Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 28 Jan 2007 11:36 Eeyore wrote: > > The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > > >>On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 16:31:59 -0600, unsettled did the cha-cha, and screamed: >> >> >>>>>Was Hopkins a zealot or simply a very evil man ? >>>> >>>>The two are not mutually exclusive. >>>> >>>>In my experience, most zealots err on the side of "inhumanity" and if >>>>you use that a definition of evil, they are evil. (www.godhatesfags.com >>>>- are they zealots or simply evil?) >>> >>>Most fags are zealots of a sort. >> >>So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their >>sexuality is in any way rational? > > > Who said "unsettled" was rational ? > > He/she seems to be full of bigotry and prejudice. That's one way to justify your stupidities. "Absurdity" wasn't clever enough to understand what I wrote. Clearly you're not either. That's fine, you're both still on the bell curve. Speaking about zealousness, read what you wrote in the context of being zealous regarding political correctness.
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 11:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epi945$8qk_003(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ALKdnWeo0YCbsSfYRVnyuAA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epcu03$8qk_001(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <45B94793.F24C904C(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: >>>>> >> "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? >> >>What makes you think your ideas will be more infallible than a legal >>process >>option? > > Dealing with the problem while it is still small makes success more > likely. Right, here we hit the crux of something I have an issue with. How does this imply that non-legal methods will work better than legal methods? You seem to go out of your way to keep your comments as vague as possible, as if you are testing the water, then when every one points out you are talking nonsense you morph the meaning slightly and try again. Then when you think the dust has settled you go back to your original false premises. Anyway, staying with this one. What makes you think _your_ ideas will be more suitable than a legal process. Saying "Dealing with the problem while it is still small makes success more likely" applies equally to using the law. > Waiting until it's too big to handle (WWII is an example) > means that more money, lives and wealth will have to be used > to prevent the enemy from winning. I know you refuse to have web access but I am sure your library can lend you some books on logical fallacies. This is an appeal to fear. > This is a war. What you can't seem to cope with is that you > don't have a single country to deal with. You might want to re-read those two sentences and see how little sense they make. There is no "country" to deal with so who do you declare war on? Remember, you can not meaningfully declare war on concepts and ideas. > Thus, diplomacy isn't > one of the tools that can be used. You all have been so reliant > on using diplomacy and dealing with countries, you can't seem > to grasp that the rules have changed out from underneath you. This feels like groundhog day. You resolutely refuse to acknowledge anything people say to you, even if you grudgingly accepted it a few posts previously. You constandly avoid making any clarifications of your claims - see the posts where unsettled has taken it upon himself to defend your outrageous claims that Europe asked for US help in Korea. >>>>> What if the infrastructure isn't there any more becaues that >>>>> is what was messed up. >>>> >>>>You overestimate what a few ppl can achieve. You're quite obsessed by >>>>the >>>>curious idea that our society is so flimsy that it'll fall over if >>>>anyone >>>>so >>>>much as huffs and puffs at it. I don't share your fears. >>> >>> A very small huff and puff happened in New Orleans. It's infrastructure >>> is still in shatters. It doesn't seem that anyone knows how to rebuild >>> it without calling in the US Army. >> >>(far from small, > > It was small in square miles affected and length of time. > >>but your sense of scale is as insane as your ideas about >>civilised behaviour) >> >>Did it cause the downfall of western civilisation? > > In that area? Yes. They still do not have a law enforcement > infrastructure and have been calling in the military for that > function. Which actually means "no." Western Civilisation has not collapsed. You seem unable to comprehend that civilisations are capable of surviving problems in areas and rebounding. To destroy "western civilisation" you would need to have this sort of problem everywhere. >>Why is calling in the US Army a sign of failure? > > Two years after the mess was made? Did you misread my question? >> That means people _do_ know >>how to fix things. > > No. Their governor just made a speech complaining about the > US not giving them enough money. They are corrupt. Yet, people (the US Army) do know how to fix things. As a result your prounoucement that no one knows how to fix things is false. >>It is like saying no one knew how to re-wire the electric in my house >>without calling in an electrician. > > It's worse than that. People don't seem to know how to hammer a nail > and wait for "The Government" to do the work. Notice the word "seem." I bet people do know how to do the work. Do you think the president himself was the person repairing the damage? The people who do the work are people. Your argument is self falsifing. >>> One passenger boat sinking in (I think) the Red Sea caused a riot >>> and shut down a port. >>> >>> I am assuming that all welfare, upper-middle class neighborhoods will >>> be in the same situation. Noone knows how to fix stuff nor cope >>> with stuff that breaks. >> >>Or so you assume. > > I've been watching. It is no longer an assumption. Incorrect.
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 11:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epi5ci$8ss_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > I'm trying to address a mistaken assumption these people are > making. Their idea of war is when two highly organized groups, > each funded and supplied by a single government, meet on > a field somewhere and shoot at each other; thus, conflicts of > any other nature has to be treated as criminal and apply > a country's criminal law to each individual. Oh dear. The last two weeks of posts have vanished out of your memory now, haven't they?
From: Eeyore on 28 Jan 2007 12:11 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > The Demon Prince of Absurdity wrote: > >> unsettled did the cha-cha, and screamed: > >> > >>>Most fags are zealots of a sort. > >> > >>So, what leads you to believe that dehumanising people for their > >>sexuality is in any way rational? > > > > Who said "unsettled" was rational ? > > > > He/she seems to be full of bigotry and prejudice. > > That's one way to justify your stupidities. > > "Absurdity" wasn't clever enough to understand what I > wrote. Clearly you're not either. That's fine, you're > both still on the bell curve. > > Speaking about zealousness, read what you wrote in the > context of being zealous regarding political correctness. I have said nothing about politically correct zealots. You must have read some meaning into what I wrote that wasn't actually there. Graham
From: T Wake on 28 Jan 2007 12:13
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epi93k$8qk_002(a)s804.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <tYqdnfx7XO4wXCbYnZ2dnUVZ8tqqnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> <snip> >>Right, so putting directed surveillance on who a person contacts means you >>cant watch where their cash flows? > > Not easily. This is nonsense. Watching electronic cash flows is irrelevant to officers following the suspect. Following the suspect means they can _also_ watch for real world cash transactions. >>Blimey. >> >>In this day and age, anti-terrorism legislation means electronic transfers >>of funds is heavily monitored by the banks and anything unusual gets >>passed >>to the financial crimes department of the relevant police force special >>branch. > > How long does it take for the financial department to send orders > to the police who do the street work? Seconds. Have you heard of radios? Now, if the suspect is _not_ under surveillance as you seem to advocate, how long would it take to get an officer near to the suspect? > You also assume that the > same people who kill themselves also handle the purchase orders. As did you earlier on which is why I said putting surveillance on the suspect is the most productive, in case the person who is about to take the C4 bus to paradise is going to leave more terrorists behind. You are so determined to pontificate nonsense you have lost the ability (if you had it) to make a self sustaining argument. >>As a result of this, terrorists in Europe have increasingly moved towards >>cash transactions for their dealings, to the extent of shipping in large >>quantities of cash notes from overseas to avoid triggering the bank >>responses. > > You've just negated your argument. Really? How? The suspect is under direct surveillance and their cash flows are under electronic surveillance. What in that negates my argument which says that is the best way to do things? Do you even know what you are talking about now? >>The association of Chief Police officers describe surveillance [*] as the >>most effective weapon against terrorism. > > It was not effective. It was. > None of this stopped the IRA from bombing. How many IRA bombing attempts were prevented? No security measure will be 100% effective. Nothing the US, the UK, French, Brazillians, Koreans, Chilleans or any other nations can do will be 100% successful in preventing criminal or terrorist [if you demand they are different] behaviour. You have set an unatainable standard and demand any competing ideas match it, using the false claim "your" ideas will meet it. You use this line of logic to propose that your ideas (which haven't worked elsewhere) will work. > It went on for decades. The US' goal is stop this behaviour, not > coddle it along. Hahahaha. Your use of logical fallacies is amazing. Every country has the goal of stopping the behaviour. Despite your frequent appeals to history you seem to have a strange view point of what history shows. The US will never 100% prevent terrorist attacks - even killing every single Muslim on Earth would not prevent it. >>> It is their strength at the moment and >>> has most of the West (people who have similar assumptions as >>> you do) stumped in how to deal with this new danger. >> >>More FUD. Most of the west is certainly *not* stumped how to deal with the >>danger. > > From these posts, it sure is. Nonsense. > You keep wanting to deal with this using your criminal law. This > doesn't apply to anybody who is outside your country. Now, last time I looked most terrorists had to enter the country they wanted to blow things up in. I am not sure which terrorist group has access to ICBMs, or where they have launching space, but I am sure you know of lots. (yes, that is an appeal to ridicule) > With today's technology someone can make a big mess in another country > without going there. FUD. Which terrorist attack of the last 10 years was carried out without terrorists being in the country attacked? Even the 11 Sep strike was done with internal flights so the terrorists were already in the country before the hijack began. You may think that terrorists can "blow up bridges" in the US without leaving their Sudanese training camps but this is not the case. If you are talking about electronic based "hacking" attacks then criminal law still applies and is used. I dont remember the US invading a country because of a hacking attack though. >>> Most >>> of you don't even believe there is a danger and all refuse >>> to admit it's deadly. >>> >>>> >>>>> 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. >> >>Nope. I objected to warrantless surveillance. Another nice strawman >>though. > > So, how are you going to find the sources if you can't identiry them > in the warrants? In the same way all other police information is gathered. If you cant identify the target enough for a warrant how do you decide who to carry out a military strike on? I notice you deftly avoid answering anything which points to the logical gap created when you claim using the law is not going to work because it is too hard to prove who the "mess makers are" but you advocate military action on the same, lack of, evidence. |