Jihad needs scientists

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) 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.

Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France,
specifically.

You're being very very silly.

Graham

I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the
military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of
the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some
resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you
save someone's life, they will hate you forever."

You really are monumentally stupid.

Maybe we could change our maps to call the USA 'stupidland' instead ?

Graham

 

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

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_kdVg.8930$GR.1926@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

"Keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f8ef7a64499f172989d95@News.Individual.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 better believe it is in this case. However, it's provided for in FISA.
I think the FISAct was extremely well thought-out, and does an excellent job
of maintaining accountability as well as classified information security,
and does an excellent job of protecting US citizens' civil rights and
balancing them with the need for security. Damn shame our government is
planning to ignore it--the *only* thing ignoring FISA and the 4th amendment
does is to make the NSA accountable to nobody. Some people want to assume
that the NSA will act in our best interest, but the authors of the
Constitution put the system of checks and balances in there for a very good
reason...governments have time and time again over history shown themselves
to be untrustworthy of unilateral action. The fact that the Executive
branch of the government wants to be accountable to *nobody* scares the hell
out of me. If their motives are pure, then there's no reason the FISA court
shouldn't at least be able to review the surveillances after the fact.
Whoever said that the Supreme Court is not above any of the other branches
of the government might also want to consider that that is supposed to be
true of the Executive branch as well.

Eric Lucas

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:50:02 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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.

3000 people died at the WTC. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.


3000 people (not all of whom were US citizens) have been killed by Islamic
terrorist attacks on the Mainland US in (shall we say 80 years). How many
have died in car accidents in that time?

That said, you are nitpicking in the same manner. More than ten times as
many people die every year as died as a result of the 11 Sep 01 attack. That
is TEN attacks of that scale (and that was a large scale attack by anyone's
standards) every single year. Year in, year out and accepted as a normal
risk in life.

Well, I'm an engineer. Numbers matter to me. "At least three orders of
magnitude" isn't accurate. The comparison of a single event to the
entire history of automobile use isn't vert logical either.

John

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:j8pai2h5jnne0fr6oht7sfjt1e2fi2s691@4ax.com...

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:12:11 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:50u7i2h1nkv91i933t146sile4cdjht076@4ax.com...
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:03:27 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:50:11 +0100, Eeyore 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'
?

---
We won the one on German extremism so who's to say it's not
possible
to win this one?

The Nazi party was genuinely popular. That's one reason they got
elected.

---
What does that have to do with anything? We still beat the shit out
of them.
---

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

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

Beat the shit out of whom exactly ?

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

Brilliant. War really will never end.

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

Or people who advocate attacks on those who seem like a threat.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:03:17 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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.

3000 people died at the WTC

And you still haven't got over it.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:69qai2tullbiogku8pfal39o7uhsfohdir@4ax.com...

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:14:16 +0100, 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.
---

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

---
And you're not?

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

Yes don't go near [insert mall of choice] on [insert date]. A good friend
did a good turn for a middle eastern looking guy and got given this advice.
Pass it on.....










(for those challenged in that respect, yes this was satire)

 

[T Wake]

"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:GTeVg.51660$E67.19518@clgrps13...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:1eqdnZ1tVIQ66bjYRVny2A@pipex.net...

And what percentage of Americans have ever been further than Canada or
Mexico? Or have even left their own state?

Most US states are about the same size as England. I am sure a
significant percentage of English people have never left England. I am
equally sure a larger percentage have never been more than three
timezones away or to two different climatic zones. Americans can manage
this within their borders.

I don't think you need a ferry to get from Arizona to Nevada.

Not really relevant. You don't need a ferry to go from Calais to Khabarovsk
in Siberia. I don't know many people who have done that journey.

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-A0902C.17031305102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <gZCdncvdOOR47LjYRVny2w@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
hall.

The fact they all have big, sloped, foreheads and the same surname is
suspicious to say the least


Aunt Mom and Uncle Dad is another dead giveaway.
If your family tree don't branch....

Lol. They do stem from their gene puddles, that is for sure

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45257983.B5B9D79D@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4524AD4F.E60318D@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

Do Americans have a word for Bullying?

Yes, do you have one for yellow bellied cowards?

Not one word. As you can see, there were three there. I can help with
your
counting if you want?


Would you like help with reading comprehension? I didn't say "yellow
bellied cowards" was one word, I asked if you had a word that was
equivalent to it?

And, as you can see, I replied we don't have _one_ word for it. You used the
same words as we do in England, because you speak English.

Sorry if it confused you.

Do you want me to keep to single syllables in future?

The post I replied to said:

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

So can I assume by your reply that the option is force others to do as I
say
or be a yellow bellied coward.

Honestly, this makes no sense to me.


Poor comprehension will do that to you.

Yeah, true. You still make no sense and have little in the way of rebuttal
other than appeals to ridicule or logical fallacies.

Keep trying though. You will get there eventually.

 

In article <eg3143$okg$2@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

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.

Lobbing missiles in the general direction (with a forewarning to

Pakistan) is not an "attempt to get OBL", just an attempt to show that
"something is being done".

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

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-C6BC2D.15184105102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <mgcVg.8914$GR.6106@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:


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?

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

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. There is plenty in
my world view between the two, but I have seen nothin' to indicate there
is anything else in THEIR world view. I don't want to nuke 'em all.
Just light up those who are actively trying to kill me.

This creates an interesting problem. How many who aren't actively trying to
kill you are you prepared to kill to ensure those who are get caught?

How far down the line do they have to go to be "actively trying to kill"
you? Is it the point they aim a gun at _you_ or is it the point they stand
on a box in a foreign country and espouse violence toward the US?

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:452560C4.17296381@hotmail.com...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

Since when was that an option ?

It has always been an option. It will always be an option.

Is is the option with the highest chance of sucess for those who think life
is more important than way of life.

You really shouldn't give so much credence to what a few thousand ppl say
they
want.

Well, that is the democratic process for you.

 

[Kurt Ullman]

In article <esidnW_v7dZdGLjYRVnyiQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

How far down the line do they have to go to be "actively trying to kill"
you? Is it the point they aim a gun at _you_ or is it the point they stand
on a box in a foreign country and espouse violence toward the US?

Yes. As long as they have a method to follow through on the violence.
You can also actively try to kill me by doing things other than aim a
gun at me.
Although, as was mentioned earlier, I have never been a big exponent
of not targeting the generals. Think wars would stop a lot quicker if
the generals were also targets along with the poor grunt.

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-CFDA3C.17424205102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <XfadnZaf6qZr57jYRVnytw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-AA4E60.15244905102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.
In article <KsmdncSVMpRtxLjYRVnyig@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


There are two different things going on here. One is what you
can
do as private citizen, which in AZ is that all are fair game. But we
were talking about what goverment (be it under the mantel of cop-dom
or
spook-dom) can do. Whole 'nother kettle of fish..

Doesn't make it "right."

Makes it legal. To paraphrase Shark on CBS.. "Right is God's
problem."

Well, maybe. However, injust laws are still injust.

But injust is subjective. I find it sorta hard to believe that your
definition of an unjust law and mine is going to be congruent that
often.

I agree. However the "justice" of the situation depend (IMHO obviously) on
how the balance of treatment takes place.

If I speak to you, and you record my conversations for your use and onward
transmission without my knowledge is that right? You may think so, but the
inversion might not sit so well (or it may).

Personally the acid test (for me) is if it is something you would be happy
with other doing to you, about you or against you, then it is more likely to
be fair (not always the case 'cos some people are mad...).

For once, I am having trouble expressing myself in text over this.

Doesn't make you wrong and me right (well actually as far as I am
concerned it does, but again is subjective).

I agree, it makes me right.....

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

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

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.

But they were organised.

An organised group of 5 ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

driving a car is vastly more of a threat to society than is terrorism.

Especially in the USA !

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:r3fVg.8959$GR.3051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Not sure about spelling, but I've read some very well-researched serious
scholarly linguistic articles that say that the British English accent at
the time of the American colonies was very much closer to the current New
England accent than to the current variety of British accents. It seems
speech in the "colonies" was and is much more conservative than speech in
the mother land. I don't remember what their evidence was, there are
obviously no audio tapes to compare.

It has the potential (and that dreaded "ring of truth") however the reality
is possibly very, very far from the case.

Both sets of languages have had an equal time to "evolve" into their current
form. The US has been much more influenced by immigrant linguistics over
that period than England has, so I am inclined to doubt the validity of the
claim.

I suspect both languages are equally distant from the English spoken in
(say) 1775.

However, I do remember them being pretty certain of their evidence--it was
really much more than just speculation. It may have had to do with
several isolated societies in North Carolina Appalachians that have almost
exactly the same accent as New England. This is part of the reason I
get so amused when Brits look down their noses at US pronunciation and
lexicon, and act like they're the only ones entitled to call themselves
"speakers of English".

We are. You should have your own language.

(No, let's not start *that* pissing match again.)

Oh please.

Some linguists even interpret the shifts in England as related to
blueblood Londoners putting on airs, and that accent subsequently catching
on in other parts of the country. I suspect this last part is a bit of a
stretch, but the whole thing is an interesting thesis. I find it
fascinating to think about how people spoke in the past, and how language
has evolved. Puts a whole new perspective in the various new inner-city
lexicons and pronunciations that have developed, even in my lifetime.

Languages evolve all the time. Welsh is a good example.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:t9mdnTdWebdT4rjYRVnyuw@pipex.net...

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.

The 'best' plans?

Bush wanted to invade Iraq in the worst possible way. In this he was
completely successful.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:r3fVg.8959$GR.3051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...

Some linguists even interpret the shifts in England as related to
blueblood Londoners putting on airs, and that accent subsequently catching
on in other parts of the country. I suspect this last part is a bit of a
stretch, but the whole thing is an interesting thesis. I find it
fascinating to think about how people spoke in the past, and how language
has evolved. Puts a whole new perspective in the various new inner-city
lexicons and pronunciations that have developed, even in my lifetime.

Read "The Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson.

Once, the K in knight, knife, knave and other words was not silent. A very
strange language indeed.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:OMydnTZT299zHLjYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@pipex.net...

Before Hitler - no holocaust.

After Hitler - no holocaust.

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

So you see no connection between Hitler and the holocaust?