Jihad needs scientists

[Gordon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg0hcc$h85$2@blue.rahul.net...

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?

Gordon

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F663.D256E2A6@hotmail.com...

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:28:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:55:57 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Larkin wrote:


It [WW2] 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.

---
So then you're saying that you're all racists just waiting for
something to happen so you can let it out?

No.

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.

You should
approve of that. It won't happen anyway, it's purely hypothetical.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:37:52 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UzBUg.49790$E67.22461@clgrps13...

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

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.

What does Joe Sixpack pay attention to?


Six packs?

---




--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Gordon wrote:

I am convinced that the process which is currently under way will
achieve the outcome you specify, but it won't happen quickly.

There is no *process*. It's just a jumbled mess ! There has been ZERO thought about
what we're doing.

---
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.

You're trying to suggest that there's some method to this madness.

No. I don't believe that for one second. Bush and his ilk are American supremacists pure
and simple.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore 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.

But you still mainatain we'd need to kill that many to have an effect ?

Graham

Not that "we'd need" but that, as a worst case scenario, we may need.

That strikes as being wholly unacceptable.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:38:52 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:10:51 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:

How would you translate it?

Without involving babelfish.

---
Then do it, instead of your little waffle dance.

Tell you what. You stamp you little feet first ok ?

---
Consider them stamped.

Now, how about that translation?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:21:44 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

---
Unless that led to convergence, why would that guarantee cessation
of hostilities?

The solution is the willingness to look for common ground and to
build a mutually respectful relationship around that island.

So where do bombs and guns fit into this ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:3oc7i2hc14krufblrpvgq9cstc115lq4i7@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:13:29 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:61u2i2pirp98lghk6samgbgfq4f9ria646@4ax.com...
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all. I am however intruiged how Americancs invariably bring out
the
hate word the very second even the tiniest
criticism is voiced against them.

It's not hate at all, more like despair at the crass stupidity of your
governmemnt and the ppl who elected them.


and makes up things to support that need.

Simply no need ever to do that !


So naturally he doesn't like to
be reminded about stuff like WWII or the Cold War. He believes that
the UK and Russia defeated Germany with little need for US assistance.

The USA was around 3 years late to the party of course. I have little
doubt that Russia would have eventually defeated
Germany anyway. Germany could certainly never ever have defeated Russia,
the numbers simply aren't even remotely
credible.

---
That's all Monday morning quarterbacking but, if as you say, had
Russia defeated Germany without the US being involved do you think
that you'd still be speaking English as a first language?

And that isn't Monday morning quarterbacking?

---
No, it's merely conjecture. A Monday morning quarterback is one who
criticizes or passes judgment from a position of hindsight. Notice
that it was posed as a question, which offers room for a reply.

It was posed as a loaded question - even sentences offer room for reply. The
person can simply disagree. Your post was, by the implied answer, passing
judgement from a position of hindsight.

If it was an honest question, then sorry for jumping to a conclusion and
"Yes" is the only answer. Even in poor, constantly invaded Poland, Polish
was their first language. Your implication that Russian would take the place
of English is not supported by history.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ft16i2l72m09cfh2c77raums4e5ov8a0hm@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:48:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



JoeBloe wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:05:11 +0100, Eeyore Gave us:

John Larkin wrote:

Graham has a pathological and mostly irrational hatred of America,

Not at all.

You're full of shit. The proof is in your posts from no more than
the last two days.

Given the simplistic juvenile level of what passes for thinking in your
retarded skull, I'd be happy to shit on you from a great height.


Problem is... the SHIT that YOU ARE sags when stacked more than a
few inches high.

Wow. Witty and eloquent.

Your nation is proud of you.

 

[Gordon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:16:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> 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.

Do you think that violence is the only way to 'win an argument' ?

Graham

Looking down the other end of the tunnel...it seems being passive

and compliant is a very sure way to lose an argument. Theodore
Roosevelt had things sorted out pretty well when he said, "Speak
softly and carry a big stick."

Gordon

 

[T Wake]

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159934059.328489.45880@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

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.

Ok, it was a turn of phrase which was inaccurate. What I had meant was he
was willing to lead the country in a more secular direction.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:43:26 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Then why not just state what you think it is instead of playing your
stupid, "Nya, nya, nya, I know but you don't." game?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nnGUg.11210$6S3.5854@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

"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.

I agree.

Most people (myself included) simply have little data upon which to base a
change in point of view on Iran.

Because for one reason or another, Iran prefers to limit what information is
available outside the country.

However, my curiosity piqued by your comments, I intend to set about
learning more.

Like all countries, Iran is a mix of good and bad things. The same mental
stereotypes which castigate Iran, work in the reverse to view the country as
the beacon of all that is good.

I am often amused by the number of people here in the UK who sing the
praises of [Insert Country], yet would never consider going and living there
for the rest of their lives.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45238783.71D6265B@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message

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.

Iran likes to see itself as very modern in fact. It's certainly not
backward
looking.

Do any countries see themselves as backward? (Or any countries see them
selves as not "modern")

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RQRUg.7376$TV3.6400@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159980332.343325.73730@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:
"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.

Ah, but stereotypes and pre-conceptions are immune to data.

That's a disingenuous strawman.

It is a stereotype and pre-conception all of its own. Oddly, often the most
vocal supporters of unpopular regimes (the main ones who uses the stereotype
argument) show they are the worst users of Stereotypes.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452386FE.9BAEBAC7@hotmail.com...

thelasian wrote:

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.

And 70% of Iranian graduates now are women.

So what?

That's because they can't get over their mental stereotypes.

Indeed.

Who is this "they" of which you speak?

Is this not stereotyping in its most basic form?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4@4ax.com...

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?

Right. Sure. Any successes Bush has had (have there been any?) are totally
his own. All failures are the fault of the previous administration.

Isn't that one of the three biggest lies?

 

[Tom Anderson]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45238783.71D6265B@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"thelasian" <thelasian@yahoo.com> wrote in message

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.

Iran likes to see itself as very modern in fact. It's certainly not
backward looking.

Do any countries see themselves as backward? (Or any countries see them
selves as not "modern")

I'm struggling to see what this has to do with physics, chemistry,
electronic design or medicine. Gents, it's great that you want to debate
politics, but could you perhaps take it to email?

Cheers,
tom

--
wit, speed, and dressing well

 

[Eeyore]

Keith wrote:

jfields@austininstruments.com says...

Graham is vehemently anti-American, as can be seen in his posts
which have nothing to do with US policy.

Yep! ...right down to the way local school districts run their
school buses. He knows all.

It seems Americans are too stupid to even consider the concept of double decker
buses if you need to move more ppl than fit in a single deck one !

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45230188.EADF3DB5@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

Look at the [expletive deleted] from Leeds who blew up the
underground. For them to function there has to be places where
they can exist and move about.

Their homes it would seem and the streets in the places where they
live.

Yes. Because the local people support their fight.

Actually it seems that local ppl have been genuinely surprised.

I suspect most of them are. There have to be enough sympathisers for it
to
have happened though.

It only needs very few.

Still a non-zero number.

People have to have not noticed the contact they had with the extremist who
"corrupted" their belief.

People have to have not noticed as they headed down the road towards the
act.

Some people will be innocently keeping themselves to themselves. Some will
have encouraged it.

The problem is, the cowards who encourage it, live to repeat the action
another day.

How can this be the case in a developed country with a democratically
elected
government and low unemployment?

Because it has nothing to do with any of the above.

Yet young, educated men decided to kill their country men.

The problem is they had become disassociated with their own country
enough
for this to happen. If they had come from an integrated part of society
it
would have been less likely to happen and they would have been less able
to
function.

I can elaborate on this for sure.

'Traditional' Islamic families have almost nothing in common with the
norms of
British society. It's inevitable that some of their kids will find it
perplexing
and revolt ( one way or the other ).

Integration is anathema to these ppl. How do you fix that ?

Sadly, the only solution is to ask them to leave. I am a huge fan of the
freedoms and rights I have as a British citizen. If some one chooses to come
to live in this country, then they should live by the rules and customs.
They have actively chosen to come here.

If I went to Iran (for example) and tried to open a pub selling Australian
lager would I get away with it?

Note: This does not just apply to Islam. All ghettoisation is wrong and
causes nothing but trouble. Integration is the only long term option.