Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:i0a8i2hadjh1gfqs84iur3qj96t71fevm9@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:29:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:42:54 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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 do. It's called Australia.

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

---
They certainly seem to be doing better than you lot, lately.

---
P.S. One Australian friend of mine says he'll be eternally grateful
to you for giving them Heaven and keeping Hell for yourselves.

Glad to hear it.

They have the rough end of the deal though - the sensible ones moved to New
Zealand.

 

[Eeyore]

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:16:58 +0100, Eeyore 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."

And the real trick is not to use it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:43:26 +0100, Eeyore 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?

You can find the dictionary definitions online. I also posted them later
for good measure.

Graham

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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")

Do you reckon Afghanistan under the Taliban considered itself modern ?

Graham

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:WcGdnX5vtrSegrnYRVnygw@pipex.net...

"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.

I wasn't criticizing the actions. I was merely pointing out that following
the enemy-of-my-enemy diplomacy has gotten us in trouble in the past. There
was, at the time that that support was given, no reason not to believe it
was a good idea. However, what I'm trying to get people to think about is
that they might want to try to *learn* from past actions that come back to
bite us. However, if you (or our Government, or anybody else) is so focused
on not admiting a mistake was *ever* made, then of course we will never
learn from the past.

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.

Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has
been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have
furthered the current mess?

Eric Lucas

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:45:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."

and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

How would you translate it?

I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly.

---
How brutal. If you didn't understand French and they spoke French to
you, very loudly and very slowly, would you understand what they
were trying to say?

How much sweeter to be able to softly crush an opponent with his own
tongue.
---

There is a
reason we had an Empire.

---
Yes, you took it at swordpoint. Nothing very subtle about that!
---

There's also a reason most French can understand English.

---
American liberation of France in WW2?

*American* liberation ?

---
Yeah. I think they say 'OK' instead of 'ja'. Pretty much like you
all do, nein?



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
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?

Education of women is often proposed as being non-Islamic. In this respect Iran
is showing a modern side of Islam.

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

Indeed.

Who is this "they" of which you speak?

'Twas not me that wrote that.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
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.

I'm rather inclined to agree.

I fail to see how 'hard line' Muslims can ever be happy here.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:8la8i2h6duqgv7fk2v2p3j6deeh0bhkl15@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:46:19 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:



Damn Ghandi and his crazy ideas - not to mention that fool Jesus. Look at
how many arguments he lost in the long term.


Ghandi shamed the British into setting India free. It wouldn't have
worked with the Russians or the Chinese... they would have disappeared
him and his followers in weeks.

Well, that is as maybe. The fact of the matter is his actions were suitable
to the situation. If he had been martyred would that have harmed his cause?

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

Actually no. They fight against those claiming to have legal
jurisdiction in the area. Also there is no requirement that it
use terror methods either.

This is pedantry.

Not to me. It's a subtle but precise distinction.

in?sur?gent? [in-sur-juhnt] - noun
1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a
person
who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its
laws; rebel.

ter?ror?ism? [ter-uh-riz-uhm] -noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for
political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or
terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Terrorists fight against a legal
government. Insurgents use violence to intimidate / coerce (eg overthrow the
government).

Not at all precise.

The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message newseb8i2lf4af0irq171tqukscc9n0lec541@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:21 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com
wrote:

In article <HLVUg.13315$7I1.5654@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


I don't care. If you're listening to a phone call to which the phone in
my
living room is party, then as a citizen of the US, I demand that your
listening be carried out according to my Constitutional rights.

Probably is. Under a warrant for a phone anything that goes on over
that phone is legally admissable, even if the other person's phone
doesn't have a warrant on it. It well settled that as long as one phone
is legally tapped, any phone that calls it or is called by it is fair
game. Since there are no restrictions on tapping a phone outside of the
country, it would be legal tap. Thus anyone the phone calls or anyone
who calls the phone could be listened to as noted. Would be a rather
interesting case to make.

And it varies state-by-state... it is legal in Arizona to record all
calls on your own phone, _without_ notifying the other party.

All I need to do is push a button ;-)

It is good that you have these loopholes to circumvent civil liberties.

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

Americans only understand stuff like fart jokes.

Graham

English are also shit-fixated people. (But) I also do believe in this
kind of science/knowledge....


So you mean actually , Americans understand only things which would
have been (the fart is the last in the series of digestion, one step
beyond the last ritual). Looking only forward... to
actions/(AND!)reactions not happened, yet.


But who or where is the arse?



Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[T Wake]

"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:29b8i2hsic1aohfjan0703vugt8mk480re@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:51:55 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



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


At least we're not impotent like you.

Soon Teacher will turn up to put a stop to this playground fight.

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:f9WUg.13325$7I1.11767@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:WcGdnX5vtrSegrnYRVnygw@pipex.net...


All part of the quest to oust the commies.

Yep. And isn't it also ironic that the ouster of those very commies has
been one of the destabilizing forces in the world that may well have
furthered the current mess?

Sadly, yes. Bring back the cold war.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:bhb8i2hgh4fbgop28gob7s78skrt91s43f@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:45:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:50 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

I input: "This paté smells like cat shit."

and I got back: "Ce pâté sent comme la merde de chat."

How would you translate it?

I wouldn't. I'd just speak English very loudly and very slowly.

---
How brutal. If you didn't understand French and they spoke French to
you, very loudly and very slowly, would you understand what they
were trying to say?

How much sweeter to be able to softly crush an opponent with his own
tongue.
---

There is a
reason we had an Empire.

---
Yes, you took it at swordpoint. Nothing very subtle about that!
---

There's also a reason most French can understand English.

---
American liberation of France in WW2?

*American* liberation ?

---
Yeah. I think they say 'OK' instead of 'ja'. Pretty much like you
all do, nein?

Wow. Your French is _really_ bad.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:49:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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.

Since you're incapable even of identifying 'radical Islam' your thoughts count for
nothing.

---
Sheesh, as if the opinions of a pinhead like you mattered.

You even have to get clarification after clarification from T Wake
because you can't understand his lucid prose and you dare to
criticize others?

For shame.



--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:50u7i2h1nkv91i933t146sile4cdjht076@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

So what? If push comes to shove we'll beat the shit out of them too,
whether they're popular or not, dumbass.

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent. Or, maybe, as
you'd like to believe, just because they piss us off.

How exactly does Iraq fit into this justification for beating the crap out
of somebody? Didn't do anything to us or any of our friends, at least since
the first Gulf War, no credible threat, absolutely no WMDs of any sort.
Their army was so pitifully weak that there's no rational reason to believe
that and attack from them was imminent to anybody.

Eric Lucas

 

"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?

Might want to practice what you preach, on Usenet.

Eric Lucas

 

[Gordon]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:50:58 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Gordon wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:46:00 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" wrote:
"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message

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?

What's that got to do with it ?

You're going to suggest next that politicians currently in power won't
take the credit for the success of their predecessors' policies too ?

The fact is that it happened 'on Bush's watch' and he's responsible.

Graham

Had the 9/11 attacks happened during the Bush inauguration

ceremony, would this have been because of Bush's negligence and
ineptitude? How about the day after the inauguration? The week
after? The month after? What would be a reasonable cut-off date
for any responsibility of the previous presidency?

Gordon