Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 12:17 "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-DC5895.11205006102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx... > In article <eg5o0o$hr$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> In article >> <kurtullman-8C3615.09514505102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, >> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >In article <eg3143$okg$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >> [....] >> >> >> >> On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was >> >> all >> >> over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it. >> > >> > If he did not consistently get interested in OBL about the time >> >Monica was to testify, etc., he might not have heard that as much. >> >> Do you have any proof of either part of that? > > Google the attacks and monica's testimony. Look at the dates. Stare > in wild wonder. OK, so now the Republicans and their supporters claim that 1) Clinton didn't do enough to get bin Laden, because he was busy getting blowjobs, and 2) Clinton did too much to get bin Laden, just to cover up having gotten blowjobs. How's that for consistency in their worldview? Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:16 On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:11:35 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:37:44 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:30:06 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >>>> <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>news:45229733.8D7D0F64(a)hotmail.com... >>>>> >>>>>> Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show >>>>>> me >>>>>> a religious text that*isn't* >>>>>> riddled with contradictions. >>>>> >>>>>They're all really just books of magic spells anyway. >>>> >>>> --- >>>> No, they're not. They're survival manuals. >>>> >>> >>>Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has >>>always impressed me in the survival books. >> >> --- >> No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs. >> Which animals to eat and things like that. >> > >Not very good survival manuals. --- Seems like they've worked, though. ;) --- >Do they tell you how to treat heat stroke? >Do they tell you how to ensure sandflys wont bite? Now that would be cool. --- Different kind of survival... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Kurt Ullman on 6 Oct 2006 12:18 In article <eg5rop$70s$4(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed, > >even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country > >and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed > >up by current law, more or less. > > Which law is that? > Case law. See below. This has been in place at least since my training in the mid-70s. > >If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1, > >then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2, > >because the tap was legal. > > In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no > >requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in > >Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal. > > If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are > >fair game. > > The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though. Which was illustrated by Goomba one and two. As in Mafia type one and two. One side is legal, then what is heard either way is okay. Actually we are talking international wiretapping. Domestic by most definitions remains inside the US. In this case the tapped phone is outside the US. The US phone isn't tapped. But when someone from the tapped phone calls or is called then the conversation is probably legal.
From: Kurt Ullman on 6 Oct 2006 12:23 In article <8kvVg.13919$7I1.2577(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:kurtullman-DC5895.11205006102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx.. > . > > In article <eg5o0o$hr$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > > > >> In article > >> <kurtullman-8C3615.09514505102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > >> Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >In article <eg3143$okg$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > >> > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >> [....] > >> >> > >> >> On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was > >> >> all > >> >> over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it. > >> > > >> > If he did not consistently get interested in OBL about the time > >> >Monica was to testify, etc., he might not have heard that as much. > >> > >> Do you have any proof of either part of that? > > > > Google the attacks and monica's testimony. Look at the dates. Stare > > in wild wonder. > > > OK, so now the Republicans and their supporters claim that > > 1) Clinton didn't do enough to get bin Laden, because he was busy getting > blowjobs, and > 2) Clinton did too much to get bin Laden, just to cover up having gotten > blowjobs. > > How's that for consistency in their worldview? > SOME Republicans do both. Gee the GOP isn't the monolithic Borg-like entity after all. Who'd a thunk it. I am willing to bet there are a couple Dems who actually support the war, too. Go figger.
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 12:22
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:14:07 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:cdfai2hr2cn8dq19nmkpsc2l4kefaktodj(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:35:41 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >John Fields wrote: >>>> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >>>> >> >John Fields wrote: >>>> >> > >>>> >> >> "It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to >>>> >> >> convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by >>>> >> >> Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam. >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Refusal to convert would result in death. >>>> >> > >>>> >> >There is no entity called 'radical Islam'. >>>> >> >>>> >> --- >>>> >> Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'. >>>> >> --- >>>> >> >>>> >> >Who exactly do you mean ? >>>> >> >>>> >> --- >>>> >> The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of >>>> >> your head if you refused to convert. >>>> > >>>> >Let me make this clearer. >>>> > >>>> >Who *exactly* do you mean ? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> What, you want _names_? >>> >>>That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for >>>example. >> >> --- >> Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other >> than American. >> >> For example, I'm sure you'd have no problem with radical white >> American supremacists. well, understanding the concept, that is. >> I'm sure you'd have a very _big_ problem with them otherwise. >> > >I would have no problem with the phrase used properly. Radical Islamic >extremists provide the thrust for the terrorist attacks which this thread is >about. Speaking of Radical Islamic extremists as a single coherent >organisation is wrong. --- Yes, of course. That's why I used white supremacists as an example since they're clearly understood to be fragmented groups, but more or less unified through their ideology. --- >Same with White American Supremacists. I can only assume there are as many, >often disparate, groups as there are in the UK (lots). Islamic terrorist >organisations are often even more fragmented. OK. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer |