Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 17:37 On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:36:01 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:opa7i290tdd070i0c5tfhl8d8m6hdv0859(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:10:21 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:ev83i29p6vq1ugjnin0vbeqlvgeag7fobc(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:40 +0100, Eeyore >>>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>John Fields wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:11:54 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>> >> In article <4520C55D.7B2F988C(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >You need to do some reading. OBL for example. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I'm doing my reading. It is your reading that appears quite >>>>>> >> superficial. Try following memri.org for a while, and that's just >>>>>> >> for >>>>>> >> starters. >>>>>> > >>>>>> >I see they mention the Muslim Brotherhood. They're the ppl you really >>>>>> >should be scared about. Not >Islam >>>>>> generally. >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> Probably _you_ should be afraid. I don't think they've forgotten >>>>>> the Crusades yet. >>>>> >>>>>Afraid of what exactly ? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> Convert or die. >>>> >>> >>>Which is most important to you, your life or your way of life? >> >> --- >> Interesting question. >> >> For me, it would depend on the situation. > >Really? I dont see how. --- Well, nothing is always black and white, so it would depend on the situation when the time came to make the choice. After all, converting to a religion under duress isn't actually like embracing it, it's just doing whatever has to be done to make sure you stay alive so you can fight later on. --- >> Ultimately, though, >> without life I'd have _no_ way of life, so I think clinging to life >> would win out. >> > >Then convert to Islam and live the rest of your life happy and peaceful. --- Who says so? My plan would be to convert so that I could work against Islam from the inside. After all, the thinking behind "convert or die" doesn't come from a philosophy I can abide, but if I refused I'd have no way to try to cause its downfall. --- >The way I see it, everyone dies in the end. --- Yeah, but you don't have to throw away what you have left for no reason but to spite someone. --- >All I can do is try to ensure >those who live after me have the chances, freedoms and rights that I have >enjoyed. If I die sooner rather than later it makes no big difference in the >grand picture of things. --- You don't know that. If you die sooner than later you might miss a grand opportunity, working underground, to pass on to those following you a chance at self-determination. --- >Isn't the saying something along the lines of "The man who sacrifices >freedom for life deserves neither and will have neither"? (or words to that >effect). --- It's more like "They who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." and it's attributed to Benjamin Franklin. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:40 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:_kdVg.8930$GR.1926(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95(a)News.Individual.NET... >> Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a >> "certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can >> call a FISA judge. > > No, nice try at a strawman, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying > and what is provided for in FISA. Strawman or not, the time sensitive nature of the intelligence still is not a strong enough argument for most cases.
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 17:42 In article <XfadnZaf6qZr57jYRVnytw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:kurtullman-AA4E60.15244905102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. > . > > In article <KsmdncSVMpRtxLjYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, > > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > There are two different things going on here. One is what you can > >> > do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we > >> > were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or > >> > spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish.. > >> > >> Doesn't make it "right." > > > > Makes it legal. To paraphrase Shark on CBS.. "Right is God's > > problem." > > Well, maybe. However, injust laws are still injust. But injust is subjective. I find it sorta hard to believe that your definition of an unjust law and mine is going to be congruent that often. Doesn't make you wrong and me right (well actually as far as I am concerned it does, but again is subjective).
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:43 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452577A5.25EF607(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> In the UK when a nutcase kills someone, the press hound social services >> ("How could you let this happen") and inevitably some poor functionary >> will >> get sacked as a scapegoat. However, the reality of the matter is the >> nutter >> was the bad person and the _only_ person to blame. > > Actually, in the case of UK social services I can readily believe that > policy > was to blame in fact. Really? The policy made the madman kill people? Wow. I never realised that.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:46
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:452565DF.1A59CA19(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote >> >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >> Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an >> >> argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who >> >> disagrees with you. >> > >> >Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too. >> >> --- >> If the parallel is valid, expect to hear someone knocking on your >> door because of your antics here. > > Thankfully, the UK isn't yet run by a bunch of crooks like the USA is. "yet" being emphasised. (IMHO) |