Jihad needs scientists

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:07:55 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

"jenalyn" <nospam@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GnEVg.43721$DU3.24861@tornado.texas.rr.com...
"Homer J Simpson" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:K4XTg.7154$N4.5515@clgrps12...

"Gordon" <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message
news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i@4ax.com...

So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else?

No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before
President Bush and the present Republican administration was
involved in any way.

But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires
international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or
unwilling to be involved in.

The international community does not want our cooperation. They want the
United States to act as their dumb guard dog, do their bidding. Many
leaders are generally unhappy with the fact that we finally stepped up to
take charge. France is unhappy they are no longer a world power. Muslims
are unhappy they are no longer a world power.

When were Muslims a world power?

google "muslim empire" for the details.

John

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:32:42 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:780gi25ruponn590krd8cgvvt9p3catitk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:13:31 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

It is ok, it was an imaginary elephant. In the real world, imaginary
things
cant hurt you. As an aside, I know what imaginary numbers *are* and I
also
know there is no way *you* are juggling them.

I say again. You *know* nothing.

Repetitive sycophant.

The void between your ears is astounding.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 05:10:55 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:43:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Great, you're old to go along with being a stupid, redneck Joe-sixpack
sycophant. Whoop-de-doo.


I wonder if some well placed emails to battelle about a certain E.
Lucas might cause more than a little sweat on your brow.

Which comment is the equivalent to threatening to tell your mamma that
a kid wasn't nice to you. C'mon Missy Blow, fight fair.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:28:45 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:a5-dnQ-NUaXtiLXYnZ2dnUVZ8s6dnZ2d@pipex.net...

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45280F9F.89B24BE1@hotmail.com...


John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you
examine your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and
what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than
the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you
are the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real
trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some
right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and
applying it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

Absurd. American newspapers, public forums, political parties, and
public institutions are full of different opinions, vigorously and
publicly stated. A very few people call the opinions of other to be
traitorous, and that's allowed free speech, too.

You say so much about the USA and you know so little.

So why are the Republicans branding criticism as treasonous ?

Not all Republicans.

Nah, just the President, that's all. Nobody important.

Eric Lucas

Got any quotes?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:40:14 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:qm9gi297oamqd9flmtc4291edbfh6k9e2n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:13:25 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



lucasea@sbcglobal.net wrote:

I give up--I was wrong. You weren't sincere when you said you examine
your
assumptions. You don't even admit what assumptions you make, and what
political filter you put information through. You're no worse than the
other knee-jerk reactionaries on either side of this thread. If you are
the
future of the political process in this country, we are in real trouble.

Just a hint, though...you might want to try having conversations with
actual
mainstream Middle Eastern Muslims, rather than reading some right-wing
claptrap written to justify the US's current bad behavior and applying
it to
all of Muslim society.

The problem is that the above kind of thought is now being branded as
traitorous
in the USA.

---
Really?

Can you cite some examples or is that just some more of your
Ameriphobia?

Bush. Rumsfeld. Need any more?

You are accusing people of saying things, without citations, and then
wailing about how bad they are to say them. How clever of you.

John

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Eeyore wrote:

No Islamic state was ever a world power.

Graham

Hmmm, when you do not count the Turks into, yes.


Best regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[JoeBloe]

On 8 Oct 2006 07:06:49 -0700, panteltje@yahoo.com Gave us:

science_for_jihad@yahoo.com schreef:

Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness to
travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Would you like to see my design for a veil seeking missile?

Sounds like a veiled sex joke.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

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

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK.
Assume that.

Let's not assume that at all.

No-one going to convert to Islam here under duress. How daft can you be to even
imagine such a thing ?


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.

No it isn't. You're utterly mad.

---
That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

He assuredly is along with anyone else who believes in this phantom menace.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:24:19 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
<f.bemelmanq@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht
news:gliii2ll2sc4tst6g5n2hf1h5dcjk6tkue@4ax.com...
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:57:00 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK.
Assume that.

Let's not assume that at all.

No-one going to convert to Islam here under duress. How daft can you be to
even
imagine such a thing ?


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.

No it isn't. You're utterly mad.

---
That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

When he started about bridges, roads, etc, I thought he was
summing up the achievements of the US in Iraq.

Isn't it about time you screw your head on again? It's been
amusing to hear you talk nonsense for a while, but it starts
to get a bit boring now.

---
Yeah, you're right. It's starting to grate on me too.

High time I got back to the important technical stuff instead of
this political opinion-mongering.

Thanks for the heads-up.


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 06 Oct 06 11:26:29 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.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. It's the Americans' fault
that caused Islamic extremists to want to destroy Western
civilization.

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.

You flatter yourself about the impact of American 'culture'.

---
No, you delude yourself about strength of its impact.

Do you own a pair of jeans? A cellphone? A PC?

What have they to do with America culture ?

Do you fly by jet airliner ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

You flatter yourself about the impact of American 'culture'.

Did I flatter myself? I hadn't noticed.

As I said - perhaps you missed it - that American culture is in fact
world culture. Most anything that's fun to read, listen to, or eat
gets enthusiastically absorbed and amplified here, from Nepalese food
to AfroPop to Irish folk music. We are more an intersection of
cultures than a driver, although we do make our occasional donations
to the pool. This world culture is what many regionalists fear will
destroy their own culture - as it will - and many call it "American",
which it really isn't.

This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon.

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:15:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Daniel Mandic wrote:

You are more stupid than the Moon is shining from its Dark Side.
(Mandic TM)

Some of your phrases really crack me up !

On top of that, the idiot actually thinks that "TM" means something!

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam.

No, not even remotely. We would just stop going out of our way to do the
things that we repeatedly do that piss off the rest of the world.

Using computers is a product of Western civilization. Are you
suggesting that all business stops using them? All TV shows
have human images in them. Are you going to stop watching TV
so the rest of the world won't get pissed off? All women have
to stay home. Are you going go get the groceries? No women
may have medical care. Are you going to deliver your own babies?
Are you willing to watch somebody you love die because she is not
allowed to go to the doctor nor the hospital?

What's that got to do with the above ?

---
Can't you figure it out?

Is that all you can ever say ?

Graham

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:15:36 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

(Mandic TM)

MAN... what a DICKhead.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:39:38 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> Gave us:

JoeBloe wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:43:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Great, you're old to go along with being a stupid, redneck Joe-sixpack
sycophant. Whoop-de-doo.

I wonder if some well placed emails to battelle about a certain E.
Lucas might cause more than a little sweat on your brow.

So you're also anti free-speech too ?

No. I just like getting retarded assholes in a sling.

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:03:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 05:10:55 -0700, JoeBloe
joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:43:03 GMT, <lucasea@sbcglobal.net> Gave us:

Great, you're old to go along with being a stupid, redneck Joe-sixpack
sycophant. Whoop-de-doo.


I wonder if some well placed emails to battelle about a certain E.
Lucas might cause more than a little sweat on your brow.

Which comment is the equivalent to threatening to tell your mamma that
a kid wasn't nice to you. C'mon Missy Blow, fight fair.

Should he worry what they might think of him wasting so much time
here?

I like to sling a little shit now and again. Especially to self
impotent asswipes such as he.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:10:39 -0700) it happened JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
<4pmii2tfi208oa6qqtsimlq3csg5sslbbf@4ax.com>:

On 8 Oct 2006 07:06:49 -0700, panteltje@yahoo.com Gave us:


science_for_jihad@yahoo.com schreef:

Jihad needs competent scientists in the fields of nuclear physics,
chemistry and biology. Qualified scientists and engineers at the
Master/Ph.D. level and above are encouraged to apply. Readiness to
travel and to pass a preliminary examination is required.

Would you like to see my design for a veil seeking missile?

Sounds like a veiled sex joke.

The saying goes:
'A dirty mind is a joy forever'.
This was _not_ about sex.
It was about keeping the freedoms we achieved in Europe (dunno about states)
over the ages (Spain was once Islam).
I don't want no religious fundamental false believes and ways of life and a
step back to Taliban and other superstition.
Veil seeking missiles serve 2 things:
1) The fear for them will keep the veils away and preserve our society.
2) It will keep the veils away and preserve our society.

This _is_ funny.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:45295B99.E1C24B2@hotmail.com...

He assuredly is along with anyone else who believes in this phantom
menace.

That was a nice entertaining US movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120915/

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:8m9ii2pbii7llkcrbofdfunqtlpniaujk7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:05:49 +0100, "T Wake"
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

In the context of an aircraft launched weapon system. Generally speaking
these are not mounted on passenger aircraft.

---
And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

Ok, I may be arguing from a dodgy position here as I was unaware of anything
saying the Airliner was outside its 20 mile wide flight lane.

I am often loathe to use Wiki as an authority but here is an interesting
comment regarding contact with the military:

"The Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil
aviation frequencies"

There is no way of knowing that the Aircraft heard the USS Vincennes
warnings.

When it comes to bombs, ships are at difficult targets to hit.

---
Why assume bombs will be the weapons?

I didn't make that assumption. I was detailing the possible threat delivery
systems which could have been in place. As you can see I also mentioned that
ASMs are very efficient at hitting ships.

Having said that, the aircraft was flying level which is generally a sign of
a bombing run.

The example used was of passenger aircraft being used a the weapon system
themselves. Crashing an airliner into a warship is not an easy matter.

---
It's a no-brainer. Mechanically I can easily do it in MFS if I'm
not geing shot at, But, why assume that's the plan? Issue warnings
and if they're not obeyed...

You assume a compliant vessel the size of an aircraft carrier. An AEGIS
cruiser is relatively small in comparison and also surprisingly agile. One a
suicide run aircraft was in sight it could be out manoeuvred and brought
down with cannon.

As I said, using the WTC strikes as an example was beyond any logical basis.
Sadly, the longer this thread goes the more tenuous some of the examples are
becoming.

Really? I agree from the perspective I am a white anglosaxon male who
lives
in the west. From my point of view it was indeed nothing but an accident.

Did the commander of the warship issue a public apology?

---
No, and it wasn't his job to.

Yes. Americans are too wary of litigation. The commander of the warship was
the person who made the final decision to engage or not engage. Using
"orders" as an excuse has been discredited in the past.

If there was any apology to be made
it would probably have come from the State Department or the
President. I believe no apology was issued (although statements of
deep regret were made:

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

and reparations were made to the victims' survivors ) because none
was necessary. The Vincennes' actions were all "by the book" and
all that was needed for the tragedy to have been averted would have
been for the airliner's pilot to change the airplane's course.

Do you mean this

"Admiral William J Crowe, Jr, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at
a Pentagon news conference that the US government deeply regretted the
incident" (from your reference) which is about as lukewarm an apology as you
can get.

It is a shame that it is hard for nations to say sorry - especially as one
of the main criticisms of the Middle-eastern Islamic nations is how obsessed
they are with sabre rattling.

Regardless, It was a tragedy and I regret that it happened.

In reality, it was neither your fault or mine. The issue is how governments
and their people deal with international incidents.

From the point of view of the families of the people who died it was an
act
of violence from a nation which seems to shoot first and ask questions
later.

---
Well, the airline pilot _was_ warned, and sometimes if you don't
shoot first you don't get to ask questions later.

This is why America should never be allowed to be a "world police."

If you shoot first, you still dont get to ask questions.

Well, it prevented the threat of an attack.

---
No, that's not accurate. The threat was already there. Blowing up
the airliner eliminated the threat, it didn't prevent it.

No, the threat was only in the mind of the ships crew.

Following this line of logic it is entirely valid for Middle eastern nations
to engage terrorist attacks against the west. The threat is in their heads
but apparently that is sufficient to allow action.

This is an interesting quote from Wikipedia:

"When questioned by BBC journalists in a 2002 documentary, the U.S.
government stated in a written answer they believed the incident may have
been caused by a simultaneous psychological condition amongst the 18 bridge
crew of the Vincennes called 'scenario fulfillment' which is said to occur
when men are under pressure. In such a situation, the men will carry out a
training scenario, believing it to be reality whilst ignoring sensory
information that contradicts the scenario - in the case of this incident,
the scenario was an attack by a lone military aircraft. This hypothesis, if
true, could explain why the records of the Vincennes' instruments never
indicated a craft resembling an F-14 being detected, whilst a civilian IFF
signal was detected."

Civilian IFF detected. Very sad that they thought that was a threat.

The problem is a country which is so hyped up about "rag heads" attacking
that non-threats are percieved as threats, elimintated and people think
its
ok - 'cos there was a threat.

It is (IMHO) madness.

---
Nope, the problem is the "rag-heads" as you call them, and their
penchant for airing their grievances by blowing people up.

How did the west air its grievances against Iraq? Or more topically, how did
the US Vincennes air its grievances against the A300?

Do you think we blow up commercial airliners for the fun of it?

I have no idea. I would hate to pretend to know what people I have never
met
do for fun. I don't seem to recall even hinting this was an option in the
motivation.

---
It was a rhetorical question.

I thought as much. I suspect it was just a distraction.

Imagine the situation was reversed. If an Iranian military unit destroyed
a
US Airliner, what actions do you think the US would take? If your family
were on board what actions would _you_ be demanding your country take?

---
If the situation was exactly reversed and the pilot refused to
change his course, or even to communicate with the Iranian military,
then I think the US should do nothing except accept the regrets of
the Iranian government.

If the pilot was not aware he was being targetted why would he communicate
with the military?

If my family was on that plane, I'd be filing a very big lawsuit
against the airline for the pilot's irresponsibility being the
reason members of my family were killed.

Ok, you have a more rational approach than most people. I would be very
surprised if more than one in ten of the families involved took that line.

The problem is the US are the last superpower so no nation has the
strength
for direct action.

---
If by "direct action", you mean trying to vanquish us militarily,
then you're right.

I did, but I see your point about peaceful negotiation.

But, in my view, "direct action" also means peaceful negotiation,
which we're always ready to extend a hand to achieve.

Well, this is not often the perception of people outside your country.
Unfortunately the reality is not as important as perception. I bear no ill
will towards America at all and feel the country has a lot to offer the
world. I have met hundreds of Americans and very few of them have conformed
to the stereotypes people have. Americans, like Iranians, French people,
Germans etc., are a collection of clever people and idiots, nice people and
nasty people.

The problem is a small percentage of the world is lucky enough to come into
direct contact with other cultures.

Without personal experience people fall into the trap of stereotypes and
perception.

The US has a very, very poor image outside its borders - rightly or wrongly.
To make matters worse, the most outspoken (yet in reality a minority group)
Americans _tend_ to take the line of "hey we are the good guys, if you dont
like it we will trample over you."

As I said, the status of last super power is great but carries some massive
responsibilites.

This leaves the people who feel maltreated with no
outlet, other than supporting terrorism.

---
Nonsense. Terrorism is a direct result of the unwillingness of the
sponsors of terrorism to sit down at a table and talk things out,
but to want to win their wars through intimidation.

Nonsense. I never claimed to provide the sole cause for terrorism. My
example is the source of hatred which is turned to terrorism.

Terrorists come from a massive array of backgrounds, but in every example I
can think of they stem from a time when a group of people have no other
method of getting representation. How they are manipulated further down the
line is an entirely different debate

America is locked in a vicious circle and refuses to step outside of it.

---
Well, if we're _locked_ in one then we _can't_ step out of it, can
we?

True. But America is the last superpower, it should be able to undo the
lock.

But what you wrote makes no sense to me. What did you mean?

The circle of hatred which has resulted in America being in Iraq which has
turned a nasty little country which was a threat to its immediate neighbours
and little else into a meat grinder and training ground for terrorists. Each
time America retaliates, more people feel injustice and support the
insurgents/terrorists. Each time the bad guys get more supporters they
attack America. The circle continues.

Now, unlike some I support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime. I think
that given the chance the Iraqi people will be "better" in a democracy. The
problem is this will never happen now. The infighting will increase.
Extremist factions will gain more public support. Soldiers being put in more
and more danger will continue to shoot first. More and more Iraqi people
will resent the American occupiers.

I hope America is prepared for a long war.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gliii2ll2sc4tst6g5n2hf1h5dcjk6tkue@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:57:00 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

If you had your way, everybody would convert to Islam. OK.
Assume that.

Let's not assume that at all.

No-one going to convert to Islam here under duress. How daft can you be to
even
imagine such a thing ?


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.

No it isn't. You're utterly mad.

---
That doesn't mean he's wrong, though.

She was though.