Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfl4a$8qk_014(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45BA077E.46DB6DEF(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: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 >>> >> >> days >>> >> >> is too long?! >>> >> > >>> >> >It is for someone who's innocent ! >>> >> >>> >> Your laws do assume innocence until proven guilty...right? Thus >>> >> all are innocent. Are you willing to wait until a mess is made >>> >> and then have the law infrastructure deal with these people? >>> > >>> >Are you trying to suggest that there would be suspects who were simply >>> >allowed to continue do their evil deed ? >>> >>> Of course there will be. No law enforcement infrastructure >>> is infallible. If your laws force your police to let someone, >>> go, that person will not be deterred from making a mess. What >>> makes you think that he will stop his plans? >> >>If someone's let go they can still be arrested again if there's new >>evidence. > > Before or after King's Cross is rubble? Fear is blinding you to reason. You seek to spread this fear, along with uncertainty and doubt, to others. You work on the assumption that _everyone_ detained as a suspected terrorist is _actually_ a terrorist. This is because a dislike for the legal system, and rights and freedoms the law enshrines, seems to run deep within you.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:33 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:af8c4$45bb8641$4fe730b$22087(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > unsettled wrote: >> T Wake wrote: > >>> I seriously hope you do not view Muslims as a different species from >>> "non-Muslims" where we are unable to ask them questions and partake / >>> observe their rituals and practices. Maybe you do, it would explain >>> lots. > >> If that was meant to be rhetorical then reply is unnecessary. > > T Wake, thanks for your silence which provides the answer. You're welcome. The analogy was false and my post wasn't a question. Replying to USENET posts is never "necessary" and you routinely exercise the choice to not reply. Why should that one have been any different.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:36 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfnnd$8qk_001(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. While you may have a point with the impartiality, the post your sarcasm was directed to said the Judges keep out of politics. They do in the UK. Feel free to show examples to the contrary.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 14:37 MassiveProng wrote: > 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. No it doesn't. Did you sent them a purchase order or money with your order? > 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. Sending your order to a job shop with a very small production run it is quite likely the largest part of the cost is the initial setup, leaving little to no difference in the price for a piece of junk vs a good case. In the context of the conversation that scenario is irrelevant. Furthermore, where it comes to this paragraph where you write "*I* say that *I* could make shielded case A just as cheaply as shitty shielded case B" you're not making the cases at all, someone else is. Did you graduate junior high? Your writing is at a level below what one would expect from a junior high school kid. > 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. You're outa your tree. It took you days of prodding to finally come out and explain what you were talking about. What you've been writing all along bore no resemblance to what you wrote here, no matter you think otherwise. Always remember to write to your audience, not to yourself, when attempting to make a point in a public discussion. Ditch that anger.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:38
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfojc$8qk_005(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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? Which is why surveillance on the suspects can identify which Mosques are teaching it. The bombers in the 7 July strike met up to arrange and plan things. Your post supports the very thing you disagree with. If one had been known to the police in advance, surveillance would have been able to identify the others. If one had been killed by the police in advance, the other three could have still struck. Can you see where your false line of reasoning heads? |