Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 2 Oct 2006 17:50 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:vo13i25nlc8q29kves66frsb06is8rs7no(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:19:12 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> It is a cop-out, but it's not a digression--it's directly on point of >>> one of >>> the bad behaviors of the US government, that has help the terrorist >>> cause. >>> Human civilization has decided in the past that war is to be fought with >>> some semblence of rules, and came up with the Geneva Convention as a way >>> of >>> putting them on paper. This was precisely so that "the rules of war >>> apply >>> to those who themselves apply the rules of war", to prevent world >>> aggressors >>> like Hitler from making up their own rules of combat. The US loses the >>> moral high ground to the terrorists precisely when it chooses to >>> "re-interpret" (a euphemism for "ignore and unilaterally rewrite") the >>> Geneva Convention. By doing so, they have legitimized anybody else who >>> wants to rewrite the rules of the conflict that they find themselves >>> embroiled in--like the radical Islamist terrorists, or the next >>> group/country that decides it doesn't like the behavior of the US >>> government. >> >>And also the USA has refused to sign up to the International Court for >>fear of >>Americans being tried for war crimes ! I wonder why ????? > > --- > Easy. Because as hated as the US is lately, bogus charges would be > made which would require a defense, and who needs the grief? You mean like the bogus charges against many of the hundreds of people now being held in Guantanamo that have had absolutely nothing to do with terrorism? Convenient excuse. Eric Lucas
From: Jim Thompson on 2 Oct 2006 18:01 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:48:34 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote in >message news:qi13i2h1if9jgqkpidmdk6ron9v06o9u6j(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:06 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>> [snip] >> >> You prove my theory... "_inversely_ correlated": high income => low >> rudeness ;-) > >Oops, I didn't read carefully enough. I thought you were explaining why New >York, Boston, Chicago, northern New Jersey (it's essentially all one big >city) and LA were such awful places, since they're all very rich cities. >They are certainly counterexamples of your theory, as read correctly. In >any case, I think there are many major cities in all four of the high/low >income/rudeness quadrants. > >Eric Lucas > But it's probably neighborhood related. Drove up to Columbus from Huntington, very early in the morning, arriving at the Alamo car drop a 1/2 hour before they open, and desperately needing to take a leak, after a 3-1/2 hour drive. The nearby gas station operator, locked in his cage, wouldn't let me use the restroom, even though I bought gas... so I pissed on his door and drove off ;-) Never did get any response from police, Alamo or otherwise, so I don't know if he couldn't see the plate number, or was too afraid to report it ;-) BTW: "Rich" cities don't necessarily make for rich peasants, cab drivers, service people, etc. ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | | | E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat | | http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2006 18:16 On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:10:43 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:05:08 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson >><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> >>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:30:59 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson >>>><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >>>> >>>[snip] >>>>> >>>>>Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer. >>>>>Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything >>>>>negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media. >>>>> >>>>>My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken >>>>>against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up >>>>>they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in >>>>>WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More). >>>> >>>>The only people who should be "rounded up" are people who commit >>>>crimes. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>>There are some provisions in my statement. Since most (if not all) >>>Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we will have to presume that >>>all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists. >> >>If you catch them planting bombs, yes. >> >>> >>>I repeat, "silence implies consent". >>> >> >>Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow. >> >>There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal >>residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the >>engineering definition of zero. >> >>John > >I find it very troubling that CAIR and other Muslim organizations go >out of their way to sidestep questioning whether they favor the >behavior of Islamic terrorists or not. > >"silence implies consent" is INDEED a provision of LAW, but I think it >applies here as well... particularly given the sidestepping :-( > > ...Jim Thompson You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to do. John
From: mmeron on 2 Oct 2006 18:17 In article <qrWdndqvubGlpLzYnZ2dnUVZ8tednZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> writes: > ><mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message >news:jUZTg.9$45.98(a)news.uchicago.edu... >> In article <45205B23.8190A32(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>> >>>mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >>> >>>> The Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society >>> >>>Where did you get that idea ? >>> >> From their own writings. Try to keep informed. > >Which writings are they? > >Which Islamic Terrorist movement are you referring to? Or do you lump them >all in as one? Are you able to see the difference between terrorist >organisations? > >Is the "war" on terror a war against all terrorist organisations or just the >Islamic ones which have targeted the US? > > Answers: 1) See my replies to Graham. 2) All of them. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron(a)cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
From: John Larkin on 2 Oct 2006 18:20
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:43:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:41:22 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> >I repeat, "silence implies consent". >> >> Of course it doesn't, but "consent" remains legal anyhow. >> >> There are millions of Muslims in this country, citizens and legal >> residents, and their rate of participation in terrorism is within the >> engineering definition of zero. > >Silence was once legal under the law AIUI. I guess that's the reason for >those secret prisions and extraordinary rendition..... to get round those >awkward legal niceties. > >Graham The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our military. John |