Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2006 09:19 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > > > >Oh yes, we've got to deter a first-strike by India. > > It appears you haven't been keeping on who has nuclear weapons > and who is working on getting them in that area. It appears that you have some odd ideas about who'd even think about engaging in a first strike on the USA. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2006 09:20 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > What are you going to do when a president abuses that power > by declaring an emergency which puts the country into a permanent > state of a dictatorship? GWB hasn't gone that far *yet* ! Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2006 09:22 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> The Cold War was all about which "side" these > >> countries would choose. > > > >Which is a completely different matter. > > How so? If you start talking about the third world, I figure > you are talking about those who hadn't chosen sides. The sheer concept of USA vs USSR no longer even exists. That use of the term is irrelevant. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Dec 2006 09:27 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: > >> >> 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. > > I used to use that approach. But it's not as reliable anymore > because news items usually have a one-person source and every > news outlet picks it up. Your approach only works if competing > news agencies send people they employ. Nowadays, the only > spots that get covered by competing media are > the frenzy of the week. If you used the web I'd recommend Al Jazeera for an interesting alternative source. Here's the link anyway. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/55ABE840-AC30-41D2-BDC9-06BBE2A36665.htm Graham
From: jmfbahciv on 8 Dec 2006 09:23
In article <45797454.ACC55465(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> > >> >Oh yes, we've got to deter a first-strike by India. >> >> It appears you haven't been keeping on who has nuclear weapons >> and who is working on getting them in that area. > >It appears that you have some odd ideas about who'd even > think about engaging in >a first strike on the USA. Wake up. To start a mess does not require a first strike on the US. An atomic war between India and Pakistan would create enough EMF to wipe out all the electronic paper pushing that has been contracted out to India. /BAH |