Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:48 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45788CD6.7DED94C5(a)hotmail.com... > > > 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: >> >> >> >> 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. > > Traced what ? I read multiple sources of info indeed including the BBC but > also > American and Arab sources for example, even Russian sometimes ! I was just > reading the Times of India in fact. You can soon weed out national bias > that way. > > > >> 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. > > You're barking up the wrong tree. You typed four extra words there.
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 17:55 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45789115.BF4659A6(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> >> 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. > > Of coursde there is. Even Osama bin Laden said he would cease his attacks > on the > West if our military forces left Islamic lands ffs. Personally I wouldn't believe him. UBL (and probably the core AQ leadership) will continue their terrorist campaign no matter what you do to them. History shows, the world over, that Terrorist leaders are the last to give in to peace - most are just ****s with nothing going for them when their "hard man" image is taken away. Fighting the leadership appears to not be the best way to "beat" terrorists. However, taking steps to reduce the stream of willing volunteers to the terrorist cause is very, very effective. Some people think this is done by bombing anyone who is even suspected of being a terrorist - I suspect they are wrong. While giving in to terrorist demands is _never_ a good idea, changing the posture of the west towards the middle east may well reduce or eliminate the stream of willing volunteers. Giving the local population something to lose if the terrorists "take over" may be the most effective. As it stands the occupation is forcing people to decide between getting killed by infidel westerners or by their brothers. >> > Was peace restored in N Ireland by 'defeating' the IRA ? >> >> There was no stomach to defeat the IRA. > > That's not what I asked. As eveer you seem incapable of giving a straight > answer > and offe rhetoric instead. You should perhaps be a politician. Watch the goalposts shift 50m that way ----> >> That conflict lasted because there was no intent to defeat the IRA. > > There was simply no way to defeat the IRA without perhaps eliminating most > of the > Catholic population of N. Ireland and very likely some of the population > of the > Republic too. > > Is that what we should have done ? Based on her opinion of how to beat Islamic terrorism - yes.
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2006 18:03 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >T Wake wrote: > >> >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>If any Muslims over here try it on, they'll discover what a swift > >> >> >>kick to the nuts does ! > >> >> > > >> >> > With the methods available today, you will never see your killer. > >> >> > >> >> If they kill Eeyore they have failed. Killing people doesn't convert > >> >> them, it just kills them. > >> >> > >> >> The fear you monger is more likely to cause a conversion. > >> > > >> >It's actually more likely to cause a backlash in fact ! > >> > >> It doesn't matter if you convert > > > > What part of the wrod backlash didn't you understand ? > > The word "wrod." > > :-) > > Sorry, couldn't resist that. I do apologise for a spelling lame. LOL ! Don't you just hate it when that happens ? I had a feeling I might have clicked on 'send' prematurely. Graham
From: T Wake on 7 Dec 2006 18:05 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4578961C.78F5DCB6(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> >> >> 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. > > But there is no USSR any more ! Yes. I was talking about the Wikipedia comment: "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)." > You can't really call Russia third world surely although some of the CIS > states > would be so considered. Yes.
From: Eeyore on 7 Dec 2006 18:12
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message > >> > > >> > "In some ways, it's the same as always: People lose a paycheck or hit a > >> > sudden > >> > expense, Hunt said. But it's different, too. Millions of home buyers > >> > are just coping with their first big jump in mortgage rates." > >> > >> I suspect /BAH's response (and maybe some of the sycophants) will be > >> along the lines of he bought in too "ritzy" a neighbourhood. > >> > >> He should have been happy to live in a yurt, tend his cattle and grow his > >> own vegetables and make his own clothes. Everything else is attached to > >> the despised middle class. > >> > >> As /BAH appears to promote rampant capitalism, her Marxist leanings are > >> amusing. > > > > It's quite perplexing ! > > > > Note her comment that the USSR was 'third world' if the status is > > associated with 'development'. > > Current (read Wikipedia) use of the term does seem to plug the former USSR > into "third world" although, I suspect that is a re-writing based on a > historical opinion. Modern Russia certainly is not "third world" in the > normal sense of the term. Yes. And I'm sure neither is the Ukraine for example. You know they've enquired about EU membership btw ? I'd rather have Ukraine over Turkey any day. I'm just wondering how long it can be before Russia accepts its fate in that respect too as the furthest east of the European countries. It's interesting to note that under the Tsars, Russia would perhaps have been seen as 'undeveloped' though. Indeed the Communists industrialised the USSR in double-quick time. > Having said all that, "second world" seems to have fallen out of use since > the end of Cold War and most of the Former USSR states are certainly not as > industrialised as the traditional "first world" so maybe "third world" is > suitable. They're just names at the end of the day but they are clumsy ones for sure. > I also notice some people are coining the term "fourth world" to create an > image of people even more impoverished than the traditional third world > image. Yes, I noticed that too, only the other day. I find it curious to have a 4th but not a 2nd ! What was wrong with developed, developing and under-developed ? > Onto the main part of this - India - it has pretty much always been fairly > wealthy and capable of industry so I have no idea what (if any) thought > processes /BAH is using here. There's a lot of interesting stuff going on in India. The time I've spent there has been most illuminating. Graham |