Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242D10.5A2D746E@hotmail.com...

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

I think you mean political debate. I doubt the public would stand for it.

Nope, public debate - granted most of that is what the media show. I am not
for one second suggesting chat shows or vox pop news is completely
indicative of public opinion - however, the media needs to get
listeners/viewers/readers so generally the opinions expressed _are_
representative.

Our reactions to things are an example of public fear. The nonsense that
goes on at Airports is a shocking example of how people would rather be
messed around to "feel" safe, than actually institute effective security
measures.

When we all have to carry ID cards I will know the "war" is indeed over.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:51:08 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire.

" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm


Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep.

---
We sure as hell did, and they were spoils of war, to do with as we
saw fit.

How do you think England got to be an empire, by giving it all back?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242E4C.50137191@hotmail.com...

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 ?

Well, yes. They did. They had machine guns and rocket launchers and tanks
and everything. They considered themselves as modern as possible, the west
was decadent.

They were not modern by "our" standards but it is a mistake to judge their
ideas by our standards. No country tries to be "backwards" in this sense.

 

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hc38i2pmri56a6s84fsnmnklt06aihsves@4ax.com...

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:35:28 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:08:34 +0100, Eeyore 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.

I'm imagining Ken Starr ?

Without the media's turning Clinton's sexual indiscretions into a
cause célebre, the Lewinski matter would have remained private, as
it should have stayed.

That's rich. Democratic idiocies (Clinton's inappropriate sexual relations
in office) are the Democrats' fault, but Republican idiocies (attempting to
smear and impeach Clinton over something so ridiculously small) are the
fault of the press.

Eric Lucas

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242EE4.D0A25B17@hotmail.com...

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.

In one small respect.

It would be better if it was representative of the population balance
though.

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.

'Twas you who agreed. I have my doubts about thelasian's motives.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:55:23 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keith wrote:

To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com says...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:39:04 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:13:11 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:25:32 +0100, Eeyore 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".

I've never watched it. It's far too tedious.

---
Hmmm...

I guess you've never watched the documentary about American Air
Traffic Control; 'Airport', either?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242FA3.7D2197F4@hotmail.com...

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.

They cant. They will never be happy. If they really did want to live under
Sharia Law and the like, they would move countries. They want the privilege
and rights of the country while still being able to throw themselves about
like a big man in the local community (ala IRA gunmen in the seventies - if
they wanted to be part of the free state they could have bloody well
moved!).

(Yes, I know this is simplistic...)

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:g9c8i29evm2kjknll6i0e1ske20ourmbk6@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:51:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire.

" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational
organization
whose goal is to promote American global leadership "

http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm


Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep.

---
We sure as hell did, and they were spoils of war, to do with as we
saw fit.

And you did. You held on to Japan for quite some time, and ensured the
previous government system was never going to be returned.

Germany was never America's to keep. I seem to remember it being split
somewhat.

How do you think England got to be an empire, by giving it all back?

Eventually you have to give the toys back. It is a sad day. Some toys go
earlier than others, and grow up to take over the toy collection.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:58:06 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Keith wrote:

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

You can't have it both ways.

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

LMAO !

The USA is the most two-faced nation on the planet. You regularly back one side then
declare war on them.

---
Yup, but that's because they break the agreements in the contract.
---

You might care to consider what that might do for your credibility.

---
It should only enhance it, since it goes something like this:

"Make a deal with us and stick to the terms of the agreement or
we'll send Vinnie out to get ya!


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242AA5.4BB384D7@hotmail.com...

I don't recall Starr being a newsman.

Bagman for the reactionaries?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:7tqdnYKI_uxLsbnYRVnysA@pipex.net...

All you need is another Churchill. You've already got a Chamberlain.

Yeah, Churchill who championed Gallipoli......

We held his feet to the fire for that. Repeating mistakes is unforgivable.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45242E4C.50137191@hotmail.com...

Do you reckon Afghanistan under the Taliban considered itself modern ?

It was eerily reminiscent of Pol Pot and Year Zero.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:47WdnQZQXYvSsLnYRVnysQ@pipex.net...

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eKVUg.51442$E67.34713@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w@pipex.net...

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans
seem to avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of route...
)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster


So, it's all his fault then.... He is a bad man.

Point?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:v2c8i2tp1kf97gkk922mmi6brvb9iibqql@4ax.com...

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?

After they get the action plan and discard it and ignore the risk.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Islamist extremism *isn't* popular. Although it may become more so as
the USAcontinues to bumble its way from one disaster to another.

---
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.

Brilliant. War really will never end.

I suspect this is what America wants. The arms companies might go out of
business otherwise.

The idea of 'pre-emptive attack' is very interesting too given the lame
perfromance of US 'intelligence'.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45243022.172180DC@hotmail.com...

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.

It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London insurgents or
terrorists? Are Iraqis who plant carbombs in Iraq insurgents or terrorists?
What about Palestinians who strap P4 to their chests and detonate at an
Israeli checkpoint?

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ivWUg.51457$E67.14123@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:47WdnQZQXYvSsLnYRVnysQ@pipex.net...

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eKVUg.51442$E67.34713@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:XKadnfJ0jY0iubnYRVny3w@pipex.net...

Nothing wrong with the letter u. I've never understood why Americans
seem to avoid it. (Don't get me started on the pronunciation of
route... )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster


So, it's all his fault then.... He is a bad man.

Point?

Center for a start.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:00:32 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

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.

I look forward to the arrest of US citizens by the British Police for running
'extreme' porn sites when and if the new law comes into force in that case.

---
That would be what? Pictures of people fucking with the lights on?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

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?

We were doing quite well initially actually until the actions of US forces ended
up with us all being tarred with the same brush.

Quite why we think of you lot as an 'ally' is almost beyond me.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:06:05 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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

Ever wondered why it [international terrorism] 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.

Let me explain then.

It becasue America pokes its nose into stuff that's none of its business
all the time and just generally likes to kick the little guys around.

---
Translation:

Because America has the wherewithal and the will to do whatever it
wants to, and all the little guys resent that.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer