Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 5 Oct 2006 19:31 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4525955A.F338BBE2(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> > Kurt Ullman wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states? >> >> > >> >> > Since when was that an option ? >> >> >> >> It has always been an option. It will always be an option. >> >> >> >> Is is the option with the highest chance of sucess for those who think >> >> life >> >> is more important than way of life. >> > >> > Who's threatening my way of life aside from the USA ? >> >> The UK government. > > You mean Blair and his Blairites ? You can call them anything you want. They are still the democratically elected government of our country. I suspect the next incumbent of number 10 will not be radically different either.
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:31 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> >> > T Wake wrote: > >> >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London > >> >> >> insurgents > >> >> >> or > >> >> >> terrorists? > >> >> > > >> >> > Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way. > >> >> > >> >> But they were organised. > >> > > >> > An organised group of 5 ? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> Is there a minimum number before you can become organised? > >> > >> Apart from that, who recruited them? Who trained them? Who equipped them? > >> Who encouraged them? > > > > You can't conceive of the idea they did this on their own ? > > Well, yes. I can conceive the idea. > > There were still five of them. That is organised. > > If they did this on their own then it is a worrying sign. Normally you would > hope they had been radicalised by some insane cleric with a grudge against > the US. I am impressed they learned to make home made explosives (HME) > without killing themselves - HME probably killed more IRA bombers than all > the security forces put together. > > I am impressed at their untrained operational security in that they > discussed it with each other an no one else on the planet found out about > it. > > If they did all this on their own, then may be we should be worried. I think that's exactly the point. Graham
From: Kurt Ullman on 5 Oct 2006 19:31 In article <452590E2.F828860(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > > Lobbing missiles > > The targeting was quite precise actually. > Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy. > > > in the general direction (with a forewarning to > > Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that > > "something is being done". > > It's still 100% more than GWB ever did. > Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and exiling him to mountains at the border.
From: lucasea on 5 Oct 2006 19:32 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:LtSdnY4ToMTxEbjYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:TpfVg.8964$GR.4115(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> news:z8KdnXZUI_tF5rjYRVny2Q(a)pipex.net... >>> >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>> news:_kdVg.8930$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. >> >> You better believe it is in this case. > > Why? > > What situation can the intelligence be so vital that the law enforcement > agency know it is going to be said but dont have time to advance request a > warrant? Well, that's the issue. Phone calls aren't something you get much advance warning of. If they see a phone call coming from a suspicious person (a known terrorist, for example) to somebody inside the US, they need to turn on the recording equipment *immediately*, or they *won't* know what was said. It might be a completely innocent phonecall, but the US government has decided (and I do happen to agree with this one) that if ObL calls someone in the US, there is an excellent chance that he's plotting something nasty inside the US. History (at least recent history) has proven that to be a fairly good assumption. And I know this really doesn't mean much to you, but being an independent body, I *do* trust the FISA court to only use the privilege against known terrorists or their associates. >> However, it's provided for in FISA. > > Not really relevant to me, as your country feels it can intercept my > communications at its leisure. Well, yes, there is *that* little unpleasant fact.... Just out of curiosity, what does British law say are your rights as regards British surveillance of this or any other type? Eric Lucas
From: Eeyore on 5 Oct 2006 19:33
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> > T Wake wrote: > >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > >> >> > >> >> > What does the USA get out of it ? Apart from terrorist attacks ? > >> >> > >> >> Well, my personal feeling is that changing your foreign policy as the > >> >> result of terrorist attacks is _always_ wrong. > >> > > >> > You'd be insane to ignore the reasons ! > >> > >> What reasons? > >> > >> If you mean countries should adjust their policy at the whim of bombers > >> then I hope you never run for political office. > > > > Like I said. You'd be insane not to consider the why of it. > > Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean the "why of it?" I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. Why would ppl want to bomb us ? Graham |