Jihad needs scientists

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9j8q$if6$1@blue.rahul.net...

It isn't the fear that causes the problem it is cowardice. Courage isn't
the lack of fear. It is carrying on in the face of fear. Even a public
that is afraid of an imaginary threat can refuse to give up its rights.

Yes, wouldn't *that* be nice for a change.

Eric Lucas

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

joseph2k wrote:

I think an embedded taser is a great idea, just be sure that that they
cannot grab you while it is "ON".

I was about 15 when I built my first inverter to get even with the
local bully. He was in my grade, but he would knock younger kids down,
then steal and destroy their toys. I made a crappy looking sword out of
two 24 inch pieces of galvanized sheet metal, with a layer of contact
paper between them, and a well insulated wood handle. The cord was run
up my sleeve, and the inverter was in my pocket as I walked by his
house. He ran out and "Ordered" me to give it to him. I laughed and
told him he'd have to take it away if he wanted it. He grabbed the
blade as I turned it on, and he sounded like a cat under a rocking
chair. He was screaming that he was going to kill me, so I touched him
with the end of the sword and shocked him again. His mother came
running, yelling she was going to call the cops, and demanded the
sword. He was smart enough to grab her arm to stop her, and told her to
forget it. I smiled and told him I had made other booby trapped toys for
the kids he had been bullying, and he better watch out unless he liked
the shocks. ;-)


--
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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

joseph2k wrote:

I did not expect such ignorance from you. Via your VA pension you have
several bank accounts, though you do not control any of them. And yes,
they can be and are used to track you.

Can't you read? I clearly stated, "I DO NOT HAVE A BANK ACCOUNT". I
am not stupid enough to give any personal information to anyone. I
don't have any credit cards, nor do I want any. I haven't used any
credit for over 20 years, and I don't intend to. I drive a 19 year old
Ford ranger that I rescued from the crusher. When it can't be repaired
cheaply I'll either find another castoff, or just give up driving. It
causes too much pain for me to drive, anyway.

The VA sends me a paper check each month, BTW.


--
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

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:30:33 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In an attempt to suppress free speech and debate on the issue, both Rumsfeld
and Bush have used the word to refer to anybody that disagrees with Bush's
prosecution of the non-existent war. It's reprehensible.

It might be, if it were true. Obviously it's not.

John

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

joseph2k wrote:

I think an embedded taser is a great idea, just be sure that that they
cannot grab you while it is "ON".

I was about 15 when I built my first inverter to get even with the
local bully.

I dealt with the local bully by kicking the front wheel of his bicycle from
under him He squealed. I needed no electronics to do that.

Graham

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:eprgi2letl4lmo4am69hagk9q15uat90mk@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:30:33 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



In an attempt to suppress free speech and debate on the issue, both
Rumsfeld
and Bush have used the word to refer to anybody that disagrees with Bush's
prosecution of the non-existent war. It's reprehensible.


It might be, if it were true. Obviously it's not.

Obvious only to those who refuse to admit that Bush has ever done, or could
ever do, anything wrong. Those of us who saw each of them say it know they
did.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <eg5ts4$70s$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eg58fu$8ss_015@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip

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

I don't. I evaluate critically.


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.

Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"?

They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership
replies with, "Trust me."

Anything is better than "stay the course."

So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is
better?

Why should we trust those who mucked up Iraq to see it through now?

The Liberal news lately is full of reports that Iraq has failed.
Why do you think it has failed? How long do you think it takes
people to adjust their living habits from a viscious ruling
system to a representative ruling system? How long do think
it takes when two next door neighbors keep sending in people
to foment mob actions?

Give me a detailed time table. Do you expect these changes
in a few weeks, months, a few years? You certainly sound
like you expect everything to get perfect in less than a year.

/BAH

 

In article <4527EEC5.31FECB0D@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Who is this they of which you speak?

Islamic extremists. Bin Laden has declared it. Iran has
declared this goal. Clerics wish to remove all vestiges
of Western civilzation; this includes no freedom of the press,
TV and probably all computers (anything with a picture of a human
being), all women in chattel (this is 50% of the labor force),
public schools will shut down, private property will no longer
be allowed, banks will be closed so trade will have to revert
back to person-to-person bartering.

This is simply untrue.

Where did you get this idea ?

I am able to think reasonably well.

/BAH

 

In article <3euci2dd3t4o9t2qm6829q55uknrm3hu62@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:26:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Our freedoms are under threat as a result of American stupidity.

Now I understand you. It is not Bin Laden's fault that he
is going to kill a lot of people. It's the Americans' fault
that caused Islamic extremists to want to destroy Western
civilization.

That's actually true. "American" culture, which is actually world
culture, is the thing they fear will seduce their sons and liberate
their daughters. As it must.

I call that Western Civilization, not American culture.

/BAH

 

In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5eir$8qk_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4526343A.24C8CC03@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people

Cite ?

I don't have one since I can't access the web.

That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it, so
others can try to verify?

The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that
news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs
who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million
Americans would have to die to make things equal.

/BAH

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xnZVg.9853$vJ2.2098@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:a5-dnQ-NUaXtiLXYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45280F9F.89B24BE1@hotmail.com...


John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you
examine your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and
what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than
the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you
are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real
trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations
with actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some
right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and
applying it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Not all Republicans.

Nah, just the President, that's all. Nobody important.

Still not all of them.

 

[T Wake]

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9j8q$if6$1@blue.rahul.net...

In article <9eWdncK2mZOUcbrYRVnyuw@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

[...]
Democrats don't want to talk about it; if
they don't talk about it, they cannot deal with it.

I dont know enough about American political infighting to respond to this.
However, If, as previously mentioned, the problem has existed for a
century,
I suspect all parties are equally guilty of action / inaction.

The republicans don't seem to be guilty of inaction. With the actions
they have taken, the US is running out of feet though.

No amount of extremist bombings can repeal your constitution unless _you_
(American people) chose to allow it. Fear of the imaginary external threat
will cause more damage than some idiots with a bomb.

It isn't the fear that causes the problem it is cowardice. Courage isn't
the lack of fear. It is carrying on in the face of fear. Even a public
that is afraid of an imaginary threat can refuse to give up its rights.

Very true and I agree.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egafn9$8ss_004@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <eg5ts4$70s$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg58fu$8ss_015@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip

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

I don't. I evaluate critically.


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.

Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"?

They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership
replies with, "Trust me."

Anything is better than "stay the course."

So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is
better?

Are there only two options?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egagl2$8ss_007@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5eir$8qk_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4526343A.24C8CC03@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people

Cite ?

I don't have one since I can't access the web.

That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it,
so
others can try to verify?

The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that
news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs
who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million
Americans would have to die to make things equal.

I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more
than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US
government policy.

 

In article <XIZVg.9862$vJ2.9716@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9fi9$ba4$3@blue.rahul.net...

Even if the terrorists were Iraqis, the war has not selectively killed
them. It has killed Iraqis more or less at random.


And some people still can't grok the fact that the Muslim world might be
just a tad justified in being more than a little pissed off at this. It's
too bad that several of the people who haven't caught on to that are those
designing and implementing US foreign policy.

So what excuse do give for the previous bombing?

/BAH

 

In article <eg6464$fjf$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article
kurtullman-4CDB3C.12183406102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <eg5rop$70s$4@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:


Didn't. If the American is CALLING France, warrants are still needed,
even under the Bush statement. When calls originate OUTSIDE the country
and just come, then Bush says they don't need warrants. This is backed
up by current law, more or less.

Which law is that?


Case law. See below. This has been in place at least since my
training in the mid-70s.

If there is a legal tap on Goomba 1,
then if Goomba 2 calls G1, anything G2 says is usable against G2,
because the tap was legal.
In this case, when calls originate outside the US, there are no
requirements for warrant. Thus, if Terrorist 1 calls Terrorist 2 in
Pakistan it is legal. If T1 calls T3 in Newark it is also legal.
If one phone is legally tapped any calls to or from that phone are
fair game.

The issue is "domestic wiretapping" though.
Which was illustrated by Goomba one and two. As in Mafia type
one and two. One side is legal, then what is heard either way is okay.
Actually we are talking international wiretapping. Domestic by
most definitions remains inside the US. In this case the tapped phone is
outside the US. The US phone isn't tapped. But when someone from the
tapped phone calls or is called then the conversation is probably legal.

There isn't "tapping" anyway. The NSA monitors phone calls. ALL phone
calls.
Computers flag those with certain words or phrases, or certain voices, or
certain locales, etc. But we have no way of knowing which things cause calls
to get flagged, nor do we have any assurance nobody is looking at the others.

I wonder how many MIPS it would take to do all that you specify above.

That's why a judge declared the whole program unconstitutional a couple of
weeks ago (just stayed by an appeals court pending appeal).

The whole program or is this your conclusion?

/BAH

 

In article <GWTVg.69$45.157@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eg827f$8qk_004@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <5dfVg.62$45.46@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <PsRUg.57$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I
pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

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

It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee
of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side
from "dubious elements".

This is premature viewing and we won't know until 10-80 years from
now but...

It seems like they are not purifying but self-emolating.

Bah, you need some sense of scale.

Yes, I know I have problems with that.

Check out how many Russians were
eliminated by Stalin, and how many Chinese by Mao. No, they're most
certainly ***not*** self-emolating. They're "cleaning the ranks".

And in Russia, a very pissed off army was digging the potato
crop 30 years later. I haven't read enough about China yet.

Isn't there a difference? This self-emolation as part of their
ritual practice is what seems odd.

There is nothing to seem odd, since they're not doing it.

Right. They are not doing it now.

/BAH

 

In article <GtidnRHJ2eFoSbXYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egafn9$8ss_004@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eg5ts4$70s$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <eg58fu$8ss_015@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
snip

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

I don't. I evaluate critically.


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.

Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"?

They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership
replies with, "Trust me."

Anything is better than "stay the course."

So you are saying that conceding to the Islamic terrorists is
better?

Are there only two options?

From the p.o.v. of the extremists, yes.

/BAH

 

In article <Ke2dncVNEMkPSLXYRVnysw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egagl2$8ss_007@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5eir$8qk_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4526343A.24C8CC03@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people

Cite ?

I don't have one since I can't access the web.

That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw it,
so
others can try to verify?

The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that
news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs
who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million
Americans would have to die to make things equal.

I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more
than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US
government policy.

Why do I have to produce the person and the words at the time
they were made but you can use any random sound extraction
from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election
in four weeks?

/BAH

 

In article <aQPVg.14037$7I1.13536@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg81lv$8qk_001@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4N8Vg.19635$Ij.6104@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2nr4$8qk_001@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

<snip>

(silly me, should
have known that one.) Stolidly attempting reasoned discussion with both
sides of the issue doesn't work. (Side comment--isn't it also sad that
such
a complex issue seems to have only two sides bashing at each other?
George
Washington saw the problems inherent in and spoke against the two party
system, and it's a real shame the country chose to ignore him.)

It's a complex problem that has not been getting any attention paid
to it for a century. Getting this problem stated in such a way
that there is two side is what is happening right now in Iraq,
in Iran, in our media, in Arabic media, in Europe, in Asia,
everywhere.

It goes beyond that. Look at the political process in this country. It's
me-vs.-you, us-against-them, and it's getting worse.

It always has been.

I hate to say it, but
Bush is part of the problem--he just seems to be a lightning rod for
divisive behavior, both his own party's and the other's. Clinton, for all
his faults (and he had several), was truly a uniter,

Are you kidding?

and managed to get
useful things done even with a Republican Congress. However, I can't lay it
all on Bush, both parties have been doing it for a long time,

Yes. Now you are closer to reality.

and both
parties should be ashamed of themselves.

That happens to be what politics is about.

Part of the reason is that it is
easier to couch your position in terms of what somebody else's isn't, than
it is to actually think through the issues and make an intelligent decision.

Yes. And only the voters are going to force the Democrats to start
dealing with the most dangerous threats than their smoke and mirrors.

Part of it is that it's easier to simply make decisions along party lines,
rather than coming to a conclusion of your own.

This is human nature.

And part of it is that this
make-me-look-better-by-making-you-look-worse that seems to have invaded our
society as a whole, not just politics. But the crux of the whole thing is
the lack of a credible third-party voice.

No. The lack is citizens who insist their politicians deal with
reality.

When that happens, all of a
sudden, you can't just nay-say your opponent to win an argument, you
actually have to come up with the most tenable position.

We tried a thrid party. The effects were a disaster. We ended
up with a sexual predator whose non-goal was national security
and a decision-making method based on the flip of the poll coin.

This party is 100% ignoring the problem. All I want is to
start thinking and talking out loud about it. Their national
chairman actually thinks that replying to questions about
this problem with a "Trust me" is a sufficient answer.

I'm starting to doubt your ability to not filter everything through the
Republican talking points,

I don't listen to them. How many times do I have to pound that
into your ASCII eyesite?

<snip>

/BAH