Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:20 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:b4671$45bb8c1f$4fe730b$22334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > 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.) All terrorists.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfj81$8qk_007(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > But those, who intend to kill you, don't honor those laws. They > believe your laws are contrary to their religious laws. So > they will not play using your rules. They will use your rules > as tactics against you. > You do not have to honour the law for it to apply to you. The rest of the paragraph is just more FUD.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:24 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfjgk$8qk_010(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <epd59k$f3g$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <epcrmf$8ss_006(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <RpudnXjBi_-ulCTYnZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:epak56$8ss_005(a)s1090.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>>> In article <45B782A7.A2676982(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: >>>>>>> >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >T Wake wrote: >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >> You see, here you demand that people be punished on the >>>>>>> >> >> suspicion >>>>> that >>>>>>> >> >> they intend to do harm. >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> It is sad you do not see this is a morally wrong thing to do. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >Naive views. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a >>>>>>> >> >criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. >>>>>>> >> >People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> >Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that >>>>>>> >> >are the basis of these discussions. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post >>>>>>> >> bail and get out? Why would such a person stop making >>>>>>> >> plans to make a mess just because he's been arrested and >>>>>>> >> may have a trial in two years? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail >>>>>>> >bond. >>>>>>> >It's >>>>>>> >down to the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more >>>>>>> >serious >>>>>>> cases >>>>>>> >whether bail will be offered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious >>>>>>> threats by these terrorists? >>>>>> >>>>>>If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>>You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a >>>>>>charge >>>>> is >>>>>>even brought in the first place. >>>>> >>>>> Exactly. Your chances of having a mess becomes more likely than >>>>> less likely. >>>> >>>>This is another sign of your dislike of democracy and people's rights. >>>>Why >>>>you live in the West is beyond me. Other than the religious orientation >>>>you >>>>would be much more suited in the Middle East. >>> >>>Not at all. >>> >>>> >>>>What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be >>>>punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. >>> >>>You keep assuming that those who are planning to destroy your >>>infrastructure are innocent. They are not. >> >>You keep assuming people are planning to do that. They are not until >>convicted. > > This belief will kill you and yours. Your enemies are counting > on you keeping this belief until the mess becomes too big > to clean up. More FUD. The belief people are innocent until proven guilty is pretty much bedrock in the western civilisation you claim to want to protect. Do you advocate treating people as guilty until proven innocent?
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:26 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:ef099$45bb6805$4fe7573$21090(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... <snip> > 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 <snip> It is good to see you drag me into your appeal to ridicule there. I see you have given up any meaningful response to my posts / questions (did you ever get round to telling me what you thought the purpose of the Geneva Convention on treatment of POW was?) and are just resorting to side swipes now. Nice.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:27
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BB5D7D.1C43DC31(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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 ! Oddly, they are only released because there is not enough evidence they are a terrorist. BAH seems to think this is a mistake, and lack of evidence should not be a bar to punishing people. Even more strangely, she fails to see the irony in doing this to protect western civilisation. |