Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:01 In article <epkqvs$8qk_002(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <45BC1911.CC7A470F(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [....] >>Let me get this right. >> >>You're suggesting that Uncle Joe Stalin *wanted* the USA to go to war against >>another communist country which was an ally of the USSR ? > >People seem to keep forgetting about China...even today. I assume what you mean to say is "To me, people ...". It seems that way to you for very good reasons. Others will see the situation very differently. Some will say that the family cat seems to be a bird, but we can leave them out of the discussion for now if you like and consider China. What exactly was your point about China? -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 29 Jan 2007 10:09 In article <epktga$8qk_005(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <epg0g5$pn5$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <45BB5BCC.CA4B3110(a)hotmail.com>, >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>> 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. >> >>Also, I believe they violated German law too. Even when they did not act >>in Germany. > >But they didn't violate their own. So, are you really that >arrogant that you insist your country's criminal laws apply >everywhere across the globe? No, you weren't asking my opinion. You asked a question of facts and I answered it with facts you didn't happen to like because it destroyed your argument. >If so, why are there such things as extradition treaties? I can't believe you actually need to ask that question! Extradition treaties allow the arrest and deportation of criminals who have traveled to a different country. They exist because most countries don't want to be a safe haven for criminals. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 04:43 In article <epfler$8qk_016(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <epd5e3$f3g$9(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <epcv0t$8qk_002(a)s846.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <epb5e7$all$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <45B8CE4B.DE00B4A2(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: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> 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. > >>But you've had a string of Republican governors and Democratic legislatures. > >What part of the phrase "party being dominant" did you not understand? >A Republican governor didn't stop the Democrat legislature. Does the gov in MA not have a veto? >After a few years of trying to do their job, all Republican governors >gave up and started looking for work elsewhere. > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 04:46 In article <b4671$45bb8c1f$4fe730b$22334(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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? > Like the Minutemen on the Mexican border? >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.) > > French resistance in WWII Americans in the revolutionary war
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 04:49
In article <3a73e$45bbb814$4fe72dd$24686(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> "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. > >No appeal intended, sorry you misunderstood. > >> I see you have given up any meaningful response to my > > posts / questions > >You haven't given me very much that's not, as you call it, FUD, >to work with. > >> (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. > >I'm surprised you don't know. > >"The conventions were the results of efforts by Henry Dunant, >who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the >Battle of Solferino in 1859." > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions > >Read the rest for yourself. > >In essence it criminalizes specific conduct by signatory nations. >It does not apply to terrorists acting outside the approval of >a signatory government. Parts of it apply to ALL captured or detained persons. And it does require a tribunal determine the status, not one person. > >Perhaps the US needs to send nationless militias against the >terrorists so we can meet them on their own terms? > >> Nice. > >Nicer than your responses to BAH. > |