Jihad needs scientists

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news6i8i2ptrh2q1n34ss14v6f23o7n0vovco@4ax.com...

When you see that half of the workers are tearing down the outhouse faster
than the other half are building it then it is a reasonable conclusion
that
organization was not a high priority.

---
What was being talked about was strategies which are being
formulated, in secret, to deal with terrorism.

What are you talking about?

The obvious results of these brilliant 'strategies'.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qnh8i2l3sk3mgns6ct1ausd966j3ah3kiu@4ax.com...

In no real sense. At best they are fatuous claims of superiority "God's
chosen people". Reality rarely confirms such beliefs.

---
Really?

Dietary laws?

Acceptable social behavior?

Personal cleanliness?

Settlement of disputes?

and on and on...

None of these are important to insure the survival of people who
have lived in the desert for thousands of years?

Australian aborigines?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:37:44 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf@4ax.com...
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.


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

---
No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs.
Which animals to eat and things like that.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

The insurgent isn't automatically a terrorist.

It is a viewpoint issue. Were the July train bombers in London insurgents or
terrorists?

Definitely terrorists. Not insurgents in any organised way.

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?

Probably both.

And the French resistance ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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?

The stuff that includes violence. I'd love to see them define it though.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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.

That too. Especially when it makes no sense.

What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

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.

That's a very strange idea.

---
Think about it for a while.

I don't need to.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
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 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.

Do Americans have a word for Bullying?

It's what the State Department does.

Graham

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

T Wake wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-556EC5.17113404102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...
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).

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... )

You British twits added the extraneous "U"s in a pathetic attempt to
make yourselves look witty. It didn't work.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Eeyore]

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <45243BFD.9C297BE5@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Many Arab nations have sorted this one out. We really do need to bash the
Israeli and Palestinian heads together.
Egypt definitely. Can't really think of another, though. Anyone?

I thought Jordan.

Syria's the one that needs to settle.

Whilst Israel continues to get a blank cheque from the USA it's not going to
happen of course.

As long as the Palestinians and others keep attacking Israel.
Israel was giving back land and moving out some areas and making moves
until Hizbolah began firing off rockets, etc. Same old same old.

Honestly, they're as bad as each other.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" wrote
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

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

So when the Ayatollahs send the religious police into the USA to arrest the
purveyors of porn you'll be fine with seeing thousands of US citizens
dragged off to Iran for death by stoning?

---
This case is different in that the pornographic images aren't
specifically targeted to areas where they're prohibited, they're
merely broadcast over a network. That places the responsibility for
their reception and decoding on the individual downloading the
image.

Who's hosting it ?

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:35:26 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:5db7i2d91g9i390qo6jqr3csbn7etevmsm@4ax.com...

Yes, but because of the small amount of respect eked out to
non-Muslim People of the Book, refusal to convert isn't an automatic
death sentence. For all others, AIUI, it is.


Ok, as I read it, you had stated Islam defines all non-Muslims as Infidels
"Any person who belongs to and acknowledges belonging to any other religion
is an infidel."

Could it be that Islam is not as clear cut as posting sections of the Koran
may imply?

---
I'm sure, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

My point was that (AIUI) all non-Muslims are infidels until they
convert, at which point they are no longer considered infidels.

Now, if People of the Book refuse to convert they become (I forget
the Muslim word for it) something like slaves/second class citizens
whose very survival depends on the whim of the authorities, but if a
person who isn't one of the People of the Book refuses to convert,
they are always put to death.

Right? Wrong? Something else?

What do you think?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" wrote
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

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

Crap thinking knows no borders.

Actually the US border does delineate a lot of it. Americans as a group are
almost totally focussed inwards - but are not at all introspective. Their
thinking is not at all broadened by knowledge of the world, and they are
amazingly gullible.

---
Did you know that 'gullible' isn't in the dictionary?

Your name is Don Lancaster and I claim my $10 !

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:

T Wake wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote
"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).

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... )

You British twits added the extraneous "U"s in a pathetic attempt to
make yourselves look witty. It didn't work.

Where do you think the name 'English' came from you loony ?

You clowns removed the Us.

Graham

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu@4ax.com...

No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs.
Which animals to eat and things like that.

Except the ideas are as nutty as a Bush policy.

Many of the laws of kashrut have no known connection with health. To the
best of our modern scientific knowledge, there is no reason why camel or
rabbit meat (both treyf) is any less healthy than cow or goat meat.

21 Yet these may ye eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all
fours, which have jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the
earth;
22 even these of them ye may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald
locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper
after its kinds.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:39:50 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:

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

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

Graham

Most of Mel Brooks' stuff is loaded with Hollywood insider jokes,
usually mocking studio fatheads. His "Robin Hood: Men in Tights" did a
nice job on Kevin Cosner. Like in Wodehouse's books, the plots are
just a framework to hold things up.

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT; it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy", nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

John

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 02:19:03 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) wrote:

In article <mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
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?

He was in office for just about 8 months adn for just about 8 months, he
had the Clinton admins advice for going after OBL and ignored it. Clinton
tried to get OBL and failed Bush did not try.

--

How many times has Clinton pointed and wagged his finger at the media?

(1) "I did not have sex with that woman."

(2) "I _tried_ to get OBL...", just recently interviewed by Chris
Wallace.

Sounds like the sign of the liar to me ;-)

...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.

 

In article <452410F5.543F2B32@hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:

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.

I'm sure it does.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <mv38i29lpc9s9sshrkdrbpgramufns6jn4@4ax.com>,
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:

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?

He was in office for just about 8 months adn for just about 8 months, he
had the Clinton admins advice for going after OBL and ignored it. Clinton
tried to get OBL and failed Bush did not try.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

I find the humour too juvenile for my taste. It's like finding farts funny
and nothing else.

More likely you find it juvenile because you don't get the twists;
some of Brooks' stuff is fairly subtle. But there are a lot of
Americanisms and Jewish humor and Black (as in African, not as in
noire) humor you may not get.

What humor meets your standards?

Not much actually. I find much of it pretty banale. I'm not sure you'd know the
stuff either. Did you ever see Fawlty Towers ( John Cleese ) for example ? At
least there's a decent chance of that.

I didn't like FT;

Well it is very British.

it was stupid situation/embarassment comedy like "I
Love Lucy"

In which case it didn't 'translate' well over your side of the pond.

, nowhere near Monte Python level. Wodehouse is my favorite
comedic writer... I laugh out loud when I read his stuff.

I find that dull.

You should laugh more... it might cheer you up.

Don't worry. I laugh a bit. There's not a heck of a lot to laugh about these days
though ( see thread ).

Graham