Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cdfai2hr2cn8dq19nmkpsc2l4kefaktodj@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:35:41 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:21:12 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

"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.

There is no entity called 'radical Islam'.

---
Just like there's no entity called 'white supremacists'.
---

Who exactly do you mean ?

---
The members of Islam who would have no qualms about relieving you of
your head if you refused to convert.

Let me make this clearer.

Who *exactly* do you mean ?

---
What, you want _names_?

That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for
example.

---
Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other
than American.

For example, I'm sure you'd have no problem with radical white
American supremacists. well, understanding the concept, that is.
I'm sure you'd have a very _big_ problem with them otherwise.

I would have no problem with the phrase used properly. Radical Islamic
extremists provide the thrust for the terrorist attacks which this thread is
about. Speaking of Radical Islamic extremists as a single coherent
organisation is wrong.

Same with White American Supremacists. I can only assume there are as many,
often disparate, groups as there are in the UK (lots). Islamic terrorist
organisations are often even more fragmented.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45244B07.23CF9415@hotmail.com...

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.

Field Marshall Slim would roll over in his grave

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

No they weren't !

Sadly this is indicative of a certain mindset. Fortunately it is not one
held by all [or most] Americans.

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 ?

Depends if you call the African tribes countries

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?

Again, why should the government be involved in medical research?

Why *shouldn't* it ?

There is plenty of private money about.

Only for things that can make a fast buck.

That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to be
done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:46:43 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

---
Yes, I would, but I think if they're sufficiently demonized what's
more likely is that if your government decides that it's boxcars and
death camps for them,

Simply not going to happen. Under what bizarre circumstances exactly could you imagine this ?

then you'll watch 'em get loaded up just like
the good non-Jewish citizens of Germany did about 60 years ago.

You're a very sad person.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-7AADB4.15215805102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

And yet the prostitutes in charge of the White House act with impunity
and
compete scorn for the law.

One of the weakest attempts at deflecting a statement that I have
seen in awhile. You wanna mulligan to see if you can do better.

No. I just broadened the definition from sexual acts for money to anything
for money - like the old joke where you ask a ho to paint your house.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:yecVg.8912$GR.1933@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Oh, and there is also a Federal law that say in any recording of a phone
conversation, at least one of the parties to the conversation must be
aware of the recording.

IIRC, Federal law makes it a crime to disclose illegally obtained material.
So if you tap your calls to your married lover to get him to admit killing
his wife that gets thrown out in an all party state - except in Modesto CA.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny
suppressing important freedoms.

Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok.

It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*.

---
Busted!!!

If it was, you would have written:

"That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny
suppressing freedom."

So ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

The dumbass doesn't
realize it would use more fuel to move a heavier bus through two routes,
than two lighter busses. It would make the kids have to wait longer for
their ride, and they would get home even later.

Since when were 2 routes involved ?

The original issue was one of students of different ages being picked up on the *same*
routes FYI.

Graham

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <4525683A.3582AE66@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to be
done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck.

What ought to be done? Why is government better able than the free

market (including the free market of getting donations to support
private research like that done by MDA, St. Judes, etc.)
There are a bunch of studies that show little correlation between
government funding and the number of people with the disease, costs of
care, impact on the economy, etc. Government health care bucks are
every bit as much as a pork barrel as the transportation bill.
Political in extreme and having nothing to do with what ought to be
done.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The 20mA / LED is in your imagination. I *never* use that much.

---
No one gives a shit what you'd use and, besides, you're a liar.

Rubbish. I advised a lower current and a HE LED.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

It looked good to you because you are so blind that you will not
see.

Seems like you jhust summarised the ntire US population there.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:33:41 +0100, Eeyore Gave us:

I said I have a soft spot for readheads. Is there anything else you'd like to
introduce ?

So one downloads redheads from the binary porn groups. One does NOT
get into the groups and start chatting, dumbass.

Tell me about this chatting.
---
Slobber, slobber, drool, drool.

Right.

So youre really just a stupid kid with a fevered imagination. No great surpise.
You're a credit to your country.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:09:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Let me make this clearer.

Who *exactly* do you mean ?

What, you want _names_?

That would be a start. Something more coherent than 'radical islam' for
example.

---
Too bad a simple concept is so hard for you to grasp when it's other
than American.

No. It's *not* a simple concept you fuckwitted simpleton.

Who *are* these ppl ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

Facts you are unaware of?

Other national: "I feel bad so I'll talk to my friends"

American: "I feel bad so I'll murder some innocent people"

You're an idiot. Euro nations were slaughtering thousands long
before we ever did.

Most Americans are Europeans.

---
No, most Americans have ascended from European roots.

No Americans are Europeans except the ones that hold dual
citizenship in the US and also in some European state.

Obfuscation.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3f5ai2la827940ak5b0vn7om58sbuoid1v@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:45:35 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"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.

---
I don't believe that their being at war with each other periodically
negates their collective desire to see the downfall of the west.

Aha, then you view all Christian nations as unified? We have a collective
desire to see the downfall of terrorism and we share a religion.

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

---
In the end, as in any war, to the victor goes the spoils.

Which is why they are not a unified group.

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

---
They all have the Koran, and the Koran advocates the vanquishing of
infidels. That's the single common goal. The rest of it is petty
in-squabbling for local acquisition of power.

Which is why they are not a unified group.

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?

---
They all do, and rightly so. The problem that arises, though, is
when any entity seeks power beyond its needs.

Interesting. Who determines its needs? Are the needs set for "today" or for
future possibilities?

Consider the human body; when in balance, a system where everything
in it is functioning for its own benefit as well as for the benefit
of the rest of the "team". But if any part of it starts getting
ideas about 'taking over', and puts those ideas into effect, then
the whole thing gets out of whack and we get sick. At that point,
it becomes the body's job to straighten out the offender and get
everything back on track. If it can't, it'll die.

Interesting and amusing analogy, but it implies all global nations work in
harmony for a single goal. They dont, and as a result who gets to decide if
a body part is out of whack?

Taking this analogy to its limits - the US is a cancer cell which refuses to
abide with the wishes of the other body parts (UN).

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.

---
Yes. It seems that nothing is ever really black and white. (Except,
perhaps, the statement that it seems that nothing is ever really
black and white. )

Very true

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.

---
I think, "Christianity used to not tolerate unbelievers either"
might be more accurate.

The interpretation of the book is all that has evolved. The hubris of man
means even devoutly religious people think the Word of God is fallible
enough that mere humans can redefine it. In the case of Christianity
believers have morphed from peace loving worshippers of a kind and
benevolent God, to violent, blood thirsty crusaders killing all that moved
and then on to the modern state of a mixture of tolerance and rhetoric.

What is to say Islam will not undergo the same metamorphosis? I mean, no one
tries to kill Cathars any more do they? (Side note: Has the pope ever
rescinded the Papal Bull regarding them?)

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

---
Mostly true, I think, except for one branch of Cristianity, Roman
Catholicism, where the buck stops at the pope's desk.

Even then, some Catholic priests think that while they are not allowed to
marry or masturbate, it is perfectly legitimate to bugger choir boys.

Every person has to be responsible for their own actions - claiming they are
"forced to do it" by a book is (IMHO) insanity.

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.

---
What we want is an economically competitive planet with all nations
at peace and capable of determining their own futures.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be everyone's goal.

Again, all we are doing is debating an opinion which is based on our life
experienced and assesment of what information is available to us.

As I see, the US operates a variety of anti-competetive practices which
ensure American companys get a head start in the race.

I should, at this point, hightlight the fact I do not see this as "wrong."
I do think Empires come in many forms. The US occupation of Iraq for
instance has not opened it to global commerce.

Fortunately, we're the cops.

Here we disagree.

Having said that, ultimately the police need to be answerable to the people
they police. The US is not answerable to anyone.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news6i8i2ptrh2q1n34ss14v6f23o7n0vovco@4ax.com...

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?

If they are being talked about in secret, how do you know they are being
talked about?

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4524AB71.F9DADA16@earthlink.net...

John Fields wrote:

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?


He was hiding in the pit, dodging the other turds?

Good job he could stand on you to stay clear.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:14:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

So, as ever you can't actually identify any one or group.

---
Who can? Where have you been lately? That's not the way it works
any more.
---

You're another believer in the 'Phantom Menace'.

---
And you're not?

Do you know when the next strike is going to occur and who the
perpetrators will be?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:EL-dnT8vPdZTw7jYnZ2dnUVZ8qadnZ2d@pipex.net...

Entertainingly, most of the comments seem to come from Americans.

I especially like this one:

"Agreed. Finally abstinance is being taught and encouraged in American
schools. Things are actually starting to look up morally here, at least
where I live. Girls who "fool around" are really looked down upon and
almost shunned in my school. Because of that we really don't have a
problem.

- Danny Dymarkowski, Archbold Ohio"

I am going to laugh about that for days.

No shit. No virgin ever did anything for me.

BTW, IIRC the abstinence only programs lead to a much higher rate of
abortions.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45256644.CCFDD690@hotmail.com...

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.

The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies.

But who wrote Mein Kampf?