Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452592BA.A4AF9FEB@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

Planes to the US are becoming a joke now, all because of four domestic
flights being taken over. How many flights take off each day?

Taken over ?

I don't think a single one has been 'taken over'.

Hmm. Pedantry again. What terminology would you use to describe the actions
of the terrorists who flew the planes into the world trade centre?

Did they not "take over" the plane? Was it not a domestic flight?

I may be mistaken, and I often am.

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net...

3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many
have died in car accidents in that time?

The USA's Leading Causes of Death

We have here the 20 leading causes of death for the population of the United
States in 1998. These are the freshest such statistics available from the
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Rank Cause # of population affected

#1 - Heart Disease 724,859
#2 - Malignant Neoplasms (Cancerous Tumors) 541,532
#3 - Cerebro-Vascular (Stroke) 158,448
#4 - Bronchitis, Emphysema, Asthma 112,584
#5 - Unintentional Injury 97,835 -(1)
#6 - Pneumonia & Influenza 91,871
#7 - Diabetes 64,751
#8 - Suicide 30,575 -(2)
#9 - Nephritis 26,182
#10 - Liver Disease 25,192
#11 - Septicemia 23,731
#12 - Alzheimer Disease 22,725
#13 - Homicide and Legal Intervention 18,272 -(3)
#14 - Atherosclerosis 15,279
#15 - Hypertension 14,308
#16 - Perinatal Period 13,428
#17 - HIV 13,426
#18 - Congenital Anomalies 11,934
#19 - Benign Neoplasms (Benign Tumors) 7,933
#20 - Hernia 6,635

1 - 43% traffic-related
2 - 57% by firearm
3 - 66% by firearm

In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were
tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol
consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia,
75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor vehicle
accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and illicit
use of drugs (17,000).

20,000 killed by sex and yet only 13,426 of that number from Aids ? What's going
on ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452592FC.45E26AB4@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist.

It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London
insurgents
or
terrorists?

Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way.

But they were organised.

An organised group of 5 ?

Yes.

Is there a minimum number before you can become organised?

Apart from that, who recruited them? Who trained them? Who equipped them?
Who encouraged them?

You can't conceive of the idea they did this on their own ?

Well, yes. I can conceive the idea.

There were still five of them. That is organised.

If they did this on their own then it is a worrying sign. Normally you would
hope they had been radicalised by some insane cleric with a grudge against
the US. I am impressed they learned to make home made explosives (HME)
without killing themselves - HME probably killed more IRA bombers than all
the security forces put together.

I am impressed at their untrained operational security in that they
discussed it with each other an no one else on the planet found out about
it.

If they did all this on their own, then may be we should be worried.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

---
No big deal. You've never heard of martial law?

Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever.

Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of using
soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns.

The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian were
partly military.

Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security.

I don't recall any mention of Martial Law there.


There wasn't, however as the rest of my post said it is the thin end of the
wedge. Currently there is perfect, legitimate, policy for the use of
Military Aid to the Civil Power where soldiers can be deployed to enforce
government legislation. The fact it hasn't been used in that capacity
doesn't mean it isn't there.

Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the idea
was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army.

What was the idea behind the use of MPs ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452593DD.FA64F1AC@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

What does the USA get out of it ? Apart from terrorist attacks ?

Well, my personal feeling is that changing your foreign policy as the
result of terrorist attacks is _always_ wrong.

You'd be insane to ignore the reasons !

What reasons?

If you mean countries should adjust their policy at the whim of bombers
then
I hope you never run for political office.

Like I said. You'd be insane not to consider the why of it.

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean the "why of it?"

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4525946B.609BE651@hotmail.com...

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net...

3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by
Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How
many
have died in car accidents in that time?

The USA's Leading Causes of Death

We have here the 20 leading causes of death for the population of the
United
States in 1998. These are the freshest such statistics available from the
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Rank Cause # of population affected

#1 - Heart Disease 724,859
#2 - Malignant Neoplasms (Cancerous Tumors) 541,532
#3 - Cerebro-Vascular (Stroke) 158,448
#4 - Bronchitis, Emphysema, Asthma 112,584
#5 - Unintentional Injury 97,835 -(1)
#6 - Pneumonia & Influenza 91,871
#7 - Diabetes 64,751
#8 - Suicide 30,575 -(2)
#9 - Nephritis 26,182
#10 - Liver Disease 25,192
#11 - Septicemia 23,731
#12 - Alzheimer Disease 22,725
#13 - Homicide and Legal Intervention 18,272 -(3)
#14 - Atherosclerosis 15,279
#15 - Hypertension 14,308
#16 - Perinatal Period 13,428
#17 - HIV 13,426
#18 - Congenital Anomalies 11,934
#19 - Benign Neoplasms (Benign Tumors) 7,933
#20 - Hernia 6,635

1 - 43% traffic-related
2 - 57% by firearm
3 - 66% by firearm

In 2000, the most common actual causes of death in the United States were
tobacco (435,000), poor diet and physical inactivity (400,000), alcohol
consumption (85,000), microbial agents (e.g., influenza and pneumonia,
75,000), toxic agents (e.g., pollutants and asbestos, 55,000), motor
vehicle
accidents (43,000), firearms (29,000), sexual behavior (20,000) and
illicit
use of drugs (17,000).

20,000 killed by sex and yet only 13,426 of that number from Aids ? What's
going
on ?

Well it could be the country boys getting stamped on by the cows mid
coitus....

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:09:54 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

---
I suggest that dissenting parties first agree to look for common
ground and then try to build on that. Can't get much more
simplistic than that, huh?

Might want to practice what you preach, on Usenet.

---
I do, mostly.

In the case of pathological America-bashing cheaters like Graham, it
seems there is no common ground to look for since, in his eyes, we
Americans can do no right, no matter what.

Consequently, my position becomes one of "fuck that son of a bitch",
and I'll do whatever I can to pull him down.

Simple.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452594B9.D430B664@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

---
No big deal. You've never heard of martial law?

Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever.

Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of
using
soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns.

The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian
were
partly military.

Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security.

I don't recall any mention of Martial Law there.


There wasn't, however as the rest of my post said it is the thin end of
the
wedge. Currently there is perfect, legitimate, policy for the use of
Military Aid to the Civil Power where soldiers can be deployed to enforce
government legislation. The fact it hasn't been used in that capacity
doesn't mean it isn't there.

Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the
idea
was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army.

What was the idea behind the use of MPs ?

Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at
weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local
soldiers.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote:

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

Since when was that an option ?

It has always been an option. It will always be an option.

Is is the option with the highest chance of sucess for those who think
life
is more important than way of life.

Who's threatening my way of life aside from the USA ?

The UK government.

You mean Blair and his Blairites ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:

Planes to the US are becoming a joke now, all because of four domestic
flights being taken over. How many flights take off each day?

Taken over ?

I don't think a single one has been 'taken over'.

Hmm. Pedantry again. What terminology would you use to describe the actions
of the terrorists who flew the planes into the world trade centre?

Did they not "take over" the plane? Was it not a domestic flight?

I may be mistaken, and I often am.

You said 'to the US' not 'in the US' so I took it to mean international
flights.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4525955A.F338BBE2@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote:

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

Since when was that an option ?

It has always been an option. It will always be an option.

Is is the option with the highest chance of sucess for those who think
life
is more important than way of life.

Who's threatening my way of life aside from the USA ?

The UK government.

You mean Blair and his Blairites ?

You can call them anything you want. They are still the democratically
elected government of our country. I suspect the next incumbent of number 10
will not be radically different either.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <452590E2.F828860@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Lobbing missiles

The targeting was quite precise actually.

Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the

chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy.

in the general direction (with a forewarning to
Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that
"something is being done".

It's still 100% more than GWB ever did.

Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and

exiling him to mountains at the border.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist.

It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London
insurgents
or
terrorists?

Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way.

But they were organised.

An organised group of 5 ?

Yes.

Is there a minimum number before you can become organised?

Apart from that, who recruited them? Who trained them? Who equipped them?
Who encouraged them?

You can't conceive of the idea they did this on their own ?

Well, yes. I can conceive the idea.

There were still five of them. That is organised.

If they did this on their own then it is a worrying sign. Normally you would
hope they had been radicalised by some insane cleric with a grudge against
the US. I am impressed they learned to make home made explosives (HME)
without killing themselves - HME probably killed more IRA bombers than all
the security forces put together.

I am impressed at their untrained operational security in that they
discussed it with each other an no one else on the planet found out about
it.

If they did all this on their own, then may be we should be worried.

I think that's exactly the point.

Graham

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:LtSdnY4ToMTxEbjYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TpfVg.8964$GR.4115@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:z8KdnXZUI_tF5rjYRVny2Q@pipex.net...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_kdVg.8930$GR.1926@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95@News.Individual.NET...

Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a
"certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can
call a FISA judge.

No, nice try at a strawman, but it has nothing to do with what I'm
saying and what is provided for in FISA.

Strawman or not, the time sensitive nature of the intelligence still is
not a strong enough argument for most cases.

You better believe it is in this case.

Why?

What situation can the intelligence be so vital that the law enforcement
agency know it is going to be said but dont have time to advance request a
warrant?

Well, that's the issue. Phone calls aren't something you get much advance
warning of. If they see a phone call coming from a suspicious person (a
known terrorist, for example) to somebody inside the US, they need to turn
on the recording equipment *immediately*, or they *won't* know what was
said. It might be a completely innocent phonecall, but the US government
has decided (and I do happen to agree with this one) that if ObL calls
someone in the US, there is an excellent chance that he's plotting something
nasty inside the US. History (at least recent history) has proven that to
be a fairly good assumption. And I know this really doesn't mean much to
you, but being an independent body, I *do* trust the FISA court to only use
the privilege against known terrorists or their associates.

However, it's provided for in FISA.

Not really relevant to me, as your country feels it can intercept my
communications at its leisure.

Well, yes, there is *that* little unpleasant fact....

Just out of curiosity, what does British law say are your rights as regards
British surveillance of this or any other type?

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

What does the USA get out of it ? Apart from terrorist attacks ?

Well, my personal feeling is that changing your foreign policy as the
result of terrorist attacks is _always_ wrong.

You'd be insane to ignore the reasons !

What reasons?

If you mean countries should adjust their policy at the whim of bombers
then I hope you never run for political office.

Like I said. You'd be insane not to consider the why of it.

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean the "why of it?"

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.

Why would ppl want to bomb us ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

In the case of pathological America-bashing cheaters like Graham, it
seems there is no common ground to look for since, in his eyes, we
Americans can do no right, no matter what.

Consequently, my position becomes one of "fuck that son of a bitch",
and I'll do whatever I can to pull him down.

Simple.

I've come to the same conclusion about America.

You lot are beyond hope.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

Military Police patrolling civilian towns is not normal... The fact the
idea was even suggested is shocking and I am ex-Army.

What was the idea behind the use of MPs ?

Civilian police were too undermanned to provide a suitable presence at
weekends and it was thought that most of the drinkers would be local
soldiers.

I can see the logic in that.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1CgVg.7743$TV3.3627@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:LtSdnY4ToMTxEbjYnZ2dnUVZ8s-dnZ2d@pipex.net...


What situation can the intelligence be so vital that the law enforcement
agency know it is going to be said but dont have time to advance request
a warrant?

Well, that's the issue. Phone calls aren't something you get much advance
warning of. If they see a phone call coming from a suspicious person (a
known terrorist, for example) to somebody inside the US, they need to turn
on the recording equipment *immediately*, or they *won't* know what was
said. It might be a completely innocent phonecall, but the US government
has decided (and I do happen to agree with this one) that if ObL calls
someone in the US, there is an excellent chance that he's plotting
something nasty inside the US. History (at least recent history) has
proven that to be a fairly good assumption. And I know this really
doesn't mean much to you, but being an independent body, I *do* trust the
FISA court to only use the privilege against known terrorists or their
associates.

Here we have an issue about the assumption of guilt.

That said, if you _know_ person X is bad. How hard is it to get a warrant to
intercept his calls? Why wait until he makes a call to initate the process?

Post-action justification is (to me) pointless. Once they have the
information, no one is going to turn round and say "well the judge told us
we cant use it, so forget it."

However, it's provided for in FISA.

Not really relevant to me, as your country feels it can intercept my
communications at its leisure.

Well, yes, there is *that* little unpleasant fact....

Just out of curiosity, what does British law say are your rights as
regards British surveillance of this or any other type?

I am not sure. We have the Intercept of Communications Act which seems
similar but I seem to think it requires permission before the event.

Surveillance intercept for intelligence purposes may be a different matter
as there is no reason for that evidence to turn up in court.

As I said though, I don't really have any idea.

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-0481F2.19314905102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <452590E2.F828860@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Lobbing missiles

The targeting was quite precise actually.

Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the
chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy.

Wow. Does your president launch and aim the missiles himself?

Amazing. I love your country.

in the general direction (with a forewarning to
Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that
"something is being done".

It's still 100% more than GWB ever did.

Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and
exiling him to mountains at the border.

Did mange to give him some new bolt holes though.

 

[Eeyore]

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <452590E2.F828860@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Lobbing missiles

The targeting was quite precise actually.

Yep. He hit that aspirin factory dead on. Managed to put down the
chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy.

I gather the Chinese Embassy was down to poor 'intelligence' !

in the general direction (with a forewarning to
Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that
"something is being done".

It's still 100% more than GWB ever did.

Yep GWB never did get around to clearing out the Taliban and
exiling him to mountains at the border.

They gave up on the job.

Graham