Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:42 In article <45BE1543.4E9B1392(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> >Those people [Pakistanis] really like our brand of capitalism. Do you think >> >they want to go back to the "old ways"? >> >> Your arument seems to have turned on it heals here. > >No doubt she momentarily forgot Pakistanis are Muslims. You are wrong. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 31 Jan 2007 08:43 In article <45BE08F0.6B3D2800(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: >> >> 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. > >Nonsense. > >How about an example ? Food coupons. /BAH
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 08:52 Eeyore wrote: > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >>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. > > > It was the USA who was most concerned about communism spreading and it wasn't > happening in Europe either. Europe victimized some of her own by sacrificing a group of countries to Stalin forming a buffer between themselves and Communism. That's how frightened and concerned Europe was of the spread of Communism. An interesting facet of that sacrifice is the on going diminution of those nations by western Europe as part of the self-justification process. Quite similarly the Baltic Nations were also sacrificed because they held no value to western Europe.
From: T Wake on 31 Jan 2007 08:52 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epq42n$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Really? How do you work that out? Do you honestly think that putting (say) six officers on a surveillance task means that all monitoring of electronic funds is ceased? Seriously? What is there, in your mind, that makes it hard to monitor cash flow if the target is under surveillance? >>>>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? Have you heard of photosynthesis and the carbon cycle? Are we throwing in random phrases now? Do you have any idea how (in the UK at least) modern police forces are structured. To help you out, the finanical investigation unit is normally part of the Criminal Investigation Department, which also parents the surveillance teams. >>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. What does this have to do with _any_ of your nonsense above? > So, physically tailing one person will only track his mess > making activities...maybe. As will arresting him or killing him - which were two implied alternatives you made. Putting surveillance on the person may well lead to the other people involved. > 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. Do you know why we have surveillance teams? Do you think the surveillance is a uniformed police man who knocks on his door every few hours to see where he is? You are arguing total nonsense here. >>> 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. What do *you* suggest then? Kill him? Arrest and interrogate him? Leave him alone? What other alternative is there? > 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. First off, you have to know he is the person under surveillance. Secondly, you belittle the knowledge and capabilites of the surveillance teams now. I refuse to accept the US surveillance assets are any worse than those in the UK, so I can only assume this is another of your trade make WildAssGuesses� >> 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. All covered by the surveillance. >>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. Pure, unadulterated, nonsense. If they have already happened they can not be tracked (unless you have a time machine) but if you mean going back and seeing what went where, then that is *part* of the surveillance task. >>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. I suspect you are alone in this. Your argument is self defeating. >> >>>>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. You could call it Peanuts if you wanted. The mess was prevented. That is effective. You claim it is luck, and partially that is the case. Everything in intelligence depends on luck at some degree - even down to the farmer being in the right place to overhear the plotters making their plans. >>> 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. You are as wrong as you can be here. They were not allowed, any more than the US allow Iraqi insurgents to kill thousands each day. > The US has no patience for that. Patience is certainly a problem for the US. Not in the manner you try to imply though. > We are used to identifying a job > and getting it done to completion and then going on to the next > job. What went wrong in Afghanistan then? >>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. We agree. > 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. Appeal to fear mixed with an argument about the slippery slope. Because the possible out come is "bad" does not make the outcome any more likely. >>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. Given how you are properly barking up the wrong tree everywhere else, good luck. >>> 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. Your two sentences are not built on each other. >>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. Really? Which ones will you allow? > The goal is > to redirect those energies to making money and building stuff > and inventing stuff. This category of activity is usually called > capitalism.
From: Eeyore on 31 Jan 2007 08:53
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Simply not true. Fanatics might but that's not the teaching of the Koran. > >> 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. It's the USA that seeks to impose its laws worldwide. > >> 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 In the case I had in mind there was no application for extradition. Not even any mention of interest. > if the punishment might be the death penalty. So why > are there such things as extradition treaties? If you guys want the death penalty then you'll have to accept some restrictions on who we'll extradite to you. As has been said before, if you don't understand what extradition is about you should look it up. Graham |