Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:31 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:55:44 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

You're not, you're just a coward who's afraid to go out and do
the bombing you'd really like to.

Don't be so absurd. It sems you can only relate to violent ideas.

---
Not at all true, but when I read your violent rhetoric I like to
translate it into visuals which depict what you'd like to do if you
weren't afraid of the reprisals.

Show where I have espoused violence.

---
I recall you said that you have nukes which you'd use to repel
invading Muslims. That's pretty violent in my book.

I said no such thing. Nor do I expect any invasion ! What a crackpot idea.

---
Denying saying it won't make it not so.
---

But read it again, genius. It says: "when I read your violent
rhetoric". Do you deny that your rhetoric is violent?

There is no violence there at all.

---
If you truly believe that it's because intellectual violence has
become so firmly ingrained in your psyche that it now seems
commonplace and normal to you.
---

The only violently inclined ppl in this thread
are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal
threats.

---
Show where I made a personal threat.

Can you not read ? 'even to' doesn't have to include you.

---
Nor then does it have to include Thompson or Terrell, so who were
you leveling the accusation at, specifically?

Or are you going to try to backpedal your way out of this one, too?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:eg66i2tu83m9he0stj9l8l0kdpulpc7s6d@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:00:17 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:grs2i25e29m02qt6takp6sfpoi0snt838s@4ax.com...
On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD@earthlink.net...
Jim Thompson wrote:

I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because
they'd be shunned ;-)


The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant
as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came
here to harass us.

All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the
French
don't like themselves.


I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were
often rude, and the people in small towns and in the countryside were
almost always cheerful and friendly. In the US, I find city and
country people mostly friendly, without a big difference.

Oddly, I agree. I often visit the US and invariably people are polite and
friendly. I avoid rural France for fear of the Guillotine...

I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism
and all that.

Not been to Moscow, most Former Soviet countries tend to be quite polite
though. Maybe the Russians took the breakdown worse than the rest...


I spent a month in Moscow towards the end of the Breshnev regime,
while it was still the USSR. I have friends there (my friend Sergei
owns the biggest independent automatic transmission repair operation
in Russia, I think) and they say things are a lot better lately. I
have no desire to go back.

At the moment, while I think it would be nice and I wish I could say I had
been, I have no desire to go there either

The Russians don't understand queues. If there's a cash register,
everybody crowds around and pushes in. When a elevator opens,
everybody outside rushes in from all directions and everybody inside
pushes their way out, all at the same time.

Just like France....

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu2h$8ss_003@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <k1CUg.49$45.181@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <efta6e$8ss_003@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <efr837$sb7$3@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[...]
The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War
on
Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.)

It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on".

Yes. I always thought that these sound bytes were crying
wolf. When was the first one? Johnson's War on Poverty?

Well, there was this and "the War on Cancer". Not sure which came
first.

I don't remember that one. Another item I've forgotten :-(.

Aha. We need a war on forgetfulness then.....

 

[Keith]

In article <zKKdnSzN97hrlbnYnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db9d68e963bff989d6e@News.Individual.NET...
In article <%8RUg.8425$GR.1728@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61@News.Individual.NET...

Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with
Osama
bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan?

Sadly, yes.

Another idiot heard from.

You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial
support
to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the US?
You need to read more, it's well-known.

It's well known that the Quarterbacking on Monday morning is much
better than that on Sunday afternoon too. What a maroon!

What a response. You are truly at the cutting edge of debate Sir.

It is an observation that happens to be germane here. Want another
one? 20:20 hindsight is perfect.

As you don't really say anything except phrases used by others, can I assume
from this you think previous US administrations didn't train and equip Usma
Bin Laden and the Taleban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?

No, I don't. OBL <> Northern Alliance.

Or are you just trying to impress your friends with the funny quotes you can
copy and paste?

I've certainly impressed you out of your hole.

--
Keith

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5db7i2d91g9i390qo6jqr3csbn7etevmsm@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:09:52 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nfq3i21ho617f25tnndifm0hlhpmo5onul@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:58:29 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
dirk.bruere@gmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:59:42 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
So what? With world domonation as its goal, one would expect it
would strike world-wide, as the opportunity arose.

Whose goal? "It" isn't really appropriate to define the long term
aims of a
disparate group of organisations. Are "they" trying to dominate the
world or
destroy western society or convert every one or...
---
"It" being radical Islam, the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.
Do you often conjure up such idiotic ideas out of thin air ?

Graham

Graham, what John said is straight out of their Koran. Repeated
in many Surah, Ayah passages. For example;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surah 47, Ayah 4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike of their
heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the
rest make fast the fetters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the record, an infidel is anyone who is not a recognized
Muslim in good standing. A Muslim who turns away from the Muslim
religion is an infidel. Any person who belongs to and
acknowledges belonging to any other religion is an infidel.

Gordon

Then how do you account for Iran having the second highest Jewish
population in the ME? According to your theory they should all be
Muslims or dead by now.

---
They are "People of the Book" and deserve respect.


As are Christians. Gordon did say "For the record, an infidel is anyone
who
is not a recognized Muslim in good standing."

This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the
beheading.

---
Yes, but because of the small amount of respect eked out to
non-Muslim People of the Book, refusal to convert isn't an automatic
death sentence. For all others, AIUI, it is.

Ok, as I read it, you had stated Islam defines all non-Muslims as Infidels
"Any person who belongs to and acknowledges belonging to any other religion
is an infidel."

Could it be that Islam is not as clear cut as posting sections of the Koran
may imply?

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:34:28 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5cn5i2tfs8dhlbmarcltqii1bgcrggt3ou@4ax.com...

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

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

You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to?

---
Dunno, but if you're trying to emulate Homer Simpson, I'd bet you're
a lot closer to knowing than you'd like to take credit for.

Another Duff, Homer?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:30:06 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45229733.8D7D0F64@hotmail.com...

Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, show
me
a religious text that*isn't*
riddled with contradictions.

They're all really just books of magic spells anyway.

---
No, they're not. They're survival manuals.

Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has
always impressed me in the survival books.

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:05:09 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

I don't see you speaking out against racism in the US. Does that mean you
approve of it, or do you apply different standards to others than you
apply to yourself?

You're an idiot. My family was directly involved with the
"underground railroad". If you have any brains at all, you'll know
that *that* made for more freedom in this country than just about
anything else you could name since.

Immature insults aside, yes, I do know how much good the Underground
Railroad did. Good for them, but I didn't ask about your ancesotrs, I asked
about *you*? I am a direct descendant of Daniel Boone, but you don't see me
crowing that I fought native Americans and conquered the US frontier.

I DO speak out more than a twit like you could ever know.

Immature name-calling aside, don't you think MAYBE, just maybe, the leaders
of moderate Muslim groups might be speaking out against terrorism, more than
*you* could ever know?

Check this out.

" Therefore SMC, with all its members and directors, condemns all forms of
terrorism and the oppression of human rights around the world, whether committed
by Muslims, Christians, Jews or members of other faiths "
http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/aboutus.html

Graham

 

[Keith]

In article <IjTUg.51405$E67.42536@clgrps13>, nobody@nowhere.com
says...

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg0hcc$h85$2@blue.rahul.net...

Clinton was successful.

Bush is a failure.

Unless you assume some really bad things about his motives that is.

9/11 was Bush's failure.

You are your mother's failure.

--
Keith

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

They did break US law. There's lots of legal precedence here. If a
Canadian kills a US citizen in Canada, that's a violation of US law.

Don't care. It's a violation of Canadian law and must be punished under that
law.

---
I agree. The crime should be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in
which it's committed.

So are you going to press for a change in US law ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:53:57 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:37:41 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Sheeesh! Do a Google-groups search on Eeyore/Graham... he's a
depraved poster to porn groups, so he's probably in a cell, posting
from the prison library ;-)

...Jim Thompson

PPOSTFU

- YD.

Several lurkers here have done the same Google-group search and
verified it. So do it yourself. ESAD ;-)

...Jim Thompson

How sad are you ?

Post the results man !

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:v673i2dusng3t5a82qt9hm7n8ve5p4t7ua@4ax.com...

---
"It" being radical Islam,

Radical Islam can't be described as having a "single unified goal."

---
I disagree. I think the single, unified goal would be the
acquisition of unlimited power.

Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are
often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal.
Interesting take.

Which group would get the unlimited power and why would the others (Shi'a vs
Sunni for example) allow them to have it?

How can a groups of organisations which have no single unified command or
structure have a single unified goal?

Some radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in
Asia have
no interest in Global conversion.

---
But they still want power.

Which nation, religious group, company (etc) doesnt?

---

the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

Ok. This is just your opinion though.

---
Well, no. The fate of infidels who fail to convert to Islam (not
just radical Islam either) is spelled out in the Koran and is
relegation to social insignificance, at best, for 'People of the
Book', and death for the rest of humanity.

Yet, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as clear cut as this. Islamic nations
tolerate Hindus for example.

Christianity does not tolerate unbelievers either. Papal bulls in the tenth
century declared all non-Christians as subject to death on the whims of
their Christian lords.

Just as with Christianity, there are differences in how people interpret
their "rulebook."

An equally valid opinion would be to
say the US has global world domination as it's goal.
It is after all only an opinion.

---
I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire. Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

I think otherwise. The US has no aspirations to an empire in the form of the
Nineteenth century European ones, I agree. However the US wants to have as
many nations as possible under its sphere of influence. That is an Empire.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:lhn7i21h44h9s303rg8ru3q30g72nikg10@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:36:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:12:21 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:29:46 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

_Radical_ Islam has shown no qualms whatsoever about dispatching
other
*Muslims*, if it suits their ends. Well more than half of the
victims of
the insurgency in Iraq have been Iraqi (presumably Muslim)
citizens.

There is no entity known as radical Islam.

Graham

Graham, are you saying that the Muslims' inability to recognize
any behavior traits as being radical, accounts for the on-going
radical Muslim behavior that the rest of the world observes?

No. In fact 'radical Islam' is well recognised with the wider Muslim
community.
It is by varying degrees both loathed and feared by ordinary Muslims.

What I'd like to see is a concrete proposal to deal with these groups
that has
some actual substance and credibility.

Graham

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will
achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly.

There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO
thought about
what we're doing.

---
LOL, you think that because you're in the dark as to what's going on
behind closed doors that nothing's being done? That's gotta be
pretty close to penultimate arrogance.

Oddly, while I agree with the main elements of what you are saying here, it
identifies a double standard in your way of thinking.

You are happy to accept that your Government is planning behind the scenes
to work against Terrorism and fight the global threat of [insert enemy
here], but when it comes to Islamic groups working behind the scenes to
reduce the levels of extremist activity - that can't be the case.

Strange.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by
the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

---
A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war.

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

Is that what you want ?

Graham

 

[Keith]

In article <4524097f$1$26616$91cee783
@newsreader01.highway.telekom.at>, daniel_mandic@aon.at says...

Keith wrote:

You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by your
posts.

You would like to say, a Neanderthaler descendant is a two-faced
bastard.

Keep Care...

Nope, it's worth nothing if you keep it.

They might act two sided but they think once. Thousand times better
than any ...[putyourself here]... (Ape?... Bush)))


You might care to consider what that might do for your credibility.

You might want to consider what you do for your country's
credibility.

I guess Eyore is English. My dear they are also dangerous, but they
^^^^^ Eeyore ,

have Class, at least. Getting better and better, indeed. USA thumps
^^^^^ One's class isn't a good measure of one's worth

from one desaster to the next ****
^^^^^^^^ really?

But yes, the world is full of "desasters" underway and waiting in
the wings. Going from one "desaster" to the next is a better
strategy than ignoring "desasters", head in posterior.

--
Keith

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a criticism "unacceptable."

Which criticism was unacceptable?

I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't
think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about
something.

You can't have it both ways.

Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an
argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who
disagrees with you.

Criticism was considered unacceptable in 1930s Germany too.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

---
You pay _way_ too much attention to the media.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

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


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:deDUg.49810$E67.34301@clgrps13...

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message news:69t5i2hpcjkq20p8tm1dv71ub7k2vpbon0@4ax.com...

Sounds like it. Wasn't there a recent suggestion that the Nazis and
the Brits should have made a deal?

The British were asked to help take out Hitler before WWII and refused.
Big mistake, since no heir would have been as bad.

No way of knowing that for sure. Hitler's insanity contributed heavily to
his forces defeats. If they had a competent, sane, commander in chief it may
have gone differently.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Tapped? That's semantics. How does the NSA know a call is going to
involve someone of interest? They monitor all calls and a computer
"listens" for certain key words and phrases.

No no. Special people do this in their freetime. As we do our Usenet
Job.
You just need the key. With ISDN and everything digital is this
technically no problem, as you surely know. You can listen it whenever
you want, comfortably with all digital features.


But I think it is just in a test phase, bez the people doing the
observer job are not officially endorsed. Just picked out people.
With everything private (here the telekom and POST is still partly ;-(
in state-hand) in the near future, it will be no problem at all.
Formula ten. For every ten people, one observer (chef).

I know it is not possible (one for ten), but small trials with
effective success may help the madness to come forward. (We already had
such an obserfer problem. They observed some bigger politicians and the
police - But at that time (~MMIII), it was just an intern problem of
one spcific party of politic. -We have seven parties here at the moment)



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

P.S.: The key word finder computer, is just for calming down any
suspicions (like, "I know something technically... yippie")

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Keith wrote:

WRT == "With Respect To"

Aha. Yes, me too.


Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic