Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:00:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

I read about a recent experiment that was done in the UK. In response
to advertised job openings, good but fake resumes were invented and
sent in, with the only difference that some had English-sounding names
and some had Muslim-sounding names. The response ratio was about 5:1.

I suspect this is another urban myth actually. A similar thing was *really*
done with different ages in fact.

It's in here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Muslim#Islamophobia_in_Europe

" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms "

See my post on this point.

That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger
from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ?

Graham

Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of
population growth, negative for the traditional population and
positive for Islamic immigrants?

So, you're worried about a hypothetical something in maybe 1000 yrs ?

Has it ever ocurred to you that most European Muslims don't want to live like backward
tribesppl ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:54 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:

More and more like the Soviets every day!

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

It's actually more like 1930s Germaany.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:38:55 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

Preposterous.

He's perfectly right.

The 'Natwest 3' were extradited to the USA from the UK for a supposed 'crime'
that doesn't even exist in UK law and that alleged 'crime' took place on UK
soil. This UK Gov't has a lot to answer for for agreeing to an extradition
treaty that your lot haven't even signed and doubtless wouldn't accept the
conditions of were the situations reversed.

Bunch of damn cowboys.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's just
not very popular.

How did he get elected then ?

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 06 09:51:23 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

In article <jqhUg.45399$bf5.39370@edtnps90>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:hu33i2tqjfg6nfvg8d5o1krhaq0lr1umhi@4ax.com...

The issue is whether non-US-citizens have Constitutional rights when
they are not physically in the USA, or whether US citizens have such
rights when captured in a foreign country while fighting against our
military.

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.




Tell me how many times the Bill of Rights says "people" and how many times it
says "citizens."

It says "the people", not the more global "people." And it does
recognize the concept of US citizenship. And in fact the constitution
originally recognized that slaves did not have full rights of regular
citizens, so there's plenty of precedent for allowing preferential
rights to citizens.

But US law certainly doesn't apply everywhere, and the US courts
recognize that. It's self-appointed "International Courts" which claim
global reach.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic.

Is ignorance better?

It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds >at rest,
should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with >Muslims being
progromised.

I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

If it ever came to it, I'd expect it would be the public reacting, not the politicians.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:02 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

I saw Keith Olberman's broadcast on this issue.

I find it truly fantastic that the US Gov't has become such a cesspool of
fuckwits and that so may of the US population are keen to lap it up.

Graham

It was some time ago that you stopped thinking and stopped discussing
and began ranting. I sure hope you don't design electronics with a
similar level of intellectual effort.

John

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

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

and the second being that I
don't believe _radical_ Islam would have any qualms about
dispatching non-converts whether they were people of the book or
not.

What do you think?

_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

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:30:55 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:08 +0100, Eeyore 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.

The Bible says contradictory things too.

---
What's contradictory about: "If you don't convert we'll cut off your
infidel head."?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 07:39:13 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:01:19 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4520C734.BF44F5D0@hotmail.com>, Eeyore writes:

There is no such thing as a coherent 'Islamic terrorist' movement, much as the USA would like to have >you
believe it. Much Islamic terrorism isn't even targeted at the West.

There wasn't such thing as a coherent "Axis" in 1939-40. There were
three separate nations, pursuing separate goals, often in
non-coordinated fashion, at times even in a way which was detrimental
to the other Axis members goals.

Your fixation with the history of WW2 is idiotic.

Is ignorance better?

It simply has zero relevance to the issue at hand. Mind you, just to put your fevered American minds at rest,
should European Islam be stupid enough to get 'nasty' expect another 'Kristallnacht' with Muslims being
progromised.


I bet you're looking forward to that, boxcars and death camps. Does
"get nasty" include acquiring political power?

John

"progromised" ??

Eeyore is such an idiot ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Well, people can't help being idiots. They can help being mean.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message

The US believes that US law applies everywhere in the world, but US
constitutional rights don't apply to anyone who isn't the 'right sort of
person'.

Preposterous.

But still true.

Do these guys think there's no such thing as extraordinary rendition ?

Astonishing ! The USA has its onw 'SS' now.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:33:51 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:46:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
T Wake wrote:

Or "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to buy weapons and
fight [Insert Disliked Government of the Day] and promise never to fight
us - unless you really have to?"

Can you [or anyone] remind me why the Irish Republican terrorist
organisations received so much in the way of donations from concerned,
caring, American private citizens? I've never been all that sure myself.

I get of hearing this. They collected money in areas with high Irish
American population, and the average American heard nothing about it,
till the "TV news Exposé". If the average American had know about it
and had agreed with it, there would have been more than enough money
flowing into their coffers for them to have won. The ones who did
donate were people who came to the US to get away from the British, and
wanted to help those left behind, right or wrong.

So you're happy to admit to a desire to sponsor terrorism ?

---
What's that all about?

All he wrote, it seemed to me, was a narrative.

It was a clear acceptance that sponsoring terrorism may be acceptable.

" If the average American........had agreed with it, there would have been more than
enough money
flowing into their coffers [the IRA] ".

---
That's merely a statement of fact and has nothing to do with
Michael's politics.

What you're trying to do is set up a straw man so you can spend some
more time on your soap box, but it's not going to work, you
despicable slimeball.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <eft9s4$8ss_002@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote:
[....]

is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.

Oh yes, those attempts to kill OBL were horrible. The Bush admins policy
of ignoring him even after the FBI's evidence that he was behind the Cole
bombing was certainly a better policy. It really kept us much safer.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
[....]

The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

It is too late for Foley's name to be taken off the ballot. I think the
democrats will pick this seat up for sure.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jamie]

Eeyore wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


What is your street address? I have some buddies at Ohio State that
are just drooling for the chance to "meet" you ;-)


Presumably a threat of physical violence again ?

Do you Americans know nothing else ?

Graham

sure, you want to go out side and play?

--
Real Programmers Do things like this.
http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5

 

[Eeyore]

Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population

About 10% actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

- which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

< snip >

I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking
over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for
Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying
German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)!

There's no comparison since no Muslim country is actually at war with us, imagined
or otherwise.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message

We did change the behavior of Germany and Japan, didn't we?

At the cost of maybe 20% of the German population - which clearly noone is
willing to pay yet in the middle east; mainly because it would look really bad
on TeeVee. If one is not going to fight for real and destroy the opponents there
is really, really no point in sending soldiers.

Well, so here is the situation. As Clausevitz wrote, war doesn't end
till the spirit of one of the opponents is not broken.

So which nation should we be at war with ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:27:54 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> writes:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
---
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.

No, not quite. True about the part of world domination, not about the
other one. Islam recognizes two categories of non-believers. One is
"polytheists" for whom, indeed, the accepted options are conversion or
death. The other is "Um al_Kitab", meaning "Nations of the Book",
which includes Christians and Jews. These may be allowed to live
without converting but only as "dhimmi" (you may check on this term).
Meaning, second class subjects, possessing the (limited) rights
granted them by their Muslim rulers, with the stipulation that said
rights may be withdrawn at the whim of the rulers.

Until such time as Muslims exist in sufficient numbers the point is utterly moot.

---
No, it's not.

What we're discussing is Islamic law and its ramifications, not the
number of Muslims required to overrun a non-Muslim society to the
point where you're given the choice to either convert or die.

But, more to the point, why do you feel the need to always poke your
nose into places where it doesn't belong? Just as an example, your
last post contributed nothing to the thread, and was an annoyance.

Are you capable of understanding that? If you are, then why do you
do it?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

I.M.O: If WW2 was conducted the same way, we would be still be busy knocking
over small groups of Waffen SS while talking about our "deep respect" for
Neo-German culture and the historic achievements of Hitler (all the while buying
German products to prop up the failing plundocracy)!

I'm afraid you're right.

You're both quite mad !

Graham

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522814D.248F1F7E@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's
just
not very popular.

How did he get elected then ?

The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is.

The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar with
the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation
comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a
man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will be
gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much.

Eric Lucas