Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 13:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epku4c$8qk_008(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <M9GdnS-x7KLMOSbYnZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epfj3s$8qk_006(a)s788.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <epd57v$f3g$6(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >><snip> >>>> >>>>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? >> >>Well, if they do it in the UK, under UK law. I assume the same would be >>true >>in any other country. > > Do you include Iran and Syria in that "other country" list? Yes. If I go to Iran and try to blow up a bridge, I suspect I will have violated a few Iranian laws. Same with Syria. >>Hasn't the US passed legislation designed to prevent terrorism? > > No. The purpose of the legislation is to deal with this kind > of war that Islamic fundamentalists are waging. Really? I am surprised. I could have sworn the US had passed anti-terrorism legislation. I am fairly sure the crackpot USA PATRIOT act is the short title for: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism" See that word "terrorism" there. Seems to me this is anti-Terrorist legislation. I am sure there is more. >>> When a military >>> group from another country blows up bridges and trains and kills >>> civilians, I call that a war, not a criminal act. >> >>Which country has invaded the US? > > Nation of Islam. From Wiki about the Nation Of Islam: "The Nation of Islam (NOI) is a separatist, religious, and socio-political organization founded in the United States by Wallace Fard Muhammad in 1930 with a declared aim of resurrecting the spiritual, mental, social, and economic condition of the black men and women of America and the rest of the world." Not sure that is an invasion, more it was created there. If you mean to treat Islam as a country, you are pretty off base.
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 13:43 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epkuui$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Yeah, that is the difference between a war and things which are not wars. >>> >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. Terrorists try to escape detection. Terrorists use the capitalistic economy. Your argument is insane. >>> 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? More FUD. Every day, all over the world, milions of Muslims abide by the laws of the countries in which they live. If what *you* say is true how do they resolve that apparent problem? The laws in Tunisa (an Islamic state) are very, very different from the laws in Saudi Arabia. In *your* world view how can that be the case? >>> 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. You are helping them by spreading fear and encouraging people to sacrifice the laws and freedoms you claim the extremists hate. > These people set no value on human life; all humans > are expendable. This is an interesting line of debate but maybe not one you should head down. You appear to set no value on human life outside the US. Even then all American soldiers are expendable, even if it is going against the main goal. > This is contrary to Western civilization. > > That's also the West's Achilles heel. So you suggest we destroy our laws to prevent....
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 13:44 "Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:epl3vv$6ev$10(a)blue.rahul.net... > In article <epkuui$8qk_001(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] >>Of course those criminals honor the laws; they try to escape detection >>and use your capitalistic economy. > > You sure use a weird definition of "honor"! You may want to try using the > commonly accepted one. > She rarely does that with any other words she uses.
From: T Wake on 29 Jan 2007 13:55 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epkvmt$8qk_004(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Yes Minister was a comedy. It wasn't real. When you say asks judges to do certain things, do you mean carry out a judicial review of a policy or action? If so, of course the judges comply - that is what they are there for. If you mean the Government of the day asks the judges to break the law for them, well it *may* happen but there certainly is no evidence of it. The sentence "Your history allowed the ruler to orchestrate things" is irrelevant, insane and simply shows how little of the UK's history you actually understand. >>> >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? You conflate individual misbehaviour with an institutional fallacy. You do it all the time. You need to address this. They can not be "ordered" to take certain actions but there will be some of them (as everywhere, in every job, in every country) will be susceptible to bribery. > Oh, my dear, you do have a lot of growing up to do. Ha. I suspect it is too late to give you the same advice. >>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. Even funnier.
From: Lloyd Parker on 29 Jan 2007 08:52
In article <afeb0$45be1e91$49ecf31$15594(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <ulpor2t30hkfv68h8rbaor2u4dj8ckkh47(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:20:07 GMT, The God of Odd Statements >>><godofodd(a)statements.likeyours> Gave us: >>> >>> >>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:20:31 +0000, jmfbahciv did most oddly state: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>What you are saying here is that because innocent people can not be >>>>>>punished, there is more chance of something bad happening. >>>>> >>>>>You keep assuming that those who are planning to destroy your >>>>>infrastructure are innocent. They are not. >>>> >>>>Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Any other way is abusive of a >>>>person's rights. >>> >>> >>> That's only once you are arrested and charged with a crime. >>> >>> That does not mean that one cannot suspect you of criminal activity, >>>and survey (surveillance) you or investigate your behavior such that >>>enough evidence to charge you with your crimes is available so that >>>proof can be what convicts you. >>> >>> In other words, ONLY the COURT (criminal justice system) considers a >>>charged person innocent until the authorities can establish guilt >>>within the court system. >>> >>>In traffic court, they consider you guilty going in. >>> >> >> >> Because it's a civil infraction, not criminal. > > >Nonsense. Under certain circumstances you can be >sentenced to jail. It is criminal court. > Certain infractions are midemeanors. In which case, you're usually taken to jail, and all the criminal safeguards apply. Going, say, 75 in a 65 zone, is not. |