Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 17:05 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:51fba$45c25b43$4fe752c$2080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:epsosp$8qk_017(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <45BF7A40.71A37BB3(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: >>>>>> >>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Attacking Iran would really let the genie out of the bottle. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Or contain it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It makes as much sense as attacking a wasp's nest with a heavy stick. >>>>>>>In >>>>>>>front of other wasps ! >>>>>> >>>>>>I'd say less. Iran will fall out of the hand of the extremists in the >>>>>>next 20 or so years if left alone. With Bush's help, they will >>>>>>maintain >>>>>>control for much longer than that. >>>>> >>>>>The West doesn't have 20 years. >>>> >>>>Says who apart from you? >>> >>>Anybody who can think. >>> >>>> >>>>>What part of "using an atom bomb in a few years" do you not understand? >>>> >>>>They don't have a bomb now nor will they have one in a 'few years'. >>>> >>>>Iran clearly wants one not for offensive use ( that would be insane ) >>> >>>Your assumption is 100% wrong. It will fatal to you. >> >> >> It is interesting that you make the same threats as fundamentalist >> extremists. > > Nope. Fundies say, "We will kill you" while BAH is saying, > "They will kill you". She is saying the beliefs of people in the west will be fatal to [us]. Sounds remarkably like the fundamentalists. They even agree on who will be the instrument of the deaths. Just to be clear, on my PC her post reads "Your assumption is 100% wrong. It will fatal to you." I have mentally inserted the [be] because I thought it was a given. Now if she meant, "your assumption is 100% wrong, the fundamentalists will kill you" why didn't she say that?
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 17:14 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epskis$8qk_005(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Right, apart from the context you snipped, you still seem to think that the police can only act against a foreign national in special cases. In reality, they are only _prevented_ from acting in special cases. Do you not see the difference? Do you still hold to the madness that people from other countries are immune to the laws of the country they are in? Or was that just another blip in your stream of consciousness?
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 17:19 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epskn8$8qk_006(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C0A2F3.91915C3E(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: >>> >> 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. >> >>In exactly what meaningful way is that a loss of 'freedom' ? > > You could not buy what you wanted nor what you needed without > government permission. Another blinding misrepresentation of reality. The "freedom" to buy what you want is always controlled by the market forces. Rationing was not a limit on the freedom to buy what you wanted (choice wise) but a control to ensure that everyone had a fair share of what was available.
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 17:22 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epsl1k$8qk_008(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > 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. Market forces will do that to you all the time. > Freedom involves each individual making choices > and coping with the consequences of those choices. And freedoms only extend as far as they do not impact on other people. Rationing was established to ensure everyone had a fair crack at the whip. Remember, even during rationing, there were still extra things people could spend their money on. The meat coupons did not force people to eat lamb or beef. The dairy coupons did not force them to drink goats milk.
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 17:23
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:epspul$8qk_025(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45C0A3FD.EE76A9C9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>unsettled wrote: >> >>> 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 >> >>FDR agreed to it too. > > Child, FDR was dead and buried. Yalta conference. |