Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 31 Jan 2007 08:06 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> > > >> >No. If you go around opening the cage door on rabid pitbulls, you are > >> >responsible for people getting bitten. > >> > >> I'm glad you agree with me about keeping these types locked up. > > > >It doesn't have to mean physically locked up. > > With today's transportation technology, it does. There is no > Australia-type piece of land to keep them from making messes > in other peoples' backyards. It's a shame there isn't a suitable island somewhere really. I'd prefer to see Islamist trouble makers deported to a Muslim country rather than locked up. Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:03 In article <y8mdnTYxXbQ4RCHYRVnyvwA(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><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. You have been watching too much TV. > >>>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? Have you heard of internal politics and territorial imperatives? >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? These people do not depend on single-action events. It does not appear that they're organized that way. Their strategy (or do I mean tactic?) is to make as many random messes as possible. So, physically tailing one person will only track his mess making activities...maybe. Unless you can follow him directly into the mosque where assignments are made and supplies handed out, they will gleefully keep your cops busy following false trails while the real work is going on elsewhere. > >> 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, But it's not the most productive. If it is known that he is a target, he will be used as a false trail. Even I, who knows nothing about this stuff, can figure how to use somebody under surveillance as part of an overall plan. > in case the person who is about to take the >C4 bus to paradise is going to leave more terrorists behind. Which you haven't seen. These people are using emails and comm; they don't need to be in the same room ever. > >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. His transactions may be watched. It isn't the forward flows of money that have to be tracked. It is the money flows that have already happened that need to be tracked. > >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? I think I know what I'm talking about. > >>>The association of Chief Police officers describe surveillance [*] as the >>>most effective weapon against terrorism. >> >> It was not effective. > >It was. They came within a few days of making a mess. I don't call that effective. I call that lucky. You can't depend on luck 100% of the time. > >> None of this stopped the IRA from bombing. > >How many IRA bombing attempts were prevented? You allowed them to continue to make messes for almost a century. The US has no patience for that. We are used to identifying a job and getting it done to completion and then going on to the next job. > >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. Right. So the way to prevent these kinds of terrorists from making their messes is for their community to take care of this radical thinking when it begins to grow. Ignoring this behaviour until it is too big to contain within a local neighborhood, creates bigger messes. The longer this mindset is ignored, the bigger the mess the world will eventually had to deal with. > >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. I am trying to determine the key bit that needs to be fixed before the real problem can be addressed. I think I've fingered it out. Now the real work can begin. > >> 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. No, it doesn't. That's why the US has military in countries other than its own. >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. We don't intend to prevent 100% of those attacks. The goal is to redirect those energies to making money and building stuff and inventing stuff. This category of activity is usually called capitalism. <snip> /BAH
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 08:10 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epq281$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <a_WdnXJGRKBVMiLYRVnytwA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epnqqm$8ss_017(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <MvidnQbxmY5PSCHYnZ2dnUVZ8sSrnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>><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? >>> >>> I'm still working on the original problem; I haven't solved it. >>> >> >> >>While you are doing that you can remind us what the purpose of the Geneva >>convention is (in your opinion) > > It was an argreement among countries about the rules of fighting > were when they were fighting each other. Boxing, or any sport, > does the same thing. This is a Western idea. Do you feel a nation, which is at war with a nation which is not a signatory to the Convention is bound by the terms of the convention? >> and what European country asked the US for >>help in Korea. >> >>That would be an excellent start. > > I'll talk about the fighting that happened under Truman after WWII. > AT that time, none of the European free countries were in any > position to wage the coming fights that were to be called the > Cold War. Yet these same countries did not want Communism to > spread. So the US was the only country who had enough resources > to lead and do most of the supplying. So in reality, when Truman went to the UN to request support and a UNSCR to justify the conflict, this was actually an unnamed European nation requesting US help? Instead of saying what you plan to talk about, why not identify which European nations requested US assistance in Korea? This may be of interest to you: (The wonders of wiki) "The North's start of an all-out civil war came as a surprise to the Western powers. The U.S. did not have an emergency response force ready, but it did have a large military and reserves, and a cadre of highly experienced officers and sergeants. President Harry S Truman ordered U.S. naval and air forces to stem the North Korean advance, but they were not allowed to attack north of the 38th parallel, and especially not into Chinese or Russian territory. The initial units sent in were drawn from the U.S. occupation forces in Japan under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Truman ordered MacArthur to transfer munitions to the South Korean Army and to use air cover to protect the evacuation of American citizens. Truman also ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect the island of Taiwan. Although the Chinese Nationalists offered to participate in the war, the Americans declined because they were poorly equipped and trained, and politically, there was a risk that Nationalist participation would encourage overt intervention by the Chinese communists. The first significant American combat unit to arrive in South Korea was Task Force Smith, part of the U.S. Army 24th Infantry Division based in Japan. On July 5, it engaged in the first North Korean-American clash of the war at Osan. The United Nations immediately acted, ordering the invaders to withdraw and calling all members to support South Korea. A UN command was established under the control of the United States. Britain, Australia and other Western powers quickly showed support and volunteered to aid in the effort."
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:11 In article <epl4vl$6ev$13(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <87odoiujjt.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >>> In article <87ac02wtac.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes: >>> >> In article <pan.2007.01.28.13.38.31.131504(a)hell.corn>, >>> >> The Demon Prince of Absurdity <absurd_number_of_nicks(a)hell.corn> wrote: >>> >> [.....] >>> >> >Xians who advocate the killing of gays or abortion doctors are precisely >>> >> >as crazy as Muslims who advocate the killing of Westerners, and just as >>> >> >dangerous to civilisation. >>> >> >>> >> No, they are more dangerous. They are more embedded within the >>> >> civilisation they are attempting to destroy. >>> > >>> >I don't know if their intent is to destroy civilisation, but >>> >you make a very interesting, and quite deep, point. >>> > >>> >(I think they probably just want to 'fix' civilisation.) >>> >>> The muslims also just want to "fix" it to fit their model of what it >>> should be. If you crush a car melt it down and make several bicycles out >>> of it, I would argue you have destroeyed the car to make bicycles. >> >>What if you just rip out the engine, and hitch up a couple of horses >>or oxen to the front? And remove the materialistic and immoral car >>radio, of course! > >Based on the radio programming around here, removing the engine and the >radio may be a fair trade. When I was in Turkey, I took a picture. It had a car, camel and donkey parked under one tree. It struck me that, no matter what happens in the rest of the world, these people had the infrastructure to cope with all possible events, other than complete local destruction. I suggest you get rid of your arrogance and begin to think. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:17
In article <45BE07A3.2B955542(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> >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. > >Unimportant ( even if true ). They are subject to the laws that apply where they live. You say that. Islam places their law above all others. > > >> So, are you really that arrogant that you insist your country's criminal laws >> apply >> everywhere across the globe? > >That's the USA's position. You are making no sense. > > >> If so, why are there such things as extradition treaties? > >To avoid the need to kidnap ppl ? Some the USA also does. Some countries won't honor an extradition request for murderers if the punishment might be the death penalty. So why are there such things as extradition treaties? /BAH |