Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Brilliant. War really will never end.

---
Not as long as we have people like Graham who advocate genocide.

You utter fathead.

I've advocated no such thing.

You have though.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525731F.88253EF2@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

Good job he could stand on you to stay clear.


In your dreams.

Oddly, no. It may come as a shock but you, your head and turds (or any
combination) have never really played a big part in my dreams.

Is this all part of your dream sequences? Do you have trouble telling
reality from dream? From your yawning (and posts) it may be the case....

 

In article <eg2paa$8qk_011@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

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.

It is not that odd. Extremists are striving for a very high degreee

of coherence, in their own camp. This involves "purifying" your side
from "dubious elements".

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

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4525621B.267B9801@hotmail.com...

John Fields wrote:

Graham was pooh-poohing Gordon's claim that there's a process going
on to end terrorism, and I was pointing out that Graham has no clue
about what's being done in secret, just like most of the rest of us.

You have to be mad to think "anything is going on in secret" except more
stupidity.

But you have no way of knowing that.

Why else would the USA be blundering from one failure to the next ?

Even the best plans fail.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:mooai2tjllspa5mmpndi4t6147ojklb5hv@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:11:22 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:53 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion]. Hence
it's moot.

---
Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll
have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the
problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize
it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd
otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency
is _not_ a virtue.

There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of
force simply
because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to
force me to do
anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) .

---
All it takes is one...

Well, one to ask. A few more to enforce it.

In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

---
No big deal. You've never heard of martial law?

Wasn't that an American action TV programme? Seemed to quite like it as I
recall.

The very concept is insanely stupid.

---
Not at all. The implementation may be extremely difficult, but the
concept is already causing terrorist acts to occur there.

Where?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:z8KdnXZUI_tF5rjYRVny2Q@pipex.net...

Nope. not good enough. If the call is suspect it can't wait a
"certain number of hours". The value is gone by the time they can
call a FISA judge.

No, nice try at a strawman, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying
and what is provided for in FISA.

Strawman or not, the time sensitive nature of the intelligence still is
not a strong enough argument for most cases.

You don't seem to have any skill in comprehension whatsoever. All the FISA
court requires is that you report what you have done, not what you are going
to do. Bush doesn't want to do that because he is as crooked as Nixon.

 

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-1EB15B.17270805102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <452575FD.93302F82@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

And again, I'll ask, is there nothing in your worldview but "nuke 'em
all"
and "capitulate". Must really suck to live in such a black-and-white
world.

You suggested that we stop giving them reasons to hate us. From their
own rhetoric and statements, the only way we are going to get that
subset that hates to stop is to capitulate. Period.

No it isn't.

Gee apparently the Argument Clinic Sketch has broken out.. (g).

That would explain all the abuse.... <bg>

Why do you think that ?


Well the rhetoric of OBL and other Al_Queda honchoes. The writings and
rhetoric of radical sects in Saudi, the remnants of the Taliban the
pronouncements in public after the various attacks in Europe and Asia,
etc. I generally take people at their word when they say they will
continue to bomb until the US and the West are defeated and Islam rules
throughout the world. These are the guys that want to do is in and the
subset who hate us.

But keep in mind that those are just the leaders--the *real* wackos, the
ones 6sigma+ from the mean. In order to continue to convince people to face
100% certain death for a cause, the rhetoric of the leaders has to resonate
with the beliefs and feelings of the masses, but it doesn't have to be the
*same* as those feelings. Given these facts, and given the fact that,
despite all the chest-beating bluster here, nobody in this group can for a
second credibly claim to have the slightest clue what is going on in the
heads of the masses that are feeding the extremists like ObL, I don't really
think anyone here can claim to know what will cause them to stop their
current destructive behavior. I do know one thing--we'll never know, if
we're too certain of our own assumptions-from-a-distance, and too arrogant
to at least *attempt* to reach out and understand.

Eric Lucas

 

[Eeyore]

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <4525683A.3582AE66@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to be
done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck.

What ought to be done? Why is government better able than the free
market (including the free market of getting donations to support
private research like that done by MDA, St. Judes, etc.)

Because Government can prioritise according to need rather than profit.

Many recent US drugs are simply replacements for perfectly good older ones so that
they can get new patent protection and not because of any actual need for them for
example.


Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:34:37 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:33:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:05:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

The only violently inclined ppl in this thread
are yourself, Thompson and Terrell. Violent even to the point of making personal
threats.

---
Show where I made a personal threat.

Can you not read ? 'even to' doesn't have to include you.

---
Nor then does it have to include Thompson or Terrell, so who were
you leveling the accusation at, specifically?

It would have to include at least one of them.

---
Which one?
---

Or are you going to try to backpedal your way out of this one, too?

Don't be so utterly pathetic.

---
LOL, I'm not the one one changing streams in mid-horse.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45257A97.2D371DD9@hotmail.com...

John Fields wrote:

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

Fine. So I'm never going to have the problem [forced conversion].
Hence it's moot.

---
Your _assumption_ that you'll never have the problem because you'll
have your head buried in the sand to avert it doesn't mean that the
problem won't visit you. On the contrary, your refusal to recognize
it as a possibility makes you much more vulnerable than you'd
otherwise be. It might surprise you to hear this, but complacency
is _not_ a virtue.

There is no possibilty of me ever being asked to convert under threat of
force simply
because there will never be enough Muslims here to be in a position to
force me to do
anything ( even assuming they wanted to ) .

---
All it takes is one...

One what exactly ?


In any case they'd have to overthrow EU and UK law first.

---
No big deal. You've never heard of martial law?

Martial Law can only be imposed by a conquering army or whatever.

Not true. Already in the UK the government have floated the idea of using
soldiers to provide police (RMP) in Garrison towns.

The surveillance team which assisted the shooting of the Brazillian were
partly military.

Soldiers and AFVs have deployed to Heathrow as security.

Police deploy armed response teams with much greater regularity.

(etc)

Without over using the thin end of the wedge fallacy, there is always the
risk that each little step is a step closer.

You think this is likely
? How may brain cells do you have ?


The very concept is insanely stupid.

---
Not at all. The implementation may be extremely difficult, but the
concept is already causing terrorist acts to occur there.

It's so utterly insane that I'm inclined to find a way to campaign against
such crass
Republican stupidity.

Are you not trying this already?

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

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

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

---
Whoever chooses to launch an attack on us or our friends or chooses
to make it seem like an attack from them is imminent.

So, as ever you can't actually identify any one or group.

---
Who can? Where have you been lately? That's not the way it works
any more.

So you'd just attack Muslims at random ?

You're another believer in the 'Phantom Menace'.

---
And you're not?

Of course not. I'm not afraid of myths.

Do you know when the next strike is going to occur and who the
perpetrators will be?

No-ordinary person does although our police here seem to be on the case.
That's their job. Of course if we weren't attacking Islam worldwide chances
are it would all simply go away.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message

Entertainingly, most of the comments seem to come from Americans.

I especially like this one:

"Agreed. Finally abstinance is being taught and encouraged in American
schools. Things are actually starting to look up morally here, at least
where I live. Girls who "fool around" are really looked down upon and
almost shunned in my school. Because of that we really don't have a
problem.

- Danny Dymarkowski, Archbold Ohio"

I am going to laugh about that for days.

No shit. No virgin ever did anything for me.

BTW, IIRC the abstinence only programs lead to a much higher rate of
abortions.

In any case, the girls who 'fool around' are only looked down on because of
the fucked up atttiudes the parents are projecting.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.

The holocaust was actually set in motion not by Hitler but by his cronies.

But who wrote Mein Kampf?

I fail to see the direct connection.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3IeVg.51653$E67.10593@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
newsO2dnQyL4Id38bjYRVnyuw@pipex.net...

Just for starters, there would have been no holocaust.


Really? And you can prove that, how?

Before Hitler - no holocaust.

After Hitler - no holocaust.

Wow. Before [Insert anyone who lived between 1930 - 1945] no holocaust.
After [same person] no holocaust.

Killing Hitler before he rose to power _may_ have altered the course of the
war and even given this assumption (which is based on doubtful reasoning) it
is unlikely to have prevented the war.

Hitler was one person. For the atrocities to take place, lots of other
people had to think in a similar manner.

Remove Hitler after he got into power and one of his subordinates would have
taken command. Holocaust would have continued, however now it is likely that
the advice of astrologers and cats would be ignored and Panzers would have
been properly positioned in Normandy, the troops in Russia would have been
given sensible orders.

Much harder war to win. Dont kill the madman. Leave him till the end then
let him kill himself.

And that's despite the clear anti-Semitism in Germany - and much of the
Western world as well. Even in Poland which was arguably more anti-Semitic
than even the Krauts there was no holocaust. True Russia had its pogroms,
but they were somewhat less effective.

Well, that is Germanic efficiency for you.

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:452573BD.DAD71895@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4524ABEE.A857925C@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

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


You don't have a driver's license?

Did you miss the word "have" in my post?

I _choose_ to carry a drivers licence. I _choose_ to drive.

Choice.


Do you personally know anyone who doesn't carry some form of
identification?

Yes.

Are you struggling with the word choice?

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:54:47 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

/BAH
OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation.

Correct. I didn't really give a damn before.

Graham

So, seriously: why do you care now?

America is now threatening my way of life.

Bizarre. How?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith wrote:
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com says...

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

You are a two-faced bastard. That fact is well established by your
posts.

Show me an example of this two-facedness.

---
OK.

On one face you say there's no violent rhetoric in your posts and on
the other you call for the destruction of Israel.

No I haven't.

Show me where I did.

Graham

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <4525804F.F6F78193@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article <4525683A.3582AE66@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

That's why Governments need to be involved to do the stuff the *ought* to
be
done rather than stuff that just makes a fast buck.

What ought to be done? Why is government better able than the free
market (including the free market of getting donations to support
private research like that done by MDA, St. Judes, etc.)

Because Government can prioritise according to need rather than profit.
They don't. They prioritize according to their profit, ie, how many

votes it will get or how much to their PACs or re-election funds.
Otherwise you wouldn't have the rather strange of allocation of
resources you see sometimes at the NIH and other federal programs.

Many recent US drugs are simply replacements for perfectly good older ones so
that
they can get new patent protection and not because of any actual need for
them for
example.

Not true. In my specialty, for instance, it has been shown many
times that if a person doesn't respond to one antidepressant, they might
to another kind from the same family. Then you go on to other
antidepressants of other kinds. Same has been seen in heart medications
and other kinds of medications.
Me-too is, and pretty much always has been, bogus.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-947FC7.16500405102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <aI2dnQoQOZz18rjYRVnyuA@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Ken Smith" <kensmith@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:eg32m7$okg$4@blue.rahul.net...
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.

Yet all the nasty old men who encourage the bombers refuse to do it
themselves.


Nice to know there are some constants through out history and across
religions, area of the world and cultures. (g)

Yep Some things never, ever, change....

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:452577B2.729A2190@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45244F75.8EAF5664@earthlink.net...
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.


Other way round really.


Really? Look at some historical texts and get back to me.

Done. What was your point?

As an aside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster) implies that the
letters were removed for the US audience.

Shall we follow the example back to Saxon languages and see where we can
head from there?