Jihad needs scientists

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2m74$8qk_002@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

You mean kind of like gay marriage amendments, embryonic stem cells, Iraq
(as opposed to the *real* fight against terrorism), and so on?

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Eric Lucas

Kurt Ullman · Oct 5, 2006

In article <w88Vg.9105$vJ2.869@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

To consider those real issues but to call the abuse of minors by a
Congressman "a smokescreen" is about as disingenuous as politics gets.

Define abuse, (seriously). I usually reserve that term for actual

physical contact (sexual, assaultive) and (so far at least) there is
nothing to indicate that either happened. Although I am the first to
suggest that the possibility it did happen is much more likely given
both the history of abuse and behaviors that got him into trouble.
Talkin' dirty is illegal, but I still say it is a couple orders of
magnitude below physical and sexual abuse.

Robert Latest · Oct 5, 2006

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 13:52:07 +0000 (UTC),
Ken Smith <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote
in Msg. <eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net>

A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc.

The warped belief system of the deluded extremists does, yes.
Islam itself doesn't.

robert

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:43:04 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote

They did break US law. There's lots of legal precedence here. If a
Canadian kills a US citizen in Canada, that's a violation of US law.

Don't care. It's a violation of Canadian law and must be punished under that
law.

---
I agree. The crime should be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in
which it's committed.

So are you going to press for a change in US law ?

---
Of course not. Why should I?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2nr4$8qk_001@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Me neither, but thanks for trying. Shame doesn't work (silly me, should
have known that one.) Stolidly attempting reasoned discussion with both
sides of the issue doesn't work. (Side comment--isn't it also sad that such
a complex issue seems to have only two sides bashing at each other? George
Washington saw the problems inherent in and spoke against the two party
system, and it's a real shame the country chose to ignore him.)

It is
a part of the overall solution the extremists' danger, though.

I can't parse that sentence as is, I think you're missing a "to", correct?
If so, the extreme polarization in American politics since 2000 has been a
stone in my craw for a long time. What the hell ever happened to the art of
compromise? Everybody is so set on making their "enemy" (odd concept, no?)
look wrong/bad/stupid/etc., that nobody is willing to sit down and discuss
differences. I used to think it was a symptom of the maxim of human
behavior, "The less important an issue, the louder and more vehement the
argument", but that's clearly not the case with foreign policy. I didn't
especially like Clinton, but the one thing he was good at was compromise,
and working with his political adversaries. Things got done despite the
potential gridlock of a Democrat President and a Republican Congress for
most of his term in office. It really rankles me that Bush and his
supporters used the soundbite taglines "the Great Uniter" and "Uniter not
Divider" to describe him and his cronies. I think Dick Cheney best
expressed the Administration's contempt for those who think differently than
they do: "Fuck you."

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.

I'm perhaps a little more sanguine (some would probably call it naive) about
human nature, and hope that "cannot" is wrong. Sadly, I'm starting to
become cynical about that issue--you may be right, they may be incapable.

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

There have been times in my life when I have spent too much time inside my
own head, or too much time with people who think like I do. The problem is
that you start to take your ideas too seriously, and in your mind, they
start to morph into "The Truth". That's a *very* dangerous place to be.

Eric Lucas

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

I do and I did.

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.

I don't. I evaluate critically.

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.

Why do you assume that they "do not intend to deal with the threat"? You
don't think that perhaps they have a *better* way to deal with it than is
being used now? (Yeah, yeah, I know, we've gone full circle on the whole
thread.)

Eric Lucas

Ken Smith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <kurtullman-DF361C.08005005102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <yB%Ug.9910$e66.1023@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-9EC767.19185804102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.
In article <lef8i2prust90bdlna6vmp1r0h9p7a7a95@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

Of course. But I can record and then hand over to the government, no
sweat, no warrant, nada.

Plenty of sweat. Any half-way sentient defense attorney is going
to try and suggest you were acting as an agent of the cops in a rather
blatant attempt to circumvent the rights of my poor, misunderstood
client who killed those 25 people because he overdosed on twinkies.
Might actually make the case. Seen it happen often enough.

What, overdosing on Twinkies? *That* can't be pretty.

There have been a coupla attorneys who tried that defense. Something
about a sugar jag leading to them killing or at seriously injuring
someone. Can't remember right off if it worked or not. Our defense
attorneys are nothin' if not creative.

It is claimed that Dan White used the "twinkie defence" when he killed
Harvy White and George Moscone by saying that they reduced his ability to
tell right from wrong. This is how the term first came into being.

The truth is that his lawyers used the eating of twinkies as evidence of
insanity.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <0cr8i2p5gcd7asiq8nsdlon8b0m6h69l5a@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[....]

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 ;-)

On (2) we have external evidence that he did try to get OBL. It was all
over the news and the Neocons yelled "wag the dog" about it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <f%jUg.19041$Ij.8532@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:efship$e0d$1@blue.rahul.net...
In article <DkfUg.31$45.83@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <efr907$sb7$5@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <XxYTg.5$45.149@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
Islamic terrorists aim at destruction of the western society and
you're not going to deter them because there is no deterring people
who already decided that they don't care whether they live or die.

Actually that is not true. Deterring people is about placing a treat
against what they value. You may be able to deter many of them with the
threat that if there is another attack, we will nuke Meca.

This, in fact, may work. We didn't get to this stage yet, but we may.
But this level of deterrence is in the province of war, not police
action.

I picked a very extreme example on purpose.

What makes you think nuking Mecca would have anything but a very, very
negative effect on us?

Note that I said "theat". I was suggesting that the threat would work so
I don't need to respond to this.

Simply threatening to nuke Mecca would not work, the
Arab world is used to the usual propagandistic bluster from their own
leaders, and it would be easy to ignore as a bluff.

So, basically you are saying that a lack of credibility of the treat is
the problem. If the threat was believed it would be effective. To
continue my extreme example, you may have to nuke something else first to
make sure they take you at your word.

But you haven't yet made that point. I think the point is that there really
*isn't* anything we could do that would deter them.

I strongly disagree. The second example of life in prison, I believe,
would work on many of them.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Ken Smith · Oct 5, 2006

In article <7qCdnW1uWfo2B7_YRVny3w@pipex.net>,
T Wake <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
[....]

A surprisingly small number of Islamic extremists are actually willing to
die for their cause you know?

Their belief system encourages it with promices of virgins etc. They
would be far less willing to spend the rest of their lives in jail than to
die as a result. Dieing of old age doesn't get you the free ticket to
heaven.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

Kurt Ullman · Oct 5, 2006

In article <eg32hc$5l0$6@leto.cc.emory.edu>,
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

In article
kurtullman-8700B9.17512004102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
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.

Bush didn't get warrants!
Read the next para which is a nice, coherent and well thought out

suggestion as to why one may not be needed.

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.

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2ouk$8qk_007@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

The only reprehensible acts I've seen anyone talk about are a middle-aged
Congressman talking to young boys about fondling them. I will provisionally
add to that the power structure above him who had been told by a page 3
years ago that it was happening and did essentially nothing but tell him to
cut it out. I say provisionally because the page's story has not been
verified.

The things that Bush has typically told people they have no right to
criticize is anything related to how he's handling the mess in Iraq, and the
Constitutional rights that he's trampling over in the name of combatting
terrorism. He's even gone so far as to call such criticism treason.

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.

It's disingenuous to lay that all in the Democrats' laps. The Republicans
are doing it just as bad, if not worse. In all the political ads I've seen
on the TV here (Blackwell vs. Strickland, Pryce vs. Kilroy, DeWine vs. Brown
are the major ones), the *only* actual positive ideas I've seen have come
from Sherrod Brown. Everyone else (to a man/woman) is doing absolutely
nothing but slinging mud. It's disgusting, really.

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

Interesting that you choose to ascribe that to the Democrats' campaign
rhetoric. It also happens to be the same time period during which the
Administration chose to tell the rest of the world to take a flying leap and
invade Iraq for no good reason.

Eric Lucas

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2p1f$8qk_008@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Which one would that be, the dangers of driving on the nation's highways?
That's at least 3 orders of magnitude greater of a real threat to every
person in the country than is terrorism. Life *cannot* be made 100 %
safe--otherwise driving would have been outlawed about 80 years ago. In
attempting to erase a threat that, in the grand scheme of things is not the
worst thing we face, the Administration has fanned the flames of a fear that
is exactly what the terrorists wanted. The terrorists have seen that their
actions worked, and are of course going to try to come back for more, hoping
to take away more of our Constitutional rights and create more irrational
fear. It's a positive feedback loop. I'm not saying we do nothing, I'm
saying we do more reasonable things to combat it, stop fanning the flames of
fear, and stop giving the terrorists more reasons to attack us. Increased
security is a good idea, I'm all for it, but not at the expense of the
Constitutional system of checks and balances. Not having gone into Iraq
would have been a great start, according to recently declassified documents.

Eric Lucas

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Oh, the innumeracy. At the rate that they're doing that, it will take at
least an order of magnitude longer than all of recorded human history to
reach the stated endpoint. In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

Eric Lucas

Oct 5, 2006

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg2pi8$8qk_012@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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.

Can you have a chat with my fiancee? ;^) She's still in her pre-emptive
phase.

Eric Lucas

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:40:45 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 08:58:53 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:43:32 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

[snip]

Most certainly Jim's claim to be libertarian.

- YD.

[cross-posting to non S.E.D deleted]

War: To the right of Attila the Hun
Threat to the US in any form: Nuk'em
Religious terrorists: Kill and desecrate their bodies
Guns: Everyone should have at least one, AND sufficient ammo
Economics: No taxes except for infrastructure; free market,
no gov't controls, no social legislation
Abortion: Pro
Stem Cell Research: Pro
Personal Consumption of Drugs: Go ahead and kill yourself if you like
Gay: I could care less... just stay out of my face
Religion: I could care less... just stay out of my face
Democrats: OK, if you are that ignorant... just stay out of my face
In my face: Eat a bullet
Global warming caused by man: Hogwash
Graham/Eeyore: Ignorance to the point of PRICELESS ;-)
Eric Lucas: A close second

Sounds Libertarian to me ;-)

No, it doesn't.

- YD.

Which part doesn't meet your expectation ?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On 05 Oct 2006 10:25:35 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Sounds strange to me. The people I know have traveled a lot, and many
have lived in other countries. Americans are often fans and admirers
of other countries and languages. As for not being very introspective,
that is true of many Americans, and it's generally a virtue: jobs,
hobbies, interests, causes, and family are a lot more interesting than
narcissistic, neurotic self-absorption. Maybe you are mistaking
politeness and open-mindedness for being gullible: they are different.

Of course America is big, with beaches, glaciers, mountains, rivers,
an enormous variety of geography and cultures. Not all Americans elect
to fly overseas when we have 50 different states of our own to
explore. Your thinking seems to be undisturbed by actual knowledge of
the US.

John

We will see how it will look alike in some thousand years.

You managed to stop many natural beings there in a few hundred years.
Not to mention the other catastrophes you managed to ge into.
You could not overlive the next Winter (f. Wind in his Hair), you
cannot even overlive the growy Summer (f. Daniel Redheart). Also in
Spain, there they already investi more energy for cooling than heating.
(I feel com-fart-ably at 30-40 degrees celsius ~100 fahrenheit, but not
in a betonized town, of course I can understand. You should green up
your towns a bit and not call them lapidar 'Big Apple' for example, like
it has been grown on a big healthy apple-tree -farce!)

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:42:06 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 09:01:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:53:57 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT@techie.com> wrote:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:37:41 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

[snip]

Sheeesh! Do a Google-groups search on Eeyore/Graham... he's a
depraved poster to porn groups, so he's probably in a cell, posting
from the prison library ;-)

...Jim Thompson

PPOSTFU

- YD.

Several lurkers here have done the same Google-group search and
verified it. So do it yourself. ESAD ;-)

...Jim Thompson

So you don't in fact have anything except for what you fantasize in
your twisted mind.

- YD.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

John Larkin · Oct 5, 2006

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:52:13 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote:
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> 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?

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

That's because you're a prick.

And anyway many American kids today think they're being chaste as long as they
don't have vaginal sex. You ppl are truly weird.

Graham

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408249&in_page_id=1770

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=408249&in_page_id=1770

Are you a ten-percent-er?

John

Why don't you say exactly what you mean ?

Graham

Sorry. I thought I did.

John

John Fields · Oct 5, 2006

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:45:35 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:9ag7i21j1pom75krl0ip9d40ta9tnoc9j8@4ax.com...
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.

Really? "Radical Islam" covers a variety of branches of Islam - which are
often at war with each other - yet you also think they have a unified goal.
Interesting take.

---
I don't believe that their being at war with each other periodically
negates their collective desire to see the downfall of the west.
---

Which group would get the unlimited power and why would the others (Shi'a vs
Sunni for example) allow them to have it?

---
In the end, as in any war, to the victor goes the spoils.
---

How can a groups of organisations which have no single unified command or
structure have a single unified goal?

---
They all have the Koran, and the Koran advocates the vanquishing of
infidels. That's the single common goal. The rest of it is petty
in-squabbling for local acquisition of power.
---

Some radical Islamic groups which operate as Terrorist organisations in
Asia have
no interest in Global conversion.

---
But they still want power.

Which nation, religious group, company (etc) doesnt?

---
They all do, and rightly so. The problem that arises, though, is
when any entity seeks power beyond its needs.

Consider the human body; when in balance, a system where everything
in it is functioning for its own benefit as well as for the benefit
of the rest of the "team". But if any part of it starts getting
ideas about 'taking over', and puts those ideas into effect, then
the whole thing gets out of whack and we get sick. At that point,
it becomes the body's job to straighten out the offender and get
everything back on track. If it can't, it'll die.
---

the goal, in my opinion, would be to
convert everyone to Islam and have them be subject to control by
Muslim jurists, the goal being total world domination by Islam.

Refusal to convert would result in death.

Ok. This is just your opinion though.

---
Well, no. The fate of infidels who fail to convert to Islam (not
just radical Islam either) is spelled out in the Koran and is
relegation to social insignificance, at best, for 'People of the
Book', and death for the rest of humanity.

Yet, as mentioned elsewhere, it is not as clear cut as this. Islamic nations
tolerate Hindus for example.

---
Yes. It seems that nothing is ever really black and white. (Except,
perhaps, the statement that it seems that nothing is ever really
black and white.

)
---

Christianity does not tolerate unbelievers either. Papal bulls in the tenth
century declared all non-Christians as subject to death on the whims of
their Christian lords.

---
I think, "Christianity used to not tolerate unbelievers either"
might be more accurate.
---

Just as with Christianity, there are differences in how people interpret
their "rulebook."

---
Mostly true, I think, except for one branch of Cristianity, Roman
Catholicism, where the buck stops at the pope's desk.
---

An equally valid opinion would be to
say the US has global world domination as it's goal.
It is after all only an opinion.

---
I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have
no aspirations to Empire. Had we chosen to we could have kept
Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't.

I think otherwise. The US has no aspirations to an empire in the form of the
Nineteenth century European ones, I agree. However the US wants to have as
many nations as possible under its sphere of influence. That is an Empire.

---
What we want is an economically competitive planet with all nations
at peace and capable of determining their own futures.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be everyone's goal.
Fortunately, we're the cops.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

Jihad needs scientists

Guest

Kurt Ullman

Guest

Robert Latest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Kurt Ullman

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Online statistics

Forum statistics

Jihad needs scientists

Guest

Kurt Ullman

Guest

Robert Latest

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Guest

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Ken Smith

Guest

Kurt Ullman

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor