Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 21:46 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4522D468.BC853C9A(a)hotmail.com... >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >>> > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's >>> > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. >>> >>> I agree completely. >> >> How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? > > Also an option. Any one of those three will work. I think the mutual concession option is probably the most desirable option, as it avoids resentful compliance on either side (or at least it would spread the resentment more equitably.) > If westerners are more concerned with staying alive than having their > freedoms eventually they will convert and the conflict will end. > > If the population in the Middle East become enticed by freedom and it's > potential then the support for terrorists will dry up and the conflict > will end. > > If both happens the conflict will end. (In an odd way though :-)) Ony O Henry could have written a more ludicrous ending! :^) Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 21:51 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:7ls5i21a68h54kmqn4ssjqdh0227e6ij28(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:04:06 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>> > but the *SMALLEST* among developed countries as a >>> >percentage of its GDP >>> >>> Whoopie fuckin doo. That proves that we are a prosperous nation and >>> we still beat everyone else on the tab. >> >>No. It proves you're shallow. > > --- > No, it doesn't. > > If we gave much more it would make everyone else's contribution look > so small that they'd figure it was OK to abrogate their > responsibility and they'd give even less. Or nothing at all. Now there's a BS rationalization if I've ever heard one! Eric Lucas
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2006 22:15 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:32:57 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:58:41 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 16:21:16 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:12:32 +0100, Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >" he asks whether Muslims will be the victims of the next pogroms " >> >> >> > >> >> >> >See my post on this point. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >That's why I laugh when American try lecturing us about being blind to the danger >> >> >> >from Islam. Do you guys seriously think we'd ever let them get the upper hand ? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> >> >> Upper hand? What does Europe plan to do about the exponents of >> >> >> population growth, negative for the traditional population and >> >> >> positive for Islamic immigrants? >> >> > >> >> >So, you're worried about a hypothetical something in maybe 1000 yrs ? >> >> > >> >> >Has it ever ocurred to you that most European Muslims don't want to live like backward >> >> >tribesppl ? >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> Has it occurred to you that there are different perspectives on >> >> "backward"? No, I guess not. >> > >> >Has it occurred to you to ask any Muslims ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> There's one two doors down from me at this instant, and I talk to him >> about stuff like this all the time. >> >> So, "yes." > >I thought that might be the case. So what does he say ? > >Graham that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, except that the Shiites are insane. John
From: John Larkin on 3 Oct 2006 22:27 On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:00:17 +0100, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message >news:grs2i25e29m02qt6takp6sfpoi0snt838s(a)4ax.com... >> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:56:34 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>>news:45214B1B.7A9DD9AD(a)earthlink.net... >>>> Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I've seen very few French tourists here in AZ... probably because >>>>> they'd be shunned ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> The ones I've met in Florida were quite rude, and about as ignorant >>>> as the donkey. They think we owe them a huge favor because they came >>>> here to harass us. :( >>> >>>All French people are rude. That is why no one likes them. Even the French >>>don't like themselves. >>> >> >> I drove around France for six weeks once. The people in cities were >> often rude, and the people in small towns and in the countryside were >> almost always cheerful and friendly. In the US, I find city and >> country people mostly friendly, without a big difference. > >Oddly, I agree. I often visit the US and invariably people are polite and >friendly. I avoid rural France for fear of the Guillotine... > >> I think the rudest place I've been was Moscow... glories of Socialism >> and all that. > >Not been to Moscow, most Former Soviet countries tend to be quite polite >though. Maybe the Russians took the breakdown worse than the rest... > I spent a month in Moscow towards the end of the Breshnev regime, while it was still the USSR. I have friends there (my friend Sergei owns the biggest independent automatic transmission repair operation in Russia, I think) and they say things are a lot better lately. I have no desire to go back. The Russians don't understand queues. If there's a cash register, everybody crowds around and pushes in. When a elevator opens, everybody outside rushes in from all directions and everybody inside pushes their way out, all at the same time. John
From: lucasea on 3 Oct 2006 22:42
"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:H_SdnSJnd6L2fL_YRVnysA(a)pipex.net... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4522DE51.EE67E06F(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> > T Wake wrote: >>> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >>> >> > T Wake wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Personally I think without 11 Sept 2001, the situation in NI would >>> >> >> still be hostile. >>> >> > >>> >> > The timescale doesn't fit with that idea. >>> >> >>> >> Prior to the "GWOT" >>> > >>> > GWOT ? >>> >>> Global War on Terror. >> >> Which the Good Friday Agreement pre-dated by many years. > > Well, three. And that's just reckoning to the visible *public* aspects of the GWOT (for want of a better name). It seems pretty clear to me that the FBI and CIA must have been significantly ramping up their surveillance after the first WTC bombing--what was that, 1998? Remember, at the time, that was a *major* event in the US--it was the first major time the conflict in the Middle East had spilled over onto US soil. The Northern Irish plots that got sniffed out in that increased effort could well have had a chilling effect on the IRAs activities long before the visible efforts at combatting terror that started after 9/11, and may well have been one of the things that led the IRA to sit down and be party to the Good Friday Agreement. These are all speculations on my part, but they seem plausible. Eric Lucas |