Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 3 Oct 2006 15:51 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would still > >> be hostile. > > > > The timescale doesn't fit with that idea. > > Prior to the "GWOT" GWOT ? > the hardliners were still strongly advocating armed > conflict. Following the Declaration of War on Nebulous Concepts, Sinn Fein > pulled out all the stops to turn peaceful. The emergence (and rise in > activity) of splinter groups also supports this change. > > However, this is nothing but a personal opinion so I may be wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement Was the major turning point. Graham
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 15:52 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522A0F5.F7D9C53F(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would >> > still >> > be hostile. Since the Americans had to institute a "War on Terror" it >> > forced the hard liners to re-invent themselves. Not to mention the >> > majority of the IRA training and equipment came from Islamic terrorist >> > organisations..... (A significant minority came direct from the US....) >> >> Interesting connection--and it now starts to be a little clearer why the >> UK >> has been the one supporter that has stood by the US since 9/11. > > That's simply down to Blair. It's made him shockingly unpopular here and > if he > was to stay as PM he'd make Labour almost un-re-electable. I very much doubt any UK government would have failed to keep step with the US. Despite their current protestations, the other political parties were largely behind the conflicts. >> By the way, >> I had been unaware of the connections between Middle Eastern terrorists >> and >> NI, but I guess it doesn't surprise me. > > It was Gaddafi who sent the IRA arms. Amongst others. Gaddafi was fundamentally nothing more than a middle man. Libya had no centralised manufacturing capability. Libya did provide most of the training grounds for European Marxist / Catholic terrorists though.
From: T Wake on 3 Oct 2006 15:53 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45229C68.148DC1AD(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by >> the west. > > Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.
From: Homer J Simpson on 3 Oct 2006 15:54 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4522B7B5.1811FA67(a)hotmail.com... >> Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those >> people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held >> elsewhere. > > So you can 'get round the rules'. That's so reassuring to know. So the > rules have > effectively been flushed down the toilet for anyone you don't much care > for. Yes. As I said, not the 'right sort of people'.
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2006 15:57
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:19:17 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote: >> >"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote >> > >> >> Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times >> >> it says "citizens." >> > >> >SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come >> >to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in >> >the US would you? >> >> Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those >> people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held >> elsewhere. > >So you can 'get round the rules'. That's so reassuring to know. So the rules have >effectively been flushed down the toilet for anyone yoy don't much care for. > >Graham No, the issue is that you don't approve of the rules. John |