Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 14:43 MassiveProng wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 08:56:00 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: >>MP is an "angry man" who lashes out for the sake of lashing out. > You're an absolute retard. I read this thread from > sci.electronics.design you idiot. It is obvious from here that you're not very well educated. > I said MAKE the entire time it was discussed. You've never made a metal case of the sort you're describing. Do you have some sort of difficulty distinguishing between the identity of the person in your vendor's shop who is actually cobbling up the cases and yourself? Or do you work for two separate employers and do that job yourself in your second job? You're becoming more asinine by the minute. A designer in plant A doesn't not "make" what comes out of the shop at plant B. Is English your mother tongue? > You fucked up, and backstepping is NOT an option. Glad you said that, cause now I don't have to give you any quarter.
From: unsettled on 27 Jan 2007 14:46 MassiveProng wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 09:17:48 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>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. > > > > Yes, he *could* have. He was trained in the military, dipshit. > > The fact remains, however, that he did it with assistance. Irrelevant. The response is to Eeyore's comment that a person can't make a bomb single handedly, and you've agreed with me. Thank you.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epfon2$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. And doing it without a warrant is wrong. >> 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? Before of after who blows it up? Here you go with your presumption of guilt based on nothing but religious orientation.
From: T Wake on 27 Jan 2007 14:58 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45BB74B0.5BDAD98F(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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. Not always a good thing. Intercepted communications tend to be more "honest" than relying on a tout who may have many ulterior motives for passing on the information in the first place.
From: Eeyore on 27 Jan 2007 15:01
krw wrote: > Metal cases are more expensive than plastic. QED. Depends on quantities. Graham |