Jihad needs scientists

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:26:17 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

Sadly, you are a...

Sadly, you are still no more than an idiot.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:46:33 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

C'mon, let's get some million years back.....

---
What the fuck are you talking about, Mandic?
---
The million year march? :-]

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 19:58:38 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

I am impressed you managed to string
together so many words though. Well done.

Fuck you, retard boy.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:03:52 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:tubci2pd2t6pjbnfbc159bfr0mf4esgr0c@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:32:47 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

The hearts and minds with the population did the trick.

As it has often done for the British Army but the US version has fucked
that
up for sure.

---
You're talking about a bygone era where we both shared winning
hearts and minds.

This is now, where the rules are a little different. Are you making
any friends in Iraq that we aren't? You do still have a presence
there, don't you?

We were doing quite well initially actually until the actions of US forces
ended
up with us all being tarred with the same brush.

Quite why we think of you lot as an 'ally' is almost beyond me.

---
Me too. The relationship is more like that between a vibrant young
man and old, doddering parents.


An interesting one. I suspect though, that the vibrant young man is actually
more like an immature teenager who hasn't learned how to live in society
properly yet - but is big enough to reach the gun cabinet.

T Weak posts utter nonsensical bullshit yet again!

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:09:43 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
newsabbi21hj1om31j3avpn3mm32vdur9mo0n@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:22:17 -0400, Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> Gave us:

You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.

Good one.

Sycophant.

Agreeing with someone does NOT make me a sycophant, you Usenet total

retard.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:15:33 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:asgbi2psl68cmdgjb3b726o4qo6h4eokdm@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:55:46 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



Keith wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Yet another American dismisses non-American thing thinking as crap.

All you seem to do is post lines like this. You have no dialog
just a gut reaction that happens to be deemed to be politically
correct at the moment.

Yep! /BAH, this is the stuffed donkey. Stuffed donkey, this is
/BAH. The stuffed donky is one of SED's most prominent (and least
useful) anti-American Europeons.

If a stuffed donkey can outhink most Americans it doesn't say much for
America does it ?

You're stuffed? Got any video, or is that too advanced for an ass
like you?

I figure if we saw the real you, you'd instantly make more kill
files, and the group might finally be rid of your stupid ass.

So why don't you kill file him? Are you waiting for other people to do it so
you can copy them?

Shut up, retard boy.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:20:54 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

What happened on the 9th of November?

You're an idiot.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:12:27 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:17:20 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

No one east of Missouri knows how to drive ;-)


You would have trouble driving some of the roads I was on in Alaska.
If you drove like you do in the desert, you would have killed yourself
in a couple days, tops.

Not hardly. You forget that I'm originally a West Virginia c'untry
boy. I can drive mountain roads fast enough to ensure that you dirty
your panties ;-)


You haven't done it on those Alaska roads with over a foot of ice and
going around a mountain with a drop on one side that seasoned drivers
have gone over. High speed on that road was about 12 miles an hour. Any
faster and you didn't make the turns. The military shuttle bus went over
the side two weeks after I left Alaska, and that man had driven the road
for over ten years.

Yup. I've driven black ice on North Mountain (US33 from Harrisonburg,
VA to Franklin, WV)... you tip-toe, then you hit fog and you crawl ;-)

This ice was so thick they used a road grader to smooth the new snow
into the groves in an attempt to make the road safer. At times it was
over 18" thick.


--
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

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:21:48 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:vgdci29a8p13kfhhs2i6rnm9b36duq7r72@4ax.com...
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:06:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:


"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:regbi2dpkrf103e4opion58ooto1lmft2c@4ax.com...

It is you, fuckhead, that is incredulous.

Yes, I suspect it is he who is incredulous at your idiocy. I think the
word
you wanted is "incredible", as in "not credible".


No. It was said just fine.

Nothing you say carries any credence either.

Ooh, such a big word. Did you have to look it up? Bet you had a little lie
down afterwards, didn't you?

I'd bet that I used the word many more years ago than you ever did,

and in these groups too.

 

[jenalyn]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:K4XTg.7154$N4.5515@clgrps12...

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i@4ax.com...

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

The international community does not want our cooperation. They want the
United States to act as their dumb guard dog, do their bidding. Many
leaders are generally unhappy with the fact that we finally stepped up to
take charge. France is unhappy they are no longer a world power. Muslims
are unhappy they are no longer a world power.
I would go into greater details but this kind of discussion is better left
with with a pint of ale or in a military/political strategy/science
newsgroup.

Jena

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <HRBVg.66$45.199@news.uchicago.edu>,
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:

In article <eg5og7$hr$4@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[....]
It was a lot better than the risk of starting a war between two nations
with nukes. The amount of warning would have only been enough if they had
OBL on speed dial.

And what makes you think they didn't

They wouldn't for security reasons :>

Now, Tomahawks are subsonic. From the nearest possible launch point
to the intended target deep in Aghanistan they must've taken at least
half an hour. Ample time to make a call and ample time for the
intended target to get away.

In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <FN9Vg.19673$Ij.18806@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32g6$okg$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> 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.

Yes you do. Hollow threats are worthless.

Note that I said "treat" not "Hollow threat" so, again I don't need to
respond to this.


[....]

They're crazy, not stupid. They know that *we* wouldn't be stupid enough to
nuke anything, because the threat is too diffuse.

This argument doesn't work. They only need to be convinced that the US
thinks it isn't a stupid idea. When you go to war against a country, you
bomb its capital regardless of how large of a land mass the country
covers.

I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe,
would work on many of them.

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people?

You don't seem to have a good grasp on the term "deter". You don't have
to lock them all up. You only have to lock up the few that try to break
the law.

terrorist criminals. Oh, you say you want to hold them for life without a
trial?

No, I never said without trial.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4oki2pFf53ldU1@individual.net>,
Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC),
Ken Smith <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote
in Msg. <eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net
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.

The warped belief system of the deluded extremists does, yes.
Islam itself doesn't.

The "their" in my post refers to those who would commit the terrorist acts
not Islam at large. Eric Robert Rudolph would be a non-islamic version of
the same sort of belief system.



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4525651A.5E36C356@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

So how many prisons will we need to build, and what fraction of the GDP will
go into staffing/supporting/maintaining them, in order to imprison 100
million people?

That would most likely sap the entire GDP of the USA.

No, not since it doesn't have to happen. I only spoke of the fear of life
in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen and
the jail isn't needed.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <45227EA6.7BB99886@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

[....]
Another big issue in Iran is that it's becoming more modern by its own efforts.
Did you know for example that 70% of all Iranian graduates are now women.

Are you sure the real number isn't 69.372% or 71.054%? I never trust
round numbers.

I don't see that as an "issue". It is merely a "fact". Iran wants to
refine uranium appears to be a "fact". "Why" is the issue.

It may just be a bargaining chip. They may want something else and wish
to trade refining for it.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <aI2dnQoQOZz18rjYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net...
In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w@pipex.net>,
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.

Yet all the nasty old men who encourage the bombers refuse to do it
themselves.

Somewhere else I suggested that the leaders don't really hold the views.
They are after power and control and know how to get the cannon fodder.

[...]

I agree, life in Jail would be a better option. They are, after all,
criminals and killing them just gives them status amongst others.

I sometimes think that being very nice to them while they wait to die of
old age would be the cruelest thing you could do. "How are you today? I
am very sorry that we have to leave you in this 6 by 8 cell for the rest
of your life. Goodbye now. See you tomorrow."

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <45257733.CD9C3BE9@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.

It is a "distorted" version of Islam. It is a perfect version of their
belief system.

Wrong. It's nothing of the sort.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this. The "their" refers to those with the
belief system I suggested, not Islam, but a distorted twisted form of the
same.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

In article <eg712e$a4m$3@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <HRBVg.66$45.199@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <eg5og7$hr$4@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[....]
It was a lot better than the risk of starting a war between two nations
with nukes. The amount of warning would have only been enough if they had
OBL on speed dial.

And what makes you think they didn't

They wouldn't for security reasons :

Yeah, sure

Now, Tomahawks are subsonic. From the nearest possible launch point
to the intended target deep in Aghanistan they must've taken at least
half an hour. Ample time to make a call and ample time for the
intended target to get away.

In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened.

This may be but it is not much of an excuse.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fifdi2tje6ctfev13v1msavhqj2dr37tnt@4ax.com...

I can't really make out much of Chaucer. Shakespeare is a bit
difficult but intelligable. Sir Walter Scott and Dickens and Jane
Austen look perfectly modern to me. So the half-life of English is
roughly 400 years.

Sounds about right, from what I've seen.

I have a friend from El Salvador who says that Cervantes reads just
like modern Spanish, which has apparently evolved a lot slower than
English.

Interesting. I also get the impression that Spanish from Spain is not
noticeably different, give or take the accent, from Spanish spoken anywhere
else in the world, excluding perhaps Mexico. However, I don't know Spanish,
my primary 2nd language is French. Certainly Canadian French is noticeably
different than French from France. Sounds like the Continental languages
are much more conservative than English. For one thing, England kept
getting itself invaded by various different groups, each of which "donated"
its language (although I guess most of that happened before Chaucer, so it
may be irrelevant.) For another, I know at least France is actively
conservative of their language. I don't know if this is true of the
Germans, Spanish, etc.

Eric Lucas

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:etkdi21hcf7e0gt82u16be8tb5uucg2413@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:08:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hnhci25s8879f2fi1pm8st27hbud8um1co@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:52:47 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

So what? If push comes to shove we'll beat the shit out of them
too,
whether they're popular or not, dumbass.

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent. Or, maybe, as
you'd like to believe, just because they piss us off.

How exactly does Iraq fit into this justification for beating the crap
out
of somebody?

It doesn't of course.

Sure it does. AIUI, Saddam Hussein was violating, with impunity,
all of the UN sanctions that had been placed on Iraq, including
stealing the money that was supposed to have been used for
humanitarian purposes. Eventually the time finally came when we
decided that he needed to be made accountable, so we went after him.

The timing was abysmal.

In hindsight, yes.

Oh, bullshit. It was obvious to anybody with anything more than half a
brain that attacking Iraq with absolutely no good reason, so soon after an
attack (even a justified one) on another Muslim country, was going to be
interpreted in the Muslim world and elsewhere as a crusade (small c) against
Islam. I remember think that and hearing other people say that *at the
time*, so don't go giving me that revisionist Bush apologist crap, "we
couldn't have known". People back then were actively denying every single
excuse for attacking Iraq, and saying it would cause more problems than it
solved. Lo and behold, they were right.

If America had been more patient (and why not given
that the last decade or so never really mattered), then the situation in
Afghanistan could have been stabilised and Iraq could have had sufficient
forces for the task.

In addition, waiting would have disassociated the operation from looking
like a new crusade against Islam.

All true but, again, in hindsight.

Again, Bush apologist bullshite. Bush should have known--half of rest of
the country did.

America really should have known better.

Half of America *did* know better, and were saying it very vocally at the
time. It's just that the power in party have a well-established history of
not listening to anything but their own agendas. They prefer to shout
insults at their critics and attempt to silence them, rather than think
through the issues and admit that somebody but their groupthink buddies
might have a cogent thought on the matter.

Back then I think we were concerned with how much more money Saddam
Hussein could siphon from the humanitarian aid bucket and divert to
terrorist causes or squirrel away for his own use.

And this was a threat to the US, how exactly? How does it justify the
deaths of almost 200,000 Iraqi civilians?

Also, I think we
were more than a little angry about the impotence of the UN in being
able to conduct inspections on anything but Saddam Hussein's terms.

Ooh, somebody got in a snit, now *there's* a useful driving force in
diplomacy, and a justification for attacking a country.

ISTR reading where the inspectors were often turned away from
inspection sites and told when they could come back to conduct the
inspection.

Yeah, despite all that, the UN officially said that Iraq didn't have any
nuclear program, nor had they had one for ten years, and they said it
*before* the US decided to attack. So don't go giving me the crap that "we
didn't know if they had nukes." Again, this is more Bush apologist
bullshit. We knew for a fact that they *didn't*. Colin Powell knew, and
wanted to change that speech he gave just before we attacked...but Bush
refused to let him. Shame we lost such a good Secretary of State...he was
the only hope US diplomacy corps had of any success at all. Now we've got
Condy trying to foment war with Iran and North Korea. God help us all.

If only we'd known...

Again, more disingenuous revisionism to try to cover the fact that we *did*
know. Half of the country was crying for Saddam to be taken out in 1991,
and Bush I refused to listen. I actually liked Bush I, but I remember
thinking "Is this guy *nuts*???" when he didn't take Saddam out when he had
the chance.

What, really, was the threat Iraq posed on the US?

The threat to the US was nonexistent, but the continuous willful and
contemptuous defiance of the UN's mandates was intolerable, as was
the UN's vacillation in the face of defiance.

If we went around attacking every country that contemptuously defied the UN,
we would have so many enemies that we would have been nuked out of existence
a long time ago. That is not a justification for attacking a country and
killing 200,000 of its citizens. Hell, *we* have contemptuously defied the
UN. How would you like it if France decided to nuke us into oblivion
because they didn't like the way we treat the UN? I'll wager you'd be
pretty pissed about it.

Eric Lucas