Jihad needs scientists

In article <USOVg.9789$GR.1438@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7tss$8qk_007@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <P6-dnSajh_Dt4LvYnZ2dnUVZ8qudnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5el9$8qk_011@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <452634AB.3341D603@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times
as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01
attack.
That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by
anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a
normal
risk in life.

Amazing really.

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?

What makes you think any of the above are even remotely possible ?

Because I can think of one that will kill a billion in less
than 1/2 year. If I can think it, they certainly can. They
were brought in a culture that admires killing; I wasn't.

I can think about space aliens invading and making everyone die their hair
red. Doesn't mean it is going to happen.

You can deal with things you _think_ will happen or deal with things which
are happening.

I know which makes more sense to me.

I understand what makes more sense to you. I was brought up to
take action if I can see that a big mess is about to be made
if nothing is done.

Yes, but whenever you are going to take preemptive action like that, it is
based 100% on assumptions,

I disagree with the 100%. You dismiss experience and others'
handed down knowledge with that number.

mostly assumptions regarding what will happen and
why. If you're going to make global policy based on assumptions, you
absolutely *must* make sure your assumptions are 100% reliable.

This would result in no action taking place which will cause
a different chain of events.

I've seen
you make some extremely shaky assumptions that, in fact, are arguably wrong.
You need to reexamine your assumptions and make sure they are solid--and
this is something that, from your posts on this group, you don't seem to be
willing to do. You appear to filter everything through Bush's
fear-mongering rhetoric without question.

You are wrong. The fact that you keep insisting that I allow other
men to think for me tells me that you suffer from that malady.
You are imposing your style of gaining infomation and decisions
onto me. This is not my style. It never was and it never
will be unless I'm hog-tied and in confinement.

That's an extremely dangerous
position from which to make assumptions that, were they to translate to
policy, would be extremely dangerous.

One can never be 100% sure of one's facts. For you to insist
that nothing be done until this is true is silly. I know you
can't possibly believe this.

/BAH

 

In article <hYSdnRmhgOqjdbrYRVny2Q@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg82da$8qk_005@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get Usma
Bin
Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions
solving the problems which _are_ killing people?

If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and
they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the
problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist.
I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents.
Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos
on the roads.

This is heading far out into the leftfield of logic. It is true there are
Islamic extremists who would like to create a Taliban like state out of the
western hemisphere. In a similar vein, there are Christian extremists who
would like to see an overturn of western decadence.

So far, the Christian extremists are not a global threat..yet.
But they are watching and learning what tactics and strategies are
working.

Only one Islamic nation was as even slightly as extreme as you describe -
the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What evidence do you have this cannot be the political
and economic standard?

The worst the current crop of exported
terrorists look for is the imposition of Sharia law (ala Iran).

Can you remind me which Islamic nations don't have cars?

Well, take a good look. How many manufacture their own goods.
How many have an infrastructure not based on oil revenues?
How many do their own work? Most import their workers.
Without Western civilization to act as a contraint these workers
would become slaves overnight. Even Europe is importing its workers.

Your posts advocate through implication the killing of those you deem a
potential threat to the US. This is one of the most circular lines of
reasoning imaginable.

Critically, the threat of Islamic extremists destroying Western civilisation
is farcical. How could they do it?

It's very easy. I have a couple scenarios that can make an
irrecoverable mess or a middle mess that would take a couple
hundred years to clean up. I am not going to be specific
here. I'm not as clever as other people are. If I can think
of a couple, there has to be lots of opportunities.

/BAH

 

In article <Qfmdnb7he-bLe7rYRVnygg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg820j$8qk_003@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <p6adnUf13uDVN7vYRVnyrg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57vi$8ss_013@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253CB2.A36CCD05@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to
alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it
alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist.

Tell me more about this threat you perceive.

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

Then we need to have a War on Faith Schools in the west. We can add a War
against the Arts and Humanities departments as well.

Your facetious answer so you can ignore the issue is noted.

There is no issue to ignore and I was being serious. You have created a
phantom fear (or mess to use your quaint terminology) which you want to
defend against.

It is not a phantom fear. I've seen knowledge disappear through
neglect because there was nobody to babysit it and through deliberate
action because the people in charge were mess makers.

The west is already throwing away knowledge. Look at the debates over
teaching creationism in schools - the court rulings tried to overturn
accepted definitions of science to enable it.

Exactly! Why do you think I am trying to get the fucking Democrats
to start dealing with these national security problems? They
are so intents to open the gates to the barabarians that they are
not providing the checks and balances to our (US) internal religious
extremists.

That is scary madness. We have
the same problem in the UK so don't think I am being anti-American here. In
the UK science departments are closing all over, just so more students can
study arts and humanities.

I have been working on that problem all of my life. There is a
prejudice against intelligence and people who can think well.
This has to do with that premise we talked about where I think
a majority of people cannot think about certain things.

The Islamic extremists don't have to attack us, we do it to ourselves. Stop
being frightened of the invisible monster under the bed and fight the real
problems.

This is what makes the situation so ironic. Their timings seem
to be designed to ensure no long-term success. But, please
my idea of scale is way off.

/BAH

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:46:58 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"joseph2k" <quiettechblue@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ceXVg.3010$NE6.540@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

I find that assessment odd in light of the ability of passenger planes to
damage buildings like the World Trade Center towers impacts demonstrated.
Equally to the point, when told to change course by any military, the
refusal does not demonstrate reasonable judgment.

False analogy and lack of critical thinking has hindered your response.

A warship is capable of manoeuvre which a building isn't.

---
Not when an aircraft poses a threat, perceived or real. That is,
for all intents and purposes, a ship might as well be dead in the
water when threatened by an aircraft.
---

A warship which is threatened by a civilian airliner in a commercial air
lane can move away. I wasn't aware the WTC buildings had wheels.

Still, the "might is right" response is enlightening.

---
Closer to "An ounce of prevention"... I'd think.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

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

I was (have been) the local Bully and good toys I had too (Thank's
Mum....)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

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.

Yet you have the insights of a modern economist to me. American, but
modern!


Greetings!




Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

America is fucked !

Graham

No, a single politix, like to be found in so called God-states, would
help.

Otherwise they would have at least 15-20 parties. (like in Afrique ;.))



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: US cannot start a new world-order, after the christianity
released the world from the 'thousand gods' thinking/order, and
practicing/rituals.
Also romans got their proove ((even they were strong enough to
vanish such thinking/singlegod-order in that time, indeed))

2 is not an advancement to 1, in this case!

Making 4 parties in the U.S.A. can be also a first and recommendable
step, IMHO.
We had 12 in the last voting.... 5 of them managed to go in the
parliament.
(34.22; 35.71; 11.21; 10.49 and 4.20%. Rest is ~3.10% in 7 parties)

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

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?

More or less instantly.

You have to face facts. It's getting worse by the day now in Iraq because
the USA fucked up by doing nothing for about a year initially.


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

Where did you get this idea ? You're saying you imagined it ? That's a
very feverish imagination you have.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egaj1m$8qk_002@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

But the debate was not about their point of view.Your post implied that the
choices were "stay the course" or concede to terrorists.

From _your_ point of view are there only two options?

 

[krw]

In article <eg6464$fjf$15@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...

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.

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

The judge's decision was an embarrassment (written by Al Franken?).

Even the leftie loons are saying the decision doesn't stand a
chance in hell of surviving (the reason the appellate court shelved
the opinion).

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <b9ydna4x9eTtFLrYRVny2A@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7ss6$8qk_002@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <wMGdnU0OlJ5E6rvYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56q0$8ss_006@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253DEE.896AC21A@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat.

What national threat?

Do you mean the Islamic based terrorist who cause almost insignifcant loss
of life when compared to (for example) obesity?

The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

The counter tactic is to over exaggerate the threat from one sector to
mask
other problems.

After reading your response and the others', there is no way
anybody can do mess prevention until one is made and is too
big to clean up.

Your mess prevention analogy is flawed on several levels. The invasion of
Iraq is not "mess prevention."

Your mind is flawed.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <SgvVg.13917$7I1.3691@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat. The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a message
to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of
sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your political
opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with the
political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary
might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't learn
to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on our
worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies.

Have you noticed that the page in question is over 18. Did CBS
news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to
light won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how
they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a
Republican perv.

Another perspective type of statistic for you. In 2000, 88,000 children
were victims of sexual abuse. The statistics I saw said a 300 % increase in
sexual predation of children from 1980 to 1990. Just to WAG some numbers,
let's say the problem started at zero and increased linearly until now,
passing through the 88,000 data point at 2000. I think you will probably
agree with me that this *vastly* underestimates the problem, since it
ignores any incidents before 1980. Integrating over time, that means that
570,000 kids have been sexually abused by adults since 1980. That's
compared to 3000 people dying at the hands of terrorists in that same time
period. That means that a child born in 1980 had a 200X greater chance of
being molested than he had of dying at the hand of terrorists by 2006. And
yet you deny that sexual abuse of children is no more than a smokescreen
issue, blown out of proportion to avoid dealing with "real" issues like the
imminent threat that terrorists are going to destroy your home, your
computer, your technology, and make you be Muslim....despite the fact that
there is absolutely zero evidence that that is even a remotely credible
scenario.

Nice _guesses_, but how is that relevant? How many died in car
accidents? How many from cancer? How is throwing Foley in the can
(which is where he should be) help your 88,000?

I think you have that just a little backward.

I think you're naive. This *IS* about politics> Can you say
"October surprise"? I knew you could.

--
Keith

 

[krw]

In article <4526B675.A6EE319C@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <452635E5.6EA696F2@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

A ridiculous idea. We won the Battle of Britain and Germany knew it couldn't
invade without air superiority.

Graham

I never have been able to figure out why this is such a popular dick-
measuring area.

Ask Fields.


The fact is that you couldn't have done it without us
and we couldn't have done it without you.

We won the Battle of Britain with no American help.

No ammunition? No fuel? No food? No brains!

--
Keith

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egaj6a$8qk_003@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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

You dont. I didn't ask you to.

I simply pointed out there is an error in assuming all the posts made on
websites by Jihadists represent a genuine mindset.

If I come across a website with an essay from a Christian explaining how all
Muslims should be killed to make the world safer, am I to assume that is an
authorative viewpoint?

but you can use any random sound extraction
from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election
in four weeks?

When have I done this? If I have it wasn't intentional and I apologise.

Even if I have done this though, how does that invalidate what I said?

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:CoednSSD7Jd1W7XYnZ2dnUVZ8qednZ2d@pipex.net...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg9fi9$ba4$3@blue.rahul.net...
In article <sPGdnWhqqOyW7LrYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xfGVg.11941$6S3.9608@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg72np$a4m$5@blue.rahul.net...
In article <4525651A.5E36C356@hotmail.com>,
[....]
in prison being a deterent. If a crime is detered, it doesn't happen
and
the jail isn't needed.


We've killed 200,000 Iraqis, and it hasn't deterred a damn thing.
We're
going to have to imprison a helluva lot more than that, if we want to
convince anybody to do anything we want. So, now please go back and
answer the question.

Doesn't that imply killing them is not a deterrent? The problem is we are
killing Iraqis and the terrorist are Syrians.

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

I agree. The flaws with a "war on terror," especially when fought against
suicide bombers is you end up killing _lots_ of bystanders.

It's actually worse than that. Of that 200,000 I refer to, over 100,000
were killed *directly by the US* in their bombing campaign and early ground
war to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Exactly how many did Saddam kill,
again??? That, after all, is the *only* remaining justification for us to
attack a country that never did and never could have done us any harm--to
rid them of an evil dictator. (Even setting aside all of the evil dictators
that we have ignored, and even supported, in recent memory.) When we kill
as many or more of his people than he did, it even starts to make the
justification sound rather hollow.

I find it just unfathomable that the Republican apologists can ignore the
negative effect our foreign policy has on stability in the Middle East. I
am becoming more and more disgusted by the tattered remains of my former
party. Henry Kissinger, where oh where are you?????

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:7_CdnQZ8ebVLV7XYRVnyrQ@pipex.net...

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.

Damnation by faint praise. Touche.

Eric Lucas

 

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egak0r$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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...

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?

....and you can't even be honest with yourself about what you're doing. As a
middle-of-the-road independent, you are about the most extreme Republican
apologist I've yet "met".

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egakki$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <hYSdnRmhgOqjdbrYRVny2Q@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg82da$8qk_005@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get Usma
Bin
Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions
solving the problems which _are_ killing people?

If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and
they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the
problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist.
I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents.
Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos
on the roads.

This is heading far out into the leftfield of logic. It is true there are
Islamic extremists who would like to create a Taliban like state out of
the
western hemisphere. In a similar vein, there are Christian extremists who
would like to see an overturn of western decadence.

So far, the Christian extremists are not a global threat..yet.
But they are watching and learning what tactics and strategies are
working.

So from the mess prevention school of thinking we should kill them all now
to prevent the future mess.

It also the case that living in a Christian country, Christian extremists
are not a threat to _your_ way of life yet. However, Muslims may think they
are. (In fact non-Christians often do think they are).

Only one Islamic nation was as even slightly as extreme as you describe -
the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What evidence do you have this cannot be the political
and economic standard?

I didnt say it couldn't be the standard but the fact it only established
itself in _one_ country is a sign it is not normal.

Afghanistan has had a history of invasions and puppet governments. It is
entirely possible that this cultural history is what allowed the insane
Taliban the chance to get a foothold. In Iran which has a different history
the Islamic revolution produced markedly different results.

What reason do you have to think that this would not be the case in any
Western nation which was converted to Islam (even assuming such a conversion
was possible)?

The worst the current crop of exported
terrorists look for is the imposition of Sharia law (ala Iran).

Can you remind me which Islamic nations don't have cars?

Well, take a good look. How many manufacture their own goods.

Sorry, which country did you say didn't have cars? I seem to have missed it.

If you look at Western countries you will see the same collection of ones
which have manufacturing industries and ones which dont.

Iran has an export market in the form of soft furnishings, or doesn't that
count? It also has a fairly robust defence industry.

All the Islamic countries have home grown manufacturing of local items.

How many have an infrastructure not based on oil revenues?

Why is basing the infrastructure on oil revenue morally wrong? It is (IMHO)
bad economic practice but that is for the market to decide not I.

How many do their own work? Most import their workers.

Wow. This is heading into the realms of madness. How many westerners work in
menial, manual labour tasks?

Iran has an unemployment rate of about 11%, France has about 10%, Germany
has about 12%.

How many people in the west do their own work? How many countries rely on
migrant labour to work as cleaners, maids etc.

Without Western civilization to act as a contraint these workers
would become slaves overnight.

I have no idea where this comes from, how it is supported or what it is
supposed to imply.

Even Europe is importing its workers.

All countries do. Most western countries outsource lots of their work back
to Asia.

Your posts advocate through implication the killing of those you deem a
potential threat to the US. This is one of the most circular lines of
reasoning imaginable.

Critically, the threat of Islamic extremists destroying Western
civilisation
is farcical. How could they do it?

It's very easy.

It isn't.

I have a couple scenarios that can make an
irrecoverable mess or a middle mess that would take a couple
hundred years to clean up. I am not going to be specific
here. I'm not as clever as other people are. If I can think
of a couple, there has to be lots of opportunities.

I can think of 56 million reasons why an external source couldn't destroy
the UK civilisation. Saying "I can think of ways but I am not going to be
specific" is a bit weak really.

Civilisations have been destroyed in the past - I cant think of any which
have fallen as the result of insurgent / terrorist methods.

The west appears to be busy dismantling the things which make Western
Civilisation good. Seems our fears are making us do the work for the
terrorists.

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egal58$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <Qfmdnb7he-bLe7rYRVnygg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg820j$8qk_003@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <p6adnUf13uDVN7vYRVnyrg@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg57vi$8ss_013@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253CB2.A36CCD05@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to
alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it
alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist.

Tell me more about this threat you perceive.

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

Then we need to have a War on Faith Schools in the west. We can add a
War
against the Arts and Humanities departments as well.

Your facetious answer so you can ignore the issue is noted.

There is no issue to ignore and I was being serious. You have created a
phantom fear (or mess to use your quaint terminology) which you want to
defend against.

It is not a phantom fear. I've seen knowledge disappear through
neglect because there was nobody to babysit it and through deliberate
action because the people in charge were mess makers.

Well, none of this translates to any risk from Islamic based terrorism. It
remains that Faith Schools and Evangelical Governments adhere to both your
criteria.

The west is already throwing away knowledge. Look at the debates over
teaching creationism in schools - the court rulings tried to overturn
accepted definitions of science to enable it.

Exactly! Why do you think I am trying to get the fucking Democrats
to start dealing with these national security problems? They
are so intents to open the gates to the barabarians that they are
not providing the checks and balances to our (US) internal religious
extremists.

As I said, the threat to most Western civilisations is actually an internal
one. The bad people outside cant really hurt us, but being frightened of
them we can hurt ourselves.