Jihad needs scientists

In article <45253E01.3F09304C@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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.

Why do you need to go to the library ?

They have TTYs that can access the web without crashing. And,
if they do crash, I can walk away without having to clean the
mess up. I no longer have the energy to find lost bits and
reorder them.

/BAH

 

In article <45bbi2dht9aebs9qdn8nop7n9ocridrmlh@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 18:16:50 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
snip

Why do you need to go to the library ?

Graham

Idiot! For someone that claims to have been in these groups for so
long, I find it had to believe (not) that you are oblivious as to whom
/BAH is.

<GRIN> Now think about this aspect again. Include your knowledge
of this poster's inability to learn from other posters.

/BAH

 

In article <qkrai2hvpp43t4lpu1ttca9tpq8ueb94qr@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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. Three orders of magnitude from that is 3
million. We kill about 40K people a year in car accidents.

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people and
he's not fussy about who they are.

/BAH

 

In article <P4Kdnb9ApIGR47jYRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"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.

Amazing really.

So much for mess prevention. So how many people does Bin Laden
have to kill before you deal with this problem? 300,000?
3,000,000? 300,000,000? A billion?

After the first choice, Bin Laden will be the least of
the world's problems.

/BAH

 

In article <45253AD1.1CA92D09@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
JoeBloe wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
JoeBloe <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Essentially a stupid jerk is all he amounts to.

Let him be one. He is merely doing the popular action in
blaming the US to assuage his fear.

I have no fear of these issues. It's the damn Americans who are afraid
you clot !

America hating blind bastard. That's all you are, ass, and why does
it smell like unkempt livestock in here?

It's what Bush has done to America that's horrible. It's brought the very
worst out in eveyone there. It was fine under Clinton.

No. It was not fine at all.

It looked a heck of a lot better to me and least he was an intelligent and
articulate man, something that could never be said of Bush.

So you prefer people who can spin you a line of bullshit to
people who deal with real problems?

/BAH

 

In article <45253CB2.A36CCD05@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

Tell me more about this threat you perceive.

What exactly is it that you're afraid of ?

Loss of enough knowledge of how to do things that it will
take another 1000 years to reinvent the wheel.

/BAH

 

In article <MPG.1f8ef2658cd2dcf4989d8d@News.Individual.NET>,
Keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

In article <eg335h$5l0$10@leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker@emory.edu
says...
In article <eg2od9$8qk_004@s829.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
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

So what has he been right about?

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.


Bush has increased the threat. His own NIE says so.

You're in a fantasy land. ONE SENTENCE of the NIE report was
leaked by the Democrats to try to discredit Bush. The four pages
around that one sentence, later released, say exactly the opposite.
Please get your "news" from someone other than Franken.

Thanks. I did not know this.

/BAH

 

[YD]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:53:32 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

YD wrote:

Positively so. All you have left is posing as powerful know-it-alls on
the internet.

Ever tried to figure what you look like to those outside of your tight
little circle of cronies?


What's wrong? Did your only "friend" blow out his brains to get away
from you? I am 100% disabled, but it doesn't keep me stuck at home. I
can still do some work, some days so I do volunteer work to help other
disabled people in my area. You, on the other hand are always bitter,
and trying to slam anyone who has a clue.

You obviously have way too much time on your hands to hang out on
usenet.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:10:34 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.

You are fat, poor, unhappy, and frustrated by the state of the world.
I am none of these. Explain to me why I am the stupid one here.

Because you're stupidly happy in your profound ignorance ?

It's not ignorance; I am happy by choice, then design. Try it some
time.

The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what
idiocy America's up to next.

You are blaming externals for an internal state, a convenient and
paralyzing cop-out. For anyone reasonably healthy and living in a
free, developed country not to be happy is stunning stupidity. Sad,
too.

Our freedoms are under threat as a result of American stupidity.

Graham

 

[YD]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:54:51 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

YD wrote:

You should return that computer you're using. When the salesman asks
why tell him you're too stupid to use one.


Another bitter rant? You should practice what you preach.

No, just poking fun at another Amerika uber Alles dickhead.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Eeyore]

Homer J Simpson wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote

25% of world production?

So you are really assuming our use is going to go to nothing?

The US still produces quite a lot of oil. Add in Canada, Mexico and the Gulf
and you're close to what you need IF you had halfway fuel efficient cars.

It would help even more if US diesel fuel was clean enough that modern Japanese and
European diesel cars could run on it. The fuel efficiency of these is very good
indeed.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:32:47 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:00:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
T Wake wrote:

The hearts and minds with the population did the trick.

As it has often done for the British Army but the US version has fucked that
up for sure.

---
You're talking about a bygone era where we both shared winning
hearts and minds.

This is now, where the rules are a little different. Are you making
any friends in Iraq that we aren't? You do still have a presence
there, don't you?

We were doing quite well initially actually until the actions of US forces ended
up with us all being tarred with the same brush.

Quite why we think of you lot as an 'ally' is almost beyond me.

---
Me too. The relationship is more like that between a vibrant young
man and old, doddering parents.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

Robert Latest wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:58:29 -0700,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote
in Msg. <gchai2ligb29uejo28rjrpi78fkdonglhp@4ax.com

But I consider trerrorism to be attacking non-combattant populations
for political/emotional/morale reasons, which both sides did in WWII
and I don't think the US is doing deliberately at present.

At present, no. Deliberately, no. It is in fact difficult to make out
what the US are doing at present, and why they insist on doing it.
That's what causes a great deal of the alienation the US are
experiencing at the moment. The uproar about slippery email exchanges
between a politican and teenagers isn't helping the US to get into a
situation where they can be taken serious, either. In any normal country
the guy would simply be kicked out of office, tars and feathers and all
and be done with it.

The Cold War certainly helped hold western Europe together, and
supressed the latent anti-Americanism until the Soviet empire
collapsed and the Europeans felt they didn't need us any more.

I really don't know where you see all that anti-Americansim. The
dominant sentiment among Europeans (including myself) is a huge
disappointment with what America has grown into recently. For much of
the world, especially Europe, America used to be the very definition of
freedom - not the least because it saved Western Europe not so much from
Hitler as from Soviet domination. Now we have to witness how that great
country is being run down by a bunch of religious goons and their
industry buddies. The feeling is more like grief, not hate.

I agree.

However the kind of response I get to really quite mild criticism does tend
to make me wonder what the heck American's come to.

Graham

 

In article <ZQ8Vg.19638$Ij.7364@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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"?

They say so. Whenever asked for specifics, the Democrat leadership
replies with, "Trust me." If they had anything worked out, they
would specify. Now, it is possible that their plans are such
that noboby, including the most rabid leftist, would vote for them.
However, I am still assuming that these people have a single
functioning brain cell among them.

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.)

No, I don't think they have a better way to deal with it. If they
did, they would be trumpeting it in all campaigning and getting votes
and getting elected. In fact, I don't they have any plans to deal
with it.

/BAH

 

In article <Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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?

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK.
Assume that. Since the factions are already killing each
other, what makes you think that they will stop killing and
murdering and destroying all infrastructure? The goal
is to destroy Western infrastructure. This means bridges,
roads, computers, any science results and their applications,
white collar jobs, blue collar jobs, manufacturing plants,
food processing plants, etc. Do I need to think of more to
list?

/BAH

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:46:14 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Homer J Simpson wrote:

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

I'm saying that if someone threatens their fundamental freedoms, the
British public will defend them.

Hopefully.

I grow less and less sure of this as I watch public debate each day.

A mistake Hitler made. He read reports of pacifist debates in the UK and
assumed they were a guide to the lack of response to be expected during an
attack on Britain.

The British Air Force response showed him the error of his ways.

The Royal Air Force to be entirely accurate but yes, we were certainly far
from unready. In fact Britain's armaments industry had been working hard in
the years preceding WW2 to make the planes ( and other stuff ) we knew we
were going to need.

---
And yet, had we not come to your rescue, you'd be dog meat today.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:48:28 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ckd8i2d471ak7j75nlcnugpbk8j5th89v6@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:06:05 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:24:11 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Ever wondered why it [international terrorism] happens to the USA
most btw ?

---
Nope. Losers want to blame everyone but themselves for their
predicaments and, so, take shots at the champ in an attemp to try to
convince themselves that they're not impotent.

Let me explain then.

It becasue America pokes its nose into stuff that's none of its business
all the time and just generally likes to kick the little guys around.

---
Translation:

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


Do Americans have a word for Bullying?

---
Yes, "bullying."


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JoeBloe]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:47:13 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
<nobody@nowhere.com> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:7fcbi2t7o8chj90omrt9n69qg4jqjiejq8@4ax.com...

You're an idiot. People don't stalk idiots. You prove that one
*can* be wrong *all* the time.

Doing a lookup on *your* IP address is NOT stalking, dipshit.

The FBI begs to differ.

Every legitimate post made to Usenet contains the sender's IP addy
in it. All you google fucktards and other asswipes that anonymize are
not legitimate... but can still be found out.

And no, that is NOT how the FBI defines stalking.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

another possibility is
the goal is to cede to these extremists

Are you really that monumentally stupid ?

Listening to their greivances isn't 'ceding' btw.

Arafat used this tactic. He kept people at the table talking
about peace to give his side time to accumulate weapons. He
even got all these rich countries to fund his efforts.

You're suggesting that because one person did this then we must never
again listen ? That's a very blinkered view indeed.

You can't change attitudes with bullets.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

ISTR that Bin Laden's next goal is to kill 3 million people

Cite ?

Graham