Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:14 In article <k1CUg.49$45.181(a)news.uchicago.edu>, mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >In article <efta6e$8ss_003(a)s888.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: >>In article <efr837$sb7$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <c7WdncygLPPv3r3YRVnytQ(a)pipex.net>, >>>T Wake <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>[...] >>>>The western world bandies the term "war" around much too easily. (War on >>>>Terror, War on Drugs, War on Obesity etc.) >>> >>>It is time for a war on the improper use of the term "war on". >> >>Yes. I always thought that these sound bytes were crying >>wolf. When was the first one? Johnson's War on Poverty? >> >Well, there was this and "the War on Cancer". Not sure which came >first. I don't remember that one. Another item I've forgotten :-(. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:19 In article <45228759.5B55FFAA(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: >> >> "T Wake" writes: >> >> >> >> >The victory conditions are either nonsensical or nonachievable. Has any >> >> >"War on Terror" been won? >> >> > >> >> The term "War on Terror" is a misnomer. It really should be "The war >> >> on Islamic extremism". Terror is just a tool. >> > >> >Obfuscation noted. >> > >> >So, are you saying it's possible to win a 'war on Islamic extremism' ? >> >> This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's >> mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. > >And seemingly both sides reckon it can be acheived by violent means ! > You have overlooked that the extremists' methods are approved by their religion. Rewards are booty if living and some male nonsense if killed while committing this violence. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:21 In article <TnEUg.11174$6S3.3555(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >news:VZWdnQZifpoHQr_YnZ2dnUVZ8tCdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... >> >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4522D468.BC853C9A(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > This mess is about changing a mindset; either Western civilization's >>>> > mindset is changed or religious extremists' mindset is changed. >>>> >>>> I agree completely. >>> >>> How about removing the either and replacing the or with and ? >> >> Also an option. Any one of those three will work. > >I think the mutual concession option This option does not exist. >is probably the most desirable option, >as it avoids resentful compliance on either side (or at least it would >spread the resentment more equitably.) You are suffering from wishful thinking that life is a fairy tale and all will live happily ever after. <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:28 In article <eftq1i$c8p$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >In article <p1iUg.9199$e66.6609(a)newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:452198F0.A71D16AC(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> John Fields wrote: >>> >>>> You miss no opportunity to lambaste the US, its population, its >>>> government, its institutions, and you hate its very existence, so >>>> what do you expect me to think, that you're a benevolent soul trying >>>> to help with constructive criticism? >>> >>> I thought it was fine under Clinton ! >> >>Yes, but you see, if he denigrates your point of view by labelling you as >>someone that could never say anything good about the US, then he doesn't >>have to take your point of view seriously and try to understand that perhaps >>it might even be a valid point of view, that an intelligent person may be >>capable of coming to through independent thought. It's the same thing the >>Bush administration does by labelling everyone that disagrees with it a >>"traitor" (under the *extremely* liberal interpretations that disagreeing >>with your government is tantamount to aiding the enemy.) What they seem to >>fail to understand is that the Constitution gives every US citizen is given >>the *responsibility* to question its government *every single* day of their >>lives. It really is sad that the Bush administration has seen fit to >>legitimize this sort of anti-American behavior. >> >>Eric Lucas >> >> > >Keith Olbermann had a good commentary a week or two ago about Bush calling a >criticism "unacceptable." Which criticism was unacceptable? I don't understand you people; first you complain that he can't think for himself; then, you object when he expresses his opinion about something. You can't have it both ways. /BAH /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 4 Oct 2006 05:30
In article <452289C0.D5CBB360(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >JoeBloe wrote: > >> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:17:53 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >> >> >US aid is frequently accompanied by compulsory 'trade concessions' that favour the >> >USA. >> >> Funny, I don't recall us ever asking Russia for anything for the >> millions of tons of wheat we have sent them over the last several >> decades. > >Why does Russia need 'aid' ? Why is it going there. Can't they pay for it? She was killing of her farmers at one point. /BAH |