Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 5 Dec 2006 10:25 In article <85078$4573392c$4fe76d2$30377(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <92e10$45731539$4fe70d7$29597(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>Ken Smith wrote: > >>>>In article <26e4$45722fd5$4fe757d$18514(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>>>The world government I see forming will be a very strictly secular one. >>>>>>The US has the seperation of church and state because the founders saw the >>>>>>horrors that results when you mix the two. A world government would have >>>>>>the seperation for different and very practical reasons. Even within >>>>>>Islam, there is a great deal of disagreement about what the rules really >>>>>>are. > >>>>>They remain in a medieval tribal mindset. Nothing else matters. > >>>>Actually a great deal else matters. The fact that they can't agree among >>>>themselves makes them weak. They won't all follow any given leader. They >>>>will fight among themselves. > >>>>So long as nothing unites them, the odds of them forming a world >>>>government are zero. > >>>Not true. > >>>Rome gave up trying to conquer Scotland. Read Scottish history. > >> Rome didn't become a world government nor did Scotland. > >Excuse me? I did a double take to make sure it wasn't dumb donkey >writing this reply. Rome not a world government? Hahahahahaha. >Of course it was, in its day. You said it was and then admitted that they did not rule Scotland. Was Scotland outside the world? Side note: The pressures of work are going to make it harder for me to get back here as often. This morning I have a little time because I need to schedual the use of equipment so as not to step on production. >Western nations, probably moreso the US then the rest, have >done their citizens a disservice regarding the teaching of >both geography and history. > >Let's take a step backwards into another part of this thread >wher you were addressing Jesus on a stick, hatred of Jews, >Christians agreeing with Jews, and so forth. It was an >unfortunately oversimplistic viiew of history more attuned >to a coffeehouse discussion then this one. I was using the over simplification to point out an error in your statement. It was an argument for that specific case. [....] >During the 1920's and 1930's the chief European protagonist >was Soviet International Communism. Coupled with the unfortunate >hateful conditions of the WW1 peace treaties, Germany was in >desparate economic times. I think competitor covers the concept better. "protagonist" suggest violent means. The communists were using any means that came to hand. >It was obvious to all but the most stupid that some form of >Socialism was going to rule the continent in the near future. >Whatever else he was, Hitler was no dummy. He played all these >elements to the hilt, and came out ruling Germany because to >Germans he was obviously a much better choice than the soviets >and he claimed his primary thrust was National Socialism. I knew a German who was there at the time. He claimed that a big part of the advantage he had was because "national socialist" sounds very good in German. He tried to come up with an english phrase that would be about the same. The best he could do was "reasonable democracy". It sounds good but its meaning is very unclear. >The rest of the European powers who were in jeopardy because >of their geography also sided with what they were sold as >"National Socialism" instead of the soviet version. They knew >that the soviet version killed its own citizens, yet the >German version wasn't known for that as yet. That isn't the only reason. Those in power in the other countries saw that the communists were internationalists. They were in favor of getting rid of the nation state and having world wide communism. This would have put those in power out of power. They saw the german version as a horse they could ride. > In the end both >the National and Soviet versions were pretty much equals when >it came to killing their own. Hitler demonstrated selective >hatred, Stalin killed anyone who crossed his path. Stalin killed those who were a threat to him remaining in power. Unfortunately, he was paranoid so everyone was seen as a threat. He wiped the leadership of the military out because they were an obvious threat. BTW: Many people would claim that Stalin was not really a communist. He was just power hungry and saw the way to get it. Since nobody was ever really close to him, we don't really have an internal read on his motives. > >One name not heard much any longer is that of Bela Khun. It >was a name well known all over central Europe in the 1920's >and the 1930's. Kuhn was a communist who managed to overthrow >and seize control of Hungary after WW1. He was ousted and >escaped to Russia where initially he was accepted, but was >eventually assasinated by the Soviet government, killing >another of their own. That practice was well known by Central >Europeans of the period. He represented a threat in Stalins mind. > >Take a look at this page: > >http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/psf/box32/t300m22.html > >which has some interesting concepts. It also shows why Japan >side with Hitler. I have always figured that Japan went with Hitler because basically he was their only option. They wanted to take over everyone nearby so they were out. The US wanted to have some power in the Pacific so they were out. The Brits had some colonies. Russia touched the Pacific. After you strike off all that Japan would reject, the only strongish nation left would be Germany. [.....] >It is obvious, Ken, that you continue to try to apply the same >sorts of causality to international politics as you would to >electronic circuity. The thing you appear unaware of is that >in realpolitic there are many hidden variables, rendering >your conclusions, for the most part, invalid. In the end those >hidden variables, in a historic context anyway, aren't really >so very hidden as they are generally unknown by the general >public. I do apply logic to the know facts to come to a conclusion. I admit to this bias. I don't hold with the invisible unicorn theory of physics[1]. I believe that humans operate largely logically based on what they believe. Emotions exist but unlike others, I claim that they too function logically. Emotions come from our instincts. These instincts evolved in another time and place and unlike learned logic, they haven't changed since then. [1] Everthing is caused by invisible unicorns. You on the other hand seem to have taken as axiomatic that Islam is deadly threat and exagerate the arguments in favor and ignore those against so that you can mantain that belief. I think this may be a case of "the guys on the other side of the river are cannibals". You believe that there are cannibles and you believe that there are people over there that are different. Back in a more primative time. If you knew about cannibals, it would be because they are nearby so the instinct would have made sense back then. Today where we know of many peoples at great distances, it doesn't work anymore. The instinct is still there bashing away and is hard to ignore. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 5 Dec 2006 10:28 In article <457329CA.3C3094C0(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >Ken Smith wrote: >> > >> >> I expect that in the next 20 years, Iran will show the same about Islam. >> > >> >Iran hasn't been independent long enough for the honeymoon >> >to be over. >> >> The honeymoon will last roughly this generation. Many of them have TV >> dishes hidden from view. The teenagers think America is cool. > >Well they did until Bush opened his big ignorant mouth ! Singlehandedly he's >managed to re-radicalise Iran. Good point. My semidirect knowledge of this does date from the late 1990's. BTW: Bush has too hands. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: unsettled on 5 Dec 2006 10:29 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > In article <45742DA0.41C26436(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>The so called "war on terror" has cost the US a great deal without >>>>>>>really yelding anything much as a result. >>>>>> >>>>>>You're kidding. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's yielded greater instability in the word and more hatred of the USA > > ( > >>>>>>entirely justified this time ). >>>>>> >>>>>>What sheer brilliance. >>>>> >>>>>You both have been blind. >>>> >>>>Come on then. Don't be shy. What's your opinion on the matter ? >>> >>>The sound bite "war on xxxx" was misused so often that, when >>>the real thing is happening, nobody pays attention. The fable >>>about the boy crying wolf has become reality. >> >>That wasn't quite what I meant but I can't really disgree with that > > statement. > >>To return to the original question. Do you feel this so-called 'war on > > terror' > >>has been useful or counter-productive ? > > > It has been useful. Libya decided it would give up making > atom bombs in return for trade. Saudis are slowly emancipating > their women. Somalia is trying to sort itself out and seems > to be tottering towards trade rather than isolation. > A lot of Americans, who now have to remain mute, have had lessons > on what happens when politics and policies are left to > people who undermine the Constitution. These people have also > reexamined their priorities and threw the old ones out and > have a new list. > > Slowly, albeit too slowly, the public health departments are > back to doing their jobs and have started thinking about > how to manage a pandemic. The internet has tweaked the US > media's nose and serves as a check in that realm. > > The socioeconmic problems that have been festering since the Ottoman > Empire finally ended are now being addressed. I'm still > working on trying to understand this one. Looks like you're having a good day. I'm partial to taking most of your last back to at least Alexander's day.
From: Ken Smith on 5 Dec 2006 10:31 In article <el278i$6qf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote: >In article <91fba$457234e0$4fe757d$18623(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: [....] >>Looks like you add ~1.067 billion to medicare expenditures as the >>collections expense. That adds about 0.4% to the overhead which >>is usually reported elsewhere. That increases their reported >>expenses by more than 10%. > >What? You're claiming 10% of the entire IRS budget goes to Medicare tax >collection? Absurd! It comes in electronically. He is suggesting that we spread the overhead over the monies collected. This is not an unreasonable thing to do. I doubt it makes enough difference to matter though. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 5 Dec 2006 10:33
krw wrote: > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> >I rather doubt that it does happen all the time in the USA. I suspect > > > >>>> > it's just another of your fanciful folksy notions. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Nope. It's fact. > > > >>> > > > >>>I still don't believe you. Your 'facts' have been rather fanciful to date. > > > >>All of my brothers and sisters bought their own home before they > > > >>got legal (21). They were on their second or third car. They > > > >>worked and supported themselves. All of my relatives on my mother's > > > >>side had some kind farm business before they were legal. > > > >> > > > >>None were rich. None were even middle class. Most were poor. > > > >> > > > >>/BAH > > > > > > > >Teenagers buy their own homes, and "none were right -- none were even middle > > > >class." > > > > > > > >There's your problem -- you have no idea of what "middle class" means. Hint: > > > > > > >middle-class teenagers are not able to buy their own homes. > > > > > > Right. Poor ones manage to do so. One of the lessons you learn > > > when you grow up poor is how not to spend money. > > > > Dear BAH, > > > > the 'entry price round here for even a modest single bedroom apartment, never mind > > a house is the equivalent of �300,000. > > > > Please explain how a 'poor person' can acquire one. > > Live elsewhere. There are places where house prices are lower for sure. In the cheapest places ther's this problem of there not being much employment either. Graham |