Jihad needs scientists

In article <eftpq8$c8p$1@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article <eft9s4$8ss_002@s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <xA9Ug.7703$GR.5123@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4520F44A.881C5E16@hotmail.com...


mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <efqje7$8ss_003@s821.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <45206C37.EA6475DA@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Western Europe wasn't interested in getting much involved in the
anshluss, because it wasn't the target of Nazi expansionism.

All of which has zilch to do with this.

Your comment is an example of why history has to repeat itself.

Yes, exactly.

There is no exactly about it.

It's just that the American fundamentalist Right has only scare tactics
to
resort to and
nothing of substance whatever.


....and if one chooses to draw parallels between our actions in the Middle
East and 1933-1939 Germany, one parallel is the fact that Bush is using
similar scare tactics to retain power,

The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.


People probably mean keep Republican control of Congress -- without that
Bush's powers will be quite curtailed.

The Constitution already curtails powers of all three branches.
People do not mean control of Congress. For some strange reason,
people are using the human being named Bush as the reason for
all the world's ails. I keep tracing this bizarre thinking back
to the new Democrats who have not stopped campaigning for the 2004
elections. One would think that the platform that lost them that
election would be examined and changed. But they're still saying
the same old stuff. Earlier this summer Kennedy was drooling words
to that stated there was no such thing as the War on Terror.
Kerry was still spounting that we should hit RESET, and replay
the 2002 war games in Afghanistan. These people are insane.

take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way that
Hitler did.

You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.

You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.

Yes, that nightmare of peace and prosperity. How glad we are it's over!

What peace?

Or have you conveniently forgotten about the first attempt?


A President nor any leader is responsible for today's economic
health. Economies seem to have a reaction time of 5 years or so.


Clinton's administration was the first to raise taxes, have them
retroactive, and put off the impact by allowing collections to
be delayed.

/BAH

 

In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

The anti-Bushers keep saying this and it makes absolutely no sense.
What do you mean "retain power"? He has a term in office which
will end. He won't retain any powers after the Inaugeration in 2009.

take away peoples' rights, and kill a
segment of the world population, in much the same propagandistic way that
Hitler did.

You've been listening to Democrats without thinking. Everything
coming out of their mouths is campaign speeches for 2004. This
is not a typo...I meant four.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Bush is the next
Hitler, just that there *are* parallels between their misanthropic
behavior,
if hugely different in degree and consequence.

You are excoriating Bush for doing one of his primary jobs which
is national security. I suppose you long for the days of the
Clintons where the goal was to breakdown all national security.


The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH

 

In article <eftug8$7nl$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
[....]

The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

It is too late for Foley's name to be taken off the ballot. I think the
democrats will pick this seat up for sure.

We're also in a cycle that has the pendulum swinging back to
the Democrats. This is inevitable. What the danger is that
the current Democrat platform is to ignore the real danger
and pretend that it will go away; another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists but I don't think that
is a majority.

/BAH

 

In article <eftug8$7nl$7@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <45226CD9.FF260140@earthlink.net>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
[....]

The Republicans are in a real panic here in Florida over Mark Foley.
They are afraid that the Democrats will get the seat he just vacated
because of the scandal.

It is too late for Foley's name to be taken off the ballot. I think the
democrats will pick this seat up for sure.

Mass. is likely to get a Democrat for its governor; his
tactic was to make the statement that "Massachusetts is not
ready to elect a black governor". So the guilt card is
played and people are going to vote for him even though they
disagree with all his policies, promises and opinions.

I wish they would just go move in with the lemmings and be done
with it.

/BAH

 

In article <452390B0.7B5389D0@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

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

All you seem to do is post lines like this. You have no dialog
just a gut reaction that happens to be deemed to be politically
correct at the moment.

You ppl are such a waste of space.

hmmm...sounds familiar.

/BAH

 

In article <RGTUg.51412$E67.745@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:5ej7i2h3fbuks2ft3pk2o2gf3alga3na3k@4ax.com...

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.

Until we're attacked. Then we start to pay attention outside
the borders.

Their
thinking is not at all broadened by knowledge of the world, and they are
amazingly gullible.

I don't know. ISTM that 95% of humans don't like to think. I
keep trying to make it 94% but everytime I look away it becomes 96%.

/BAH

 

[YD]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:13:35 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4523D85F.43BBD99C@earthlink.net...
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.

It's just a bunch of obnoxious bitter old men and has-beens with no
real control over much of anything anymore. They've transferred their
lives to this ng. Their only way of one-upping is to degrade those not
espousing their POVs to below their level with name calling and
ridicule with no substance of fact.

Makes them look like school-yard bullies or teen-age gangs hanging out
on street corners.

Overall damn immature, and that goes for those bothering to keep it
going too.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

In article <sxVUg.13307$7I1.4380@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:wo6dnaYdAMyDh7nYRVny3w@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvu0c$8ss_002@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

Well, I'd like to have a few less crapolas posts so I can find
the ones were posted by thoughtful people.

Reasonable enough wish, although it carries the risk that you only read
posts which say things you already agree with.... Always seems kind of
pointless to me.

Seems that's what most people in this discussion want...and if you don't
give it to them, they'll swear at you, insult you, and even threaten
physical violence and assault.

Yes, I know. I'm trying to figure out how to quell this useless
behaviour. I don't seem to have figured it out yet. It is
a part of the overall solution the extremists' danger, though.

I have learned a lot from the few
*reasonable* posters in this thread, both those I agree with *and* those I
don't...and there are even a few people in the discussion with whom I
disagree but they still showed respect for my opinion. It's too bad that
everyone else is so insecure in themselves and their views that the
slightest difference of opinion brings obscenity, insults and threats of
violence instead of healthy discussion.

You do understand that the ones who cannot (and I mean that they
are incapable) think objectively and discuss all aspects of a
problem have to speak this way. They also have to appear to
be a member of what is currently perceived as the majority.

This week somebody has decided that I must be portrayed as stupid.
The first line written had to associate me with Bush and Cheney.

I found this extremely amusing and interesting, albeit sad.

In order for me to tweak out my hidden assumptions, I need
to have discussions with people who have a different perspective.


/BAH

 

In article <45239288.D1269ADD@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
"T Wake" writes:

The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has
any
"War on Terror" been won?

The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war
on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool.

Obfuscation noted.

So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ?

This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's
mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed.

And seemingly both sides reckon it can be acheived by violent means !

You have overlooked that the extremists' methods are approved
by their religion.

No they aren't. You're ignorant to think so.


Rewards are booty if living and some
male nonsense if killed while committing this violence.

Utter rubbish.

Oh, my. You do have a very efficient reality filter.

/BAH

 

In article <452390F5.E960000B@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
T Wake wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

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 ?

Also an option. Any one of those three will work.

I think the mutual concession option

This option does not exist.

You can't accept that Islam isn't a threat to your lifestyle ?

Not only is it a threat, but it has already begun to
alter my lifestyle. My goal is to ensure that it
alter 100% of my lifestyle, if I'm allowed to exist.

/BAH

 

In article <VAVUg.13310$7I1.3298@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452415BE.DB0DBC1E@hotmail.com...


Keith wrote:

rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

And you think you can defeat 'radical Islam' with bombs and bullets ?

I know there is no choice. Perhaps you want to submit?

There is no need to 'submit'

You're living in a perversely stupid fantasy paranoid world.

It comes from the constant bombardment by Bush's fear-mongering--it's his
way of keeping power over people.

I think you should start to listen to Bush instead of listening
to other people supposedly repeating what Bush said. I would
suggest you start with his January, 2006 TV speech.

People start to lose perspective on what
is happening and why. It really is a very powerful narcotic.

People can also lose perspective if they assume that Bush
is always wrong and is the cause of all ills which is the
only thing you hear from his political opposition.

This causes a lot of people to overlook the fact that these
same politicians do not intend to deal with the threat
to the nation.

/BAH

 

In article <452391C5.FF964899@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a
criticism "unacceptable."

Which criticism was unacceptable?

Watch this.

I can't. I'm not going to the library for this one.

<snip>

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.1f8d931454252de4989d60@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com says...
In article <eftq1i$c8p$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that
perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing
the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem
to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is
given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of
their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

Eric Lucas



Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a
criticism "unacceptable."

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.

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

Do no dismiss this. It's going to be a serious problem because
Europe is going to expect the US to deal with the big mess
that will be made by these extremists. In their zeal to prove
that Bush is bad, people who think this way will also assist
in making a mess for the sake of revenge.

/BAH

 

In article <z3RUg.8422$GR.463@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:efvurj$8ss_006@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <eftq1i$c8p$3@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452198F0.A71D16AC@hotmail.com...


John Fields wrote:

You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its
government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so
what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying
to help with constructive criticism?

I thought it was fine under Clinton !

Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as
someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't
have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that
perhaps
it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be
capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing
the
Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a
"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing
with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem
to
fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is
given
the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of
their
lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to
legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior.

Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling
a
criticism "unacceptable."

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.

Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an
argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who
disagrees with you.

The reason I asked for specifics is because I want to know if the
criticism the donkey is talking about is the same one that the
Democrats here are fanning as a reprehensible act. They are
in campaign mode at the moment and are pulling as many dirty
as they can without having to state their position nor be
specific about which actions they will take when elected.

A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential
candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe.

/BAH

 

In article <gvTUg.51409$E67.10236@clgrps13>,
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

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.

All this rhetoric is a very nice way to ignore the existence
of a national threat.

/BAH

 

In article <4523923C.918AEB02@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

US aid is frequently accompanied by compulsory 'trade concessions' that
favour the USA.

Funny, I don't recall us ever asking Russia for anything for the
millions of tons of wheat we have sent them over the last several
decades.

Why does Russia need 'aid' ? Why is it going there. Can't they pay for it?

She was killing of her farmers at one point.

Under Stalin presumably ?

Yes.

What's that got to do with giving Russia aid ?

Answer the damn question.

If a country kills off the people who know how to grow its
food, then all foodstuffs have to be imported. This bankrupts
a country quickly.

/BAH

 

In article <452392F3.AB63EFCC@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't
dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something
horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means.

Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot
begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't
trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation.

What's it got to do with women specifically FFS ?

Define FFS, please.

/BAH

 

In article <PsRUg.57$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <4523844C.CA22EFDF@hotmail.com>, 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.

The oddity of this, which I cannot find in past history, is that
the extremists are already doing this to themselves.

/BAH

 

In article <QKRUg.58$45.150@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eg000d$8ss_011@s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <efvskd$d45$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se>, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com> writes:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4522F8DE.C46161BD@hotmail.com...


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 ?

Something like that - and the *point* is that if we are *not entirely
willing to
do that*, the only other known-to-work-at-least-once strategy is the Cold
War;
cut the connections with all regimes fuelling the "jihad" (by word, deed
or
inaction) and allow the regimes to fail on their own accord!

Which, in view of our current dependence on oil (which, even under the
most optimistic assessments is not going to change significantly over
the next couple decades at least) is not a realistic option.

The present idea of spending ~USD 95,000,000,000.-- (more actually, this
is
just
Iraq) per year on bombing the shit out of tribespeople and chain-gunning
peoples
houses from AC-37's every time someone pops a few rounds/rivals is I.M.O.
pointless and self-defeating.

Imagine that we will still be doing that in 20 years time! Except that we
have
gone bust by then!!

One can probably buy a mars base for that money -or- wipe AIDS off the
surface
of the earth, eradicate just about every kind of water bourne disease
there
is
and maybe even get enough left over for primary schools in the entire
Africa.

Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't
dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something
horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means.

Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot
begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't
trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation.

Unfortunately, that's how things work in human affairs. That's why we
end up with so many big messes.

I know. I became a tad more mature this year when I realized that.
I'm adjusting mess prevention activities accordingly.

/BAH

 

[JoeBloe]

On 04 Oct 2006 12:25:57 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

Obviously it's a 'war' on the terrorists 'we' disapprove of. We'll
call the other ones guerillas. That sounds alright doesn't it ?

You're an idiot. Indisputably so.


Graham




No. You are!!

Fuck off, retard.

You have not the slightest clue what you talk about.

You're an idiot.

In your words, get
the beer out of your mouth and call the army for a termin. You will get
new (beer) one there, hehe.

Complete proof of my remarks above. Thanks for making it so easy.

Best Regards,

More lies from the hate monger dipshit.

Daniel Mandic

Yes, YOU!