Jihad needs scientists

[Ken Smith]

In article <kurtullman-DC5895.11205006102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <eg5o0o$hr$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article
kurtullman-8C3615.09514505102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
In article <eg3143$okg$2@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:
[....]

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.

If he did not consistently get interested in OBL about the time
Monica was to testify, etc., he might not have heard that as much.

Do you have any proof of either part of that?

Google the attacks and monica's testimony. Look at the dates. Stare
in wild wonder.

According to Google, Monica was about to testify Jan 24, 1999.The
article on the Clinton effort to get OBK says Thursday on
August 20, 1998. Yes, it was in the same decade.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <sgrci2h5g54ecokggeogqs8kjtqucn7vv5@4ax.com>,
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
[...]

But Democrats ARE dirtbags. Try and deny that ;-)

Thats easy: Democrats ARE NOT dirtbags.

Now its your turn: All republicans ARE puppy dogs. Try and deny that.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <kurtullman-B5CB0D.11233506102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <eg5oll$hr$5@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote:

In article
kurtullman-0481F2.19314905102006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]

Managed to put down the
chimney of the Chinese Embassy during Kosovo, too, Rip roaring accuracy.

You are assuming it was an error. Consider that it may have been on
purpose and think back.

Nope., In fact the follow-up investigation showed that they had
targeted that building because... wait for it... the Kosovo phone book
noted it was the HQ for one of the nasties. Who had since moved out the
Chinese guys moved in.

That is the offical story.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4526bce3$1$3495$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at>,
Daniel Mandic <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Bin Laden's quite possibly dead.



He died in Tora Bora

He is driving a cab in New York.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <mSuVg.13911$7I1.8854@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[....]

In the US
it is normal to state which party you belong to when registering to vote.

No, it isn't. You only have to declare if you want to vote in a primary
election, so that they can make sure you vote in the right primary.

The majority do register. No-one says "Oh you registered! That's not
normal", therefor is renew my claim that it is "normal".



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:54:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

snip
But Democrats ARE dirtbags. Try and deny that ;-)

If I'd said that about Republicans, how would you have responded, Jim?
Kill file? I suspect so.

Jon

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 08:29:41 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:15:26 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

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.

That too. Especially when it makes no sense.

---
What makes sense to us might not make sense to you, but that doesn't
mean that'll keep us from doing it.
---

What do you think about the Vincennes shooting down an Iranian Airbus then ?

---
From:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/3/newsid_4678000/4678707.stm

"The USS Vincennes had tracked the plane electronically and warned
it to keep away. When it did not the ship fired two surface-to-air
missiles, at least one of which hit the airliner."

I think the airplane's pilot should have had the good sense to heed
the Vincennes' warning.

John, I was working on ISAR systems at the time of this event, working
with 20 and 30 year veterans who also knew this dead cold. I followed
the details of this carefully. I've also carefully read through
Captain Rogers III report of the circumstances, that also of his exec
officer, Commander Foster, and others.

The US acted without any decent excuse in this case. If you plan on
defending anything about it, I'll start listing out the details that
dispute your case. But the upshot is quite simply that this was a
terrible mistake and there is no excusing it.

Jon

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526CF0B.BFBCF698@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

Nope. I still appear to have been spot on here. I can see how that fear
prevents you thinking though.


What do I have to fear? Surely not the likes of you or the stuffed
donkey.

Well, if you had replied to my message instead of cutting the context you
wouldn't have had to ask that question.

Try it one day. Honestly, the voices in your head wont mind.

No voices, just severe tinnitus. I'm curious though, what do the
voices say?

Well, you are better placed to answer that than I am.

You really do need to work to improve your inadequate trolling
skills.

Sorry, I will try harder. I notice it is hard to get you to react. Do you
salivate when you hear a bell?

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:08:51 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:hnhci25s8879f2fi1pm8st27hbud8um1co@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:52:47 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:00:23 +0100, Eeyore 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. Or, maybe, as
you'd like to believe, just because they piss us off.

How exactly does Iraq fit into this justification for beating the crap
out
of somebody?

It doesn't of course.

---
Sure it does. AIUI, Saddam Hussein was violating, with impunity,
all of the UN sanctions that had been placed on Iraq, including
stealing the money that was supposed to have been used for
humanitarian purposes. Eventually the time finally came when we
decided that he needed to be made accountable, so we went after him.

The timing was abysmal.

---
In hindsight, yes.
---

If America had been more patient (and why not given
that the last decade or so never really mattered), then the situation in
Afghanistan could have been stabilised and Iraq could have had sufficient
forces for the task.

In addition, waiting would have disassociated the operation from looking
like a new crusade against Islam.

---
All true but, again, in hindsight.
---

America really should have known better. The invasion pretty much served no
purpose that waiting (say) five years wouldn't have missed out on.

---
Back then I think we were concerned with how much more money Saddam
Hussein could siphon from the humanitarian aid bucket and divert to
terrorist causes or squirrel away for his own use. Also, I think we
were more than a little angry about the impotence of the UN in being
able to conduct inspections on anything but Saddam Hussein's terms.
ISTR reading where the inspectors were often turned away from
inspection sites and told when they could come back to conduct the
inspection.
---

And found him. Not like a proud soldier willing to give his life
for Allah and the jihad, but like a coward in a rathole.

Yes, because he was a rat who should have been killed twenty years ago.

---
If only we'd known...
---

Didn't do anything to us or any of our friends, at least since
the first Gulf War, no credible threat, absolutely no WMDs of any sort.

---
Just because none were found doesn't mean their precursors or
finished weapons weren't moved before we got there.

It also doesn't mean they were there.

To misuse an analogy from previously, just because some one says the moon is
made of cheese doesn't mean it is until we can prove it is.

---
Agreed, but if someone says the moon _isn't_ made of cheese doesn't
mean it isn't until we can prove it isn't.

Either claim requires a trip to the moon for proof, and Saddam
Hussein's refusal to let the UN check for cheese on their own terms
makes it difficult to believe that cheese _wasn't_ there.
Especially since he had previously sprayed CHEEZ-WHIZ on his own
folks just to see what would happen.
---

It was pre-emptive defence ! Or so they now tell us.

---
It was a preemptive offensive strike.

What, really, was the threat Iraq posed on the US?

---
The threat to the US was nonexistent, but the continuous willful and
contemptuous defiance of the UN's mandates was intolerable, as was
the UN's vacillation in the face of defiance.
---

Their army was so pitifully weak that there's no rational reason to
believe
that and attack from them was imminent to anybody

They certainly couldn't attack anyone they didn't have a border with for
sure.

---
More's the reason for attacking them when they're weak; you can be
sure of a win, you can destroy their capability to strengthen their
military, and you can minimize the loss of human life in the
conflict.

Yes. Only an idiot attacks an opponent stronger than they are.

---
Unless the idiot's got a trick up his sleeve. Like David and his
acumen with a slingshot, but that's another thread...
---

However, I
don't seem to remember that being the publicised reasons for the 2003
invasion. Did I miss something?

---
Nothing you weren't supposed to.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[T Wake]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526CFB9.850875D1@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526BF20.A2B40FDF@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526B5B1.76CA7415@earthlink.net...
T Wake wrote:

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.


Typing with one hand again? Pervert!


Brilliant. You like my witty remarks so much you use them back at me.

Please, try not to leave a mess on the keyboard when you reply to my
posts.
It is never a nice thing.

Keep going with the paranoia posts though. They make me laugh.


You're cheating on your mirror? shame on you.


Oh Wow. You are so funny. Seriously, what channel do you appear on? You
must
have a show of some sort with humour like that.

Either that, or you are just a sad old tit with too much time on his
hands
an nothing constructive to add.

I suppose it is one or the other.


You'll never know, will you?

No. But I dont mind.

So sad, that you feel that you have to
reply to almost everything I post on SED.

Yes. I reply when it enterains me. Do you think otherwise? Is there a
different reason why you reply to pretty much all my posts on sci.physics?

It is becoming rather boring.

Dont reply then.

I already have one stalker who has telephoned threats, so either try
harder, or go away.

No. You've mistakenly assumed you know and understand my motives for
replying.

I am somewhat intrigued about why you post though. You claim you are
"shooting trolls" but as you have the debating skills of a five year old,
nothing of value to add to the debate and the personality of a brick, I cant
really see how that works.

Still, every day I learn something new.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:09:17 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:fueci29affhfosfvm4mo2rjnkom8h5bplt@4ax.com...
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:17:08 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

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

If westerners are more concerned with staying alive than having
their
freedoms eventually they will convert and the conflict will end.

Why would they ever convert and why do you even consider that this
is what
it's about ?

Because this is the simplistic example.

They would convert because, as the example said, they are more
concerned
with staying alive than remaining free.

You wouldn't catch me doing it. I believe in the right to practice no
religion
at all !

---
They don't, so you'd be dead, silly boy.

Since it's not going to happen it's hypothetical.

---
So what? This entire argument is hypothetical, so if you buy the
premise you buy the bit.

If you dislike being in hypothetical space why do you even bother to
show your ugly faces?


Why the plural?

---
Good catch!

Because he's two-faced.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <4526bce3$1$3495$91cee783@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at>,
Daniel Mandic <daniel_mandic@aon.at> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Bin Laden's quite possibly dead.



He died in Tora Bora

He is driving a cab in New York.

That was after he was fired as a Vegas showgirl.


--
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:4526D14B.7008309C@earthlink.net...

T Wake wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526C148.40E07BEA@earthlink.net...
John Larkin wrote:

Well, they do bring up some subjects that are interesting, and give me
opportunities to practice my writing styles. And, actually, conversing
with fat, unhappy European neurotics makes me appreciate my life and
my country even more!

John


Amen! Good food and a good day at the range shooting Eurotrolls.
What could be better? The reason they taste like chicken? They ARE
Chickens! ;-)

It is easy to talk big on USENET. In reality all you are doing is making
it
look like you cant maintain a coherent point of view for more than about
40
seconds.

I am sure you think this makes you look good. I suspect some of the
others
here think it does as well. The reality however is very different.


You wouldn't recognize reality if it walked up and introduced its
self to you.

You may be right. I would be certainly surprised.

It is noted that you have nothing to offer as a counter argument except the
"butch talk" which seems to characterise your USENET posts.

Did I hit a nerve?

I don't give a shit what you think about anything on
Usenet.

I suspect you do. If you didn't you'd ignore me.

I no longer play nice to keep from hurting people's feelings.
Certainly not on usenet.

People whose feelings get hurt on USENET should find other pastimes. USENET
is full of pathetic people who have nothing better to do with their time
than try to score points off others.

I have had people screaming in my face that
they were going to kill me, and they didn't scare me any more than you
do.

Ok, I didnt realise I was trying to scare you. I was simply pointing out you
are somewhat pathetic. I am sure you are a rough, tough, hard core knife
fighter. It doesnt matter, your posts are still written like a school child
and your taunts are pathetic even by that standard.

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:dgldi2do92odttlb5lrbn3av6alr0dh5rp@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 21:57:28 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:


"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4526C148.40E07BEA@earthlink.net...
John Larkin wrote:

Well, they do bring up some subjects that are interesting, and give me
opportunities to practice my writing styles. And, actually, conversing
with fat, unhappy European neurotics makes me appreciate my life and
my country even more!

John


Amen! Good food and a good day at the range shooting Eurotrolls.
What could be better? The reason they taste like chicken? They ARE
Chickens! ;-)

It is easy to talk big on USENET. In reality all you are doing is making
it
look like you cant maintain a coherent point of view for more than about
40
seconds.

I am sure you think this makes you look good. I suspect some of the others
here think it does as well. The reality however is very different.


It doesn't matter how you look; that's a neurotic fallacy. What
matters is how you feel.

Ok, fair one. If making post like that make him (or anyone else) feel good,
excellent. I would question the mind of the type of person who feels good
calling others names on USENET but then, I am not a psychiatrist and have no
idea what I am talking about.

 

[T Wake]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4526CF50.AA89F3F3@hotmail.com...

John Fields wrote:

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

That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any
tyranny
suppressing important freedoms.

Aha, you only defend "Important" freedoms. Ok.

It was meant to be emphasis about *fighting*.

---
Busted!!!

If it was, you would have written:

"That's very hypothetical but I reckon I'd fight against any tyranny
suppressing freedom."

So ?

---
You make a distinction between "important" freedoms and whatever's
left over, which must be the "non-important freedoms."

Which ones would those be?

Some ppl suggest that ID cards are an infrigement of our freedoms. I'm not
completely convinced that's the case.

I am.

I would consider the freedom to practice a faith of one's choice or no
faith at
all to be totally un-negotiable however.

And I also think that is as well.

 

In article <eg586e$8ss_014@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:

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.

The fact that the NYT, (who released the leak in the first place)

suddenly became very quiet on the topic, should've been a pointer.

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

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:etkdi21hcf7e0gt82u16be8tb5uucg2413@4ax.com...

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:08:51 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
snip ref to Iraq invasion
The timing was abysmal.

---
In hindsight, yes.
---

If America had been more patient (and why not given
that the last decade or so never really mattered), then the situation in
Afghanistan could have been stabilised and Iraq could have had sufficient
forces for the task.

In addition, waiting would have disassociated the operation from looking
like a new crusade against Islam.

---
All true but, again, in hindsight.

Yes and that is some defence.

However at the time, "they" should have known better. The coalition forces
were heavily engaged in Afghanistan with no exit plan immediately visible.

If the governments involved had been honest about their reasons, the
invasion would have been delayed.

Yes this is hindsight, but the more we know now, the more it seems that the
urgent invasion was uncalled for. If we look at the reasons why the invasion
_was_ so urgent it seems it was largely smoke and mirrors. This is (IMHO of
course) the main reason why there is so much resentment regarding it. Most
people support Afghanistan.

The US/UK need to learn to finish a war before they start the next one.

America really should have known better. The invasion pretty much served
no
purpose that waiting (say) five years wouldn't have missed out on.

---
Back then I think we were concerned with how much more money Saddam
Hussein could siphon from the humanitarian aid bucket and divert to
terrorist causes or squirrel away for his own use.

Which terrorist causes was Saddam's regime supporting that created a threat
in the west?

What was there about siphoning off money which made the invasion so urgent?

Also, I think we
were more than a little angry about the impotence of the UN in being
able to conduct inspections on anything but Saddam Hussein's terms.

None of this says why we [tinw] had to invade there and then.

ISTR reading where the inspectors were often turned away from
inspection sites and told when they could come back to conduct the
inspection.

Yes, like lots of other countries which dont get invaded.

And found him. Not like a proud soldier willing to give his life
for Allah and the jihad, but like a coward in a rathole.

Yes, because he was a rat who should have been killed twenty years ago.

---
If only we'd known...

Yes. Everyone thought he was a nice guy....

Didn't do anything to us or any of our friends, at least since
the first Gulf War, no credible threat, absolutely no WMDs of any
sort.

---
Just because none were found doesn't mean their precursors or
finished weapons weren't moved before we got there.

It also doesn't mean they were there.

To misuse an analogy from previously, just because some one says the moon
is
made of cheese doesn't mean it is until we can prove it is.

---
Agreed, but if someone says the moon _isn't_ made of cheese doesn't
mean it isn't until we can prove it isn't.

Very true.

Either claim requires a trip to the moon for proof, and Saddam
Hussein's refusal to let the UN check for cheese on their own terms
makes it difficult to believe that cheese _wasn't_ there.
Especially since he had previously sprayed CHEEZ-WHIZ on his own
folks just to see what would happen.

Again, I agree. I was partly highlighting the problem with the previous use
of the analogy.

Yes, at the time, Saddams refusal to deal with the UN seemed a reasonable
indicator he had WMD. I dont disagree with that.

Did it require an urgent regime change? Even at the time I thought not.

It was pre-emptive defence ! Or so they now tell us.

---
It was a preemptive offensive strike.

What, really, was the threat Iraq posed on the US?

---
The threat to the US was nonexistent, but the continuous willful and
contemptuous defiance of the UN's mandates was intolerable, as was
the UN's vacillation in the face of defiance.

Oh right. Is refusal to abide by UN resoutions grounds for [urgent] regime
change then?

Their army was so pitifully weak that there's no rational reason to
believe
that and attack from them was imminent to anybody

They certainly couldn't attack anyone they didn't have a border with for
sure.

---
More's the reason for attacking them when they're weak; you can be
sure of a win, you can destroy their capability to strengthen their
military, and you can minimize the loss of human life in the
conflict.

Yes. Only an idiot attacks an opponent stronger than they are.

---
Unless the idiot's got a trick up his sleeve. Like David and his
acumen with a slingshot, but that's another thread...

True. But in that example, David was actually "stronger" than Golliath.

However, I
don't seem to remember that being the publicised reasons for the 2003
invasion. Did I miss something?

---
Nothing you weren't supposed to.

That is good.

 

In article <eg5og7$hr$4@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <AAfVg.63$45.130@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
[...]
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".

"Hello Pakistan. There is a missle about to come over. It is one of ours
and not from India ....(WOOOOSH)... have a nice day"

It was a lot better than the risk of starting a war between two nations
with nukes. The amount of warning would have only been enough if they had
OBL on speed dial.

And what makes you think they didn't

Now, Tomahawks are subsonic. From the nearest possible launch point
to the intended target deep in Aghanistan they must've taken at least
half an hour. Ample time to make a call and ample time for the
intended target to get away.

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

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4526CF9F.282A56C5@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:23:30 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

The 20mA / LED is in your imagination. I *never* use that much.

---
No one gives a shit what you'd use and, besides, you're a liar.

Rubbish. I advised a lower current and a HE LED.

---
_After_ you got busted.

I *always* advise the above. Using 20mA for a led is plain crazy.

Yes, I agree, you should pulse about 30mA through a "Utra-bright" or
simply not bother.


BTW: LEDs really only come in 3 grades:

- Are you sure its on?
- Thats way to dim.
- Well maybe we can use it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:19:43 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news5hci2h69upvfidaqka5f2s0cejfigk9k7@4ax.com...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:48:43 GMT, "Homer J Simpson"
nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:ckd8i2d471ak7j75nlcnugpbk8j5th89v6@4ax.com...

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

Bullies are generally resented except by toadies.

---
That didn't seem to bother England back in her salad days, but now
that we have to kick a little butt every now and then it's not OK
for us?

Are you implying America is defending / building its empire?

---
Yes.
---

You sound a little hypocritical to me, Homer.

Not at all. Here is an example, Person X used to beat his wife. After she
finally reported him, he went to jail and learned from his mistakes.

Now Person X says to Person Y "Don't hit your wife" - Person Y responds "You
used to do it, you hypocrite, why shouldn't I?"

Oh look, we [tinw] never learn.

---
The part you failed to recount was when Person X related his
experiences in prison to Person Y.

What's [tinw] ?




--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer