Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 09:05 In article <45BB5C8C.C72081AC(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >>Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal >> >>with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds >> >>of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that >> >>all people can do anything they want without punishment. >> > >> >Democracies create laws and enforce them to deal with such issues. >> >> Those laws apply to the citizens of that country during peace time. > >And in wartime too. No. You need to learn about your country's war powers and how much of your peacetime freedoms were suspended during WWII. > > >> >Totalitarians have more trouble than democracies in this area. In a >> >democracy, nobody is above the law. This includes the police and >> >the military. This way all criminals are subject to the law. IMO it is >> >the best way to do things. >> >> But those, who intend to kill you, don't honor those laws. > >So ? Neither do criminals honour the laws relating to ownership of property. Of course those criminals honor the laws; they try to escape detection and use your capitalistic economy. > > >> They believe your laws are contrary to their religious laws. > >So ? It doesn't matter. Our laws apply anyway. If they break them they are >criminals. If they don't break your laws, they break their religious law, as preached to them by their imans and clerics. Which one should they choose? > > >> So they will not play using your rules. > >So ? Crminals don't 'play by the rules' do they. Of course they do. >Nothing new here. > > >> They will use your rules as tactics against you. > >How ? You're fantasising. You are helping them by dismissing their goals. Their goals are to destroy the fabric of your civilization which includes your laws. These people set no value on human life; all humans are expendable. This is contrary to Western civilization. That's also the West's Achilles heel. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 09:06 In article <87k5z6udu8.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>You [jmfbahciv] really do not want to live in a representative democracy >> do >> >> you? >> >> >> >> >> >>Even a representative democracy needs to have some way to deal >> >> >>with the people who go after little kids, and make other kinds >> >> >>of messes. A democracy does not, and never has, meant that >> >> >>all people can do anything they want without punishment. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >No, but it does mean they have the right to a trial before they're >> punished. >> >> >> >> You keep insisting that the people who want to destroy Western >> >> civilization are criminals. Under whose law? >> > >> >The relevant law of the land in question. >> >> Muslims don't honor any laws other than their own. So now, >> under whose law? > >The law of the land in question. > >God you're dense. I'm not. Islam doesn't have that concept. /BAH
From: unsettled on 29 Jan 2007 09:18 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <epg0dh$pn5$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.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. > > > Using your logic, when the Germans invaded France, they broke French law. > The Germans didn't care about French law. They intended to enforce > their German law onto all French citizens. And then the plans were > to enforce German law on the rest of Europe; then the rest of the > world. > > We are in a war no matter how mealy mouths try to pretend it's not > there. We are in a war which is called a police action. The shooters and the casualties don't care about the nuance, nor does the outcome. >>> 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? > > > It is happening. Until a few decades ago, the only "nation" Muslims > recognized was the Nation of Islam. > > /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 09:11 In article <wYadnbseLccCOibYnZ2dnUVZ8siknZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"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. I have not ever talked about punishment. I simply intend to prevent these people from making a mess. > >Even more strangely, she fails to see the irony in doing this to protect >western civilisation. Germany is no longer under the umbrella of the Allied military. Japan is no longer occupied by the Allies. Both countries are now self-governing and decide their own policies in business and politics. The US no longer has to take the same measures over these people that it did after WWII. Study the Marshall Plan, please? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 29 Jan 2007 09:18
In article <45BB6F56.2D754F0(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: >> >> >> >> >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. > >My understanding is that they're expected to keep out of party politics. You should air out your back rooms once in a while. Your White Hall (I think that's the name) never asks judges to do certain things and they never comply? Your history allowed the ruler to orchestrate things. > > >> >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. > >Have you heard of this thing called 'judgement'. I expect >our judges to have good >judgement. All of your judges are perfect and not infallible and cannot be bought, bribed nor ordered to take certain actions? Oh, my dear, you do have a lot of growing up to do. >The only complaint I've heard about them is from politicians who get >angry that judges sometimes over-rule them when the politicians excede their >powers. I think you should read some more books. /BAH |