Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:30 In article <MPG.1f917c9ace8a03fe989a1c(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <eg6464$fjf$15(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu >says... >> 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. >> >> That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of >> weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal). >> >The judge's decision was an embarrassment (written by Al Franken?). Yeah, like the 4th amendment. >Even the leftie loons are saying the decision doesn't stand a >chance in hell of surviving (the reason the appellate court shelved >the opinion). >
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:31 In article <MPG.1f91802ac508385f989a1d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <SgvVg.13917$7I1.3691(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... >> >> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and >> >> >> mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats. >> >> >> >> >> >> /BAH >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news. >> >> >> >> All politics is local. The subject we were talking about >> >> is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning >> >> for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet >> >> with their voters, they don't have to describe what they >> >> are going to do about the national threat. The one running >> >> for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor >> >> didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he >> >> leaves the meeting. >> >> >> >> It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our >> >> national security. >> >> Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a message >> to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of >> sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your political >> opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with the >> political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary >> might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't learn >> to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on our >> worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies. > >Have you noticed that the page in question is over 18. Did CBS >news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to >light You're lying. >won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how >they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a >Republican perv. Yeah, it's Clinton's fault!
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:32 In article <05cii2p4fh1u08166gal2omfh5t8tasdc1(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:37:07 -0400, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >>Nice _guesses_, but how is that relevant? How many died in car >>accidents? How many from cancer? How is throwing Foley in the can >>(which is where he should be) help your 88,000? > >I don't think Foley actually commited a crime. Apparently he >text-messaged some former House pages who were over the age of >consent. 16? >Compare that to, say, the Barney Frank or Gerry Studds cases. And Crane. Same time as Studds. But a Republican -- why don't you ever mention him too? > >He should certainly resign from the House for proven stupidity, which >he promptly did. > >http://www.humanevents.com/lists.php?id=17357 > >John > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:35 In article <8m9ii2pbii7llkcrbofdfunqtlpniaujk7(a)4ax.com>, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:05:49 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:u37ii25hvicshf5oncuffs4olfd576thp9(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 15:08:27 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:bgrhi2dri7ejkovr8e8ojll00s0ums6i86(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake" >>>>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"joseph2k" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... >>>>> >>>>>>> I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts >>>>>>> demonstrated. >>>>>>> Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the >>>>>>> refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment. >>>>>> >>>>>>False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response. >>>>>> >>>>>>A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is, >>>>> for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the >>>>> water when threatened by an aircraft. >>>> >>>>Was the ship in question unable to move or is this hypothetical? >>> >>> --- >>> The speed at which a ship can move when confronted by a threat from >>> an aircraft is so small as to effectively render the ship a sitting >>> duck. >> >>In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking >>these are not mounted on passenger aircraft. > >--- >And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from >their flight paths and do respond when contacted by the military. It was in a commercial flight path. And the pilot had no way of knowing the ship was calling HIS plane. > >To not do so _is_ madness. >--- > >>When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit. > >--- >Why assume bombs will be the weapons? >--- > >>The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system >>themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter. > >--- >It's a no-brainer. Mechanically I can easily do it in MFS if I'm >not geing shot at, But, why assume that's the plan? Issue warnings >and if they're not obeyed... >--- > >>The fact that the WTC counter-example is getting stretched further and >>further makes me think it was, indeed, a very poor counter example. >> >>>>While a nation owes a duty of care to its service personell, in the West >>>>we >>>>have volunteer armed forces. People who take the job know that they are >>>>more >>>>at risk than civilians and either accept it or leave. >>>> >>>>The people in the WTC did not have that option and what happened to them >>>>was >>>>a terrible attrocity. >>>> >>>>The people in the Iran Air plane did not have that option and what >>>>happened >>>>to them was a terrible attrocity. >>> >>> --- >>> In the case of 9/11, the actions against the WTC were premeditated >>> by terrorists for no reason but to hurt America, were well planned >>> over a long period of time, were well executed, and resulted in a >>> terrible atrocity. >>> >>> In the case of the Vincennes, a threat was perceived, one or more >>> warnings was issued, the warnings were apparently ignored, and the >>> aircraft was destroyed in order to eliminate the perceived threat. >>> A tragic accident, but not an atrocity. >> >>Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who lives >>in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident. >> >>Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology? > >--- >No, and it wasn't his job to. If there was any apology to be made >it would probably have come from the State Department or the >President. I believe no apology was issued (although statements of >deep regret were made: > http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~nrotc/ns302/20note.html
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Oct 2006 08:40
In article <qkmii2dl5ch9ubkvk3ucdkqkirq0ajks8i(a)4ax.com>, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:40:14 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:qm9gi297oamqd9flmtc4291edbfh6k9e2n(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>> I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine >>>>> your >>>>> assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what >>>>> political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the >>>>> other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are >>>>> the >>>>> future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble. >>>>> >>>>> Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with >>>>> actual >>>>> mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing >>>>> claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying >>>>> it to >>>>> all of Muslim society. >>>> >>>>The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as >>>>traitorous >>>>in the USA. >>> >>> --- >>> Really? >>> >>> Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your >>> Ameriphobia? >> >>Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more? >> > >You are accusing people of saying things, without citations, and then >wailing about how bad they are to say them. How clever of you. > >John > Bush: President Bush continued his attack on Democrats for "selectively" quoting an intelligence report, claiming that their "argument buys into the enemy's propaganda." Bush said of the Democratic leadership: "It sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again." |