Jihad needs scientists

[John Fields]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:11:29 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:a6p5i2dauerugsd1ojked6ti9db04pdini@4ax.com...

BTW, you might have noticed we sent Saddam Hussein back to his own
country to be tried there instead of us giving him a fair trial and
executing him here. Big of us, huh?

You wouldn't want him calling all of his former friends in the current US
administration as witnesses now, would you?

---
Sure. Why not?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45240DED.EC93F436@hotmail.com...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:05:09 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

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?

You're an idiot. My family was directly involved with the
"underground railroad". If you have any brains at all, you'll know
that *that* made for more freedom in this country than just about
anything else you could name since.

Immature insults aside, yes, I do know how much good the Underground
Railroad did. Good for them, but I didn't ask about your ancesotrs, I
asked
about *you*? I am a direct descendant of Daniel Boone, but you don't see
me
crowing that I fought native Americans and conquered the US frontier.

I DO speak out more than a twit like you could ever know.

Immature name-calling aside, don't you think MAYBE, just maybe, the
leaders
of moderate Muslim groups might be speaking out against terrorism, more
than
*you* could ever know?

Check this out.

" Therefore SMC, with all its members and directors, condemns all forms of
terrorism and the oppression of human rights around the world, whether
committed
by Muslims, Christians, Jews or members of other faiths "
http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/aboutus.html

Sufis are a horrendously oppressed branch of Islam. Which is a shame as it
certainly is the most entertaining to watch. (And historically provided the
backbone of Islamic armies - no longer the case)

But I am sure there are people in this thread who think Sufis are part of
the great Islamic quest for world domination....

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:gvTUg.51409$E67.10236@clgrps13...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Can too.

Criticizing Bush for his lack of thought is really criticizing Bush.

Criticizing Bush for his 'thoughts' is really criticizing Cheney.

LOL.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote
Jim Thompson wrote:

I should know shortly what low-life job Eric has at Battelle... my
guess is janitor ;-)


Are you sure they would give him that much responsibility?


It is interesting that instead of disagreeing with Eric's comments and
explaining why, the general response has been to criticise his imagined work
status.

Nothing I have seen in this thread seems to relate to his job and he has not
claimed professional authority based on his employment so what, on Earth,
does his job matter?

Unless this really is a pathetic attempt to "one up" on someone you think is
in a lower paid / less "exalted" job. If it is, you really should be ashamed
of yourselves.

Thompson and Terrell are amongst the lowest forms of life posting here. JoeBloe
beats them hands down though.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8dd6c6ae306000989d7b@News.Individual.NET...

In article <zKKdnSzN97hrlbnYnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8db9d68e963bff989d6e@News.Individual.NET...
In article <%8RUg.8425$GR.1728@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61@News.Individual.NET...

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.

You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial
support
to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the
US?
You need to read more, it's well-known.

It's well known that the Quarterbacking on Monday morning is much
better than that on Sunday afternoon too. What a maroon!

What a response. You are truly at the cutting edge of debate Sir.

It is an observation that happens to be germane here. Want another
one? 20:20 hindsight is perfect.

Thank you.

Please, keep them coming. I will collect them into a book and publish it one
day.

As you don't really say anything except phrases used by others, can I
assume
from this you think previous US administrations didn't train and equip
Usma
Bin Laden and the Taleban during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?

No, I don't. OBL <> Northern Alliance.

Well, the debate over Usama's support not withstanding, the US did actively
support the Taleban who were "created" by the Pakistani's (that great ally
in the war).

All part of the quest to oust the commies.

Or are you just trying to impress your friends with the funny quotes you
can
copy and paste?

I've certainly impressed you out of your hole.

Wow. You are brilliant. I don't care what everyone else says about you, I
think you are funny.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45240FD2.B01A0C3D@hotmail.com...

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
T Wake wrote:

The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered
terrorist by
the west.

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However
sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

---
A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war.

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

Is that what you want ?

What alternative do they have? Until the Palestinians and Arabs can accept
Israel's existence, Israel can not hold off on its defensive posture.

Do you advocate Israel surrender?

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9QUUg.51427$E67.27575@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
newsMSdnamL64UUkLnYRVny3w@pipex.net...

No, they're not. They're survival manuals.

Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has
always impressed me in the survival books.

No. They tell you that the Jews hated the people of Sodom and Gomorrah
because they wouldn't let the Jewish tribes into their nice cities (where
the Jews would probably have stolen them blind) and that God must have
sent the earthquake to destroy them.

Survival or dumb luck?

It depends if it also told them how to build shelters out of palm trees. If
it didn't, I'd vote for the Dumb Luck argument.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:30:52 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

---
A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war.

Surely though, at that point the "war" is over.

Would the IDF try it on again I ask myself ?

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:9QUUg.51429$E67.13495@clgrps13...

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

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.

A mistake Hitler made. He read reports of pacifist debates in the UK and
assumed they were a guide to the lack of response to be expected during an
attack on Britain.

The British Air Force response showed him the error of his ways.

Yes, but we are not the generation of seventy years ago.

It is not a case of reading reports of pacifist beliefs - currently we are
willing to surrender basic freedoms all to "Prevent Terrorism."

I have no doubt the British people are as warlike as they were in the fifth
century.

I do, however, doubt how wedded we are as a society to the fundamental
freedoms we grew up with. (Stop and search, ID cards etc).

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aQUUg.51430$E67.36132@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:SvCdnW6IaZ6XjrnYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@pipex.net...

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

Not Kazakhstan it seems!

LOL.

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-0A2CEC.16092504102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <GbCdndSLQptNj7nYRVnygw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



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.

Why? Different set of thoughts behind liking some place and actually
wanting to live there. I like England, but have no particular desire to
uproot family and stay there. Heck I like Chicago, but same principle
and a LOT closer.

I was slightly subdued with the "sing the praises" of.

If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how
great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy
would make more sense.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:21:45 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

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.

---
But they were fucking around with US law, US funds and a US company.

They weren't directly actually.

---
AIUI, they were directly, actually, since they established an
electronic presence here and were capable of dealing with US funds
in conflict with US legislation, ergo breaking US law in the US.
---

Making thought and advice illegal puts the USA on a very slippery slope.

---
Thought and advice aren't illegal, as is evidenced by this and other
newsgroups on USENET.

What _is_ illegal is establishing a presence here and then using
that presence to break our laws.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Gordon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:04:18 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"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?

Slight correction...any successes (or failures) Bush had within

the first few months are likely linked to the former
administration, but that doesn't extend more than a year or so,
in most instances.

Gordon

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ruv7i2l0mmve6jee1nj6ob6m7rg443296v@4ax.com...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:30:39 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:cnn5i2p1k9ir7d1k8m6kv3624a08uo9bj1@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:14:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


By removing the reasons for terrorist action primarily.

---
The reason there's terrorist action against the US is basically
because we won't abandon Israel, and that's non-negotiable.

A terrorist state if ever there was one.

Just shows, today's terrorist is tomorrows head of state.

(And I strongly believe in the rights of Israel to exist!)

---

That'll mean listening to genuine greivances and doing something about
them though.
Just like we did in N. Ireland.

---
Oh, yeah, you did that out of the goodness of your hearts, huh?
Fuck you, you lying piece of shit.

The grievances we'll hear, and that we've hearing all along, will
be that Israel must be allowed to die, which is something we won't
allow to happen.

So, you don't have any real answers, only more of your simplistic
unrealizable bullshit.

Ok, we will listen to your simplistic, unrealisable bullshit then.

---
I suggest that dissenting parties first agree to look for common
ground and then try to build on that. Can't get much more
simplistic than that, huh?

Nope. It is pretty simple. And, given the dissenting parties, suitably
unrealisable. Not massively different from Eeyore's post though.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fh58i257i541kbohp5p0ltfus0ase7rsuf@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Homer J Simpson wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote

Not sure anyone has. Off the top of my head I cant think of any
long
term
success against terrorists.

British in Malaysia?

British in Kenya.

Same deal. There were some horrendous atrocities but they were far
enough
from the public eye to pass unnoticed for years.

The real atrocities were black on black btw.


The hearts and minds with the population did the trick.

As it has often done for the British Army but the US version has fucked
that
up for sure.

---
You're talking about a bygone era where we both shared winning
hearts and minds.

This is now, where the rules are a little different. Are you making
any friends in Iraq that we aren't? You do still have a presence
there, don't you?

Sadly, for some reason the UK military seems to be in the process of
unlearning every lesson we ever learned in counter-terrorist operations.

Oddly, we are copying the American mistakes from Vietnam and thinking "it
will work this time."

Oh well.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:41:16 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

T Wake wrote:

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

If westerners are more concerned with staying alive than having their
freedoms eventually they will convert and the conflict will end.

Why would they ever convert and why do you even consider that this is what
it's about ?

Because this is the simplistic example.

They would convert because, as the example said, they are more concerned
with staying alive than remaining free.

You wouldn't catch me doing it. I believe in the right to practice no religion
at all !

---
They don't, so you'd be dead, silly boy.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:aQUUg.51431$E67.34413@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:-e2dnVwvZvNJi7nYRVnyiQ@pipex.net...

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

Not kill a high proportion of terrorists.

You'd also have to take out most of Africa, Europe, Latin America and
portions of CONUS.

I am sure the survivors would be happy though, and if they keep the
species going long enough for the radiation to drop to habitable levels,
the planet will be sparsely populated enough to avoid wars for quite some
time.

But the oil would be fine.

And by then, load more of it would have fossilised out....

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RGTUg.51414$E67.36636@clgrps13...

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:bk67i2h4mqd7a3fklnm61u7fouvjoha03a@4ax.com...

You ain't real bright, are ya, boy?

I believe you have repeatedly proven that we are all smarter than you.

Garden vegetables can make that claim as well

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <HPWdnXZeKd_lvLnYRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

If you spent your day waving placards outside the Whitehouse saying how
great the UK was and how all Americans should live like that the analogy
would make more sense.

I'd still argue it. Lots of reason to stay home, not the least of which
is trying to reform your home country. That and all those extra "u"s
they throw into words for no apparent in the UK (G).

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452420D4.E443FAE6@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:30:52 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ?

If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one.
However sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold.

That's the point at which they've won.

Looks like they won in that case.

---
A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war.

Surely though, at that point the "war" is over.

Would the IDF try it on again I ask myself ?

Probably. Not exactly a pacifistic country....