Jihad needs scientists

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <M9cVg.51605$E67.30466@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8eed7cb4eb544d989d8b@News.Individual.NET...

Where did the current terrorism financing and materials come
from?

From the USA (oil). Unlike most every other conflict, the US is paying
for
both sides in this one.

...and only the USA buys middle east oil? You are as ignorant as
the stuffed donkey.

Right. Sure. If the US wasn't importing oil to feed its ridiculous fleet of
inefficient cars what would happen to world prices and hence the flow of
money to the Middle East?

Not much since it would largely be gobbled by China and India
among others.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <M9cVg.51606$E67.12337@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-996235.13594705102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.

Bill looked for volunteers.

Of course he did. Of course all the "volunteers" from Little Rock
forward were employees of whereever he was working at the time.
Haven't seen anything that indicates rape or perjury, yet.

So? He asked, they said no, he moved on. Did Gennifer Flowers say it was
coercion?
Ahh yeah. That is the whole idea behind a sexual harrassment suit.

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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!

I've just been reviewing it and it makes more sense than ever.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares
http://www.oneplanetonenation.com/ponightmares1.html

You should aslo see Salam Pax's ( the Baghdad blogger ) blogs.

I'll post a link to that too later.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Robert Latest" <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote in message
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

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.

It doesn't cut it for me either.

Much modern 'humour' falls flat on its face to my way of thinking. It's mainly
rather boring and unoriginal.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-2ACD69.18550504102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <adKdneADy_ehrbnYRVnyiQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.

He is civilian not a cop. BIG difference.

Really? So that makes it Ok then.

The implication of the post was it would be OK for him to do these things to
other people because there were sufficient loopholes that he would not be in
trouble. If you feel this is not the case of a loop hole which circumvents
civil liberties then fine.

People have a right to respect others liberties - not just law enforcement
officials.

It may be different in your country.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <yecVg.8912$GR.1933@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case, the scenario that Jim presented is
immaterial. It is still a private citizen behaving as a private citizen.
Now, if the government were to come to that citizen and say "please tap your
phone when you call X", it would be thrown out in most courts in the US,
since that person would be interpreted as working as an ad hoc agent of the
government.
That can be very dependent on the law in the particular state. In

those states where the law says that as long as one person consents to
taping a phone conversation, then it may get through even under those
circumstances. The equivalent of if I am informant and I get a cop into
a meeting somewhere, then you can't say the cop needed a warrant to
enter the premises later.
In others, where the requirement is both, then it is more likely to
get thrown out. Most cops and DAs I know woudn't suggest that to a
person just because it easier to get the warrant than it is to argue it
under other circumstances.

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-5311CC.18523604102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

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..

Doesn't make it "right."

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc

It's a *distorted* version of their 'belief system' that does that. Don't
blame Islam.

Graham

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef43ad604286c989d8f@News.Individual.NET...
In article <nnWUg.13331$7I1.12003@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hc38i2pmri56a6s84fsnmnklt06aihsves@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote

I don't think Clinton was a very good moral example, but then
again, there
are lots of things that are worse than getting an adulterous
blowjob at
work

Carter sold arms to the Indonesians so they could massacre the East
Timorese. Compared to that a blowjob is nothing.

Heck, even the UK sold arms to the Idonesians. Jet fighters in fact.

That the US public could get so worked up over a minor sexual
indiscretion yet
not give a damn about killing tens of thousands of foreigners is very
telling
and a very depressing comment on the state of US society.

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

That's rich. Democratic idiocies (Clinton's inappropriate sexual
relations
in office) are the Democrats' fault, but Republican idiocies (attempting
to
smear and impeach Clinton over something so ridiculously small) are the
fault of the press.

Rape, perjury, suborning perjury, are "ridiculously small" charges

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Compared to the meaningless killing of over a hundred thousand civilians for
no good reason? I'd say so.

Eric Lucas

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <mgcVg.8914$GR.6106@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at
least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to
reach the stated endpoint. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

And again, I'll ask, is there nothing in your worldview but "nuke 'em all"
and "capitulate". Must really suck to live in such a black-and-white world.

You suggested that we stop giving them reasons to hate us. From their

own rhetoric and statements, the only way we are going to get that
subset that hates to stop is to capitulate. Period. There is plenty in
my world view between the two, but I have seen nothin' to indicate there
is anything else in THEIR world view. I don't want to nuke 'em all.
Just light up those who are actively trying to kill me.

 

[T Wake]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef4cf73c0df1e989d90@News.Individual.NET...

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

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET...
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.

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.

Your "demands" are silly. When the other end of the line is in a
mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_
that your call be intercepted. Your "Constitutional rights" have
nothing to do with it.

And that isn't a silly demand? In order to protect _your_ life you will
violate the rights and freedom of others.

Wonderful approach.

 

[Eeyore]

Kurt Ullman wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual
physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is
nothing to indicate that either happened.

I could say there's no smoke without fire but that would be disingenous of
me.

Nevertheless, that kind of standard of proof is currently being used in the
'war on terror' to justify killing ppl !

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:07:36 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <M9cVg.51603$E67.40698@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-25F347.08023505102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.

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....

Jay Leno: "Which two countries border the United States?"

Girl on the Street: "Ummm, errr, ahhh, Europe and ummm, Paris?"

Yep, that's an American all right. Like those who think Alaska is an island.

Yep I am impressed how one girl on the street can then be reliably
used as an exemplar for 300 million or so people. When do you go to
Norway?

We're not expected to be at 300 million until next week ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:54:30 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3oc7i2hc14krufblrpvgq9cstc115lq4i7@4ax.com...
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:29 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:61u2i2pirp98lghk6samgbgfq4f9ria646@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out
the
hate word the very second even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your
governmemnt and the ppl who elected them.


and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !


So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little
doubt that Russia would have eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia,
the numbers simply aren't even remotely
credible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?

And that isn't Monday morning quarterbacking?

---
No, it's merely conjecture. A Monday morning quarterback is one who
criticizes or passes judgment from a position of hindsight. Notice
that it was posed as a question, which offers room for a reply.


It was posed as a loaded question - even sentences offer room for reply. The
person can simply disagree. Your post was, by the implied answer, passing
judgement from a position of hindsight.

If it was an honest question, then sorry for jumping to a conclusion and
"Yes" is the only answer. Even in poor, constantly invaded Poland, Polish
was their first language. Your implication that Russian would take the place
of English is not supported by history.

---
My reference to not speaking English as a first language was a
euphemism for being conquered, which was related to an earlier post
by Graham stating that had the US not become involved in WW2,
England and Germany might have teamed up to fight Russia after
Germany double-crossed Russia. In my opinion that would have been
suicide for England, as depleted as it would have been, when Russia
came rolling in to get Germany.

So yes, the question was loaded, but it wasn't Monday morning
quarterbacking. Monday morning quarterbacking would have been more
like: "If only Germany had done thus and such, she would have won."


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <ilcVg.51612$E67.1830@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-778428.14283305102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.

But running a prostitution ring out of your house is generally
frowned upon outside of certain circles.

And yet the prostitutes in charge of the White House act with impunity and
compete scorn for the law.

One of the weakest attempts at deflecting a statement that I have
seen in awhile. You wanna mulligan to see if you can do better.

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef4cf73c0df1e989d90@News.Individual.NET...

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

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd485be8e903f989d78@News.Individual.NET...
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.

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.

Your "demands" are silly.

My demand that the Constitution not be thrown out in order to combat
something that's 1000X less dangerous than driving an automobile is silly?
I'm really starting to fear for the future of this country. You are
*exactly* who Ben Franklin was talking to when he said "He who gives up
freedom for security deserves neither."

When the other end of the line is in a
mosque in Iran (number captured on a &bad_guy's_laptop), I _demand_
that your call be intercepted.

While such a call would never happen, if it did, I would be happy to have it
intercepted, as long as it was done consistent with the provisions of the
4th Amendment. It's called "Due Process". Learn it...know it...live it.

Your "Constitutional rights" have nothing to do with it.

So, does that mean *I* get to take away whichever of *your* Constitutional
rights that I see fit? Or were you just doing that to support an untenable
position?

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef65cbe85b44c989d94@News.Individual.NET...

In article <mOqdnZ3atv90gbnYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd1a463fccb53989d76@News.Individual.NET...
In article <IjTUg.51404$E67.14436@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db6b8105f0bb9989d69@News.Individual.NET...

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

How would you ever know?

*You*don't know, so you assume thay are. Your tinfoil hat is
slipping.


You _don't_ know so you assume they aren't.

I've never been to the moon either, but I assume its not made of
green cheese. If you have proof otherwise, I'll listen.

You are purporting an argument based on a pure logical fallacy and backing
it up with an appeal to ridicule to dismiss criticism.

Well done.

You have made an assumption which is different to some one else. You dismiss
their assumption because it is an assumption and you demand _your_
assumption be treated as more valid.

As I said, well done. Your debating skills are second to none.

Interesting stand off. Have to hope the oversight committees have the
same
level of constitutional values you do, but even if they don't you will
never
know so the stand off continues.

You're an idiot.

I've been called one enough times it must be true. Doesn't mean anything I
said was wrong and as you seem to have no other argument to defend your
opposition position, can I assume I was correct here?

You have no idea what my "Constitutional values"
are.

Nope but I had given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed yours were in
keeping with the mainstream. I now see by your response that you feel your
"opinion" is more important and valid than anyone elses. I will reconsider
my assessment of your values.

 

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef5524ba0ae25989d91@News.Individual.NET...

In article <eg32hc$5l0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
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!

Not needed for foreign intelligence.

When listening to phone calls, of which one party is in the US, of course
they are.

Eric Lucas

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <KsmdncSVMpRtxLjYRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

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..

Doesn't make it "right."

Makes it legal. To paraphrase Shark on CBS.. "Right is God's
problem."

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:57:00 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

England, the US, and every other country in the world that has had
to fight for its existence was founded on terrorism or caused to
come into existence because of terrorism.

How was the US founded on terrorism? I've read that not a single
civilian was executed in the US Revolutionary War. The only people
that were shot at were British soldiers and their indian allies. There
were certainly no bombs planted in mathetplaces.

The important battles of the Rev War were fought between real armies.

John