Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 10:20 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>>>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. >>>> >>>>I doubt the Muslim country that was on the receiving end of these nutjobs >>>>would be too happy. >>> >>>Tricky one isn't it ? >>> >>>I wonder if there are any suitable unoccupied Hebridean islands ? >> >>Why do you suppose Gitmo? > > > Since when was Cuba an unoccupied Island ? Get that recommended brain transplant already!
From: Ken Smith on 31 Jan 2007 10:25 In article <epq53m$8qk_004(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <epl2mm$6ev$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>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! > >I can't believe it either. But it has become a necessary >question since you peopel here don't seem to know why they >exist. We know why they exist and we know how they operate you seem to be the one who is confused. > >> >>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. > >They have to exist because one country's law cannot apply to >another country's law. Criminal law is locally defined. >Extradition treaties define a few acts of commission that both countries >agree to call illegal. No, they exist because the US can't legally arrest the person in the other country. A person outside the US may break US law and be subject to arrest if they ever come within the US. Such a person can't legally be arrested in the other country. This doesn't mean that they did not break a US law only that they can't be arrested for it. Extradition allows the other country to arrest people for breaking US laws and deprt them to the US. You seem to be confusing the practical issue of arresting someone with the legal one of them breaking a law. > >/BAH > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 10:26 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <a557c$45bfbb21$49ecf90$4084(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>>news:5eaf0$45bfb26f$49ecf90$3729(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >>> >>> >>>>T Wake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:epnm4l$df5$4(a)blue.rahul.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <45BE8D83.976CEBA6(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>[.....] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Same question could be asked of Cain and Abel. Although every time I >>>>>>>>try >>>>>>>>asking priest or vicars they get annoyed with me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I just discovered he lived to be 950 yrs old too ! Maybe he was a space >>>>>>>alien ? >>>>>> >>>>>>If you assume as I do that some confused months and years, he made it to >>>>>>79 which is old enough to get remarked on. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This is close to special pleading. The holy text is specific enough at >>>>>times, yet for something quite simple like days and nights it gets >>>>>confused? >>>> >>>>How many translations/transcriptions in ~5000 years? >>> >>> >>>That is the special pleading. The plea that Commandment X has survived and >>>is the word of God, but Y has suffered a transcription error. >> >>We don't know that there weren't more or fewer commandments. >>We don't know that today's commandment X is anything like >>the original, if there was one. > > > They just found a new single page in a dig in Israel. It appears to > belong as the first page of the bible. When translateed it reads: > > For my wife Buffy. > All characters portrayed are fictional any > similarity between the characters and persons > living or dead are coincidental. Funny thing though, they loved it so well that some thousands of years later they added another complete volume.
From: Ken Smith on 31 Jan 2007 10:33 In article <45C0A037.F119F1F9(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> > >> >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. >> >> They have to exist because one country's law cannot apply to >> another country's law. Criminal law is locally defined. >> Extradition treaties define a few acts of commission that both countries >> agree to call illegal. > >You are *completely* wrong. Extradition was never mean to be about the >extra-territorial application of law although the USA now seems to think it can >use it that way. Actually I disagree with you on this. You are not talking about BAH's mistake. She confuses being arrested with having broken a law. Some laws contain an extra-territorial component. These are usually laws against things that everyone agrees are bad. The Germans have laws against war crimes that apply to people outside their country. They need them to make it so that war criminals can be arrested etc. >Extradition has always traditionally been about the return of a suspected >criminal to the country in which the crime was committed. An example of that not being the case is where the person leaves the country and commits the crime in another country but is still subject to the law in the first country. A lot of countries have treason laws that work like that. If the person then goes to a third country, they can be arrested and sent back to the first even though the crime was actually committed in the second. > >Graham > -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 31 Jan 2007 10:43
In article <epq5uj$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <epl3ru$6ev$9(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [.....] >>>Those people 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. > >Not at all. These people are very good at surviving no matter >what the politics are. The way Muslims survive, when they >are in the moderate category, is to keep their mouths shut >and never say no to violent faction of their community. Oh good now you admit that there are moderates and exteremists. This is real progress. Now if we can just get you to notice the moderates arresting the extremists when they commit crimes, we can start to make some serious headway. >Until these moderates believe that there is a country who >will protect them with all its military might, they aren't >going to dare to say no to the violent factions. They only need to believe that their own country can protect them for them to act against the extremists. They also will give the extemists support if it looks like that is their only option to protect their government from an outside power. > For the >last two years, before the US' Novemeber elections, the >moderates started to talk against the violence. No, you only started hearing about it then. There has been a lot of talking that has not made it onto the US's news. > Then >the Democrats took majority in Congress. Now the moderates >will shut up and see if those Democrats will protect them. You are completely off base here. The democrats are the ones that the terrorist fear the most. Why do you think that every time there is a US election they do something that reminds you of their existance. They knew that the american voters, for some silly reason, voted republican when frightened. >It took Bush 6 years to get these moderates to voice their >opinions. Bush did nothing of the kind. He caused the extremists to gain a great deal of support. I think you must watch the Faux News channel. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |