Jihad needs scientists

[Ken Smith]

In article <45298B1B.CC24AF11@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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 ?

It didn't. In the fictionalized story they showed on ABC some time back
they had this as a plot element. Much like the rumor being started that
the russians had silent subs after "Hunt or Red October" got published,
some of the plot lines from that story have crept into the culture as
accepted fact.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:12:29 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

When were Muslims a world power?


google "muslim empire" for the details.

I assume you are harping on about the Ottoman Empire.

Suggesting a google search is hardly harping on, and I mentioned no
empire by name.

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.

So write a letter of complaint to google.

John

 

[Eeyore]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <45298B1B.CC24AF11@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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 ?

It didn't. In the fictionalized story they showed on ABC some time back
they had this as a plot element. Much like the rumor being started that
the russians had silent subs after "Hunt or Red October" got published,
some of the plot lines from that story have crept into the culture as
accepted fact.

Thanks for that explanation.

Graham

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:36:12 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

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.

Is a non-homogenous population, where all people don't look just
alike, a threat to your society? What about turbans? Yarmulkes? Kilts?
Tattoos? Habits? Saris?

And more important, how can you define "the wider society" without
making it narrow?

John

 

[Eeyore]

John Larkin wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
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.


Is a non-homogenous population, where all people don't look just
alike, a threat to your society? What about turbans? Yarmulkes? Kilts?
Tattoos? Habits? Saris?

Please re-read " I don't think anyone does actually " !

And more important, how can you define "the wider society" without
making it narrow?

How about integrate into 'western' society ?

Graham

 

In article <egb8h8$og6$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <sjZVg.71$45.212@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <eg9dpn$ba4$1@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
In article <VZFVg.68$45.187@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote:
In article <eg712e$a4m$3@blue.rahul.net>, kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken
Smith) writes:
[... OBL ...]
In fact, it appears he changed his plans before the phone call happened.

This may be but it is not much of an excuse.

It nicely rebuts the claim that the warning of Pakistan was the reason he
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.

Somehow you think that not wanting to risk India and Pakistan flinging
nukes at each other makes the effort non-serious. I disagree.

You don't understand, I'm afraid. Of course nobody would want to risk

an exchange between India and Pakistan over such issue. Yet, it was
not a secret that Osama and his friends had connections within the
Pakistani military and intelligence establishment and it didn't take a
genius to figure out that any forewarning passed to Pakistan will,
with very high probability, be transferred to Osama, fast (that he
ended up not being there, anyway, is utterly irrelevant to the issue).
Therefore, it also didn't take a genius that any course of action which
necessitated such forewarning had a very slim chance of success.
Going ahead with this anyway doesn't strike me as very serious.

Not that it was very serious to begin with. Cruise missiles
are fine for stationary targets. They may be used agains mobile
targets (like a person) at times, when you've ground assetts capable
of informing you that the target is at such and such location and will
remain there for a while. Absent this, all you're making is a gesture
and not a very convincing one at that.

The intelligence said that OBL was going to be at the location. He had
planned to go there and be there at exactly the time the missile hit the
place. This was a very serious attempt to kill him.

As I said above, it is only serious when you've ground assets capable
of confirming that yes, he's there. We're not talking about devices
with great destructive range here, it was enough for him to go a
quarter mile away from the perimeter, for whatever reason, to be safe.

On a much deeper level, the lack of seriousness still persists in
broad spheres, as evidenced by the fixation on OBL.

There is no fixation on OBL. Taking out the leadership of the other side
is a normal thing to want to do.

It is a normal thing to do to the extent that it deosn't distract from
other things. It is rarely the main thing to do.

Today there is a lack of seriousness
about the effort against terrorists. This I see as a political
calculation by the republicans. They can call anything they want part of
the "war on terror" so long as that "war" never actually ends.

The war will take a long time but the lack of seriousness is on the

side of the democrats. By and large they don't even recognize that
there is a war going on.

About what is to
be expected from a generation raised on James Bond movies. Standard
plot, evil mastermind threatens the world, evil mastermind is
dispatched and the world is at peace again. That's childishness.
Muslim extremism is not a leader worship movement, it is motivated by
ideology which is independent of any single specific person.

At the time Clinton tried to take out OBL he was really a leader.

Sigh. What is it that you don't understand here. Any movement and
any organization have a leader. This *does not* mean that the
movement/organization is dependent on any specific person as a leader.
There are historical situations where this is the case. For example,
in Napoleonic France personal allegiance to Napoleon was the driving
force and you could expect the whole affair to be deflated once
Napoleon is out of the picture (as did in fact happen). Similarly, in
Nazi Germany hero cult of Hitler was the driving force. On the other
hand, in WWII Japan, you could take out, say, Tojo, and nothing of
consequence would've changed. The mindset present there was not
dependent on specific person. And same goes for Muslim extremism.

Things
have changed since then. New groups have spung up that claim membership
in Al Qaeda. A good example is the so called "Al Qaeda in Iraq", which is
self identified as such. They are a group that did not exist at the time
of Clinton.

This is
not to say that we shouldn't go after the heads of the various
organizations, as part of the overall strategy, but this alone is not
the key part of the struggle on concentrating on this to the detriment
of all else will be quite counterproductive.

Taking out the leadership of the other side is a key part of an effort
such as the one we find ourselves in today. Drying up their funding and
trying to prevent them from making new converts is also important. Doing
stuff like attacking Iraq works directly against all three of these.

Nope. Talking about "drying up their funding and preventing them from

making new converts", by itself is akin to talking about teaching pigs
to fly. Within the current political reality of the Middle East you
don't have the tools to do neither of these things. So it is the
political reality of the middle east that you've to change. When you
fight malaria, you've to dry up the swamps. Chasing mosquitoes alone
won't do.

There are, at times, movements where a successful blow at the head may
eliminate the whole organization. But not in this case.

When Clinton was in office may have been such a time.

Not even then.

Now, a blow to the
head may not eliminate them but it will fragment them making them much
easier to clean up.

Somewhat easier. "Much easier" would be nice but may be to much to

expect.

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ken Smith wrote:

There is a *lot* of bad wine made in California too. When wine making
started to look like a way to make money, everyone and their dog got into
the business.

Come on Ken. Everyone knows that dogs don't know "Beans" about
grapes. ;-)


--
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

 

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f918078bbedf707989a1e@news.individual.net...

In article <b9ydna4x9eTtFLrYRVny2A@pipex.net>,
usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg7ss6$8qk_002@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <wMGdnU0OlJ5E6rvYnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg56q0$8ss_006@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <45253DEE.896AC21A@earthlink.net>,
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat.

What national threat?

Do you mean the Islamic based terrorist who cause almost insignifcant
loss
of life when compared to (for example) obesity?

The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

The counter tactic is to over exaggerate the threat from one sector to
mask
other problems.

After reading your response and the others', there is no way
anybody can do mess prevention until one is made and is too
big to clean up.

Your mess prevention analogy is flawed on several levels. The invasion of
Iraq is not "mess prevention."

Your mind is flawed.

He refuses to listen to Chicken Little, and *his* mind is flawed? I think
that's backwards.

Eric Lucas

 

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f91802ac508385f989a1d@news.individual.net...

In article <SgvVg.13917$7I1.3691@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net says...

jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

Sure. That's local politics and wonderful to use as smoke and
mirrors to distract your attention from the real threats.

/BAH


Local? I guess you don't keep up with the news.

All politics is local. The subject we were talking about
is national security. If the Democrats, who are campaigning
for office, talk about dirty words in emails when they meet
with their voters, they don't have to describe what they
are going to do about the national threat. The one running
for governor here keeps harping about what our current governor
didn't do. However, when asked what would he have done, he
leaves the meeting.

It's a tactic not to address the issue of the threats to our
national security.

Uhh...no, it's a tactic to deal with a sexual predator, and send a
message
to other sexual predators. To deny that 1) tacitly denies the problem of
sexual predation, and 2) serves only to refuse to admit that your
political
opponents can ever do any good about anything. That's the problem with
the
political process in this country now--nobody can admit their adversary
might actually have a good idea. This country is doomed if we don't
learn
to respect sound arguments from our opponents, rather than just rely on
our
worst-case assumptions to justify the actions of our cronies.

Have you noticed that the page in question is over 18.

No, he isn't over 18. Where do you get you disinformation, Fox News?. The
main incident was with a 16 year old, and there have been others with pages
from 15 - 17.

Did CBS
news publish the fact that the Democrats that brought this event to
light won't turn over the unedited emails and refuse to tell how
they were obtained to the FBI? There is more stink here than a
Republican perv.

Nice Republican talking points, but they're irrelevant and nothing but a
smokescreen to divert attention away from the issue. I see Hastert's trying
the same thing. Let's pray the American people are smart enough to not let
it work.

Another perspective type of statistic for you. In 2000, 88,000 children
were victims of sexual abuse. The statistics I saw said a 300 % increase
in
sexual predation of children from 1980 to 1990. Just to WAG some
numbers,
let's say the problem started at zero and increased linearly until now,
passing through the 88,000 data point at 2000. I think you will probably
agree with me that this *vastly* underestimates the problem, since it
ignores any incidents before 1980. Integrating over time, that means
that
570,000 kids have been sexually abused by adults since 1980. That's
compared to 3000 people dying at the hands of terrorists in that same
time
period. That means that a child born in 1980 had a 200X greater chance
of
being molested than he had of dying at the hand of terrorists by 2006.
And
yet you deny that sexual abuse of children is no more than a smokescreen
issue, blown out of proportion to avoid dealing with "real" issues like
the
imminent threat that terrorists are going to destroy your home, your
computer, your technology, and make you be Muslim....despite the fact
that
there is absolutely zero evidence that that is even a remotely credible
scenario.

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?

Not guesses, *under*estimates of the problem of sexual predation based in
the most conservative assumptions I could apply and the statistics I could
find quickly. The point is, sexual predation is a *vastly* more prevalent
problem than terrorist bombing. All I'm doing is asking people to apply
just the tiniest bit of perspective. The trouble is, punishing a sexual
predator (particularly in your own party) doesn't get votes. Fear-mongering
by vastly overstating the problem of terrorism does.

I think you're naive. This *IS* about politics> Can you say
"October surprise"? I knew you could.

Nothing but more smokescreen to cover up the reprehensible behavior of a
Republican Congressman.

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:GbqdnS_iQ86RYrXYnZ2dnUVZ8t2dnZ2d@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egaj6a$8qk_003@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <Ke2dncVNEMkPSLXYRVnysw@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egagl2$8ss_007@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <5puVg.13906$7I1.7983@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg5eir$8qk_010@s831.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4526343A.24C8CC03@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:

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

Cite ?

I don't have one since I can't access the web.

That's a copout. How about any recollection at all of where you saw
it,
so
others can try to verify?

The time was around 2004. It was a site that translates that
news issued in Arabian. The essay counted 3,000,000 Arabs
who had been killed by the US since 1500s and 3 million
Americans would have to die to make things equal.

I doubt this could be described as an authoritative news source, any more
than USENET can be described as an authoritative description of US
government policy.

Why do I have to produce the person and the words at the time
they were made

You dont. I didn't ask you to.

I did, and still do want a citation, since it's such extreme rhetoric that
appears to be nothing more than desparate Republican fear-mongering aimed at
keeping their jobs.

I simply pointed out there is an error in assuming all the posts made on
websites by Jihadists represent a genuine mindset.

That's the point I was trying to make. She seems to be unwilling or unable
to critically evaluate the source of the information without applying a
severely slanted political filter. And since this issue is the very crux of
the terrorism problem, I'd like to critically evaluate them for myself.
Like I've said, *my* personal experience is that, to a man/woman, every
Muslim I've ever met and conversed with (perhaps a hundred) has given me the
impression that Islam is a very peaceful religion, and that while violent,
the extremists represent an extreme minority. The rhetoric that she appears
to have bought into does seem to be just that--the ranting of a single
Jihadist on a website. Hardly a reliable indicator of the extent of the
problem.

If I come across a website with an essay from a Christian explaining how
all Muslims should be killed

You mean like some of the more extreme points of view in this discussion?

to make the world safer, am I to assume that is an authorative viewpoint?

but you can use any random sound extraction
from any Democrat who is desperately trying to win the election
in four weeks?

When have I done this? If I have it wasn't intentional and I apologise.

Again, probably me she's referring to.

Even if I have done this though, how does that invalidate what I said?

Another smokescreen. The things I've been saying don't lead to the
conclusion that we must give up everything in order to save ourselves. I
think there's a slightly higher standard for her extremist rhetoric.

Eric Lucas

Eric Lucas

 

"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote in message
news:rfGdnUpMeZCEmLTYnZ2dnUVZ8sudnZ2d@pipex.net...

jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:egakki$8qk_001@s779.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <hYSdnRmhgOqjdbrYRVny2Q@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eg82da$8qk_005@s968.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <udydnWLuFcYHN7vYRVnytQ@pipex.net>,
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> wrote:

Sorry, aren't you the person who advocated spending billions to get
Usma
Bin
Laden because he _may_ kill more people as opposed to spending billions
solving the problems which _are_ killing people?

If the mindset of the religious extremists are not changed and
they become successful in destroying Western civilization, the
problems that _are_ killing people today will no longer exist.
I believe you mentioned those killed in automobile accidents.
Those accidents won't happen because there won't be any autos
on the roads.

This is heading far out into the leftfield of logic. It is true there are
Islamic extremists who would like to create a Taliban like state out of
the
western hemisphere. In a similar vein, there are Christian extremists who
would like to see an overturn of western decadence.

So far, the Christian extremists are not a global threat..yet.
But they are watching and learning what tactics and strategies are
working.

So from the mess prevention school of thinking we should kill them all now
to prevent the future mess.

It also the case that living in a Christian country, Christian extremists
are not a threat to _your_ way of life yet. However, Muslims may think
they are. (In fact non-Christians often do think they are).

In fact, I think the Christian extremists that are running the political
party that is currently in power in this coutry *are* threatening my way of
life. They're putting our country in danger by attacking countries that are
no threat, and are using Chicken Little tactics to try to convince the
American public that we are under such threat that we should hand over our
Constitutional rights without question. Terrorists have not remotely
threatened my way of life. My own government *has*.

I have a couple scenarios that can make an
irrecoverable mess or a middle mess that would take a couple
hundred years to clean up. I am not going to be specific
here. I'm not as clever as other people are. If I can think
of a couple, there has to be lots of opportunities.

Yeah, and I can come up with scenarios where little green men from Mars come
down to Earth and take away our toaster ovens. I suggest we bomb Mars into
oblivion just to make sure they don't. Oh, yes, and every American will be
subject to daily household searches just to make sure they're not harboring
one of these Martian Extremists, who hate us for our toaster ovens, and want
to destroy our society.

I can think of 56 million reasons why an external source couldn't destroy
the UK civilisation. Saying "I can think of ways but I am not going to be
specific" is a bit weak really.

It's not just a bit weak. It is phenomenallly paranoid.

Civilisations have been destroyed in the past - I cant think of any which
have fallen as the result of insurgent / terrorist methods.

No, but I can think of several that have fallen apart because their
government became corrupt and eroded peoples' rights all in the name of
keeping power when they should not have been able to.

The west appears to be busy dismantling the things which make Western
Civilisation good. Seems our fears are making us do the work for the
terrorists.

Bingo, with Chicken Little's help.

Eric Lucas

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Daniel Mandic wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Better quality foods ? Stuff like modern hydrogenated fats actually
*shortens* lives ! What a ridiculous idea.

Graham

Yes. Ppl become also old in the old time, or medieval. 80 and more.
Of course, mainly by the richer one.

Some distressing worldwide is welcomely awaited by me.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

So, the "Demented Donkey" equates hydrogenated oils with Quality? No
wonder people think that he's brain dead.

Quality foods aren't cheap, and use better ingredients.


--
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

 

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iq1ji2t66ov05f69i8oamaop8nq107jigb@4ax.com...

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.

And yet, it is no stranger than assuming that Islam wants to destroy our
society.

Eric Lucas

 

[YD]

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 15:18:38 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

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.

But do agree with them?

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!

Is criticism attempts at censorship?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:26:06 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:



John Fields wrote:

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

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.

So to make up for it you bombed Iraq almost back to the stone age.

---
cite?

Electricity, running water, schools, hospitals and satellite tv is
almost back to the stone ages? What a fantasy world the donkey lives
in.


--
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

 

[JoeBloe]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:13:14 +0100, "T Wake"
<usenet.es7at@gishpuppy.com> Gave us:

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.

Again you show your utter stupidity.

I posted the response three seconds after I read the retarded
bullshit that was spewed by the idiot.

 

[JoeBloe]

On 08 Oct 2006 22:45:19 GMT, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@aon.at>
Gave us:

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.

No, it doesn't. When placed next to a TRADE MARK, it does. When
placed next to your shithead name, it means absofuckinglutely nothing.

 

[JoeBloe]

On 8 Oct 2006 15:50:26 -0700, "sooofisticated"
<sooofisticated@yahoo.com> Gave us:

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.

Grow the fuck up, idiot, and learn how to use the forum you invade
properly.

Otherwise, you retarded fuck, you are no more than a mere
interloper... a complete twit.

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

<lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:evtVg.13873$7I1.6431@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...

"Frithiof Andreas Jensen" <frithiof.jensen@die_spammer_die.ericsson.com
wrote in message news:eg54n2$7ql$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...

lucasea@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Va9Vg.19654$Ij.16215@newssvr14.news.prodigy.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.

When Oil runs out - the rate will increase exponentially!

Now *there's* an assumption.

In what sense?

"Peak Oil" was probably reached around 2000
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil).

In any case, it is downhill from now. Having spent obscene amounts of money on
absolutely nothing of lasting value, the middle east is basically like an
iron-lung wired to an oil well.

In the meantime, how about if we stop giving
them reasons to do so?

Their "reason" is similar as for climbing mount everest: "because it is
there" -
i.e. "because you exist". The hive must destroy all that is not off the
hive!

That makes absolutely no sense.

To you perhaps ... things do not have to "make sense" to be the way they are.

The Quran makes no sense also - yet millions of people are gagging to kill each
other over slight differences in it's interpretation.

If that's the case, then what explains the
drastically increased terrorist activity in Iraq after we invaded, where
there was absolutely none before.

Apart from Saddam's "work" of course. Removing Saddam unleashed all the nutters.

And don't try to say they're just
attacking the US presence there. Most of the attacks are *not* against US
servicemen, but against fellow Iraqis. If they are not "of the hive", then
nobody is.

Since you like Iraq, then there are several hives in there: The Shites hates the
Sunnis, The Sunnis hate the Kurds, The Kurds hates both - especially "Arabs",
The Saudi wahhabi jihaddis hate *everything* even life itself AND you.

Denying that there are things that we do that increase the risk of terrorism
runs contrary to what all Middle East scholars have to say, and burying our
collective head in the sand about it won't help the situation at all. That,
after all, is part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

What got "us" into the mess was the naive belief that the middle east could
somehow be "fixed" and "improved" and the never-actually-tested assumption that
"democracy" only brings out the good in people. What got the "US" into the mess
was a deep fear of loosing the Saudi Oil wells to Saddam or Iran or to Chaos
(should the House of Saud falls to islamists).

Eric Lucas

 

[Frithiof Andreas Jensen]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:iq1ji2t66ov05f69i8oamaop8nq107jigb@4ax.com...

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.

In much the same way that skinheads wearing "hagen-kreutz" are - the wearers
boldly avertise that they are outsiders that want a different society where the
outsider-norms are the rule.