Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 8 Oct 2006 06:40 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:egagl2$8ss_007(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eg5eir$8qk_010(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <4526343A.24C8CC03(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people >>>> >>>>Cite ? >>> >>> I don't have one since I can't access the web. >> >>That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it, >>so >>others can try to verify? > > The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that > news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs > who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million > Americans would have to die to make things equal. I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US government policy.
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 05:41 In article <XIZVg.9862$vJ2.9716(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Ken Smith" <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote in message >news:eg9fi9$ba4$3(a)blue.rahul.net... >> >> Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed >> them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random. > > >And some people still can't grok the fact that the Muslim world might be >just a tad justified in being more than a little pissed off at this. It's >too bad that several of the people who haven't caught on to that are those >designing and implementing US foreign policy. So what excuse do give for the previous bombing? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 05:48 In article <eg6464$fjf$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article ><kurtullman-4CDB3C.12183406102006(a)customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>, > Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>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. > >There isn't "tapping" anyway. The NSA monitors phone calls. ALL phone calls. > Computers flag those with certain words or phrases, or certain voices, or >certain locales, etc. But we have no way of knowing which things cause calls >to get flagged, nor do we have any assurance nobody is looking at the others. I wonder how many MIPS it would take to do all that you specify above. > >That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of >weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal). The whole program or is this your conclusion? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 06:08 In article <GWTVg.69$45.157(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <eg827f$8qk_004(a)s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <5dfVg.62$45.46(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>In article <eg2paa$8qk_011(a)s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>>>In article <PsRUg.57$45.150(a)news.uchicago.edu>, >>>> mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >>>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes: >>>>>>> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that >>>>>>> >> historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the >>>>>>> >> population is *dead*. Does this make it clear? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I >>>>>>> pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with >>>>>>> history if you don't like it. >>>>>> >>>>>>But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ? >>>>>> >>>>>>Graham >>>>>> >>>>>Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need. >>>> >>>>The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that >>>>the extremists are already doing this to themselves. >>>> >>>It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee >>>of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side >>>from "dubious elements". >> >>This is premature viewing and we won't know until 10-80 years from >>now but... >> >>It seems like they are not purifying but self-emolating. > >Bah, you need some sense of scale. Yes, I know I have problems with that. > Check out how many Russians were >eliminated by Stalin, and how many Chinese by Mao. No, they're most >certainly ***not*** self-emolating. They're "cleaning the ranks". And in Russia, a very pissed off army was digging the potato crop 30 years later. I haven't read enough about China yet. > >> Isn't there a difference? This self-emolation as part of their >>ritual practice is what seems odd. > >There is nothing to seem odd, since they're not doing it. Right. They are not doing it now. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Oct 2006 06:14
In article <GtidnRHJ2eFoSbXYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egafn9$8ss_004(a)s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <eg5ts4$70s$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>In article <eg58fu$8ss_015(a)s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364(a)newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> <snip> >> >>>>>>> People start to lose perspective on what >>>>>>>is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic. >>>>>> >>>>>> People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush >>>>>> is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the >>>>>> only thing you hear from his political opposition. >>>>> >>>>>I don't. I evaluate critically. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these >>>>>> same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat >>>>>> to the nation. >>>>> >>>>>Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"? >>>> >>>>They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership >>>>replies with, "Trust me." >>> >>>Anything is better than "stay the course." >> >> So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is >> better? > >Are there only two options? From the p.o.v. of the extremists, yes. /BAH |