Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 18 Oct 2006 10:01 lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > > No, the acts of a lot of people here bother me enough to publicly criticize > them, yet I still want to be "around" them in the context of this > discussion. > > By the way, it is the church leadership of which I am critical. I have many > friends in several of the congregations, and I thoroughly enjoy being around > them, even though I deplore something their church does (that happens to be > illegal.) > > That may be your view--nice black-and-white worldview you've got there. I > don't have that luxury, I see good and bad in everybody and everything. I > get what I want out of the "relationship", and they appear to as well. We > don't have to love everything each other does, but we can certainly > appreciate each other for what we and they are worth. > > Eric Lucas And your world view that allows you to ignore illegal acts somehow makes you non hypocritical? It also makes you an accessory after the fact, and depending on the crime, you could be charged for not reporting it, when it does come under public scrutiny. -- 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: MooseFET on 18 Oct 2006 10:01 mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > In article <1161136120.854490.3840(a)k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: > > > >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> In article <1161093618.810074.46780(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, "MooseFET" <kensmith(a)rahul.net> writes: [....] > >> > > >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > >> >> In article <1161055552.800809.247610(a)m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, " > >> It is the status they grant themselves that matters far more than the > >> status we grant them. > > > >I disagree. At least up until the last several years, the word of the > >US would have counted for a great deal on this subject. What they call > >themselves doesn't matter at all. It is what others consider them that > >matters. If they are considered criminals they will be arrested if > >they are considered freedom fighters they will get aid. > > > In nations and societies which sponsor them and see them as heroes, > they'll not get arrested, in fact they'll get aid, regardless of what > you call them. In those cases, the US gains nothing by calling it a war either. If the US calls it a war, they will be called "freedom fighters" so nothing is gained. In those cases where the US does have some control over public opinion, what the US calls them matters. In those places, calling them criminals is better. > >> And viewing it as pure crime is > >> counterproductive as in the case of crime there is little you can do > >> *until* an even happened, and even then you're pretty much limited to > >> going after the specific peole involved with the event. That's fine > >> for dealing with a lose collection of individuals, not with a vast > >> organization. > > > >In the US there is a law called the RICO statute. I assume that most > >other countries have a law like this too. > > You assume a lot. Yes I do. Am I wrong on this. Doesn't Italy (for example) have a law like this? > > > It makes it a crime to be a > >member of an on going criminal enterprise. Also most countries have > >conspiracy laws that don't require the police to wait for the crime to > >be commited. > > But they require to have evidence that'll stand in court, a > requirement which is fine for dealing with individuals and small > groups, but cannot be satisfied when dealing with global ideological > movement. I don't see why not. If it is a world wide movement with many people involved, there should be even better evidence than if there are just a few people. The more people in a conspiracy the more likely it is someone will talk. > > There are lots of legal tools that can be used without > >calling it "a war". For that matter calling it "a war" doesn't really > >add any new tools. > > > See above. I looked above. I don't see any new tools. What did you have in mind? > It appears to me that you believe that it is not a war unless you call > it so. Would be nice, but it ain't so. No, what I believe is that calling it "a war" is a bad idea. As I said at the start it is granting the other side a status that they should not be granted. > >[....] > >> >Obesity has won. They have taken over. They sell you hambergers and > >> >then little pills to prevent the hambergers from having their natural > >> >effect. > >> > > >> Sure. then we'll get the little pills to counteract the effects of > >> the first little pills, etc. > > > >... and then a operation to repair the damage the second ones caused. > > > Lots of jobs, all around:-) All in all, I'd rather have moden medical stuff be available than not however.
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 10:11 On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:29:36 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> >> >> You are quite correct in that blaming the soldiers directly for their >> >> actions is wrong. The blame rests squarely with the person who wants to >> >> use guns and soldiers against their own people. >> > >> > You could blame the US gun culture too. >> >> I'm not sure I see the connection. The "gun culture" generally refers to >> arms in the hands of civilians. Soldiers and police have guns in just about >> every culture (I can't think of a single counterexample), and it was those >> soldiers' guns that caused the deaths at KSU. > >For comparison it would be very unusual to see guns used in a similar example >here in the UK and our military doesn't come out onto the streets as a rule >either ( most of our police are unarmed of course ). > >Graham The Kent State troops were state National Guards, a part-time quasi-police force that US states keep available for callup in emergencies when there are not enough fulltime cops or emergency workers to handle a crisis. They tend to be very effective for natural disasters, floods and blizzards and earthquakes. This is essentially a civilian militia that trains a few weeks a year, aka "weekend warriors." They are under control of state governors but can also be activated by the Federal government in times of national need. Do you have anything like that? John
From: John Larkin on 18 Oct 2006 10:15 On Wed, 18 Oct 06 11:51:42 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <e9ednZ8s0K3l2ajYRVnyuA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:4535424A.C08609A3(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > Certainly a lot of the details of Darwin's theories have been subject >>>> > to >>>> > question and modification over the years. What has not changed is the >>>> > basic idea of evolution. >>>> >>>> Very true. There is a conflict of terminology and if the people on the >>>> radio >>>> show were talking about "Darwin's theories" specifically they are a bit >>>> behind the curve. Modern evolutionary theory has progressed beyond the >>>> specifics Darwin described. >>> >>> I've noticed that there is now a common tendency for those who reckon they >>> know >>> better to dismiss such things as 'just theories' as if that meant they had >>> no >>> vailidity ! >> >> >>I love that phrase "just theories." It really makes me smile when some >>creationist goes on about how "evolution is just a theory." >> >>Like Newtonian Gravity isn't "just" a theory. :-) > >Yes. It is just a theory. It is the human race's best >guess at how nature and its laws work. It's a pretty good theory but ignores relativistic effects. It's quantitatively precise in most practical situations, but not all situations, so it is indeed flawed, and not a "best guess." John
From: Eeyore on 18 Oct 2006 10:59
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >> David Bostwick wrote: > >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>> > >>> >McVeigh was a part of the radical Christian right. The IRA was Catholic > >>> >fighting Protestants (and Protestants fought back). > >>> > >>> And the guy who killed the Amish kids was what? > >> > >> Mad presumably. > > > >And just because not all bad acts are caused by religious radicals doesn't > >mean that no bad acts are caused by religious radicals. > > > >Still, there is a far more important (non-violent) sense in which religious > >(mostly Christian) radicals are a danger to the US. > > Then start choosing Democrats who are willing to deal with reality. Maybe you need to understand what reality means first ? You're living in a fantasy world. Graham |