Jihad needs scientists

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

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Given the media's penchant for pandering to ratings, I'd say the American
public was *very* interested in it.

Never mind, the embarassing fact is that the *government* was very
interested in it, for a ridiculously long period of time. To the point
where the hearings, up to and including impeachment, occupied Congress
full-time for at least a couple of months. Kind of ridiculous for such a
minor "infraction", I'd say. Like I've said, I'm no big fan of Clinton, but
on the scale of things, getting an adulterous hummer under the desk in the
Oval Office is ridiculously low on the scale of important things that
Presidents can do wrong, and the Congress should be worrying about.

Why not just admit it was a flimsy excuse to try to prematurely oust a
President who was relatively effective, and get on with your life. Like I
said, I'm a long-time Republican, and I thought the Republican party behaved
shamefully during that time. Clinton was fairly effective in that he still
got things done, even though he faced a hostile Congress for much of his
term. He knew the value of compromise, and he knew how to actually do it.
Heck, Bush can't even get things done with his *own* party in power in
Congress. If you can't reach out to your friends, how can you ever hope to
come to terms with the opposition??? The "Great Uniter", my ass.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

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.

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.

John

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8ft5i211dol6qj0uqbuo75l7bsr01uf60v@4ax.com...

and we're not here to
appease a bunch of short-sighted cowards like you (you, Graham, not
the UK) who want to maintain the status quo by taking that radical
Islamic dick up your ass, as long as it goes in slowly.

Well, as long as we are sticking to reasonable conversation to show how
the
other person's view is wrong...

Sometimes a crude allegory serves admirably in making a point
quickly.

Wrong. It serves absolutely no purpose but to make you feel like a Big Man,
and instantly knocks 50 points off your IQ to the outside observer.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:H_SdnSJnd6L2fL_YRVnysA@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522DE51.EE67E06F@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

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

Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would
still be hostile.

The timescale doesn't fit with that idea.

Prior to the "GWOT"

GWOT ?

Global War on Terror.

Which the Good Friday Agreement pre-dated by many years.

Well, three.

And that's just reckoning to the visible *public* aspects of the GWOT (for
want of a better name). It seems pretty clear to me that the FBI and CIA
must have been significantly ramping up their surveillance after the first
WTC bombing--what was that, 1998? Remember, at the time, that was a *major*
event in the US--it was the first major time the conflict in the Middle East
had spilled over onto US soil. The Northern Irish plots that got sniffed
out in that increased effort could well have had a chilling effect on the
IRAs activities long before the visible efforts at combatting terror that
started after 9/11, and may well have been one of the things that led the
IRA to sit down and be party to the Good Friday Agreement. These are all
speculations on my part, but they seem plausible.

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522FB24.C8C44BB0@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

The Turkish Gov't has a similar problem with the KDP.

Also Terrorists.

But our friends !

Yep. Still terrorists though. If they weren't helping in Iraq we'd be
helping exterminate them.

And finish off Saddam's work ? !!!

The above neatly exposes the flaw in the 'war on terror'. It's a
war-on-terror-unless-you're-convenient-to-us war.

Always has been that way. The difference between "freedom fighter" and
"terrorist" depends mostly on the point of view of the speaker applying the
label.

Eric Lucas

 

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ghr5i29b7n5lmk1h8qk21pth396uenfg76@4ax.com...

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:16:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> Gave us:

Yep. However I wouldn't hang my hat on anything CAIR has to offer.
Around here they spout all kinds of hate, refuse to say anything
negative about extremism, nor be interviewed by the media.

My feeling is that if American Muslims can't/won't be outspoken
against their extremist brothers, in an out-and-out world blow-up
they'll be rounded up into camps just like the Japanese-Americans in
WWII... deservedly... "silence implies consent" (Sir Thomas More).


I fucking agree. WHERE are all the US bound Muslim leaders at
making known how wrong the extremist terrorist behaviors are?

Silence does more than imply consent in this case, if you ask me.
The bastards actually think they can pull a "war all at once" on us.
They need to get real.

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?

Eric Lucas

 

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0@4ax.com...

The real problem lies with the California version of a police
academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution,
and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it.

Oh, you mean like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from
unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? Yet you're OK when Bush
ignores those? How about a little consistency in your views? Or do you
just get on Usenet to insult and swear at people?

Eric Lucas

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45230513.449C4ADE@hotmail.com...

Are you suggesting that the US *isn't* demonising Islam ?

If so, I reckon the point is lost on most Americans for starters.

Given what has happened repeatedly since 2001 at the Mosque near my recent
former home, the point is lost on enough US citizens to be a problem. Those
poor peace-loving folks who mind their own business have faced repeated
vandalism, all for nothing but being Muslim. Fortunately, they've been
lucky (or smart) enough to avoid personal assaults, to my knowledge.

Eric Lucas

 

In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

You didn't read carefully. It is not "10% changing". It is that
historical data indicates dramatic changes when about 10% of the
population is *dead*. Does this make it clear?

So, we only need to kill 100 million Muslims or so ?

I didn't say, at the moment, what we need (or need not) to do. I

pointed what empirical data for past conflicts shows. Go argue with
history if you don't like it.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F57D.6F001713@hotmail.com...

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

Well, you tried that with Australia. What happened to that?

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:8KadnUZe2txEdL_YnZ2dnUVZ8tadnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E78E.8D15FE63@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

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

If we stick to the WWII analogy,
the French resistance were certainly terrorists

More like insurgents in fact.

In my lexicon there is no difference ;-)

Trust me, there is one.

Really? Technically there may be, given that insurgents fight an invading
force.

Well, sorry to niggle, but technically, no.
Definitions of insurgent on the Web:

a.. (joint) Member of a political party who rebels against established
leadership. (JP 1-02)
www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/wiki/index.php/Counterinsurgency_Operations/Glossary

b.. Someone who rises against Constituted Authority, a Rebel . The Active
or Open Hostility to any Constituted Authority is called Insurrection
users.skynet.be/jeeper/Terms%20I.html

c.. a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted
authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
d.. guerrilla: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger
force by sabotage and harassment
e.. in opposition to a civil authority or government
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

f.. An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that
rises up against an established authority, government, or administration.
Those carrying out an insurgency are “insurgents”. Insurgents conduct
sabotage and harassment. Insurgents usually are in opposition to a civil
authority or government primarily in the hope of improving their condition.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgent

None of these is the OED (I don't have a subscription), but they're
consistent in describing an insurgency as a rebellion against an established
authority, and the Princeton site I trust as regards definitions. Invading
forces are by definition not "established authorities". Once they establish
themselves, they become "the new government", not "an invading force", and
an insurgency then becomes possible by definition. It's niggling, but
technically, "insurgent" is closer to "revolutionary" or "freedom fighter"
than your definition. Then, see my other post about the difference between
"terrorist" and "freedom fighter" depending largely on the point of view of
the person applying the label.

This all leads to the comment, though...the US has quite a bit of arrogance
to consider themselves the "established authority" in Iraq, as they imply
when they call the resistance there "the insurgency". What happend to those
much-vaunted elections that the Bush administration keeps telling people
indicate that Iraq is taking control of their own country--i.e., becoming
their own established authority?

Eric Lucas

 

[thelasian]

Eeyore wrote:

T Wake wrote:

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

His [Ahmadinejad] election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though...

Do you have any cite for that ?

I will endeavour to find a relevant one, a quick slightly relevant one is -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html.
The Guardian Council vetted the presidential candidates to ensure no one too
"reformist" would be on the bill.

There was a front runner who was considered more western leaning though.


My understanding was that his electoral success was a surprise to most
observers.

Yes. It was. The last president was a secular reformist. Still does not mean
the elections were fair and open democratic process showing the will of the
people.

It's not a democracy as we'd understand it for sure.

Graham

Yes, in our version of democracy, there are only two parties that are
both funded mainly by the same corporations and collectively dominate
and cooperate to prevent the rise of any third party.
In our version of democracy, the candidates are pre-selected for the
voters depending on how much money corporations donate to them, and the
voters are pre-selected for the candidates throught the process of
drawing electoral district lines using sophisticated consumer database
info in order to ensure that the district vote comes out in a
pre-determined way.

Yes, that's our democracy.

And if you don't believe me, I suggest you read Walter Karp's classic
book Indispensable Enemies: The Politics of Misrule in America, for
starters, and this http://www.fairvote.org/?page=564



"In analysing the Bush administration's rhetoric on Iran, it is
therefore instructive to consider how some of the more obvious examples
of fallacious reasoning and techniques of deceptive rhetoric were
employed to make the case for a war on Iraq..."

MORE: http://www.geocities.com/csafdari

 

[YD]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:46:06 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:53:35 GMT, "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.

Google "dark ages", dumbass.

Y'all had far more heathens roaming the countryside than we ever
have or ever will.

And only now are you getting there? A bit laggardly, I say.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[thelasian]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522E61D.EA28E065@hotmail.com...


T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

I agree about not stirring the pot.

He was popularly elected though. Probably because Bush had pissed off
lots
of Iranians with the axis of evil business.

His election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though...

Do you have any cite for that ?

I will endeavour to find a relevant one, a quick slightly relevant one is -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601056.html.
The Guardian Council vetted the presidential candidates to ensure no one too
"reformist" would be on the bill.

My understanding was that his electoral success was a surprise to most
observers.

Yes. It was. The last president was a secular reformist. Still does not mean
the elections were fair and open democratic process showing the will of the
people.

Sorry but the last president was himself a turbaned cleric and not
secular, though he was a reformist. Furthermore, the elections in Iran
can be criticized for many things but there is no doubt that
Ahmadinejad won the majority of the votes, and that the voters rejected
the more liberal candidate. THis, after the US encouraged the voters to
boycott the vote.

 

[thelasian]

Eeyore wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

I agree about not stirring the pot.

He was popularly elected though. Probably because Bush had pissed off lots
of Iranians with the axis of evil business.

His election was heavily assisted by the Religious leaders though...

Do you have any cite for that ?

My understanding was that his electoral success was a surprise to most
observers.

Graham

That's mainly because most observers don't know much about Iran. The
election of the last president was also a surprise to "most observers"
and so what the 1979 revolution.
Most observers are surprised to hear that sex change operations, drug
needle exchanges, cloning, stem cell research, and even skiing happen
in Iran. That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

 

[thelasian]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article <wGvUg.1284$NE6.314@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"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


For one thing, he got elected because the unelected Council of Guardians
(mullahs) disqualified pretty much everyone who was not a hard-line
conservative.

Myth. Mustafa Moin was a candidate but not a hardliner. Even if this
was true, no one forced the poeple to vote for Ahmadinejad or anyone
else - the voters could have stayed home. They didn't.

In the US, the candidates are whittled down to 2 by the domination of
hte Republican-Democrats over the election system, which they
intentionally misuse to prevent the rise of a third party candidate.

 

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159934214.272157.109720@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

That's mainly because most observers don't know much about Iran. The
election of the last president was also a surprise to "most observers"
and so what the 1979 revolution.
Most observers are surprised to hear that sex change operations, drug
needle exchanges, cloning, stem cell research, and even skiing happen
in Iran. That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

Interesting facts about Iran, but come on, that last sentence is a bit
unfair. Most people (myself included) simply have little data upon which to
base a change in point of view on Iran. However, my curiosity piqued by
your comments, I intend to set about learning more.

Eric Lucas

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:sgs5i2d292a172fa0l0dnvdqvan60mb5mm@4ax.com...

The Europeons have no clue how Americans react when they finally get
mad... Democrat and Republican divisions disappear, and we fight as
one. The shit WILL hit the fan.

Shouldn't that be "The nukes will hit the Shiites"?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3rEUg.11175$6S3.2934@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

Nuke 'em. And if they complain then, as Bette Midler says, "Fuck 'em if
they can't take a joke".

Humor noted, but it leads to the question "Nuke whom?" To cover all of
the ground that terrorists currently occupy, you'd have to drop enough
nukes to basically make the rest of the planet completely uninhabitable
for a long time. Nuclear winter scenarios from the Cold War, all over
again. If that were the case, I think the ones at Ground Zero would be
the lucky ones, regardless of which side they're on.

That is a problem, but even 4 nukes would total the US medical care system.
What would a couple do to Iran, say?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:rXFUg.11207$6S3.6512@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

With such a wide selection to choose from, I often wonder why we have no
prison islands. You could make the prisoners actually work the land and
stuff. You never know, it might do them good.

Well, you tried that with Australia. What happened to that?

The Ozzies call it "The Lucky Country". I plan to retire there.