Jihad needs scientists

[Daniel Mandic]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Again, evidence to justify this assumption? All the Muslims I know
are very much peace-loving people. Certainly much more so than any
of the "kill 'em all" Americans I see on this group.

Eric Lucas

Dear Eric, they also have their radicals, as any other known state.




Smaller one, with 8, 15, 20, 60, 80 or 150 People in the Village do not
have a problem. They even get away, when a catastropohe is coming the
way. (e.g. Phuket)

That's also the number (~150), a human brain can elect, select and
diferenciate. We are not any further....




Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:d4gbi2hl7lavdogrtohqmcr807a3eh8ujt@4ax.com...

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:45:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:



Kurt Ullman wrote:

So, we just all capitulate and become Muslim states?

Since when was that an option ?

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

Graham


Hahahah... that's funny. I'd bet your website visit history log
would show us that you do exactly that. I'd bet what you call a
legitimate news "source" comes nowhere close.

You do not expound history or news. You expound crap. Complete and
utter crap! That's what you are. That's who you are.

Amazing. Your insights are always thoughtful and well written.

Seriously, do you take lithium tablets?

 

[T Wake]

<jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg58oe$8ss_016@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...

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...
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.

Sorry, where did that assumption come from?

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.

Says who?

More importantly, whose goal is this? Is this _all_ "they" want to do?

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?

Well, no, but some supporting evidence of this being the "goal" of "them"
would be nice.

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

It's only when Americans get killed you get mad.

Idiot! They were mostly foreigners in the building, let alone the
hardware (computer servers) that got nailed. You seem clueless even
as to the name of the buildings now. The US folk that were killed
were mostly the passengers of the planes as well as the ER crews that
were killed.

Cite ?

You seem to have never seen the responses to the crime by other
nation's speakers. I remember them quite distinctly.

You're quite happy for the USN to kill innocent foreigners by the planeload and it
doesn't even 'register on your radar' does it ?

WTF are you mumbling about? Where are we "killing innocent
foreigners by the plane load"?

The USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passnger flight killing 290 and never even said
sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Graham

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KhuVg.13905$7I1.10490@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

then you would have to assume that that half of the group is all busy
sodomizing each other.

You mean they aren't? Wow. Did I misjudge JoeBloe.....

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:56:51 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote
Homer J Simpson wrote:
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote

Your American Love of Violence is once again nnoted.

Do you think that violence is the only way to 'win an argument' ?

Isn't it the message of almost all US made movies?

Don't even get me started on US movies !!! What's the emoticon for steam
coming out of your ears ?

Were those also more tolerable during the Clinton administration, or was it
just our foreign policy?

Maybe under Clinton they seemed more amusing ?

---
What was amusing under Clinton was Monica Lewinsky


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

Israel can only 'win' by erasing Lebanon.

Is that what you want ?

What alternative do they have? Until the Palestinians and Arabs can accept
Israel's existence, Israel can not hold off on its defensive posture.

Do you advocate Israel surrender?

Many Arab nations have sorted this one out. We really do need to bash the
Israeli and Palestinian heads together.

---
This from a person who professes not to advocate violence.

Don't be so silly. It's a metaphor.

Whilst Israel continues to get a blank cheque from the USA it's not going to
happen of course.

---
Why should it? We like Israel and would like to see a peaceful
resolution to the Hatfield and McCoy problem over there but, by the
same token, if we abandon her she'll most likely be destroyed.

By whom ? Israel's shown it's ability to survive attacks long before the USA got
involved.

So, instead of your solution, which is throwing her to the wolves,
I'd prefer we spend as much time and money as it takes to
,hopefully, eventually find the answer to the riddle and bring the
hostilities to an end.

All the USA's support is currently doing is to prolong the agony.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-D9434F.11282306102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx...

In article <4aqdndORSPk_6LvYRVny3g@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-826474.11145206102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx..
.
In article <eg5l1f$sig$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <fu8bi2h0pfrimp5kfqphg8g8ner12tb8vg@4ax.com>,
JoeBloe <joebloe@nosuchplace.org> wrote:
[...]
ESPECIALLY in time of war.


No, no .... are we at war! When did this war get declared? I must
have
missed the debate in congress and the vote. When was it? What
country
is
our enemy?

You musta. Congress has passed judgement on the war in general and the
one specific to Iraq many times when funding it, authorizing the
original incursions into both Afghan and Iraq, etc. etc. etc.

What is the endstate for War in Iraq? The occupation has dismantled the
previous government and it's military. The terrorists operating there are
a
post-invasion creation.


And this is even remotely revelant to the question of the war
getting declared, how?

Because the argument was about unconstitutional things being valid in time
of War. For that to be a realistic "right thing" to do there needs to a way
of knowing when you are no longer at war.

Declaring an "open ended" war and using that war to adjust rights and
freedoms strikes me as wrong. Might just be me though.

Are you also implying that a War in Iraq justifies withdrawing
constitutional rights in CONUS?

Nope. Said nothin' about that either way because the question I
was responding to wasn't on that particular topic.

Yes it was. The argument was about suspending rights - "ESPECIALLY in time
of war." You can see it there at the top.

This is USENET, often posts are made more generally than the references
header may imply.

 

[John Fields]

On 06 Oct 2006 02:36:31 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Sounds like you've never actually seen the US. Bye.

...Jim Thompson


America? Yes, fine. Many good people there, many good people there.


USA sounds better ;-)




Better Regards,

Daniel Mandic


P.S.: United States of America even more. Although, I prefer to say
America.

---
How can I get some of the drugs you're using?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
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.

You're an idiot!

Now you claim that we don't know how to make diesel fuel?

Most US diesel is currently very 'dirty'. Only a small amount of clean diesel is
currently on the US market and it only became available a couple of months ago.
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/

Your US hate thing has really gotten the best of whatever you may
have once been.

You are surely no scientist.

On the contrary I'm right and you're wrong. No great surprise.

Graham

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526913C.D6CD8A9C@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

Inbreeding is a terrible thing.


Then stop doing it and let your family tree grow some real branches.

Sorry, I didn't realise you held the monopoly on it. Hey, I am sure it makes
it easier for you to remember father / mothers day though. And you only need
a small house for a family get together. No wonder you want to keep it all
to yourself.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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.

It is a tactic that worked. Don't you think others will try
the same thing if it succeeds in fooling all of the Democrats
all of the time?

So you're not going to listen to anyone you disagree with ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

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.

Are you actually serious ?

Yes. I'm working on a 1000 year scenario and trying to shortcut
the cold start so that it will only be 500 years.

In 500 years Islam will have 'grown up'.

Graham

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

T Wake wrote:

I feel like I am stuck in a time warp here.

I went for a jog today and I carried no cashpoint card, no driving licence,
no membership card, no credit card.

Each day (or when I can be bothered), I choose what I will carry with me.

Being _forced_ to carry an ID card is a different matter. Do you see this?

If compulsory ID cards were in force and I had been stopped out jogging, I
would have broken the law and been subject to arrest. That is not a choice
in _any_ dictionary I have ever come across. Do you have a different one?

Now, back to the question which you so deftly ignored Can you explain to me
where _I_ have the problem understanding the word [choice] use?

So, what happens if you are out jogging and the police have an APB
for a suspect that matches your description? You chose not to carry
some ID, so you are arrested and held because you have no proof you are
not the man they are looking for. Some choice.!



--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[T Wake]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:huvVg.13923$7I1.3872@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:Z9idnbtj5I7o67vYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525CE02.456E30F6@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

I don't have to. Your country can intercept other nations to gather
foreign
intelligence.


Unless you are a terrorist, what are you worried about?


Interesting argument.

And completely false.

Sadly yes. It is the worst fear-mongering argument ever. (Worst as in "most
wrong" )

It's tantamount to "If you aren't a criminal, then why are you worried
about me searching your basement." The authors of the Constitution knew
that, at some point, some demagog would use this argument to violate
somebody's rights, so they put it in the constitution that, whether you're
a criminal/terrorist or not, you don't have to worry about somebody
invading your house to have a look around, just because they don't like
you.


I work in corporate security and often work for governmental
organisations, will you please surrender to me all your bank records so I
can check what transactions take place. I also want you to record your
movements and actions at all times.

I am sure, that as you are not a terrorist, you will have no qualms
against this.

I await the data.

Well put. I wouldn't hold your breath.

I wont.... It must mean he is a terrorist though.

 

[Eeyore]

JoeBloe wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:54:29 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:
John Fields wrote:
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.

A ridiculous idea. We won the Battle of Britain and Germany knew it couldn't
invade without air superiority.

All of Europe would have been toast without us... including you,
chump.

Pure nonsense.

Graham

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526913C.D6CD8A9C@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

Inbreeding is a terrible thing.


Then stop doing it and let your family tree grow some real branches.


Sorry, I didn't realise you held the monopoly on it. Hey, I am sure it makes
it easier for you to remember father / mothers day though. And you only need
a small house for a family get together. No wonder you want to keep it all
to yourself.

Nice try. Must be some of that lowbrow british humor.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

That's actually true. "American" culture, which is actually world
culture, is the thing they fear will seduce their sons and liberate
their daughters. As it must.

John

World culture??? bruahahaha...

Only fostered by right-radicals. Here where I live for example....

Digital Freaks and so... with raunchy eye-glasses , telling me: "You
cannot say 'Good Day'.... that's not English. Bruuahahhhaaaa. not
English, this guy was really funny .

Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

And you are as misguided as the demented donkey.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:452691FD.529EE2BD@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4525CE02.456E30F6@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

I don't have to. Your country can intercept other nations to gather
foreign
intelligence.


Unless you are a terrorist, what are you worried about?


Interesting argument.

I work in corporate security and often work for governmental
organisations,
will you please surrender to me all your bank records so I can check what
transactions take place. I also want you to record your movements and
actions at all times.

I am sure, that as you are not a terrorist, you will have no qualms
against
this.

I await the data.


It wouldn't do you any good. I am on a small VA pension that barely
pays the bills. Anyway, I don't have a bank account.

I think you are lying until you can prove otherwise. That notwithstanding,
you've assumed I want your money - I don't, I want to reassure myself you
are not a terrorist.

You also need to let me know all your movements and everyone you speak to.

 

[Eeyore]

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <452630ED.D2D922DC@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

Now I understand you. It is not Bin Laden's fault that he
is going to kill a lot of people.

Bin Laden's quite possibly dead.

It's the Americans' fault
that caused Islamic extremists to want to destroy Western
civilization.

Exactly. They even say as much !

Graham