Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people. People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

Have you seen this ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Homer J Simpson wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

Alternatively you could put every mosque under armed guard and provide
them with no end of support....

Or move them all to the Outer Hebrides - and the Muslims with them!

With such a wide selection to choose from, I often wonder why we have no
prison islands.

---
You do. It's called Australia.

Bwahahaahahah.

You could make the prisoners actually work the land and stuff.
You never know, it might do them good.

---
They certainly seem to be doing better than you lot, lately.

With an entire continent they could hardly do worse could they ? Wasn't there
some other place we colonised that was a continent too ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting
here. JoeBloe beats them hands down though.

Graham

Ermm, is Terrell not an electronic guru?

Guru ? You have to be kidding !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:16:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

He should pay close attention to the scene where someone punches out
the horse.

Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted.

The history of Europe is the history of war. The earliest Greek
writings that survive are tales of war. Europe has been at war for
most of the last 3000 years, culminating in the "total war" of the
20th century, killing tens of millions of non-combattants, surely the
largest-scale terrorism in world history.

It was the American occupation, Pax Americana, that enforced 60 years
of peace in Europe for the first time in millennia.

Spin that!

The main reason for prolonged peace here is the Common market / EC / EU. The
Cold War also kept most countries here allies too.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:

Meanwhile, the stuffed donkey will watch the documentary about the
wild west, "Blazing Saddles".

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.

Graham

Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,
usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a
nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are
just a framework to hold things up.

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:58:19 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:vmh7i25ngq09s4pen3ck8ohsrmp82qf0ud@4ax.com...

As noted above, both of those individuals _did_ commit crimes in the
US and, as such, are subject to prosecution under US law.

So when the Ayatollahs send the religious police into the USA to arrest the
purveyors of porn you'll be fine with seeing thousands of US citizens
dragged off to Iran for death by stoning?

---
This case is different in that the pornographic images aren't
specifically targeted to areas where they're prohibited, they're
merely broadcast over a network. That places the responsibility for
their reception and decoding on the individual downloading the
image.

I think a valid analogy would be that of listening to radio programs
in a country where those programs were illegal but which were
broadcast from a country where they were legal. Clearly the radio
station is within its rights to broadcast what is legal in its own
country, so the responsibility for listening to those programs where
they're illegal must be borne by those listeners who are prepared to
break the law where they live.

This all presupposes that no money has changed hands in either the
porn case or the radio (which could also be broadcasting porn) case.

Money changing hands complicates things, but I'm tired of this row
and I'll think about it tomorrow.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Jim Thompson wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)

Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?

It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and
explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work
status.

Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not
claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth,
does his job matter?

Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is
in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed
of yourselves.

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting here. JoeBloe
beats them hands down though.

Graham

At least we're not impotent like you.

...Jim Thompson

Is that the best you can muster ? Now be a good chap and go play biker will you ?

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452439B6.E8B0188A@hotmail.com...

The Royal Air Force to be entirely accurate but yes, we were certainly far
from unready. In fact Britain's armaments industry had been working hard
in
the years preceding WW2 to make the planes ( and other stuff ) we knew we
were going to need.

Yes. Sometimes it's good to give teenagers really big guns.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:ktCdnbTG8sPWqLnYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net...

So, it's all his fault then.... He is a bad man.

Point?

Center for a start.

G B Shaw tried much the same thing with no great results.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a8d8i2tf66qkjkv1g72mlmfeuik3naeajv@4ax.com...

I look forward to the arrest of US citizens by the British Police for
running
'extreme' porn sites when and if the new law comes into force in that
case.

That would be what? Pictures of people fucking with the lights on?

If 5 seconds of tit makes their heads explode I'm sure the Cheney party
would be happy to deport pornographers.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452442C1.3BB58AA3@hotmail.com...

With an entire continent they could hardly do worse could they ? Wasn't
there
some other place we colonised that was a continent too ?

There was the US but that turned out to be a complete f*ck up so better to
ignore it.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ckd8i2d471ak7j75nlcnugpbk8j5th89v6@4ax.com...

Because America has the wherewithal and the will to do whatever it
wants to, and all the little guys resent that.

Bullies are generally resented except by toadies.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:58:20 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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

In no real sense. At best they are fatuous claims of superiority "God's
chosen people". Reality rarely confirms such beliefs.

---
Really?

Dietary laws?

Acceptable social behavior?

Personal cleanliness?

Settlement of disputes?

and on and on...

None of these are important to insure the survival of people who
have lived in the desert for thousands of years?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:06:56 +0100, "T Wake" wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

"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.

Since you're incapable even of identifying 'radical Islam' your thoughts count for
nothing.
---
Sheesh, as if the opinions of a pinhead like you mattered.

You even have to get clarification after clarification from T Wake
because you can't understand his lucid prose and you dare to
criticize others?

For shame.

Inability to answer the question noted.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

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.

Didn't do anything to us or any of our friends, at least since
the first Gulf War, no credible threat, absolutely no WMDs of any sort.

It was pre-emptive defence ! Or so they now tell us.

Their army was so pitifully weak that there's no rational reason to believe
that and attack from them was imminent to anybody

They certainly couldn't attack anyone they didn't have a border with for sure.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:58:20 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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

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.

When you see that half of the workers are tearing down the outhouse faster
than the other half are building it then it is a reasonable conclusion that
organization was not a high priority.

---
What was being talked about was strategies which are being
formulated, in secret, to deal with terrorism.

What are you talking about?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message

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.

How long had Bush been in office when 9/11 occurred? Who was in
office the 8 years before that?

What's that got to do with it ?

You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't
take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ?

The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible.

Graham

Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration
ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and
ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week
after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date
for any responsibility of the previous presidency?

Depends what it is. How would a month suit you ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the
British public will defend them.

Hopefully.

I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day.

I think you mean political debate. I doubt the public would stand for it.

Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am not
for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely
indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get
listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_
representative.

Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that
goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be
messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security
measures.

That idiocy infuriates me. We are no safer for it at all.

When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over.

Where have you got your view of current public debate here from ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:10:41 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:5ej7i2h3fbuks2ft3pk2o2gf3alga3na3k@4ax.com...

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

Crap thinking knows no borders.

Actually the US border does delineate a lot of it. Americans as a group are
almost totally focussed inwards - but are not at all introspective. Their
thinking is not at all broadened by knowledge of the world, and they are
amazingly gullible.

---
Did you know that 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire.

" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm

Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep.

---
We sure as hell did

I'd give you most of the credit for Japan but Europe ? No way ever.

, and they were spoils of war, to do with as we saw fit.

No they weren't !

How do you think England got to be an empire, by giving it all back?

How many countries did we have to go to war with ( and how many killed ) to get the
Empire ?

Graham