Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:41 In article <epqcd0$lk3$12(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. Hasn't stopped Bush. Look at what the German courts are now doing, issuing arrest warrants for CIA agents. Ditto the Italian courts. > 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 >> > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:45 In article <c088c$45c12d64$4fe7458$13416(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:43337$45c09f0f$4fe73f1$10111(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>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. > >History shows otherwise. > >>>Europe victimized some of her own by sacrificing a group >>>of countries to Stalin forming a buffer between themselves >>>and Communism. > >> Interesting choice of words. I suppose instead of the (now US-led) allies >> establishing a peace with the Russians, they could have continued to fight >> until Latvia was free. > >The Germans were begging the Allies to do just that. > >Latvia is only one of three Baltic states absorbed into the >USSR. Strange you should have picked only one. Never a murmur >from anyone against the three involuntary annexations. > >> Remembering the UK rarely sees itself as "European" in any meaningful sense, > >Definitely an ongoing British problem. > >> the Yalta Conference was hardly a case of Europe sacrificing bits of itself. > >Your opinion, not shared by everyone. Whether or not Britain >prefers to see herself as European, you are European. Do you >think if you deny Britain's Europeanness long enough and >strongly enough it will actually cease to exist? It seems a >very head-in-sand approach. > >> The alternataive would have been going to war with Russia and fighting them >> out of each and every country. > >Untrue. Russia, the USSR in fact, was very low on manpower >necessary to the military. It would have been quick had the >western allies taken on that task. That not only is totally false, it is ludicrous. >How about negotiations >first, and simply saying *no* to Stalin. He didn't even >whimper when he was forced to withdraw from Austria which was >well underway to becoming another Soviet satellite like >the rest. Also the fartherest away, and Austria was divided like Germany -- there werwe 4 zones, so the USSR had only 1/4 of it anyway. >It was, for a long time, more a matter of backbone >and willpower. Eventually Stalin's people were entrenched in >the government and politics of the buffer nations and it was >too late for the west to do anything about it. > >Till the self destruction of the USSR, they kept huge military >bases near the western end of the buffer nations to thwart >a never realized invasion from the west. Flights from Vienna >to Belgrade had to fly zig-zag route to avoid flying over the >huge Soviet military encampments in the buffer nations. > >> I also seem to recall there was some reasoning towards getting russia to >> side against Japan. > >Japan attacked the US. The USSR had no option. The USSR and Japan >were at odds from the WW1 period, a bother that has not yet been >resolved. Actually the US was desperate to get Japan to surrender before the USSR could enter that action and perhaps occupy part of Japan. Some think this contributed to the decision to use the atomic bomb. >The SU occupied several islands the Japanese believe >belong to them, and Russia still owns them. I have no idea where >you got this idea. > >> I am not sure how allowing the USSR to occupy European countries creates a >> buffer between Communism and Europe - the Russians wanted a buffer between >> Europe and Russia, not the USSR. > >There is no difference from 1919 to 199? between USSR and Russia >where political agendas are concerned. > >>>That's how frightened and concerned Europe >>>was of the spread of Communism. > >> Yeah, "not very" really. > >Were you around? Were you around in the 1950's? You're >echoing the false bravado of your parents. Why do you think >NATO was formed and maintained? > >"In 1954 the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO >to preserve peace in Europe. The NATO countries rejected this, >seeing it as an attempt to subvert NATO from within." > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO > >>>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. > >> Some things never change. > >True, the Brits never understood nor cared much about any of >Europe (and you still don't) unless they were interfering >with attention better dedicated to "the Empire." Had Britain >paid better attention to European problems at the end of WW1, >WW2 never would have happened. The only thing that kept WW3 >from being "yet another European World War" was the enlightened >approach taken by the US under the Marshall Plan and the >creation of NATO which, if you read the wikipedia page, >brought the US in to the fold in order to counter the Soviet >threat from the east. > >Now, today, you're headed into completely repeating the >same dysfunctional attitudes with respect to the rest of >the world, while arguing adamantly that yours is the only >correct path to world peace. > >Feh.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:48 In article <epsl1k$8qk_008(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <6NGdnfCxSu7zRl3YRVnyhQA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epq6e8$8qk_004(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> 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. >> >>I think you misread. You were talking about freedoms. Do you mean the >>freedom from Food coupons was suspended? > >I consider being told what I can buy and when I can buy it >a loss of choice. Freedom involves each individual making choices >and coping with the consequences of those choices. > > So you're against blue laws, all laws banning drugs, the current law about pseudofed being behind the counter, ...? >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:50 In article <epslnf$8qk_011(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <K_udnV1AiOLCUV3YnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:epqcu0$8ss_001(a)s1000.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <2fa56$45bf5287$4fe71bb$1435(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>><snip> >>>> >>>>I think eventually we'll discover they've found other ways >>>>to do the training they used to do in their camps. >>> >>> Nono. You forget that we've only eradicated one set >>> of camps whose protectors were located in a geographic >>> area the world calls Afghanistan. >>> >>>> It >>>>appears that one approach might be to run their people >>>>through standard military combat training at the expense of >>>>countries all around the world, then answer the call to jihad >>>>whenever they're directly called upon by whoever their handler >>>>is. >>> >>> Or a code word that is part of a news item. Or it could be >>> tasks that are to be done when a riot occurs. >>> >>><snip> >> >>Can I ask a simple question? >> >>What is your "endstate?" >> >>By this, I mean at what point will you decide the mission is achieved and >>the war is over? > >There won't be any. It will be a gradual change of mindset >over the years. To achieve this, those who have the goal >to destroy Western civilization have to be kept from achieving it. > >I suggest that you listen to Bush's speech. He explained all >of this but nobody seems to have heard it in their zeal to >"defeat" Bush by ceding to the Islamic terrorists. > >/BAH Yeah, like the Ring Lardner short story: "Shut up," he explained.
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Feb 2007 04:57
In article <45C1F8B1.BAB6CB77(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Pay attention to what happened in Boston yesterday; especially >> follow what happens after this and what the critics are saying >> and what these critics don't say. One thing you need to know >> is that the mayor of Boston is the only politician here who >> is taking the warnings of 9/11 seriously. > >Would you care to explain for us who don't live there what it is that happened >in Boston ? > >Graham > From Reuters: BOSTON (Reuters) - A television network's marketing campaign went badly awry on Wednesday, causing a day-long security scare in Boston that closed bridges, shut major roads and put hundreds of police on alert. Apologizing for Boston's biggest security alert since the September 11 attacks more than five years ago, Turner Broadcasting said it had placed electronic devices at bridges and other spots to promote an animated cartoon. Police mistook the small, battery-powered electronic billboards as possible improvised bombs. The discovery of the first one on a bridge led police to stop morning rush-hour traffic on an interstate highway just north of Boston, halt a busy train line, cordon off the area and deploy a bomb squad, which blew it up. By afternoon, at least nine more of the "suspicious" devices were found. Authorities mobilized emergency crews, federal agents, bomb squads, hundreds of police and the U.S. Coast Guard as traffic froze in parts of the city. The billboards, encased in dark plastic, consisted of blinking lights wired to an electronic circuit board to project an animated cartoon image in an outdoor promotion for a show on Turner's Cartoon Network called "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." "The 'packages' in question are magnetic lights that pose no danger," Turner Broadcasting System Inc., a unit of Time Warner Inc., said in statement. It said the devices, which police said resembled improvised exploding devices, had been in place for two to three weeks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Austin, San Francisco and Philadelphia. "We regret that they were mistakenly thought to pose any danger," Turner said. LEGAL ACTION THREATENED "I am deeply dismayed to learn that many of the devices are a part of a marketing campaign by Turner Broadcasting," said Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, adding that he will consult with the state's attorney general for a response. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said he was prepared to sue. "It is outrageous, in a post 9/11 world, that a company would use this type of marketing scheme," he said. "I am prepared to take any and all legal action against Turner Broadcasting and its affiliates for any and all expenses incurred during the response to today's incidents." The alarm prompted the Coast Guard to close the Charles River that runs through the city and caused authorities to shut down major bridges along with several roads. "This has taken a significant toll on our resources," Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis told reporters. The packages were discovered near the New England Medical Center, two bridges and several other locations. |