Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:57 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4525621B.267B9801(a)hotmail.com... > > > John Fields wrote: > >> Graham was pooh-poohing Gordon's claim that there's a process going >> on to end terrorism, and I was pointing out that Graham has no clue >> about what's being done in secret, just like most of the rest of us. > > You have to be mad to think "anything is going on in secret" except more > stupidity. But you have no way of knowing that. > Why else would the USA be blundering from one failure to the next ? Even the best plans fail.
From: John Fields on 5 Oct 2006 17:55 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:30:49 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:7q78i2110dvqf9s036o5b5i44dtpb316vo(a)4ax.com... > >> What _is_ illegal is establishing a presence here and then using >> that presence to break our laws. > >The internet is not a presence. --- Sigh... You missed the point. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Homer J Simpson on 5 Oct 2006 17:59 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:z8KdnXZUI_tF5rjYRVny2Q(a)pipex.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. You don't seem to have any skill in comprehension whatsoever. All the FISA court requires is that you report what you have done, not what you are going to do. Bush doesn't want to do that because he is as crooked as Nixon.
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 17:59 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:mooai2tjllspa5mmpndi4t6147ojklb5hv(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:11:22 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. Hence >>> >it's moot. >>> >>> --- >>> Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll >>> have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the >>> problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize >>> it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd >>> otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency >>> is _not_ a virtue. >> >>There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of >>force simply >>because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to >>force me to do >>anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) . > > --- > All it takes is one... Well, one to ask. A few more to enforce it. > >>In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first. > > --- > No big deal. You've never heard of martial law? Wasn't that an American action TV programme? Seemed to quite like it as I recall. >>The very concept is insanely stupid. > > --- > Not at all. The implementation may be extremely difficult, but the > concept is already causing terrorist acts to occur there. > Where?
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 17:59
Kurt Ullman wrote: > In article <4525683A.3582AE66(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to be > > done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck. > > > What ought to be done? Why is government better able than the free > market (including the free market of getting donations to support > private research like that done by MDA, St. Judes, etc.) Because Government can prioritise according to need rather than profit. Many recent US drugs are simply replacements for perfectly good older ones so that they can get new patent protection and not because of any actual need for them for example. Graham |