Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 4 Oct 2006 07:33 In article <1159934432.523713.79700(a)e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>, "thelasian" <thelasian(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >Lloyd Parker wrote: >> In article <wGvUg.1284$NE6.314(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> > >> >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:4522814D.248F1F7E(a)hotmail.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >> >>> Ahmadinejad hasn't made the mistake of genocide like Saddam did, he's >> >>> just >> >>> not very popular. >> >> >> >> How did he get elected then ? >> > >> >The glib answer is "Just like Bush." Look at how popular *he* is. >> > >> >The honest answer is, I don't know. I have to admit I'm not familiar with >> >the workings of the Iranian government. What I do know of the situation >> >comes from the writings of several scholars of the Middle East, who, to a >> >man, say that Ahmadinejad is not popular with his constituency, and will be >> >gone presently if we don't stir the pot too much. >> > >> >Eric Lucas >> > >> > >> For one thing, he got elected because the unelected Council of Guardians >> (mullahs) disqualified pretty much everyone who was not a hard-line >> conservative. > >Myth. Mustafa Moin was a candidate but not a hardliner. Even if this >was true, no one forced the poeple to vote for Ahmadinejad or anyone >else - the voters could have stayed home. They didn't. No myth. Look at how many candidates were disqualified. > >In the US, the candidates are whittled down to 2 by the domination of >hte Republican-Democrats over the election system, which they >intentionally misuse to prevent the rise of a third party candidate. > So? We don't have a non-elected council actually kicking people off the ballot for president.
From: lucasea on 4 Oct 2006 12:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:efvurj$8ss_006(a)s811.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <eftq1i$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. >> >>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. Calling "criticism" "unacceptable" is not an opinion--it's an argument-winning tactic that involves tacitly silencing anybody who disagrees with you. Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 12:11 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:30:52 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> >> T Wake wrote: >> >> >> >>> The same reason unthinking Muslims support groups considered terrorist by >> >>> the west. >> >> >> >> Is Hezbollah a terrorist organisation ? >> > >> > If you are asking my opinion..... then yes. A nasty, ruthless one. However >> > sometimes terrorists seem to come in from the cold. >> >> That's the point at which they've won. > >Looks like they won in that case. --- A skirmish, perhaps, but not the war. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 4 Oct 2006 12:14 On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:32:51 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote >> > T Wake wrote: >> > >> >> This implies that Jews, Christians, Hindus etc are all subject to the >> >> beheading. >> > >> > According to whom ? >> >> The original quote which was being discussed. > >And has that 'quote' any validity ? --- The donkey dance again, huh? You must feel the win slipping away from you, slowly but inexorably. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: lucasea on 4 Oct 2006 12:18
"Keith" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message news:MPG.1f8d949b973606e3989d61(a)News.Individual.NET... > >> > Oh, you mean like the Reagen and Clinton administrations did with Osama >> > bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan? >> >> Sadly, yes. > > Another idiot heard from. You don't believe that former administrations provided substantial support to two people/organizations who have subsequently turned against the US? You need to read more, it's well-known. Eric Lucas |