Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 06:51 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. Under Stalin presumably ? What's that got to do with giving Russia aid ? Answer the damn question. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 06:52 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > 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. No they aren't. You're ignorant to think so. > Rewards are booty if living and some > male nonsense if killed while committing this violence. Utter rubbish. Graham
From: Eeyore on 4 Oct 2006 06:54 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <Z_KUg.56$45.161(a)news.uchicago.edu>, > mmeron(a)cars3.uchicago.edu wrote: > > >Hence the problem. Basically, we we cannot disengage and we don't > >dare to go all out. So, we're just coasting, waiting for something > >horrific enough to happen to justify drastic means. > > Yup. I've come to this conclusion. Mess prevention work cannot > begin until there's a really big mess to clean up. Women aren't > trained to work this way. Or at least the women of my generation. What's it got to do with women specifically FFS ? Graham
From: JoeBloe on 4 Oct 2006 07:12 On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:05:09 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >I don't see you speaking out against racism in the US. Does that mean you >approve of it, or do you apply different standards to others than you apply >to yourself? You're an idiot. My family was directly involved with the "underground railroad". If you have any brains at all, you'll know that *that* made for more freedom in this country than just about anything else you could name since. I DO speak out more than a twit like you could ever know.
From: JoeBloe on 4 Oct 2006 07:16
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:12 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:5pr5i2his5dccj9emaujrv65hmohk2j4h0(a)4ax.com... >> >> The real problem lies with the California version of a police >> academy. They have no clue what is contained in the US Constitution, >> and they ALL forget their oath five seconds after they utter it. > >Oh, you mean like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from >unreasonable (warrantless) searches and seizures? Yet you're OK when Bush >ignores those? How about a little consistency in your views? Or do you >just get on Usenet to insult and swear at people? > You're an idiot. Show me where I posted a stand on anything about Bush. Also, name one US household he has sent government agents into without a warrant. |