Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 10 Oct 2006 10:46 In article <egdtg3$86h$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu says... > In article <MPG.1f917c9ace8a03fe989a1c(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <eg6464$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. Did you read it? What a stinking pile of political garbage. Note that judges are *not* supposed to be political. > >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). > > > No comment? -- Keith
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Oct 2006 10:59 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > In article <452B8438.3468BE7B(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > >> In article <kmnki2t5q21v3q4unpq99qqsner3pu6mhr(a)4ax.com>, > >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> >On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> > > >> >>If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it > >> >>doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it > >> >>is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can > >> >>get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him. > >> >>This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that, > >> >>there is no other option available to you for getting > >> >>the apple you want. > >> > > >> >Just go to another store! That's what I do. > >> > >> There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other > >> stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. > >> competition, is allowed. > >> > >> /BAH > > > > > > I would do the same thing I do right now. If I can't find what I > >want, I don't buy anything. I walk out of a lot of stores, empty handed > >because what I came for wasn't in stock. As far as apples go, I haven't > >seen one fit to eat in four months, so its been that long since I've had > >one. > > Yea, I know. There was something weird about the apple market > this year. Macs just got stocked two weeks ago. > > > A dollar a pound for apples the size of a large chicken egg? > >Forget it! There isn't enough to take two good bites, so someone else > >can buy them. > > My tree produced apples the size of crabapples this year. There > was something odd about this year's apple crop. Tomatoes seemed > to stay unusually small but we haven't figured out if it's the > seed or the season; have to wait until next year to test that. > > Now, what if the item you want to acquire is a continuation of your > life style? The only store won't allow it and destroys anything > that has the taint of that life style? > > Now what do you do? > > /BAH Destroy my lifestyle? That's almost funny. I live a very simple life since I am 100% disabled. My "Lifestyle" is one of basic survival. I don't want fancy foods (That I can't eat anyway), I don't want expensive booze, because I don't drink. My truck is 19 years old, My TV is seven years old, and this computer was assembled from a half dozen junkers. If the stores drop what I "NEED", they will be closing their doors for good, anyway. I have lived most of my life with the attitude that if I couldn't fix it, i didn't need it, If I didn't have cash, I didn't buy it. I've NEVER had a credit card, and I don't want any. Do you have another house of cards waiting to fall? -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Oct 2006 11:01 Daniel Mandic wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > Its a good thing for England that the demented donkey doesn't > > believe North Korea's missiles and warheads are any threat. > > Just to your troops, stationed up and down there. :-( > Nuclear seems the only way to get rid of their faint blackout, caused > by your permanent pressure there. Shame on you! > > For this North-Korea invasion you get a -5 from me! > > Best Regards, > > Daniel Mandic I have no troops, and I've never invaded North Korea. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Ken Smith on 10 Oct 2006 11:14 In article <krBWg.7$25.142(a)news.uchicago.edu>, <mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote: >In article <egdvtv$31b$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) writes: [....] >>It cerrtainly could not have been done before the warning was given. The >>warning was IIRC very short notice. > >The missilles had to fly over at least 4-500 miles of Pakistani >territory. That's close to an hour at Tomahawk speed. And, the >warning had to be issued before they crossed the Pakistani border. >So, at a modest estimate, the warning had to be at least an hour >before impact. Plenty of itme. I agree with the estimated number but dispute the conclusion for the reasons I suggested below. > >> The Pakistani inteligence called the >>ISI is well know to be infiltrated. This means that some members not all >>members are working for the other side. The warning went not to the ISI >>but to the government. If would then have to travel through the >>government to the ISI and then within the ISI to a corrupt person who >>would then have to have OBL's number on speed dial. It is very likely >>that Musharraf knowing that the ISI is infiltrated would delay telling >>them of the warning until after the missiles have reached the target. >> >the time we're talking about is before 9/11, thus before Musharraf >became an ally in the war on terror. In fact, the US-Pakistani >relations were far from friendly at that time. Thus, no reason to expect >Musharraf to be especially cooperative in this respect (and plenty of >reasons to expect otherwise). And, it wasn't only the ISI that was >infiltrated at that time. Musharraf and his buddies are "secular thugs". OBL is a religious nut case and an enemy of Musharraf. There is no reason to believe that Musharraf would help OBL unless he felt he had something to gain and every reason to think he would be happy at his misfortune. Musharraf and those near him are the ones that control the military. The word would not have had to go to folks like the ISI. [...] >If he was there *and* if he wouldn't get any warning (and a warning >even 5 minutes prior to impact would've been sufficient), which, as I >wrote, was a hell of a lot to expect. In fact, you've no way to know >that he wasn't there and didn't get a warning, you don't really think >he would announce something like this, do you? I personally wasn't there but it has been reported that he changed his plans and didn't go. Since these reports have not been rebutted, I take it as likely that that is what happened. >>No. This is simply false. If someone shot down Airforce One who thought >>the president was on it it would be a very serious effort to kill the >>president. That person would not need to have a person on Airforce One >>for it to be considered serious. If someone blew up the White House >>thinking the president was there it would be serious. If someone blew up >>a farm house in Idaho thinking the president was there, it would be >>serious. now s/president/OBL/ > >Sorry, not in this case. People involved in clandestine operations >are known to change their schedules often and unpredictably and just >being told that "he's expected to be there at such and such date" is >not something to base a serious operation on. I disagree. The inteligence the US had was that he would be there and meeting with others who supported him. The US president actually changes his plans a lot and there are decoys used to try to confuse those who may want to cause him harm. I hardly think that you would call blowing up a decoy limo "not serious". >>> We're not talking about devices >>>with great destructive range here, it was enough for him to go a >>>quarter mile away from the perimeter, for whatever reason, to be safe. >> >>He was planning to be inside the building that got blown up. He would >>have been very dead if he had stuck to his plans. > >And why should you expect him to stick to his plans. Read above. >People in his branch of activity do not stay alive long by sticking to >schedules. Why should we expect the president to stick to his plans? At that time OBL was not as careful as he is today (assumeing he is alive) There were several others meeting him at that site. > >>From: >>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html >>*** >>CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and >>fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in >>the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were >>priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace >>process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the >>priority of that administration. >>*** > >Which positively proves that this is what Clarke said. And that's all >it proves. Actually it doesn't even prove that Clarke said it. There could be a vast conspiracy to make it appear that things were done. > Somehow, with all this "high priority" not much was done. Not much that you know of that is. >Now, get out of this defensive crouch, I'm *not* trying to blame >anything specific on Clinton here, No, you are trying to say that he did not make a "serious effort". I said he did, or at least his effort was far more serious that GWB's. > the facts of the matter are that, >first, Islamic extremism started way earlier than this, Yes. > second, >Bin Laden was just one of the figures involved Kind of. He was a very-very rich figure with a lot of followers. > and third, nobody in >the West, regardless of political orientation, was taking the issue as >to be more than "nuissance". I disagree. "nobody" is way to broad of a term here. There were those who were very serious about the issue. > it was something of sufficient priority >to deal with only to the extent that it could be done without >straining any diplomatic relations, offending any people, ruffling any >feathers etc. It took 9/11 to change the priority rating (and even >this just for some people, not all). (I fixed the "adn") Actually diplomatic relations did get strained just not in a major way. [...] >>If the republicans are left in charge the "war" will be eternal. So far >>all they have done is made things a lot worse. If the demo
From: John Larkin on 10 Oct 2006 11:27
On Tue, 10 Oct 06 10:03:13 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <kmnki2t5q21v3q4unpq99qqsner3pu6mhr(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>On Mon, 09 Oct 06 10:36:40 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>If your grocery store carries only one kind of apple, it >>>doesn't matter how many other vareities you want if it >>>is the only store carrying apples. The only way you can >>>get him to carry the variety you want is to convince him. >>>This is called changing his mindset. Until you do that, >>>there is no other option available to you for getting >>>the apple you want. >> >>Just go to another store! That's what I do. > >There aren't any other stores. There won't be any other >stores. You are assuming that capitalism, a.k.a. >competition, is allowed. > >/BAH There's always competition. In a free-market economy, we call it competition; in a communist economy, they call it corruption. Cuba, for instance, has a mostly corruption-driven economy, much as the USSR had. People are pretty much people. John |