Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 31 Jan 2007 23:01 MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:31:16 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > Gave us: > > >>MassiveProng wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 02:44:10 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>Gave us: >>> >>> >>> >>>>MassiveProng wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:02:30 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>>>>Gave us: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Text Medium No. 5 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Hail Eris! On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:50:21 +0000, T Wake jabbered inanely: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Our "British friends" are so brainwashed they not only don't realize >>>>>>>>>>they are, but they can no longer think for themselves any longer. The >>>>>>>>>>immediate kneejerk is to make the USA their whipping boy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And their counterparts across the English Channel are worse. I don't >>>>>>>>>expect them to do a damned thing about Iran's atomic bombs. They will >>>>>>>>>continue to hole meetings, eat lobster, swill champaign, until it's too >>>>>>>>>late...again. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This is what we like to see. If you dont know what you are talking about >>>>>>>>throw in some insults and a bit of fear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Well done. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Iran's atomic bombs." As if. Wingnuts... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The Iranians are a good bit smarter than you are. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> They had all their smarts handed to them. They would be nothing and >>>>>nowhere without outside assistance. >>>> >>>>A tinknocker would know. >>> >>> >>> >>> Interesting that once plowed under, this is all that surfaces. I >>>knew that was all you amounted to. >>> >>> You are the piece of tin I knocked, and you are corroding. I would >>>not even have to do anything, and you would still corrode away. >> >>We thought the great unwashed coming aboard usenet was bad. >> >>Till we started getting burnouts like you. > > > > I've accomplished more in the last two years than you likely will in > your entire, pathetic life. > > I'll likely do the same this year. > > The stuff I work on is so cool I can't even tell you about it. > > Whereas your drab life is just... well... drab. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, have the pension, up yours.
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 06:51 In article <45C09B5E.856FD788(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> 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 > >So you're now claiming all mosques are trouble too ? You really need to stop generalizing. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 06:53 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. > >Extradition has always traditionally been about the return of a suspected >criminal to the country in which the crime was committed. Extradition treaties are the way two countries' laws get along. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 06:55 In article <45C0A093.EBEDB557(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> > >> >So what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway he >> >has broken the law and the police can take action. >> >> Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment >> I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. > >You want to arrest diplomats too now ? [frying pan]----->leap----->[fire] /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 1 Feb 2007 06:57
In article <FJednQX4xoJ2RF3YnZ2dnUVZ8sqjnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:epq572$8qk_005(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <9O-dnccev9rnqyPYRVnyhAA(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:epktga$8qk_005(a)s957.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> In article <epg0g5$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 what. If a German comes to the UK and drives at 80MPH on the motorway >>>he >>>has broken the law and the police can take action. >> >> Only in specified cases can police take action. At the moment >> I'm thinking about diplomatic immunity. >> > >It is interesting you say "only in specified cases." What do you think are >the specified cases where the police *can* take action. Please list them >all. Read the extradition treaties. I don't know if there is a word for the list of exceptions when one is working in an embassy. /BAH |