Jihad needs scientists

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:57:03 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net>
Gave us:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 09:33:30 -0700, John Larkin
jjSNIPlarkin@highTHISlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 07:07:41 -0700, JoeBloe
joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:



You idiots are representative of NOTHING except killing of civilians
in the most cowardly way there is. You don't even have the spine to
confront your enemies like real men.


In a polygamous theocracy, sending out the young men to be suicide
bombers serves two purposes.

John

Okay, I'm a little slow this morning. What's the second purpose?
I can see where purpose # 1 is to get rid of the excess young
men, by brainwashing them into being suicide bombers, so the
ruthless leaders can have more of the young women to themselves,
but what's purpose #2?

From their POV or ours? We of course say there is no purpose, but
you readily see in the world what they think they are getting. There
are actually entire nations of ill informed societies that have
actually been duped into thinking these extreme bastards have a
righteous cause.

Have you been asleep for the last four decades?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:48:37 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

...are part of
the great Islamic quest for world domination....

What is so great about it?

 

[JoeBloe]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:27:53 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:41t5i2t6cs7srv8lq3nbj33hiuvb8p1ju9@4ax.com...

Now you are a stalker?


Jeez. A remark like that proves that you are a complete idiot.

Going from discussion to trying to find personal identification? Pretty much
the definition.

This is Usenet, dumbass. "Finger" and many other trace utilities
have been around for decades as well as the right to utilize them.

If you were any more clueless, you'd be the definition of
something... RETARDEDNESS.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <yB%Ug.9910$e66.1023@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-9EC767.19185804102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.
In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

Plenty of sweat. Any half-way sentient defense attorney is going
to try and suggest you were acting as an agent of the cops in a rather
blatant attempt to circumvent the rights of my poor, misunderstood
client who killed those 25 people because he overdosed on twinkies.
Might actually make the case. Seen it happen often enough.

What, overdosing on Twinkies? *That* can't be pretty.

There have been a coupla attorneys who tried that defense. Something

about a sugar jag leading to them killing or at seriously injuring
someone. Can't remember right off if it worked or not. Our defense
attorneys are nothin' if not creative.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <Zx0Vg.51549$E67.33109@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:t1v8i21l8kal7h6td3j4nr6gir8t5b26mu@4ax.com...

Sounds strange to me. The people I know have traveled a lot, and many
have lived in other countries. Americans are often fans and admirers
of other countries and languages. As for not being very introspective,
that is true of many Americans, and it's generally a virtue: jobs,
hobbies, interests, causes, and family are a lot more interesting than
narcissistic, neurotic self-absorption. Maybe you are mistaking
politeness and open-mindedness for being gullible: they are different.

Of course America is big, with beaches, glaciers, mountains, rivers,
an enormous variety of geography and cultures. Not all Americans elect
to fly overseas when we have 50 different states of our own to
explore. Your thinking seems to be undisturbed by actual knowledge of
the US.

And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or
Mexico? Or have even left their own state?

Ever watch Jay Leno?

Yep that certainly meets my criteria for a well-done population
study....

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.


Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for
certain key words and phrases.

[snip]

That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.

Yes, that is the case, and Bush claims he does not need a warrant; that he
has the inherent power as C-in-C.

What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.

No, they were monitoring phone calls.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

Have you been in a coma? The issue is warrantless eavesdropping.

...Jim Thompson

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <0h18i21ket4s0m5rkk8gckp0kk4oih33hh@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Wed, 04 Oct 06 14:48:36 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[snip]

Phones (of the domestic type, anyway) aren't tapped without
warrant. Get with the program.


Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve
someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer "listens" for
certain key words and phrases.

[snip]

That's rarely the case, and not without warrant.

What NSA was doing was using computer perusal of telephone _records_,
"To/From" data.

From those suspicious records, taps were authorized by a judge.

YEs, and the foreign "taps" were intercepted calls from
"interesting" foreign numbers. They were not taps on phones.

Not in the old sense of physically connecting something to a phone. The NSA
was intercepting the calls though.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <MPG.1f8dd5b29aa6ac49989d7a@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg0vov$s36$2@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8db882374b5dc7989d6c@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <eg0k2p$e61$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <MPG.1f8d91f2b6b5c0e8989d5f@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
In article <efugkv$4up$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...

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.

John


Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said
no.
Then
he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might
keep
some
prospective EU members out even.

Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in
the matter.

No, Bush claimed the detainees could not sue in US courts and the case
should
be dismissed. The USSC said they could, and heard the case. Not
talking
about the way of trying them; talking about the right to sue.

No, it said that the Bush plan hadn't been authorized by congress,
but that they were free to do so.

---
Keith

No, Bush claimed the court didn't even have the right to hear the case
because they were held outside the US, at Gitmo. The USSC obviously
disagreed, as they heard the case.

They heard the case but the decision was that his plan couldn't go
forward without congressional approval. Pay attention.

The military commissions part. Bush tried to claim Gitmo was outside the
federal courts' jurisdiction. The courts all rejected that.

BTW, the SCotUS is not superior to any other branch, or at least is
not supposed to be. They've been told before "with what army are
you going to enforce your decision".

Oh great, the stupid response.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg0hcc$h85$2@blue.rahul.net...

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

Gordon
Oh great, another stupid response.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article
<kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it.

Bush didn't get warrants!

It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:50:58 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

What's that got to do with it ?

You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't
take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ?

The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible.

Graham

Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration
ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and
ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week
after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date
for any responsibility of the previous presidency?

Gordon

Bush was warned repeatedly OBL was a threat. He ignored them. Read
Woodward's book.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:52:37 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <peb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone
in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)

There are two different things going on here. One is what you can
do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we
were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom or
spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish..

Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

...Jim Thompson

And it can be thrown out.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eg2ouk$8qk_007@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <z3RUg.8422$GR.463@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eftq1i$c8p$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that
perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing
the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem
to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is
given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of
their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a
criticism "unacceptable."

Which criticism was unacceptable?

I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't
think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about
something.

You can't have it both ways.

Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an
argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who
disagrees with you.

The reason I asked for specifics is because I want to know if the
criticism the donkey is talking about is the same one that the
Democrats here are fanning as a reprehensible act. They are
in campaign mode at the moment and are pulling as many dirty
as they can without having to state their position nor be
specific about which actions they will take when elected.

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...


Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people.

I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening
to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would
suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech.

People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush
is always wrong

So what has he been right about?

and is the cause of all ills which is the
only thing you hear from his political opposition.

This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these
same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat
to the nation.

Bush has increased the threat. His own NIE says so.

>/BAH

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

/BAH

Marvel in the quality of life brought by the "honour" mentality - the most toxic
value system in the world!

We see the evil combine of people reacting on the emotional level of a
three-year-old running a full narcissistic fit when denied candy in the
supermarket and real weaponry.

PS:

Never been drinking in small-town bars? On saturday the locals will go for a
fight with any outsider; however; when no outsider is available they will fight
amongst themselves.

Difference is that those boys have the foresight not to bring real weapons to
the saturday night fistfight and be drunk enough to miss most of the blows.

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4524C858.DC579E9F@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and
bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's
his
way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on
what is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

Have you seen this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

No, I hadn't. Interesting thesis. I do hope PBS or BBCAmerica picks up
the
program, I'd like to see it.

It's available online.

And would you believe I didn't bookmark it ! Sorry.

Now that I know to look, I'm sure I can find it. I'm not a huge fan of
streaming video like this, but if it's the only way I'll see it, I will.
Thanks!

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4524C92C.E9CFCE60@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

Well, if you're going to play that ridiculous game...what party was in
office for 12 years before that, and 20 of the past 24? Surely *they*
deserve a lot of the blame too, with such an extended stay in power....

The Republicans need to stop trying to blame everybody else. Condoleeza
Rice said she was unable to recall having had a meeting with the longtime
anti-terrorism "czar" (I can picture his face, but his name escapes me at
the moment) in July 2001, when that meeting has actually been *verified*
to
have taken place, and has been *verified* to have included his plan for
continued action to protect us from al Qaeda. She was so completely
uninterested in terrorism, that she couldn't even remember having been
briefed on the issue. Clinton may not have succeeded in taking out bin
Laden, but it's quite clear that the current administration took their
eye
off the ball in a way that has proven to have been far more dangerous.
To
attempt to lay that entirely in the laps of the Clinton administration is
just simply not tenable.

Eric Lucas

That's Gordon you should be addressing there not me btw.

Yep, I was, sorry not to make that clear. The original post slipped by, and
I wanted to address the issue. Note the jump from 3 to 1 >'s before my
post.

Eric Lucas

 

"Robert Latest" <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4ok19kFf2looU2@individual.net...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:22:41 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <7pq8i2t26e02tutk5nbakmv4jm1rtrg73s@4ax.com

I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level.

Have you seen the recent BBC series, "Extras"? It's as close as it gets
to MP, though entirely different.

That's also on HBO, set in Hollywood, with Ricky Gervais, right? I really
wanted to like it (I love both the US and UK versions of "The Office"), but
sadly it kind of bored me, frankly.

Eric Lucas

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <eg3143$okg$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <0cr8i2p5gcd7asiq8nsdlon8b0m6h69l5a@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[....]
How many times has Clinton pointed and wagged his finger at the media?

(1) "I did not have sex with that woman."

(2) "I _tried_ to get OBL...", just recently interviewed by Chris
Wallace.

Sounds like the sign of the liar to me ;-)

On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was all
over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it.

If he did not consistently get interested in OBL about the time
Monica was to testify, etc., he might not have heard that as much.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <eg32g6$okg$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very
negative effect on us?

Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so
I don't need to respond to this.

For a threat to work it would have to be credible and the Other Side
would have to think that the threat might actually have a high
probability of being carried out. Nukin' Mecca fits neither in the real
world.