Jihad needs scientists

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

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.

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

---
But they still want power.
---

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.
---

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.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <4522FBAA.24099464@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:20:21 GMT, Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net
Gave us:

The thing we must ask ourselves
is, had I been one of the cops would/should I have waited for the
suspect to pull what ever he had in his pocket out and just hope
it wasn't a gun?

If you had/have any memory of your oath, policies, and laws, you had
better wait.

San Diego PIGS (yes here they are actually pigs still) dump their
entire clips into a person from 30 paces away, and three "officers" do
it in unison. That judge and jury at the end of a gun barrel CRAP
don't get it in his country, in my view. Buncha pussies is what they
are. They shot some old, drunk five foot two obese mexican man with a
garden trowel in his hand... from 30 paces away... and dumped the
whole clip in him. These bastards should ALL be ousted from the
farce, and we should start over.

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.

This is the trouble with any country that believes in gun law.

Right. I don't believe in any laws WRT guns.

--
Keith

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <stv5i215k0cisbp9l0oj762qb0t296qm32@4ax.com>, To-Email-
Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Bunch of damn cowboys.

Yaaa-hoo!

John

Which reminds me that it's time to mosey on home and watch the next
episode of "Deadwood"

John

I'll get out my copy of "Tombstone" ;-)

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

--
Keith

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <efugkv$4up$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...

In article <nrc5i2tq8jr4k99aqofmbbesm7em13ktok@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...

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

SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in
the US would you?

Correct. But they also realize that the rights apply only when those
people are physically in the USA. Which is why some bad guys are held
elsewhere.

John

Well, Bush thought Gitmo qualified as "elsewhere" but the USSC said no. Then
he held people in Europe, which is raising a stink there. It might keep some
prospective EU members out even.

Actually, no it didn't. It said only that Congress had some say in
the matter.

--
Keith

Ken Smith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <cezUg.49724$E67.32128@clgrps13>,
Homer J Simpson <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
[....]

You may care for individual lemmings, but when you see them all charging
over the cliff en masse . . . .

(And yes, I know they don't really do that).

There is lack of strong leadership among lemmings. Humans will follow the
order to get in the handbasket and set it in motion.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...

In article <eftq1i$c8p$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
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.

Eric Lucas

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.

Eeyore (a.k.a. the stuffed donkey) can. He's a two-faced Europeon.

--
Keith

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <MMqdnSZ0oLqTC7_YRVnyiA@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:QQeUg.977$NE6.665@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XOSdncxhP5FZ_bzYRVnyvQ@pipex.net...

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qsh2i2drpinua4j4gbg6utio5ap565jm4q@4ax.com...

Yeah, like: "If we give you this money will you promise to use it to
feed your people and not to make weapons with it?"

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?"

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.

<more garbage snipped>

--
Keith

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cir4i2tom6isqqr383s16hn2h370nq1hg6@4ax.com...

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.

Just saying that it's true doesn't make it so.

Prove your point if you expect to be believed.
================================================
Online Gambling Industry Reels After Arrest
Published: July 18, 2006

LONDON, July 18 - Europe's multibillion-dollar online gambling industry was
thrown into turmoil today after the United States government arrested the
chief executive of a British bookmaking company on Monday, leaving his
rivals scrambling to figure out whether they could be next.

---
Running a gambling establishment which asserts a presence in the US
is equivalent to the perpetrator being in the US and committing that
crime here.

Was the arrest not permitted by the UK?
---

================================================
U.S. reels in major drug cartel leader Arellano Felix on fishing trip
12:31 p.m. August 16, 2006

SAN DIEGO - The third of three brothers long suspected of running one of the
world's most powerful drug cartels is in American hands, U.S. officials
announced Wednesday.
Javier Arellano Felix was intercepted Monday by the U.S. Coast Guard aboard
a sport fishing vessel off the southern Baja California peninsula. The
announcement was made in Washington by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Paul J.
McNulty.
When authorities got word that Arellano was aboard the sport fisher Dock
Holiday, about 15 miles off the coast of La Paz in the Sea of Cortez, the
U.S. Coast Guard moved in to intercept her in international waters, McNulty
said.

---
I don't see anyone in a furor about it except the America-bashers
like you, do you?

I'm sure he'll be given a chance to exonerate himself when presented
with the evidence that he committed a crime in the US by supplying
illegal drugs knowingly for importation into the US.

If he can't, we may even turn him over to his own government for
disposal or, more likely, try him here and make him Noriega's
cellmate.

================================================

So the US is arresting people who have not committed a crime in the US, or
people out at sea beyond their jurisdiction, and this is not piratical
behavior?

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

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:28:11 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Lloyd Parker" <lparker@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:eftptn$c8p$2@leto.cc.emory.edu...

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

SCOTUS has said that even visitors have the rights of citizens when it come
to legal processes. After all, you expect their homeland laws to apply in
the US would you?

---
???

Learn to organize your thoughts before you write, Homer.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

John Larkin · Oct 4, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:45:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

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

Crap thinking knows no borders.

John

Keith · Oct 4, 2006

In article <452390F5.E960000B@hotmail.com>,
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

I agree completely.

How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Islam, yes. Radical Islam, no. ...and you're stupid to think so
(but what's new?).

--
Keith

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:24:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ever wondered why it happens to the USA most btw ?

---
Nope. Losers want to blame everyone but themselves for their
predicaments and, so, take shots at the champ in an attemp to try to
convince themselves that they're not impotent.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Jim Thompson · Oct 4, 2006

On 4 Oct 2006 08:56:19 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:31:34 -0700,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote
in Msg. <f343i2p5aqlop09564hf9ef118p2pmf76q@4ax.com
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:16:21 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

You think they are guilty of criminal acts because they do not
publicly condemn Muslim terrorism? That's a novel interpretation of
law. Can we find you guilty of not condemming, well, everything that's
illegal? Better start condemming... you have a lot of catching up to
do.

John, I don't think you are reading what I wrote.

He has read you quite correctly. Let me refresh your memory on what you
wrote:

Message-ID: <l9e2i2thg49gbrmpdu959id1mchkfv6f11@4ax.com>:
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).

Message-ID: <7jj2i21m9ec0kg388bvffj3npa5tferpoo@4ax.com>:
Since most (if not all) Muslims won't criticize Jihad, in a war we
will have to presume that all Muslims are closet Islamic terrorists.

You're talking about individual Muslims. Mentioning organisations
started later.

robert

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

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.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Oct 4, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvuff$8ss_005@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

In article <TnEUg.11174$6S3.3555@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522D468.BC853C9A@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

I agree completely.

How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

is probably the most desirable option,
as it avoids resentful compliance on either side (or at least it would
spread the resentment more equitably.)

You are suffering from wishful thinking that life is a fairy tale
and all will live happily ever after.

No, I'm suffering from optimism that there might be a compromise solution
that doesn't involve us completely alienating about 1/6th of the world's
population. Oh, wait, you're right, that would be a fantasy. That "nuke
'em if they don't subjugate themselves to our will" attitude is exactly what
is starting to annoy most of the rest of the world, Muslim and non-Muslim.
We were so much more tolerable on the world scene when everyone was focused
on the Soviets and our cowboy attitude actually worked to stabilize the
world.

Eric Lucas

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 20:37:46 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522962B.69757C28@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:24:42 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:50:29 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

but the really unfortunate thing is that it was a
result of the fact that our leader chose to piss off the entire rest
of
the world with his cowboy antics.

Whether his actions (or, rather, the consequences of his decisions)
would piss off the rest of the world isn't something that should
stand in the way of his doing what he considers to be the right
thing.

It's the wrong thing though. I doubt much thought was involved either
aside from
xenophobia.

From your point of view, anything he did would be wrong, just
because he's American, so whether what he did pisses you off or not
is irrelevant.

Sadly, Graham seems to be resolutely anti-American. This is not a view
point
every one who disagrees with the US shares.

I am resolutely against current US policy which I consider not only to be
blinkered and morally without substance but also totally
counter-productive not
just for the USA but most of the Western world too.

Sorry, I was wrong. Your posts come across as being anti-American rather
than Anti-CurrentUSPolicy.

---
No, you were right.

Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy. He also likes to play the
chameleon.
---

It is not the first or the last time I have made a mistake though. I will
try to pay more attention in the future.

---
Good man.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Jim Thompson · Oct 4, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:08:05 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:53:12 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:cn16i21ec8ndcbeg2eqt2tlsm4kpjpmq50@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:40:34 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:rvl4i2pl69h59aavbv4ko9uld9m099c6ek@4ax.com...

Ignoring the blemishes, which is
what most of the Joe Sixpack 'Murc'n rednecks like yourself choose to do

Hahahah... I drink better beers than your retarded ass does.

So you only drink imported beer?

I also work on more sophisticated gear than you do.

So you only work on imported gear?

You're a fucking retard on both counts.

You insist on continuing to live up to the redneck Joe Sixpack stereotype,
then you get POed when someone points it out to you. It must suck to live
your life.

Eric Lucas

The beer I drink is ranked number two in the entire world. Let's see
if YOU even have enough brains to find out which one it is.

The gear I work on is ranked number one in the world.

He loses on both counts, and you do as well, dipshit.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Fields · Oct 4, 2006

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:47:18 -0700, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_@charter.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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, just a hello from the rest of the guys i work with here,

We enjoy reading this NG and your replies. it puts a smile on
our faces!
keep up the good work!

---
Every once in a while the sun shines through a break in the clouds!

Thanks guys, you've made my day!

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Jim Thompson · Oct 4, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:16:26 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:12 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"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?

You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about
Bush. Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into
without a warrant.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

YD · Oct 4, 2006

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:45:09 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:04:16 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote

Yep, I knew he was at Battelle, thus my previous not-so-quiet comment
that his mouth was running on government money.

Wonder if his boss knows the crap he posts? I'll make sure that he
does ;-)

Loathe though I am to join in with the generalisation of American behaviour
traits, am I reading this correct in that some one has disagreed with you so
your response is a series of threats of violence and / or complaining to his
employer.

Amazing. You make me so proud.

Nothing's too base for Jim.

He even claims to be a libertarian !

---
And you claim to be human.

Which is the bigger stretch?\

Most certainly Jim's claim to be libertarian.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

Jihad needs scientists

John Fields

Guest

Keith

Guest

Keith

Guest

Keith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Keith

Guest

Keith

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Keith

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

YD

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor