Jihad needs scientists

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
newsfkii2tjdo5nh3pd3n26rrcn2idqgnd224@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:57:54 +0100, 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'.

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.

When I was in Japan, I was appalled at how much they were trying to be
Western at the expense of their own very beautiful culture. They think
that bad English signage is cool, and that bad French fashion is
elegant. Imagine a men's toilet in a fancy hotel, with the walls
entirely done in YSL-monogrammed ceramic tiles.

To be honest I had read your post as saying American culture was a
collection of world cultures, not that American culture was world dominant.

Not everyone seems to have done the same and I may have been mistaken.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:mujii25168dj6fm841h5qqvck8bdva1fb7@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:11:51 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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

---
Bullshit.

All you're trying to do is avoid having to account for yourself in a
way which won't cast you in a bad light.

How much do you weigh?

How much do you make?

How much do you laugh?

Who would you like to see dead?

Are you willing to answer even just _one_ of the questions?

Why the heck should I ? What's it got to do with anything ? What gives you
the
idea you even have any right to ask such intrusive questions ?

---
I have the right to ask anything I want to, just as you have the
right to be devious.

Is refusing to answer being devious?

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e9nii25mgq8khj8fcpmdfqhdpp4va372cs@4ax.com...

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.

Is this a fetish of yours?

You are possibly one of the two most retarded assholes who've posted to this
thread. You have nothing of value to post except insults and veiled threats.
It is quite sad that you, in the land of the free, think it is a suitable
response to "report someone" for their comments as a private citizen.

You must be a big fan of George Orwell. Well, if you could read you would
be.

 

[T Wake]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:gelii25rlsap6hjbq5g67fb3vfe57q7lrn@4ax.com...

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:44:34 +0100, 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?

Well, when I tried, all I could think was some one was very, very mistaken
about even the strictures of the Taliban's government.

Can you explain it to me please?

 

[T Wake]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:fulii2prli1b60siat1m6q150p94prmefv@4ax.com...

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.

I assume you are harping on about the Ottoman Empire. At its height towards
then of the seventeenth century, this does provide a good example. It was a
scientifically advanced, inclusive society, certainly by the standards of
the day. The Sultans took it upon themselves to serve the state rather than
their God.

Given this was the last time Islam had a world power it seems not that bad.
Their behaviour was certainly on a par with the other world powers of the
time.

Now, going back to the question, when were "Muslims" a world power. The
Ottoman empire was a Muslim empire, but not all Muslims were inside the
empire. The statement I was objecting to makes the (sadly common) mistake of
treating "Muslims" as a single entity. The Arabs who people tend to
associate with Muslims were not the power owners in the Ottoman Empire.

 

[T Wake]

"JoeBloe" <joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e5mii2lk999fcil32t1rtv0ad6qfnrjhdj@4ax.com...

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.

Wow. A new insult. Brilliant. Did you spend all weekend trying to come up
with that one or did you over hear some school children like you seem to
have done with all your others.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:11:37 GMT, joseph2k <quiettechblue@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The theory is, I think, that the US has the power and the moral
imperative to spread democracy throughout the world. You can argue
that it's in our self-interest to do so, but I could reply that it's
in everybody's self-interest. Whether the goal is being pursued
intelligently or effectively is certainly open to debate.

snip
John

Your pseudo-American moral-imperative nonsense is exactly what is wrong
about how America is handling the issues.

It's not my nonsense; I was expressing what I think is the theory
under which the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq took place. Since I
wasn't President at the time, they can't be my own theories.

It is _MY_ nation (as well as
millions of other's) and I have the obligation, as one of its sovereign
citizens, to criticize it when it goes astray.

As much as you would be gratified from attempts at censorship, you'll
get none from my direction. Rant on!

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:16:20 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

Gosh, that's brilliant! We should call it something worthy of your
insight... "world culture" perhaps?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 06 09:28:30 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

In article <3euci2dd3t4o9t2qm6829q55uknrm3hu62@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> 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.

I call that Western Civilization, not American culture.

/BAH

World culture is real, but it's not exclusively Western. And America
usually gets blamed for it.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:13:18 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

What have they to do with America culture ?

Do you fly by jet airliner ?

Are you referring to jets that explode in mid-air, or to jets that
don't? I prefer the latter.

John

 

[Daniel Mandic]

JoeBloe 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!

yes, it means Trademark.

I have traded between my two brain-halves,
till I had the right fitting sentence describing you, marked here
in SED.

So it is actually a traded mark. GING!!!! Auction is over!



Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[sooofisticated]

JoeBloe wrote:

On 7 Oct 2006 09:22:18 -0700, "sooofisticated"
sooofisticated@yahoo.com> Gave us:

I really don't give a damn what you dumb sand nigger fucks have planned
for our government, but if any of you sorry asses come around my barrio
talking all that trash you'll get dealt with and then I'll fuck all of
your wives. We have AKs and bombs here too mutha fucka! Hace cuidad
aqui, you ain't your sorry barren country anymore.


You're an idiot. You need to quote whomever you are responding to
for one thing, dumbass.

Bloe me.

 

[Eeyore]

T Wake wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote

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.

Actually, the Vincennes thought they were diving IIRC.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

If my family was on that plane, I'd be filing a very big lawsuit
against the airline for the pilot's irresponsibility

What irresponsibilty ? He was doing his job correctly.

being the
reason members of my family were killed.

You're utterly mad.

I have difficulty believing.you can be serious. If you are serious you're actually
quite deranged IMHO.

The families did eventually bring a lawsuit against the US Govt.

" On February 22, 1996 the United States agreed to pay Iran US$ 61.8 million in
compensation ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner) for the
248 Iranians killed in the shootdown, but not for the aircraft, which was estimated to
be worth approximately US$30 million. This was an agreed settlement to discontinue a
case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of
Justice.[12] The payment of compensation was explicitly characterised by the US as
being on an ex gratia basis, and the U.S. denied having any responsibility or
liability for the incident. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Compensation

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

And, generally, speaking, airliners don't stray miles away from
their flight paths

What gave you the idea it had ?

and do respond when contacted by the military.

To not do so _is_ madness.

It did !

Reading a bit more.....

" When Carlson [commanding officer of the USS Sides which was nearby] concluded that
the Vincennes was referring to IR655 when making its warning to turn away or receive
fire ( on a military frequency only - my comment ) he urgently warned IR655 on a
civilian freqency that it was in danger, having been mistaken for a military craft and
should turn away. IR655 immediately complied and changed course onto a trajectory away
from the Vincennes. The Vincennes fired regardless. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Independent_sources

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

It nicely rebuts the claim that the warning of Pakistan was the
reason he [OBL] survived.

That's not the claim (not mine, at least). Just that the warning of
Pakistan is an indication of lack of seriousness about the whole
affair.

What warning ?

When Mr. Bill sent missiles to blow up OBL a call was made to Pakistan to
let them know that the missiles were not from India. IIRC, the missiles
were in flight when the call was made.

And how does that affect the outcome wrt OBL ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:29:08 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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.

Do you really think that women wearing veils is a threat to your
society? How fragile that sounds.

I don't think anyone does actually. It is however a sign of the failure of
some percentage of the Muslim community to integrate into the wider society.

Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4529494D.42D4F596@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:

In article <eg9dpn$ba4$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) writes:

It nicely rebuts the claim that the warning of Pakistan was the
reason he [OBL]
survived.

That's not the claim (not mine, at least). Just that the warning of
Pakistan is an indication of lack of seriousness about the whole
affair.

What warning ?

When Mr. Bill sent missiles to blow up OBL a call was made to Pakistan to
let them know that the missiles were not from India. IIRC, the missiles
were in flight when the call was made.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <05cii2p4fh1u08166gal2omfh5t8tasdc1@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 09:37:07 -0400, krw <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:


Nice _guesses_, but how is that relevant? How many died in car
accidents? How many from cancer? How is throwing Foley in the can
(which is where he should be) help your 88,000?

I don't think Foley actually commited a crime.

It also appears that he did text messaged some that were under the legal
age at the time of the first message. I believe that the actual physical
contact did not happen until the page was of legal age.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge