be split into what was called free Europe and > the Soviet satellites. Ah right. So you were not trying to imply that it is no longer free then? Sorry for the confusion.
From: MassiveProng on 27 Jan 2007 13:54
On Sat, 27 Jan 07 14:33:48 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >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. > Wrong again. "Ordered cases" suggests a purchase of an off-the-shelf item. Manufactured cases are where a firm makes drawings and has a metal fab shop perform the fab. The case is 100% custom manufactured to MY spec, and *I* say that *I* could make shielded case A just as cheaply as shitty shielded case B. It really is THAT simple, so quit trying to worm out of it 50 ways, and quit trying to give the worm support, because you then become a worm yourself. |