Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 12:12 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el98k7$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <457820A1.E6669D4B(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: >>> >>> But your BBC news reports our politicians' sound bites as news. >>> You are basing your decisions on political slickerhood. >> >>Who said I was relying exclusively on the BBC ? > > Because I've traced it. Hahahahahahahahaha. Did you keep your tinfoil hat on to do it? > The way the Democrats tested reactions > of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained > the ideas they wanted a reaction test. You would be amazed at how Republicans get more media coverage over here than Democrats. Seriously. You may not be aware of it, but if you would like to venture into the real world, in this day and age, you may learn all manner of wonderful things. > BBC would report on > the speech. The American news media would report on what > the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's > speech. The politician would then watch to see how the > voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat > platform had been vetted through Europe this way. You missed the bit where you had to cast some mantras on the news to make them say the right things. >>> >> For some strange >>> >> reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing >>> >> towards ceding to Islam. >>> > >>> >No he isn't ! >>> > >>> >How about a cite here ? >>> >>> Sigh! He's hawking another book. So far, all of his book selling >>> interviews promote the same opinion that extremists will be >>> willing to talk and compromise. >> >>All the evidence to date shows that this is what eventually happens. > > What?! You are very deluded. There is no evidence. > >> Was peace >>restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? > > There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. That conflict lasted > because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. Hahahaha. Are you talking about the 19th century uprisings? Maybe 1916? You certainly are _not_ talking about the recent troubles which started in the late 1960s. What do _you_ think showed a lack of "stomach" to defeat the IRA? Should we have fired artillery shells on Catholic streets? Should we have shot every adult male on the Falls Road? You _may_ have once been a programming Guru in a time when 8086 processors were cutting edge, and I am sure some old sweats like reminising about how code was written in the "good old days" - which is good. There is nothing wrong with that. However you have an almost negative amount of knowledge about global politics, conflic resolution, war and how it is fought, terrorism, international relations, world governments, economics (the list probably continues but I give up here). Despite this lack of knowledge you continue to state you assumptions and assertions as if they were facts. Really amazing.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 12:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el91mu$8ss_002(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4576EB91.7516663D(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: >>> >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >Ever hear of the "peace dividend"? We weren't fighting the cold >>> >> >> >war >>> >> >> >anymore. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> And you swallowed the sound byte hook, line, and sinker. >>> >> > >>> >> >That's sound bite btw. I'm amused how it's been corrupted so >>> >> >quickly. >>> >> >>> >> It is "byte" if all you do is rely on Google for your facts. >>> > >>> >So you do have web access ? That's not what Google tells me ! >>> > >>> >http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=sound+bite >>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundbite >>> > >>> > >>> >> >> The cold war didn't just stop. >>> >> > >>> >> >Well actually, yes it did. Aside from N Korea I suppose. >>> >> >>> >> Afghanistan and the Taliban was caused by cold war skirmishes. >>> > >>> >It was certainly caused by Cold War stupidity ! >>> >>> Oh, I see. ARe you saying that the Cold War should not >>> have been waged? Are you saying that Europe should have >>> abandoned NATO and allowed Berlin to fall? And that they >>> should have welcomed Stalin's troops with flowers? >> >>The only flowers I recall was when the East Germans knocked down the >>Berlin >>Wall. The only bit of Berlin to fall wrt the Cold War. I have a piece of >>it > here >>actually. >> >>The stupidity wrt Afghanistan was backing the Taliban ( oops they called >>themselves Mujahadeen 'freedom fighters back then - not Taliban >>terrorists ). >> >> >>> >> And everybody >>> >> seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. >>> > >>> >What Cold War there ? India ??? !!! >>> >>> India was classified as third world country. >> >>And what does that have to do with the Cold War ? > > Are you joking? Let's back up. What is the characteristic > the makes a country to be classified as third world? Oh look, /BAH makes _another_ crackpot pronouncement, gets called on it and shifts the goal posts. Third world countries were generally considered non-aligned during the cold war (eg. "The Third World later became a synonym of these nations that aligned themselves with neither the West nor with the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world) Also from Wiki: "Today, however, the term is frequently used to denote nations with a low UN Human Development Index (HDI), independent of their political status (meaning that the PRC, Russia and Cuba, all of which were very strongly aligned during the Cold War, are often termed third world). However, there is no objective definition of Third World or "Third World country" and the use of the term remains common. The term Third World is also disliked as it may imply the false notion that those countries are not a part of the global economic system." India is no longer a third world country. (It seems to be a "newly industrialised country" now) It status as a third world country is irrelevant to the cold war. So with out you being vague and fishing for comments from others you can work on, lets go back to the start. You said "And everybody seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China." Please elaborate.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 12:18 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:el977t$8qk_002(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45781F10.23D5E2D3(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >The stupidity wrt Afghanistan was backing the Taliban ( oops they >>> >called >>> >themselves Mujahadeen 'freedom fighters back then - not Taliban >>> >terrorists > ). >>> > >>> >> >> And everybody >>> >> >> seems to forget about southeast Asia, India and China. >>> >> > >>> >> >What Cold War there ? India ??? !!! >>> >> >>> >> India was classified as third world country. >>> > >>> >And what does that have to do with the Cold War ? >>> >>> Are you joking? Let's back up. What is the characteristic >>> the makes a country to be classified as third world? >> >>Mainly lack of 'development'. > > Then the USSR would be third world. It is now. > From the books I've read about the United Nations, the third > world were those countries who had not yet "decided" between > Western democratic governing and some flavor of communist > governing. The Cold War was all about which "side" these > countries would choose. Your books are incorrect and have given you a false impression.
From: Lloyd Parker on 7 Dec 2006 08:12 In article <el98k7$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <457820A1.E6669D4B(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: >>> >>> But your BBC news reports our politicians' sound bites as news. >>> You are basing your decisions on political slickerhood. >> >>Who said I was relying exclusively on the BBC ? > >Because I've traced it. Yeah, sure. >The way the Democrats tested reactions >of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained >the ideas they wanted a reaction test. BBC would report on >the speech. The American news media would report on what >the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's >speech. The politician would then watch to see how the >voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat >platform had been vetted through Europe this way. > Well, considering Europeans are healthier, are happier, live longer, are more educated and more literate, etc., maybe we could take some lessons. However, your post smacks of paranoid delusionism. >> >> >>> >> For some strange >>> >> reason, Carter is rearing his ugly head and trying to swing >>> >> towards ceding to Islam. >>> > >>> >No he isn't ! >>> > >>> >How about a cite here ? >>> >>> Sigh! He's hawking another book. So far, all of his book selling >>> interviews promote the same opinion that extremists will be >>> willing to talk and compromise. >> >>All the evidence to date shows that this is what eventually happens. > >What?! You are very deluded. There is no evidence. > >> Was peace >>restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? > >There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. That conflict lasted >because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. > >> >> >>> >Having thought quite long about these issues, I've concluded that much US >>> >reaction is based on fear of the unknown or unfamiliar actually and the >>> typical US >>> >reaction is to try to stamp it out as a result. >>> >>> So there is no place for mess prevention? >> >>If it's done *intelligently*. > >What is an intellgent mess prevention in this situation? > >> >>Recent US action has been purely mess *generation*. Very >>costly mess generation too in every conceivable respect. > >Our Democrats cannot leave well enough alone. Around here >they are still in Bush-bashing mode. Now they say Bush is wrong >because he hasn't done what the commission has recommended >and, since he hasn't commented on the report (which is a lie), >it is clear to these Democrats that Bush will do nothing >and nothing will get done. > >IOW, our lovely Democrats no longer expect instantaneous >gratification but gratification before they feel a need. >They are completely insane. I finally switched to the >Art Bell show to get a dose of sanity. I've been doing >that a lot over the last year. This doesn't bode well. > >/BAH > >
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 15:00
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:el9lmv$815$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <el98k7$8qk_001(a)s856.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <457820A1.E6669D4B(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: >>>> >>>> But your BBC news reports our politicians' sound bites as news. >>>> You are basing your decisions on political slickerhood. >>> >>>Who said I was relying exclusively on the BBC ? >> >>Because I've traced it. > > Yeah, sure. > >>The way the Democrats tested reactions >>of the US was to go to Europe and give a speech that contained >>the ideas they wanted a reaction test. BBC would report on >>the speech. The American news media would report on what >>the BBC reported minus the fact that it came from some guy's >>speech. The politician would then watch to see how the >>voters of the US received it. What you saw a the Democrat >>platform had been vetted through Europe this way. >> > > Well, considering Europeans are healthier, are happier, live longer, are > more > educated and more literate, etc., maybe we could take some lessons. > > However, your post smacks of paranoid delusionism. Not for the first time either... |